Tuguegarao councilor appeals his suspension

MANILA, Philippines — Tuguegaro City councilor Danilo Baccay has urged the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to reconsider its ruling ordering his 90-day preventive suspension for a criminal case in connection with his alleged failure to liquidate a cash advance amounting P400,000.

In his three-page motion for reconsideration filed before the court's Seventh Division, Baccay said it would be “unfair, unreasonable, excessive and oppressive” for him to be suspended twice over the same issue.

Baccay pointed out that had already served a three-month suspension order by the Office of the Ombudsman for an administrative case “involving the same facts and circumstances” as his criminal case.

In its December 6, 2017 ruling, the Seventh Division granted the motion of the ombudsman's prosecution team to suspend Baccay pendente lite or pending the litigation of his criminal case.

Filed by the ombudsman in October 2016, the case involves violation of Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which mandates a public officer taking custody of government fund to render the account before an internal auditor or a provincial auditor within two months after the period prescribed by the Commission on Audit (COA).

Based on the information of the case, Baccay, during his term as the city's vice mayor, received a check amounting P400,000 from the city government's Local Legislative Office sometime in April 2009.

The ombudsman said the check received by Baccay served as cash advance for the supposed codification of the city's ordinances. The ombudsman said Baccay failed to render or liquidate the cash advance within the prescribed period.

In his motion for reconsideration, Baccay acknowledged that the court was correct in stating that the suspension of an incumbent official is mandatory under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, if he or she is facing a case under the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving public funds or property or fraud on government.

Baccay, however, said the court must still “exercise its discretion in the determination of the propriety of imposing preventive suspension in a criminal case” especially when the penalty of suspension has already been served by the accused in an administrative case.

“The imposition of a suspension, even merely as a preventive measure, when accused had already been punished administratively for the acts upon which the [case] Information was based, becomes merely superfluous and redundant and does not justify the purpose for which such a procedural measure was incorporated under RA 3019,” Baccay's appeal read.

Baccay pointed out that as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court in its previous rulings, the purpose of preventive suspension is not to punish the accused but to merely prevent him from using his position to influence potential witnesses and to tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.

Baccay said that since he was already administratively suspended by the ombudsman, the purpose stated by the SC had already been served.