De Venecia V.S.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 130240, Feb. 05, 2002
Facts:
On 12 March 1993, an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan against then
Congressman Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., of Agusan del Sur. It was for violation of Section 3 of
Republic Act 3019. After the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution filed a Motion To
Suspend The Accused Pendente Lite. In its Resolution dated 6 June 1997. The Sandiganbayan
granted the motion and ordered the Speaker to suspend the accused, but the Speaker did not
comply. On 12 August 1997, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution requiring him to appear
before it, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. The Speaker filed,
through counsel, a motion for reconsideration, invoking the rule on separation of powers and
claiming that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as a body pursuant. On 29
August 1997, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution declaring Speaker Jose C. de Venecia,
Jr. in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a fine of P10,000.00 within 10 days from notice.

Issue:
Whether or not the suspension provided in the Anti-Graft law is a penalty or a
precautionary
measure?
Held:
The suspension provided for in the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and is of different nature
and purpose. It is imposed by the court, not as a penalty, but as a precautionary measure
resorted to upon the filing of valid Information. Its purpose is to prevent the accused public
officer from frustrating his prosecution by influencing witnesses or tampering with documentary
evidence and from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. It is thus an incident to
the criminal proceedings before the court. On the other hand, the suspension or expulsion
contemplated in the Constitution is a House-imposed sanction against its members. It is,
therefore, a penalty for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline, maintain order in its
proceedings,
or
vindicate
its
honor
and
integrity.