RULE 115- RIGHT TO BE HEARD
3019 reads:
FERNANDO MIGUEL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and other
local officials[ of Koronadal City, South Cotabato filed
a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao (Ombudsman) charging the petitioner,
among others, with violation of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019, in connection with the consultancy
services for the architectural aspect, the engineering
design, and the construction supervision and
management of the proposed Koronadal City public
market (project). The Ombudsman found probable
cause against the petitioner and some private
individuals for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and against
the petitioner alone for Falsification of Public
Document under Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Upon motion, Petitioner moved for reinvestigation
which Sandiganbayan granted and given the
petitioner 10 days to file his counter affidavit with
the OSP. Instead of submitting, petitioner asked for
extension of time and had been granted and before
the same would expire, he again asked for extension
which was again approved. Petitioner, once again
asked for extension of time in which he was not able
to submit his counter-affidavit which prompted
Prosecutor Ruiz to declare that the petitioner had
waived his right to submit countervailing evidence.
He then filed for Motion to Quash and/or
Reinvestigation of the criminal case which was
denied and did not ask the denial of his motion.
The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend [the
petitioner] Pendente Lite. The petitioner filed his
Vigorous Opposition based on the obvious and fatal
defect of the [i]nformation in failing to allege that the
giving of unwarranted benefits and advantages was
done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence which was later
granted.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of his
suspension order and demanded for a pre-suspension
hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his
motion, prompting him to file this certiorari petition
to challenge the validity of his suspension order.
Petitioner bewails the lack of hearing before
the issuance of his suspension order and claims
that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion
in ordering his suspension despite the failure of the
information to allege that the giving of unwarranted
benefits and advantages by the petitioner was made
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of an actual pre-
suspension hearing renders invalid the suspension
order against the petitioner.
HELD: The court dismiss the petition for failure to
establish any grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of the assailed resolutions.
The pre-suspension order is valid
Section 13 of R.A. No.
Section 13. Suspension and loss of
benefits. Any public officer against whom
any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act or under the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
bribery is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office. Should he be
convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all
retirement or gratuity benefits under any
law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries
and benefits which he failed to receive
during suspension, unless in the meantime
administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
In Luciano v. Mariano that the petitioner
relied upon, the Court required, by way of broad
guidelines for the lower courts in the exercise of the
power of suspension, that
(c) upon the filing of such information, the
trial court should issue an order with proper
notice requiring the accused officer to show
cause at a specific date of hearing why he should
not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to the
cited mandatory provisions of the Act. Where either
the prosecution seasonably files a motion for
an order of suspension or the accused in turn
files a motion to quash the information or
challenges the validity thereof, such show-
cause order of the trial court would no longer
be necessary. What is indispensable is that the trial
court duly hear the parties at a hearing held for
determining the validity of the information, and
thereafter hand down its ruling, issuing the
corresponding order of suspension should it uphold
the validity of the information or withholding such
suspension in the contrary case.
(d) No specific rules need be laid down
for such pre-suspension hearing.
Suffice it to state that the accused
should be given a fair and adequate
opportunity to challenge the validity of
the criminal proceedings against him, e.g.
that he has not been afforded the right of
due preliminary investigation; that the acts
for which he stands charged do not
constitute a violation of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 3019 or of the bribery
provisions of the Revised Penal Code which
would warrant his mandatory suspension
from office under section 13 of the Act; or
he may present a motion to quash the
information on any of the grounds provided
in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis
supplied)
While a pre-suspension hearing is aimed at securing
for the accused fair and adequate opportunity to
challenge the validity of the information or the
regularity of the proceedings against him,
Luciano likewise emphasizes that no hard and fast
rule exists in regulating its conduct. With the purpose
of a pre-suspension hearing in mind, the absence of
an actual hearing alone cannot be determinative of
the validity of a suspension order.
 Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not
due process requirement, when an accused public
official is given an adequate opportunity to be heard admit those stating that accused was
on his possible defenses against the mandatory not reminded of his constitutional
suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then an accused rights to remain silent and to have
would have no reason to complain that no actual
hearing was conducted. It is well settled that to be counsel. A motion for reconsideration
heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; filed by the prosecutors was denied.
one may be heard also through pleadings. Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral
Hence this appeal.
arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no
denial of procedural due process exists. ISSUE: Whether or Not the
Another reason that militates against the petitioners respondent Judge correct in making
position relates to the nature of Section 13 of R.A. inadmissible as evidence the
No. 3019; it is not a penal provision that would call admission and statement of accused.
for a liberal interpretation in favor of the accused
public official and a strict construction against the
State. The suspension required under this provision HELD: No. The judge should admit the
is not a penalty, as it is not imposed as a result of
judicial proceedings; in fact, if acquitted, the accused
evidence in court as the accused was
official shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the not under custodial investigation when
salaries and benefits which he failed to receive his statements were taken. One
during his suspension.
cannot invoke violation of the right to
RULE 115-RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
counsel in administrative proceeding.
INCRIMINATION
The right to self incrimination and
PEOPLE VS. JUDGE AYSON custodial investigation are accorded
FACTS: Felipe Ramos was a ticket only when the accused is subjected to
freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines custodial inquest which involves the
and was allegedly involved in questioning initiated by police
irregularities in the sales of plane authorities after a person is taken in
tickets. The PAL management notified custody or deprived of his freedom in
him of an investigation to be any way. Because the statements were
conducted. That investigation was obtained beyond the purview of
scheduled in accordance with PAL's custodial investigation the evidence
Code of Conduct and Discipline, and should be admitted in court.
the Collective Bargaining Agreement ---------------
signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Rights in custodial interrogation
Employees' Association (PALEA) to as laid down in miranda
which Ramos pertained. A letter was v. Arizona: the rights of the
sent by Ramos stating his willingness accused include:
to settle the amount of P76,000. The 1) he shall have the right to remain
findings of the Audit team were given silent and to counsel, and to be
to him, and he refuted that he informed of such right.
misused proceeds of tickets also 2) nor force, violence, threat,
stating that he was prevented from intimidation, or any other means
settling said amounts. He proffered a which vitiates the free will shall be
compromise however this did not used against him.
ensue. Two months after a crime of 3) any confession obtained in violation
estafa was charged against Ramos. of these rights shall be inadmissible in
Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by evidence.
the prosecution contained Ramos
written admission and statement, to He must be warned prior to any
which defendants argued that the questioning that he has the right to
confession was taken without the remain silent, that anything he says
accused being represented by a can be used against him in a court of
law, that he has the right to the
presence of an attorney, and that if he
cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed for him prior to any
questioning if he so
desires. Opportunity to exercise those
rights must be afforded to him
throughout the interrogation. After
such warnings have been given, such
opportunity afforded him, the
individual may knowingly and
intelligently waive these rights and
agree to answer or make a statement.
But unless and until such warnings
and waivers are demonstrated by the
prosecution at the trial, no evidence
obtained as a result of interrogation
can be used against him.The objective
is to prohibit "incommunicado
interrogation of individuals in a police-
dominated atmosphere, resulting in
self-incriminating statement without
full warnings of constitutional rights."