Scribd
Upload
4 views

Facts

Reynaldo R. Bayot is accused of multiple counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents related to fictitious checks, resulting in significant government losses. After being convicted in several cases, he argued that the retroactive application of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which allows for the suspension of public officials pending trial, violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The Court ruled that the suspension is not a penalty but a preventive measure, thus not violating the ex post facto law provision.

Uploaded by

rsulep.krslaw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Facts

Reynaldo R. Bayot is accused of multiple counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents related to fictitious checks, resulting in significant government losses. After being convicted in several cases, he argued that the retroactive application of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which allows for the suspension of public officials pending trial, violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The Court ruled that the suspension is not a penalty but a preventive measure, thus not violating the ex post facto law provision.

Uploaded by

rsulep.krslaw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Facts:

Petitioner Reynaldo R. Bayot is one of the several persons accused in more than one
hundred (100) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents before the
Sandiganbayan. The said charges stemmed from his alleged involvement, as a
government auditor of the Commission on Audit assigned to the Ministry of Education
and Culture, together with some officers/employees of the said Ministry, the Bureau of
Treasury and the Teacher's Camp in Baguio City, in the preparation and encashment of
fictitious TCAA checks for non-existent obligations of the Teacher's Camp resulting in
damage to the government of several million pesos. The first thirty-two (32) cases were
filed on July 25, 1978. In the meantime, petitioner ran for the post of municipal mayor of
Amadeo, Cavite in the local elections held in January 1980. He was elected. On May
30, 1980, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting herein petitioner and
some of his co-accused in all but one of the thirty-two (32) cases filed against them.
Whereupon, appeals were taken to this Court and the cases are now pending review in
G.R. Nos. L-54645-76. However, on March 16, 1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was
passed amending, among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration alleging that "to apply the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg.
195 to the herein accused would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of
protection against an ex post facto law.
Issue:
Whether or not the retroactive application of Batas Pambansa Big. 195 would violate the
Constitutional provision against enactment of ex post facto law.
Ruling:
NO. The Court finds no merit in petitioner's contention that Section 13 of Republic Act
3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which includes the crime of Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document as among the crimes subjecting the public officer
charged therewith with suspension from office pending action in court, is a penal
provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post
facto law. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that
suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned
shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to
receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of said
Article 24 are merely preventive measures before final judgment. Not being a penal
provision, therefore, the suspension from office, pending trial, of the public officer
charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its
effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy