CASE 7. GERARDO VILLASENOR and RODEL DE MESA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and Special

Prosecutor LOUELLA OCO-PESQUERRA
Facts:
In the wee hours of Aug 18, 2001, the Quezon City Manor Hotel went ablaze resulting to
the death of 74 people and injuries to others.
Petitioners Villasenor and De Mesa, are facing criminal charges of multiple homicide
through reckless imprudence and violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Policies Act). Aside from that, being public officials, they were also charged administratively
with gross negligence, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the interest of
the service. The cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan.
In line with the administrative case, the petitioners were preventively suspended for 6
mos.
During the pendency of the criminal case, respondent prosecutor Oco-Pesquerra filed a
motion for suspension.
Petitioners opposed the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for 6
mos relative to the administrative case. They argued that any preventive suspension in the
criminal case would be absorbed by the 6-month preventive suspension in the admin case.
Respondent court granted the prosecutions motion and ordered the preventive
suspension of petitioners for 90 days.
Issue: WON the preventive suspension in line with the criminal case considered as penalty?
Ruling: No
Preventive suspension is not a penalty as it merely a preventive measure, a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order
is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office
to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records, which may be vital in the prosecution of
the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person
investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended,
removed or dismissed. This is the penalty.
Given that preventive suspension is procedural in nature and not penal, strict
construction in favor of the accused and against the State is not applicable.