The Sandiganbayan has ordered the 90-day preventive suspension of incumbent Antique Gov. Rhodora J. Cadiao on a graft charge filed against her involving the alleged illegal reassignment of a provincial employee and non-payment of the employee's salaries and allowances from 2016 to 2018.
The complaint against Cadiao was filed by Antonio dela Vega, head of the Provincial General Services Office, who was transferred to the Culasi satellite office. The transfer had been invalidated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the prosecution said in the graft charge.
Dela Vega then asked the payment of his salaries and representation and travel allowances amounting to P1.665 million from 2016 to 2018. Cadiao allegedly denied the payment.
The anti-graft court's preventive suspension order stated: "Wherefore, pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, accused Rhodora J. Cadiao is preventively suspended from her position as Provincial Governor of the Province of Antique and from any public office which she may now or hereafter be holding for a period of 90 days."
"The Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government is requested to inform this court of the dates to which Provincial Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao started serving her preventive suspension and the date of its termination," the court said.
It stressed that "the preventive suspension of the accused (Cadiao) shall be automatically lifted upon expiration of the 90-day period from the implementation of this Resolution," the court added.
The court cited that Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 provides that "any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information... for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property... in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation shall be suspended from office."
While Cadiao tried to stop the preventive suspension as she pointed out that Dela Vega has issued an affidavit of desistance, the anti-graft court said that neither Cadiao nor the prosecution submitted the original copy of the affidavit of desistance.
"The affiant himself, being the private complainant, was not even called to identify it. While accused Cadiao reasoned that it should have been the prosecution which should have submitted it to court, truth is, it remains the prosecution's prerogative not to present the affidavit as it has opted to do, reasoning that they can prove the existence of the elements of the crime charged, independent of such affidavit of desistance, during the trial of the case," the court also said.
"A preventive suspension is necessary to forestall the possibility that the accused may use one's office to intimidate witnesses, or frustrate the prosecution of the case, or continue committing malfeasance. The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he or she may frustrate the prosecution of the case, commit further acts of malfeasance, or do both," it added.
The six-page resolution dated Sept. 21, 2023 was written by Seventh Division Chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zaldy V. Trespeses and Georgina D. Hidalgo.