[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
930 views1 page

Conducto v. Monzon Digest

Benjamin Maghirang, a barangay chairman, appointed his sister-in-law as barangay secretary, violating the Local Government Code. He was charged with unlawful appointment. While the case was pending, Maghirang was re-elected. The complainant motioned to suspend Maghirang during prosecution given the valid information filed. However, the judge denied the motion, claiming Maghirang's re-election meant he could not be removed for prior acts. The court ruled the judge ignored precedent making suspension of incumbent officials facing valid charges mandatory. The judge was reprimanded and fined for disregarding consistent rulings that distinguish criminal from administrative liability and that re-election does not preclude criminal prosecution.

Uploaded by

Arlene Q. Samante
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
930 views1 page

Conducto v. Monzon Digest

Benjamin Maghirang, a barangay chairman, appointed his sister-in-law as barangay secretary, violating the Local Government Code. He was charged with unlawful appointment. While the case was pending, Maghirang was re-elected. The complainant motioned to suspend Maghirang during prosecution given the valid information filed. However, the judge denied the motion, claiming Maghirang's re-election meant he could not be removed for prior acts. The court ruled the judge ignored precedent making suspension of incumbent officials facing valid charges mandatory. The judge was reprimanded and fined for disregarding consistent rulings that distinguish criminal from administrative liability and that re-election does not preclude criminal prosecution.

Uploaded by

Arlene Q. Samante
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

Conducto v.

Monzon (1998)
FACTS: Benjamin Maghirang was a barangay chairman in San Pablo City. He appointed his sister-in-law to the position of barangay secretary, hence, the complaint from Jesus Conducto arose.
Initially, an administrative case for abuse of authority, serious irregularity and violation of law was filed
against Maghirang, in contravention of provisions of the Local Government Code. The Department of
Interior and Local Government found Maghirang violative of the Local Government Code and was
indorsed to the Ombudsman. Finally, the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon had the case prosecuted and
an information was filed for Unlawful Appointment (Art. 244 of the Revised Penal Code). While the
case was pending in the court of Judge Iluminado C. Monzon, Maghirang was re-elected to his
position. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a motion to suspend Maghirang in light of the valid
information and Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 that makes it mandatory for incumbent public officers to be
suspended from office for criminal prosecution under a valid information. Judge Monzon, however,
denied this motion on the ground that Maghirangs re-election meant Maghirang can no longer be
removed for acts committed in his previous term. ISSUE: Did the judge validly deny the motion for
suspension? RULING: No. The case was brought against the judge for ignorance of the law, and
indeed, there was a finding that the judge has ignored
a steady trend of jurisprudence that makes
the suspension of an incumbent public officer mandatory. The rule
is that it is neither in the
discretion nor duty of the judiciary to determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent
the accused from using his office for undue influence of his prosecution. All that is required is for the
court to make a finding that the accused stands charged under a valid information. The Judge cannot
applying the rule that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed
during a prior term since this is a criminal action, the doctrine therefore is inapplicable. The court cites
various cases: In Ingco v. Sanchez, the re-election operates to extinguish administrative liability,
NOT criminal liability. Judge Monzon wrongfully cited Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
because again,
he was not careful with the nuances between an administrative and criminal case.
It was wrongfully cited because this case referred to an administrative case. Luciano v The Provincial
Governor et al., Oliveros v. Villaluz, and Aguinaldo v. Santos Same ruling as Ingco The result of this
case is the Judge was reprimanded and was fined P5,000 for his disregard of steady doctrine since it
will be a threat to the stability of the judicial system if judges were left to their own whims to overturn
consistent stare decisis.

You might also like