Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82539:56382&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:47:43+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 184496, December 02, 2013 - HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Challenged in the instant Petition for Certiorari2 with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is the May 14, 2008 Resolution3 of respondent Sandiganbayan (respondent) in Criminal Case No. 27744. Said Resolution suspended for a period of 90 days petitioner Hadji Hasim Abdul (petitioner), Tan-Alem Abdul (Abdul) and Candidato S. Domado (Domado) from their respective official positions as Municipal Mayor, Human Resource Management Officer, and Budget Officer of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. Likewise questioned is respondent’s Resolution4 of September 2, 2008 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
That sometime on 22 April 1999, or prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, being then the Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, a high ranking official, TAN-ALEM ABDUL, being then the Human Resource Management Officer, and CANDIDATO S. DOMADO, being then the Budget Officer, all public officers, taking advantage of their official positions and committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, conspiring with one another, make it appear that Engr. Zubair F. Murad as Municipal Engineer prepared and signed the Local Budget Preparation Form Nos. 152, 153 and 154 known as the Program Appropriation and Obligation by Object, Personnel Schedule and Functional Statement and General Objective, respectively, when in truth and in fact, as the accused well knew that said Zubair F. Murad was never employed as Municipal Engineer of the said Municipality, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
During the arraignment, petitioner and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
The OSP averred that suspension under the above-quoted section is mandatory.
In his Comment,9 petitioner asserted that he cannot be suspended pendente lite because the crime for which he was charged is not among those enumerated under Section 13 of RA 3019. He was not charged under RA 3019 or Title Seven, Book II of the RPC. Neither does fraud upon government or public funds or property cover falsification of public document nor fraud per se, an ingredient of the offense of falsification of public document.
Finding the charge as squarely falling within the ambit of Section 13, RA 3019, respondent granted in its Resolution10 of October 9, 2003 the OSP’s motion and accordingly ordered the suspension pendente lite of the petitioner and his co-accused from their respective positions and from any other public office which they may now or hereafter be holding for a period of 90 days from notice.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,11 but the same was denied in a Resolution12 dated February 11, 2004. Thus, on March 2, 2004 he filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for TRO13 alleging that the suspension order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In a Resolution14 dated March 10, 2004, the Court dismissed the Petition, which dismissal attained finality on July 12, 2004.15 The suspension order, however, was no longer implemented because it was superseded by the expiration of petitioner’s second term as municipal mayor and his unsuccessful bid for re-election during the May 2004 election.
During the May 2007 election, petitioner emerged as the winner in the mayoralty race and again sat as Mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. On February 21, 2008, the OSP once again moved for his and his co-accused’s suspension pendente lite to implement respondent’s final and executory suspension order of October 9, 2003.16 In his Comment and Opposition,17 petitioner called attention to respondent’s pronouncement in its Resolution18 dated December 20, 2004 that his defeat in the May 2004 election has effectively rendered his suspension moot and academic. Nonetheless, respondent, through its Resolution of May 14, 2008,19 ordered anew the suspension of petitioner from his present position for a period of 90 days. Petitioner moved for reconsideration,20 but the same was denied in a Resolution21 dated September 2, 2008.
Undeterred, petitioner filed on October 2, 2008 the present Petition for Certiorari with prayer for TRO submitting again the sole issue of whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in suspending him pendente lite from his position as mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur.
On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of the suspension Order.22 Subsequently, on November 24, 2009 while the present Petition was pending before the Court, respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision23 acquitting petitioner and his co-accused of the offense charged.
We dismiss the Petition for being moot and academic.
For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy. Thus, in Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco24 we have ruled that “[w]here the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging.” In the present case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the present Petition. Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the order of suspension could no longer affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally speaking he did not commit the offense charged.
Notwithstanding the mootness of the present Petition, petitioner nevertheless implores us to make a clear and categorical resolution on whether the offense of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the RPC is included in the term “fraud” as contemplated under Section 13 of RA 3019.
said Section 13, he must be charged with an offense (1) under RA 3019, or (2) under Title Seven, Book II of the RPC, or (3) involving fraud upon government or public funds or property. Admittedly, petitioner in this case was not charged under RA 3019. Neither was he charged under Title Seven,25 Book II of the RPC as the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the RPC is covered by Title Four,26 Book II thereof. The relevant question now is whether falsification of public documents is considered as fraud upon government or public funds or property.
In fine, we reiterate that the issue on the validity or invalidity of petitioner’s suspension had been mooted considering his acquittal by the Sandiganbayan in its November 24, 2009 Decision. As such, there is no justiciable controversy for this Court to adjudicate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco, 582 Phil. 492, 501 (2008).
3Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 317-321; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada.
4 Id., Vol. 4, pp. 46-52; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Napoleon E. Inoturan.
6Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 3, p. 1.
8 See Motion To Suspend Accused Pendente Lite, id., Vol. 1, pp. 322-329.
10 Id., Vol. 2, pp. 17-23; penned by Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario and concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member of this Court).
15 See Entry of Judgment, id. at 341.
16 See Manifestation and Motion To Suspend Accused Pendente Lite, id., Vol. 3, pp. 256-262.
18 Id., Vol. 2, pp. 349-351.
20 See Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution Promulgated on May 14, 2008, id. at 382-386, and Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration dated May 30, 2008, id. at 395-398.
21 Id., Vol. 4, pp. 46-52.
23Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 4, pp. 410-440; penned by Presiding Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and concurred in the Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Napoleon E. Inoturan.
25 Crimes Committed by Public Officers.
26 Crimes Against Public Interest.
27 521 Phil. 43 (2006).
31 G.R. No. 172123, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 387.
34Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 17-23.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 V.