1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank’s rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC.
Is dela Renta’s contention tenable? 2.5%
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC.
Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. 2.5%
1 comment:
VI.
1.
No. Whether or not the offender is still an employee in the office where he committed malversation is immaterial in the crime of malversation of public funds.
2.
He may be suspended. The law does not require that before a public officer or employee charged with a crime can be suspended pendente lite, he must still be an employee of the office where he committed the crime. The fact is Henry dela Ranta is a government employee charged with malveration before the Sandiganbayan. This warrants his suspension pendente lite.
Post a Comment