Facts:

Petitioner Reynaldo R. Bayot was charged with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. In the meantime, he ran and was elected mayor of Amadeo, Cavite in January 1980. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner; hence, he appealed.

While the case was pending on appeal, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was passed amending, among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. This authorized suspension of public officers against whom an information may be pending at any stage. 

On motion of the prosecution, the Sandiganbayan issued an order directing the suspension of petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that "to apply the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 to the herein accused would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of protection against an ex post facto law". 

Issue:

Whether or not Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 is an ex post facto law

Held:

Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of said Article 24 are merely preventive measures before final judgment. Not being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension from office, pending trial, of the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law. Further, the claim of petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is presently occupying a position different from that under which he is charged is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Thus, by the use of the word "office" the same applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office under which he was charged. Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861. March 23, 1984