University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF
Case Name
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Topic Eligibility & Qualifications - General and Particular Qualifications
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 130872 | March 25, 1999
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J.
Francisco Lecaroz and son Lenlie (KB chair) were convicted of estafa through falsification of
documents which stemmed from the fact that the Mayor didn’t allow Red (private complainant, KB
Case Summary chair in another barangay) to sit as a sectoral representative in the SB. Red got his appointment and
took his oath of office before Assemblywoman Reyes in 1985 but Mayor did not allow him to sit as a
member of SB and instead his son continued to sit in a hold-over capacity.
An oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full investiture
with the office. Only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that his right to enter
Doctrine
into the position becomes plenary and complete. And for as long as he has not qualified, the holdover
officer is the rightful occupant.
RELEVANT FACTS
Francisco and Lenlie Lecaroz, father and son were convicted by the Sandiganbayana of 12 counts of estafa through
falsification of public documents. They now seek a review of their conviction as they insist on their innocence.
Francisco was the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, while Lenlie was the outgoing chairman Kabataan Barangay (KB)
of Barangay Baging Silang and is concurrently a member of its Sangguniang Bayan (SB) representing the Federation of
Kabataang Barangays.
In the 1985 elections go the KB, Jowil Red won as Chairman for Brgy. Matalaba and Lenlie did not run because he is pass
the age limit.
In Nov., Red was appointed by Pres. Marcos as member of SB of Santa Cruz. Imee Marcos-Manotoc, then Nat’l
Chairperson, sent a telegram to Red confirming such appointment and advising him further the his appointment letters
will be sent to him in due time.
Red received the telegram and showed it to Mayor Francisco.
When Red finally got his appointment papers, Pres. Aquino was already in power. He sent the document to the Mayor
on April but still Red was not allowed to sit as sectoral representative.
Lenlie continued to be in the seat and received salary.
Finally Red was able to secure appointment papers from the Aquino administration after three years and nine months
from the date he received his appointment paper from Pres. Marcos.
Red filed with the Office of the Ombudsman several criminal complaints against the petitioners arising from the refusal
of the two officials to let him assume the position of KB sectoral representative. The Ombudsman filed with the
Sandiganbayan 13 Informations for estafa through falsification of public documents against petitioners, and one
information for violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA No. 3019, against the Mayor alone. Sandiganbayan convicted Mayor
and Len on all counts of estafa but acquitted Mayor of RA 3019 charge.
Snadiganbayan ruled that Red’s assumption of the KB presidency upon the expiration of the term of accused Lenlie was
valid since he took his oath of office sometime in 1986 before Assemblywoman Reyes.
Lenlie ceased to be a member of KB upon the expiration of his term and so was his membership as SB.
Hence, the cast of Francisco in entering is son’s name in payroll and Lenlie’s act of accepting his salaries constituted
conspiracy.
Francisco is acquitted if the RA 30189 violation because Red was neither authorized to sit as member of the SB because
he was not properly appointed thereto nor had he shown to the mayor sufficient basis for his alleged right to a seat in
the municipal council.
s
University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N Red validly NO
assumed office upon Red’s oath on 1985 was invalid for being administered by a person without authority to
taking his oath in 1985 administer oath.
As a rule, under the Sec. 21, Art. VI of Administrative Code then in force, members of the
then Batasang Pambansa were not authorized to administer oaths. It was only after
the approval of RA No. 6733 on 25 July 1989 and its subsequent publication in a
newspaper of general circulation that members of Congress were vested for the first time
with the general authority to administer oaths.
Red’s oath of office before Assemblywoman Reyes in 1985, a person who had no
authority to administer oaths, was invalid and amounted to no oath at all.
An oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full
investiture with the office. Only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of
oath that his right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete. And for as
long as he has not qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant.
W/N Len validly held YES
office in a hold-over Law usually provides that officers elected or appointed for a fixed term shall remain in
capacity office not only for that term but until their successors have been elected and qualified.
Where there’s a hold-over provision, the office does not become vacant upon the
expiration of the term if there is no successor elected and qualified to assume it, but the
present incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and qualified, even though
it be beyond the term fixed by law.
However, if the law does not so provide, absent an express or implied constitutional or
statutory provision to the contrary, hold-over principle is presumed to apply. This is
because the law abhors a vacuum in public offices, and courts generally indulge in the
strong presumption against a legislative intent to create, by statute, a condition which may
result in an executive or administrative office becoming, for any period of time, wholly
vacant or unoccupied by one lawfully authorized to exercise its functions.
In this case, although BP Blg. 51 does not say that a Sanggunian member can continue to
occupy his post after the expiration of his term in case his successor fails to qualify, it does
not also say that he is proscribed from holding over.
Since Red never qualified for the post, Len remained KB representative to the SB, albeit in
a carry over capacity, and was in every aspect a de jure officer, or at least a de facto officer
entitled to receive the salaries and all the emoluments appertaining to the position. As
such, he could not be considered an intruder and liable for encroachment of public office.
W/N Mayor and Len NO
were guilty of estafa There was no proof of malice or even neglect in the performance of duty.
though falsification Estafa is an intentional felony for which liability attaches only upon showing of criminal
intent. No criminal intent was shown. Mayor was acting on the mistaken belief that his son
was holding office in a hold-over capacity. His act of certifying the correctness of payroll
giving his son salary was not a statement of fact but a conclusion of law which is an opinion
made in good faith (mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law).
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of 7 October 1994 and Resolution of 1 October 1997 of the
Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and petitioners FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ are
ACQUITTED of all the thirteen (13) counts of estafa through falsification of public documents (Crim. Cases Nos. 13904-
13916). The bail bonds posted for their provisional liberty are cancelled and released. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES
