MAYOR OSCAR DE LOS REYES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, THIRD DIVISION, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Gr no 121215 nov 13, 1977 FACTS: Petitioner, along with two others, was charged with the crime of falsification of a public document, specifically Resolution No. 57-S-92 dated July 27, 1992 of the Municipal Council of Mariveles, Bataan. The complaint[1] alleged that the resolution, appropriating the amount of P8,500.00 for the payment of the terminal leave of two municipal employees, was anomalous for not having been approved by the said Council, as the minutes of the proceedings therein made no reference to the supposed approval thereof. It contended that its seeming passage was carried out by petitioner in connivance with Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Member Jesse Concepcion and SB Secretary Antonio Zurita. After preliminary investigation, the deputized prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan recommended the filing of an information[2] for Falsification of Public Document against petitioner and Concepcion, excluding Zurita who died during the pendency hereof. On September 21, 1994, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan which read as follows: That on or about July 27, 1992 or sometimes (sic) prior or subsequent thereto, in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, OSCAR DELOS REYES and JESSE CONCEPCION, both public officers, being Municipal Mayor of Mariveles, Bataan and Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mariveles, Bataan, passed and approved the said resolution appropriating the amount of P8,500.00 for payment of the terminal leave of two (2) employees of the municipality, when in truth and in fact as both accused knew well the same is false and incorrect as the said resolution was not approved by the aforesaid Sangguniang Bayan for which both accused has the obligation to disclose the truth. Petitioner filed this instant petition for certiorari. ISSUE: The significance of the minutes taken during the session of a local legislative assembly.

HELD: It must be stressed that the Ombudsman correctly relied on the minutes taken during the session of the Sangguniang Bayan held last July 27, 1992, which petitioner regards as inconclusive evidence of what actually transpired therein. In a long line of cases, the Court, in resolving conflicting assertions of the protagonists in a case, has placed reliance on the minutes or the transcribed stenographic notes to ascertain the truth of the proceedings therein. In the case at bar, the minutes of the session reveal that petitioner attended the session of the Sangguniang Bayan on July 27, 1992. It is evident, therefore, that petitioner approved the subject resolution knowing fully well that the subject matter treated therein was neither taken up and discussed nor passed upon by the Sangguniang Bayan during the legislative session.[14] Thus, the Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the official repository of what actually transpires in every proceeding. It has happened that the minutes may be corrected to reflect the true account of a proceeding, thus giving the Court more reason to accord them great weight for such subsequent corrections, if any, are made precisely to preserve the accuracy of the records. In light of the conflicting claims of the parties in the case at bar, the Court, without resorting to the minutes, will encounter difficulty in resolving the dispute at hand.

With regard to the joint affidavit of some members of the Sangguniang Bayan attesting to the actual passage and approval of Resolution No. 57-S-92, the Court finds the same to have been belatedly submitted as a last minute attempt to bolster petitioners position, and, therefore, could not in any way aid the latters cause. Indeed, the arguments raised by petitioners counsel are best taken up in the trial on the merits. The assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed and is directed to set Criminal Case No. 21073 for arraignment and trial.

Espiritu vs. Melgar February 13, 1991 Petitioner: Governor Benjamin Espiritu Respondents: Nelson Melgar and Hon. Judge Facts: Ramir Garing filed a sworn letter-complaint with Secretary Luis Santos of DILG charging Mayor Nelson Melgar of Naujan. Oriental Mindoro, with grave misconduct, oppression, abuse of authority, culpable violation of the Constitution and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service. Melgar allegedly assaulted Garing and ordered his arrest and detention in the municipal jail of Naujan without filing any charges until his released the following day. An identical letter complaint was filed by Garing with Provincial Governor of Oriental Mindoro Benjamin Espiritu, accusing Melgar of the same violations. A third complaint filed by Garing with the Presidential Action Center, OP.Mayor Melgar submitted his answer wherein he said that while he was delivering a speech during a graduation ceremony, Garing suddenly clapped causing disturbance on the part of the audience. When the Mayor ended his speech, he instructed a policeman to investigate Garing. It appeared that Garing was drunk. The mayor also presented medical certificate proving that Garing was not hurt. A balisong was then taken from Garing. The mayor informed Garing to go home (he had sobered up), but he refused to go and only did so the following morning. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed Resolution No 55, recommending tothe Provincial Governor that the Mayor be preventively suspended for 45 days pending the investigation of the administrative complaint. When the mayor received the order of suspension, he filed a "Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Restraining Order" in the RTC of Oriental Mindoro alleging that "the order of suspension was an arrogant, despotic and arbitrary abuse of power" by the Governor. The RTC judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Governor Espiritu from implementing the Order of suspension against Mayor Melgar On appeal, petitioner contends that the trial judge erred in granting the preliminary injunction since the Governor is empowered under Sec 63 LGC to place an elective municipal official under preventive suspension pending decision of an administrative case against the elective municipal official. Also, under Sec 61 LGC, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has jurisdiction over the complaints against any municipal official, while Section 19(c) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1930 withdrew from RTCs jurisdictions over such cases. Also, the mayor has a remedy of appeal under Sec 66 LGC. Issue:WON the governor has the power to suspend the mayor
2

HELD: YES, Under Section 63 LGC, the provincial governor of Oriental Mindoro is authorized by law to preventively suspend the municipal mayor of Naujan anytime after the issues had been joined and any of the following grounds were shown to exist: 1. When there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of; 2. When the evidence of culpability is strong; 3. When the gravity of the offense so warrants; or 4. When the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. There is nothing improper in suspending an officer before the charges against him are heard and before he is given an opportunity to prove his innocence. Preventive suspension is allowed so that the respondent may not hamper the normal course of the investigation through the use of his influence and authority over possible witnesses. Since the mayor believed that his preventive suspension was unjustified and politically motivated, he should have sought relief first from the Secretary of DILG, not from the courts. Mayor Melgar's direct recourse to the courts without exhausting administrative remedies was premature. WON the RTC has jurisdiction to stop the provincial governor from placing a municipal mayor under preventive suspension pending the investigation of administrative charges against the latter HELD: NO. The RTC had no jurisdiction over Special Civil Action and gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case. There may exist honest differences of opinion with regard to the seriousness of the charges, or as to whether they warrant disciplinary action. However, as a general rule, the office or body that is invested with the power of removal or suspension should be the sole judge of the necessity and sufficiency of the cause. So, unless a flagrant abuse of the exercise of that power is shown, public policy and a becoming regard for the principle of separation of powers demand that the action of said officer or body should be left undisturbed. However, in this particular case. since the 60-day preventive suspension of Mayor Melgar was maintained by the Temporary Restraining Order which we issued on August 6, 1991, and therefore has already been served, he is deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative investigation of the charges against him.