2 - Delos Reyes v. Sandiganbayan

9/10/2015
G.R.No.121215|DelosReyesv.Sandiganbayan
THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.121215.November13,1997.]
MAYOR OSCAR DELOS REYES,petitioner, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN,
THIRDDIVISION,andthePEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
CruzandCruzLawOfficesforpetitioner.
SolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, a Municipal Mayor, with two other public officials, was charged with
falsification of a public document regarding the appropriation of P8,500.00 for the
terminal leave of two municipal employees embodied in Resolution No. 57S92. The
complaintallegedthatthesamewasnottakenanddiscussednorpasseduponbythe
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) during the legislative session. Prior to his arraignment, he
filed a Motion for Reinvestigation claiming, among others, that the Ombudsman
previouslydismissedasimilarcomplaintagainsthim.Ajointaffidavitofsomemembers
of the SBattesting to the actual passage and approval of the said resolution was
attached to the motion. TheSandiganbayan denied the motion and petitioner's
subsequent motion for reconsideration wherein petitioner claimed that the final step in
the approval of an ordinance or resolution where the local chief executive affixes his
signatureispurelyaministerialact,waslikewisedenied.
ThegrantofthevetopowerunderArticle109(b)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeconfers
authoritybeyondthesimplemechanicalactofsigninganordinanceorresolution,asa
requisite to its enforceability. Such power accords the local chief executive the
discretiontosustainaresolutionorordinanceinthefirstinstanceortovetoitandreturn
itwithobjectionstotheSanggunian,whichmayproceedtoreconsiderthesame.
Petitioner's other contention that the Ombudsman should have dismissed the present
case in view of a previous dismissal of a similar complaint involving the same factual
contextislikewisemisplacedsincetheformercasewassubjectofaseparatecomplaint
and preliminary investigation, hence, the findings and records therein could not be
"madepartofthecaseunderconsideration."
The Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the official repository of what
actuallytranspiresineveryproceeding.
ThejointaffidavitofsomemembersoftheSBcouldnotaidpetitioner'scauseasitwas
belatedlysubmittedasalastminuteattempttobolsterhisposition.
EITcaH
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20align%3D%22center%22%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%2023pt%200px%2018p
1/7
9/10/2015
SYLLABUS
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE LOCAL CHIEF
EXECUTIVE VETO POWER CONFERS AUTHORITY BEYOND MECHANICAL ACT
OFSIGNINGANORDINANCEORRESOLUTION.Petitionerwouldliketoimpress
uponthisCourtthatthefinalstepintheapprovalofanordinanceorresolution,where
the local chief executive affixes his signature, is purely a ministerial act. This view is
erroneous.Article109(b)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeoutlinesthevetopowerofthe
LocalChiefExecutive.Contrarytopetitioner'sbelief,thegrantofthevetopowerconfers
authoritybeyondthesimplemechanicalactofsigninganordinanceorresolution,asa
requisite to its enforceability. Such power accords the local chief executive the
discretiontosustainaresolutionorordinanceinthefirstinstanceortovetoitandreturn
it with his objections to the Sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same.
TheSanggunianconcerned,however,mayoverridethevetobyatwothirds(2/3)vote
of all its members thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal
intents and purposes. It is clear, therefore, that the concurrence of a local chief
executiveintheenactmentofanordinanceorresolutionrequires,notonlyaflourishof
the pen, but the application of judgment after meticulous analysis and intelligence as
well.
2.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BILL OF RIGHTS DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL NOT
APPLYWHERETHEFORMERCASEWASSUBJECTOFASEPARATECOMPLAINT
AND HAS NO RELATION WITH THE ONE IN QUESTION. Petitioner's other
contention that the Ombudsman should have dismissed the present case in view of a
previousdismissalofasimilarcomplaintinvolvingthesamefactualcontextislikewise
misplaced. As explained by Deputy Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo in his
comment,theothercaserelieduponbypetitionerhasnorelationwhatsoeverwiththe
one in question. Notably, the former case was subject of a separate complaint and
preliminary investigation, hence, the findings and records therein could not be "made
partofthecaseunderconsideration."
3.
REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE COURT ACCORDS FULL RECOGNITION TO
THE MINUTES AS THE OFFICIAL REPOSITORY OF WHAT ACTUALLY
TRANSPIRES IN EVERY PROCEEDING CASE AT BAR. 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
resolvingconflictingassertionsoftheprotagonistsinacase,hasplacedrelianceonthe
minutesofthetranscribedstenographicnotestoascertainthetruthoftheproceedings
therein.Inthecaseatbar,theminutesofthesessionrevealthatpetitionerattendedthe
session of the Sangguniang Bayan on 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." Thus, the Court accords full
recognitiontotheminutesastheofficialrepositoryofwhatactuallytranspiresinevery
proceeding. It has happened that the minutes may be corrected to reflect the true
2/7
9/10/2015
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
accuracyoftherecords.Inlightoftheconflictingclaimsofthepartiesinthecaseatbar,
the Court, without resorting to the minutes, will encounter difficulty in resolving the
disputeathand.
4.
ID. ID. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY LATE SUBMISSION OF JOINT
AFFIDAVITTOBOLSTERPETITIONER'SPOSITION,CANNOTAIDCAUSE.With
regardtothejointaffidavitofsomemembersoftheSangguniangBayanattestingtothe
actual passage and approval of Resolution No. 57892, the Court finds the same to
havebeenbelatedlysubmittedasalastminuteattempttobolsterpetitioner'sposition,
and,therefore,couldnotinanywayaidthelatter'scause.
DECISION
ROMERO,J :
p
Thesignificanceoftheminutestakenduringthesessionofalocallegislativeassembly
isthedeterminantissueinthispresentpetition.
cdtai
Petitioner, along with the two others, was charged with the crime of falsification of a
public document, specifically Resolution No. 57S92 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,astheminutesoftheproceedingsthereinmadenoreferencetothesupposed
approvalthereof.Itcontendedthatitsseemingpassagewascarriedoutbypetitionerin
connivance with Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Member Jesse Concepcion
andSBSecretaryAntonioZurita.
After preliminary investigation, the deputized prosecutor of Balanga, Bataan
recommendedthefilingofaninformation 2forFalsificationofPublicDocumentagainst
petitionerandConcepcion,excludingZuritawhodiedduringthependencyhereof.
On September 21, 1994, the information filed before theSandiganbayan reads as
follows:
"ThatonoraboutJuly27,1992orsometimes(sic)priororsubsequentthereto,
in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,OSCARDELOSREYESandJESSECONCEPCION,bothpublicofficers,
being Municipal Mayor of Mariveles, Bataan and Member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Mariveles, Bataan, passed and approved the said resolution
appropriatingtheamountofP8,500.00forpaymentoftheterminalleaveoftwo
(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
3/7
9/10/2015
approvedbytheaforesaidSangguniangBayanforwhichbothaccusedhasthe
obligationtodisclosethetruth.
CONTRARYTOLAW.3
On October 14, 1994, prior to his arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation arguing, among other things, "that the Ombudsman previously
dismissedasimilarcomplaintagainsthiminvolvingthesamefactualsetting."4Likewise
adduced in the motion is the joint affidavit of the other members of the Sangguniang
BayanofMarivelesattestingtotheactualpassageandapprovalofResolutionNo.57
S92.
InaresolutiondatedDecember29,1994,respondentSandiganbayandeniedtheMotion
forReinvestigation,thepertinentportionofwhichreads:
"Acting on accused Mayor Oscar delosReyes' Motion for Reinvestigation and
accused Jesse Concepcion's Manifestation, the same are hereby DENIED,
beingwithoutmeritandtheprosecutionhavingvigorouslyopposedtheMotion.
The allegations of fact and the arguments of counsel are best taken up in the
trialonthemerits.Asfoundbytheprosecution,aprimafaciecaseexists.
Consequently, let the arraignment of the above entitled case be set on March
03,1995,at8:30A.M."5
After the motion for reconsideration was denied on May 24, 1995, petitioner filed this
instant petition for certiorari. On September 18, 1995, the Court resolved to issue the
temporaryrestrainingorderprayedforbypetitioner.
TheorderofrespondentSandiganbayanmustbesustained.
Inanefforttoexoneratehimselffromthecharge,petitionerarguesthatthedeliberations
undertaken and the consequent passage of Resolution No. 57S92 are legislative in
nature.Headdsthataslocalchiefexecutive,hecouldnothavetakenadvantageofhis
official position in committing the crime of falsification as defined and punished
underArticle1716oftheRevisedPenalCode.
PetitionerwouldliketoimpressuponthisCourtthatthefinalstepintheapprovalofan
ordinanceorresolution,wherethelocalchiefexecutiveaffixeshissignature,ispurelya
ministerial act. This view is erroneous. Article 109(b) of the Local Government Code
outlinesthevetopoweroftheLocalChiefExecutivewhichprovides:
"Article109(b).
Thelocalchiefexecutive,exceptthepunongbarangayshall
have the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriations
ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting a local development plan and
public investment program oran ordinance directing the payment of money or
creatingliability...."(Emphasissupplied)
prcd
Contrarytopetitioner'sbelief,thegrantofthevetopowerconfersauthoritybeyondthe
simple mechanical act of signing an ordinance or resolution, as a requisite to its
4/7
9/10/2015
enforceability.Suchpoweraccordsthelocalchiefexecutivethediscretiontosustaina
resolutionorordinanceinthefirstinstanceortovetoitandreturnitwithhisobjections
to the Sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same. The Sanggunian
concerned,however,mayoverridethevetobyatwothirds(2/3)voteofallitsmembers
therebymakingtheordinanceorresolutioneffectiveforalllegalintentsandpurposes.It
isclear,therefore,thattheconcurrenceofalocalchiefexecutiveintheenactmentofan
ordinance or resolution requires, not only a flourish of the pen, but the application of
judgmentaftermeticulousanalysisandintelligenceaswell.
Petitioner's other contention that the Ombudsman should have dismissed the present
case in view of a previous dismissal of a similar complaint involving the same factual
contextislikewisemisplaced.
As explained by Deputy Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo in his comment, the
othercaserelieduponbypetitionerhasnorelationwhatsoeverwiththeoneinquestion.
Notably, the former case was subject of a separate complaint and preliminary
investigation, hence, the findings and records therein could not be "made part of the
caseunderconsideration."7
It must be stressed that the Ombudsman correctly relied on the minutes taken during
thesessionoftheSangguniangBayanheldlastJuly27,1992,whichpetitionerregards
asinconclusiveevidenceofwhatactuallytranspiredtherein.Inalonglineofcases,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
theproceedingstherein.
Thefollowingcasesillustratetheimportanceoftheminutes:
Itwasheldthat"contrarytopetitioner'sclaim,whattheminutesonlyshowisthat
on August 12, 1994 the Sanggunian took a vote on the administrative case of
respondent Mayor and not that it then rendered a decision as required by
Section66(a)oftheLocalGovernmentCode."8
With the same factual context as in the case at bar, petitioners herein were
"accused of having falsified or caused the falsification of the excerpts of the
minutes of the regular session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Quirino
provinceonAugust15,1988andSeptember19,1988...."9
"Inhisresolution,SecretaryDrilondeclaredthattherewerenowrittennoticesof
public hearings on the proposed Manila Revenue Code that were sent to
interestedpartiesasrequiredbyArticle276(b)oftheImplementingRulesofthe
LocalGovernmentCodenorwerecopiesoftheproposedordinancepublished
in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to
Article 276(a).No minutes were submitted to show that the obligatory public
hearingshadbeenheld."10
"ItappearsfromtheminutesoftheboardmeetingofFebruary28,1958thatthe
names of the members present as well those who were absent have been
recorded, and that all those present took active part in the debates and
5/7
9/10/2015
deliberations. At the end of the session, when the presiding officer asked the
membersiftherewereanyobjectionstotheapprovaloftheproposedbudget,
only one councilor raised an objection.The minutes, therefore, could readily
showwhoofthememberspresentinthedeliberationsvotedproandwhovoted
con."11
"Thecertificationoftheelectionregistrarrelieduponbythepetitioneriscorrect
asfarasitgoes.Only80votesappeartohavevotedaccordingtotheprecinct
book in the sense that only 80 voters affixed their signatures thereon after
voting.Butthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatnoothervoterscasttheirballots
in the questioned precinct: there were 279 in all,according to the minutes of
voting,althoughonly80ofthemsignedtheprecinctbook."12
"Asfoundbythetrialcourt,thesaidminutesofthemeetingoftheSangguniang
Bayandonotmentiontheexecutionofanydeedtoperfecttheagreement.An
engineerwasappointedtosurveytheoldabandonedroad,butthisactdoesnot
inanymannerconveytitleovertheabandonedroadtothePansacolaspouses
norextinguishestheirownershipoverthelandtraversedbythenewprovincial
highway."13
Inthecaseatbar,theminutesofthesessionrevealthatpetitionerattendedthesession
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
Bayanduringthelegislativesession."14
Thus,theCourtaccordsfullrecognitiontotheminutesastheofficialrepositoryofwhat
actually transpires in every proceeding. It has happened that the minutes may be
correctedtoreflectthetrueaccountofaproceeding,thusgivingtheCourtmorereason
toaccordthemgreatweightforsuchsubsequentcorrections,ifany,aremadeprecisely
topreservetheaccuracyoftherecords.Inlightoftheconflictingclaimsofthepartiesin
the case at bar, the Court, without resorting to the minutes, will encounter difficulty in
resolvingthedisputeathand.
Cdpr
WithregardtothejointaffidavitofsomemembersoftheSangguniangBayanattesting
totheactualpassageandapprovalofResolutionNo.57S92,theCourtfindsthesame
tohavebeenbelatedlysubmittedasalastminuteattempttobolsterpetitioner'sposition,
and,therefore,couldnotinanywayaidthelatter'scause.
Indeed,theargumentsraisedbypetitioner'scounselarebesttakenupinthetrialonthe
merits.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theinstantpetitionisDISMISSED.Theassailed
resolutions of theSandiganbayan dated December 29, 1994, and May 24, 1995, are
herebyAFFIRMED.ThetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedbythisCourtonSeptember
18,1995,isherebyLIFTED.
TheSandiganbayanisDIRECTEDtosetCriminalCaseNo.21073forarraignmentand
trial.
6/7
9/10/2015
Melo,FranciscoandPanganiban,JJ.,concur.
Narvasa,C.J.,isonleave.
7/7

2 - Delos Reyes v. Sandiganbayan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2 - Delos Reyes v. Sandiganbayan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9/10/2015

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen