FRANCISCO M.
LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, petitioners, Mayor Lecaros was acquitted with respect to his violating
vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.; BELLOSILLO, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Francisco M. Lecaroz was the Municipal Mayor of
Santa Cruz, Marinduque, while his son was the outgoing
chairman of the Kabataang Barangay (KB) of Bagong Silang,
Sta. Cruz and concurrently a member of Sangguiniang
Bayan representing the federation of KBs.
In the 1985 election for the KB Jowil Red won as KB
Chairman of Brgy Matalaba, Sta. Cruz. Petitioner Lecaroz
was no longer qualified for the position. Sometime in
November 1985 Red was appointed by then President
Ferdinand Marcos as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Santa Cruz representing the KBs of the municipality. Imee
Marcos confirmed his appointment. Red received the
telegram and showed it to Mayor Lecaroz.
Red attending the meeting of the SB upon the invitation of
one of its memers, Kagawad Rogato. In that meeting, Mayor
Lecaroz informed Red that he could not yet sit as member
until his appointment had been cleared by the Governor.
Even after forwarding his appointment papers, Red was still
not allowed by the mayor to sit as sectoral representative
in the Sanggunian.
Meanwhile, Mayor Lecaroz, approved the payment to his
son of 26 sets of payrolls for the 26 quincenas. Lenie signed
one and authorized someone else to sign all.
3 years and 9 months after, Red was finally able to secure
from the date he received his appointment papers from
President Marcos, Red was finally able to secure from the
Aquino Administration a confirmation of his appointment
as KB Sectoral Representative to the SB of Sta. Cruz.
Red subsequently filed with the Ombudsmna several
criminal complaints against Mayor and his son.
Ombudsman filed with the SB 13 informations for estafa
through falsification of public documents against
petitioners, and one information for violation of 3019
against Mayor alome.
SB found the two guilty of all counts of estafa. Conversely,
the accused Lenlie Lecaroz ceased to be a member of the
KB on the last Sunday of November 1985 and, as such, was
no longer the legitimate representative of the youth sector
in the municipal council of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. However,
vacancy and to avoid a hiatus in the performance of
2019 because Red was not properly appointed thereto. SB
denied the MR which prompted the petitioners to elevate
their cause to us charging that the SB errerd.
ISSUE:
WON Lenlie Lecaroz was illegally disqualified from
continuing in office as KB Sectoral Representative to the SB
even in a holdover capacity.
RULING:
Petition is meritorious.
SB – Lenlie Lecaroz could not hold over after his term
expired because pertinent laws do not provide for holdover.
Section 7 of BP Blg. 51 and Sec. 1 of the KB Constitution: In
the case of the members of the sanggunian representing the
association of barangay councils and the president of the
federation of kabataang barangay, their terms of office
shall be coterminous with their tenure as president of their
respective association and federation. All incumbent
officers of the Kabataang Barangay shall continue to hold
office until the last Sunday of November 1985 or such time
that the newly elected officers shall have qualified and
assumed office in accordance with this Constitution.
Petitioner – Red failed to qualify as KB rep because he did
not present an authenticated copy of his appointment
papers; neither did he take a valid oath of office. This
enabled Lecaroz to continue as member of the SB although
in a holdover capacity since his term had already expired.
SC disagrees with SB. The concept of holdover when applied
to a public officer implies that the office has a fixed term
and the incumbent is holding onto the succeeding term. It
is usually provided by law that officers elected or appointed
for a fixed term shall remain in office not only for that term
but until their successors have been elected and qualified,
even though it be beyond the term fixed by law.
Absent an express or implied constitutional or statutory
provision to the contrary, an officer is entitled to stay in
office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has
qualified.
This is founded on obvious considerations of public policy,
for the principle of holdover is specifically intended to
prevent public convenience from suffering because of a
government functions
Circumstance, the oath of office taken by Jowil Red before
a member of the Batasang Pambansa who had no authority
to administer oaths, was invalid and amounted to no oath
at all. To be sure, an oath of office is a qualifying
requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full
investiture with the office. And for as long as he has not
qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant. It is
thus clear in the present case that since Red never qualified
for the post, petitioner Lenlie Lecaroz remained KB
representative to the Sanggunian, 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.
If what is proven is mere judgmental error on the part of
the person committing the act, no malice or criminal intent
can be rightfully imputed to him. Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind
is wanting. In the instant case, there are clear
manifestations of good faith and lack of criminal intent on
the part of petitioners. Red presented only a mere telegram
with a photocopy of mass appointment. Also, red only
forwarded his appointment letters after three months,
during the time when Marcos had already been deposed
from office. Lecaros forwarded the letters of Red to
Minister of Interior Local Government for authentication.
The response was That newly elected KB Federation
Presidents, without their respective authenticated
appointments from the president, cannot, in any way,
represent their associations in any sangguniang
bayan/sangguniang panlalawigan, as the case may be,
although they are still considered presidents of their
federations by virtue of the July 1985 elections.
Also petitioners presented the opinions of SoJ of Presidents
Maapagal, Marcos and Aquino concerning the doctrine of
holdover. the mere fixing of the term of office in a statute
without an express prohibition against holdover is not
indicative of a legislative intent to prohibit it, in light of the
legal principle that just as nature abhors a vacuum so does
the law abhor a vacancy in the government.
The rule is that any mistake on a doubtful or difficult
question of law may be the basis of good faith. under the
law on public officers, acts done in the performance of
official duty are protected by the presumption of good faith
But since a doubt is now created about the import of such
omission, the principle of equipoise should properly apply.
This rule demands that all reasonable doubt intended to
demonstrate error and not a crime should be resolved in
favor of the accused.

For the offense to be established, the following elements

must concur: (a) the offender makes in a document
statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated;
(c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false;
and, (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

The first and third elements of the offense had not been
established. When Mayor Lecaroz certified to the
correctness of the payroll, he was making not a narration of
facts but a conclusion of law expressing his belief that Lenlie
Lecaroz was legally holding over as member of the
Sanggunian and thus entitled to the emoluments attached
to the position.

The third element requiring that the narration of facts be

absolutely false is not even adequately satisfied as the
belief of Mayor Francisco Lecaroz that Lenlie Lecaroz was a
holdover member of the Sanggunian was not entirely bereft
of basis, anchored as it was on the universally accepted
doctrine of holdover. If the statements are not altogether
false, there being some colorable truth in them, the crime
of falsification is deemed not to have been committed.

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.