SANDIGANBAYAN Seventh Division -...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon City

Seventh Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-Plaintiff, 0272 to 0309

Present:

-versus- Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J., andMiranda, J.*

FELICIANO PALAD LEGASPI, Promulgated:SR., Accused. III i-OI^ y?

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.:

While under preventive suspension from December 12, 2012 to June13, 2013, accused Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. ["accused"], then the dulyelected Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, solemnized thirty-seven(37) marriages and issued one (1) business/mayor's permit, which led to thefiling of charges against him for Usurpation of Official Functions punishableunder Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code,

The Information dated February 11, 2016 in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0272 alleged:

That on or about 14 December 2012, or sometime prior orsubsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Norzagaray, Bulacan,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the saidabove-named accused, Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr., a public officer, beingthen the elected Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, takingadvantage of his official function, and committing the offense in relation tohis office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and underpretense of official position, assume the duties and functions of the Office

* Per Administrative Order No. 076-2018 dated February 2,2018 //.

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

2 I P a g e

of the Mayor by solemnizing the marriage between Alfredo C. Abamo andConcepcion T. Bemabe under Marriage Certificate Registry No. 2012-357,while under suspension and without being lawfully authorized or entitled todo so, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Save for the dates of the commission of the charges, the names of thecontracting parties, and the registry numbers of the marriage certificates, allof the other Informations contained identical allegations, viz:

Criminal Case No. Date of

Commission of

Offense

Document Issued Name of Spouses

SB-16-CRM-0273 December 14, 2012 MarriageCertificate RegistryNo. 2012-358

Allan R Hernandez

and Clarisse S.

Benguelo

SB-16-CRM-0274 December 14,2012 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2012-359

Michael D. Galan

and Ma. Cristina R

Cruz


No. 2012-363

Errol V. Casuyonand Laami C.

Endino


No. 2012-370

Mark P. Malano

and Shermane M.

Versoza

SB-16-CRM-0277 December 22, 2012 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2012-372

Khentner L.

Madchalang andMary Ann H.

Cipriano


No. 2012-375

Mario L. Reyes, Jr.and Jhonalyn S.

Francia

SB-16-Cm-0279 December 28,2012 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2012-376

Jose Emanuel

Lopez and MilaroseCortes


No. 2012-377

Mark Ace P.

Samiano and Ruby0. Sta. Maria


No. 2012-378

Rolando R Pascual,

Jr. and Rens Carla

V. Payumo

SB-16-CRM-02821 January 4,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-7

Adolfo Jose

Grijalva andCristina S. Ariola


No. 2013-13

Sherwin L. Hitosis

and Carol R.

Pulayan


No. 2013-14

Mark Gerald C.

Tanseco and St.

Jures F. Lasala


No. 2013-15

Edward P. Lisingand Melanie D.

Maraflon'

r.y.

People V. Fellclano Paiad Legaspi, Sr.

Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

3 I P a g e


No. 2013-18

Leomar A. Seva

and Shirlyn A,Sabordo

SB-16-CRM-0287 February 8,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-31

Roderto C.

Santoalla and

Eunila C. Velasco


No. 2013-34

Antonio G. Caliso

and Haide C.

Bondesto


No. 2013-25

Bryan D. Gales andEllaine Nucup


No. 2013-36

Richard B.

Palomata and

Racheile D.

Labesores


No. 2013-39

Ricardo B. Abat

and Ma. Teresa C.

Celestino

SB-16-CRM-0292 February 22,2013 Mayor's Permit No.2013-316

Wacuman, Inc.

SB-16-CRM-0293 March 1, 2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-42

Honey C. Patriaand Josephine H.

Florig

SB-16-CRM-0294 March 7,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-47

Darwin S.

Guddaran and

Lhabdie G. Paje


No. 2013-53

Jose Rey C.Bayking and

Marites E. Pales


No. 2013-54

Joey P. Pasangkayand Ivy Joy P.

Belza

SB-16-CRM-0297 March 22,2013 (No CertificateNumber Indicated)

Randy S. Cardenoand Monisa F.

Lumantao


No. 2013-60

Ricky B. Moneraand Armida 0.

Delena


No. 2013-61

Jessie D. Ramirez

and Jacqueline P.Del Valle

SB-16-CRM-0300 April 5,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-65

Alberto A.

Mendoza and MaryGane L. Alinabo


No. 2013-71

Mark Jayson M.Mendoza and Kris

R. Punsalan


No. 2013-72

Felix D. Longcop,Jr. and Leonora p.

Comico


No. 2013-73

Elipidio S. Bau andMary Ann P. Gaspe

People V. Feliclano Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

4 I P a g e


No. 2013-80

Allan E. Quiriconand Melanie V.

Patricio


No. 2013-90

Mark Anthony P.Lucas and Lourdes

J. Aquino

SB-16-CRM-0306 May 3,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-95

Ronnel D. Buluran

and Zyrille 0. Cruz

SB-16-CRM-0307 May 8, 2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-103

Jerwin C. Mari and

Maribel B. Jemilla

SB-16-CRM-0308 May 10,2013 MarriageCertificate RegistryNo. 2013-105

Reynaldo R. Belloand Rose Ann L.

Mandapat

SB-16-CRM-0309 May 10,2013 MarriageCertificate Registry

No. 2013-104

Gilbert Guadayoand Leni DL.

Lacsina

A Hold Departure Order was issued by the Court on May 16, 2016.'

Upon arraignment held on July 13, 2016, accused, assisted by counsel,pleaded not guilty to the charges.^

Following the conclusion of the preliminary conference, pre-trial wasconducted on February 14, 2017. Subsequently, the Court issued a Pre-TrialOrder,^ which contained the following stipulations agreed upon by theparties:"^

I

ADMITTED FACTS

(During the preliminary conference on October 13,2016)

1) The identity of accused Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. (Legaspi).

2) That at the time material to this case, accused Legaspi is a publicofficer, as municipal mayor of the Municipality of Norzagaray,Bulacan, or during the period December 12,2012 to June 13,2013.

The lone issue to be resolved, which was stipulated by the parties, iswhether or not accused violated Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code on

Usurpation of Official Functions.^

V-' Records, Vol. 1, p. 100Udf. at 139-140

Îd. at Vol. 3, pp. 219-241The same admitted facts are incorporated in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (Records, Vol.

3, p. 159)^ Records, Vol. 3, p. 240

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.


DECISION

5 I P a g e

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION^

The prosecution evidence is summed below:

On August 31, 2012, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon("OMB-Luzon") rendered a Decision' against the accused in "Yolanda C.Ervas v. Feliciano P. Legaspi" docketed as OMB-L-A-ll-0338-F byimposing upon him the penalty of suspension of six (6) months and one (1)day. The decretal portion thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding substantial evidenceagainst respondent FELICIANO P. LEGASPI for the charge of Oppressionor Grave Abuse of Authority, it is respectfully recommended that a penaltyof suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day be imposed against himpursuant to Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended.

The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Interior and LocalGovernment is hereby directed to implement this DECISION immediatelyupon receipt thereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative OrderNo. 7, as amended, in relation to 0MB Memorandum Circular No. 1, Seriesof 2006, dated 11 April 2006, and to promptly inform this Office of theaction taken hereon.

SO DECIDED.

The certified true copy of the afore-quoted Decision was presented byZiegfredo A. Eusebio ["Eusebio"], Administrative Officer I of the CaseRecords, Evaluation, Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau (CREMEB),formerly the Case Records and Management Unit of the OMB-Luzon, havingbeen certified by him on the basis of the original records on file in his capacityas custodian of the same. The same was submitted, along with the followingdocuments, to the Office of the Special Prosecutor: ̂

Exhibits Documents

"RR" Decision dated August 31,2012 rendered by the OMB-Luzonentitled, "Yolanda C. Ervas v. Feliciano P. Legaspi" in 0MB-L-A-11-0338-F

"SS" Indorsement -dated November 23, 2012 of DeputyOmbudsman for Luzon Gerard A. Mosquera addressed to theDILG for the implementation of the Decision dated August 31,2012 rendered by the OMB-Luzon

Motion for Reconsideration dated December 6,2012 filed byaccused of the Decision dated August 31, 2012 rendered bythe OMB-Luzon

"UU" Resolution dated January 7, 2013 denying accused's motionfor reconsideration

^ As this case is covered by the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1, 2013),judicial affidavits of witnesses were submitted which took the place of their direct testimonies' Exhibit "RR"

' Judicial Affidavit of Ziegfredo A. Eusebio (Records, Vol. 1, p. 324), which was submitted as his directtestimony (TSN dated March 14,2017, p. 30); Exhibits "RR", "SS", "TT", "UU", "VV", "WW", "YYYY"were certified on the basis of the original copies on file, while Exhibits "XX", "YY", and "ZZ" to "ZZ-5"were certified on the basis of those officially transmitted by the concerned offices

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-D272 to 0309

DECISION

6 i P a g e

"W" Letter dated March 19, 2013 of Atty. Quijano S. Laure,Prosecution and Monitoring Unit, OMB-Luzon addressed toDirector Dijan, DILG-Region III

"WW" Letter-Reply dated April 18, 2013 of Director Dijan, DILG-Region III addressed to Atty. Quijiano S. Laure, Prosecutionand Monitoring Unit, OMB-Luzon

"XX" Memorandum dated January 11, 2013 of Acting MayorRogelio Santos addressed to all department heads of theMunicipality of Norzagaray, Bulacan

«<YY" Letter dated February 21, 2013 of DILG UndersecretaryAustere A. Panadero addressed to accused

"ZZ"

et seq.

Letter dated March 7, 2013 of DILG Undersecretary AustereA. Panadero addressed to counsel of accused with attached

Letter dated February 22, 2013 from Atty. Rey Nathaniel C.Ifurung

"YYYY" Appearance, Urgent Manifestation and Motion to RecallUndated First Indorsement filed by accused, through counsel,on December 17,2012

On December 12, 2012, Florida M. Dijan ["Dir. Dijan"], RegionalDirector of DILG-Region III, received a Memorandum dated December 3,2012^ from DILG Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero directing her to causethe immediate implementation of the 0MB Decision dated August 31, 2012which imposed the administrative penalty of suspension from office againstthe accused. On the same day, she issued an Order to implement theDecision dated August 31, 2012'^ and specifically tasked Darwin David["David"], Officer-In-Charge, Bulacan Office, DILG-Region III, and Atty.Myron C. Cunanan*^ ["Atty. Cunanan"], Legal Officer, DILG-Region IB,to serve the same on the accused.

On the same day, David and Atty. Cunanan proceeded to the MunicipalHall of Norzagaray, Bulacan, to cause the immediate implementation of thesuspension order, but they were informed by a certain Dr. Jimmy Corpus thataccused was not around and that Ms. Silangan Rivas ["Rivas"], theMunicipal Human Resources Management Officer, would instead attend tothe matter.'^

Once Rivas was informed of their purpose, David and Atty. Cunananwere invited to proceed to the Mayor's Office. Inside, they discussed thedetails of the suspension order and its immediate implementation. Rivasthereafter called the accused via mobile phone and handed the same to Atty.Cunanan where a telephone conversation was made. Initially, the accusedrefused to receive the suspension order but was cautioned by Atty. Cunananthat a valid substituted service could be made. When the mobile phone was

" Exhibit "III"

Exhibit "NN" and/or "NN-1"

" Docketed asOMB-L-A-ll-0338-F, entitled "YolandaC. Ervas v. Feliciano P. Legaspi"'2 Exhibit "00"

'2 Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Myron C. Cunanan (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 459-463); Judicial Affidavit of oarwmDavid (Records, Vol. 2, p. 473), which were submitted as their direct testimony (TSN dated February 15,2017, p. 56)

People V. Fellciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 7 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION 1

handed back to her, Rivas later informed the DILG officers that she willreceive the suspension order per accused's instruction. She thereafterreceived said document at 3:05 pm, and affixed her signature thereon.'"^Thereafter, Rivas gave the suspension order to another person who wasinstructed to forward the same to accused.'^

Meantime, Vice Mayor Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. ["Vice Mayor Santos"]was also furnished a copy of the suspension order against accused, and waseventually sworn in as Acting Mayor of Norzagaray.'^

On December 13, 2012, however, the accused handed back thesuspension order to Rivas who instructed her to return the same to DILG-Region III, under the guise that she was not authorized to receive the same.^În compliance with accused's directive, Rivas returned the suspension orderand wrote Dir. Dijan a letter dated December 13, 2012^^ stating that she hasnot been authorized to receive the suspension order on behalf of the accused,and that the same should be directly received by the accused.'^ In her letter-reply dated December 18, 2012,^® Dir. Dijan pinpointed to the verbal phoneinstruction given to Rivas by the accused to which the suspension order wasreceived, and that by itself, was a valid mode of service pursuant to existingprocedure.^' Dir. Dijan also averred that accused already acknowledgedhaving received the suspension order as he had so stated in his Appearance,Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Recall Undated Indorsement datedDecember 17, 2012 f which pleading had been filed before the Ombudsman.^^

In spite of accused's suspension, Rivas and Vice Mayor Santos notedthat accused did,not vacate his office and still performed the functions of thelocal Chief Executive.^^ As such, to avoid conflict. Vice Mayor Santosdischarged his duties at the Office of the Vice Mayor.^'^

During his suspension fi-om office, accused allegedly solemnizedseveral marriages and issued a business/mayor's permit, proof of which theprosecution presented the following documents:

Judicial Affidavit of Darwin David (Records, Vol. 2, p. 474); Judicial Affidavit of Myron C. Cunanan(Records, Vol. 2, p. 462), which was submitted as his direct testimony (TSN dated February 15,2017, p. 6);Judicial Affidavit of Silangan P. Rivas (Records, Vol. 2, p. 268), which was submitted as her direct testimony(TSN dated February 15,2017, p. 20)

Judicial Affidavit of Silangan P. Rivas (Records, Vol. 2, p. 268)Judicial Affidavit of Darwin David (Records, Vol. 2, p. 475); Exhibit "MM"" Judicial Affidavit of Silangan P. Rivas (Records, Vol. 2, p. 268)'8 Exhibit "WWWW"

" Judicial Affidavit of Florida M. Dijan (Records, Vol. 2, p. 279), which was submitted as her directtestimony (TSN dated February 15,2017, p. 36)20 Exhibit "XXXX"

2' Ibid

22 Exhibit "YYYY"; Records, Judicial Affidavit of Florida M. Dijan (Vol. 2, pp. 280-281)22 Judicial Affidavit of Silangan P. Rivas (Records, Vol. 2, p. 268); Judicial Affidavit of Rogelio P. Santos,Jr. (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 221-222), which was submitted as his direct testimony (TSN dated March 15,2017,p. 5)2^ Judicial Affidavit of Silangan P. Rivas (Records, Vol. 2, p. 268)

People V. Feliclano Palad Legaspl, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

8 I P a g e

A. Marriage Certificates

The prosecution presented to this Court a total of thirty-six (36) "PSA-certified marriage certificates," which were identified by Sir Ryan AnthonyD. Amad ["Amad"], Prosecutor/Investigator Designate, Legal Service,Philippine Statistics Authority ("PSA"), who was authorized by the PSA torepresent said agency in court hearings.^^ Amad averred that upon receivinga subpoena from the Office of the Special Prosecutor ("OSP") requiring thesubmission of original and/or certified true copies of documents pertinent tothe present cases, his office submitted the following PSA-certified marriagecertificates:

Exhibits Documents

"A" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-357 between Alfredo C.Abamo, Jr. and Concepcion T. Bemabe, solemnized byaccused on December 14, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"B" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-358 between Allan P.Hernandez and Clarisse S. Benguelo, solemnized by accusedon December 14,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"C" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-359 between Michael D.Galang and Ma. Christina P. Cruz, solemnized by accused onDecember 14, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"D" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-363 between Errol V. Casuyonand Laami C. Endino, solemnized by accused on December19,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"E" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-370 between Mark P. Malanoand Shermane M. Versoza, solemnized by accused onDecember 21, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

«F" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-372 between Khenter L.Madchalang and Mary Ann H. Cipriano, solemnized byaccused on December 22, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"G" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-375 between Mario L. Reyesand Jhonalyn S. Francia, solemnized by accused on December28,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"H" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-376 between Jose EmmanuelLopez and Milarose Cortes, solemnized by accused onDecember 28, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

Marriage Certificate No. 2012-377 between Mark Ace F.Samiano and Ruby 0. Sta. Maria, solenmized by accused onDecember 28, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"J" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-378 between Rolando P.Pascual, Jr. and Rens Carla Payumo, solemnized by accusedon December 28,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

" Judicial Affidavit of Florida M. Dijan (Records, Vol. 1, p. 275)


DECISION

9 I P a g e

"K" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-7 between Adolfo Jose Grijalvaand Cristina S. Ariola, solemnized by accused on January 4,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"L" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-13 between Sherwin L. Hitosisand Carol R. Pulayan, solemnized by accused on January 18,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"M" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-14 between Mark Gerald C.Tanseco and St. Jures F. Lasala, solemnized by accused onJanuary 18, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"N" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-15 between Edward P. Lisingand Melanie D. Maranon, solemnized by accused on January18,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"O" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-18 between Leomar A. Sevaand Shirlyn A. Sabordo, solemnized by accused on January28,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

((p» Marriage Certificate No. 2013-31 between Roderto C.Santoalla and Eunila C. Velasco, solemnized by accused on,February 82013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"Q" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-34 between Antonio G. Calisoand Haide C. Bondesto, solemnized by accused on February14,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"R" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-35 between Bryan D. Gales andEllaine Nucup, solemnized by accused on February 15, 2013at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"S" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-36 between Richard B.Palomata and Rachel D. Labesores, solemnized by accused onFebruary 17, 2013 at Brgy. Minuyan, Norzagaray, BulacanMarriage Certificate No. 2013-39 between Ricardo B. Abatand Ma. Teresa C. Celestino, solemnized by accused onFebruary 20, 2013 at Brgy. Pinagtulayan, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"U" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-42 between Honey C. Patriaand Josephine H. Florig, solemnized by accused on March 1,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"Y" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-47 between Darwin S.Guddaran and Lhabdie G. Paje, solemnized by accused onMarch 7, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"W" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-53 between Jose Rey C.Bayking and Marites E. Pales, solemnized by accused onMarch 8, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"X" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-54 between Joey P. Masangkayand Ivy Joy P. Belza, solemnized by accused on March 8,2013at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

<tY" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-59 between Randy S. Cardenoand Monisa P. Lumantao, solemnized by accused on March22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"Z" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-60 between Ricky B. Moneraand Armida 0. Delefia, solemnized by accused on March 22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

//

People V. Feliciano Paiad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

10 I P a g e

"AA" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-61 between Jessie D. Ramirezand Jacqueline P. Del Valle, solemnized by accused on March22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"BB" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-65 between Alberto A.Mendoza and Mary Gane A. Alinabo, solenmized by accusedon April 5, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

«CC" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-71 between Mark Jayson M.Mendoza and Kris R. Punsalan, solemnized by accused onApril 5,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

«DD" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-72 between Felix D. Longcop,Jr. and Leonora P. Comico, solemnized by accused on April12, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"EE" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-73 between Elpidio S. Bau andMary Aim P. Gaspe, solemnized by accused on April 14,2013at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

«FF" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-80 between Allan E. Quiriconand Melanie V. Patricio, solemnized by accused on April 19,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"GG" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-90 between Mark Anthony P.Lucas and Lourdes J. Aquino, solemnized by accused on April29, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"HH" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-95 between Ronnel D. Buluranand Zyrlle 0. Cruz, solemnized by accused on May 3,2013 atthe Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"H" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-103 between Jerwin C. Marland Maribel B. Jemilla, solemnized by accused on May 8,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"JJ" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-105 between Reynaldo R.Bello and Rose Ann L. Mandapat, solemnized by accused onMay 10,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"KK" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-104 between Gilbert Guadayoand Leni DL Lacsina, solemnized by accused on May 10,2013at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

Amad further attested that there are four (4) originals issued in amarriage certificate. One copy is provided to the couple who contracted themarriage; second copy is for the solemnizing officer; third copy is retained bythe Local Civil Registry office; and the fourth copy is transmitted to the PSApursuant to its mandate as the repository of civil registration documents. Inreference to the original copy transmitted to the PSA, the same are held in thecustody of the Civil Registration Service of the PSA.^^

The prosecution likewise presented certified true copies of the aforecited marriage certificates, this time certified by Paulina L. Santos["Santos"], the Municipal Civil Registrar of Norzagaray, Bulacan, viz:

f/

Judicial Affidavit of Sir Ryan Anthony D. Amad (Records, Vol. 1, p. 281), which was submitted as hisdirect testimony (TSN dated March 14, 2017, p. 16); See also Judicial Affidavit of Paulina L. S^tos(Records, Vol. 2, pp. 166-175)

People V. Felicia no Palad Legaspi, Sr.


DECISION

111 P a g e

Exhibits Documents

"JJJ" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-357 between Alfredo C.Abamo, Jr. and Concepcion T. Bemabe, solemnized byaccused on December 14, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"KKK" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-358 between Allan P.Hernandez and Clarisse S. Benguelo, solemnized by accusedon December 14, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"LLL" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-359 between Michael D.Galang and Ma. Christina P. Cruz, solemnized by accusedon December 14, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"MMM" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-363 between Errol V.Casuyon and Laami C. Endino, solenmized by accused onDecember 19,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"NNN" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-370 between Mark P. Malanoand Shermane M. Versoza, solemnized by accused onDecember 21,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"OOO" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-372 between Khenter L.Madchalang and Mary Ann H. Cipriano, solemnized byaccused on December 22, 2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

ttpppM Marriage Certificate No. 2012-375 between Mario L. Reyesand Jhonalyn S. Francia, solemnized by accused onDecember 28,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"QQQ" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-376 between Jose EmmanuelLopez and Milarose Cortes, solemnized by accused onDecember 28,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"RRR" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-377 between Mark Ace F.Samiano and Ruby 0. Sta. Maria, solemnized by accused onDecember 28,2012 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"SSS" Marriage Certificate No. 2012-378 between Rolando P.Pascual, Jr. and Rens Carla Payumo, solemnized by accusedon December 28, .2012 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

''TTT" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-7 between Adolfo JoseGrijalva and Cristina S. Ariola, solemnized by accused onJanuary 4, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"UUU" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-13 between Sherwin L.Hitosis and Carol R. Pulayan, solemnized by accused onJanuary 18, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"VW" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-14 between Mark Gerald C.Tanseco and St. Jures F. Lasala, solemnized by accused onJanuary 18, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

People V. Felicia no Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

12 I P a g e

"WWW" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-15 between Edward P. Lisingand Melanie D. Maranon, solemnized by accused on January18,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"XXX" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-18 between Leomar A. Seyaand Shirlyn A. Sabordo, solemnized by accused on January28,2013 at the 'Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"YYY" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-31 between Roderto C.Santoalla and Eunila C. Velasco, solemnized by accused on,February 82013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"ZZZ" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-34 between Antonio G.Caliso and Haide C. Bondesto, solemnized by accused onFebruary 14, 2013 at the Office of. the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"AAAA" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-35 between Bryan D. Galesand Ellaine Nucup, solemnized by accused on February 15,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"BBBB" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-36 between Richard B.Palomata and Rachel D. Labesores, solemnized by accusedon February 17, 2013 at Brgy. Minuyan, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"CCCC" Mâge Certificate No. 2013-39 between Ricardo B. Abatand Ma. Teresa C. Celestino, solemnized by accused onFebruary 20, 2013 at Brgy. Pinagtulayan, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"DDDD" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-42 between Honey C. Patriaand Josephine H. Florig, solemnized by accused on March1,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"EEEE" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-47 between Darwin S.Guddaran and Lhabdie G. Paje, solemnized by accused onMarch 7, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"FFFF" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-53 between Jose Rey C.Bayking and Marites E. Pales, solemnized by accused onMarch 8, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"GGGG" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-54 between Joey P.Masangkay and lyy Joy P. Belza, solemnized by accused onMarch 8, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"HHHH" Marriage Certificate No. 2013t59 between Randy S.Cardeno and Monisa P. Lumantao, solemnized by accusedon March 22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"ini" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-60 between Ricky B. Moneraand Armida 0. Delefia, solemnized by accused on March 22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"JJJJ" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-61 between Jessie D.Ramirez and Jacqueline P. Del Valle, solemnized by accusedon March 22,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"KKKK" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-65 between Alberto A.Mendoza and Mary Gane A. Alinabo, solemnized byaccused on April 5, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

People V. Feliclano Palad Legaspl, Sr.


DECISION

13 I P a g e

"LLLL" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-71 between Mark Jayson M.Mendoza and Kris R. Punsalan, solemnized by accused onApril 5, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"MMMM" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-72 between Felix D.Longcop, Jr. and Leonora P. Comico, .solemnized byaccused on April 12, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor,Norzagaray, Bulacan

"NNNN" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-73 between Blpidio S. Bauand Mary Arm P. Gaspe, solemnized by accused on April 14,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"OOOO" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-80 between Allan E.Quiricon and Melanie V. Patricio, solemnized by accused onApril 19, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"PPPP" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-90 between Mark Anthony P.Lucas and Lourdes J. Aquino, solemnized by accused onApril 29, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

"QQQQ" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-95 between Ronnel D.Buluran and Zyrlle 0. Cruz, solemnized by accused on May3,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"RRRR" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-103 between Jerwin C. Mariand Maribel B. Jemilla, solemnized by accused on May 8,2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray, Bulacan

"SSSS" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-104 between GilbertGuadayo and Leni DL Lacsina, solemnized by accused onMay 10, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

'*TTTT" Marriage Certificate No. 2013-105 between Reynaldo R.Bello and Rose Ann L. Mandapat, solemnized by accused onMay 10, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan

While Santos had no participation in the execution or preparation ofsaid marriage certificates, she affirmed that the same were all certified by heras true copies of documents pursuant to her duty as custodian of registrablecertificates and documents presented for entry.^^

The prosecution further presented the following corroborativewitnesses from the Municipal Civil Registry of Norzagaray, Bulacan:

(i) Josephine Legaspi Torres;^^

(ii) Ma. Adora Bernabe Marcial;^^

(iii) Emmie Correa Cruz; and

Judicial Affidavit of Paulina L. Santos (Records, Vol. 2, p. 167-172), which was submitted as her directtestimony (TSN dated March 15,2017, p. 17); TSN dated March 15,2017, pp. 18-19

Assistant Registration Officer since January 1,1.993Administrative Aide III since May 2005Assistant Registration Officer since January 1,1992 fl-

People V. Feiiciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

14 I P a g e

(iv) Marivic Marcial Legaspi.^'

Said witnesses were one in recalling in their respective JudicialAffidavits that accused signed marriage certificates in his capacity asMunicipal Mayor from December 13, 2012 to June 14, 2013,^^ and that theyhad been able to witness these acts on the part of accused as they would enterthe Mayor's Office during the solemnization of marriages and renderassistance to him.^^ However, said witnesses did not sign as actual witness inthe marriage certificates.^'^

B. Business and/or Mayor's Permit

In identifying the business and/or mayor's permit supposedly issued bythe accused, the following witnesses were presented:

(a) Filipina De Guzman De Mesa,^^ who was the former Headof Business Permits and Licensing Office ("BPLO") ofNorzagaray, Bulacan;

(b) Manuel R. Marcial,^^ formerly Municipal Treasurer ofNorzagaray, Bulacan; and

(c) Portia H. German^^ ["German"], who is presently theLocal Assessment Operations Officer IV and Head ofBusiness Permits and Licensing Office of Norzagaray,Bulacan.

Said witnesses identified the documents below:

Exhibits Documents

"LL' Mayor's Permit dated February 22, 2013 issued to Wacuman,Inc.

Registration Officer III since February 1994Judicial Affidavit of Josephine Legaspi Torres (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 260-261), which was submitted as her

direct testimony (TSN dated April 18, 2017, p. 23); Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Adora Bemabe Marcial(Records, Vol. 1, pp. 239-240), which was submitted as her direct testimony (TSN dated April 18,2017, p.15); Judicial Affidavit of Emmie Correa Cruz (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 233-234), which was submitted as herdirect testimony (TSN dated April 18,2017, p. 29); Judicial Affidavit of Marivic Marcial Legaspi (Records,Vol. 1, pp. 221-222), which was submitted as her direct testimony (TSN dated April 18,2017, p. 11)

Judicial Affidavit of Josephine Legaspi Torres (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 260-261); Judicial Affidavit of Ma.Adora Bemabe Marcial (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 239-240); Judicial Affidavit of Emmie Correa Cruz (Records,Vol. 1, pp. 233-234); Judicial Affidavit of Marivic Marcial Legaspi (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 221-222)As averred by witness Marivic Marcial Legaspi (TSN dated April 18, 2017, p. 12); As stated by wimess

Ma. Adora Bemabe Marcial (TSN dated April 18, 2017, p. 16); As testified by witness Josephine LegaspiTorres (TSN dated April 18,2017, p. 25); As recalled by witness Emmie Correa Cruz (TSN dated April 18,2017, p. 30)

Written as "Filipina DG De Mesa" in her Judicial Affidavit (Records, Vol. 2, p. 154), which was submittedas her direct testimony (TSN dated March 15,2017, p. 28)

Judicial Affidavit of Manuel R. Marcial (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 120-153), which was adopted in lieu of hisdirect testimony (TSN dated April 18,2017, p. 7)

Judicial Affidavit of Portia H. German (Records,-Vol. 2, pp. 114-115), which was submitted as her directtestimony (TSN dated March 14,2017, p. 42)

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.


DECISION

15 I P a g e

'LL-2' Official Receipt No. 9779076 dated February 22, 2013 issuedto Wacuman, Inc.

As related by German, a Mayor's Permit is issued in triplicate copies.The original copy is with the taxpayer while the duplicate and triplicate copyis retained with the BPLO.

The above documents were authenticated by German who certified thesame as true copies of the duplicate original on file, having custody of thesame.

38

The last witness of the prosecution was Marlene S. Cruz ["MarleneCruz"], formerly the OIC, Municipal Accountant, who presented accused'sService Record where an entry thereon appeared that from "12/12/2012 to06/13/2013," the status of accused's service was that of "Suspended" "as perOMB-L-A-11-033 8-F by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon"and that during the period of accused's suspension, or from December 12,2012 to June 13, 2013, he did not receive his salary.

Following the presentation of its witnesses, the prosecution formallyoffered the following documentary exhibits, in addition to those which werealready identified and/or authenticated by its witnesses, as earlier cited:

Exhibits Documents

"MM"

et seq.

Oath of Office dated December 13, 2012 of Rogelio P.Santos, Jr. as Acting Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan

"NN"

et seq.

Memorandum dated December 12, 2012 of Dir. Dijanaddressed to accused regarding the implementation of theorder of suspension

"OO"

et seq.

Memorandum dated December 12, 2012 of Dir. Dijanaddressed to David and Atty. Cunanan

"PP" Advisory dated December 26, 2012, which informedvarious local officials of the fact of accused's suspensionfrom office and that Vice Mayor Santos is Acting Mayor oftheLGU

«QQ" Certification dated December 26, 2012, which recognizedthe authority of Vice Mayor Santos as Acting Mayor of theLGU

"AAA" Affidavit of Service dated December 14, 2012, in whichAtty. Cunanan and David reported that the suspension orderwas implemented against accused on December 12,2012

"BBB" Memorandum dated December 14,2012, which Dijan filedbefore the Ombudsman averring that the suspension orderhad been served and that the vice mayor would step in asacting mayor during the period of accused's suspension

"CCC" Service Record of accused

"DDD" Municipal Payroll, Office of the Mayor, Norzagaray,Bulacan from December 16, 2012 to June 30, 2013

'8 Ibid.

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 183-184

People V. Fellciano Palad Legaspi, Sr.Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

16 I P a g e

"EEE" Municipal Payroll, Sangguniang Bayan, Norzagaray,Bulacan from December 16,2012 to June 30,2013

«FFF" Mayor's Permit Nos. 2013-699, 2013-178, 2013-745, and2013-466 issued by Acting Mayor Rogelio P. Santos, Jr.

"GGG" Office Order No. 2012-12-01 dated December 18, 2016

signed by Acting Mayor Rogelio P. Santos, Jr.

"HHH" Office Order No. 2013-01 -06 dated January 31,2013 signedby Acting Mayor Rogelio P. Santos, Jr.

"III" Memorandum dated December 3, 2012 of DILG Usec.Austere A. Panadero addressed to Dir. Dijan regarding theimplementation of the order of suspension against accused

"UUUU" Personal Data Sheet of accused

"WW"

et seq.

Office of the Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 1 S.

2006

"WWWW" Letter dated December 13, 2012 of Rivas addressed to Dir.Dijan

"XXXX" Letter dated December 18, 2012 of Dir. Dijan addressed toRivas

"ZZZZ" Complaint-Affidavit dated June 18, 2014 of Alfredo G.Germar against accused

In a Resolution"^® dated June 21, 2017 this Court admitted all theexhibits, from "A" to "ZZZZ," offered by the Prosecution.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

For its part, the defense presented its lone witness, Feliciano PaladLegaspi, Sr. ["accused"], the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray,Bulacan, from 2007 to 2013.

Having submitted two (2) Judicial Affidavits,"^^ accused consistentlydenied having received the order of suspension rendered by the OMB-Luzonas he has no recollection of it."^^ Neither did accused remember having signedsubject marriage certificates"^^ and a mayor's permit"^"^ because he had signeda lot of documents."*^

According to the accused, the certified copies of the marriagecertificates, which documents the prosecution claims the accused signed, arenot what they purport to be. They are merely colored photocopies and they donot even have a seal."^^ In fact, in an effort to prove how such documentscan easily be faked, accused directed his counsel to cause a colored photocopyof an NSO (now PSA) Certificate of Live Birth, and the result was that the

Records, Vol. 4, pp. 132-134Accused submitted two (2) Judicial Affidavits (Records, Vol. 3, pp. 208-209 and Records, Vol. 4, pp. 146-

151) without any objection raised by the prosecutionRecords, Vol. 3, pp. 209Exhibits "A" to "KK"

Exhibit "LL" i 'Records, Vol. 3, pp. 209M at Vol. 4, p. 147 .

1f

People V. Fellclano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 17 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

reproduced document looked like a genuine certified copy of an originaldocument."*^

Accused emphasized that he could not have signed the documentswhich the prosecution witnesses said he did. The marriage certificates onwhich his signature purportedly appeared were mere photocopies and, as such,the marks were faint and unrecognizable. Moreover, accused was serving thepenalty of suspension from office, by virtue of which he could not have signedthe same."^^ In truth, the witnesses presented by the prosecution were not theofficial custodians of the documents they identified. Neither were they'authorized to issue certified copies of records on file.^^ Specifically,prosecution witness Filipina De Guzman De Mesa was not from the BusinessPermit & Licensing Office. Although she may have identified accused'ssignature, she only testified that she was familiar with the same and that shedid not actually see the accused sign Exhibit "LL."^® It was the same witnesswho mistook Exhibit "4" as the same signature signed by the accused whenthe same was just a signature manufactured by accused's counsel during thehearing of the same.

After the presentation of its witnesses, the Defense formally offered thefollowing exhibits:

Exhibits Documents«4» Signature of accused^'"5" Colored photocopy of Certificate of Live Birth^^

In open court. Exhibits "4" and "5" were admitted as part of thetestimony of the accused.^^

With the subsequent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion filed by theprosecution that it was no longer presenting rebuttal evidence, the case wassubmitted for decision.

In the interim, the prosecution filed its Memorandum on February 9,2018. For its part, the defense submitted its Memorandum on February 12,2018.

Exhibit "5"

Records, Vol. 4, p. 147'"W. at 148-15150 Ibid.

5' Id at 167

^Îd at 16655 Vide: Order dated December 6,20175^ Vide: Minute Resolution dated December 18,2017

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 18 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

THE COURTIS RULING

Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code reads:^^

ART. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions. - Anyperson who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer,agent or representative of any department or agency of the PhilippineGovernment or of any foreign government, or who, under the pretense ofofficial position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authorityor public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government,or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall sufferthe penalty ofprision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

There are two offenses punished, under Article 177: (1) usurpation ofauthority or (2) usurpation of official functions. The distinction is thus:usurpation of authority is committed by knowingly and falsely representinghimself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agencyof the Philippine Government or of any foreign government; on the otherhand, usurpation of official functions is committed under pretense of officialposition, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or publicofficer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or anyagency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so.^^

At this instance, it is usurpation of official functions from which thecases are built, the essential elements being:

(a) the offender performs any act pertaining to any personin authority or public officer of the Philippine Government orany foreign government, or any agency thereof, without beinglawfully entitled to do so; and

(b) said act is performed under the pretense of officialposition.^^

A scrutiny of the evidence presented will show that:

Having been suspended from public office bythe Ombudsman for a period of six (6)months and one (1) day, which penalty wasimplemented on December 1^, 2012, accusedwas not lawfully entitled to exercise hispowers as the Municipal Mayor ofNorzagaray beginning December 12, 2012until June 13, 2013. j

An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED Penal Code], Act No. aSVS/ art. 177(1932)^ Ruzol V. Sandiganbcân, G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013; See also Gigantoni v. People, G.R. No.L-74727, June 16, 1988People V. Lidres, G.R. No. L-12495, July 26, 1960


DECISION

What is repugnant to every elective official is to be suspended, if notremoved, from office. In Baylon v. Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau, theSupreme Court even ruminated that suspensionfrom public office is a seriousincident that definitely blemishes a person's record in government service. Itis an injury to one's reputation and honor which produces irreversible effectson one's career and private life. " Indeed, suspension is a qualified expulsion,and whether termed suspension or expulsion, it constitutes either temporaryor permanent disfranchisement. It is an ad interim stoppage or arrest of anofficial power and pay.^^

The power of the Ombudsman to directly remove or suspend an erringpublic official (other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary) fromgovernment service, however, is constitutionally mandated. As the case ofCesa V. Office of the Ombudsmaff^ echoed, the framers of our Constitutionintended to create a stronger and more effective Ombudsman, independentand beyond the reach of political influences and vested with powers that arenot merely persuasive in character. Hence, the lawmakers envisioned theOmbudsman to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive one.

And so it is that the accused, during his term of office as MunicipalMayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan, has come to terms to the constitutional powersof the Ombudsman to suspend him from public office.

The Decision dated August 31, 2012 of the Office of the DeputyOmbudsman for Luzon succinctly imposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding substantial evidenceagainst respondent FELICIANO P. LEGASPI for the charge of Oppressionor Grave Abuse of Authority, it is respectfully recommended that a penaltyof suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day be imposed against himpursuant to Section 10, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended.

The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Interior and LocalGovernment is hereby directed to implement this DECISION immediatelyupon receipt hereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative OrderNo. 7, as amended, in relation to 0MB Memorandum Circular No. 1, Seriesof 2006 dated 11 April 2006, and to promptly inform this Office of theaction taken hereon.

SO DECIDED.

Pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Officeof the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 datedSeptember 15,2003, the decision of tiie Ombudsman imposing the penalty ofsuspension, shall be executed as a matter of course, viz: »

IG.R. No. 150870, December 11,2002Lacson v. Roque, et ai, G.R. No. L-6225, January 10,1953, citing 2 McQuillan's Municipal ISdrporations

[Revised], section 585G.R. No. 166658, April 30,2008


DECISION

Section?. Finality and execution of decision. — Where therespondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where thepenalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not morethan one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shallbe final, executory and imappealable. In all other cases, the decision may beappealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under therequirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decisionor Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. Incase the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins suchappeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspensionand shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did notreceive by reason of the suspension or removal.

A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative

cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the

Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced andproperly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without justcause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove,suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary actionagainst said officer. (Emphasis supplied)

As such, the Decision dated August 31, 2012^^ rendered by the 0MB-Luzon, which suspended accused from public office for six (6) months andone (1) day, should be immediately executory, which implementation thereofcould not be stopped by the sheer filing of a motion for reconsideration.Verily, the effectivity of the same should not be the subject of challenge inthis jurisdiction.

The evidence nonetheless revealed that the Ombudsman Decision dated

August 31,2012 was implemented on December 12,2012 when the same wasserved by DILG officers Darwin David and Atty. Myron C. Cunanan inNorzagaray, Bulacan at the Mayor's Office to HRMO Silangan P. Rivas whoindisputably received instructions from the accused through mobile phone toreceive the suspension order issued by the Ombudsman.^^ Accused may latercavil that he was not personally served a copy of the suspension order byunnecessarily challenging the authority of Silangan Rivas to receive thesuspension order but this is now all water under the bridge.

As pointed out by the Prosecution, the filing of accused's Appearance,Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Recall Undated Indorsement^ beforethe Office of the Ombudsman is a clear acknowledgment on his part that hewas able to receive the suspension order for which reason he sought thereconsideration or recall of the same. The contents of the same can be

appreciated by this Court without requiring the notary public who notarized

Docketed as OMB-L-A-ll-0338-F, penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer III Bayani H.Jacinto, now an Associate Justice of this Court, and recommended for approval by Deputy Ombudsman forLuzon Gerard A. Mosquera (Exhibit "RR")

Exhibit "AAA"

Exhibit "V"

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspi. Sr. 211 P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION ' _

the pleading to certify the same, as claimed by the accused. The pleading isnot the subject of these charges. Besides, the pleading was duly notarized andthus carried with it the presumption of regularity, authenticity, and dueexecution. Accused should be more circumspect in questioning theauthenticity of the public documents brought to Court, especially if it was onesigned by his very own counsel; otherwise, it would ironically render theeffect of questioning his own act as counsel when such pleading has alreadybeen filed and considered in a legal proceeding.

Additionally, and this gains more significance, accused himselfadmitted he had been placed under suspension in his Judicial Affidavitdated July 24, 2017.^"^ He gratuitously used the excuse of his "allegedsuspension" to rationalize that he could not have signed documents such asthe marriage certificates because of his incapacity to do so. He cannot thusbe permitted to deny the fact of his suspension in some instances only toinvoke the same when it appears convenient for him.

Having been suspended from his public office beginning December 12,2012, accused, therefore, could not have validly exercised the powers of theMunicipal Mayor for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day therefrom orfrom December 12, 2012 until June 13,2013.

Despite his penalty ofsuspension from office,accused solemnized marriages and issued amayor's permit, starting December 14, 2012until May 10, 2013, which fell within theduration of his suspension, under thepretense that he could exercise his powers asMunicipal Mayor ofNorzagaray.

The Local Government Code of 1991 empowers municipal mayors tosolemnize marriages and issue business/mayor's permits, among others,within their respective jurisdictions.^^ To quote:

ARTICLE I

The Municipal Mayor

Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions andCompensation. -

(a) The municipal mayor, as the chief executive of the municipalgovernment, shall exercise such powers and performs such duties andfunctions as provided by this Code and other laws.

0-^ Records, Vol. 4, pp. 147-148" Sections 444 (b) (1) (xviii) and (b) (3) (iv) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the LocalGovernment Code of 1991

People V. Feliclano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 22 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purposeof which is the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitantspursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipal mayor shall:

(1) Exercise general supervision and control over all programs,projects, services, and activities of the municipal government, and in thisconnection, shall:

XXX XXX XXX xxx;

(xviii) Solemnize marriages, any provision of law to thecontrary notwithstanding; (Emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx xxx;

(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues,and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, programobjectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code,particularly those resources and revenues programmed for gro-industrialdevelopment ̂ d country-wide growth and progress, and relative thereto,shall:

xxx xxx xxx xxx;

(iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke thesame for any violation of the conditions upon which saidlicenses or permits had been issued, pursuant to law orordinance; (Emphasis supplied).

xxx xxx xxx xxx.

It would then appear that for the period beginning December 14, 2012until May 10, 2013, at a time when accused should have been serving thepenalty of suspension, he defied the same and continued to perform the officeof the Municipal Mayor by solemnizing marriages and issuing a mayor'spermit when he lacked the authority to do so. The documentary evidence atthis instance is overwhelming, as shown by the following:

A. Thirty-six (36) Certificates of Marriage,^^ consisting of PSA-certified copies which were identified by prosecution witness Sir RyanAnthony Amad of the PSA (Exhibits "A" to "KK");^^

B. The same set of thirty-six (36) Certificates of Marriage,^^ this time,certified by prosecution witness Paulina Santos in her capacity as theMunicipal Civil Registrar of Norzagaray, Bulacan (Exhibits "JJJ" to"TTTT:"^^ and

i/Exhibits "A" to "KK"

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 275-281Exhibits "JJJ" to "mT'

Records, Vol. 2, pp. 167-173; TSN dated March 15,2017, pp. 18-19


DECISION .

C. One (1) Mayor's Permit^® issued in favor of Wacuman, Inc., whichwas certified by prosecution witness Portia H. German of the BusinessPermits and Licensing Office of Norzagaray, Bulacan (Exhibits "LL" and"LL-2."''^

Interestingly, accused presented an unconventional approach indisputing the authenticity of Exhibits "A" to "KK" and Exhibits "JJJ" to"TITT" such that fake marriage certificates can easily be fabricated orsubstituted with mere colored photocopies (Exhibit "5"), or that hissignatures, as appearing on the Certificates of Marriage, while faint andunrecognizable, can easily be mistaken from a forged one imitating it (Exhibit"4"). Additionally, accused discredited the process by which the documentsin question were authenticated by prosecution witnesses as they were neitherthe custodians of said records or authorized to issue certified copies of suchdocuments.

Such posture, however, fails to convince.

Our rule on evidence provides the procedure on how to presentdocumentary evidence before the court, as follows: firstly, the documentshould be authenticated and proved in the manner provided in the rules ofcourt; secondly, the document should be identified and marked foridentification; and thirdly, it should be formally offered in evidence to thecourt and shown to the opposing party so that the latter may have anopportunity to object thereon.^^

The authentication and proof of documents are provided in Sections 20to 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Only private documents require proofof their due execution and authenticity before they can be received inevidence. This may require the presentation and examination of witnesses totestify on this fact. When there is no proof as to the authenticity of the writer'ssignature appearing in a private document, such private document may beexcluded. On the other hand, public or notarial documents, or thoseinstruments duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided bylaw, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificateof acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of theinstrument or document involved. There is also no need for proof ofexecution and authenticity with respect to documents the genuineness and dueexecution of which are admitted by the adverse party. These admissions maybe found in the pleadings of the parties or in the case of an actionabledocument which may arise from the failure of the adverse party to specificallydeny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the document in hispleading. After the authentication and proof of the due execution of the

Exhibit "LL"

Records, Vol. 2, p. 114

Chua V. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 88383, February 19, 1992. Citation made to GeiEnterprises, Inc. v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., No. L-18487 August 31,1964,11 SCRA 733, was omitted


DECISION

document, whenever proper, the marking for identification and the formaloffer of such documents as evidence to the court follow.

For this purpose, the Prosecution caused the issuance of subpoenas^^ tothe authorized representative of the Philippine Statistics Authority - LegalService (addressed to Sir Ryan Anthony D. Amad) and the Municipal CivilRegistrar of Norzagaray, Bulacan (addressed to Paulina Santos) toauthenticate Exhibits "A" to "KK" and Exhibits "JJJ" to "XTTT."

It cannot be gainsaid that Exhibits "A" to "KK" and Exhibits "JJJ" to"TTTT" are public documents held in the custody of public officers whoseprimary mandate is to be the repository of registrable certificates anddocuments presented to them for entry.

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10625 {R.A. 10625) otherwise known asthe Philippine Statistical Act of 2013 states that one of the functions of thePSA (formerly known as the National Statistics Office) is to "[s]erve as thecentral statistical authority of the Philippine government on primary datacollection[.]"^^ It is the National Statistician, as the head of the PSA, who hasthe duty to "[p]rovide overall direction in the implementation of the CivilRegistry Law and related issuances and exercise technical supervision overthe local civil registrars as Civil Registrar General[.]"^^ Of the constituentunits comprising the PSA, the Civil Registration Services Office "shall beresponsible for the civil registry document management and archiving, policyadvocacy and research on civil registration matters, court decrees and legalinstruments affecting civil registry documents, administrative correction ofcivil registry documents, outlet and customer services and other civilregistration concerns."

Jurisprudential rulings are consistently clear that an NSO (now PSA)certified document is admissible in evidence without further proof of itsdue execution and genuineness. The case of Iwasawa v. Gangan^êmphasizes:

Hence this petition raising the sole legal issue of whether thetestimony of the NSO records custodian certifying the authenticity and dueexecution of the public documents issued by said office was necessarybefore they could be accorded evidentiary weight.

Petitioner argues that the documentary evidence he presentedare public documents which are considered self-authenticating and

Request for Issuance of Subpoena to Sir Ryan Anthony D. Amad, Legal Service, Philippine StatisticsOffice and Paulina Santos, former Municipal Civil Registrar of Norzagaray, Bulacan; Subpoena DucesTecum/Ad Testificandum issued on February 20,2017; Records, Volume 3, pp. 210-211,216-217An Act Reorganizing the Philippine Statistical System, Repealing for die Purpose Executive Order

Numbered One Hundred Twenty-One, Entitled "Reorganizing and Strengthening the Philippine StatisticalSystem and For Other Purposes" [PHILIPPINE STATISTICAL ACT OF 2013], Republic Act No. 10625, Section6(a)

Philippine Statistical Act of 2013, Section .11 (c)Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Statistical Act of 2013, Rule 9, art. 13 (c) vii

"P7f/e. G.R.No. 204169, September 11,2013 Jf -

h


DECISION

thus it was unnecessary to call the NSO Records Custodian as witness.He cites Article 410 of the Civil Code which provides that books making upthe civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be consideredpublic documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts statedtherein. Moreover, the trial prosecutor himself also admitted the authenticityof said documents.

The OSG, in its Comment, submits that the findings of the RTC arenot in accord with law and established jurisprudence. It contends that bothRepublic Act No. 3753, otherwise known as the Law on Registry of CivilStatus, and the Civil Code elaborated on the character of documents arisingfrom records and entries made by the civil registrar and categoricallydeclared them as public documents. Being public documents, saiddocuments are admissible in evidence even without further proof of theirdue execution and genuineness and consequently, there was no need for thecourt to require petitioner to present the records custodian or officer fromthe NSO to testify on them. The OSG further contends that publicdocuments have probative value since they are prima facie evidence of thefacts stated therein as provided in the above-quoted provision of the CivilCode. Thus, the OSG submits that the public documents presented bypetitioner, considered together, completely establish the facts in issue.

In her letter dated March 19,2013 to this Court, private respondentindicated that she is not against her husband's petition to have their marriagedeclared null and void. She likewise admitted therein that she contracted

marriage with Arambulo on June 20,1994 and contracted a second marriagewith petitioner on November 28,2002. She further admitted that it was dueto poverty and joblessness that she married petitioner without telling thelatter that she was previously married. Private respondent also confirmedthat it was when she foimd out that Arambulo passed away on July 14,2009that she had the guts to confess to petitioner about her previous marriage.Thereafter, she and petitioner have separated.

We grant the petition.

There is no question that the documentary evidence submitted bypetitioner are all public documents. As provided in the Civil Code:

ART. 410. The books making up the civilregister and all documents relating thereto shall beconsidered public documents and shall be prima facieevidence of the facts therein contained.

As public documents, they are admissible in evidence evenwithout further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Thus, theRTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that thepetitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued themto testify on their authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticityand due execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only aresaid documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weightbecause they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted sinceneither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presentedevidence to the contrary. (Emphasis supplied) ^


DECISION ■ - _ _

Relative thereto, in People v. Alvero^^ the Supreme Court merelyrequired the Public Attorney's Office ("FAG") to obtain a certification fromthe NSC that the Certificate of Live Birth of the victim, bearing the number6783336 issued on March 3, 2001 was a genuine copy issued by the saidagency. Later, the FAG submitted a Certificate of Live Birth issued by theNSG, duly marked as "Best Possible Image" and signed by Carmelita N.Ericta, Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the NSG. This wasaccorded probative value by the Supreme Court in determining the date ofbirth indicated therein, which served to establish the age of the accused-appellant at the time of the commission of the offense. Notably, the SupremeCourt is not a trier of facts^^ and the submission of a "Best Possible Image" ofa Certificate of Live Birth emanating from the NSG was enough to accord itprobative value.

Additionally, in Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos^^ the Highest Courtsignificantly pronounced that, "[t]he documents were certified by the NSG,which is the official repository of civil registry records pertaining to the birth,marriage and death of a person. Having been issued by a government agency,the NSG certification is accorded much evidentiary weight and carries with ita presumption of regularity."

Accused, however, confuse an otherwise standard rule onauthentication of documents by requiring: (a) the presentation of an officeorder from the PSA authorizing prosecution witness Sir Ryan Anthony Amadto appear in court and testify; and (b) the document contain an attestation thatit is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case maybe, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.^ ̂

This should fail.

An office order from the Civil Registrar General of the PhilippineStatistics Authority is actually a redundancy. In the issuance of PSA certifiedcopies of marriage certificates marked as Exhibits "A" to "KK," thepresumption of regularity in the issuance thereof applies, since it is the mainfunction of the PSA, as already adverted, to "[s]erve as the central statisticalauthority of the Philippine government on primary data collection[.]"^^ Forwho would otherwise issue a certified copy of the same if not the PSA? Atthis instance, even the authority of prosecution witness Sir Ryan AnthonyAmad to appear in court and testify would be presumed, absent any evidenceto the contrary that he is not at all connected with the PSA, which actuallyappears absurd under the circumstances.

/i" G.R. No. 132364, September 27,2002." Chan V. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 159922, April 28, 20058® A.C. No. $622, July 10,2012

Vide: Memorandum for the Accused, xap. \2-\5Supra note 74; See Equatorial Realty Development Inc. v. Mayfair Theater Inc., G.R. No. 136221, June

25,2001

People V. Feficiano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 27 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION _

On the purported requirement on the attestation and official seal of theofficial concerned, this only applies when the record is not kept in thePhilippines that the certified or attested copy must be accompanied by acertificate ofthe records officer that he or she has the custody of the original.This was the doctrine espoused by the Highest Court in Makati Shangri-laHotel and Resort Inc. v. Harper viz:

The Revised Rules of Court provides that public documents may beevidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of therecord. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correctcopy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. Theattestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there beany, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of suchcourt.

If the record is not kept in the Philippines, the attested copymust be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has thecustody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officerin the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign countryin which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

The documents involved in this case are all kept in Norway. Thesedocuments have been authenticated by the Royal Norwegian Ministry ofForeign Affairs; they bear the official seal of the Ministry and signature ofone, Tanja Sorlie. The documents are accompanied by an Authentication bythe Consul, Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Stockholm,Sweden to the effect that, Tanja Sorlie is duly authorized to legalize officialdocuments for the Ministry.

Exhibits "Q" and "R" are extracts of the register of births of bothJonathan Christopher Harper and the late Christian Fredrik Harper,respectively, wherein the former explicitly declares that JonathanChristopher is the son of Christian Fredrik and Ellen Johanne Harper. Saiddocuments bear the signature of the keeper, Y. Ayse B. Nordal with theofficial seal of the Office of the Registrar of Oslo, and the authentication ofTanja Sorlie of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo, which werefurther authenticated by Philippine Consul Marian Jocelyn R. Tirol. Inaddition, the latter states that said documents are the birth certificates ofJonathan Christopher Harper and Christian Fredrik Harper issued by theRegistrar Office of Oslo, Norway on March 23,2004.

Exhibits "Q-l", on the other hand, is the Marriage Certificate ofChristian Fredrik Harper and Ellen Johanne Harper issued by the vicar ofthe Parish of Ullem while Exhibit "R-l" is the Probate Court Certificate

from the .Oslo Probate Court, naming Ellen Johanne Harper 2ind JonathanChristopher Harper as the heirs of the deceased Christian Fredrik Harper.The documents are certified true translations into English of the transcript

• of the said marriage certificate and the probate court certificate. They werelikewise signed by the authorized government translator of Oslo with the

83 G.R. No. 189998, August 29,2012


DECISION

seal of his office; attested by Tanja Sorlie and further certified by our ownConsul.

In view of the foregoing, WE conclude that plaintiffs-appellees hadsubstantially complied widi the requirements set forth under the rules, x xX.

Indubitably, the Certificates of Marriage presented by the prosecution(Exhibits "A" to "KK"), by themselves, carry great probative weight of thefacts stated therein as these are PSA-certified documents which individuallybore the certification of Lisa Grace S. Bersales, the National Statistician andCivil Registrar General of the PSA. The testimony of prosecution witnessSir Ryan Anthony Amad of the PSA can even be dispensed with as the saidmarriage certificates are public documents, and as such, they are admissiblein evidence without further proof of their due execution and genuineness.

The same can be said with the marriage certificates (Exhibits "JJJ" to"TTTT") certified as true by Municipal Civil Registrar herself, Paulina L.Santos.

This only applies in full Sections 19 and 24, Rule 132 of the RevisedRules on Evidence which provide:

SECTION 19. Classes of documents. — For the piirpose of theirpresentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of thesovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

XXX

SECTION 24. Proof of official record. — The record of publicdocuments referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible forany purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by acopy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or byhis deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in wMch therecord is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by asecretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, orconsular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippinesstationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, andauthenticated by the seal of his office. (Emphasis supplied)

With Exhibits "A" to "KK" and Exhibits "JJJ" to «TTTr' having beencertified by the officers having legal custody of the same to be true copiesthereof on the basis of their records, the authentication process has beencompleted.

/

People V. Feliciano Palad Legaspl, Sr. 29 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION

This is the same with the Mayor's Permit (Exhibit "LL") issued in favorof Wacuman Incorporated, having been authenticated by Portia H. German,Head of the BPLO of Norzagaray, Bulacan, after it has been properlyestablished that said document is in the custody of her office.

The genuineness of the documents presented by the prosecution,therefore, is clear. Consequently, the facts stated therein that accused had actedas solemnizing officer in the celebration of marriages, or in the case of thebusiness permit, the issuing officer, on the dates indicated, has been firmlyestablished. No tide can go against this.

While accused had denied any participation in the issuance of thedocuments in questions, having alluded to the fact that he has no recollectionof such acts because he had signed a lot of documents during his stay in office,accused was not able to sufficiently substantiate and corroborate the veracityof his own claim. As such, accused's statements are tantamount to a baredenial, which is undeserving of credence. As a rule, denial, like alibi, isregarded as the weakest of all defenses and should be generally rejected bycourts for the reason that it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.

A solemnizing officer to a marriage does more than a prescribed ritual.One evokes a celebration of life where, through the authority of thesolemnizing officer, the status of the contracting parties is changed, and thesolemnizing officer becomes equally responsible as a member of society topreserve the matrimonial union. Accused cannot thus downplay the act ofsolemnization of marriage as a mere '"'signing of documents^'' that is easilyrelegated to the realm of forgetfulness. To reiterate, there are thirty-six (36)marriage certificates subject of these charges, each solemnized by theaccused. Thirty-six (36) times, he performed such function but under thecloud of the suspension order. Verily, accused's defense of denial cannot betaken and should not relieve him of his criminal liability.

Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establishthe following: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense wascommitted; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene atthe time of its commission.^^ These, unfortunately, accused failed to prove.

In this case, assuming accused should be believed, he should not havebeen at the Office of the Mayor discharging his duties in the face of hisadministrative penalty of suspension from office. Testimonial evidence putup by prosecution, however, showed that accused was physically present atthe Office of the Mayor during his suspension. Witnesses Josephine LegaspiTorres, Ma. Adora Bemabe Marcial, Emmie Correa Cruz, and MarivicMarcial Legaspi, all employed at the Municipal Civil Registry of NorzagarayBulacan, were one in testifying that they essentially acted as runners assistingthe accused in solemnizing marriages. As such, after entering the Mayor's

People V. Deliola, G.R. No. 200157, August 31,2016People V. Regaspi, G.R. No. 198309, September 7,2015

People V. Fellclano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 30 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECjSION

Office, they would clarify or address concerns, if any, relating to the requiredentries or information in applications (such as marriage licenses), then theywould route the Certificates of Marriages to secure the required signatures,and finally they would bring the signed document to the Civil Registry forregistration.^^ Since accused was actually present in his office, which wascorroborated by the prosecution witnesses, his denial of having solemnizedthe marriages is at best a stretch of the imagination.

At that time, therefore, it is easy to perceive that chaos and confusionpervaded with two (2) persons acting as the Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray,Bulacan.

What is odd is that despite accused's general defense of denial (whichpertained more to his recollection), he has not endeavored to show that thesignatures appearing on each of the marriage certificates and mayor's permitare not his. True, he may have shown a signature look-alike (Exhibit "4") butthis is not in the same context as his general defense of denial. Accused'sExhibit "4," therefore, provides an uncanny slur to the appreciation of thevalidity of a genuine signature which this Court will not linger to.

On the other hand, accused has not shown any apparent materialirregularities (such as superimposed entries, alterations or discrepancies, andthe like) on the face of the marriage certificates, either the PSA-certifiedcopies of the MCR-certified copies, nor is there any such irregularity foundon the certified true copy of the mayor's permit, which would show that saiddocuments had been tampered with or otherwise rendered questionable.

Particularly as to the PSA-certified marriage certificates, a cursoryexamination of the same discloses that: the entries therein are legible; they areprinted on a single sheet of security paper (official paper), which has apredominantly luminescent yellow colored background, which upon closerinspection reveals an intricate pattern of curved lines, with a faint bluish greenaccent towards the center of the document; bears security threads appearingto be randomly scattered red and ̂ een colored hairs; accompanied by animage of the PSA seal at the top left comer; digitally signed by the NationalStatistician and Civil Registrar General; and given a set of bar codes and serialnumbers.

In fact, even an ordinary person not trained as a document examinerwould know that the genuine PSA-certified documents are not as easy to fakeas the accused claims. Using • the authentic certificates as a basis ofcomparison, it is not difficult to distinguish the same from mere coloredphotocopies of certificates, such as the one accused himself made andsubmitted in evidence (Exhibit "5"). The photocopy submitted by accusedlooks drab in appearance being unable to match the symphony of colors of theoriginals, and said photocopies consist of not a single sheet of paper, but two

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 260-261,239-240,233-234,221-222

People V. Feliclano Palad Legaspi, Sr. 311 P a g eCriminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0309

DECISION ' _

sheets glued together back-to-back, as a result of which the document feelsunnecessarily heavy in-hand. Thus, opposite of what the accused claims, merecolored photocopies of PSA-certified documents do not pass muster asgenuine certificates.

Weighed against the evidence presented by the Prosecution, accused's. defense of denial simply crumbles.

Let it be said that in proving these charges, the Prosecution has actuallyoutdone itself by summoning more witnesses than necessary. One after theother, officials®^ from the Office of the Ombudsman came to testify on theimplementation of the suspension order; records custodians^^ from the

/Philippine Statistics Authority and the Municipal Civil Registry ofNorzaragay, Bulacan, were subpoenaed for the authentication of the marriagecertificates and mayor's permit; material eyewitnesses^^ from the MunicipalCivil Registry of Norzaragay, Bulacan, came to Court to testify that theyactually saw the accused sign the marriage certificates; and last but not theleast, the injured party himself. Acting MayorA/îce-Mayor Rogelio P. Santos,Jr., who was caught in the midst of the chaos of performing the functions ofthe mayor who did not want to step down to serve the penalty of suspension.

Indeed, the prosecution evidence has sufficiently shown that accused,unlawfully solemnized thirty-seven (37) marriages and issued one (1) mayor'spermit, under the pretense that he could validly do so as the Municipal Mayor,all of which were accomplished during the period he had been suspended fi'omoffice by the Ombudsman. All of the elements of Usurpation of OfficialFunctions thus obtain in every instance, which warrants his conviction for saidcrime in all of the charges, thirty-eight (38) in all.

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case Nos. SB'16-CRM'0272 to SB-IS-CRM-0309y inclusive, accused Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. is foundGUHjTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Usurpation of OfficialFunctions defined and punishable under Article 177 of the Revised PenalCode,

There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances proven,accused is sentenced to suffer in each case the indeterminate penalty ofTHREE (3) MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS of arresto. mayor in itsmedium and maximum periods as minimum to ONE (1) YEAR, EIGHT (8)MONTHS AND TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prision correccional in itsminimum and medium periods as maximum. ^

7'Director Florida M. Dijan, Darwin David, and Atty. Myron C. Cunanan, as confirmed by HRMO Silangan^

Sir Ryan Anthony Amad from PSA; Paulina L. Santos from the Municipal Civil Registry of Norzagaray^Âu/yBulacan; Portia H. German and Filipina DO De Mesa from the BPLO of Norzagaray, Bulacan, as confirmea (^ fby Municipal Accountant Manuel R. Marcial

Josephine Legaspi Torres, Ma. Adora Bemabe Marcial, Emmie Correa Cruz; and Marivic Marcial Legaspi


DECISION

32 I P a g e

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

MA. THERESA DOLOTUES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAAssociate Justice

Chairperson

:SPESES

[ssociafi Justice

Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Chairperson, Seventh Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

JE-TANFARO

Presiding Justice

Date post:	27-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamminh
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times