Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Stefan Salvator
    1K views2 pages
    Lenlie Lecaroz, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) and his father Francisco, the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, were charged with 13 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. [1] The Sandiganbayan acquitted them, finding no criminal liability. [2] The court ruled that Lenlie's SB term had not expired and he could legally hold over until a successor was appointed. [3] It also found that the appointment of the new KB chair was invalid and there was no evidence of criminal intent or falsification of documents.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lenlie Lecaroz, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) and his father Francisco, the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, were charged with 13 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. [1] The Sandiganbayan acquitted them, finding no criminal liability. [2] The court ruled that Lenlie's SB term had not expired and he could legally hold over until a successor was appointed. [3] It also found that the appointment of the new KB chair was invalid and there was no evidence of criminal intent or falsification of documents.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views2 pages

    Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Stefan Salvator
    Lenlie Lecaroz, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) and his father Francisco, the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, were charged with 13 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. [1] The Sandiganbayan acquitted them, finding no criminal liability. [2] The court ruled that Lenlie's SB term had not expired and he could legally hold over until a successor was appointed. [3] It also found that the appointment of the new KB chair was invalid and there was no evidence of criminal intent or falsification of documents.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    CASE DIGEST ON LECAROZ V.

    SANDIGANBAYAN [305 SCRA 469 (1998)]


    November 10, 2010 Facts: Francisco, Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, and son Lenlie, KB chair and SB member, Lecaroz were charged with 13 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. Alleged that Francisco did not recognize appointment of Red as new KB chair in Matalaba and SB member. Alleged that Leslie continued to receive salary even after his term has expired. Convicted by Sandiganbayan Issue: WON Lecaroz is criminally liable? Held: No. Acquitted 1. SB term: 6 yrs. If sectoral/group rep term is coterminus with sectoral term 2. KB term: till last Sunday, November 1985 or until new officers have qualified 3. Lenlie can hold over. ? Law doesnt say he can or is prevented from doing so. Thus he can stay until succession qualifies ? Duldulao v. ramos: law abhors vacuum in public offices ? Foley v. mcnab: hold over: avoid hiatus in performance of government function ? Barnes v. Holbrook: holdover to prevent public convenience from suffering due to vacancy 4. Red not qualified. Oath administered by Batasang Pambansa member whos not authorized to do so is invalid 5. lack of criminal intent ? appointment not recognized since there were no authenticated copies of appointment papers ? Francisco sought advice of MILG Secretary Pimentel regarding Reds papers: Provincial Memo Circular 86-02: No authentication from President cant assume position; Memo-Circ. 86-17: SB, Splung, Splala: Hold office, be compensated until replaced by president or MILG ? Executive Silence on hold over for 30 yrs not equal to prohibition ? Francisco: well respected. Perhaps he just made erroneous interpretation. Mabutol v Pascual and Cabungcal v. Cordova: misrepresentation is not equal to bad faith, thus not liable ? Falsification: no document statement from offended to narrate facts and facts were not proven wrong or false. ? Conspiracy not proven: should be established separately for crime and must meet same degree of proof

    ? ?

    Strong enough to show community of criminal design Blood relation is not equivalent to conspiracy

    You might also like