Title
Supreme Court
Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 130872
Decision Date
Mar 25, 1999
A mayor and his son were acquitted of falsification and estafa charges after the Supreme Court ruled they acted in good faith, upheld the holdover doctrine, and found no criminal intent or conspiracy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 130872)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of Parties
    • Francisco M. Lecaroz – Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque.
    • Lenlie Lecaroz – Outgoing Kabataang Barangay (KB) Chairman of Barangay Bagong Silang and SB member.
  • Succession of KB Sectoral Representative
    • In November 1985, Jowil Red elected KB Chairman of Barangay Matalaba, Santa Cruz.
    • Red received a telegram on 2 January 1986 confirming his presidential appointment as SB member; he showed it to Mayor Lecaroz.
    • Despite attending the Sanggunian meeting on 7 January 1986, Red was not seated pending gubernatorial clearance; appointment papers arrived on 23 April 1986.
  • Payroll Entries and Alleged Falsification
    • Mayor Lecaroz prepared and approved 26 quincenal payrolls (16 Jan. 1986–30 Jan. 1987) listing Lenlie as SB member.
    • Lenlie signed the first payroll and authorized another to sign subsequent ones and collect salaries on his behalf.
    • Total unlawful salary drawn: ₱23,675.
  • Criminal Proceedings
    • Red filed complaints leading to 13 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents against both Lecarozes and graft charge against Francisco alone.
    • Sandiganbayan (7 Oct. 1994) convicted both on all 13 counts, sentencing them to 5 years, 11 months, 1 day to 10 years, 1 day imprisonment per count, fines and perpetual disqualification, and ordered restitution.
    • Sandiganbayan acquitted Francisco of graft but found conspiracy to commit estafa.
    • Petitioners moved for reconsideration (denied 1 Oct. 1997) then elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether Jowil Red validly assumed office, thereby ending Lenlie’s KB term.
  • Whether Lenlie could hold over in SB in absence of a qualified successor.
  • Whether petitioners committed estafa through falsification of public documents with requisite criminal intent.
  • Whether conspiracy was sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.