G.R. No. 137329 - Torayno Sr. vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137329)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Administrative decision by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dated August 31, 2012, finding Legaspi guilty of oppression/grave abuse of authority and recommending suspension for six months and one day. DILG implementation memorandum and order issued December 2012; the preventive suspension period was December 12, 2012 to June 13, 2013. Criminal Informations (38 counts) were filed by the OSP for violations of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner in a May 11, 2018 Decision (affirmed on September 18, 2018), and the Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed that conviction under Rule 45.

Facts Established Below

Following administrative reassignment of Ervas, she filed an administrative complaint that resulted in suspension of Mayor Legaspi. DILG Region III implemented the OMB decision; DILG representatives served a copy of the suspension order on December 12, 2012 by leaving it with municipal HR officer Silangan Rivas, who accepted it on petitioner’s instruction. The Vice Mayor was furnished the order and sworn in as acting mayor. While under preventive suspension, Legaspi allegedly solemnized 37 marriages (each evidenced by marriage certificates) and issued a mayor’s permit to Wacuman Incorporated, giving rise to 38 criminal Informations for usurpation of official functions.

Criminal Charges and Accusatory Allegations

The 38 Informations charged Legaspi with usurpation of official functions under Article 177 for, while under suspension, performing acts pertaining to the duties of the municipal mayor — specifically solemnizing marriages and issuing a mayor’s permit — allegedly under the pretense of official position and without lawful entitlement, to the prejudice of public interest.

Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

Prosecution exhibits included 37 PSA-certified marriage certificates (duplicate originals and certified true copies) and a certified photocopy of the mayor’s permit issued to Wacuman. Testimony was given by the PSA witness who authenticated the PSA copies, municipal employees who assisted or witnessed the solemnizations, the municipal civil registrar who certified duplicate originals, and municipal records reflecting the suspension (including an entry in petitioner’s service record indicating suspension and non-receipt of salary during the suspension period).

Defense Position and Pleadings

Petitioner denied the allegations, asserted lack of memory of signing the marriage certificates and the mayor’s permit because of voluminous signing of documents, challenged the genuineness and admissibility of the documentary evidence (asserting photocopies without dry seal and lack of comparison with originals), and disputed service of the suspension order. He also suggested possible forgery of his signatures but offered no corroborating evidence.

Sandiganbayan Findings and Sentencing

The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of usurpation of official functions in all counts, emphasizing that the OMB suspension barred him from exercising mayoral powers during the suspension period. The court credited the documentary evidence and witness identifications, rejected the forgery defense as speculative and unsupported, and imposed for each count an indeterminate penalty of three months and eleven days of arresto mayor (minimum) to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional (maximum).

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the principal issue as whether Legaspi was guilty of the 38 counts of usurpation of official functions under Article 177. Petitioner raised primarily factual challenges: the authenticity and admissibility of documentary evidence, alleged defective service of the suspension order, and the contention of forged signatures.

Standard of Review and Scope of Review

The Court reiterated that a Rule 45 petition is limited to pure questions of law; factual sufficiency and credibility determinations by the trial court are generally not revisited. Even so, the Court examined the record and concluded that the conviction was supported by evidence and free from reversible error.

Legal Elements of Article 177 Applied

For the second mode of Article 177 (usurpation of official functions), the prosecution must prove: (1) the offender may be a private person or public officer; (2) the offender performed an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer; (3) the act was performed under pretense of official function; and (4) the offender was not legally entitled to perform the act. The Court found elements (1) and (2) undisputed, and held elements (3) and (4) satisfied because petitioner performed mayoral acts (solemnizations and permit issuance) during a period when he was administratively suspended and therefore precluded from exercising official functions.

Admissibility and Evidentiary Weight of Documentary Proof

The Court analyzed the documentary evidence under the Rules of Court and the Civil Code. Marriage certificates and mayoral permits are public documents or public records (Civil Code Articles 408 and 410; Rule 132, Sec. 19(a)). Public documents, including entries in public records, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. Section 24, Rule 132 (then governing) allows records of public documents kept in the Philippines to be evidenced by copies attested by the officer having legal custody or by official publications. The Court relied on precedents cited in the record (Iwasawa v. Gangan; Patungan, Jr. v. People) to hold that certified duplicates and certified true copies of PSA records and municipal records were admissible and warrant evidentiary weight without presenting the original maker of the records. For the mayor’s permit, the certified photocopy was treated as a proper certified copy when attested by the official custodian (analogous to Quintano v. NLRC regarding certified xerox copies), satisfying Section 7, Rule 130 for public records.

Service of Suspension Order and Estoppel

The Court found service of the suspension order proper under Section 6, Rule 13 (personal service) by leaving a copy with a person having charge of petitioner’s office; Rivas, as Municipal Human Resource Management Officer, qualified to receive it. The petitioner’s counsel’s prior pleading that acknowledged receipt on December 12, 2012 estopped petitioner from contesting service. The Court also noted the inconsistency in petitioner’s positions — claiming both that he could not have signed docu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137329)

Case Caption, Court, and Authoring Justice

G.R. No. 241986; Decision dated August 22, 2022, Second Division of the Supreme Court.
Authored by Justice Lopez, J.
Concurrence noted by Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M., Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ.

Antecedents / Factual Background

Feliciano Palad Legaspi, Sr. (Legaspi) was the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan from 2007 to 2013.
Legaspi reassigned Yolanda C. Ervas (Ervas), Municipal Budget Officer, to the Norzagaray Public Market, prompting Ervas to file an administrative complaint for oppression or grave abuse of authority (OMB-L-A-11-0338-F).
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon rendered a Decision on August 31, 2012 finding substantial evidence for oppression or grave abuse of authority and recommending suspension of Legaspi for six (6) months and one (1) day.
DILG Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero issued a memorandum dated December 3, 2012 instructing the immediate implementation of the OMB Decision; DILG Region III Regional Director Florida M. Dijan issued an Order dated December 12, 2012 directing implementation.
Officer-in-Charge Darwin David and Legal Officer Atty. Myron C. Cunanan were tasked to serve and implement the suspension order.
Municipal Human Resource Management Officer Silangan Rivas received the suspension order on behalf of Legaspi at 3:00 p.m. on December 12, 2012, witnessed by Dr. Jimmy Corpus.
Rivas wrote to DILG the following day seeking to return the suspension order, citing lack of authorization to receive it on behalf of the Mayor; DILG responded that counsel for Legaspi had previously acknowledged receipt in a pleading.
Vice Mayor Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. was furnished a copy of the suspension order and was sworn in as Acting Mayor.
While under preventive suspension from December 12, 2012 to June 13, 2013, Legaspi solemnized 37 marriages and issued a mayor’s permit in favor of Wacuman Incorporated, prompting criminal prosecution.

Administrative Proceedings and Disposition

The OMB Decision (Aug 31, 2012) found Legaspi administratively liable for oppression or grave abuse of authority.
The dispositive portion recommended suspension of six months and one day and directed the Secretary of the DILG to implement the Decision immediately.
DILG implemented the OMB decision by memorandum and order (Dec 3 and Dec 12, 2012 respectively), leading to the preventive suspension.

Criminal Charges / Informations Filed

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed 38 Informations against Legaspi for usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thirty-seven Informations (SB-16-CRM-0272 to 0291 and SB-16-CRM-0293 to 0309) charged Legaspi with solemnizing marriages while under suspension; one Information (SB-16-CRM-0292) charged issuance of Mayor’s Permit No. 2013-316 to Wacuman, Inc. on or about February 22, 2013 while under suspension.
The accusatory language in the Informations alleges willful, unlawful and felonious assumption of mayoral duties under pretense of official position without lawful entitlement, to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
A detailed roster of dates, marriage certificate registry numbers, and contracting parties accompanies the Informations (sample entries include solemnizations on December 14, 2012; December 19, 2012; and dates up to May 10, 2013).

Documentary Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

The prosecution offered 37 Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) certified marriage certificates identified and authenticated by Ryan Anthony D. Amad (Prosecutor/Investigator Designate, Legal Services Division of the PSA) as Exhibits "A" to "KK".
Amad explained that there are four original copies of each marriage certificate with specified custodial distribution (contracting parties; solemnizing officer; Local Civil Registry; PSA repository).
The prosecution also presented certified true copies of duplicate original marriage certificates certified by Paulina L. Santos, Municipal Civil Registrar of Norzagaray, marked as Exhibits "JJJ" to "TTTT".
The mayor’s permit issued to Wacuman was submitted as Exhibit "LL", a certified photocopy, identified and authenticated by Portia H. German (Local Assessment Operations Officer and Head of Business Permits and Licensing Office of Norzagaray).
Service records and entries in Legaspi’s Service Record (confirmed by Marlene S. Cruz, former OIC Municipal Accountant) reflected the suspension period “12/12/2012 to 06/13/2013” and non-receipt of salary during said period.

Witnesses and Their Testimonies

Prosecution witnesses included:
- Ryan Anthony D. Amad (PSA) identifying and explaining the PSA-certified copies (Exhibits "A" to "KK").
- Paulina L. Santos (Municipal Civil Registrar) certifying true copies of duplicate originals (Exhibits "JJJ" to "TTTT") and confirming her role as custodian of registrable certificates.
- Portia H. German identifying and authenticating the mayor’s permit (Exhibit "LL").
- Marlene S. Cruz confirming the service record notation of suspension and salary non-receipt.
- Municipal employees and associates—Josephine Legaspi Torres, Ma. Adora Bernabe Marcial, Emmie Corea Cruz, and Marivic Marcial Legaspi—testified that they assisted or witnessed Legaspi solemnize the marriages during his suspension.
Defense presented Legaspi as the sole witness, who denied recollection of signing the questioned documents and questioned their genuineness.

Defense Contentions

Legaspi denied all allegations and testified that he did not remember signing the marriage certificates and the mayor’s permit during his purported suspension, asserting he signed many documents during his tenure.
He challenged the genuineness of the documentary evidence, arguing the submitted documents were colored photocopies lacking dry seals and were not compared with originals; he suggested possible forgery.
He argued the service of the suspension order by DILG was defective.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings, Findings, and Sentence

On May 11, 2018, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision finding Legaspi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0272 to SB-16-CRM-0309.
The Sandiganbayan sentenced Legaspi in each case to the indeterminate penalty of three (3) months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor (medium and maximum periods as minimum) to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional (minimum and medium periods as maximum).
The Sandiganbayan gave credence to the documentary evidence (copies of marriage certificates and mayor’s permit) and witness identifi