G.R. No. 154098 - JOSE C. MIRANDA, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SEC. JOSE D. LINA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DILG, AND FAUSTINO DY, JR. IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF ISABELA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. [29] This Court finds no reason to disagree with the Sandiganbayan. Its conclusions are amply supported by the record. Additionally, the issue of whether petitioner committed fraud upon the government or public funds or property is essentially factual. In a special civil action for certiorari , the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court cannot correct errors of fact or law which do not amount to grave abuse of discretion. [30] The dissenting opinion, however, says there was no fraud. It holds that "it would be fraud of public funds if these public officials just collected their salaries without rendering service to the government. " It further asserts that "fraud upon government" must be read so as to require that malversation of funds was committed. [31] This is a complete volte face from its claim that Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 covers two types of offenses: (1) any offense involving fraud upon the government; and (2) any offense involving public funds or property. [32] What is more, adopting the dissenting opinion's line of reasoning would render superfluous the phrase "fraud upon government" as malversation is subsumed by "any offense involving public funds or property." Third. We are not a bit persuaded by the posture of the petitioner that he reassumed office under an honest belief that he was no longer under preventive suspension. Petitioner's pretense cannot stand scrutiny. Petitioner's own affidavit states: [33] That on November 24, 1997, at that time, (sic) I had already served my single preventive suspension for a total number of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) days more or less counted from July 24, 1997, which far exceeds the allowable period of 60 days as maximum preventive suspension, for a single suspension for a local elective official like me as provided for under the Local Government Code of 1991 (sic) on the same date, November 24, 1997 in good faith and upon the advise (sic) of my lawyers, I notified both the Ombudsman and DILG of my intention to assume my office as the duly elected City Mayor of Santiago City; That earlier on November 24, 1997 I started to reassume my office and functions as City Mayor of Santiago City; surprisingly on the same date, November 24, 1997 I received a memorandum issued by Undersecretary Manuel R. Sanchez of DILG instructing me to cease and desist from my plan to reassume the functions and duties of my office; For less than a week, after November 24, 1997 Vice-Mayor AMELITA NAVARRO relentlessly harassed and threatened me and my constituents with bodily harm using the strong arm of the law thru the brute force of the PNP courteousy (sic) of Undersecretary Manuel R. Sanchez I was constrained to ceased (sic) from performing my duties and functions to avoid any possible unfortunate incident that may happen to me and any c