Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN NG NUEBA ESIHA

Provincial Capitol
Palayan City, Nueva Ecija

DANILO G. VIZCONDE, ET. AL., AC

NO._____________________
Complainants, For Violation of Section
60[C](DISHONESTY, ETC.)
---VERSUS---

THE HONORABLE DAVID ANGELO

R. VARGAS AKA GELO VARGAS,
Municipal Mayor of Aliaga, Nueva
Ecija (C/o Municipal Hall, Aliaga,
Nueva Ecija)
Respondent.

COMPLAINANTS’ MEMORANDUM
(IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR A SIXTY-DAY
SUSPENSION OF GELO VARGAS FROM OFFICE)

COMES NOW, COMPLAINANTS, by and through counsel, and to this

Honorable Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan acting through the Honorable
Committee of the Whole, most respectfully aver:

I. PREFATORY

1. Since the present Complaint was filed, the Complainants have prayed for the
Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan for its appropriate action to pave the
way for the Preventive Suspension of GELO VARGAS. For the nth time and
on bended knees, Complainants again ask that this Honorable Office will
forthwith issues the necessary resolution to enable the issuance of a
Preventive Suspension Order by the Honorable Governor directing
Respondent GELO VARGAS to cease from further reporting as Mayor of
Aliaga.

2. The Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan being the mandated Investigating

Authority can now make its findings to enable the disposition and resolution
 of the long pending motion of Complainants asking for the suspension of
Gelo Vargas.

3. For the investigation of this case to move forward without being derailed
and side-tracked further by pending and unresolved incidents, it behooves
the Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan to now tackle head-on the Motion
for Preventive Suspension.

4. Hence, this Memorandum.

II. ARGUMENTS, DISQUISITION AND CONFABULATION

IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF A PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST GELO VARGAS

5. The propriety of issuing a preventive suspension is not a novel issue before

the Supreme Court. In earlier cases, the high court had several occasions to
state the conditions for the issuance of a preventive suspension against a
municipal mayor.

6. Thus:

“Preventive suspension may be imposed at any

time after the issues are joined, when the evidence
of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the
offense, there is great probability that the
continuance in office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety
and integrity of the records and other evidence.”

7. Under Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension

may be imposed (a) after the issues are joined; (b) when the evidence of
guilt is strong; and (c) given the gravity of the offense, there is great
probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence
 the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence.

The First Requisite is met: The issues

in the present administrative case are
already joined as Respondent already
submitted in his Answer.

The sole objective of a suspension, as we have held, is simply "to prevent

the accused from hampering the normal cause (sic) of the investigation with his
influence and authority over possible witnesses" or to keep him off "the records
and other evidence." It is a means, and no more, to assist prosecutors in firming up
a case, if any, against an erring local official. Under the Local Government Code, it
cannot exceed sixty days, which is to say that it need not be exactly sixty days long
if a shorter period is otherwise sufficient, and which is also to say that it ought to
be lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.

EC. 63. Preventive Suspension. - (a) Preventive suspension may be imposed:

(1) By the President, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a

highly urbanized or an independent component city;
(2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a component
city or municipality; or
(3) By the mayor, if the respondent is an elective official of the barangay.

(b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are
joined, when the evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense,
there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records
and other evidence: Provided, That, any single preventive suspension of local
elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided, further, That in
the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he
cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single
year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first
suspension.cralaw
(c) Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, the suspended elective
official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him, which shall be terminated within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the time he was formally notified of the case against him.
However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect, or
request, other than the appeal duly filed, the duration of such delay shall not be
counted in computing the time of termination of the case.cralaw
(d) Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall be
penalized as abuse of authority.cralaw

8. All it takes is a Resolution from the Honorable Office of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan with the appropriate FALLO thereof stating ,in no uncertain
terms, the Recommendations to the proper Disciplining Authority, the
Honorable Governor, as to whether or not a Sixty-Day Preventive
Suspension Order of Mayor Gelo Vargas is well in order.

9. The only quarrel at this point is whether or not the evidence of the
Complainants submitted before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan mustered and
hurdled the yardstick of evidence deemed as strong evidence to warrant the
Honorable Governor to show the door to Respondent.

10.Everything rests on the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s findings as to whether

or not the Complainants have hurdled the burden of proof which calls for
presentation of strong evidence for Gelo Vargas to be told to cease and
desist from further performing the office and functions of the Municipal
Mayor of Aliaga until the investigation of this case and that of all the other
related cases, if any, are finally and judiciously completed and terminated
and with the supposition that the witnesses, records and evidence remain
unmolested, untrammeled, unfettered and unhampered by Respondent’s
long and ubiquitous shadow by reason of his elective position.

11.The request for Preventive Suspension is de rigueur for the Complainants

who are ordinary senior citizens and mere mortals who are made even more
aware of their vulnerability and the great odds they have to contend with in
their legal battle against one who wields humungous powers coupled with
limitless resources emanating from the Office of the Municipal Mayor of
Aliaga.
12. Respondent’s preventive suspension would even the odds and level the
playing field and it becomes most imperative for obvious reason:
Respondent, by reason of his Office most likely will hamper the
investigation. Complainants received information that Respondent have
already done certain acts which would render nugatory his successful
prosecution of the administrative charges, information which would readily
show that Respondent is hell-bent in using his office and position to
influence the outcome of this Administrative Case.

13.The Complainants thus prayed, by way of affirmative relief incorporated in

the Complaint, that a Preventive Suspension Order be issued by the
Honorable Governor upon the favorable recommendations by the Honorable
Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

14.The Complainants seek for a long preventive suspension period to enable the
speedy and just conclusion of the investigation of the administrative case. A
SIXTY- DAY PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION from his position would most
likely preclude Respondent from exerting undue influence and would greatly
even the odds stacked in favor of the moneyed Respondent.

15.Complainants believe and it is their understanding that additional witnesses

that are reluctant to come out in the open for fear of reprisal will be
emboldened to testify and further additional evidence necessary to the
successful prosecution of the administrative offenses against Respondent
will become readily available.

16.As could be gleaned from the records, Complainants made an oral

manifestation before the Honorable Committee on the Whole when this case
was first heard on Day One.
17.The clamor for the Preventive Suspension against Respondent was again
raised in the Complainants’ REITERATION filed within days prior to the
second hearing.

18.Thus, it came to light in the REITERATION submitted by Complainants

sans counsel {for lack of material time) that the Complainants have been
receiving threats from unknown individuals using cellular phone numbers of
which the Complainants are unfamiliar with. The anonymous callers and
senders of SMS messages have conveniently hid their identities with ease
while continually intimidating and threatening the Complainants in relation
to this case.

19.The details of the threats were duly reported to the Police Officers of Aliaga
and the Certification-Extract of the Blotter Entry gives an account of the
harrowing and horrific ordeal of the Complainants who are being bullied,
threatened and intimidated by unidentified individuals who are obviously
paid and ordered to unravel the sense of equanimity of the Complainants.

20.Nevertheless, the Complainants refuse to be cowed.

21.More than ever, the Complainants are united in their desire TO FIRM UP
AND STRENGHTEN FURTHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
AND RELATED CASES SOME OF WHICH ARE FILED AND
PENDING BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and for the
successful prosecution of Respondent for the very much grave and serious
Administrative Offenses as above-captioned and the corollary Criminal
Offenses to be subsequently instituted.

22.For if there is one thing that stands out in these charges administrative
offense, it is the singular fact that the acts being complained of and against
Respondent are, without doubt, refer to obvert and covert acts that involve
the senseless and unreasonable release and use of humungous amounts of
 public funds from the municipal coffers of Aliaga that are supposed to
better the plights of the people of Aliaga but always subject to the
requirement that such acts are to be carried out always with due obeisance
to the bounds demarcated by law.

23.Here, Respondents cannot simply wriggle himself out of the challenge of a

looming and imminent Preventive Suspension. The significance of the
outcome of the administrative case and the corresponding Preventive
Suspension issued in the interregnum shall ultimately define Respondent’s
tract record as a public servant and as Mayor of Aliaga.

The propriety of issuing a preventive suspension is not a novel issue before

the Supreme Court. In earlier cases, the high court had several occasions to state
the conditions for the issuance of a preventive suspension against a municipal
mayor.

Thus:

Preventive suspension may be imposed at any

time after the issues are joined, when the evidence of
guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense,
there is great probability that the continuance in office
of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose
a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence.

Under Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension

may be imposed (a) after the issues are joined; (b) when the evidence of guilt is
strong; and (c) given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the
continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a
threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence.

The First Requisite is met: The issues

in the present administrative case are
already joined as Respondent already
submitted in his Answer.

The sole objective of a suspension, as we have held, is simply "to prevent

the accused from hampering the normal cause (sic) of the investigation with his
influence and authority over possible witnesses" or to keep him off "the records
and other evidence." It is a means, and no more, to assist prosecutors in firming up
a case, if any, against an erring local official. Under the Local Government Code, it
cannot exceed sixty days, which is to say that it need not be exactly sixty days long
if a shorter period is otherwise sufficient, and which is also to say that it ought to
be lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.

EC. 63. Preventive Suspension. - (a) Preventive suspension may be imposed:

(1) By the President, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a

highly urbanized or an independent component city;
(2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a component
city or municipality; or
(3) By the mayor, if the respondent is an elective official of the barangay.

(b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are
joined, when the evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense,
there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records
and other evidence: Provided, That, any single preventive suspension of local
elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided, further, That in
the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he
cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single
year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first
suspension.cralaw
(c) Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, the suspended elective
official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him, which shall be terminated within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the time he was formally notified of the case against him.
However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect, or
request, other than the appeal duly filed, the duration of such delay shall not be
counted in computing the time of termination of the case.cralaw
(d) Any abuse of the exercise of the power of preventive suspension shall be
penalized as abuse of authority.cralaw