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:

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.
2. For the nth time and on bended knees, Complainants again ask that this
Honorable Office will please issue forthwith the necessary resolution to
enable the issuance of a Preventive Suspension Order by no less than the

1
 Honorable Governor1 directing Respondent GELO VARGAS to cease
from further reporting as Mayor of Aliaga.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Hence, this Memorandum.

ARGUMENTS,
DISQUISITION AND CONFABULATION
IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF A PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST GELO VARGAS

There is propriety in the issuance of a

Preventive Suspension Order in this
case.

6. 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.

1
SEC. 63.(The Local Government Code)  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.

2
 7. 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.”2

8. If we are going to thread the path of the Complaint and the Judicial-
Affidavits, along with the documentary exhibits submitted, there is no
quarrel that the trio of requisites as mentioned above all concur in the
present Administrative Case.

The First Requisite is met: The issues

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

The Second Requisite: The evidence of

guilt is strong.

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
2
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.

3
 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.

Third Requisite: 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

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

4
 case. A SIXTY- DAY PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION 3 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
3
Section 63 Subsection B of the Local Government Code sets the following limits on the allowable period of
preventive suspension, viz:

“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.”

5
 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.

24. 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.

6
25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

7
 humungous powers coupled with limitless resources emanating from the
Office of the Municipal Mayor of Aliaga.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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 4 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.

4
Section 63 Subsection B of the Local Government Code sets the following limits on the allowable period of
preventive suspension, viz:

“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.”

8
32. 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.

33. 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.

34.The clamor for the Preventive Suspension against Respondent was again
raised in the Complainants’ REITERATION filed within days prior to the
second hearing.

35.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.

36.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.

37.Nevertheless, the Complainants refuse to be cowed.

9
 38.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.

39.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.

40.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,

10
 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
11
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

12