full text cases-election law

8/10/2019 Full Text Cases-election Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-text-cases-election-law 1/79

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 118118 August 14, 1995

ALFREDO GUIEB, petitioner,

vs.

HON. LUIS M. FONTANILLA, ! "s #$%$#t& $s t"'

P('s)!g *u)g' o+ t"' RTC, B($!#" 4, D$gu%$! Ct&,

$!) MANUEL ASUNCION, respondents.

DA-IDE, *R., J.:

Revealed in this case is the parties and the lo!er court

"ud#es unfa$iliarit% !ith or i#norance of theconstitutional provision on the appellate "urisdiction of the

&o$$ission on 'lections (&OM')'&* in election

contests involvin# elective baran#a% officials and of the

decision of this &ourt declarin# unconstitutional a

provision of la! vestin# upon Re#ional Trial &ourts

appellate "urisdiction over the said cases.

+e find it unnecessar% to resolve the issue raised b% the

petitioner, viz . , !hether or not a vote for a candidate for anoffice to !hich he did not see to be elected is valid. +e

shall, instead, deal !ith the validit% of the challen#ed

decision.

The antecedents are unco$plicated and uncontroverted.

The petitioner and the private respondent !ere candidates

for the position of Punong Barangay of -aran#a%

Nilo$bot, Sta. -arbara, Pan#asinan, in the baran#a%

election of Ma% /0. 1fter the canvass of votes in the

said baran#a%, the for$er !as proclai$ed as the !innin#

candidate. The latter then seasonabl% filed an election

protest !ith the Municipal Trial &ourt (MT&* of Sta.

-arbara, Pan#asinan.

On 23 Ma% /0, the MT&, per 4ud#e )ilia &. 'spa5ol,

rendered a decision confir$in# the procla$ation of the

petitioner and dis$issin# the protest of the private

respondent. 1

The private respondent appealed the decision to the

Re#ional Trial &ourt (RT&* of Da#upan &it%. The case

!as assi#ned to -ranch 02 thereof.

In its decision of 6/ 1u#ust /0, the RT&, per

respondent 4ud#e )uis M. Fontanilla, reversed thedecision of the MT&, annulled the procla$ation of the

petitioner, and declared the private respondent as the

!innin# candidate !ith a pluralit% of four votes over the

petitioner.

1fter the petitioners $otion for reconsideration of the

decision !as denied 4 on 27 Nove$ber /0, the private

respondent i$$ediatel% filed a $otion for the issuance of

a !rit of e8ecution.

In its order of 9 Dece$ber /0, 5 the RT& declared that

the $otion should be properl% filed !ith the court of

ori#in and that the decision of 6/ 1u#ust /0 had alread%

beco$e final: it then ordered the re$and of the records of

the case to the MT& of Sta. -arbara, Pan#asinan, for

proper disposition.

On /2 Dece$ber /0, the petitioner filed !ith this &ourt

a $otion for e8tension of ti$e to file a petition for revie!

on certiorari. On 2 Dece$ber /0, he sent b% re#istered$ail his petition, !hich this &ourt received onl% on 27

4anuar% /7. It turned out, ho!ever, that his $otion for

e8tension of ti$e to file a petition had alread% been denied

on 0 4anuar% /7 for his failure to sub$it an affidavit of

service of that $otion. On 9 Februar% /7, he filed a

$otion for the reconsideration of the denial.

Mean!hile, on 2; Dece$ber /0, the private respondent

filed !ith the MT& a $otion for the issuance of a !rit of

e8ecution. /

In its order of / 4anuar% /7, the MT& deferred actionon the said $otion and re<uired the petitioners counsel to

infor$ the court of the status of his petition !ith this

&ourt. 0 For failure of the petitioners counsel to co$pl%

!ith the said order, the court issued an order on 3

Februar% /7 8 #rantin# the issuance of a !rit of

e8ecution. On /6 Februar% /7, ho!ever, the court

received the said counsels &o$pliance dated Februar%

/7 9 !herein he infor$ed the court of the petitioners$otion to reconsider this &ourts resolution den%in# the

$otion for e8tension of ti$e to file his petition.

In the resolution of 9 Februar% /7, this &ourt re<uiredthe respondent to co$$ent on the petition.

On /= Februar% /7, the petitioner filed !ith the MT&

an >r#ent Motion to Sta% and?or Suspend '8ecution. 1

This $otion !as, ho!ever,

denied 11 on the #round that the !rit, havin# been hand@

carried b% the private respondent to the office of the

sheriff, $ust have alread% been i$ple$ented and,

therefore, the $otion to sta% or suspend the sa$e has

beco$e $oot and acade$ic.

On 2; March /7, the sheriff returned the !rit ofe8ecution !ith the infor$ation that in the presence of a

baran#a% kagawad and baran#a% residents, he enforced

the !rit and proclai$ed the private respondent as Punong

Barangay of -aran#a% Nilo$bot, Sta. -arbara,

Pan#asinan. 1

In vie! of the issue involved, !e resolved to #ive due

course to the petition.

The RT& had absolutel% no "urisdiction over the appeal

interposed b% the private respondent fro$ the decision of

the MT&.

>nder para#raph (2*, Section 2, subdivision &, 1rticle IA

of the &onstitution, 1 it is the &OM')'&, and not the

Re#ional Trial &ourts, that has e8clusive "urisdiction over

all contests involvin# elective baran#a% officials decided

b% courts of li$ited "urisdiction, !hich are the

Metropolitan Trial &ourts, Municipal Trial &ourts and

Municipal &ircuit Trial &ourts. 14 In Flores vs.

Commission on Elections, 15 this &ourt struc out as

unconstitutional that portion of Section of R.1. No.



==3 vestin# upon the Re#ional Trial &ourts appellate

"urisdiction over such cases.

The private respondent should have appealed the decision

of the MT& to the &OM')'&: the MT& should not have

#iven due course to the appeal: and the RT& should have

dis$issed outri#ht the appeal for !ant of "urisdiction.

In acceptin# the appeal and decidin# the case on its $erits,

the respondent "ud#e $anifested either i#norance or palpable disre#ard of the aforesaid constitutional provision

and decision. It $ust be noted that a "ud#e is presu$ed to

no! the constitutional li$its of the authorit% or

"urisdiction of his court. Be is called upon to e8hibit $ore

than "ust a cursor% ac<uaintance !ith the la!s: it is

i$perative that he be conversant !ith basic le#al

principles. 1/ &anon 0 of the &anons of 4udicial 'thics

re<uires that a "ud#e should be Cstudious of the principles

of the la!.C Thus, if the respondent "ud#e !ere onl% a!are

of the afore$entioned constitutional provision and

decision, he !ould have cut short the "ourne% of a ver%

si$ple case and put an end to the liti#ation. +hat this&ourt stated in Aducayen vs. Flores 10 deserves reiteration

Nor is this all that has to be said. There is need, it

does see$, to caution ane! "ud#es of inferior

courts, !hich accordin# to the &onstitution refer

to all those outside this Tribunal, to e8ercise

#reater care in the dischar#e of their "udicial

functions. The% are called upon to e8hibit $orethan "ust a cursor% ac<uaintance !ith statutes and

procedural rules. Moreover, !hile it beco$es

hourl% difficult to eep abreast of our ever@

increasin# decisions, a $odicu$ of effort should be e8erted b% the$ not to la# too far behind. Nor

is it too $uch to e8pect that the% betra% a!areness

of !ell@settled and authoritative doctrines. If such

!ere the case, then resort to us !ould be less

fre<uent. That !a% our ti$e could be devoted to

<uestions of #reater si#nificance. Not onl% that,

there !ould be on the part of part% liti#ants less

e8pense and #reater faith in the ad$inistration of

"ustice, if there be a belief on their part that the

occupants of the bench cannot "ustl% be accused of

an apparent deficienc% in their #rasp of le#al

principles. Such an indict$ent unfortunatel%cannot "ust be dis$issed as a $anifestation of

chronic fault@findin#. The situation thus calls for a$ore conscientious and dili#ent approach to the

dischar#e of "udicial functions to avoid the

i$putation that there is on the part of a nu$ber of

"ud#es less than full and ade<uate co$prehension

of the la!.

+B'R'FOR', the instant petition is ER1NT'D. The

challen#ed decision of 6/ 1u#ust /0 of -ranch 02 of

the Re#ional Trial &ourt of Da#upan &it% and its order of

27 Nove$ber /0 den%in# the petitioners $otion forreconsideration are hereb% S'T 1SID' and 1NN>))'D

for lac of "urisdiction on the part of the said court to

entertain and decide the appeal. The decision of 23 Ma%

/0 of the Municipal Trial &ourt of Sta. -arbara,

Pan#asinan, is hereb% declared final for failure of the

private respondent to appeal the sa$e before the proper

foru$, and the !rit of e8ecution to enforce the decision of

the Re#ional Trial &ourt is hereb% S'T 1SID' and

1NN>))'D.

&osts a#ainst the private respondent.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURTManila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 901829 M$(#" 4, 199

DANIEL GARCIA $!) TEODORO O3 HARA,

petitioners,

vs.

ERNESTO DE *ESUS $!) CECILIA DA-ID, $!)THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 901829 M$(#" 4, 199

TOMAS TOBON U, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) *OSE C.

NERA, respondents.

MELENCIO2HERRERA, J.:

The "urisdiction of the &o$$ission on 'lections

(&OM')'&* to issue +rits of Certiorari, Prohibition and

Mandamus in electoral contests involvin# $unicipal and

baran#a% officials is the co$$on <uestion addressed in

these election cases, hence, their consolidation.

The antecedent facts follo!

(/* G.R. o. !!"#! (The 1ntipolo &ase*

In the /9 4anuar% /99 local elections. Petitioners Daniel

E1R&I1 and Teodoro O B1R1 !ere the !innin#

candidates for Ma%or and Vice Ma%or, respectivel%, of

1ntipolo, Rial. The% !ere proclai$ed as such on 22

4anuar% /99.

On / Februar% /99, Private Respondents 'rnesto D'

4'S>S and &ecilia D1VID instituted an election protest



before the Re#ional Trial &ourt of 1ntipolo, Rial, -ranch

32 (RT&*, doceted as 'lection &ase No. ;2@1, !here the

results in t!ent%@five (27* precincts !ere put in issue.

On 27 4ul% /99, the RT& issued an Order directin# the

deliver% to it of all ballot bo8es and other election

paraphernalia used in the 27 protested precincts so that the

ballots could be e8a$ined and the votes recounted.

1fter five (7* ballot bo8es !ere alread% e8a$ined andrevised, Petitioners ne!l%@hired counsel $oved for the

suspension of the hearin# bein# conducted on /9

Septe$ber /99 alle#in# that an error !as co$$itted in

the proceedin#s because there !as no basis for the

openin# of the ballot bo8es. Be contended that the

irre#ularities alle#ed in the election protest do not relate to

the appreciation of ballots and thus, the openin# of those

bo8es !ould not effect the result of the election.

On 2= Septe$ber /99, Petitioners E1R&I1 and O

B1R1 filed before the RT& a CMotion To Dis$iss

Openin# of -allot -o8es 1nd?Or To Dis$iss The ProtestC!hich !as pre$ised on the #round that the alle#ations in

the election protest !ere $erel% self@servin#.

1ctin# on the aforesaid Motion, the RT& issued an Order

dated 29 October /99, a$endin# its Order Dated 27 4ul%

/99, li$itin# the openin# of ballot bo8es to onl% nine (*

precincts out of the 27 protested ones, and li$itin# the

e8a$ination of the ballot bo8es onl% to those ano$alies

specified in the anne8es attached to the election protest b%

Respondents D' 4'S>S and D1VID.

The latter $oved for reconsideration thereof !hich !asdenied b% the RT&, in an Order dated 23 Dece$ber /99.

On 4anuar% /9, Respondents D' 4'S>S and D1VID

filed a Petition for certiorari and $anda$us before the

&OM')'&, doceted as SPR No. 2@9, !hich sou#ht to

nullif% the RT& Order li$itin# the e8a$ination of ballot

bo8es to onl% precincts.

On /6 4anuar% /9, respondent &OM')'& te$poraril%

restrained the proceedin#s before the RT& and set for

hearin# Respondents D1VID and D' 4'S>S application

for Preli$inar% In"unction on 2 4anuar% /9.

Petitioners E1R&I1 and O B1R1, $ean!hile,

re#istered their ob"ection to the assu$ption of "urisdiction

b% the &OM')'& over the Petition for certiorari and

mandamus throu#h their CManifestation +ith Motion To

Dis$iss.C It !as their contention that the &OM')'& !as

not e$po!ered to tae co#niance of Petitions for

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

1fter the parties had filed their respective pleadin#s, the

&OM')'& issued the <uestioned Decision, dated 23

1pril /9, !hich directed the RT& to open all the ballot

bo8es in the 27 protested precincts.

(2* G.R. os. $%"&!'&$ (The Isabela &ase*

1fter the canvass of election returns !as $ade in the sa$e

local elections, Respondent 4ose &. N'GR1 !as proclai$ed Ma%or of Ea$u, Isabela over Petitioner

To$as TO-ON >G, !ith a pluralit% of 29 votes.

Petitioner TO-ON >G filed an election protest before the

Re#ional Trial &ourt of Ila#an, isabela, -ranch /= (RT&*,

doceted as 'lection &ase No. 6=. On 3 4anuar% //,

the RT& declared TO-ON >G the !inner Cb% a $a"orit%

of five (7* votesC over (RT& Decision, p. 20*. On the sa$e

date that said RT& Decision !as pro$ul#ated, N'GR1

filed a CNotice of 1ppeal,C and TO-ON >G, a CMotion for

'8ecution Pendin# 1ppeal,C !ith the latter pleadin# set

for hearin# on /; 4anuar% //.

The da% before, or on 4anuar% //, N'GR1 filed

before the &OM')'& a Petition for Certiorari and?orProhibition, doceted as SPR No. /@/, seein# to en"oin

the RT& fro$ further actin# on TO-ON >Gs aforesaid

CMotion for '8ecution Pendin# 1ppeal.C

On /; 4anuar% //, the RT&, after due hearin#, #ave due

course to N'GR1s appeal, #ranted e8ecution pendin#

appeal statin# the special reasons therefor, and re<uired

TO-ON >G to post a bond in the a$ount of P6;;,;;;.;;.

On the sa$e date, the &OM')'& issued a Te$porar%

Restrainin# Order en"oinin# the RT& fro$ further

proceedin# !ith the case. N'GR1s application for a +rit

of Preli$inar% In"unction !as lie!ise set for hearin# b%the &OM')'& on 20 4anuar% //.

On /7 4anuar% //, N'GR1 filed a second Petition for

Certiorari and?or Prohibition before the &OM')'&,

doceted as SPR No. 2@/. This ti$e, he sou#ht to set

aside the RT& Order, dated /; 4anuar% //, !hich

#ranted TO-ON >Gs CMotion for '8ecution Pendin#

1ppeal.

The &OM')'& too co#niance of both &ertiorari

Petitions and, on /7 Februar% //, issued the <uestioned

Resolution (in SPR Nos. /@/ H 2@/*, declarin# as nulland void and +rit of '8ecution Pendin# 1ppeal #ranted b% the RT&, pre$ised on Rule 67, Section /9, of its Rules

of Procedure, and en"oinin# TO-ON >G fro$ Cassu$in#

the office and perfor$in# in !hatever and ho!ever

$anner the duties of Ma%or of Ea$u, Isabela, until thefinal disposition of the appeal.

Principall%, Petitioners E1R&I1 and OB1R1 in E.R.

No. 99/7=, and Petitioner TO-ON >G in E.R. Nos.

3/;9@;, <uestion the arro#ation unto itself b% the&OM')'& of the po!er of issue +rits of Certiorari,

Prohibition and Mandamus. The% invoe the previousrulin# of this &ourt in Pimentel v. C(ME)EC (E.R. Nos.

7679/@96, / Dece$ber /9;, /;/ S&R1 3=*, !hich

$aintained that no such "urisdiction !as ever conferred on

respondent &o$$ission b% the /36 &onstitution or b%

la!.

On the other hand, all Respondents in the 1ntipolo &ase(E.R. No. 99/97* and in the Isabela &ase (E.R. Nos.

3/;9@;* contend that since the /93 &onstitution no!

e8pressl% e$po!ers the &OM')'& to e8ercise Cappellate

"urisdiction over all contests involvin# elective $unicipal

officials decided b% trial courts of #eneral "urisdictionC(Section 22J, 1rticle IA@&*, and to Cpro$ul#ate its o!n

rules concernin# pleadin#s and practice before itC

provided the% do Cnot di$inish, increase, or $odif%

substantive ri#htsC (Section =, 1rticle IA@1 and Section 6,

1rticle IA@&*, the &OM')'& validl% pro$ul#ated the

rule !hich e$po!ers it to issue the special +rits.

1s a subsidiar% issue, Petitioners E1R&I1 and OB1R1

$aintain that the &OM')'& denied the$ due process in

the 1ntipolo &ase (E.R. No. 99/79* !hen it rendered its



<uestioned Decision !ithout benefit of hearin#. For his

part, TO-ON >G, in the Isabela &ase (E.R. Nos. 3/;9@

;*, raises the <uestion of !hether or not Re#ional Trial

&ourts have the authorit% to order e8ecution pendin#

appeal in election contests decided b% it. Bis vie! is that

said &ourts possess that authorit%. Respondent N'GR1

contends other!ise.

In the absence of an% specific confer$ent upon the

&OM')'&, either b% the &onstitution or b% le#islativefiat, the &OM')'& is bereft of "urisdiction to issue said

+rits.

It is the &OM')'& alone, invoin# its &onstitutionall%

invested appellate "urisdiction and rule@$ain# po!er, that

arro#ated unto itself the authorit% to issue +rits of

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in Rule 29, Section

/, of its Rules of Procedure, thus

S'&TION /. +hen available. K In aid of

its appellate "urisdiction in election cases

before courts of #eneral "urisdictionrelatin# to the elections, returns and

<ualifications of elective $unicipal

officials, and before courts of li$ited

"urisdiction in cases relatin# to the

elections, returns and <ualifications of

elective baran#a% officials, the

&o$$ission en *anc $a% hear and decide

petitions for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus.C

Bo!ever, neither the appellate "urisdiction of the

&OM')'& nor its rule@$ain# po!er "ustifies such self@confer$ent of authorit%.

4urisdiction, or the le#al po!er to hear and deter$ine a

cause or causes of action, $ust e8ist as a $atter of la!. It

$a% be classified into ori#inal "urisdiction and appellate

"urisdiction. Ori#inal "urisdiction is the po!er of the &ourt

to tae "udicial co#niance of a case instituted for "udicial

action for the first ti$e under conditions provided b% la!.

1ppellate "urisdiction is the authorit% of a &ourt hi#her in

ran to re@e8a$ine the final order or "ud#$ent of a lo!er&ourt !hich tried the case no! elevated for "udicial

revie! (Re$edial )a! &o$pendiu$, Re#alado, FlorenD., Fifth Revised 'dition, Vol. I, p. 6*. Since the t!o

"urisdiction are e8clusive of each other, each $ust be

e8pressl% conferred b% la!. One does not flo! fro$, nor is

inferred fro$, the other.

In the Philippine settin#, the authorit% to issue +rits of

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves thee8ercise of ori#inal "urisdiction. Thus, such authorit% has

al!a%s been e8pressl% conferred, either b% the

&onstitution or b% la!. 1s a $ater of fact, the !ell@settled

rule is that "urisdiction is conferred onl% b% the

&onstitution or b% la! (Orosa, 4r. v. &ourt of 1ppeals,E.R. No. )@22099, 2= October /=3, 2/ S&R1 7/*. It is

never derived b% i$plication. Indeed, C(!*hile the po!er

to issue the !rit of certiorari is in so$e instance conferred

on all courts b% constitutional or statutor% provisions,

ordinaril%, the particular courts !hich have such po!er are

e+ressly designated C (4. 1<uinos &oncurrin# Opinion in

Pi$entel, supra, citin# /0 &.4.S. 2;2: >nderscorin# ours*.

Thus, our &ourts e8ercise the po!er to issue +rits of

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus b% virtue of

e8press constitutional #rant or le#islative enact$ent. To

enu$erate

(/* Section 7/J, 1rticle VII of the /93

&onstitution conferred upon this &ourt

such "urisdiction:

(2* Section /J of -atas Pa$bansa -l#.

/2, or the 4udiciar% Reor#aniation 1ct

of /9;, to the &ourt of 1ppeals (thenInter$ediate 1ppellate &ourt*:

(6* Section 2//J of the said 1ct, to

Re#ional Trial &ourts:

(0* Section 7/J of Republic 1ct No.

=360, or the Or#anic 1ct for the

1utono$ous Re#ion in Musli$

Mindanao, to the ne!l% created Shariah

1ppellate &ourt: and

(7* 1rticle /06eJ, &hapter I, Title I, -oo IV of Presidential Decree No. /;96, or the

&ode of Musli$ Personal )a!, to Sharia

District &ourts.

Si#nificantl%, !hat the &onstitution #ranted the

&OM')'& !as appellate "urisdiction. The &onstitution

$aes no $ention of an% po!er #iven the &OM')'& to

e8ercise ori#inal "urisdiction over Petitioners for

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlie in the case

of the Supre$e &ourt !hich !as specificall% conferred

such authorit% (1rt. VIII, Sec. 7/J*. The i$$utable

doctrine bein# that "urisdiction is fi8ed b% la!, the po!erto issue such +rits can not be i$plied fro$ the $eree8istence of appellate "urisdiction. 4ust as i$plied repeal

of statutes are fro!ned upon, so also should the #rant of

ori#inal "urisdiction b% $ere i$plication to a <uasi@

"udicial bod% tabooed. If appellate "urisdiction has to be

statutoril% #ranted, ho! $uch $ore the ori#inal

"urisdiction to issue the prero#ative +ritsL

1pparentl%, the &OM')'& Rule on its certiorari

"urisdiction is patterned after the previous authoriation to

the &ourt of 1ppeals to issue +rits of Certiorari,

Prohibition and Mandamus in aid of its appellate "urisdiction. That authorit%, ho!ever, !as not inherent in

the &ourt of 1ppeals but !as specificall% conferred b%

Section 6; of the 4udiciar% 1ct (Rep. 1ct No. 2=* and

Section (/* of the 4udiciar% Reor#aniation 1ct of /9;

(-.P. -l#. /2*. It does not follo! that "ust because the

/93 &onstitution, !ithout $ore, it can issue such +rits in

aid of that appellate "urisdiction.

The vie! that the sub"ect +rits are but co$$on@la! +rits

not o!in# their e8istence to an% constitutional provision

or statutor% enact$ent $a% be true in forei#n "urisdictions

but not in the Philippine "udicial s%ste$ !here such +ritsare specificall% characteried as ori#inal Special &ivil

1ctions (Rule =7, Rules of court*. It is ori#inal

"urisdiction, that is e8ercised in the issuance of said +rits.

1nd althou#h there $a% be authorities in other

"urisdictions !hich $aintain that such +rits are inherentin the po!er of hi#her &ourts e8ercisin# appellate

"urisdiction, the sa$e refers to "udicial tribunals, !hich the

&OM')'& is not. +hat this a#enc% e8ercises are

ad$inistrative and <uasi@"udicial po!ers (Filipinas



as the parties !ere #iven the opportunit% to be heard

before "ud#$ent !as rendered, the de$ands of due

process are sufficientl% $et ()indo v. &OM')'&, E,R.

No. 7;/=, // "anuar% //, /0 S&R1 27*.

+e no! co$e to the subsidiar% issue raised b% Petitioner

TO-ON >G in E.R. Nos. 3/;9@; of !hether or not

Re#ional Trial &ourts can order e8ecution pendin# appeal

in election contests decided b% it involvin# elective

$unicipal officials.

The &OM')'& Rules of procedure !ould also deprive

Re#ional Trial &ourts of the prero#ative to order e8ecution

pendin# appeal in Rule 67, section /9, readin#

S'&. /9. Decision on the contest. K The

&ourt shall decide the election contest

!ithin thirt% (6;* da%s fro$ the date it is

sub$itted for decision, but in ever% case

!ithin si8 (=* $onths after its filin# and

shall declare !ho a$on# the parties has

been elected, or in a proper case, thatnone of the$ has been le#all% elected, or

in proper case, that none of the$ has been

le#all% elected. /e arty wo in te

0udgment as *een declared elected sall

ave te rigt to assume te o11ice as

soon as te 0udgment *ecomes 1inal.

(underscorin# ours*.

The &OM')'&, ho!ever, is bereft of authorit% to deprive

Re#ional Trial &ourts of the co$petence to order

e8ecution pendin# appeal. For one, it is essentiall% a

"udicial prero#ative. For another, it is a pronounce$ent ofthe &OM')'& alone in its procedural rules, !ithout benefit of statute, unlie in the past !here it !as

specificall% provided for in section /33 of the Revised

'lection &ode (Rep. 1ct No. as a$ended* / and Section

220 of the 'lection code of /3/ (Rep. 1ct No. =699* 2fro$ !hence the rule !as lifted verbati$. Si#nificantl%,

ho!ever, !hen the 'lection &ode of /3/ (Rep. 1ct No.

=699* !as superseded b% the /39 'lection &ode (Pres.

decree No. /2=*, said clause !as deleted therefro$. It is

lie!ise absent in the 'lectoral Refor$s )a! of /93

(Rep. 1ct No. ==0=* and in the O$nibus 'lection &ode

(-.P. -l#.99/*, !hich !ere the election la!s in effectdurin# the /9 "anuar% /99 local elections.

There is no e8press provision of la!, therefore,

disauthoriin# e8ecutions pendin# appeal, and the

&OM')'&, in its procedural rules alone, should not be

allo!ed to divest Re#ional Trial &ourts of that authorit%. It

deprives the prevailin# part% of a substantive ri#ht to

$ove for such relief contrar% to the constitutional $andate

that those Rules can not di$inish nor $odif% substantive

ri#hts (Section =, 1rticles IA@1, /93 &onstitution*.

1t an% rate, the clause Cas soon as the "ud#$ent beco$esfinalC had alread% been interpreted b% this &ourt as a

#eneral one definin# the effect of a final "ud#$ent on the

ri#ht of the !inner to assu$e the contested office as the

ri#ht of the !inner to assu$e the contested office as the

de 0ure elected official to serve up to the end of the ter$

(Eahol v. hon. Riodi<ue, E.R. No. )@0;0/7, 23 4une /37,

=0 S&R1 00 at p. 7/0*. It does not disallo! Re#ional

Trial &ourts fro$ orderin# e8ecution pendin# appeal.

1d$ittedl%, unlie in Section 2/9 of the 'lection &ode of

/3/, applied in Gaol v. 2on. Riodi3ue, sura, there is

no e8press provision in the 'lectoral Refor$s )a! (Rep.

1ct No. ==0=* nor in the O$nibus 'lection &ode (-.P.

-l#. 99/* that !ould allo! e8ecution pendin# appeal. Said

Section 2/9 reads

Sec. 2/9. 1ssu$ption of office

not!ithstandin# an election contest. K

'ver% candidate for a provincial, cit%,$unicipal or $unicipal district office dul%

proclai$ed elected b% the correspondin#

board of canvassers shall assu$e office,

not!ithstandin# the pendenc% in the

courts of an% contest a#ainst his election,

!ithout pre"udice to the final decisionthereon and applicable provisions of the

Rules of court re#ardin# e8ecution of

"ud#$ent pendin# appeal.

Nonetheless, Section 2, Rule 6 of the Rules of &ourt,

!hich allo!s Re#ional Trial &ourts to order e8ecutions pendin# appeal upon #ood reasons stated in a special

order, $a% be $ade to appl% b% analo#% or suppletoril% to

election contests decided b% the$ (Rule 06, Section /,&OM')'& Rules of Procedure*. Indeed, as $uch

reco#nition should be #iven to the decision of "udicial

bod% as a basis for the ri#ht to assu$e office as that #iven

b% la! to the procla$ation $ade b% the -oard of

&anvassers. In the !ords of Gaol v. 2on. Riodi3ue,

sura4

... +h% should the procla$ation b% the

board of canvassers suffice as a basis ofthe ri#ht to assu$e office, sub"ect to

future conti#encies attendant to a protest,

and not the decision of a court of "usticeL

Indeed, !hen it is considered that the

board of canvassers is co$posed of

persons !ho are less technicall% prepared

to $ae an accurate appreciation of the

ballots, apart fro$ their bein# $ore apt to

%ield to e8ternal considerations, and that

the board $ust act su$$aril%, practicall%

racin# a#ainst ti$e, !hile on the other

hand, the "ud#e has the benefit of all theevidence the parties can offer and of

ad$ittedl% better technical preparationand bac#round, apart fro$ his bein#

allo!ed a$ple ti$e for conscientious

stud% and $ature deliberation before

renderin# "ud#$ent, one cannot but

perceive the !isdo$ of allo!in# the

i$$ediate e8ecution of decisions in

election cases adverse to the protestees,

not!ithstandin# the perfection and

pendenc% of appeals therefro$, as lon# as

there are, in the sound discretion of thecourt, #ood reasons therefor.

To construe other!ise !ould be to brin# bac the #host of

the C#rab@the@procla$ation@prolon#@the@protestC

techni<ues so often resorted to b% devious politicians in

the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold to an

elective office. This !ould, as a conse<uence, la% to !aste

the !ill of the electorate (See 'strada v. Sto. Do$in#o,

E.R. No. )@6;73;, 2 4ul% /=: )a#u$ba% v.

&OM')'&, E.R. No. )@27000, 6/ "anuar% /==, /=

S&R1 /37*.



In retrospect, #ood reasons did, in fact, e8ist !hich

"ustified the RT& Order dated /; 4anuar% //, #rantin#

e8ecution pendin# appeal. 1$on# others $entioned b% the

RT& are the co$bined considerations of the near

e8piration of the ter$ of office, public interest, the

pendenc% of the election contest for $ore than three (6*

%ears, and that TO-ON >G had filed a bond in thea$ount of P6;;,;;;.;; (Rollo, p. 0=*.

To recapitulate, in the absence of an e8press&onstitutional or le#islative authoriation, the &OM')'&

is devoid of co$petence to issue special +rits si$pl% on

the basis of its appellate "urisdiction and its rule@$ain#

po!er. Neither is the &OM')'& e$po!ered, throu#h its

procedural rules alone, to deprive Re#ional Trial &ourts of

authorit%, in the e8ercise of their discretion, to ordere8ecution pendin# appeal upon #ood reasons stated in

special order.

It $ust be noted that the ter$ of office of the contested

positions is nearin# e8piration. There is need, then for this

Decision to be i$$ediatel% e8ecutor%.

+B'R'FOR', these consolidated Petitions for

Certiorari and prohibition are hereb% ER1NT'D.

In E.R. No. 99/79, the &OM')'& Decision, dated 23

1pril /9, in SPR No 2@9 is hereb% S'T 1SID', and

the Order of the Re#ional Trial &ourt of 1ntipolo, Rial,

-ranch 32, dated 29 October /99 in 'lection &ase No.

;2@1, li$itin# the openin# of ballot bo8es to onl% nine (*

precincts, is hereb% R'INST1T'D, the case to proceed

until final disposition.

In E.R. Nos. 3/;9@;, the &OM')'& Resolution dated

/7 Februar% //, in SPR Nos. /@/ and 2@/, is lie!ise

S'T 1SID', and the Order of the Re#ional Trial &ourt of

Ila#an, Isabela, -ranch /=, dated /; 4anuar% //, in

'lection &ase No. 6= #rantin# e8ecution pendin# appeal,

is hereb% R'INST1T'D, !ithout pre"udice to the

disposition of respondent 4ose Ne%ras appeal before the

&OM')'&.

This Decision shall be i$$ediatel% e8ecutor%.

No costs.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1188/1 A%( 0, 1995

EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, petitioner,

vs.

ROSITA C. CUMBA $!) t"' COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, respondents.

DA-IDE, *R., J.:

This special civil action of certiorari under Rule =7 of the

Rules of &ourt revives the issue of !hether or not the

&o$$ission on 'lections (&OM')'&* has "urisdictionover petitions for, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus

in election cases !here it has e8clusive appellate

"urisdiction In the split decision of 0 March /2 in theconsolidated cases of Garcia vs. -e 5esus and 6y vs.

Commission on Elections, 1 this &ourt ruled in the ne#ative

because of the absence of an% specific confer$ent upon

the &OM')'&, either b% the constitution or b% le#islative

fiat, of "urisdiction to issue such e8traordinar% !rits. It

held that "urisdiction or the le#al po!er to hear and

deter$ine a cause or causes of action, $ust e8ist as a

$atter of la!, !hether the "urisdiction is ori#inal or

appellate, and since these t!o classes of "ursdiction are

e8clusive of each other, each $ust e8pressl% conferred b%

la!. One does not flo!, nor is inferred, fro$ the other.

This &ourt proceeded to state that in the Philippine settin#,the authorit% to issue the aforesaid !rits involves the

e8ercise of ori#inal "urisdiction !hich has al!a%s been

e8pressl% conferred either b% &onstitution or b% la!. It isnever derived b% i$plication. 1lthou#h the &onstitution

#rants the &OM')'& appellate "urisdiction, it does not

#rant it an% po!er to e8ercise ori#inal "urisdiction over

petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus unlie

the case of this &ourt !hich is specificall% conferred !ith

such authorit% in Section 7(/* of 1rticle VIII. It also

pointed out that the doctrines laid do!n in Pimentel vs.

C(ME)EC K that neither the &onstitution nor an% la!

has conferred "urisdiction on the &OM')'& to issue such!rits K still finds application under the /93

&onstitution.

In the decision of 2 4ul% /2 in 7eloria vs. Commission

on Elections, this &ourt reiterated the Earcia and >%

doctrine.

In the challen#ed resolution at bench, the respondent

&OM')'& adhered to the affir$ative vie! of the issue,

citin# as authorit% therefore its o!n decision of 2 4ul%

/6 in -ictado vs. Cosico and the last para#raph of

Section 7; of -. P. -l#. =3, !hich reads

Sec. 7;. -e1inition. K

888 888 888

The &o$$ission is hereb% vested !ith

e8clusive authorit% to hear and decide

petitions for certiorari prohibition, and

mandamus involvin# election cases.

The petitioner herein pleads that this resolution be set

aside and nullified for havin# been issued !ith #raveabuse of discretion a$ountin# to lac or e8cess of

"urisdiction. Be contends that !hile the &OM')'&s

position is inherentl% co$pellin#, it deserves scant

consideration in vie! of Earcia and >% and Veloria and

the nature and purpose of -. P. -l#. =3 !hich !as to#overn solel% the -atasan# Pa$bansa election of /0 Ma%

/90: hence, it !as a te$porar% statute !hich self@

destructed after such election.



The antecedent facts that led to the filin# of this action are

unco$plicated and undisputed.

In the s%nchronied elections of // Ma% /2, the

petitioner and private respondent Rosita &u$ba !ere

candidates for the position of Ma%or in the $unicipalit% of

Ma#allanes, 1#usan del Norte. The latter !as proclai$ed

the !innin# candidate, !ith a $ar#in of onl% t!ent%@t!o

votes over the for$er.

>n!illin# to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election

protest !ith the Re#ional Trial &ourt (RT&* of 1#usan del

Norte, !hich !as assi#ned to -ranch 2 thereof in -utuan

&it%.

On 2 4une /0, the trial court, per 4ud#e Rosario F.

Dabalos, found the petitioner to have !on !ith a $ar#in

of si8 votes over the private respondent and rendered

"ud#e$ent in favor of the petitioner as follo!s

+B'R'FOR', in vie! of the fore#oin#

results, the court hereb% declares the protestant as havin# !on the $a%oralt%

election and as dul% elected Ma%or of the

Municipalit% of Ma#allanes, 1#usan del

Norte in the local election held on Ma%

//, /2, the protestant havin# obtained

si8 (=* votes $ore than that of the

protestees votes.

&opies of the decision !ere sent to and received b% the

petitioner and the private respondent on / 4ul% /0.

On 0 4ul% /0, the private respondent appealed thedecision to the &OM')'& b% filin# her notice of appealand pa%in# the appellate docet fees.

On 9 4ul% /0, the trial court #ave due course to the

appeal.

On /2 4ul% /0, the petitioner filed !ith the trial court a

$otion for e8ecution pendin# appeal, !hich the private

respondent opposed on 22 4ul% /0.

On 6 1u#ust /0, the trial court #ranted the petitioners

$otion for e8ecution pendin# appeal. The correspondin#

!rit of e8ecution !as forth!ith issued. Thereafter, the

private respondent filed a $otion for a reconsideration of

the order of e8ecution and the sheriff held in abe%ance the

i$ple$entation of the !rit. This $otion !as denied on 7

1u#ust /0.

The private respondent then filed !ith the respondent

&OM')'& a petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid

other of the trial court #rantin# the $otion for e8ecution

pendin# appeal and the !rit of e8ecution. The petition !as

doceted as SPR No. /@0.

On Februar% /7, the &OM')'& pro$ul#ated its

resolution #rantin# the petition. 4 The dispositive portion

thereof reads as follo!s

+B'R'FOR', pre$ises considered, the

&o$$ission R'SO)V'S that is sicJ has


petitions for certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus in election cases as authoried

b% la!, and therefore, assu$es

"urisdiction of the instant petition for

certiorari !hich is hereb% ER1NT'D.

The Order of the court a 3uo of 1u#ust 6,

/0 is hereb% declared N>)) and VOID

and the +rit of '8ecution issued on

1u#ust 0, /0 )IFT'D.

1ccordin#l%, petitioner Rosita &u$ba is

ordered restored to her position .as

Municipalit% Ma%or of Ma#allanes,1#usan del Norte, pendin# resolution of

the appeal before this &o$$ission in the

case of Rela$pa#os vs. &u$ba in '1&

No. /;9@0.

In upholdin# its "urisdiction in certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus cases, the respondent &OM')'& $aintains

that there is a special la! #rantin# it such "urisdiction,

viz., Section 7; of -.P. -l#. =3, !hich re$ains in full

force as it !as not e8pressl% repealed b% the O$nibus

'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/*,and that it is not e8actl%

correct that this la! self@destructed after the Ma% /90election. It further reasoned out that in the perfor$ance of

its "udicial functions, the &OM')'&, is the $ost lo#ical

bod% to issue the e8traordinar% !rits of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election cases !here it has

appellate "urisdiction. It ratiocinated as follo!s

It is therefore clear that if there is a la!

!hich specificall% confers "urisdiction toissue the prero#ative +rits, then the

&o$$ission has "urisdiction.

Such a la! e8ists. Section 7;, -.P. -l#.=3 is that la!.

-.P. -l#. =3, approved on March /0,

/90, is entitled C1N 1&T TO EOV'RN

TB' ')'&TION OF M'M-'RS OF

TB' -1T1S1NE P1M-1NS1 ON

M1G /0, /90 1ND TB' S')'&TION

OF S'&TOR1) R'PR'S'NT1TIV'S

TB'R'1FT'R, 1PPROPRI1TINE

F>NDS TB'R'FOR 1ND FOR OTB'R P>RPOS'S. Section 7; provides

Sec. 7;. Definition.K

Pre@procla$ation

controvers% refers to an%<uestion pertainin# to or

affectin# the proceedin#s

of the -oard of

&anvassers !hich $a% beraised b% an% candidate,

political part% or coalition

of political parties before

the board or directl% !ith

the &o$$ission.

The &o$$ission

'lections shall be the sole

"ud#e and shall have

e8clusive "urisdiction

over all pre@procla$ation

controversies.

The &o$$ission ishereb% vested !ith



e+clusive autority to

hear and decide petitions

for certiorari, prohibition

and mandamus involving

election cases.('$phasis

supplied*.

+e have debated a$on# ourselves

!hether Section 7;, -.P. -l#. =3, has

been repealed. +e have co$e to theconclusion that it has not been repealed.

The repealin# provision in the O$nibus

'lection &ode (-P -l#. 99/, Dece$ber 6,

/97*, provides

Sec. 292. Repealin#

&lause. K Presidential

-ecree o. "8$9

oterwise known as te

/e "$%! Election Code,

as amended, is ere*y

reealed . 1ll otherelection )a!s, decrees,

e8ecutive orders, rules

and re#ulations or partsthereof, inconsistent !ith

the provisions of this

&ode is ere*y reealed ,

e8cept Presidential

Decree No. /=/9 and

-atas Pa$bansa -l#. 2;

#overnin# the election of

the $e$bers of the

San##unian# Pa$poo of Re#ions IA and AII.

('$phasis supplied*.

-.P. -l#. =3 as not *een e+ressly

reealed , and Section 7; thereof is not

inconsistent !ith the provisions of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode. -esides, in the

cited Earcia?>% cases, as reiterated in the

Veloria case, the Supre$e &ourt itself

said, reiteratin# previous cases, that

i$plied repeal of statutes is fro!ned

upon, thus

4ust as imlied reeal o1

statutes 1rowned uon, so

also should the #rant of

ori#inal "urisdiction b%

$ere i$plication to a

<uasi@"udicial bod% betabooed.

(Earcia?>%?Veloria

&ases '$phasis

supplied*.

888 888 888

It is e<uall% clear that

'8ecutive Order No.

; . . . did not $odif% or

repeal, !hether e8pressl%

or i$pliedl%, Section 26

of P.D. No. /372. It is

co$$on place )earnin#that imlied reeal are

not 1avored in )aw and

are not casually to *e

assumed . The first effort

of a court $ust al!a%s be

to reconcile or ad"ust the

provisions of one statute

!ith those of another soas to #ive sensible effect

to both provisions

(4alandoni vs. 1nda%a, 77S&R1 2=/ (/30*:Ville#as vs. Subido, 0/

S&R1 /;, /=@/3

(/3/*: National Po!er

&orporation vs. 1R&1,

27 S&R1 6/ (/=9*:

>.S. vs. Palacios, 66 Phil.

2;9 (//=*: and Iloilo

Pala% and &orn Planters

1ssociation, Inc. vs.

Feliciano, /6 S&R1

633(/=7*. (nly wentere is clear

inconsistency and

con1lict *etween te

rovisions o1 two :8;

statutes, $a% a court hold

that the provisions later in

point of ti$e havei$pliedl% repealed the

earlier onesC that

(Philippine 1$erican

Mana#e$ent &o., Inc.,

vs. Philippine 1$ericanMana#e$ent '$plo%ees

1ssociation, 0 S&R1

/0 (/36*: and Ville#as

vs. Subido, 0/ S&R1 /;

(/3/* ()ar#a vs. Ranada,

4r., No. )@33=, 1u#ust 6,

/90, /=0 S&R1 27*.

It !as even su##ested that -atas

Pa$bansa -l#. =3 self@destructed after

the -atasan# Pa$bansa elections of /90:

because of the provisions of Section /(Title and 1pplicabilit%* !hich provides

CThis act shall be no!n and cited as

CThe )a! on the /90 -atasan#

Pa$bansa 'lection.C It shall #overn the

election for the re#ular -atasan#

Pa$bansa !hich shall be held on Ma% /0,/90, and the selection of sectoral

representatives thereafter as provided b%

the &onstitution.

+hile that $a% be true !ith $ost of its

provisions !hich !ere applicable onl% for the particular election (lie election and

ca$pai#n periods, votin# constituenc%,

etc.* $ost if not all of the re$ainin#

provisions could be applicable to future

elections. It is not lost to the &o$$ission

that -.P. -l#. =3 !as passed also Cfor

other purposes.C

-ut the i$portant consideration is that the

authorit% #ranted to the &o$$ission

under -.P. -l#. =3 is not inconsistent



!ith our election la!s. It should be

$entioned that the provisions of Republic

1ct No. ==69 !hich #overned the local

elections of 4anuar% /9, /99, as to the

nu$ber of councilors in specified cities

(Sec. 6* and the nu$ber of San##unian#

$e$bers in different provinces and cities(Sec. 0* are still applicable up to this da%.

In fact, it beca$e one of the i$portant

controllin# provision !hich #overned theMa% //, /2 elections. If provisions ofRepublic 1ct No. ==6= !hich are not

inconsistent !ith the present election la!s

did not self@destruct, !h% should Section

7; of -.P. -l#. =3L

1nother provision !hich did not self@

destruct is that !hich provides that Can%

cit% or $unicipal "ud#e, !ho includes or

e8cludes an% voter !ithout an% le#al basis

in inclusion and e8clusion proceedin#s,

shall be #uilt% of an election offense,Calthou#h this provision is found in Section

/; of '8ecutive Order No. /60

supposedl% !ith li$ited application as the

enablin# act for the elections for Me$bers

of &on#ress on Ma% //, /93 and for

other purposes.

&learl% the intent of the la!, !as to #ive

certiorari, "urisdiction to the &o$$ission

on 'lections because the Pi$entel case

said there !as none, to fill a void in the

la!, and avoid an incon#ruous situation.

1 statutes clauses and

phrases $ust not be taen

separatel% but in its

relation to the statutes

totalit%. 'ach statute

$ust, in fact, be

construed as to

Char$onied it !ith the

pre@e8istin# bod% of

la!s.C >nless clearl%

repu#nant, provisions ofstatutes $ust be

reconciled. . . .(&o$$issioner of

&usto$s vs. 'SSO

Standard 'astern, Inc. )@

2962, 1u#ust 3, /37,

== S&R1 //6*.

888 888 888

The statutor%

construction rule isC+hen the )e#islature

enacts provision, it is

understood that it is

a!are of previous statutesrelatin# to the sa$e

sub"ect $atter and that in

the absence of an%

e8press repeal or

a$end$ent therein, the

ne! provision should be

dee$ed enacted pursuant

to the le#islative polic%

e$bodied in the prior

statutes.C ()e#aspi vs.

'8ecutive Secretar%, )@

6=/76, Nove$ber 29,

/37, =9 S&R1 276*.

The &o$$ission is the $ost lo#ical bod%

!henever it perfor$s "udicial functions totae "urisdiction of petitions for

certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

because it has appellate "urisdiction in

election cases #ranted b% the &onstitution

itself. The &ourt of 1ppeals has no $ore

appellate "urisdiction over such cases 1ndin the case of the Supre$e &ourt, 4ustice

de &astro in the Pi$entel case pointed

out, in his dissentin# opinion that under

the &onstitution the certiorari "urisdiction

of the Supre$e &ourt in election cases

should properl% be li$ited to decisions,orders or rulin#s of the &o$$ission on

'lections, not fro$ lo!er courts.

It !as of course different under the

'lection &ode of /3/ (R.1. No. =699,

Septe$ber 2, /3/* because the Supre$e

&ourt and the &ourt of 1ppeals then had

appellate "urisdiction in election case

decided b% the lo!er courts.

In the Veloria case, it no! appears that

onl% the Supre$e &ourt and the &ourt of1ppeals have certiorari "urisdiction over

election cases fro$ the lo!er courts

because after reiteratin# the rulin# in the

Earcia and >% cases, the Supre$e &ourt

said

In vie! of this

pronounce$ent, an

ori#inal civil action of

certiorari, prohibition or

mandamus a#ainst a

re#ional trial court in anelection contest $a% be

filed only in te Court o1

Aeals or in tis Court

bein# the onl% courts

#iven such ori#inal

"urisdiction under the

&onstitution and the )a!.( Emasis sulied *.

+hile these t!o appellate &ourts do have

the "urisdiction under the &onstitution and

the la!, it is $ost lo#ical for the&o$$ission !henever it perfor$s

"udicial functions to have the authorit% to

issue these prero#ative !rits. . . .

. . .

In traversin# the first issue, !e are citin#

our decision laid do!n in the case of

1ntonio Dictado vs. Bon. Rodri#o N.

&osico and '$ilio Tion#co pro$ul#ated



on 4ul% 2, /6. In this case, the

&o$$ission en *anc had occasion to rule

on the <uestion of !hether or not the

&o$$ission has the authorit% to hear and

decide petitions for certiorari in election

cases.

The &o$$ission En Banc, speain#

throu#h Bon. &o$$issioner Re#alado '.

Maa$bon#, ruled that there is aJ la!!hich #rants the &o$$ission, the

e8clusive authorit% to issue special !rits

of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

in election cases, and there are also

Supre$e &ourt decisions, recent in fact,

!hich declare that the &o$$ission has nosuch authorit% precisel% because:

accordin# to the decisions, there is no la!

#rantin# such authorit%, and !ithout an%

hint !hatsoever of the e8istence of Sec.

7; of -atas vs. Pa$bansa -l#. =3.

1s #leaned fro$ the case of Dictado,

respondents !ere ar#uin# that Sec. 7; of

-P -l#. =3 !as repealed b% the O$nibus'lection &ode (-P -l#. 99/, Dece$ber 6,

/97*. Further$ore, in their ans!er,

respondents cited Supre$e &ourt

decisions !here it !as declared that,

indeed, the &o$$ission has no

"urisdiction to issue special !rits of

certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in

aid of its appellate "urisdiction.

It is still the position of this &o$$ission

that Sec. 7;, -P -l#. =3 has not been

repealed.

1s defined in the &onstitution, C4udicial po!erC includes the dut% of the &ourts of

4ustice to settle actual controversies

involvin# ri#hts !hich are le#all%

de$andable and enforceable, and to

deter$ine !hether or not there has been a

#rave abuse of discretion a$ountin# to

lac or e8cess, of "urisdiction on the partof an% branch or instru$entalit% of the

#overn$ent (Sec. /, par. 2, 1rt. VII*.

Since the &OM')'&, in dischar#in# its

appellate "urisdiction pursuant to Sec. 2

(2*, 1rt. IA@&, acts as a court of "ustice

perfor$in# "udicial po!er and said po!er

includes the deter$ination of !hether or

not there has been #rave abuse of

discretion a$ountin# to lac or e8cess of

"urisdiction, it necessaril% follo!s that the

&o$elec, b% constitutional $andate, isvested !ith "urisdiction to issue !rits of

certiorari in aid of its appellate

"urisdiction. 5

It set aside, for havin# been issued !ith #rave abuse of

discretion, the trial courts order of e8ecution pendin#

appeal and the !rit of e8ecution because

aJt the ti$e the Motion for '8ecution

Pendin# 1ppeal !as filed on 4ul% /2,

/0 the court a 3uo had alread% lost

"urisdiction over the case for as earl% as

4ul% 9, /0, it had alread% acno!led#ed

throu#h its order issued on that date, the

perfection of the appeal of petitioner as in

fact it ordered the elevation of the records

of the case to this Bonorable&o$$ission. /

1##rieved b% the resolution, the petitioner filed the instantspecial civil action.

In the resolution of 2/ Februar% /97, the &ourt re<uired

the respondents to co$$ent on the petition and issued a

te$porar% restrainin# order en"oinin# the respondent

&OM')'& to cease and desist fro$ enforcin# is

challen#ed resolution.

1s naturall% e8pected, the private respondent, in her

&o$$ent, opposed the petition b% invoin# the ver%

ar#u$ents adduced b% the respondent &OM')'& in its

challen#ed the resolution and the dissentin# opinion in theGarcia and 6y cases.

In its co$$ent filed b% the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral,

the respondent &OM')'& postulates that it issued the

said resolution after it had taen co#niance of the appeal

interposed b% the private respondent fro$ the RT&

decision, unlie in the Garcia and 6y cases, and therefore,

in the e8ercise of its appellate "urisdiction, thus

it cannot be #ainsaid that itJ possesses

inherent po!ers to e$plo% $eans

necessar% to carr% into effect the po!ersconferred upon it b% la! (Sec. =, Rule /67

of the Revised Rules of &ourt* and veril%,

there !as no need for an% statutor% #rant

for that purpose. Indeed, in annullin# the

Order of '8ecution of the Re#ional Trial

&ourt, public respondent did not e8ceed

its "urisdiction since its action in this

re#ard !as necessar% to preserve the

sub"ect of the appeal and to $aintain the

status 3uo of the parties pendin# the finaloutco$e of its revie! of the correctness

of the appealed decision. 0

It tried to sho! that in Pimentel and Garcia, the trial

courts still had "urisdiction over the cases unlie in theinstant case !here the trial court had alread% #iven due

course to the appeal and elevated the records of the case to

the &OM')'& !hich had taen co#niance of the appeal.

This &ourt resolved to #ive due course to this petition and

to decide it on its $erits.

The contention of the respondent &OM')'& as advanced

b% the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral is unacceptable. It#oes a#ainst its theor% in the assailed resolution and is not

supported b% the facts. The challen#ed resolution involves

a case !hich the &OM')'& doceted as a secial relie1

case (SPR. No. /@0*. >nder Rule 29 of its Rules of

Procedure, the special relief cases are petitions for

certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and conte$pt

proceedin#s. The ordinar% appeal fro$ the RT& decision

!as, as disclosed in the challen#ed resolution: doceted as

'1& No. /;9@0. 8 &learl% then, the &OM')'& hadreco#nied and taen co#niance of t!o cases one, the



ordinar% appeal fro$ the RT& decision ('1& No. /;9@

0*, and t!o, the special civil action for certiorari

doceted as SPR No. /@0. The t!o cases !ere not

consolidated. The dissi$ilarities bet!een the$ need no

further elaboration. Since it issued the challen#ed

resolution under the latter case, it cannot no! be heard to

state that it issued it as an incident in the for$er, theordinar% appeal. This erroneous contention of the Office

of the of the Solicitor Eeneral not!ithstandin#, the

position taen b% the &OM')'& in its resolution no! in<uestion paves the !a% for a re@e8a$ination of this&ourts pronounce$ent in the Garcia and 6y cases.

1s earlier stated, in Garcia and 6y, 9 and later, in Veloria,1 this &ourt ruled that the &OM')'& has no "urisdiction

over the e8traordinar% !rits of certiorari, prohibition, andmandamus because there is no specific constitutional or

statutor% confer$ent to it of such "urisdiction.

The respondent &OM')'&, ho!ever, points out that

Section 7; of -.P. -l#. =3 e8pressl% #ranted it such

"urisdiction. Indeed, it did. Nevertheless, considerin# thatthe said la! !as, per Section / thereof, Cto #overn the

election for the re#ular -atasan# Pa$bansa !hich shall be

held on Ma% /0, /90, and the selection of sectoralrepresentatives thereafter as provided b% the &onstitution,C

and in vie! of the passa#e of the O$nibus 'lection &ode

(-.P. -l#. 99/* b% the re#ular -atasan# Pa$bansa, 11 this

&ourt is then confronted !ith the t!in issues of !hether

said -.P. -l#. =3 beca$e 1unctus o11icio after the /0 Ma%

/90 election of $e$bers of the re#ular -atasan#

Pa$bansa or the selection thereafter of the sectoral

representatives at the latest, and !hether it !as repealed

b% the O$nibus 'lection &ode.

The &ourt a#rees !ith the respondent &OM')'& that

there are provisions in -.P. -l#. =3 !hose lifeti$e #o

be%ond the /0 Ma% /90 election or the subse<uent

selection of sectoral representatives. In fact, b% the ver%

!ordin# of the last para#raph of its Section 7;, to !it

Sec. 7;. Definition. K

888 888 888

The &o$$ission is hereb% vested !iththe e8clusive authorit% to hear and decide


mandamus involving election cases.('$phasis supplied*.

it is <uite clear that the e8ercise of the po!er !as not

restricted !ithin a specific period of ti$e. Taen in the

conte8t of the conspicuous absence of such "urisdiction as

ruled in Pimentel vs. Commission on Elections, 1 it see$s

<uite obvious that the #rant !as intended as a re$edial

le#islation to eli$inate the see$in# incon#ruit% or

irrationalit% resultin# in a splittin# of "urisdiction pointedout in the dissentin# opinion of 4ustice De &astro in the

said case.

-ut did not the O$nibus 'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/*

repeal -.P. -l#. =3L The repealin# clause of the latterreads as follo!s

Sec. 292. Reealing clause. K

Presidential decree No. /2=, other!ise

no!n as The /39 'lection &ode, as

a$ended, is hereb% repealed. 1ll other

election la!s, decrees, e8ecutive orders,

rules and re#ulations, or parts thereof,

inconsistent !ith the provisions of this

&ode are hereb% repealed, e8cept

Presidential Decree No. /=/9 .and -atas

Pa$bansa -l#. 2; #overnin# the electionof the $e$bers of the San##unian#

Pa$poo of Re#ions IA and AII.

The second sentence is in the nature of a #eneral repealin#

clause. It has been said

1n e8press #eneral repealin# clause to the

effect that. all inconsistent enact$ents are

repealed: is in le#al conte$plation a

nullit%. Repeals $ust either be e8pressed

or result b% i$plication. 1lthou#h it has in

so$e instances been held to be an e8press

reco#nition that there are acts in conflict

!ith the act in !hich it is included and as

indicative of the le#islative intent torepeal such acts, a #eneral repealin#

clause cannot be dee$ed an e8press

repeal because it fails to identif% ordesi#nate an% act to be repealed. It cannot

be deter$inative of an i$plied repeal for

if does not declare an% inconsistenc% but

conversel%, $erel% predicates a repeal

upon the condition that a substantial

conflict is found under application of the

rules of i$plied repeals. If its inclusion is

$ore than $ere $echahical verbia#e, it is

$ore often a detri$ent than an aid to theestablish$ent of a repeal, for such clause

is construed as an e8press li$itation of

the repeal to inconsistent acts. 1

This &ourt is not una!are of the e<uall% settled rule in

statutor% construction that in the revision or codification

of la!s, all parts and provisions of the old la!s that are

o$itted in the revised statute or code are dee$ed repealed,

unless the statute or code provides other!ise e8pressl% or

i$pliedl%. 14

-% the tenor of its afore<uoted Reealing Clause, it doesnot evidentl% appear that the -atasan# Pa$bansa had

intended to codif% all prior election statutes and to replace

the$ !ith the ne! &ode. It $ade, in fact, b% the second

sentence, a reservation that all prior election statutes or

parts thereof not inconsistent !ith an% provisions of the

&ode shall re$ain in force. That sentence

predicates the intended repeal upon the

condition that a substantial conflict $ust

be found on e8istin# and prior acts of the

sa$e sub"ect $atter. Such bein# the case,

the presu$ption a#ainst i$plied repealsand the rule on strict construction

re#ardin# i$plied repeals appl% e+

rorio vigore. For the le#islature is

presu$ed to no! the e8istin# la!s sothat, if repeal of particular or specific la!

or la!s is intended, the proper step is to

e8press it. The failure to add a specific

repealin# clause particularl% $entionin#

the statute to be repealed indicates that the

intent !as not to repeal an% e8istin# la!



on the $atter, unless an irreconcilable

inconsistenc% and repu#nanc% e8ist in the

ter$s of the ne! and the old la!s. 15

This bein# the case, the &ourt painstain#l% e8a$ined the

aforesaid last para#raph of Section 7; of the O$nibus

'lection &ode to deter$ine if the for$er is inconsistent

!ith an% of the provisions of the latter, It found none.

In the face of the fore#oin# dis<uisitions, the &ourt $ust,as it no! does, abandon the rulin# in the Garcia and 6y

and Veloria cases, +e no! hold that the last para#raph of

Section 7; of -.P. -l#. =3 providin# as follo!s

The &o$$ission is hereb% vested !ith



mandamus involvin# election cases.

re$ains in full force and effect but onl% in such cases

!here, under para#raph (2*, Section /, 1rticle IA@& of the

&onstitution, it has e8clusive appellate "urisdiction.Si$pl% put, the &OM')'& has the authorit% to issue the

e8traordinar% !rits of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus onl% in aid of its appellate "urisdiction.

The "urisdiction of the &OM')'& havin# been settled,

!e no! proceed to revie! the substance of the challen#ed

resolution.

That the trial court acted !ith palpable and !hi$sical

abuse of discretion in #rantin# the petitioners $otion for

e8ecution pendin# appeal and in issuin# the !rit of

e8ecution is all too obvious. Since both the petitioner andthe private respondent received copies of the decision on /4ul% /0, an appeal therefro$ $a% be filed !ithin five

da%s 1/ fro$ / 4ul% /0, or on or before = 4ul% /0. 1n%

$otion for e8ecution pendin# appeal $ust be filed before

the period for the perfection of the appeal. Pursuant to

Section 26 of the Interi$ Rules I$ple$entin# -.P. -l#.

/2, !hich is dee$ed to have supple$entar% effect to the

&OM')'& Rules of Procedures pursuant to Rule 06 of

the latter, an appeal !ould be dee$ed perfected on the last

da% for an% of the parties to appeal, 10 or on = 4ul% /0.

On 0 4ul% /0, the private respondent filed her notice of

appeal and paid the appeal fee. On 9 4ul% /0, the trialcourt #ave due course to the appeal and ordered the

elevation of the records of the case to the &OM')'&.

>pon the perfection of the appeal, the trial court !asdivested of its "urisdiction over the case. 18 Since the

$otion for e8ecution pendin# appeal !as filed onl% on /2

4ul% /0, or after the perfection of the appeal, the trial

court could no lon#er validl% act thereon. It could have been other!ise if the $otion !as filed before the

perfection of the appeal. 19 1ccordin#l%, since the

respondent &OM')'& has the "urisdiction to issue the

e8traordinar% !rits of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus, then it correctl% set aside the challen#ed order#rantin# the $otion for e8ecution pendin# appeal and !rit

of e8ecution issued b% the trial court.

+B'R'FOR', the instant petition is D'NI'D and the

challen#ed resolution of Februar% /7 of the

&o$$ission on 'lections in SPR No. /@0 entitled

CRosita &u$ba vs. Manuel M. Rela$pa#os, et al. C is

1FFIRM'D.

The te$porar% restrainin# order issued on 2/ Februar%

/7 is hereb% )IFT'D.

No pronounce$nt as to costs.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 10/11 M$& 8, 0

MAOR IBARRA R. MAN6ALA, Petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS A6CUNA, $!)

*ULIE R. MONTON, Respondents.

D ' & I S I O N

A6CUNA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition !ith pra%er

for the issuance of a te$porar% restrainin# order (TRO*, or

status <uo ante order, and?or !rit of preli$inar%

in"unction.

Petitioner Ibarra R. Manala sees to annul the resolution,

dated 1u#ust 20, 2;;=, of the For$er Second Division/ of

the &o$$ission on 'lections (&OM')'&*, declarin#

private respondent 4ulie R. Monton to be the dul% elected

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_176211_2007.html#fnt1




Municipal Ma%or of Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon in the Ma% /;,

2;;0 National and )ocal 'lections, and the resolution of

the &OM')'& en *anc ,<8= dated 4anuar% 20, 2;;3,

den%in# petitioners $otion for reconsideration and

affir$in# the Resolution of 1u#ust 20, 2;;= !ith

$odification as to the nu$ber of votes obtained b% both

parties after re@appreciation.

The antecedents are as follo!s

Petitioner Ibarra R. Manala and private respondent 4ulie

R. Monton !ere $a%oralt% candidates in the Municipalit%

of Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon, durin# the Ma% /;, 2;;0

National and )ocal 'lections. On Ma% /6, 2;;0, the

Municipal -oard of &anvassers proclai$ed private

respondent as the dul% elected Municipal Ma%or !ith

2,73 votes, or a $ar#in of /6 votes, over petitioners

2,7== votes.

On Ma% /, 2;;0, petitioner filed an election protest !ith

the Re#ional Trial &ourt of Ro$blon, -ranch 9/ ('lection

Protest &ase No. 3*, seein# recount in the /; precincts ofMa#di!an# on the #rounds of fraud, serious irre#ularities,

and !illful violation of the O$nibus 'lection &ode (-atas

Pa$bansa -ilan# 99/* and other pertinent &OM')'&

rules alle#edl% co$$itted b% the voters and the &hair$an

and $e$bers of the -oard of 'lection Inspectors durin#

the election.

Private respondent filed an 1ns!er !ith &ounter@Protest

and &ounterclai$, averrin# that the election !as held

peacefull% !ith no irre#ularit% !hatsoever. -% !a% of

counter@protest, private respondent contested the election

in certain precincts, to !it Precincts 0/1, 0;1, 61, 691,631, 6=1 and 671 of -aran#a% Ta$pa%an: Precincts /1,21, 61, 01, 71, =1, 31, 91, 1 and - of -aran#a%

Poblacion: Precinct /=1 of -aran#a% 1#uta%: Precinct

201 of -aran#a% Dulan#an: and Precinct 621 of -aran#a%

4ao@asan.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Repl% and 1ns!er to the

&ounter@Protest and &ounterclai$.

1 revision of ballots !as later conducted.">vvi".net In

its decision of Dece$ber 9, 2;;7, the trial court rendered

"ud#$ent in favor of petitioner, thus

+B'R'FOR', pre$ises considered, protestant I-1RR1

R. M1N1)1 is hereb% proclai$ed as the dul%@elected

Municipal Ma%or of Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon durin# the

election of Ma% /;, 2;;0 !ho !on over protestee 4>)I'

R. MONTON !ith a $a"orit% of /63 valid votes and is

entitled to occup% said position. The procla$ation b% the

M>NI&IP1) -O1RD OF &1NV1SS'RS of

Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon that 4>)I' R. MONTON !as the

dul%@elected M1GOR is hereb% 1NN>))'D.

SO ORD'R'D.6

Petitioner $oved for the e8ecution of the decision pendin#

appeal !hich the trial court #ranted on Dece$ber /=,

2;;7.

On appeal, private respondent raised the follo!in#

assi#n$ent of errors that the trial court seriousl% erred in

invalidatin# /00 votes of private respondent ostensibl% on

the #round of pattern votin#: that sets of ballots !ere

$ared, as !ell as !ritten b% t!o persons: that the trial

court erred in not considerin# and appreciatin# the

ob"ections raised b% private respondent involvin# the

counter@protested precincts, and in arrivin# at its decision,

it considered onl% the ob"ections and?or e8hibits of the

petitioner: and that the trial court seriousl% erred !hen it

declared petitioner as the dul% elected Municipal Ma%or of

Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon despite the patent defects in theappealed decision.

On 1u#ust 20, 2;;=, the For$er Second Division of the&OM')'& issued a Resolution !hich reversed and set

aside the decision of the trial court. It found that private

respondent obtained 2,7=; votes, or a $ar#in of /3 votes,

over petitioners 2,706 votes. The dispositive portion of

the Resolution reads

+B'R'FOR', the instant appeal is hereb% ER1NT'D.

The Dece$ber 9, 2;;7 Decision of the Re#ional Trial

&ourt, Fourth 4udicial Re#ion, -ranch 9/, Ro$blon,

Ro$blon in 'lection Protest &ase No. 3 is hereb%

R'V'RS'D and S'T 1SID'.

1&&ORDINE)G, the &o$$ission (For$er Second

Division* hereb% D'&)1R'S protestee@appellant 4>)I'

'. MONTON, the dul%@elected Municipal Ma%or of

Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon durin# the Ma% /;, 2;;0 National

and )ocal 'lections.

SO ORD'R'D.0

Petitioners $otion for reconsideration !as denied b% the

&OM')'& en banc in its Resolution of 4anuar% 20, 2;;3.

It affir$ed the earlier Resolution dated 1u#ust 20, 2;;=

!hich proclai$ed private respondent as the dul% electedMunicipal Ma%or !ith $odification as to the nu$ber of

votes obtained b% both parties after re@appreciation, i.e.,

private respondent #arnered 2,767 votes, or a $ar#in of =;

votes, over petitioners 2,037 votes.

Mean!hile, actin# on private respondents Motion for

I$$ediate '8ecution and Issuance of an 'ntr% of

4ud#$ent, the &OM')'& en *anc issued a !rit of

e8ecution on Februar% 29, 2;;3 declarin# its Resolution

of 4anuar% 20, 2;;3 as final and e8ecutor% as of Februar%

2=, 2;;3.

&onse<uentl%, in the Order dated March /, 2;;3, the

&OM')'& en *anc directed the i$ple$entation of the

!rit of e8ecution orderin# petitioner to cease and desist

fro$ dischar#in# the po!ers and functions of the Office of

the Municipal Ma%or of Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon: to

relin<uish and vacate the post in favor of private

respondent: and to cause the s$ooth turn@over of the

office to the latter.

On Februar% /, 2;;3, petitioner filed this petition for

certiorari and prohibition contendin# that the &OM')'&

co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion a$ountin# to lac ore8cess of "urisdiction in declarin# private respondent as

the dul% elected Municipal Ma%or of Ma#di!an#,

Ro$blon !ith a pra%er that the &OM')'& be directed to

cease and desist fro$ i$ple$entin# the challen#ed

Resolutions of 1u#ust 20, 2;;= and 4anuar% 20, 2;;3.

Private respondent $aintains that Cto allo! the ar#u$ents

of the petitioner to prevail !ould $ae hi$ assu$e office

b% the #race of i$propriet% and $isappreciation of ballots

b% the lo!er court, !hose decision has alread% been

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_176211_2007.html#fnt










reversed and set aside b% the For$er Second Division of

the &OM')'& and affir$ed b% the &o$$ission en

*anc.C

The petition should be dis$issed."?vvi".n@t

Petitioner ar#ues that the $otion for reconsideration filed!ith the For$er Second Division of the &OM')'& Chas

thro!n the !hole case !ide open for revie! as in a trial

de novo in a cri$inal case,C %et the &OM')'& en *anc failed to conduct a thorou#h revie! of the contested

ballots.

This ar#u$ent has no basis. Section 2 (2* of 1rticle IA@&

of the &onstitution provides the &OM')'& !ith <uasi@

"udicial po!er to e8ercise e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction

over all contests relatin# to the elections, returns, and

<ualifications of all elective re#ional, provincial, and cit%

officials, and appellate "urisdiction over all contests

involvin# elective $unicipal officials decided b% trial

courts of #eneral "urisdiction, or involvin# elective

baran#a% officials decided b% trial courts of li$ited "urisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulin#s of the

&o$$ission on election contests involvin# elective

$unicipal and baran#a% offices shall be final, e8ecutor%,

and not appealable. Section 6 thereof states the

ad$inistrative po!er of the &OM')'&, either en banc or

in t!o divisions, to pro$ul#ate its rules of procedure in

order to e8pedite disposition of election cases, includin#

pre@procla$ation controversies. 1ll such election casesshall be heard and decided in division, provided that

$otions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided

b% the &o$$ission en *anc.

&learl%, fro$ the decision of the trial court, the&OM')'& e8ercises appellate "urisdiction to revie!,

revise, $odif%, or even reverse and set aside the decision

of the for$er and substitute it !ith its o!n decision. In the

e8ercise of its ad"udicator% or <uasi@"udicial po!ers, the&onstitution also $andates the &OM')'& to hear and

decide cases first b% division and upon $otion for

reconsideration, b% the &OM')'& en *anc. 'lection

cases cannot be treated in a si$ilar $anner as cri$inal

cases !here, upon appeal fro$ a conviction b% the trial

court, the !hole case is thro!n open for revie! and the

appellate court can resolve issues !hich are not even setforth in the pleadin#s. In the present case, the &OM')'&

en *anc had thorou#hl% revie!ed the decision of its

For$er Second Division and affir$ed the findin#s thereof

!ith $odification as to the nu$ber of votes obtained b%

both parties after re@appreciation, that is, private

respondent obtained 2,767 votes, or a $ar#in of =; votes,

over petitioners 2,037 votes.

Petitioner further contends that the trial courts C"udicial

appreciation of the contested ballots should beJ honored,

respected, and #iven the i$portance it deserves b% thisJ

&ourt.C

This contention has no $erit. Section 2, Rule =0 of the

Rules of &ourt states that fro$ a "ud#$ent or final order

or resolution of the &OM')'& , the a##rieved part%,

herein petitioner, $a% file a petition for certiorari under

Rule =7. Thus, in a special civil action of certiorari under

Section / of Rule =7, the onl% <uestion that $a% be raised

and?or resolved is !hether or not the &OM')'& had

acted !ith #rave abuse of discretion a$ountin# to lac or

e8cess of "urisdiction.7 Such fact does not e8ist in the

present case.

Moreover, the appreciation of the contested ballots and

election docu$ents involves a <uestion of fact best left to

the deter$ination of the &OM')'&, a specialied a#enc%

tased !ith the supervision of elections all over the

countr%. To reiterate, the &OM')'& is the constitutional

co$$ission vested !ith the e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction

over election contests involvin# re#ional, provincial andcit% officials, as !ell as appellate "urisdiction over election

protests involvin# elective $unicipal and baran#a%

officials. &onse<uentl%, in the absence of #rave abuse of

discretion or an% "urisdictional infir$it% or error of la!,

the factual findin#s, conclusions, rulin#s and decisions

rendered b% the said &o$$ission on $atters fallin# !ithinits co$petence shall not be interfered !ith b% this &ourt.=

Finall%, to "ustif% the issuance of an in"unctive relief,

petitioner clai$s that there had been a C$isinterpretation

and $isapplication of the la!C b% the &OM')'& and that

Cshould the facts and circu$stances presented in this petition be sufficientl% persuasive, a !rit of

preli$inar% in"unction or a te$porar% restrainin# order be

issued to prevent the public respondent &OM')'& fro$disruptin# the stabilit% of #overnance in the Municipalit%

of Ma#di!an#, Province of Ro$blon, in the $eanti$e

that the petition is bein# revie!ed.C

1s a conse<uence of the dis$issal of the instant petition, petitioners pra%er for an% for$ of in"unctive relief,

perforce, has no factual and le#al basis.

+B'R'FOR', the petition is DISMISS'D for lac ofsho!in# that the &o$$ission on 'lections co$$itted an%#rave abuse of discretion in issuin# the assailed

Resolution, dated 1u#ust 20, 2;;=, b% the For$er Second

Division and the Resolution, dated 4anuar% 20, 2;;3, b%

the &o$$ission en banc, !hich declared privaterespondent 4ulie R. Monton to be the dul% elected

Municipal Ma%or of Ma#di!an#, Ro$blon in the Ma% /;,

2;;0 National and )ocal 'lections.

1ccordin#l%, the &o$$ission on 'lections en *anc is

DIRECTED to forth!ith cause the full i$ple$entation of

the +rit of '8ecution it issued on Februar% 29, 2;;3 andthe Order of March /, 2;;3.

In vie! of the pro8i$it% of the ne8t National and )ocal'lections on Ma% /0, 2;;3, this Decision is

IMMEDIATEL E7ECUTOR.

No costs.









SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1/5 *u& 9, 1998

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, petitioner,

vs.

HON. TOMAS B. NONA, A#t!g P('s)!g *u)g',

R'go!$ T($ Cou(t, B($!#" , A'!, No(t"'(!

S$$(, $!) DIOSDADA F. AMOR, ESBEL CHUA,

$!) RUBEN MAGLUOAN, respondents.

DA-IDE, *R., J.:

The pivotal issue raised in this special civil action for

certiorari !ith mandamus is !hether R.1. No. 3=/ 1 has

divested Re#ional Trial &ourts of "urisdiction over

election offenses, !hich are punishable !ith

i$prison$ent of not e8ceedin# si8 (=* %ears.

The antecedents are not disputed.

In its Minute Resolution No. =@6;3= of 2 October /=,

the &o$$ission on 'lections (&OM')'&* resolved tofile an infor$ation for violation of Section 2=/(i* of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode a#ainst private respondents

Diosdada 1$or, a public school principal, and 'sbel &hua

and Ruben Ma#lu%oan, both public school teachers, for

havin# en#a#ed in partisan political activities. The

&OM')'& authoried its Re#ional Director in Re#ion

VIII to handle the prosecution of the cases.

Forth!ith, nine infor$ations for violation of Section

2=/(i* of the O$nibus 'lection !ere filed !ith -ranch 26

of the Re#ional Trial &ourt of 1lien, Northern Sa$ar, and

doceted therein as follo!s

a* &ri$inal &ases Nos.

1@/06 and 1@/002,

a#ainst private

respondents Diosdada

1$or, 'sbel &hua, and

Ruben Ma#lu%oan.

b* &ri$inal &ase No. 1@

/006, a#ainst privaterespondents 'sbel &hua

and Ruben Ma#lu%oan.

c* &ri$inal &ases Nos.

1@/000 and 1@/007,a#ainst private

respondent 'sbel &hua

onl%:

d* &ri$inal &ases Nos.

1@/00= to 1@/00,

a#ainst private

respondent Diosdada

1$or onl%.

In an Order issued on 27 1u#ust /3, respondent 4ud#e

To$as -. No%na%, as presidin# "ud#e of -ranch 26, motu

rorio ordered the records of the cases to be !ithdra!n

and directed the &OM')'& )a! Depart$ent to file the

cases !ith the appropriate Municipal Trial &ourt on the

#round that pursuant to Section 62 of -.P. -l#. /2 as

a$ended b% R.1. No. 3=/,

the Re#ional Trial &ourt hasno "urisdiction over the cases since the $a8i$u$

i$posable penalt% in each of the cases does not e8ceed si8

%ears of i$prison$ent. Pertinent portions of the Order

read as follo!s

IJt is !orth pointin# out that all the

accused are unifor$l% char#ed for sicJ

Violation of Sec. 2=/(i* of the O$nibus

'lection &ode, !hich under Sec. 2=0 of

the sa$e &ode carries a penalt% of not

less than one (/* %ear but not $ore than

si8 (=* %ears of i$prison$ent and notsub"ect to Probation plus dis<ualification

to hold public office or deprivation of the

ri#ht of suffra#e.

Sec. 6/ sicJ of the 4udiciar%

Reor#aniation 1ct of /9; (-.P.* -l#.

/2 as 1$ended b% Rep. 1ct. ==/ sicJ

('8panded 4urisdiction* states Sec. 62.4urisdiction K Metropolitan Trial &ourts,

Municipal &ircuit Trial &ourts, Municipal

Trial &ourts in &ri$inal &ases K '8cept

inJ cases fallin# !ithin the e8clusiveori#inal "urisdiction of the Re#ional Trial

&ourts and the Sandi#anba%an, the

Municipal Trial &ourts, Metropolitan

Trial &ourts and the Municipal &ircuit

Trial &ourts shall e8ercise

(/*

'8clusiv

e ori#inal

"urisdicti

on over

allviolation

s of cit%

or

$unicipa

l

ordinanc

eco$$itte

d !ithin

their

respectiv

eterritorial

"urisdicti

on: and

(2*

'8clusiv

e ori#inal

"urisdicti

on over

all



offenses

punishabl

e !ith an

i$prison

$ent of

not

e8ceedin# si8 (=*

%ears

irrespective of thea$ount

or fine

and

re#ardles

s of other

i$posabl

e

accessor%

and other

penalties

includin#the civil

liabilit%

arisin#fro$

such

offenses

or predicate

d

thereon,

irrespecti

ve ofti$e

sicJ,

nature,

value and

a$ount

thereof,

Provided ,

Bo!ever,

that inoffenses

includin#

da$a#es

to

propert%

throu#h

cri$inal

ne#li#enc

e, the%

shall

have

e8clusive

ori#inal

"urisdicti

on

thereof.

In li#ht of the fore#oin#, this &ourt has

therefore, no "urisdiction over the cases

filed considerin# that the $a8i$u$

penalt% i$posable did not e8ceed si8 (=*

%ears.

The t!o $otions 4 for reconsideration separatel% filed b%

the &OM')'& Re#ional Director of Re#ion VIII and b%

the &OM')'& itself throu#h its )e#al Depart$ent havin#

been denied b% the public respondent in the Order of /3

October /3, 5 the petitioner filed this special civil

action. It contends that public respondent Chas erroneousl%

$isconstrued the provisions of Rep. 1ct No. 3=/ in

ar#uin# that the Municipal Trial &ourt has e8clusive

ori#inal "urisdiction to tr% and decide election offensesC

because pursuant to Section 2=9 of the O$nibus 'lection&ode and this &ourts rulin# in C1lberto sicJ vs. 4ud#e

4uan )avilles, 4r.,C Re#ional Trial &ourts have the

e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction over election offenses.

On /3 Februar% /9, !e re<uired the respondents and the

Office of the Solicitor Eeneral to co$$ent on the petition.

In its Manifestation of 7 March /9, the Office of the

Solicitor Eeneral infor$s us that it is Cadoptin#C the

instant petition on the #round that the challen#ed orders of

public respondent Care clearl% not in accordance !ith

e8istin# la!s and "urisprudence.C

In his Manifestation of /2 March /9, public respondent

avers that it is the dut% of counsel for private respondentsinterested in sustainin# the challen#ed orders to appear for

and defend hi$.

In their &o$$ent, private respondents $aintain that R.1.

No. 3=/ has divested the Re#ional Trial &ourts of

"urisdiction over offenses !here the i$posable penalt% is

not $ore than = %ears of i$prison$ent: $oreover, R.1.

3=/ e8pressl% provides that all la!s, decrees, and orders

inconsistent !ith its provisions are dee$ed repealed or

$odified accordin#l%. The% then conclude that since the

election offense in <uestion is punishable !ith

i$prison$ent of not $ore than = %ears, it is co#niable b%Municipal Trial &ourts.

+e resolved to #ive due course to the petition.

>nder Section 2=9 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode,

Re#ional Trial &ourts have e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction

to tr% and decide an% cri$inal action or proceedin#s for

violation of the &ode e8cept those relatin# to the offense

of failure to re#ister or failure to vote. / It reads as follo!s

Sec. 2=9. 5urisdiction o1 courts. K The

re#ional trial court shall have thee8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction to tr% and

decide an% cri$inal action or proceedin#s

for violation of this &ode, e8cept those

relatin# to the offense of failure to re#ister

or failure to vote !hich shall be under the

"urisdiction of the $etropolitan or

$unicipal trial courts. Fro$ the decision

of the courts, appeal !ill lie as in other

cri$inal cases.

1$on# the offenses punished under the 'lection &ode are

those enu$erated in Section 2=/ thereof. The offensealle#edl% co$$itted b% private respondents is covered b%

para#raph (i* of said Section, thus

Sec. 2=/. Proi*ited Acts. K The

follo!in# shall be #uilt% of an election

offense

(i* ntervention o1 u*lic o11icers and

emloyees. K 1n% officer or e$plo%ee in

the civil service, e8cept those holdin#



political offices: an% officer, e$plo%ee, or

$e$ber of the 1r$ed Forces of the

Philippines, or an% police forces, special

forces, ho$e defense forces, baran#a%

self@defense units and all other para@

$ilitar% units that no! e8ist or !hich $a%

hereafter be or#anied !ho, directl% orindirectl%, intervenes in an% election

ca$pai#n or en#a#es in an% partisan

political activit%, e8cept to vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peaceofficer.

>nder Section 2=0 of the &ode the penalt% for an election

offense under the &ode, e8cept that of failure to re#ister or

failure to vote, is Ci$prison$ent of not less than one %ear but not $ore than si8 %earsC and the offender shall not be

sub"ect to probation and shall suffer dis<ualification to

hold public office and deprivation of the ri#ht of suffra#e.

Section 62 of -.P. -l#. /2 as a$ended b% Section 2 of

R.1. No. 3=/, provides as follo!s

Sec. 62. 5urisdiction o1 Metroolitan

/rial Court, Municial /rial Courts and

Municial Circuit /rial Courts in

Criminal Cases. K '8cept in cases

fallin# !ithin the e8clusive ori#inal

"urisdiction of Re#ional Trial &ourt and of

the Sandi#anba%an, the Metropolitan Trial&ourts, Municipal Trial &ourts, and

Municipal &ircuit Trial &ourts shall

e8ercise

(/* '8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction over allviolations of cit% or $unicipal ordinances

co$$itted !ithin their respective

territorial "urisdiction: and

(2* '8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction over all

offenses punishable !ith i$prison$ent

not e8ceedin# si8 (=* %ears irrespective of

the a$ount of fine, and re#ardless of other

i$posable accessor% or other penalties,includin# the civil liabilit% arisin# fro$

such offenses or predicated thereon,irrespective of ind, nature, value or

a$ount thereof Provided , owever , That

in offenses involvin# da$a#e to propert%

throu#h cri$inal ne#li#ence, the% shall

have e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction

thereof.

+e have e8plicitl% ruled in Morales v. Court o1 Aeals 0

that b% virtue of the e8ception provided for in the openin#

sentence of Section 62, the e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction

of Metropolitan Trial &ourts, Municipal Trial &ourts, and

Municipal &ircuit Trial &ourts does not cover thosecri$inal cases !hich b% specific provisions of la! fall

!ithin the e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction of Re#ional Trial

&ourts and of the Sandi#anba%an, re#ardless of the

penalt% prescribed therefor. Other!ise stated, even if those

e8cepted cases are punishable b% i$prison$ent of not

e8ceedin# si8 (=* %ears (i.e., rision correccional, arresto

mayor , or arresto menor *, "urisdiction thereon is retained

b% the Re#ional Trial &ourts or the Sandi#anba%an, as the

case $a% be.

1$on# the e8a$ples cited in Morales as fallin# !ithin the

e8ception provided for in the openin# sentence of Section

62 are cases under (/* Section 2; of -.P. -l#. /2: (2*

1rticle 6=; of the Revised Penal &ode, as a$ended: (6*

the Decree on Intellectual Propert%: 8 and (0* the

Dan#erous Dru#s 1ct of /32, 9 as a$ended.

>ndoubtedl%, pursuant to Section 2=9 of the O$nibus

'lection &ode, election offenses also fall !ithin the

e8ception.

1s !e stated in Morales, "urisdiction is conferred b% the

&onstitution or b% &on#ress. Outside the cases

enu$erated in Section 7(2* of 1rticle VIII of the

&onstitution, &on#ress has the plenar% po!er to define,

prescribe, and apportion the "urisdiction of various courts.

&on#ress $a% thus provide b% la! that a certain class of

cases should be e8clusivel% heard and deter$ined b% one

court. Such la! !ould be a special la! and $ust be

construed as an e8ception to the #eneral la! on

"urisdiction of courts, na$el%, the 4udiciar% 1ct of /09,

as a$ended, and the 4udiciar% Reor#aniation 1ct of/9;. R.1. No. 3=/ can b% no $eans be considered as a

special la! on "urisdiction: it is $erel% an a$endator% la!

intended to a$end specific sections of the 4udiciar%Reor#aniation 1ct of /9;. Bence, R.1. No. 3=/ does

nut have the effect of repealin# la!s vestin# upon

Re#ional Trial &ourts or the Sandi#anba%an e8clusive

ori#inal "urisdiction to hear and decide the cases therein

specified. That &on#ress never intended that R.1. No.

3=/ should repeal such special provisions is indubitabl%

evident fro$ the fact that it did not touch at all the

openin# sentence of Section 62 of -.P. -l#. /2 providin#

for the e8ception.

It is obvious that respondent "ud#e did not read at all the

openin# sentence of Section 62 of -.P. -l#. /2, as

a$ended. It is thus an opportune ti$e, as an%, to re$ind

hi$, as !ell as other "ud#es, of his dut% to be studious of

the principles of la!, 1 to ad$inister his office !ith due

re#ard to the inte#rit% of the s%ste$ of the la! itself, 11 to

be faithful to the la!, and to $aintain professional

co$petence. 1

&ounsel for petitioner, 1tt%. 4ose P. -albuena, Director IV

of petitioners )a! Depart$ent, $ust also be ad$onishedfor his utter carelessness in his reference to the case

a#ainst 4ud#e 4uan )avilles, 4r. In the $otion for

Reconsideration 1 he filed, !ith the court belo!, 1tt%.

-albuena stated

1s a $atter of fact, the issue on !hether

the Re#ional Trial &ourt has e8clusive

"urisdiction over election offenses is

alread% a settled issue in the case of

Al*erto aldeza 'vs' 5udge 5uan )avilles,

5r., A.M. o. M/5'$'"&&$, Marc #,

"$$9 , !here the Supre$e &ourtsuccinctl% held

1 revie! of the pertinent

provision of la! !ould

sho! that pursuant to

Sec. 2=7 and 2=3 of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode,

the &OM')'&, has the

e8clusive po!er toconduct preli$inar%



investi#ation of all

election offenses

punishable under the

&ode and te R/C sall

ave te e+clusive

original 0urisdiction to

try and decide any

criminal action or

roceedings 1or violation

o1 te same. TheMetropolitan, or MT&, b% !a% of e8ception

e8ercises "urisdiction

onl% on offenses relatin#

to failure to re#ister or to

vote. Notin# that these

provisions stand to#ether

!ith the provisions that

an% election offense

under the code shall be

punishable !ith

i$prison$ent of one (/*%ear to si8 (=* %ears and

shall not be sub"ect to

probation (Sec. 2=6,O$nibus 'lection &ode*,

we su*mit tat it is te

secial intention o1 te

Code to vest uon te R/C 0urisdiction over

election cases as a matter

o1 e+cetion to te

general rovisions on

0urisdiction over criminal cases 1ound under B.P.

"8$ *y RA %9$" does not

vest uon te M/C

0urisdiction over criminal

election o11enses desite

its e+anded 0urisdiction.

('$phasis ours*

1lso, in this petition, 1tt%. -albuena states

/=. This Bonorable Supre$e &ourt, in the

case of C1lberto @vs@ 4ud#e 4uan )avilles,4r.,C 207 S&R1 29= involvin# the sa$e

issue of "urisdiction bet!een the lo!er

courts and Re#ional Trial &ourt on

election offenses, has ruled, thus

+ith respect to the other char#es, a

revie! of the Pertinent Provision of )a!

!ould sho! that pursuant to Section 2=7

and 2=3 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode

the &o$elec has the po!er to conduct

preli$inar% investi#ations all election

offenses punishable under the code andthe Re#ional Trial &ourt shall have the

e8clusive ori#inal "urisdiction to tr% and

decide an% cri$inal action or proceedin#s

for violation of the sa$e. The

Metropolitan Trial &ourt, b% !a% of

e8ception e8ercise "urisdiction onl% on

offenses relatin# to failure to re#ister or to

vote. Notin# that these provisions standsto#ether !ith the provision that an%

election offense under the code shall be

punishable !ith i$prison$ent for one (/*

%ear to si8 (=* %ears and shall not be

sub"ect to probation (Section 2=0,

O$nibus 'lection &ode*. +e sub$it that

it is the special intention of the code to

vest upon the Re#ional Trial &ourt

"urisdiction over election cases as $atter

of e8e$ption to the provisions on "urisdiction over cri$inal cases found

under -.P. Re#. /2, as a$ended.

&onse<uentl%, the a$end$ent of -.P.Re#. /2 b% Republic 1ct. No. 3=/ doesnot vest upon the MT& "urisdiction over

cri$inal election offenses despite its

e8panded "urisdiction.

If 1tt%. -albuena !as dili#ent enou#h, he !ouldhave no!n that the correct na$e of the

co$plainant in the case referred to is neither

Al*erto aldeza as indicated in the $otion for

reconsideration nor Al*erto alone as stated in the

petition, but 1)-'RTO N1)DO1. Moreover,

the case !as not reported in volu$e 207 of theSupre$e &ourt Reports 1nnotated (S&R1* as

falsel% represented in the para#raph /= of the

petition, but in volu$e 270 of the S&R1.

+orse, in both the $otion for reconsideration and the

petition, 1tt%. -albuena deliberatel% $ade it appear that

the <uoted portions !ere findin#s or rulin#s, or, put a little

differentl%, our o!n !ords. The truth is, the <uoted

portion is "ust a part of the $e$orandu$ of the &ourt

1d$inistrator <uoted in the decision.

Rule /;.;2 of &anon /; of the &ode of ProfessionalResponsibilit% 14 $andates that a la!%er shall not

no!in#l% $is<uote or $isrepresent the te8t of a decision

or authorit%.

IN VI'+ OF 1)) TB' FOR'EOINE, the instant petition is ER1NT'D. The challen#ed orders of public

respondent 4ud#e To$as -. No%na% of 27 1u#ust /3

and /3 October /3 in &ri$inal &ases Nos. 1@/06 and

1@/002 to 1@/00 are S'T 1SID'. Respondent 4ud#e is

DIR'&T'D to tr% and decide said cases !ith purposeful

dispatch and, further, 1DMONISB'D to faithfull%

co$pl% !ith &anons 0 and /9 of the &anons of 4udicial'thics and Rule 6.;/, &anon 6 of the &ode of 4udicial

&onduct.

1tt%. 4ose P. -albuena is 1DMONISB'D to be $ore

careful in the dischar#e of his dut% to the court as a la!%er

under the &ode of Professional Responsibilit%.

No costs.

SO ORD'R'D.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 88919 *u& 5, 199

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.

HONORABLE ENRIUE B. INTING, PRESIDING

*UDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8,

DUMAGUETE CIT, AND OIC MAOR

DOMINADOR S. REGALADO, *R., respondents.

GUTIERRE6, *R., J.:

Does a preli$inar% investi#ation conducted b% a

Provincial 'lection Supervisor involvin# election offenseshave to be coursed throu#h the Provincial Fiscal no!

Provincial Prosecutor, before the Re#ional Trial &ourt

$a% tae co#niance of the investi#ation and deter$ine

!hether or not probable cause e8istsL

On Februar% =, /99, Mrs. 'ditha -arba filed a letter@

co$plaint a#ainst OI&@Ma%or Do$inador Re#alado of

Tan"a%, Ne#ros Oriental !ith the &o$$ission on

'lections (&OM')'&*, for alle#edl% transferrin# her, a

per$anent Nursin# 1ttendant, Erade I, in the office of the

Municipal Ma%or to a ver% re$ote baran#a% and !ithout

obtainin# prior per$ission or clearance fro$ &OM')'&

as re<uired b% la!.

1ctin# on the co$plaint, &OM')'& directed 1tt%.

Eerardo )ituanas, Provincial 'lection Supervisor of

Du$a#uete &it% (/* to conduct the preli$inar%

investi#ation of the case: (2* to prepare and file the

necessar% infor$ation in court: (6* to handle the

prosecution if the evidence sub$itted sho!s a rima 1acie

case and (6* to issue a resolution of prosecution or

dis$issal as the case $a% be. The directive to conduct the

preli$inar% investi#ation !as pursuant to &OM')'&

Resolution No. /372 dated 4anuar% /0, /9=. The

resolution, in turn, is based on the constitutional $andate

that the &OM')'& is char#ed !ith the enforce$ent and

ad$inistration of all la!s relative to the conduct of

elections for the purpose of ensurin# free, orderl% and

honest elections (sec. 2, 1rticle AII@& of the /36

&onstitution* and on the O$nibus 'lection &ode !hich

i$ple$ents the constitutional provision. The Resolution

provides, a$on# others

888 888 888

Further, Re#ional 'lection Directors and

Provincial 'lection Supervisors are

hereb% authoried to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ations of election offenses

co$$itted in their respective

"urisdictions, file the correspondin#

co$plaints and?or infor$ations in court

!henever !arranted, and to prosecute the

sa$e pursuant to Section 2=7 of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode. (Rollo, p. /7*

1fter a preli$inar% investi#ation of -arbas co$plaint,

1tt%. )ituanas found a rima 1acie case. Bence, on

Septe$ber 2=, /99, he filed !ith the respondent trial

court a cri$inal case for violation of section 2=/, Par. (h*,

O$nibus 'lection &ode a#ainst the OI&@Ma%or.

In an Order dated Septe$ber 6;, /99, the respondent

court issued a !arrant of arrest a#ainst the accused OI&

Ma%or. It also fi8ed the bail at five thousand pesos

(P7,;;;.;;* as reco$$ended b% the Provincial 'lection

Supervisor.

Bo!ever, in an order dated October 6, /99 and before

the accused could be arrested, the trial court set aside its

Septe$ber 6;, /99 order on the #round that 1tt%.

)ituanas is not authoried to deter$ine probable cause

pursuant to Section 2, 1rticle III of the /93 &onstitution.The court stated that it C!ill #ive due course to the

infor$ation filed in this case i1 te same as te written

aroval o1 te Provincial Fiscal after !hich the

prosecution of the case shall be under the supervision and

control of the latter.C (at p. 26, Rollo, e$phasis supplied*

In another order dated Nove$ber 22, /99, the court #ave

1tt%. )ituanas fifteen (/7* da%s fro$ receipt to file another

infor$ation char#in# the sa$e offense !ith the !ritten

approval of the Provincial Fiscal.

1tt%. )ituanas failed to co$pl% !ith the order. Bence, inan order dated Dece$ber 9, /99, the trial court <uashed

the infor$ation. 1 $otion for reconsideration !as denied.

Bence, this petition.

The respondent trial court "ustifies its stand on the #roundthat the &OM')'& throu#h its Provincial 'lection

Supervisor lacs "urisdiction to deter$ine the e8istence of

probable cause in an election offense !hich it sees to

prosecute in court because

+hile under Section 2=7 of the O$nibus

'lection &ode approved on Dece$ber 6,

/97 dul% authoried le#al officers of the

&o$$ission on 'lections have thee8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ation of all election offenses and

to prosecute the sa$e, it is doubtful

!hether said authorit% under the auspices

of the /36 &onstitution, still subsists

under the /93 &onstitution !hich has

deleted in its Section 2, 1rticle III, the

phrase Cand such other responsible officer

as $a% be authoried b% la!C in thee<uivalent section and article of the /36

&onstitution. (Rollo, p. 20*

The petition is i$pressed !ith $erit.

+e e$phasie i$portant features of the constitutional

$andate that C ... no search !arrant or !arrant of arrest

shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined

personall% b% the "ud#e ... C (1rticle III, Section 2,

&onstitution*



First, the deter$ination of probable cause is a function of

the 4ud#e. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor

nor for the 'lection Supervisor to ascertain. (nly te

5udge and te 5udge alone makes tis determination.

Second, the preli$inar% in<uir% $ade b% a Prosecutor

does not bind the 4ud#e. It $erel% assists hi$ to $ae the

deter$ination of probable cause. The 4ud#e does not have

to follo! !hat the Prosecutor presents to hi$. -% itself,

the Prosecutors certification of probable cause isineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of

steno#raphic notes (if an%*, and all other supportin#

docu$ents behind the Prosecutors certification !hich are

$aterial in assistin# the 4ud#e to $ae his deter$ination.

1nd third, 4ud#es and Prosecutors alie should distin#uish

the preli$inar% in<uir% !hich deter$ines probable cause

for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest fro$ the preli$inar%

investi#ation proper !hich ascertains !hether the offender

should be held for trial or released. 'ven if the t!o

in<uiries are conducted in the course of one and the sa$e

proceedin#, there should be no confusion about theob"ectives. The deter$ination of probable cause for the

!arrant of arrest is $ade b% the 4ud#e. The preli$inar%

investi#ation proper@!hether or not there is reasonable#round to believe that the accused is #uilt% of the offense

char#ed and, therefore, !hether or not he should be

sub"ected to the e8pense, ri#ors and e$barrass$ent of trial

is the function of the Prosecutor.

The &ourt $ade this clear in the case of Castillo v.

7illaluz (/3/ S&R1 6 /9J*

4ud#es of Re#ional Trial &ourts (for$erl%&ourts of First Instance* no lon#er haveauthorit% to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ations. That authorit%, at one ti$e

reposed in the$ under Sections /6, /0 and

/= Rule //2 of the Rules of &ourt of/=0, (See Sec. 0, Rule /;9, Rules of

&ourt of /0;: People v. Solon, 03 Phil.

006, cited in Moran, &o$$ents on the

Rules, /9; ed., Vol. 0, pp. //7@//=* !as

re$oved fro$ the$ b% the /97 Rules on

&ri$inal Procedure, effective on 4anuar%

/, /97, (Pro$ul#ated on Nove$ber //,/90* !hich deleted all provisions

#rantin# that po!er to said 4ud#es. +e

had occasion to point this out in alta v.

Court o1 Aeals, /06 S&R1 229, and to

stress as !ell certain other basic

propositions, na$el% (/* that the conduct

of a preli$inar% investi#ation is Cnot a "udicial function ... (but* part of the

prosecutions "ob, a function of the

e8ecutive,C (2* that !herever Cthere are

enou#h fiscals or prosecutors to conduct

preli$inar% investi#ations, courts arecounseled to leave this "ob !hich is

essentiall% e8ecutive to the$,C and the

fact Cthat a certain po!er is #ranted does

not necessaril% $ean that it should be

indiscri$inatel% e8ercised.C

The /99 1$end$ents to the /97 Rules

on &ri$inal Procedure, declared effective

on October /, /99, (The /99

1$end$ents !ere published in the issue

of -ulletin Toda% of October 2, /99*

did not restore that authorit% to 4ud#es of

Re#ional Trial &ourts: said a$end$ents

did not in fact deal at all !ith the officers

or courts havin# authorit% to conduct

preli$inar% investi#ations.

This is not to sa%, ho!ever, that

so$e!here alon# the line RT& 4ud#es

also lost the po!er to $ae a reliminarye+amination 1or te urose o1

determining weter ro*a*le cause

e+ists to 0usti1y te issuance o1 a warrant

o1 arrest (or search !arrant*. Such a

po!er K indeed, it is as $uch a dut% as it

is a po!er K has been and re$ains vestedin ever% "ud#e b% the provision in the -ill

of Ri#hts in the /67, the /36 and the

present (/93* &onstitutions securin# the

people a#ainst unreasonable searches and

seiures, thereb% placin# it be%ond the

co$petence of $ere &ourt rule or statuteto revoe. The distinction $ust, therefore,

be $ade clear !hile an RT& 4ud#e $a%

no lon#er conduct preli$inar%

investi#ations to ascertain !hether there

is sufficient #round for the filin# of a

cri$inal co$plaint or infor$ation, he

retains the authorit%, !hen such a

pleadin# is filed !ith his court, to

deter$ine !hether there is probable cause

"ustif%in# the issuance of a !arrant of

arrest. It $i#ht be added that this

distinction accords, rather than conflicts,!ith the rationale o1 alta because both

la! and rule, in restrictin# to "ud#es the

authorit% to order arrest, reco#nie that

function to be "udicial in nature.

+e reiterate that preli$inar% investi#ation should be

distin#uished as to !hether it is an investi#ation for the

deter$ination of a sufficient #round for the filin# of the

infor$ation or it is an investi#ation for the deter$inationof a probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest.

The first ind of preli$inar% investi#ation is e8ecutive in

nature. It is part of the prosecutions "ob. The second indof preli$inar% investi#ation !hich is $ore properl% called

preli$inar% e8a$ination is "udicial in nature and is lod#ed

!ith the "ud#e. It is in this conte8t that !e address the

issue raised in the instant petition so as to #ive $eanin# to

the constitutional po!er vested in the &OM')'&

re#ardin# election offenses.

1rticle IA & Section 2 of the &onstitution provides

Sec. 2. The &o$$ission on 'lections

shall e8ercise the follo!in# po!ers and

functions

(/* 'nforce and ad$inister all la!s and

re#ulations relative to the conduct of an

election, plebiscite, initiative, referendu$,and recall.

888 888 888

(=* File, upon a verified co$plaint, or on

its o!n initiative, petitions in court for



inclusion or e8clusion of votes,

investigate and, were aroriate,

rosecute cases o1 violation o1 election

laws, including acts or omission

constituting election 1rauds, o11enses, and

ractices. ('$phasis supplied*

In effect the /93 &onstitution $andates the &OM')'&

not onl% to investi#ate but also to prosecute cases of

violation of election la!s. This $eans that the &OM')'&is e$po!ered to conduct preli$inar% investi#ations in

cases involvin# election offenses for the purpose of

helpin# the 4ud#e deter$ine probable cause and for filin#

an infor$ation in court. This po!er is e8clusive !ith

&OM')'&.

The #rant to the &OM')'& of the po!er,

a$on# others, to enforce and ad$inister

all la!s relative to the conduct of election

and the conco$ittant authorit% to

investi#ate and prosecute election

offenses is not !ithout co$pellin# reason.The evident constitutional intend$ent in

besto!in# this po!er to the &OM')'& is

to insure the free, orderl% and honestconduct of elections, failure of !hich

!ould result in the frustration of the true

!ill of the people and $ae a $ere idle

cere$on% of the sacred ri#ht and dut% of

ever% <ualified citien to vote. To divest

the &OM')'& of the authorit% to

investi#ate and prosecute offenses

co$$itted b% public officials in relation

to their office !ould thus seriousl% i$pair its effectiveness in achievin# this clear

constitutional $andate.

Fro$ a careful scrutin% of the

constitutional provisions relied upon b%

the Sandi#anba%an, +e perceived neither

e8plicit nor i$plicit #rant to it and its

prosecutin# ar$, the Tanodba%an, of the

authorit% to investi#ate, prosecute and

hear election offenses co$$itted b%

public officers in relation to their office as

contradistin#uished fro$ the clear andcate#orical besto!al of said authorit% and

"urisdiction upon the &OM')'& and thecourts of first instance under Sections /92

and /90, respectivel%, of the 'lection

&ode of /39.

1n e8a$ination of the provisions of the&onstitution and the 'lection &ode of

/39 reveals the clear intention to place in

the &OM')'& e8clusive "urisdiction to

investi#ate and prosecute election

offenses co$$itted b% an% person,!hether private individual or public

officer or e$plo%ee, and in the latter

instance, irrespective of !hether the

offense is co$$itted in relation to his

official duties or not. In other !ords, it is

the nature of the offense and not the

personalit% of the offender that $atters.

1s lon# as the offense is an election

offense "urisdiction over the sa$e rests

e8clusivel% !ith the &OM')'&, in vie!

of its all@e$bracin# po!er over the

conduct of elections. (&orpus v.

Tanodba%an, /0 S&R1 29/ /93J*

Bence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assu$es no role in

the prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or

Prosecutor files an infor$ation char#in# an election

offense or prosecutes a violation of election la!, it is

because he has been deputied b% the &OM')'&. Be

does not do so under the sole authorit% of his office.

(People v. -asilla, et al., E.R. Nos. 9669@0;, Nove$ber=, /9*.iDtDc'asl In the instant case, there is no aver$ent

or alle#ation that the respondent 4ud#e is brin#in# in the

Provincial Fiscal as a deput% of &OM')'&. Be !ants the

Fiscal to CapproveC the &OM')'&s preli$inar%

investi#ation.

It is to be noted that on Februar% 23, /93 (!hen the /93

&onstitution !as alread% in effect* the President issued

'8ecutive Order No. /60 !hich !as the 'N1-)INE

1&T FOR ')'&TIONS FOR M'M-'RS OF

&ONER'SS ON M1G //, /93 1ND FOR OTB'R

P>RPOS'S.C Section // thereof provides

Prosecution. The &o$$ission shall,

throu#h its dul% authoried le#al officers,

have e8clusive po!er to conduct

preli$inar% investi#ation of all election

offenses punishable as provided for in the

precedin# section, and to prosecute the

sa$e Provided, That in the event that the&o$$ission fails to act on an% co$plaint

!ithin t!o (2* $onths fro$ filin#, the

co$plainant $a% file the co$plaint !ith

the Office of the Fiscal or !ith theDepart$ent of 4ustice for proper

investi#ation and prosecution, if

!arranted.

The &o$$ission $a% avail of theassistance of other prosecutin# ar$s of

the #overn$ent.

It is onl% after a preli$inar% e8a$ination conducted b% the

&OM')'& throu#h its officials or its deputies that section2, 1rticle III of the /93 &onstitution co$es in. This is so,

because, !hen the application for a !arrant of arrest is$ade and the infor$ation is filed !ith the court, the "ud#e

!ill then deter$ine !hether or not a probable cause e8ists

for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest.

-earin# these principles in $ind, it is apparant that the

respondent trial court $isconstrued the constitutional

provision !hen it <uashed the infor$ation filed b% theProvincial 'lection Supervisor. 1s indicated above !hat

the respondent trial court should have done !as to enforce

its Septe$ber 6;, /99 order, to !it

Pursuant to &ircular No. /2 of the &hief4ustice of the Supre$e &ourt dated 4une

6;, /93 and considerin# that after a

personal e8a$ination of the evidence

sub$itted b% the investi#atin# Provincial

'lection Supervisor III Ne#ros Oriental

(Desi#nated )e#al Officer*, there is

reasonable #round for this &ourt to rel%

on the certification of said Provincial

'lection Supervisor III in the infor$ation

that a probable cause e8ists, let a !arrant



issue for the arrest of the accused filin#

the bail at FIV' TBO>S1ND

(P7,;;;.;;* P'SOS as reco$$ended b%

the Provincial 'lection Supervisor III.

The order to #et the approval of the Provincial Fiscal is

not onl% superfluous but un!arranted.

+B'R'FOR', the instant petition is ER1NT'D. The

<uestioned Orders dated October 6, /99, Nove$ber 22,/99 and Dece$ber 9, /99 are R'V'RS'D and S'T

1SID'. The respondent trial courts Order dated

Septe$ber 6;, /99 is R'INST1T'D. The respondent

court is ordered to proceed hearin# the case !ith

deliberate speed until its ter$ination.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. Nos. 1485251 M$& 4,

EUGENIO :*ING2*ING: FAELNAR, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON

CODILLA, ! "s #$%$#t& $s P('s)!g *u)g' o+ t"'

RTC, B($!#" 19, C';u Ct&, $!) COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, respondents.

MENDO6A, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order, dated

4ul% 2, /, of the Re#ional Trial &ourt, -ranch /,

&ebu &it%, den%in# petitioners $otion to <uash in

&ri$inal &ases Nos. &->@00/ 1 and 002, and the

order, dated October 0, /, den%in# petitioners $otion

for reconsideration.

The facts are as follo!s

On 1pril 9, /3, petitioner 'u#enio Faelnar filed a

certificate of candidac% for the position of -aran#a%

&hair$an of -aran#a% Euadalupe, &ebu &it% in the Ma%

/2, /3 baran#a% elections. The follo!in# da%, on 1pril

, /3, a basetball tourna$ent, dubbed the C2nd 4INE@

4INE F1')N1RS &>P,C opened at the Euadalupe Sports

&o$ple8 and lasted up to 1pril 6;, /3. This #ave rise to

a co$plaint for electioneerin# filed a#ainst petitioner and

&ecilio Eilla$ac b% 1ntonio )u%. The co$plaint alle#edthat the basetball tourna$ent !as actuall% a ca$pai#n

#i$$ic sta#ed outside the ca$pai#n period !hich

officiall% started on Ma% /, /3, in violation of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode. )u% alle#ed that (/* durin# the

tourna$ent, a strea$er bearin# petitioners na$e !as

placed on the facade of the Euadalupe Sports &o$ple8:

(2* petitioners na$e !as repeatedl% $entioned over the$icrophone durin# the #a$es: (6* the tourna$ent !as

!idel% published in the local ne!spaper: and (0* a raffle

sponsored b% &ecilio Eilla$ac !as held !ith ho$e

appliances #iven a!a% as pries.

Petitioner denied participation in the tourna$ent and

clai$ed that its $a"or sponsor !as Eilla$ac Maretin#,

Inc. Be contended that the sa$e !as purel% a sportin#

event for the benefit of the %outh.

The co$plaint !as investi#ated b% 1tt%. 'd!in

&adun#o#, election officer of &ebu &it%, !ho later

reco$$ended the dis$issal of the char#es a#ainst

petitioner and Eilla$ac. On the other hand, the )a!

Depart$ent of the &OM')'& reco$$ended the filin# ofa case a#ainst petitioner and Eilla$ac for violation of Q9;, in relation to Q2=2, 4 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode, and

Q7; of &OM')'& Resolution No. 2999, in relation to Q/2

of Republic 1ct No. ==3. 5

In its Resolution No. 3@6;0;, dated Septe$ber /=, /3,

the &OM')'& en *anc resolved to dis$iss the case.

Bo!ever, on $otion of 1ntonio )u%, the &OM')'&

reconsidered its action and ordered the filin# of the

necessar% Infor$ations a#ainst petitioner and Eilla$ac.

1ccordin#l%, petitioner and Eilla$ac !ere for$all%char#ed in the Re#ional Trial &ourt, &ebu &it% under t!o

Infor$ations in &ri$inal &ases Nos. &->@00/ and

&->@002.

Petitioner $oved to <uash the infor$ation or, in the

alternative, for reinvesti#ation of the case, contendin# that

Resolution No. 3@6;0;, !hich dis$issed the co$plaint

a#ainst hi$, !as i$$ediatel% e8ecutor% and could no

lon#er be reconsidered.

Petitioners $otion !as denied b% the trial court in an

order dated 4ul% 2, /. Be $oved for reconsideration, but his $otion !as lie!ise denied b% the court in its

order, dated October 0, /. Bence this petition.

Petitioner reiterates his ar#u$ent in the trial court that

&OM')'& Resolution No. 3@6;0;, !hich dis$issed the

co$plaint a#ainst hi$, can no lon#er be reconsidered b%

the &OM')'&. Be contends that under the Rules of

Procedure of the &OM')'&, the dis$issal of the

co$plaint !as i$$ediatel% final and e8ecutor%.

1dditionall%, he avers that 1ntonio )u%s Motion for

Reconsideration of Resolution No. 3@6;0; is a prohibited

pleadin# under the &o$$issions Rules of Procedure. Beavers that since the resolution in <uestion !as

i$$ediatel% final and e8ecutor%, it !as no lon#er !ithin

the po!er of the &OM')'& to reconsider. &onse<uentl%,Resolution No. 9@2/0, in directin# the filin# of char#es

in court, !as Cultra@vires,C and the Infor$ations filed

a#ainst hi$ should have been <uashed. /

The petition is !ithout $erit.

First . +hile the instant petition challen#es the trial courts

orders den%in# petitioners $otion to <uash the co$plaints

in &ri$inal &ases Nos. &->@00/ and 002, the#rounds relied upon b% petitioner are directed at the

validit% of Resolution No. 9@2/0 of the &OM')'&.

Thus, petitioner pra%s that said resolution be declared null

and void. 0

This petition is nothin# but an atte$pt to circu$vent a

final resolution of the &OM')'&.

Resolution No. 9@2/0 !as pro$ul#ated b% the

&OM')'& en *anc on October 2, /9. Petitioners



re$ed% !as to see its annul$ent b% !a% of a special civil

action of certiorari under Rule =7 of the Rules of &ourt.

Rule =0, Q2 provides

Sec. 2. Mode o1 Review. K 1

"ud#$ent or final order or

resolution of the &o$$ission on

'lections and the &o$$ission on

1udit $a% be brou#ht b% the

a##rieved part% to the Supre$e&ourt on certiorari under Rule

=7, e8cept as hereinafter

provided.

Sec. 6 of said Rule provides that such petition shall be

filed !ithin 6; da%s fro$ notice of the resolution sou#ht

to be revie!ed. No such petition !as ever filed. The

present petition to set aside the orders of the trial court

den%in# its $otion to <uash and $otion for

reconsideration !as filed onl% on Nove$ber /2, /,

$ore than a %ear after Resolution No. 9@2/0 !as

pro$ul#ated on October 2, /9. &onse<uentl%, theresolution is no! final and bindin# upon the parties.

'ven if said resolution is erroneous for bein# contrar% to

the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the

&OM')'&, the sa$e is not void. Since it has beco$e

final and e8ecutor%, it is alread% bindin# and effective. 8

econd . The above discussion should be enou#h to dispose

of this petition. Bo!ever, !e thin there is an i$portant

<uestion of la! that $ust not be left undecided, i.e., is the

resolution of the &OM')'& dis$issin# the cri$inal

co$plaint for violation of the election la!s i$$ediatel%final and e8ecutor%, as petitioner contendsL

The contention is untenable. In support of his clai$s,

petitioner cites Rule /6, Q/(d* of the Rules of Procedure of

the &OM')'& !hich provides

Sec. /. at leadings are not

allowed . K The follo!in#

pleadin#s are not allo!ed

888 888 888

(d* $otion for reconsideration of

an en *anc rulin#, resolution,

order or decision: . . . .

The above <uoted provision, ho!ever, is taen fro$ the

/99 &OM')'& Rules of Procedure !hich has alread%

been a$ended. The /6 Rules of Procedure, no!

provides

Rule /6. K Prohibited Pleadin#s.

Sec. /. at leadings are not

allowed . K The follo!in#

pleadin#s are not allo!ed

888 888 888

(d* $otion for reconsideration ofan en *anc rulin#, resolution,

order or decision e+cet in

election o11ense cases: . . .

('$phasis added*.

>nder the present rule, therefore, a $otion for

reconsideration of a rulin#, resolution or decision of the

&OM')'& en *anc is allo!ed in cases involvin# election

offenses.

Bere, there is no <uestion that !hat is involved is a

resolution of the &OM')'& en *anc in an election

offense. Bence, a $otion for reconsideration of such

resolution is allo!ed under the Rules of Procedure of the

&OM')'&.

Petitioner lie!ise invoes Rule 60, Q/; of the

&OM')'& Rules of Procedure !hich provides that K

Sec. /;. Aeals 1rom te Action

o1 te tate Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal . K

1ppeals fro$ the resolution of

the State Prosecutor, or Provincial

or &it% Fiscal on the

reco$$endation or resolution of

investi#atin# officers $a% be$ade onl% to the &o$$ission

!ithin ten (/;* da%s fro$ receipt

of the resolution of said officials,

rovided , ho!ever that this shall

not divest the &o$$ission of its

po!er to motu rorio revie!,

revise, $odif% or reverse the

resolution of the chief state prosecutor and?or provincial?cit%

prosecutors. /e decision o1 te

Commission on said aeals

sall *e immediately e+ecutoryand 1inal . ('$phasis added*

'ven a cursor% readin# of the above rule, ho!ever, !ill

sho! that it #overns appeals fro$ the action of the State

Prosecutor or Provincial or &it% Fiscal on thereco$$endation or resolution of investi#atin# officers.

The present case does not involve such an appeal but a

resolution of the &OM')'& itself in the e8ercise of its

e8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar% investi#ation of

election offense cases. 9 Such distinction can be easil%

e8plained.

In cases !here the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or &it%

Fiscal e8ercises the dele#ated po!er 1 to conduct

preli$inar% investi#ation of election offense cases, after

the investi#atin# officer sub$its his reco$$endation, said

officers alread% resolve the issue of probable cause. Fro$

such resolution, appeal to the &OM')'& lies. 1s the

e8ercise b% the &o$$ission of its revie! po!ers !ould,

at this point, alread% constitute a second loo on the issue

of probable cause, the &OM')'&s rulin# on the appeal

!ould be i$$ediatel% final and e8ecutor%.

On the other hand, if the preli$inar% investi#ation of aco$plaint for election offense is conducted b% the

&OM')'& itself, its investi#atin# officer prepares a

report upon !hich the &o$$issions )a! Depart$ent

$aes its reco$$endation to the &OM')'& en *anc on

!hether there is probable cause to prosecute. It is thus the

&OM')'& en *anc !hich deter$ines the e8istence of

probable cause. 11 &onse<uentl%, an appeal to the

&o$$ission is unavailin#. >nder the present Rules of

Procedure of the &OM')'&, ho!ever, a $otion forreconsideration of such resolution is allo!ed. This



effectivel% allo!s for a revie! of the ori#inal resolution,

in the sa$e $anner that the &OM')'&, on appeal or

motu rorio, $a% revie! the resolution of the State

Prosecutor, or Provincial or &it% Fiscal.

Reliance b% petitioner upon Rule 60, Q/; of the

&OM')'& Rules of Procedure is thus !ithout an% basis.

+B'R'FOR', the petition for certiorari is D'NI'D.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 11008 *$!u$(& 8,

HERMAN TIU LAUREL, petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE PRESIDING *UDGE,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH

1, $!) t"' COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

respondents.

UISUMBING, J.:

Petitioner sees to annul the &ourt of 1ppeals decision, as!ell as its resolution den%in# reconsideration, in &.1.

E.R. SP No. 02=/9, !hich upheld the trial courts denial

of his $otion to <uash the char#es a#ainst hi$ for

falsification of public docu$ents and violation of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode.

The factual antecedents are as follo!s

On /6 Dece$ber /7, the Bon. -ernardo P.

Pardo, &hair$an of respondent &OM')'&/ sent

a verified letter@co$plaint to 4ose P. -albuena,

Director of the )a! Depart$ent of the said

respondent, char#in# petitioner !ith CFalsification

of Public Docu$entsC and violation of Section

30J of the O$nibus 'lection &ode, statin# in the

sa$e letter the facts on !hich he relies upon to

support his accusations, !hich are, inter alia, that petitioner C!as born in Manila on October 9, /7/

. . . (and* (a*t the ti$e of his birth, both his father

and $other !ere &hinese citiens. . . . OnFebruar% 2;, /7, Ber$an Tiu )aurel filed acertificate of candidac% !ith the )a!

Depart$ent . . . for the position of Senator, statin#

that he is a natural@born Filipino citien . . . This

state$ent . . . is false and constitutes not onl% a

falsification of public docu$ents but also a

violation of the O$nibus 'lection &ode.

On the basis of the said &o$plaint, an

investi#ation !as conducted b% the &OM')'&

)a! Depart$ent, doceted as 'O &ase No. 7@

906 entitled The Bon. -ernardo P. Pardo,&o$plainant, versus Ber$an Tiu )aurel,

Respondent. Thereafter, or on /9 4anuar% /=, a

Report !as $ade b% the said Depart$ent

reco$$endin# the filin# of an Infor$ation a#ainst

petitioner for violation of the O$nibus 'lection

&ode, as !ell as for Falsification under 1rticles

/3/ and /32 of the Revised Penal &ode. Durin#

an en *anc $eetin# of the &OM')'& held on 27

4anuar% /3, the said Report !as deliberated

upon, after !hich &OM')'& resolved

/. To file the necessar% infor$ationa#ainst respondent Ber$an Tiu )aurel

!ith the appropriate court for violation of

Section 30, in relation to Section 2=2 of

the O$nibus 'lection &ode, the

prosecution of !hich shall be handled b%a la!%er to be desi#nated b% the Director

IV of the )a! Depart$ent !ith the dut%

to render periodic report after ever%

hearin#.

2. To file a cri$inal co$plaint !ith the

appropriate court a#ainst the sa$erespondent for falsification defined and

penalied under para#raph 0, 1rticle /3/,in relation to para#raph /, 1rticle /32 of

the Revised Penal &ode.

Pursuant thereto, on ;7 Februar% /7, an

infor$ation for CViolation of Section 30, inrelation to Section 2=2 of the O$nibus 'lection

&odeC !as filed b% Director 4ose F. -albuena

a#ainst petitioner, !hich !as raffled to respondent

court, doceted as &ri$. &ase No. =@/0377;.

On /0 Februar% /=, or after the filin# of the

Infor$ation, plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition

in 'O &ase No. 7@906, seein# the inhibition of

the entire &OM')'&, alle#in# that C(r*espondent(petitioner herein* is not confident that this

present foru$ is capable of fairl% and i$partiall%

renderin# a resolution on the $erits of the above@

captioned co$plaintC, statin#J his reasons

therefor. In a Minute Resolution, the &OM')'&

infor$ed petitioner Cthat the &o$$ission has lost



"urisdiction over the case as it is no! before the

Re#ional Trial &ourt of Manila . . . .C +ith respect

to the Infor$ation, plaintiff in turn filed on ;3

Ma% /= a Motion to uash the sa$e, alle#in#

lac of "urisdiction and lac of authorit% on the

part of Director -albuena to file the infor$ation.

On /= Ma% /=, respondent &OM')'&,throu#h Director 1liode$ D. Dalai# of the )a!

Depart$ent, filed an Opposition thereto. On 2;

Ma% /=, plaintiff filed his Repl%.

On // Septe$ber /=, respondent court issued

the first <uestioned order, the decretal portion of

!hich reads

+B'R'FOR', in vie! of all the

fore#oin#, the Motion to uash to#ether

!ith the 1lternative Motions contained

therein is hereb% denied.

To this, petitioner dul% e8cepted on ; October

/= b% filin# a Motion for Reconsideration,!hich respondent court denied in its second

<uestioned order dated 2 October /=.2

Fro$ the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration,

petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the

&ourt of 1ppeals. Be alle#ed, in essence, that the

&OM')'& violated its o!n rules of procedure on the

initiation of the preli$inar% investi#ation and the

conse<uent filin# of a cri$inal co$plaint a#ainst hi$.6

The &ourt of 1ppeals upheld the trial court and ruled that

the proper procedure !as follo!ed b% the &OM')'&.

1ccordin# to the &ourt of 1ppeals, the co$plaint si#ned

b% Pardo !as in the nature of a motu rorio co$plaint

filed b% the &OM')'& and si#ned b% the &hair$an,

pursuant to Rule 60, Section 0 of the &OM')'& Rules of

Procedure. Pardos referral of the co$plaint to the

&OM')'&s )a! Depart$ent and the subse<uent

preli$inar% investi#ation !ere lie!ise done in

accordance !ith the rules.

The co$plaint bein# an official act, it bears the

presu$ption of havin# been re#ularl% perfor$ed.

The &ourt of 1ppeals added that even if the co$plaint

!ere to be considered as a co$plaint filed b% a private

citien, still, Pardo as head of the &OM')'& had the

authorit% to direct co$$ence$ent of a preli$inar%

investi#ation in connection there!ith.

1t the sa$e ti$e, ho!ever, the &ourt of 1ppeals also

directed the trial court to re$and the case to the

&OM')'& for reception of petitioners $otion for

reconsideration of the &OM')'& resolution dated

4anuar% 27, /=,0 !hich approved the filin# of a cri$inal

co$plaint a#ainst petitioner. Petitioner clai$ed that hefailed to receive cop% of this resolution and, conse<uentl%,

failed to $ove for its reconsideration.7

The &ourt of 1ppeals denied petitioners $otion for

reconsideration of its decision. Bence, the present petition,

in !hich petitioner raises the follo!in# issues

1. It !as error for the &ourt of 1ppeals to hold

there !as no fla! in the procedure follo!ed b%

the &OM')'& in the conduct of the preli$inar%

investi#ation.

-. The &ourt of 1ppeals erred in holdin# that

petitioners protestations on &OM')'&s havin#

acted as co$plainant, investi#ator, prosecutor,

"ud#e and e8ecutioner in the conduct of the

preli$inar% investi#ation rin# hollo!.=

Petitioner asserts that the preli$inar% investi#ation !asdefective since the co$plaint !as not initiated in

accordance !ith applicable la! and rules. Be alle#es that

the infor$ation filed !ith the trial court !as void and

respondent "ud#e could not have ac<uired "urisdiction over

the case.

Petitioner cites Section 6, Rule 60 of the &OM')'&

Rules of Procedure, !hich provides

Sec. 6. nitiation o1 comlaint . K Initiation of

co$plaint for election offenses $a% be done motu

rorio *y te Commission, or uon writtencomlaint *y any citizen . . . . ('$phasis b%

petitioner*

Petitioner contends that the co$plaint filed b% Pardo !asnot in the nature of a motu rorio co$plaint filed b% the

&OM')'& since Pardo, b% hi$self alone, !as not the

&OM')'&. If the co$plaint !ere to be considered as one

filed b% a private citien, then Pardo as a citien did not

have the re<uisite authorit% to file his co$plaint directl%

!ith the &OM')'&s )a! Depart$ent.lawil.net

Petitioner contends that onl% the &OM')'& has the

capacit% to do so, under Section 7 of said Rule 60.

Sec. 7. Re1erral Preliminary nvestigation. K If

the co$plaint is initiated motu rorio b% the

&o$$ission, or is filed !ith the &o$$ission b%

an% a##rieved part%, it shall be referred to the )a!

Depart$ent for investi#ation. . . .

Petitioner ar#ues that a resolution of the &OM')'& en

*anc is necessar% for the referral of a co$plaint to the

)a! Depart$ent. Be asserts that Pardo did not have the

authorit%, as a private citien, to directl% file his co$plaint

!ith the )a! Depart$ent. 1ccordin# to petitioner, Pardoshould have filed his co$plaint !ith the &OM')'& and

the latter should have passed a resolution en *anc

referrin# the $atter to the )a! Depart$ent.3 Petitioner

insists that onl% the &OM')'&, throu#h an en *anc

resolution, $a% direct the )a! Depart$ent to conduct an

investi#ation. Thus, it !as !ron# for Pardo to direct the

)a! Depart$ent to conduct a preli$inar% investi#ation, as

he did in his co$plaint, and the latter Ccould and should

not have acted pursuant to &hair$an Pardos co$plaint.C9

Moreover, petitioner avers that the resolution of the

&OM')'& en *anc dated 4anuar% 27, /=, issued afterthe preli$inar% investi#ation and !hich reco$$ended the

filin# of char#es a#ainst hi$, did not cure the irre#ularities

present durin# the preli$inar% investi#ation.

)astl%, petitioner contends he could no lon#er e8pect

i$partialit% and fairness fro$ the &OM')'&. In his

Me$orandu$, petitioner declared,

This !as the then &OM')'& boss, personall%

and b% hi$self, (!ho* #athered the evidence in an



atte$pt to nail do!n petitioner. The then

&OM')'& &hair$an !as the co$plainant as

!ell. 1nd, as his letter@co$plaint incontrovertibl%

sho!s, it !as also the then &OM')'& &hair$an

!ho directed that a preli$inar% investi#ation be

conducted and co$pleted !ithin 6; da%s.

Petitioner concludes that the &OM')'& could not but be

partial in this case, hence the proceedin#s are fatall%

biased a#ainst hi$.

On the other hand, the &OM')'& in its Me$orandu$/;

contends that the co$plaint !as properl% filed since

Section 0(b*, Rule 60 of the &OM')'& Rules of

Procedure specificall% states that the co$plaint shall be

filed !ith the )a! Depart$ent. It is of no $o$ent that the

co$plainant !as, at that ti$e, the chair$an of the

&OM')'& hi$self. This should not preclude hi$ fro$

filin# a co$plaint !ith the &OM')'& for alle#ed

violations of election la!s, provided he does not

participate in the discussions re#ardin# the case. The

&OM')'& points out that, indeed, Pardo did not participate in the deliberation of his o!n

co$plaint."wi".nHt

On the char#e that there can he no fairness in the

investi#ation of the co$plaint filed b% the &OM')'&

chair$an, the &OM')'& points out that the &o$$ission

is a colle#iate bod%. It is the entire $e$bership of the

&o$$ission that deliberates and decides on cases brou#ht before it and not "ust the chair$an. To disallo! the

&OM')'& in this case fro$ conductin# a preli$inar%

investi#ation !ould be to tie the hands of the &o$$ission

and prevent it fro$ perfor$in# its constitutional $andate.It could also cause a delu#e in the nu$ber of election la!

violators.

In addition, the &OM')'& asserts that petitioner !as

#iven the opportunit% to present evidence in his defense!hile Pardos co$plaint !as bein# investi#ated b% the

&o$$ission.

The &onstitution #ives the &OM')'& the po!er to

investi#ate and, !here appropriate, to prosecute cases ofviolations of election la!s.// This po!er is an e8clusive

prero#ative of the &OM')'&./2

There are t!o !a%s throu#h !hich a co$plaint for

election offenses $a% be initiated. It $a% be filed b% the&OM')'& motu rorio, or it $a% be filed via !ritten

co$plaint b% an% citien of the Philippines, candidate,

re#istered political part%, coalition of political parties or

or#aniations under the part%list s%ste$ or an% accreditedcitiens ar$s of the &o$$ission./6

Motu proprio co$plaints $a% be si#ned b% the &hair$an

of the &OM')'& and need not be verified./0

On the other hand, co$plaints filed b% parties other than

the &OM')'& $ust be verified and supported b%

affidavits and other evidence./7

The co$plaint shall be filed !ith the &OM')'& )a!

Depart$ent or !ith the offices of election re#istrars,

provincial election supervisors or re#ional election

directors, or of the state prosecutor, provincial or cit%

fiscal./=

+hether initiated motu roio or filed !ith the

&OM')'& b% an% other part%, the co$plaint shall be

referred to the &OM')'& )a! Depart$ent for

investi#ation. >pon direction of the &hair$an, the

preli$inar% investi#ation $a% be dele#ated to an% la!%er

of the Depart$ent, an% Re#ional 'lection Director or

Provincial 'lection Supervisor, or an% &OM')'& la%er./3

The co$plaint sub"ect of this case !as filed b% then

&OM')'& &hair$an -ernardo P. Pardo. It !asaddressed to 4ose P. -albuena, director of the &OM')'&

)a! Depart$ent. It starts !ith the follo!in# state$ent

I hereb% char#e for$er senatorial candidate

Ber$an Tiu )aurel !ith falsification of public

docu$ents and violation of the O$nibus 'lection

&ode./9

In the sa$e co$plaint, Pardo directed the conduct of a

preli$inar% investi#ation of the char#es he leveled a#ainst

Tiu )aurel, to be co$pleted !ithin 6; da%s. In the

verification at the end of the co$plaint, he stated that, CIa$ the co$plainant in the . . . letter co$plaint. . .C/

+as the co$plaint one initiated b% the &OM')'& motu

rorioL

To our $ind, the co$plaint in <uestion in this case is one

filed b% Pardo in his personal capacit% and not as

chair$an of the &OM')'&. This is obvious fro$ the

openin# sentence of the co$plaint, !hich starts !ith CI

hereb% char#e. . .C It is also $anifest in the verification of

the co$plaint in !hich Pardo stated that he is the

co$plainant therein. The fact that the co$plaint !asverified is another indication that it !as filed b% a private

citien, for onl% such co$plaints re<uire verification.

Pardo $ust have no!n this.

-esides, the &OM')'& itself, in its &o$$ent filed

before this &ourt, ad$itted that the co$plaint !as

initiated in Pardos Cindividual capacit%.C2;

&ould Pardo then have, in his personal capacit%, filed his

co$plaint directl% !ith the &OM')'&s )a!

Depart$entL +e believe he could, under Rule 60, Section

0 of the &OM')'& Rules of Procedure, !hich clearl% provides

Sec. 0. Form o1 Comlaint and ere to File. K .. .

(b* /e comlaint sall *e 1iled wit te )aw

-eartment of the &o$$ission: or !ith the

offices of the 'lection Re#istrars, Provincial'lection Supervisors or Re#ional 'lection

Directors, or the State Prosecutor, Provincial

Fiscal or &it% Fiscal. . . ('$phasis supplied.*

-ut petitioner insists, and this is the cru8 of his ar#u$ents,that absent an en *anc resolution directin# the )a!

Depart$ent to conduct a preli$inar% investi#ation, there

could be no valid investi#ation. +ithout a valid

preli$inar% investi#ation, no valid infor$ation could befiled a#ainst hi$. Be cites Rule 60, Section 7 of the

&OM')'& Rules of Procedure in support of his

clai$."awi".nHt



Sec. 7. Re1erral 1or Preliminary nvestigation. K

If the co$plaint is initiated motu rorio b% the


an% a##rieved part%, it shall be referred to the )a!

Depart$ent for investi#ation. >pon direction of

the &hair$an of the &o$$ission, the preli$inar%

investi#ation $a% be dele#ated to an% la!%er ofsaid Depart$ent, or to an% of the Re#ional

'lection Directors or Provincial 'lection

Supervisors, or an% la!%er of the &o$$ission.

Bo!ever, !e fail to see fro$ Section 7 the re<uire$ent

that onl% the &OM')'& en *anc $a% refer a co$plaint to

the )a! Depart$ent for investi#ation. +hat Section 7

states onl% is that it is the )a! Depart$ent, not another

office, of the &OM')'& !hich $a% conduct aninvesti#ation into the alle#ations in the co$plaint. There is

no specific re<uire$ent as to ow referral to the

depart$ent shall be $ade. +e cannot read into the rules

!hat si$pl% is not there.

Sec. 7 refers to t!o situations, one of !hich is !here aco$plaint filed b% a part% other than the &OM')'& is

addressed to the &o$$ission itself. Since it is not the

entire &o$$ission that conducts the preli$inar%investi#ation, the co$plaint $ust necessaril% be referred

to its )a! Depart$ent. >nder the rules, this depart$ent is

tased !ith conductin# preli$inar% investi#ations of

co$plaints filed before the &OM')'&.2/ +here, as in this

case, the co$plaint !as directl% filed !ith the )a!

Depart$ent under Section 0 of Rule 60, obviousl% there is

no need to refer such co$plaint to the sa$e )a!

Depart$ent.

There is lie!ise no rule a#ainst the &OM')'& chair$an

directin# the conduct of a preli$inar% investi#ation, even

if he hi$self !ere the co$plainant in his private capacit%.

In fact, under Section 7, the preli$inar% investi#ation $a%

be dele#ated to an% of those officials specified in the rule,

upon the direction of the &OM')'& chair$an. +e a#ree

!ith the &ourt of 1ppeals observation that,

'Jven if !e re#ard the co$plaint to have been

filed b% &hair$an Pardo as a private citien, there

is no rh%$e nor reason !h% he cannot direct the

)a! Depart$ent to perfor$ an investi#ation anddele#ate the conduct of preli$inar% investi#ation

to an% la!%er of said Depart$ent in his capacit%

as &hair$an of the &o$$ission on 'lections. The

"ustification is, in so doin#, he !as $erel% actin#

pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 60 of the

&OM')'& Rules of Procedure. No clash or

conflict could be attributed in his perfor$ance ofthe said acts, one as a private citien, and the other

as &hair$an of &OM')'&, as it !ould not be

hi$ but another la!%er in the )e#al Depart$ent

that !ould actuall% be carr%in# but the

preli$inar% investi#ation. The outco$e of thein<uir%, therefore, could not, er se, be considered

as sullied !ith bias.22

&learl%, the applicable rules !ere follo!ed in the conductof the preli$inar% investi#ation of Pardos co$plaint

a#ainst petitioner, contrar% to the latters assertion.

1nent petitioners contention that bias tainted the

preli$inar% investi#ation, !e a#ain <uote !ith approvalfro$ the rulin# of the &ourt of 1ppeals

There $a% be evidence that the relations bet!een

petitioner and &hair$an Pardo are not e8actl%

cordial. Bo!ever, this should not detract fro$ the

validit% of the preli$inar% investi#ation and

correspondin# Infor$ation filed a#ainst the

petitioner, for t!o (2* i$portant reasons First, the

records !ill readil% support the conclusion thatthere is sufficient evidentiar% basis to at least find

probable cause to indict the petitioner for

violation of the O$nibus 'lection &ode: andsecond, it also appears fro$ the records that, apartfro$ directin# the )a! Depart$ent to launch an

investi#ation, &hair$an Pardo had no other

participation in the proceedin#s !hich led to the

filin# of the Infor$ation.26

The entire &OM')'& cannot possibl% be restrained fro$

investi#atin# the co$plaint filed a#ainst petitioner, as the

latter !ould lie the courts to do. The &OM')'& is

$andated b% no less than the &onstitution to investi#ate

and prosecute, !hen necessar%, violations of election la!s.

This po!er is lod#ed e8clusivel% !ith the &OM')'&.For the entire &o$$ission to inhibit itself fro$

investi#atin# the co$plaint a#ainst petitioner !ould be

nothin# short of an abandon$ent of its $andate under the

&onstitution and the O$nibus 'lection &ode. This !e

cannot allo!.

1s re#ards the alle#ed failure of the &OM')'& to serve

petitioner !ith a cop% of its resolution reco$$endin# the

filin# of an infor$ation a#ainst hi$, this is denied b% the

&OM')'&. Bo!ever, the &ourt of 1ppeals found that,

indeed, there is no sho!in# that petitioner !as ever sent a

cop% of said resolution. This factual findin# is bindin#upon this &ourt. Thus, as ruled b% the &ourt of 1ppeals,

the case should be re$anded to the &OM')'& for

reception of petitioners $otion for reconsideration of the

4anuar% 27, /= resolution, if petitioner is still interested

in sub$ittin# one. The proceedin#s in &ri$inal &ase No.=@/0377; should be suspended !hile resolution of the

$otion that $a% be files is pendin#.

+B'R'FOR', the instant petition is hereb% D'NI'D

and the decision of the &ourt of 1ppeals in &[email protected]. SP

No. 02=/9 is 1FFIRM'D."wi".nHt

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 19410 F';(u$(& 1, 1998

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, petitioner,

vs.

HON. LOREN6O R. SIL-A, *R., $s P('s)!g *u)g',

RTC, B($!#"'s $!) , B$$!g$, B$t$$!, HON.

BEN*AMIN T. -IAN6ON, $s P('s)!g *u)g', B($!#"

1, o+ t"' s$' Cou(t, ERASTO TANCIONGCO, $!)

NORMA CASTILLO, respondents.



MENDO6A, J.:

This case presents for deter$ination the e8tent of control

!hich those desi#nated b% the &o$$ission on 'lections

have in the prosecution of election offenses. The facts are

not in dispute. Pursuant to its po!er under 1rt. IA@&, Q

2(=* of the &onstitution, the &OM')'& char#ed private

respondents 'rasto Tancion#co and Nor$a &astillo !ith

violations of Q23 of R.1. No. ==0=, to#ether !ith enon

>%, in t!elve separate infor$ations filed !ith theRe#ional Trial &ourt of -ataan. Tancion#co, !ho is

provincial prosecutor of -ataan, !as vice chair$an, !hile

&astillo, !ho is division superintendent of schools, !as

secretar% of the Provincial -oard of &anvassers of -ataan.

>%, !ho is assistant re#ional director of elections, !as

chair$an of the board. In each infor$ation, the three !ereaccused of havin# ta$pered, in conspirac% !ith one

another, !ith the certificates of canvass b% increasin# the

votes received b% then senatorial candidate 4uan Ponce

'nrile in certain $unicipalities of -ataan in the Ma% 9,

/7 elections.

The t!elve cases !ere raffled to three branches of the

court presided over the respondent "ud#es, Bonorable

)oreno R. Silva 4r. (-ranches 2 and 6* and Bonorable-en"a$in T. Vianon (-ranch /*.

On October 6;, /=, Tancion#co and &astillo filed a "oint

CO$nibus Motion for '8a$ination of 'vidence to

Deter$ine the '8istence of Probable &ause: Suspensionof Issuance of +arrant of 1rrest: and Dis$issal of the

&ases.C &hief State Prosecutor 4ovencito u5o, !ho had

been desi#nated b% the &o$$ission on 'lections to

prosecute the cases, filed a co$$ent "oinin# in privaterespondents re<uest. On the other hand, the co$plainant,

1<uilino . Pi$entel, 4r. e8pressed no ob"ection to the

dis$issal of the cases a#ainst the

t!o. 1

In orders dated March 6/, and 1pril 3, /3, respectivel%,

4ud#es Silva and Vianon su$$aril% dis$issed the cases

a#ainst private respondents.

The &OM')'& sou#ht to appeal the dis$issal of thecases to the &ourt of 1ppeals b% filin# notices on 1pril /9,

/3, but the "ud#es denied due course to its appeal. Thesole basis for the denials !as the fact that the prosecutor,

!ho$ the &OM')'& had deputied to prosecute the

cases, had earlier taen a contrar% stand a#ainst the

&OM')'&.

Thus, in his order, dated Ma% /=, /3, den%in# due

course to the Notice of 1ppeal of the &OM')'& in&ri$inal &ase Nos. =06, =00/, =006, =007, ==0=, ==03,

and =03;, 4ud#e Silva, 4r. stated

1 Notice of 1ppeal dated 1pril /9, /3, in the

above@entitled cases !as filed on 1pril 26, /3 b% 4ose P. -albuena, Director IV, )a!

Depart$ent, &o$$ission on 'lections, fro$ the

Order of the &ourt dated March 6/, /3, insofar

as it dis$issed the above@entitled cases as re#ards

the accused 'rasto Tancion#co and Nor$a P.

&astillo.

&hief State Prosecutor 4ovencito u5o !ho has

been authoried b% the &o$$ission on 'lectionsto prosecute the cases, !as re<uired to co$$ent

on the Notice of 1ppeal !hich does not bear his

si#nature. In his co$$ent dated Ma% , /3, the

&hief State Prosecutor states that he cannot #ive

his confor$it% to the Notice of 1ppeal filed b%

4ose P. -albuena of the &o$elec as it !ould not

be consistent !ith his position that he !ould abide

b% !hatever findin# the court $a% co$e up !ithon the e8istence of probable cause as a#ainst the

accused 'rasto Tancion#co and Nor$a &astillo.

&onse<uentl%, the notice of appeal filed b% 4ose P.-albuena is unauthoried and !ithout le#al effect.

+B'R'FOR', the Notice of 1ppeal dated 1pril

/6, /3, filed b% 4ose P. -albuena is denied due

course. 4

SO ORD'R'D.

4ud#e Vianon too a si$ilar course in &ri$inal &ase

Nos. =069, =00;, =002, =000 and =03/. In his ordedr of

Ma% 26, /3, he stated

&onsiderin# that &hief State Prosecutor 4ovencito

R. u5o has filed his co$$ent to the Notice of

1ppeal filed b% Director 4ose P. -albuena of the

&OM')'&, $anifestin# his non@confor$it% !ith

the sa$e because of his previous co$$it$ent to

abide b% the rulin# of this court on the O$nibus

Motion filed b% accused Tancion#co and &astillo

and the Motion to uash filed b% accused >%, and

considerin# further that &hief State Prosecutor has

been dul% deputied b% the &OM')'& en *anc to

handle the prosecution of this case, the said

Notice of 1ppeal is hereb% D'NI'D.

SO ORD'R'D. 5

Bence this petition for certiorari and mandamus seein#

the nullification of the orders of the t!o "ud#es, den%in#

due course to the Notices of 1ppeal of the &OM')'&. /

The issue is not "ust the ri#ht of the prosecution to appeal

fro$ the previous orders of dis$issal. It is settled that the

approval of a notice of appeal, in cases !here no record on

appeal is re<uired b% la!, is a $inisterial dut% of the court

to !hich the notice of appeal is addressed, provided thatsuch appeal is ti$el% filed. 0 Of course in cri$inal cases

the prosecution cannot appeal if the accused !ould

thereb% be placed in double "eopard%, but here the cases

!ere dis$issed b% the "ud#es before the accused !ere

arrai#ned and, therefore, "eopard% has not attached.

For !hile the ri#ht to appeal is statutor% and is not

constitutional, once it is #ranted b% statute, its

denial !ould be a violation of the due process

clause of the &onstitution. 8

The ulti$ate <uestion concerns the authorit% of the

&OM')'& prosecutor. More precisel%, the <uestion is,

!ho has authorit% to decide !hether or not to appeal fro$

the orders of dis$issal K the &OM')'& or its

desi#nated prosecutorL The trial courts held the vie! that

the &hief State Prosecutors decision not to appeal the

dis$issal of the cases, consistent !ith his earlier decision

to leave the deter$ination of the e8istence of probable

cause to the trial courts, !as bindin# on the$.



+e thin this vie! to be $istaen. The authorit% to decide

!hether or not to appeal the dis$issal belon#s to the

&OM')'&. 1rt. IA@&, Q 2(=* of the &onstitution

e8pressl% vests in it the po!er and function to Cinvesti#ate

and, !here appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of

election la!s, includin# acts or o$issions constitutin#

election frauds, offenses, and $alpractices.C 1s this &ourthas held

In effect the /93 &onstitution $andates the&OM')'& not onl% to investi#ate but also to

prosecute cases of violation of election la!s. This

$eans that the &OM')'& is e$po!ered to

conduct preli$inar% investi#ations in cases

involvin# election offenses for the purpose of

helpin# the 4ud#e deter$ine probable cause andfor filin# an infor$ation in court. This po!er is

e8clusive !ith &OM')'&. 9

Indeed, even before the present &onstitution, the O$nibus

'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/* and, before it, the /3/

'lection &ode (R.1. No. =699* and the /39 'lection&ode (P.D. No. /2=* alread% #ave the &OM')'& the

e8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar% investi#ation of

all election offenses and to prosecute the$ in court. 1 The purpose is to place in the hands of an independent

prosecutor the investi#ation and prosecution of election

offenses. 11

Prosecutors desi#nated b% the &OM')'& to prosecute thecases act as its deputies. The% derive their authorit% fro$

it and not fro$ their offices. 1 &onse<uentl%, it !as

be%ond the po!er of &hief State Prosecutor u5o to

oppose the appeal of the &OM')'&. For that $atter, it!as be%ond his po!er, as &OM')'&@desi#nated

prosecutor, to leave to the trial courts the deter$ination of

!hether there !as probable cause for the filin# of the

cases and, if it found none, !hether the cases should be

dis$issed. Those cases !ere filed b% the &OM')'& after

appropriate preli$inar% investi#ation. If the &hief State

Prosecutor thou#ht there !as no probable cause for

proceedin# a#ainst private respondents, he should have

discussed the $atter !ith the &OM')'& and a!aited its

instruction. If he disa#reed !ith the &OM')'&s

findin#s, he should have sou#ht per$ission to !ithdra!

fro$ the cases. -ut he could not leave the deter$inationof probable cause to the courts and a#ree in advance to the

dis$issal of the cases should the courts find no probablecause for proceedin# !ith the trial of the accused. It !as,

therefore, #rave abuse of discretion on the part of the

respondent "ud#es to rel% on the $anifestation of &hief

State Prosecutor u5o as basis for den%in# due course to

the notices of appeal filed b% the &OM')'&.

+hether respondent "ud#es also erred in dis$issin# the

cases filed b% the &OM')'& K indeed, !hether the trial

courts at that sta#e !ere "ustified in in<uirin# into the

e8istence of probable cause because of e8ceptionalreasons 1 K $ust be deter$ined in the appeal after it is

allo!ed. Bere !e onl% hold that !hether the orders of

dis$issal should be appealed is for the &OM')'& to

decide, not for &hief State Prosecutor u5o !ho$ it has

$erel% deputied to represent in it court.

Private respondents have nothin# to sa% on this <uestion.

Their sole contention is that the petition should be

dis$issed because, so it is ar#ued, it should have been

brou#ht in the na$e of the People of the Philippines and

have been filed b% the Solicitor Eeneral.

This contention is !ithout $erit. This is not the first ti$e

the &OM')'& has co$e to this &ourt in its o!n na$e in

re#ard to an action taen a#ainst it in cases filed b% it in

the lo!er courts. In Commission on Elections v. Court o1

Aeals 14 the &OM')'&s ri#ht to appeal fro$ the

decision of the &ourt of 1ppeals dis$issin# a cri$inal

case filed b% it !as sustained. This &ourt said

The &OM')'& has sufficient interest in filin# the

petition for certiorariJ to set aside the decision of

the &ourt of 1ppeals havin# sustained the

de$urrer to evidence in the cri$inal vase a#ainst

private respondent for violation of the 'lection

)a!s. This is so, for it is not onl% entrusted !ith

the dut% to enforce the said la! but also to

prosecute all election offenses.

>nder the &onstitution, the &OM')'& has the

po!er to Cprosecute cases of violations of electionla!s, includin# acts or o$issions constitutin#

election frauds, offenses, and $alpracticesC (1rt.

IA &J, Sec. 2=J*, and under the O$nibus

'lection &ode, (-P -l#. 99/*, it $a% avail of the

assistance of other prosecution ar$s of the

#overn$ent (Sec. 2=7*. Thus, the &OM')'&

Rules of Procedure #ave the &hief State,

Provincial and &it% Prosecutors a continuin#authorit% Cas disputesC to prosecute offenses

punishable under the 'lection la!s (&OM')'&

Rules of Procedure, Part /2, Rule 60, Sec. 2*.

+e have allo!ed #overn$ent a#encies to handletheir cases before appellate courts, to the

e8clusion of the Solicitor Eeneral. 15

In Commission on Elections v. Romillo 1/ the ri#ht of the

&OM')'& to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus

to <uestion the dis$issal of cri$inal cases !hich it had

filed for violation of the 'lection &ode !as assu$ed.

1lthou#h the petition !as eventuall% dis$issed, the rulin#

!as based not on the lac of authorit% of the &OM')'&to file the petition but on this &ourts deter$ination that

the dis$issal of the cri$inal cases b% the trial court !ascorrect, considerin# that the evidence !as insufficient.

Indeed, under the Rules of &ourt, the proper part% !hocan file a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

is the person Ca##rievedC b% the action of a tribunal, board

or official because such action !as taen !ithout or in

e8cess of "urisdiction or !ith #rave abuse of discretion orin !illful ne#lect of dut%. 10 In contrast to an appealed case

!hich is brou#ht in the na$e of the parties in the court of

ori#in and for this reason retains its title belo!, the case,

!hich is an ori#inal action, is brou#ht b% hi$. 18

In this case, denied b% the courts belo! the authorit% to

prosecute the cri$inal actions because the% reco#nied

instead the &hief State Prosecutor as the representative of

the People, the &OM')'& had to brin# this suit to see

vindication of its authorit%. Naturall%, the petition has to

be brou#ht in its na$e as the Ca##rievedC part%. In

Assistant Provincial Fiscal o1 Bataan v. -ollete, 19 this

&ourt #ranted a petition for certiorari, !hich the fiscal

had filed in his na$e, to annul an order of the trial court

den%in# his ri#ht to $ae an independent e8a$ination of



the !itnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of

satisf%in# hi$self of the sufficienc% of the evidence.

&onsiderin# the authorit% of the &OM')'& over the

prosecution of election offenses, its decision to brin# this

instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is conclusive

on the Solicitor Eeneral. It !ould si$pl% be a $atter of

referrin# this case to the Solicitor Eeneral so that, if he

a#rees, he $a% tae over the conduct of this case.

Other!ise, the &OM')'& could "ust continue handlin#this case as it has actuall% done.

Bence, the o$ission of the &OM')'& to refer this

petition to the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral for

representation should be disre#arded. To $ae the filin#

of this case depend on his decision !ould be to place hi$

in the sa$e position in !hich respondent "ud#es placed

&hief State Prosecutor u5o. That !ould further ne#ate

the constitutional function of the &OM')'&.

+B'R'FOR', the petition if ER1NT'D. The orders

dated Ma% /=, /3 and Ma% 26, /3 of respondent "ud#es are hereb% S'T 1SID' as null and void and

respondent "ud#es are ORD'R'D to #ive due course to

the appeals of petitioner fro$ their respective orders in

&ri$inal &ase Nos. =069, =00;, =002, =000 and =03/

(filed in -ranch /*: &ri$inal &ase Nos. =06, =00/, =006,

=007, =00= and =03; (filed in -ranch 2*: and &ri$inal

&ase No. =003 (filed in -ranch 6*.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURTManila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1854 O#to;'( 1/, 1990

<ILOSBAAN, INC., FERNANDO A. SANTIAGO,

UINTIN S. DOROMAL, EMILIO C. CAPULONG

*R., RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SAL-ADOR

ENRIUE6, FRAN<LIN DRILON, CESAR

SARINO, LEONORA -. DE *ESUS, TIBURCIO

RELUCIO, RONALDO -. PUNO, BENITO R.

CATINDIG, MANUEL CALUPITAN III, -ICENTE

CARLOS, FRANCISCO CANCIO, *IMM

DURANTE, MEL-N MENDO6A, respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, *R., J.:

Special Provision No. / of the &ountr%!ide Develop$entFund (&DF* under Republic 1ct No. 3/9;, other!ise

no!n as the CEeneral 1ppropriations 1ct (E11* of

/2C allocates a specific a$ount of #overn$ent funds for

infrastructure and other priorit% pro"ects and activities. In

order to be valid, the use and release of said a$ount !ould

have to proceed upon strict co$pliance !ith the follo!in#

$andator% re<uire$ents (/* approval b% the President of

the Philippines: (2* release of the a$ount directl% to the

appropriate i$ple$entin# a#enc%: and (6* list of pro"ects

and activities.

In a letter, dated March /3, /2, respondent &esar

Sarino, the then Secretar% of Interior and )ocal

Eovern$ent, re<uested for authorit% to ne#otiate, enter

into a si#n Me$oranda of 1#ree$ents !ith accredited

Non@Eovern$ental Or#aniation (NEOs* in order to

utilie the$ to i$ple$ent the pro"ects of the &DF

provided for under R.1. No. 3/9;.

Thereafter, in an undated letter 1, respondent Franlin

Drilon, the then '8ecutive Secretar%, #ranted the above@

$entioned re<uest of secretar% Sarino. Such an authorit%

!as e8tended to all the Re#ional Directors of the

Depart$ent of Interior and )ocal Eovern$ent (DI)E*.

Pursuant to the above@described authorit% #ranted hi$ as

the then Re#ional Director of the DI)E@N&R, respondent

Tiburcio Relucio, on 1pril 20, /2, entered into a

Me$orandu$ of 1#ree$ent !ith an accredited NEO

no!n as the CPhilippine Gouth Bealth and SportsDevelop$ent Foundation, Inc.C (PGBSDFI*.

The PGBSDFI !as re#istered !ith the Securities and

'8chan#e &o$$ission (S'&* on October 27, /97 as a

non@stoc, non@profit foundation !ith principal address at

1FM& -uildin#, 1$orsolo Street, Maati &it%. Its

incorporators !ere private respondents -enito &atindi#,

President: Manuel &alupitan, Vice@President: Francisco

&ancio, Treasurer: Melvin Mendoa, Secretar%, and

Ronaldo Puno, &hair$an. 4

The PGBSDFI !as or#anied to pro$ote a$on# the%outh, consciousness and #reater involve$ent and

participation in sports and cultural develop$ent activities

throu#h trainin# ca$ps and de$onstration se$inars

conducted b% <ualified e8perts in the field. 5

Not lon# after its incorporation, that is, in /93, the

PBGSDFI suspended its operations because of lac of

fund donations and the $i#ration to the >nited States of

$an% of its $e$bers. / The foundation beca$e active

a#ain in October, //. 0

In order to be eli#ible for financial assistance, thePGBSDFI, on Dece$ber /2, //, applied !ith the DI)E

for accreditation as NEO in accordance !ith the

#uidelines prescribed in Me$orandu$ &ircular No. ;@;3,

dated 4anuar% 6/, /;. 8

On March 26, /2, the PGBSDFI approved -oard

Resolution No. 3, series of /2, re<uestin# for allocation

fro$ the #overn$ents &DF in order to i$ple$ent its

various sports, health, and cultural activities in specific

areas in Metro Manila. 9 Bence, the Me$orandu$ of

1#ree$ent dated 1pril 20, /2 !as entered into b%

PGBSDFI President &atindi# and DI)E@N&R Re#ionalDirector Relucio. In co$pliance !ith accreditation

re<uire$ents of the DI)E, the PGBSDFI, on 1pril 23,

/2, filed !ith the S'& a ne! set of b%@la!s. 1

>nder the said Me$orandu$ of 1#ree$ent, it !as the

e8press responsibilit% of the DI)E to effect the release

and transfer to PGBSDFI of the a$ount of Sevent%

Million Pesos (P3;,;;;.;;;.;;* 11 fro$ the a##re#ate

allocation of the &DF for the co$plete i$ple$entation of

the foundations sports, health and cultural !or pro#ra$.



Respondent Salvador 'nri<ue, as Secretar% of the

Depart$ent of -ud#et and Mana#e$ent (D-M*, si#ned

on 1pril 22, /2 and released on 1pril 6;, /2, 1dvice

of 1llot$ent (11* No. -&@900@2@2/7 dated 1pril 22,

/2, allocatin# the a$ount of Sevent% Million Pesos

fro$ the &DF under ob"ect 2;;@/; to cover financial

assistance for sports, health and cultural pro#ra$s andother related activities in the various baran#a%s in the

National &apital

Re#ion. 1

The release of the Sevent% Million Pesos !as $ade in

several checs 1

-ate PB Ceck o.

Amount

Ma% 7, /2 /69;7/

P26,;;;,;;;.;;

Ma% 7, /2 /69;72

P26,;;;,;;;.;;

Ma% =, /2 /69;=;

P20,;;;.;;;.;;

Durin# the hearin# of the Senate &o$$ittee on Finance

on Nove$ber 22, /6, DI)E -ud#et Officer Rafael

-arata confir$ed the above allot$ent as part of the

a$ount of Three Bundred Thirt% Million Pesos

(P66;,;;;,;;;;;* that !as released b% the D-M fro$ the

/2 &DF. The e8act a$ount released to DI)E@N&R !as

P3;,;,66.;; !hile the a$ounts released to the other

re#ions are as follo!s

Re#ion I K P /0,02,960.;;

Re#ion II K /;9,;;;.;;

Re#ion III K /,//7,;;;.;;

Re#ion IV K 30,/6/,/7;.;;

Re#ion V K 27,;03,/.;;

Re#ion VI K 7,707,;;;.;;

Re#ion VII K 2;,/7,7;;.;;

Re#ion VIII K 26,;;=,=;;.;;

Re#ion IA K /,;;,;;.;;

Re#ion A K 27,67=,;/2.;;

Re#ion AII K ,70,;;;.;;

&1R K /;,6;;,;;;.;;

The total a$ount disbursed under the &DF !as

P66;,03;,=99.;;.

On Dece$ber /0, /6, public respondent &o$$ission on

'lections (&o$elec* received fro$ petitioner ilosba%an

a letter infor$in# the for$er of Ct!o . . . serious violations

of election la!sC 14, thus

/. The docu$ented ad$ission of Secretar% of

-ud#et Salvador 'nri<ue, in the October 7, /6

hearin# of the &o$$ission on 1ppoint$ents, that

the a$ount of P3; $illion !as released b% his

depart$ent, shortl% before the elections of Ma%

//, /2, in favor of a private entit%, the so@called

CPhilippine Gouth, Bealth and SportsDevelop$ent Foundation,C headed b% Mr.

Ronaldo Puno, !ho had been repeatedl% identified

b% colu$nist Teodoro -eni#no as a e% $e$berof the Sulu Botel Operation (SBO*, !hich hadreportedl% en#a#ed in dirt% election trics and

practices in said elections. . . .

2. The ille#al diversion of P66; $illion b%

Malacanan# fro$ the &ountr%side Develop$entFund to the Depart$ent of Interior and )ocal

Eovern$ent !hich disbursed this hu#e a$ount

shortl% before the Ma% //, /2 elections, as

revealed b% DI)E -ud#et Officer -arata, in a

hearin# of the Senate Finance &o$$ittee, chaired

b% Sen. Vicente Sotto III, held last Nove$ber 22,/6. 15

and Cre<uestin#J that . . . these offenses and $alpractices be investi#ated pro$ptl%, thorou#hl%, i$partiall%, !ithout

fear or favor, so that public confidence in the inte#rit% and

purit% of the electoral process $a% be i$$ediatel%

restored for the sae of our ne!l%@re#ained de$ocrac%C 1/

On Dece$ber /0, /6, then &o$elec &hair$an &hristian

Monsod called a $eetin# of the &o$elec En Banc !hich

resolved to refer petitioner ilosba%ans letter@co$plaint

to the )a! Depart$ent for co$$ent and?orreco$$endation. 10 Said letter@co$plaint !as doceted as

'.O. &ase No. 6@/6.

The evidence proffered b% ilosba%an in support of its

letter@co$plaint consisted of the published !ritin#s ofTeodoro -eni#no 18 in his colu$n in the Philippine Star

ne!spaper i$putin# to the so@called Sulo Botel Operation

(SBO* headed b% PGBSDFIs chair$an, Ronaldo Puno,

the co$$ission of ille#al election activities durin# the

Ma% //, /2 elections, includin# the obtention of

#overn$ent funds for electioneerin# purposes: the

transcripts of record of the testi$on% of Secretar%'nri<ue before the &o$$ission on 1ppoint$ents durin#

a hearin# on October 7, /6 and of the testi$on% of

DI)E -ud#et Officer Rafael -arata before the Senate

Finance &o$$ittee durin# a hearin# on Nove$ber 22,

/6: and an 1ffidavit e8ecuted b% Norberto Eonales, a

con#ressional candidate in the Ma% //, /2 elections,

!ho alle#ed therein that at the Maati Bead<uarters of the)aas@N>&D, in Februar%, /2, he overheard

respondents Franlin Drilon and )eonora de 4esus

discussin# part% plans to use the funds of various

#overn$ent offices to finance the part%s election

ca$pai#n and that ten (/;* da%s or so before Ma% //,/2, he obtained his election propa#anda $aterials,

follo!in# instructions fro$ the part%s National

Bead<uarters, fro$ the Sulo Botel in ueon &it%.

In a Me$orandu$ dated March 29, /0, &o$elec

&o$$issioner Re#alado Maa$bon# infor$ed &hair$an

&hristian Monsod that petitioner ilosba%an Chas

alread%J presented their affidavits and supportin#

docu$ents and thatJ it is no! ti$e for the respondents to

be subpoenaed and for the$ to present their counter@



affidavits and supportin# docu$ents, if an%, relative to the

co$plaint of the ilosba%an for ille#al disburse$ent of

public funds in the Ma% //, /2 s%nchronied elections

19.

On March 2, /0, the &o$elec En Banc, durin# its

re#ular $eetin#, directed 1tt%. 4ose P. -albuena, Director

of )a! Depart$ent, to issue the proper subpoenas and

subpoena duces tecum in connection !ith the hearin# of

the ilosba%an letter@co$plaint: to proceed in accordance!ith the &o$elec Rules and Procedure relative to the

investi#ation of cases involvin# election offenses: and to

sub$it a co$plete report !ithin ten (/;* da%s fro$ the

ter$ination of the investi#ation.

Director -albuena issued a subpoena dated 1pril /3, /0

1 addressed to respondents Salvador 'nri<ue, Ronaldo

Puno, Francisco &ancio, Vicente &arlos, 4i$$% Durante,

Melvin Mendoa and COther 4ohn DoesC re<uirin# the$ to

appear at the Office of the Director on 1pril 29, /0 and

to sub$it their respective counter@affidavits and other

supportin# docu$ents, if an%, in connection !ith petitioner ilosba%ans letter@co$plaint a#ainst the$.

On Ma% /;, /0, respondents Melvin Mendoa and

Salvador 'nri<ue filed their respective counter@affidavits

specificall% den%in# all the accusator% alle#ations in

petitioner ilosba%ans letter@co$plaint.

On Ma% 27, /0, respondent Vicente &arlos sub$itted

his counter@affidavit

For his part, respondent Francisco &ancio filed a

Manifestation 4 dated Ma% 20, /0 that he cannot sub$ithis counter@affidavit due to lac of $aterial ti$e.

Thereafter, petitioner ilosba%an $anifested that it !ill

file a consolidated repl% to the &ounter@1ffidavits of

respondents Mendoa, 'nri<ue and &arlos. In order to

#ive petitioner ilosba%an sufficient ti$e to prepare its

consolidated repl%, the hearin# !as set on 4une =, /0.

+hen 4une =, /0 ca$e, ho!ever, petitioner ilosba%an

filed, not a consolidated repl%, but a pleadin# deno$inated

as CInterro#atoriesC 5 dated Ma% 2;, /0 Said pleadin#

contained a list of <uestions sou#ht to be propounded torespondents 'nri<ue, &arlos and Mendoa in an atte$pt

to elicit fro$ the$ confir$ation re#ardin# the <uestioned

&DF allot$ent, specificall% the cash allocation received

b% PGBSDFI, and the consu$ption thereof b% PGBSDFI

chair$an Ronaldo Punos SBO for its reported ille#al

election ca$pai#n activities durin# the Ma% //, /2

elections.

1$idst opposition for#ed b% respondents 'nri<ue and

Mendoa, the &o$elec )a! Depart$ent, throu#h Director

-albuena, scheduled the clarificator% <uestionin# on 4ul%

, /0. /

Throu#h a Motion for Reconsideration dated 4ul% 7, /0,

respondent 'nri<ue persisted to <uestion the le#alit% of

the scheduled clarificator% <uestionin# on the #round that

the sa$e is in violation of his constitutional ri#ht a#ainst

self@incri$ination. Said $otion, ho!ever, !as denied b%

the &o$elec )a! Depart$ent throu#h Director -albuena.

Thus, respondents 'nri<ue and Mendoa filed separate

Petitions for Certiorari 0 before the &o$elec En Banc

assailin# the afore@$entioned orders of Director -albuena.

The &o$elec En Banc treated said petitions as $otions for

reconsideration or petitions for revie!, of the orders of

Director -albuena #ivin# due course to petitioner

ilosba%ans Interro#atories and schedulin# the sa$e for

hearin#. >lti$atel%, it ruled in favor of respondents

'nri<ue and Mendoa and held that the <uestions sou#ht b% petitioner ilosba%an to be propounded b% Director

-albuena to said respondents, are bein# raised in a

preli$inar% investi#ation durin# !hich an% person bein#

accused of an offense, has the ri#ht to re$ain silent,

a$on# others. 8

On Februar% , /7, the &o$elec En Banc, durin# its

re#ular $eetin#, pro$ul#ated Minute Resolution No. 7@

;3/6 approvin#, !ith $odification, the reco$$endations

of the )a! Depart$ent, as follo!s

/. To dis$iss the co$plaint a#ainst Secretar%Salvador 'nri<ue, 4r. for insufficienc% of

evidence to establish a probable cause:

2. To hold in abe%ance the case a#ainst Ronald

Puno, Vicente &arlos, Melvin Mendoa, Francisco

&ancio and 4i$$% Durante, and to direct the

&o$$ission on 1udit (&O1* to conduct further

ri#id and e8tensive investi#ation on the alle#ed

irre#ularities or ano$alies stated in its report

dated Nove$ber /7, /6 and to sub$it its report

on such investi#ation includin# pertinent papers

thereof, !hich shall be included in the re@evaluation of the e8istin# docu$ents pertainin# tothe PGBSDFI before the case of the above

respondents be re@sub$itted to this &o$$ission

for resolution:

6. To order the )a! Depart$ent to su$$on 1tt%.

Tiburcio 1. Relucio, for$er Re#ional N&R@DI)E

Director to shed li#ht on the ilosba%an

co$plaint or the P3; $illion !hich !ere allotted

b% his office to the PGBSDFI shortl% before theMa% //, /2 s%nchronied national and local

elections:

0. To direct the )a! Depart$ent to send a letter to

for$er DI)E Secretar% &esar Sarino to e8plainallot$ents and sub@allot$ents per evaluation

report of the )a! Depart$ent . . . : andJ

7. To direct the ilosba%an to identif%, under oath,

the 4ohn Does in their co$plaint. 9

Dis$issin# the case a#ainst respondent 'nri<ue, !hose

evidence of strict co$pliance !ith the re<uire$ents of

R.1. No. 3/9; prior to the release of the Sevent% MillionPesos to PGBSDFI, !as si#nificantl% left unrebutted b%

petitioner ilosba%an, the &o$elec En Banc reserved the

disposition of the case a#ainst Ronaldo Puno and other

PGBSDFI officers until after sub$ission b% the &O1 of a

$ore detailed report of the nature and e8tent of theano$alous practices of the PGBSDFI in the utiliation of

the &DF $one% allocated thereto. 'asil% understandable is

the need for further investi#ation b% the &O1, considerin#

that nothin# on the Special 1udit Report on PGBSDFIs



&DF allocation i$puted the use thereof for electioneerin#

activities.

In response, ho!ever, to the letter of the &o$elec )a!

Depart$ent dated 1u#ust 2;, /7 re<uestin# the &O1 to

conduct a $ore ri#id and e8tensive investi#ation, &O1

&hair$an &elso Ean#an !rote Director -albuena on

Septe$ber /2, /7 that Cthe facts stated in our report

dated Nove$ber /7, /6 are alread% co$plete: that the

report does not $ae $ention of irre#ularities orano$alies, rather deficiencies lie lac of supportin#

docu$ents to full% substantiate the disburse$ents . . .

althou#h the distribution of funds b% the Foundation is

supported b% a list . . .

On the sa$e da%, 1u#ust 2;, /7, a letter !as also sent to

respondent &esar Sarino, for$er DI)E Secretar%,

re<uestin# hi$ to sub$it a verified e8planation re#ardin#

the sub@allot$ents issued b% his office on several dates in

Februar% and March, /2, as !ell as so$e various sub@

allot$ents issued b% respondent )eonora de 4esus, then

>ndersecretar% of the DI)E.

In the $eanti$e, in a letter dated 1u#ust /9, /7,

Director -albuena ased petitioner ilosba%an to

Cidentif%, under oath, the 4ohn Does in their co$plaintC.

Respondin# throu#h a letter 1, petitioner ilosba%an,

throu#h its 1ctin# President, &irilo Ri#os, #ave the

follo!in# na$es

&esar Sarino Victor Su$ulon#

)eonora de 4esus Dionisio de la

Serna

4ose 1l$onte Eabriel &laudio

Franlin Drilon

The above@na$ed respondents !ere dul% subpoenaed.

Thereafter, the% filed their respective &o$$ents and?or

1ns!ers.

On Nove$ber /6, /7, respondent &esar Sarino

sub$itted his S!orn '8planation?&o$$ent re$onstratin#

that the <uestioned sub@allocations !ere approved after a

strict co$pliance !ith the proscribed ti$e fra$e under the

la! !hich !as March 23, /2 until Ma% 2, /2 and the

prohibition a#ainst public !or e8penditures.

Respondent Eabriel &laudio filed his &o$$ent?1ns!er

on Dece$ber /2, /7 contendin# that he had not %et

"oined #overn$ent at an% ti$e before the Ma% //, /2

elections.

Respondent Franlin Drilon filed his &o$$ent on 4anuar%

2, /= denouncin# as hearsa% the sole evidence a#ainsthi$ consistin# of Teodoro -eni#nos ne!spaper articles

i$plicatin# hi$ in the SBO.

Dionisio de la Serna, Victor Su$ulon# and 4ose 1l$onte,

!ho !ere additionall% na$ed as respondents b% petitioner

ilosba%an, denied an% no!led#e or participation in the

election offenses sub"ect of the letter@co$plaint and

ob"ected thereto for failure to state, !ith particularit%, the

acts that the% had supposedl% co$$itted in violation of

the O$nibus 'lection &ode. )ie!ise, the% pointed out

that Teodoro -eni#no ne!spaper articles constituted

hearsa% evidence bereft of an% probative value.

Insofar as respondent, then DI)E@N&R Re#ional Director,

Tiburcio Relucio !as concerned, the )a! Depart$ent !as

unable to subpoena hi$ because he !as abroad.

No rebuttal evidence !as tendered b% petitioner

ilosba%an to dispute the counter@alle#ations of herein

respondents. Notabl%, too, petitioner ilosba%an did notoffer an% additional evidence, in place of Tedd% -eni#nos

published ne!spaper articles i$plicatin# PGBSDFIs

Ronaldo Puno and the SBOs electioneerin# activities

durin# the /2 elections, in order to sho! even so$e

se$blance of a connection bet!een the PGBSDFIs &DF

allot$ent and the SBOs electioneerin# activities.

On 1pril 6, /=, the &o$elec )a! Depart$ent issued the

follo!in# findin#s and reco$$endations

SGNOPSIS OF &1S'

/J TIT)'

I)OS-1G1N

VS.

S'&R'T1RG

S1)V1DOR

'NRI>', 4R.,

'T 1).

2J DO&'T N>M-'R

'.O. &ase No.

6@/6

6J )1+ 1))'E'D)G VIO)1T'D

Section 2=/ (o*, (v* and (!* of the O$nibus

'lection &ode. (>se of public funds, $one%

deposited in trust, . . . , for an election ca$pai#n:

Prohibition a#ainst release, disburse$ent or

e8penditure of public funds for an% and all inds

of public !ors: and Prohibition a#ainst

construction of public !ors, deliver% of $aterialsfor public !ors and issuance of treasur% !arrants

and si$ilar devices*.

0J FINDINES

The )a! Depart$ent finds that there is

insufficient #round to en#ender a !ell@founded

belief that respondents Ronaldo Puno, Secretar%

Vicente &arlos, Melvin Mendoa, Francisco

&ancio, 4i$$% Durante, Bon. &esar N. Sarino,

)eonora V. de 4esus, 4ose 1l$onte, Dionisio de la

Serna, Victor Su$ulon#, Franlin Drilon andEabriel (Eabb%* &laudio have co$$itted the acts

bein# co$plained of and are probabl% #uilt%thereof and should be held for further proceedin#s

(trial* considerin# that the alle#ations in the

co$plaint are plain con"ectures, speculations and

based on hearsa% evidence. The other set of

evidence !hich !as obtained throu#h coercive

processes of the &o$$ission did not sho! that

the acts are reflected therein co$e !ithin the

proscription of Section 2=/ (o*, (v* and (!* of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode.



7J R'&OMM'ND1TION

To dis$iss the co$plaint of ilosba%an a#ainst all

the respondents.

888 888 888

The details of the investi#ation and a co$plete discussion

of the evidence sub$itted b% the contendin# parties are

laid out in the /=@pa#eStud% attached to the aforecited S%nopsis of the &ase.

'ssentiall%, the )a! Depart$ent evaluated the evidence inthis !ise

The provisions of the O$nibus 'lection &ode that

$a% have been possibl% violated b% the

respondents in the I)OS-1G1N co$plaint, are

as follo!s

Sec. 2=/. Prohibited 1cts K the

follo!in# shall be #uilt% of an

election offense.

888 888 888

(o* >se of public funds, $one%

deposited in trust, e<uip$ent,

facilities o!ned or controlled b%

the #overn$ent for an election

ca$pai#n. K 1n% person !ho

uses under an% #uise !hatsoever,

directl% or indirectl%, (/** public

funds or $one% deposited !ith, or

held in trust b%: public financin#institutions or b% #overn$ent

offices, bans, or a#encies: . . . .

for an% election ca$pai#n or for

an% partisan political activit%.

(v* Prohibition a#ainst release,

disburse$ent or e8penditure of

public funds. K 1n% public

official or e$plo%ee includin#

baran#a% officials and those of

#overn$ent@o!ned or controlledcorporations and their

subsidiaries, !ho, durin# fort%@

five da%s before a re#ular election

and thirt% da%s before specialelection, releases, disburses or

e8pends an% public funds for

(/* 1n% and all

inds of public!ors, e8cept the

Follo!in#

888 888 888

(!* Prohibition a#ainst

construction of public !ors,

deliver% of $aterials for public

!ors and issuance of treasur%

!arrants and si$ilar devices. K

durin# the period of fort%@five

da%s precedin# a re#ular election

and thirt% da%s before a special

election, an% person !ho (a*

undertaes the construction of

an% public !ors, e8cept for

pro"ects or !ors e8e$pted in the

precedin# para#raph: or (b*

issues, uses or avails of treasur%

!arrants or an% device

undertain# future deliver% of$one%, #oods or other thin#s of

value char#eable a#ainst public

funds.

The &o$$ission on 1udit, thru its &hair$an,

pointed out in its letter dated Septe$ber /2, /7,

that the facts stated in their report dated

Nove$ber /7, /6 are alread% co$plete and that

the report does not $ae $ention of irre#ularitiesor ano$alies, rather deficiencies lie lac of

supportin# docu$ents to full% substantiate the

disburse$ents, such that althou#h the distribution

of funds b% the Foundation is supported b% a list,

this does not sho! the acno!led#$ent b% the

supposed recipients.

1lthou#h the report of the &O1 dated Nove$ber

/7, /6 $entioned that upon the start of theaudit, it !as disclosed that PGBSDFI did not eep

boo of accounts, !herein to record its

transactions, !hich constitutesJ a basic

re<uire$ent in the accountin# for funds and Call it

had to evidence its disburse$ents are vouchers,

$an% of !hich are not supported b% receipts or

other docu$entsC, it does not sho! that the public

funds released to it b% the DI)E !as used for an%

election ca$pai#n or for an% partisan politicalactivit%. The report sa%s

2* The inade<uate financial

reports, boo of accounts and

other supportin# docu$ents

rendered verification of total

disburse$ents of P3;M difficult.

This consist or

the follo!in#

a* Meals?snacsP/0,0=7,;;;

b* Prof.

fees?allo!ances

travel e8penses

P/3,99/,7;;

c* Rental

site?facilities

P6,00/,09;

d* Purchases of

supplies

and $aterials

P60,22/,;2; KKKKKK

P3;,;;;,;;;

This particular part of the report of the &O1 also

clearl% sho!ed that the public funds in the hands

of the PGBSDFI !ere not used for an% and all

inds of public !ors.

Further it sa%s



6.1 In most of the transactions

undertaen, cas pa%$ents !ereJ

used in pa%in# their obli#ations,

since it !ould have been

si#nificantl% e8pensive in

overhead cost to $aintain a pool

of ad$inistrative staff and besidesno allocation of such e8penses

!asJ pro#ra$$ed. Moreover,

most theJ e8penses !ere in thecate#or% of pa%rolls !hich hadJto be paid in cash. )Jie!ise

suppliers ased for cash@on@

deliver% (&OD* basis since the

prices #iven !ere the lo!est

obtainable co$$ercial rates.

This sho!ed that not all obli#ations of the

PGBSDFI !ere paid in cash, in other !ords, the

other obli#ations !ere paid in other for$s !hich

$a% be checs or an% other device undertain#

future deliver% of $one%. Bo!ever, no sin#le piece of evidence !as presented b% ilosba%an to

prove its co$plaint to deter$ine !hether the%

(checs* have been issued !ithin the prohibited

period.

In the li#ht of the fore#oin#, the )a! Depart$ent

reiterates its for$er findin#s in its Stud% for

1#enda dated Februar% 9, /7 that Cin the case

of respondents Ronald Puno, Secretar% Vicente

&arlos, Melvin Mendoa, Francisco &ancio and

4i$$% Durante, based on the e8istin# docu$ents

appearin# on the records, no probable cause e8istsa#ainst the$ for violation of the election la!C. It

is !ell@settled that the co$plainant $ust rel% on

the stren#th of his evidence and not on the

!eaness of the evidence of the respondentsJ.

In the case of Bon. &esar N. Sarino, he alle#ed

that his approvals of the sub@allocations reflect a

strict co$pliance !ith the la! and do not violate

Section 2=/ (v* of the O$nibus 'lection &ode as

their approval !asJ not !ithin the proscribed

ti$e fra$e as desi#nated b% the &o$$ission on

'lections, and 1dvice of Sub@allot$ent No.DI)E@2@2@/29 covers a t%pe of e8penditure

!hich is not a public !ors e8penditure, hence,not violative of said provision of la!.

888 888 888

. . . 1Jn incisive, careful, $eticulous and ri#id

revie! and re@evaluation of the above@listed sub@

allot$ents revealed, that the nine (* sub@

allot$ents approved b% for$er DI)E Secretar%

&esar Sarino !hich appeared to be for

construction of public !ors are actuall% nine (* pa#es of five (7* sub@allot$ents . . . and the one

(/* sub@allot$ent issued b% >ndersecretar%

)eonora V. de 4esus !hich appeared to be for

construction of public !ors is actuall%

(b* u*'allotment o. -ate o1 Aroval Pane o.

/J 2@/@; March

/, /2 /

To be liable for violation of Section 2=/ (v*,

sura, four (0* essential ele$ents $ust concur and

the% are

/* 1 public official or e$plo%ee

releases, disburses, or e8pends

an% public funds:

2* The release, disburse$ent or

e8penditure of such public funds$ust be !ithin fort%@five da%s

before re#ular election ( Marc

8%, "$$8 until May "", "$$8,

Section /, &o$elec Resolution

No. 2662, 4an. ;2, /2*:

6* The release, disburse$ent or

e8penditure of said public funds

is for an% and all inds of public

!ors: and

0* The release, disburse$ent ore8penditure of the public funds

should not clover an% of the

e8ceptions of Section 2=/ (v*.

'8cept for Sub@allot$ent No. 2@/@0 and Sub@

allot$ent No. 2@2@/29 approved on March 23,

/2 and 1pril 22, /2, respectivel%, b% for$er

DI)E Secretar% &esar Sarino, not one of the sub@

allot$ents listed above does fall !ithin the

proscribed period. Sub@allot$ent No. 2@/@9 !as

approved to cover the i$prove$ent?rehabilitation

of &abuc#a%an +ater!ors S%ste$ of&abuc#a%an, )e%te. This falls !ithin the

e8ception ($aintenance of e8istin# and?or

co$pleted public !ors pro"ects* of the

proscription bein# $erel% a rehabilitation of an

e8istin# public !ors pro"ect. Sub@allot$ent No.

2@2@/29 !as not for an% and all inds of public

!ors. It !as approved to cover the purchase of

reference and instructional $aterials for

distribution to all local e8ecutives of the 2nd

District of Suri#ao del Norte in support of the'ducational >plift$ent Pro#ra$ of the DI)E,

hence, it could not also fall !ithin the proscription. The sub@allot$ent approved b%

>ndersecretar% )eonora V. de 4esus, !hich

appeared to be for the construction of public

!ors, havin# been approved on March /, /2

does not fall !ithin the proscriptive period, hence,

it could not also fall !ithin the proscription.

888 888 888

Prescindin# fro$ the fore#oin# docu$ents

appearin# on theJ records, there e8ists no

sufficient #round to en#ender a !ell@founded belief that for$er DI)E Secretar% &esar Sarino

and >ndersecretar% )eonora V. de 4esus have

violated Section 2=/ (v* of the O$nibus 'lection

&ode.

The )a! Depart$ent $ust stress here that the

alle#ations appearin# in the colu$ns of Teodoro

-eni#no in the Philippine Star on several dates

i$putin# dirt% Celection trics and practicesC (as!orded b% ilosba%an* a#ainst respondents 4ose



1l$onte, Dionisio de la Serna, Victor Su$ulon#,

Franlin Drilon and Eabriel (Eabb%* &laudio

cannot be ad$itted as #ospel truth because the%

are purel% speculative and con"ectural. Suffice it

to sa%, that, the% are $ere hearsa% evidence. +ell@

settled is the rule that Ne!spaper clippin#s are

hearsa% and of no evidentiar% value. (People vs.4ovito 1#uel, et al., 3 S&R1 37J.

Moreover, for$er '8ecutive Secretar%, no!,Senator, Franlin Drilons undated letter, !here he

approved the re<uest for authorit% dated March

/3, /2 of then for$er DI)E Secretar% &esar N.

Sarino to ne#otiate, enter into and si#n

Me$oranda of 1#ree$ents !ith and to utilie the

accredited Non@Eovern$ental Or#aniations(NEOs*, in accordance !ith the directive of then

for$er President &oraon 1<uino dated March

/6, /2, re#ardin# the i$ple$entation of

pro"ects under the &ountr%!ide Develop$ent

Fund (&DF* provided under R.1. 3/9;, does not

refer to an% release, disburse$ent, or e8penditureof public funds for construction of public !ors.

&onse<uentl%, there also e8ists no sufficientevidence to en#ender a !ell@#rounded belief that

respondents 4ose 1l$onte, Dionisio de )a Serna,

Victor Su$ulon#, Franlin Drilon and Eabriel

(Eabb%* &laudio have violated Section 2=/ (o*

and (v* of the O$nibus 'lection &ode.

It !ould not be a$issed to state here in passin#

that !ell@enshrined is the rule that the

co$plainant $ust sub$it evidence to prove hiscase. /2E /A/ CAE, C(MP)AA/

I)(BAJA -- (/ 6BM/ E7-ECE

/( PR(7E / CAE . / P(/6)A/E /2E

/2E(RJ /2A/ CE / /2E

C(//6/(A) P(ER (F /2E

C(MM( /( EF(RCE A-

A-M/ER A)) )A A- REG6)A/(

RE)A/7E /( /2E C(-6C/ (F

E)EC/(, / C6MBE/ /( 6E /

C(//6/(A) P(ER /( EC6RE /2E

EE-E- E7-ECE . /2 P(/( (F /2E

I)(BAJA PA/E/)J ERR(E(6 A / (/ ()J / )EGA) (B)GA/( B6/

A)( / M(RA) -6/J /( 6BM/ / E7-ECE /( PR(7E / C(MP)A/ . . . . 4

1doptin# the fore#oin# findin#s and conclusions of the

)a! Depart$ent, the &o$elec En Banc pro$ul#ated

Minute Resolution No. =@/;63 dis$issin# the char#esa#ainst the follo!in# respondents Ronaldo Puno, Vicente

&arlos, Melvin Mendoa, Francisco &ancio and 4i$$%

Durante for violation of Section 2=/ (o*, (v* and (!* of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode: respondents &esar Sarino and

)eonora de 4esus for violation of Section 2=/ (v* of theO$nibus 'lection &ode: and respondent Franlin Drilon

and others also char#ed in petitioners co$plaint, na$el%,

4ose 1l$onte, Dionisio de la Serna, Victor Su$ulon# and

Eabriel &laudio, for violation of Section 2=/ (o* and (v*

of the O$nibus 'lection &ode, all on the #round of

insufficienc% of evidence to establish probable cause.

Petitioner ilosba%an, ho!ever, brushed off responsibilit%

for adducin# evidence of herein respondents culpabilit%,

and ada$antl% de$anded that the &o$elec perfor$ its

constitutional dut% of prosecution election offenses upon

an%, even $ea#er, infor$ation of alle#ed co$$ission of

election offenses.

Its co$plaint havin# been dis$issed in the

afore$entioned Resolutions dated Februar% , /7 and

1pril //, /=, respectivel%, petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration dated Ma% /=, /3 and a Supple$ental

Motion for Reconsideration dated 4une 3, /= seein#

the nullification of the said Resolution and pra%in# for thefilin# of the correspondin# cri$inal co$plaints and?or

infor$ations a#ainst herein respondents.

Reiteratin# the dis$issal of '.O. &ase No. 6@/6,

ho!ever, the &o$elec denied the $otions in the

Resolution dated October 6;, /=. 5

The &o$elec Resolution dated 4anuar% 2;, /3

contained the detailed basis for the final dis$issal of '.O.

&ase No. 6@/6. Discussin# point b% point the ar#u$ents

raised b% petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration and

Supple$ental Motion for Reconsideration, the &o$elec En Banc unani$ousl% held, thus

Movant co$plains

The )a! Depart$ent $aes it

appear that the I)OS-1G1N

has #reater responsibilit% in the

enforce$ent of election la!s than

the &OM')'& to $ae it its

$oral and le#al dut% to spend its

ti$e and private funds to #ather

evidence fro$ public offices toconvince the &OM')'& that

there is sufficient evidence to

establish the #uilt of the

respondents.

888 888 888

It $a% do !ell to re$e$ber that

the &onstitution char#ed the

&OM')'& !ith the

responsibilit% to . . .

888 888 888

(=* . . . were

aroriate,

prosecute cases

of violations of

election la!s,

includin# acts oro$issions

constitutin#

election frauds,

offenses, and

$alpractices.

(e$phasis theirs*

The &o$$ission has no <uarrel !ith &o$plainant

that indeed the &onstitution tased this -od% !iththe prosecution of election offenses. -ut the

constitutional provision $ade it clear that the

prosecution should be $ade onl% !here it is

appropriate. It is appropriate !hen it is established

in a preli$inar% investi#ation that probable cause



e8ist to "ustif% the filin# of the necessar%

infor$ation a#ainst the accused.

)est the &o$plainant for#ets, it initiated the

co$plaint. Thus, on it rests the burden of

supportin# its char#es !ith affidavits and?an%

evidence, for it is upon the evidence thus adduced,

that the investi#atin# officer shall deter$ine

!hether or not there is sufficient #round to hold

the respondent for trial. This is so provided underthe &OM')'& Rules of Procedure . . . .

Nonetheless, even !ith &o$plainants failure to

sub$it evidence substantial enou#h to "ustif%

findin#s of probable cause, the &o$$ission,

throu#h its )a! Depart$ent undertoo an

investi#ation of the case. The )a! Depart$ent

su$$oned the parties, too testi$onies of

!itnesses, secured docu$ents, and conducted

hearin#s. The result of the preli$inar%

investi#ation !as certainl% on the basis of the

evidences adduced b% co$plainant and the facts#athered b% the Depart$ent on its o!n initiative.

888 888 888

No other evidence e8cept Mr. -eni#nos articles

!ere sub$itted b% petitionerJ to prove the

e8istence of the so@called Sulo Botel Operations.

CNe!spaper clippin#s are hearsa% and of no

evidentiar% value.C (People v. 1<uel, et al.. 3

S&R1 37*. . . .

FurtherJ . . . petitionerJ !ants the &o$$ission toderive fro$ the &o$$ission on 1uditJ report the

conclusion that because there !ere discrepancies,

to !it /. No boos of accounts !ereJ $aintained

b% the NEO i.e., PBGSDFIJ: and 2. &ash

pa%$ents !ere $ade re#ardless of a$ount, then

the allocation to PBGSDFI !ere $ade for

electioneerin# purposes. Indeed, there could have

been, as alle#ed b% &o$plainant, irre#ularities in

the allocation, but it $ust be sho!n b% the

<uantu$ of evidence re<uired to establish probable cause that such irre#ularities constituted

election offense. This, &o$plainants evidencesfailed to sho!.

888 888 888

It !as established that the PBGSDFI received

fro$ DI)E@N&R an allocation of P3;

&o$plainant Cte natureC of the allocation and

te amount o1 te e+enditures $ade b%

PBGSDFI Cwitin a sort eriod o1 time, i.e. ,

immediately *e1ore te elections and in te ligt

o1 te 1act tat it stoed all its oerations sortly

a1ter te elections established be%ond reasonabledoubt that the foundation !as en#a#ed in partisan

political activit%. &o$plainant further averred that

the C 1ligt o1 te eads o1 te 1oundation :Puno

and Catindig; and Regional -irector /i*urcio A.

Relucio wo went into iding a1ter te series o1

e+oses *y columnist /eodoro Benigno . . .

constitutes an imlied admission o1 guilt . . . .

It is the )a! Depart$ents findin#s and so isOurs, that the nature and a$ount of e8penditure

!ithin a short period of ti$e are not sufficient to

$eet the <uantu$ proof re<uired to establish that

said contributions !ere $ade for partisan political

activit%. It $ust be e$phasied that the burden is

on ilosba%an to prove its alle#ations. Be !ho

alle#es $ust prove his alle#ation. >nfortunatel%

for &o$plainant, it !as not able to produceevidence sho!in# that the contribution !as used

for partisan political activit%.

888 888 888

&o$plainant posits the vie! that respondents are

liable . . . because the sports and $edical its !ere

unla!ful election propa#anda, havin# been

purchased and distributed a fe! da%s before

election and then stopped after the election. 1t

$ost, this is speculative and presu$ptive. In the

absence of proof a$pl% sho!in# that the purchase

and distribution of #ad#ets and its !ere $ade to

advertise or to further the chances of victor% of a

candidate or candidates, the &o$$ission cannot "ustif% the conclusion that probable cause e8ists to

char#e respondents . . . .

888 888 888

+hile it !as established b% docu$ents thus

presented . . . that there !as a release of public

funds b% DI)E?DI)E@N&R, !ithin the prohibited

period, the sa$e could not be considered as a

violation . . . because one, the e8penditure !as not

for public !ors: and t!o, the Depart$ent of

Interior and )ocal Eovern$ent can not beconsidered as an office of other $inistries(depart$ents* perfor$in# functions si$ilar to the

Ministr% of Social Services and Develop$ent or

the Ministr% of Bu$an Settle$ents.

ilosba%ans co$plaints !ere heard. The% !ere

investi#ated. &o$plainant !as #iven opportunit%

to ar#ue its case and prove its char#es. It

presented ar#u$ents but not evidences. Its thesis

is $ore on speculations, con"ectures andsuspicions. It e8pects the &o$$ission to find as

circu$stantial evidence the chain ofcircu$stances !hich itJ presented, for#ettin#

that

The rule on circu$stantial

evidence necessaril% re<uires that

each circu$stance $ust be

positivel% established !ith there<uisite <uantu$ of evidence, in

the sa$e $anner that the catena

that binds the$ to#ether and

conduces to a conclusion of #uilt

$ust survive the test of reasonand satisf% the re<uired

evidentiar% !ei#ht. (People vs.

1dofina, 26 S&R1 =3*

>nfortunatel%, &o$plainant failed to substantiate

!ith sufficient evidence the circu$stances on

!hich it based the liabilit% of respondents for

offenses char#ed b% !a% of its Supple$ental

Motion for Reconsideration. . . . /



Its Motion for Reconsideration and Supple$ental Motion

for Reconsideration havin# been finall% denied b% the

&o$elec En Banc, petitioner ilosba%an has co$e before

us ascribin# #rave abuse of discretion to public respondent

&o$elec for (/* refusin# and?or ne#lectin# to #ather $ore

evidence of respondents culpabilit%, pursuant to its

constitutional dut% to prosecute election offenses, throu#horal ar#u$ents upon petitioners Motion for

Reconsideration and Supple$ental Motion for

Reconsideration as !ell as fro$ respondents RolandoPuno and Tiburcio Relucio !ho, petitioner clai$s, havenot #one abroad but are actuall% in the countr%: and (2* for

issuin# a blanet e8oneration of all respondent despite the

rima 1acie evidence alread% in the hands of the &o$elec.

The &o$elec did not co$$it an% act constitutin# #raveabuse of discretion in dis$issin# petitioner ilosba%ans

letter@co$plaint a#ainst herein respondents, the for$er

havin# failed to prove its case a#ainst the latter. 1s such,

this petition $ust be dis$issed.

Section 2 (3* of 1rticle IA@& of the /93 &onstitution provides that the &o$elec shall e8ercise the po!er to

Cinvesti#ate and, !here appropriate, prosecute cases of

violations of elections la!s, includin# act or o$issionsconstitutin# election frauds, offenses, and $alpracticesC.

Discernin# the rationale for this #rant of prosecutorial

po!ers to the &o$elec, !e alread% had occasion to rule,

thus

The #rant to the &OM')'& of the po!er, a$on#

others, to enforce and ad$inister all la!s relative

to the conduct of election and the conco$itant

authorit% to investi#ate and prosecute electionoffenses is not !ithout co$pellin# reason. The

evident constitutional intend$ent in besto!in#

this po!er to the &OM')'& is to insure the free,

orderl% and honest conduct of elections, failure of

!hich !ould result in the frustration of the true

!ill of the people and $ae a $ere idle cere$on%

of the sacred ri#ht and dut% of ever% <ualified

citien to vote. 0

This constitutional #rant of prosecutorial po!er in the

&o$elec finds statutor% e8pression under Section 2=7 of

-atas Pa$bansa -l#. 99/, other!ise no!n as theO$nibus 'lection &ode, to !it

Sec. 2=7. Prosecution. K The &o$$ission shall,

throu#h its dul% authoried le#al officers, have the

e8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ation of all election offenses punishable

under this &ode, and to prosecute the sa$e. The

&o$$ission $a% avail of the assistance of other

prosecutin# ar$s of the #overn$ent Provided,

owever , That in the event that the &o$$ission

fails to act on an% co$plaint !ithin four $onths

fro$ his filin#, the co$plainant $a% file theco$plaint !ith the office of the fiscal or !ith the

Ministr% of 4ustice for proper investi#ation and

prosecution, if !arranted.

Insofar as the prosecution of election offenses is

concerned, therefore, the &o$elec is the Cpublic

prosecutor !ith the e8clusive authorit% to conduct the

preli$inar% investi#ation and the prosecution of election

offenses punishable under the O$nibus 'lectionJ &ode before the co$petent court.C 8 This constitutional and

statutor% $andate for the &o$elec to investi#ate and

prosecute cases of violation of election la!s translates, in

effect, to the e8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ations in cases involvin# election offenses for the

t!in purpose of filin# an infor$ation in court and helpin#

the 4ud#e deter$ine, in the course of preli$inar% in<uir%,

!hether or not a !arrant of arrest should be issued. 9

For the effective investi#ation and prosecution of cases of

election offenses and in the e8ercise b% the &o$elec of its<uasi@le#islative po!er under Section =, 1rticle IA of the

/93 &onstitution, the &o$elec Rules of Procedure !ere

pro$ul#ated, providin#, a$on# others, the #uidelines

pertinent to election offenses. The% are as follo!s

Rule 60 K Prosecution of 'lection Offenses

Sec. /. Autority o1 te Commission to Prosecute

Election (11enses. K The &o$$ission shall have

the e8clusive po!er to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ation of all election offenses punishable

under the election la!s and to prosecute the sa$e,e8cept as $a% other!ise be provided b% la!.

Sec. 2. Continuing -elegation o1 Autority to

(ter Prosecution Arms o1 te Government . K

The &hief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and

&it% Fiscals, and?or their respective assistants are

hereb% #iven continuin# authorit%, as deputies of

the &o$$ission, to conduct preli$inar%

investi#ation of co$plaints involvin# election

offenses under the election la!s !hich $a% be

filed directl% !ith the$, or !hich $a% be

indorsed to the$ b% the co$$ission or its dul%authoried representatives and to prosecute thesa$e. Such authorit% $a% be revoed or

!ithdra!n an% ti$e b% the &o$$ission !henever

in its "ud#$ent such revocation or !ithdra!al is

necessar% to protect the inte#rit% of the&o$$ission, pro$ote the co$$on #ood, or !hen

it believes that successful prosecution of the case

can be done b% the &o$$ission.

Sec. 6. nitiation o1 Comlaint . K Initiation ofco$plaint for election offenses $a% be done motu

rorio b% the &o$$ission, or upon writtencomlaint *y any citizen o1 te Piliines,

candidate, re#istered political part%, coalition of

political parties or or#aniations under the part%@

list s%ste$ or an% accredited citien ar$s of the

&o$$ission.

Sec. 0. Form o1 Comlaint and ere to File. K(a* +hen not initiated motu roio b% the

&o$$ission, the co$plaint $ust be verified and

supported b% affidavits and?or an% other evidence.

Motu roio co$plaints $a% be si#ned b% the

&hair$an of the &o$$ission, or the Director ofthe )a! Depart$ent upon direction of the

chair$an, and need not be verified.

(b* The co$plaint shall be filed !ith the )a!

Depart$ent of the &o$$ission: or !ith the

offices of the 'lection Re#istrars . . .

888 888 888



Sec. 7. Re1erral 1or Preliminary nvestigation. K

If the co$plaint is initiated motu rorio b% the


an% a##rieved part%, it shall be re1erred to te )aw

-eartment 1or investigation. >pon direction of

the &hair$an of the &o$$ission, the preli$inar%

investi#ation $a% be dele#ated to an% la!%er ofsaid Depart$ent, or to an% of the Re#ional

'lection Directors or Provincial 'lection

Supervisors, or an% la!%er of the &o$$ission.

Sec. =. Conduct o1 Preliminary nvestigation. K

(a* If on the basis of the co$plaint, affidavits and

the supportin# evidence, the investi#atin# officer

finds no #round to continue !ith the in<uir%, he

shall reco$$end the dis$issal of the co$plaintand shall follo! the procedure prescribed in

Section 9 (c* of this Rule. Other!ise, he shall

issue a subpoena to the respondent, attachin#

thereto a cop% of the co$plaint, affidavits and

other supportin# docu$ents #ivin# said

respondent ten (/;* da%s fro$ receipt !ithin!hich to sub$it counter@affidavits and other

supportin# docu$ents. The respondent shall have

the ri#ht to e8a$ine all other evidence sub$itted

b% the co$plainant.

(b* Such counter@affidavits and other supportin#

evidence sub$itted b% the respondent shall be

furnished b% hi$ to the co$plainant.

(c* 1 te resondent cannot e su*oenaed, or i1

su*oenaed, does not su*mit counter'a11idavits

witin te ten'dry eriod, te investigating o11icer sall *ase is resolution on te evidence

resented *y te comlainant .

(d* If the investi#atin# officer believes that there

are $atters to be clarified, he $a% set a hearin# to propound clarification <uestions to the parties or

their !itnesses, durin# !hich the parties shall be

afforded an opportunit% to be present but !ithout

the ri#ht to e8a$ine or cross@e8a$ine. If the

parties so desire, the% $a% sub$it <uestions to the

investi#atin# officer !hich the latter $a%

propound to the parties or !itnesses concerned.

(e* Thereafter, the investi#ation shall be dee$ed

concluded, and the investi#atin# officer shall

resolve the case !ithin ten (/;* da%s therefro$.

>pon the evidence thus adduced, the investi#atin#

officer shall deter$ine !hether or not there is

sufficient #round to hold the respondent for trial.

Sec. 3. Presumtion o1 E+istence o1 Pro*a*le

Cause. K 1 co$plaint initiated motu rorio b%

the &o$$ission is presu$ed to be based on

sufficient probable cause and the investi#atin#officer $ust forth!ith issue the subpoena

$entioned in the i$$ediatel% precedin# section.

Sec. 9. -uty o1 nvestigating (11icer . K The

preli$inar% investi#ation $ust be ter$inated

!ithin t!ent% (2;* da%s after receipt of the

counter@affidavits and other evidence of the

respondents, and resolution thereof shall be $ade

!ithin five (7* da%s hereafter.

(a* 1 te investigating o11icer 1inds no cause to

old te resondent 1or trial, e sall recommend

dismissal o1 te comlaint .

(b* If the investi#atin# officer finds cause to hold

the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the

resolution, and the correspondin# infor$ation

!herein he shall certif% under oath that he has

e8a$ined the co$plainant and his !itnesses, that

there is reasonable #round to believe that a cri$ehas been co$$itted and that the accused !as

infor$ed of the co$plaint and of the evidence

sub$itted a#ainst hi$ and that he !as #iven an

opportunit% to sub$it controvertin# evidence.

(c* In either case, the investi#atin# officer shall,

!ithin five (7* da%s fro$ the rendition of his

reco$$endation, for!ard the records of the case

to

/* The Director of the )a!

Depart$ent of the &o$$ission incases investi#ated b% an% of the

&o$$ission la!%ers or field

personnel and

2* The Stale Prosecutor,

Provincial Fiscal or &it% Fiscal,

as the case $a% be, pursuant to

the continuin# authorit% provided

for in Section 2 of this Rule.

Sec. . -uty o1 te )aw -eartment, tate

Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal 6on Receit o1 Records. K (a* +ithin ten (/;* da%s

fro$ receipt of the records stated in para#raph (c*

of the i$$ediatel% precedin# section, the State

Prosecutor, Provincial or &it% Fiscal shall tae

appropriate action thereon, i$$ediatel% infor$in#

the parties of said action.

(b* In cases investi#ated b% the la!%ers or the

field personnel of the &o$$ission, the Director of

the )a! Depart$ent shall revie! and evaluate the

reco$$endation of said le#al officer, prepare a

report and $ae a reco$$endation to the&o$$ission affir$in#, $odif%in# or reversin# the

sa$e !hich shall be included in the a#enda of the

succeedin# $eetin# en *anc of the &o$$ission.If the &o$$ission approves the filin# of an

infor$ation in court a#ainst the respondent?s, the

Director of the )a! Depart$ent shall prepare and

si#n the infor$ation for i$$ediate filin# !ith theappropriate court.

(c* In all other cases, if the reco$$endation to

dis$iss or the resolution to file the case in court is

approved b% State Prosecutor, Provincial or &it%Fiscal, the% shall lie!ise approve the

Infor$ation prepared and i$$ediatel% cause its

filin# !ith the proper court.

(d* If the reco$$endation to dis$iss is reversedon the #round that a probable cause e8ists, the

State Prosecutor, or the Provincial or &it% Fiscal,

$a%, b% hi$self prepare and file the

correspondin# infor$ation a#ainst the respondent



or direct an% of his assistants to do so !ithout

conductin# another preli$inar% investi#ation.

888 888 888 '$phasis oursJ.

The &o$elec, !henever an% election offense char#e is

filed before it, $ust have first, before dis$issin# the sa$eor filin# the correspondin# infor$ation, conducted the

preli$inar% investi#ation proper of the case. 1t this initial

sta#e of cri$inal prosecution, is the deter$ination of probable cause, i.e., !hether or not there is reason to

believe that the accused is #uilt% of the offense char#ed

and, therefore, !hether or not he should be sub"ected to

the e8pense, ri#ors and e$barras$ent of trial 4 or as the

&o$elec Rules of Procedure phrase it, !hether or not

Cthere is reasonable #round to believe that a cri$e has

been co$$ittedC 41.

The deter$ination of probable cause in an% cri$inal

prosecution, is $ade indispensable b% the -ill of Ri#hts

!hich enshrines ever% citiens ri#ht to due process, the

presu$ption that he is presu$ed innocent, and theinad$issibilit% a#ainst hi$ of an% da$a#in# evidence

obtained in violation of his ri#ht a#ainst self@

incri$ination. 1s 4ustice Re%nato S. Puno has pointed out,

probable cause is neither an Copa<ue concept in our

"urisdictionC 4 or a Chi#h level le#al abstraction to be the

sub"ect of !arrin# thou#htsC 4 It constitutes those Cfacts

and circu$stances !hich !ould lead a reasonabl% discreet

and prudent $an to believe that an offense has beenco$$ittedC 44 b% the person sou#ht to be "udiciall%

indicted. In deter$inin# probable cause, ho!ever, the

public prosecutor $ust have been apprised b% the

co$plainant of his evidence in support of his accusator%alle#ations. In other !ords, deter$inin# probable cause is

an intellectual activit% pre$ised on the prior ph%sical

presentation or sub$ission of docu$entar% or testi$onial

proofs either confir$in#, ne#atin# or <ualif%in# the

alle#ations in the co$plaint.

It follo!s, therefore, that in the instant case, petitioner

ilosba%an $ust have necessaril% tendered evidence,

independent of and in support of the alle#ations in its

letter@co$plaint, of such <ualit% as to en#ender belief in

an ordinaril% prudent and cautious $an that the offense

char#ed therein has been co$$itted b% hereinrespondents. Indeed probable cause need not be based on

clear and convincin# evidence of #uilt, neither on

evidence establishin# #uilt be%ond reasonable doubt and

definitel%, not on evidence establishin# absolute certaint%

of #uilt 45, but it certainl% de$ands $ore than Cbare

suspicionC 4/ and can never be Cleft to presupposition,

con"ecture, or even convincin# lo#icC 40. The efforts of petitioner ilosba%an, thus, in order to successfull% lead to

the "udicial indict$ent of respondents, should have #one

be%ond a lar#el% decla$ator% conde$nation of

respondents and dili#entl% focused on its t!o@fold

obli#ation of not onl% substantiatin# its char#es a#ainstrespondents but also profferin# before the &o$elec

substantial evidence of respondents utiliation, throu#h

conspiratorial, cooperative and?or interrelated acts, of

Sevent% Million Pesos fro$ the &DF for electioneerin#

activities in violation of the pertinent provisions on

election offenses as enu$erated in the O$nibus 'lection

&ode.

In the dispensation of this obli#ation, ho!ever, petitioner

ilosba%an utterl% failed. The enco$passin# narration of

the pertinent facts and circu$stances of this case in the

earl% part of this onencia indubitabl% sho!s the

co$placenc%, at the least, and the #ross and deliberate

ne#li#ence, at the $ost, of petitioner ilosba%an in

presentin# sufficient evidence in support of its letter@

co$plaint.

To salva#e its position, ho!ever, petitioner ilosba%an

denies the e8istence, under the /93 &onstitution, of an%

obli#ation on its part to present an% evidence of itsaccusations a#ainst respondents in its letter@co$plaint.

Petitioner ilosba%an asserts that it is the obli#ation of the

&o$elec to search for the evidence needed to "udiciall%

indict respondents because it is the a#enc% e$po!ered to

investi#ate and prosecute cases involvin# election

offenses: that '.O. &ase No. 6@/6 should, at an% rate, bedee$ed one filed b% the &o$elec motu rorio, thus

needin# no evidence since probable cause is such a case is

presu$ed, petitioner ilosba%an havin# onl% Cre<uestedC

for an investi#ation and the &o$elec havin# proceeded to

in fact hold the investi#ation, as Cre<uestedC b% petitioner

ilosba%an: and that the &o$elec should alread% be#rateful to petitioner ilosba%an for the latters private

efforts at e8posin# respondents ille#al election activities.

ilosba%ans position is not tenable.

Indeed, ilosba%an trul% deserves co$$endation for its

continued vi#ilance a#ainst an% and all for$s of

#overn$ent corruption that cost this countr% not onl% thefunds #ravel% needed to afford each Filipino a decent and

honorable life, but also the $oral resolve to unite !ith

each other and resist and eradicate the #ro!in# culture of

#reed, abuse of po!er and blatant disre#ard for basichu$an di#nit% and social responsibilit%. -ut it $ust #uard

a#ainst arro#ance in tru$petin# its causes, if not

reclessness in its advocac%.

The clai$ of petitioner ilosba%an that it is $erel% theCinfor$antC and not the private co$plainant !ith the

burden to prove probable cause, borders on the ridiculous.

ilosba%an filed before the &o$elec a letter@co$plaint

dated Dece$ber /0, /6 in support of !hich

docu$entar% evidences lie copies of Teodoro -eni#nos

ne!spaper articles on the SBOs use of PGBSDFI@

obtained &DF, of respondent 'nri<ues testi$on% beforethe &o$$ission on 1ppoint$ents, of DI)E -ud#et

Officer -aratas testi$on% before the Senate Finance

&o$$ittee, and of Norberto Eonales affidavit, !ere

lie!ise sub$itted b% petitioner. The letter@co$plaint not

bein# verified, it is not disputed that petitioner ilosba%an

subse<uentl% caused its verification: !hen later ased to

#ive the na$es of the other 4ohn Does in its letter@co$plaint, petitioner ilosba%an obli#ed !ith a list, under

oath, of additional respondents. Petitioner ilosba%an

initiated the co$plaint a#ainst herein respondents, hence

the docetin# thereof as '.O. &ase No. 6@/6: it filed

nu$erous pleadin#s before the &o$elec as a privateco$plainant in '.O. &ase No. 6@/6: it proceeded in the

case in accordance !ith the &o$elec Rules of Procedure

pertinent to the prosecution of cases of election offenses.

1fter all, the ilosba%an should have presented evidence

and not proceeded and relied on $ere con"ecture and

hearsa% evidence.

The contention of petitioner ilosba%an K that it is the

&o$elec that is dut%@bound to search for evidence to

prove its letter@co$plaint K is do!nri#ht erroneous. The



tas of the &o$elec as investi#ator and prosecutor, actin#

upon an% election offense co$plaint, is not the ph%sical

searchin# and #atherin# of proof in support of a co$plaint

for an alle#ed co$$ission of an election offense. 1

co$plainant, !ho in effect accuses another person of

havin# co$$itted an act constitutin# an election offense,

has the burden, as it is his responsibilit%, to follo! throu#hhis accusation and prove his co$plainant. If the

co$plainant fails to proffer the necessar% evidence to

sho! probable cause, not!ithstandin# the lac of denial or an% evidence in controversion, of the accusation, theco$plaint $ust be dis$issed, since an% person accused of

a cri$e is presu$ed innocent and does not at all have to

$ae a response or reaction to the char#es a#ainst hi$.

The &o$elec, in actin# upon an election offenseco$plaint in the course of preli$inar% investi#ation,

initiall% facilitates the confrontation process bet!een the

co$plainant and the respondents b% re<uirin# the

sub$ission of and interfacin#, their respective evidences.

>lti$atel%, the &o$elec passes upon the contendin#

parties respective sub$ission and proofs and !ei#hs thefact and circu$stances established therefro$. &ontrar% to

the asseveration of petitioner ilosba%an, the preli$inar%

investi#ation is not an occasion for the &o$elec to, as a

dut%, spoonfeed the co$plainant !ith evidence needed to

prove its case.

Finall%, !e cannot avoid to point out that no novel le#al

theor% can distract even an ordinar% la%$an fro$ the plain

dearth of evidence of respondents culpabilit% on the

record.

There is no proof of the electioneerin# activities alle#ed b% petitioner ilosba%an to have been perpetrated b%

PGBSDFI durin# the Ma% //, /2 elections. Petitioner

clai$s that PGBSDFI distributed $edical its and sports

e<uip$ent to several %outh #roups in certain Metro

Manila baran#a%s for purposes of influencin# their vote

durin# the Ma% //, /2 elections. Petitioner, ho!ever,

va#uel% states the places !here, the dates !hen, the

particular candidate for !hose cause, and the #eneral

description of the people for !hose consu$ption, the

distribution of election propa#anda $aterials !as

undertaen. In fact, there is no proof that the $edical its

and sports e<uip$ent !ere election propa#anda $aterials.This is not surprisin# for there is the barest evidence that

this distribution had an% taen place at all.

There is no proof that PGBSDFI used its cash allocations

as an accredited non@#overn$ental or#aniation in order

to undertae electioneerin# activities. Petitioner lie!ise

did not present proof that said distribution of $edical itsand sports e<uip$ent !as for purposes of influencin# the

votes of certain #roups of people durin# the Ma% //, /2

elections. -rushin# aside these fatal evidentiar% lapses,

petitioner insists that PGBSDFI is #uilt% of usin# public

funds for electioneerin# purposes si$pl% because itreceived its &DF allocation !ithin a ti$e fra$e

suspiciousl% so near the Ma% //, /2 elections. This

&DF allocation, ho!ever, has been convincin#l% sho!n to

be a le#al disburse$ent of public funds. Si#nificantl%,

PGBSDFI neither presented rebuttal evidence or even

atte$pted to ar#ue a#ainst the presu$ption of re#ular

perfor$ance of official dut% on the part of respondents

lie Franlin Drilon, &esar Sarino, and Salvador 'nri<ue

!ho !ere then actin# in their official capacit% as heads of

their respective depart$ents.

It $a% even be conceded that petitioner tells a credible

stor%, it bein# too $uch of a coincidence for there to be,

on the one hand, ru$ors of electioneerin# activities on the

part of PGBSDFI and on the other, #enuine cash

allot$ents sho!in# disburse$ent of public funds to the

latter so coincidentall% close to the Ma%, /2 elections.

Bo!ever, no $atter ho! believable a stor% $a% be, no$atter ho! possible it could reall% have been that

PGBSDFI !as a financial conduit for cri$inal ele$ents

!orin# for the interests of a particular candidate in the/2 elections, cri$inal char#es cannot ever be sanctioned b% possibilities or coffee shop ru$ors.

In other !ords, said cash allocations appear to be evidence

of perhaps, a thousand h%pothetical, thou#h, possible

scenarios. -ut, the% are evidence of onl% one fact that acertain a$ount of public $one% !as $ade available to

PGBSDFI as it is ri#htfull% entitled thereto as an

accredited non@#overn$ental or#aniation at around the

sa$e ti$e that the s%nchronied elections of /2 !ere to

be held. -ut this one fact is certainl% no "ustification to

indict herein respondent for the election offenses i$putedto the$.

)astl%, there is no proof that respondents conspired tohave PGSDFI accredited as a non@#overn$ent

or#aniation in order to avail itself of public funds to

spend for electioneerin# purposes. In order for there to be

reasonable #round to believed that a conspirac% e8ists

a$on# (/* the #overn$ent officials !ho set up the

$echanis$ for accreditin# NEOs to i$ple$ent the

pro"ects under the &DF and to <ualif% the latter to receive

&DF allocations: (2* the incorporators and officers of the

PGBSDFI: and (6* the SBO i$plicated b% Teodoro-eni#no in his ne!spaper articles in alle#ed

electioneerin# activities durin# the Ma% //, /2

elections, there $ust be a se$blance of evidence linin#

the$ to each other. There is none, ho!ever, e8cept for the

hearsa% evidence consistin# of the afore$entionedne!spaper articles. Suffice it to sa% that althou#h onl% a

lo! <uantu$ and <ualit% of evidence is needed to support

a findin# of probable cause 48, the sa$e cannot be "ustified

upon hearsa% evidence that is never #iven an% evidentiar%or probative value in this "urisdiction.

Incidentall%, !e note that althou#h $ade part%respondents in this case, -enito &atindi# and Manuel

&alupitan III !ere not officiall% $ade respondents in '.O.&ase No. 6@/6 and accordin#l% not served !ith

subpoena at an% ti$e durin# the pendenc% of said before

the &o$elec. There is no #round, therefore, to i$plead

-enito &atindi# and Manuel &alupitan III in the instant

case.

+B'R'FOR', IN VI'+ OF TB' FOR'EOINE, the

instant petition is hereb% DISMISS'D, !ithout an%

pronounce$ent as to costs.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&



G.R. No. 119 O#to;'( 4, 1994

ANTONIO -.A. TAN, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RUSTICO T.

ILAGAN, R'go!$ E'#to! D('#to(, Cosso! o!

E'#to!s, R'go! 7I, D$=$o Ct&, $!) SENFORIANO

B. ALTERADO, respondents.

)eonido C. -elante 1or etitioner.

Eduardo C. de 7era 1or Atty. .B. Alterado.

-ITUG, J.:

On /; Ma% /2, petitioner, as incu$bent cit% Prosecutor

of Davao &it%, !as desi#nated b% the &o$$ission on

'lections (C&OM')'&C* as

Vice@&hair$an of the &it% -oard of &anvassers of Davao

&it% for the //th Ma% /2 s%nchronied national andlocal elections confor$abl% !ith the provisions of Section

2;(a* of Republic 1ct No. ==0= and Section 22/(b* of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/*.

On the basis of the votes canvassed b% the -oard of

&anvassers, Manuel Earcia !as proclai$ed the !innin#

candidate for a con#ressional seat to represent the Second

District of Davao &it% in the Bouse of Representatives.

Private respondent 1lterado, hi$self a candidate for the

position, filed a nu$ber of cases <uestionin# the validit%

of the procla$ation of Manuel Earcia and accusin# the

$e$bers of the &it% -oard of &anvassers of Cunla!ful,

erroneous, inco$plete and irre#ular canvass.C Mean!hile,

the electoral protest of private respondent 1lterado !as

dis$issed b% the Bouse of Representatives 'lectoral

Tribunal (CBR'TC*. The cri$inal co$plaint for

CFalsification of Public Docu$ents and Violation of the

1nti@Eraft and &orrupt Practices 1ctC before the Office of

the O$buds$an !as lie!ise dis$issed on the #round of

lac of cri$inal intent on the part of therein respondents.

Still pendin# is an ad$inistrative char#e, the case no!

before us, instituted in the &OM')'& a#ainst the &it%-oard of &anvassers, includin# herein petitioner, for

CMisconduct, Ne#lect of Dut%, Eross Inco$petence and

1cts Ini$ical to the Service.C

Petitioner $oved to dis$iss the ad$inistrative co$plaint

a#ainst hi$ for alle#ed lac of "urisdiction of the

&OM')'& thereover, he bein# under the '8ecutive

Depart$ent of the #overn$ent. The &OM')'& denied

petitioners $otion to dis$iss.

Bence, the instant petition.

Petitioner contends that the &OM')'& has co$$itted

#rave abuse of discretion and acted !ithout "urisdiction in

continuin# to tae action on the ad$inistrative case. Be

ar#ues that K

/* Petitioner is the &it% Prosecutor of

Davao &it%. Bis office belon#s to the

e8ecutive branch of the #overn$ent, $ore

particularl% to the Depart$ent of 4ustice.

1s such, he is under the ad$inistrative

"urisdiction of the said depart$ent and not

of respondent &OM')'&.

2* The &ivil Service )a! provides that

depart$ent heads Cshall have "urisdiction

to investi#ate and decide $atters

involvin# disciplinar% action a#ainst

officers under their "urisdictionC (Section

03bJ, P.D. 9;3*.

6* Section 2, 1rticle IA of the /93

&onstitution !hich authories respondent

&OM')'& to deputie public officers

belon#in# to the e8ecutive depart$ent is

for the purpose of insurin# free, orderl%

and honest elections. It does not include

and co$prehend ad$inistrative

disciplinar% "urisdiction over officials

belon#in# to the e8ecutive branch of

#overn$ent. That "urisdiction over

deputied e8ecutive officers cannot be

dee$ed to include such po!ers as !ouldallo! encroach$ent into the do$ain of

the e8ecutive branch under #uise of

ad$inisterin# la!s relative to elections.

0* Section 69 of P.D. 9;3 cited b%

respondents &OM')'& and Ila#an as

basis for their authorit% to investi#ate

petitioner (1nne8 E* offers no help tosaid respondents. The said provision

$erel% la%s do!n the procedure for

ad$inistrative cases a#ainst non@

presidential appointees. Petitioner here,the cit% prosecutor for Davao &it% is a

presidential appointee. 1

+e find ourselves bein# unable to sustain the petition.

The &OM')'&s authorit% under Section 2(=@9*, 1rticle

IA, of the &onstitution is virtuall% all@enco$passin# !hen

it co$es to election $atters. In respect particularl% to

sanctions a#ainst election offenses, !e <uote

Sec. 2. The &o$$ission on 'lections

shall e8ercise the follo!in# po!ers andfunctions

888 888 888

(=* File, upon a verified co$plaint, or on

its o!n initiative, petitions in court for

inclusion or e8clusion of voters:

investi#ate and, !here appropriate,

prosecute cases of violations of election

la!s, includin# acts or o$ission

constitutin# election frauds, offenses, and

$alpractices.

888 888 888

(9* Reco$$end to the President the

re$oval of an% officer or e$plo%ee it hasdeputied or the i$position of an% other

disciplinar% action, for violation or

disre#ard of, or disobedience to its

directive, order, or decision.



1dditionall%, Section 72, 1rticle VII, of the O$nibus

'lection &ode, provides

Sec. 72. Powers and 1unctions o1 te

Commission on Elections. K In addition

to the po!ers and functions conferred

upon it b% the &onstitution, the

&o$$ission shall have e8clusive char#e

of the enforce$ent and ad$inistration of

all la!s relative to the conduct ofelections for the purpose of insurin# free,

orderl% and honest elections, and shall

a. '8ercise direct and i$$ediate

supervision and control over national and

local officials or e$plo%ees, includin#

$e$bers of an% national or local la!

enforce$ent a#enc% and instru$entalit%

of the #overn$ent re<uired b% la! to

perfor$ duties relative to the conduct of

elections. In addition, it $a% authorie

&MP &adets ei#hteen %ears of a#e andabove to act as its deputies for the purpose

of enforcin# its orders.

The &o$$ission $a% relieve an% officer

or e$plo%ee referred to in the precedin#

para#raph fro$ the perfor$ance of his

duties relatin# to electoral processes !ho

violates the election la! or fails toco$pl% !ith its instructions, orders,

decisions or rulin#s, and appoint his

substitute. >pon reco$$endation of the

&o$$ission, the correspondin# properauthorit% shall suspend or re$ove fro$

office an% or all of such officers or

e$plo%ees !ho $a%, after due process, be

found #uilt% of such violation or failure.

It should be stressed that the ad$inistrative case a#ainst

petitioner, taen co#niance of b%, and still pendin# !ith,

the &OM')'&, is in relation to the perfor$ance of his

duties as an election canvasser and not as a cit%

prosecutor. The &OM')'&s $andate includes its

authorit% to e8ercise direct and i$$ediate supervision and

control over national and local officials or e$plo%ees,includin# $e$bers of an% national or local la!

enforce$ent a#enc% and instru$entalit% of the

#overn$ent, re<uired b% la! to perfor$ duties relative to

the conduct of elections. In order to help ensure that such

dul% deputied officials and e$plo%ees of #overn$ent

carr% out their respective assi#ned tass, the la! has also

provided than upon the &OM')'&s reco$$endation, thecorrespondin# proper authorit% (the Secretar% of the

Depart$ent of 4ustice in the case at bar* shall tae

appropriate action, either to suspend or re$ove fro$

office the officer or e$plo%ee !ho $a%, after due process,

be found #uilt% of violation of election la!s or failure toco$pl% !ith instructions, orders, decision or rulin#s of the

&OM')'&.

>navoidabl%, the &OM')'&, prior to $ain# itsreco$$endation, $ust first satisf% itself that there indeed

has been an infraction of the la!, or of its directives issued

confor$abl% there!ith, b% the person ad$inistrativel%

char#ed. It also stands to reason that it is the &OM')'&,

bein# in the best position to assess ho! its deputied

officials and e$plo%ees perfor$ or have perfor$ed in

their duties, that should conduct the ad$inistrative

in<uir%. To sa% that the &OM')'& is !ithout "urisdiction

to loo into char#es of election offenses co$$itted b%

officials and e$plo%ees of #overn$ent outside the re#ular

e$plo% of the &OM')'& !ould be to undul% den% to it

the proper and sound e8ercise of such reco$$endator%

po!er and, perhaps $ore than that, even a possible denialof due process to the official or e$plo%ee concerned.

Observe, nevertheless, that the &OM')'& $erel% $a%issue a reco$$endation for disciplinar% action but that it

is the e8ecutive depart$ent to !hich the char#ed official

or e$plo%ee belon#s !hich has the ulti$ate authorit% to

i$pose the disciplinar% penalt%. The la! then does not

detract fro$, but is con#ruent !ith, the #eneral

ad$inistrative authorit% of the depart$ent of #overn$entconcerned over its o!n personnel.

Petitioners assertion that private respondent 1lterado has

resorted to foru$@shoppin# is unacceptable. The

investi#ation then bein# conducted b% the O$buds$an on

the cri$inal case for falsification and violation of the1nti@Eraft and &orrupt Practices 1ct, on the one hand,

and the in<uir% into the ad$inistrative char#es b% the

&OM')'&, on the other hand, are entirel% independent proceedin#s. Neither !ould the results in one conclude the

other. Thus, an absolution fro$ a cri$inal char#e is not a

bar to an ad$inistrative prosecution (Office of the &ourt

1d$inistrator vs. 'nri<ue, 2/9

S&R1 /*, or vice versa. So, also, the dis$issal b% the

&OM')'& of SP& &ase No. 2@262 on the #round that

the case constituted an electoral protest !ithin the

"urisdiction of the BR'T and not of the &OM')'&

(affir$ed b% this &ourt in E.R. No. /;=072* does notnecessaril% foreclosure the $atter of possible liabilit%, if

!arranted, of those !ho $i#ht have i$properl% acted in

the canvass of votes.

There are other issues, $ainl% factual, that are raised and

averred to sho! petitioners innocence fro$ the

ad$inistrative char#es. Petitioners alle#ations $a% !ell

be true but this petition at bench $a% not pree$pt the

deter$ination of those factual $atters %et to be passed

upon in the pendin# ad$inistrative proceedin#s.

+B'R'FOR', the instant petition is DISMISS'D. Nocosts.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. Nos. 10814215 M$& 1/, 199/

GO-. TUPA T. LOONG, BARI< SAMPANG,

<ARTINI MALDISA, ASSER HASSAN, $!)

HAD*A SAPINA RAD*AIE, petitioners,vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS>

PRO-INCIAL BOARD OF CAN-ASSERS OF SULU>

MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CAN-ASSERS OF

TALIPAO ? ABDUSA<UR TAN, respondents.



G.R No. 18/ M$& 1/, 199/

GO-. TUPA T. LOONG $!) <IMAR TULA@IE,

petitioners,

vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS>

PRO-INCIAL BOARD OF CAN-ASSERS OF SULU>

ABDUSA<UR TAN $!) MUNIB ESTINO,

respondents.

G.R No. 110 M$& 1/, 199/


petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS> ABDUSA<UR

TAN, $!) MUNIB ESTINO, respondents.

G.R No. 19/ M$& 1/, 199/


petitioners,vs.

HON. COMMISSIONER MANOLO B. GOROSPE

OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

respondent.

HERMOSISIMA, *R., J.:

>nder our resolution, dated 4anuar% /=, /=, !e directed

the consolidation of the follo!in# four cases

(/* E. R Nos. /;39/0@/;39/7, entitled, CEov. Tupa% T.

)oon#, -ari Sa$pan#, artini Maldisa, Gasser Bassan,and Bad"a Sapina Rad0aie vs. /e Commission on

Elections: Provincial -oard of &anvassers of Sulu:

Municipal -oard of &anvassers of Talipao and 1bdusaur

TanC:

(2* E.R No. /2;92=, entitled, CEov. Tupa% T. )oon# and

Iimar /ulawie vs. /e Commission on Elections: The

Provincial -oard of &anvassers of Sulu: 1bdusaur Tan

and Munib 'stinoC:

(6* E.R No. /22/63, entitled, CEov. Tupa% T. )oon# and

i$ar Tula!ie vs. The &o$$ission on 'lections,

1bdusaur Tan and Munib 'stinoC: and

(0* E.R. No, /226=, entitled, CEov. Tupa% T, )oon# and

i$ar Tula!ie vs. Bon. &o$$issioner Manolo Eorospe

of the &o$$ission on 'lections.C

1s !e render "ud#$ent upon these consolidated petitions,

the appropriate bac#rounder on each of the$ is in order.

G. R. o. "&%!"'"&%!"#

The petition !as one for Certiorari seein# to nullif% t!oresolutions 1 of the &o$$ission on 'lections

(&OM')'&* pro$ul#ated in pre@procla$ation cases

filed b% petitioner Tupa% T. )oon# !ho pra%ed that the

proceedin#s of the Municipal -oard of &anvassers of

Talipao, Sulu, be set aside on the #round that the

certificates of canvass !ere $anufactured, fictitious and

falsified. The &OM')'& dis$issed the petitions, hence,

)oon#s recourse to this &ourt in a petition for certiorari.

In our resolution, dated 4anuar% 2=, /6, !e affir$ed the

dis$issal because !e found no #rave abuse of discretion

co$$itted on the part of the public respondent in

renderin# the <uestioned resolutions. 'ntr% of "ud#$ent as

re#ards that resolution !as effected on March /, /6.

G. R. o. "8&!89

This is a petition for Certiorari assailin# an Order 4

b% the&OM')'&, dated 4une /=, /7, suspendin# the

procla$ation of petitioners as !inners in the Ma% 9, /7

elections for Eovernor and Vice@Eovernor of the province

of Sulu, for Prohibition pra%in# that &OM')'& be

prohibited fro$ conductin# a technical co$parison of

si#natures and thu$b$ars affi8ed in &OM')'& &'

For$s / and 2, and for Mandamus seein# to co$pel

respondent to reconvene and proclai$ petitioners Tupa% T.

)oon# and i$ar Tula!ie as the dul% elected Eovernor

and Vice@Eovernor, respectivel%, of Sulu.

&ulled fro$ the pleadin#s in this case are the follo!in# pertinent facts

In the Ma% 9, /7 elections held in the Province of Sulu,

petitioner Tupa% T. )oon# and private respondent

1bdusaur Tan ran for the position of Eovernor, !hile

petitioner i$ar Tula!ie and private respondent Munib

'stino !ere candidates for the position of Vice@Eovernor.

1fter the canvass of the election returns of si8teen (/=* of

the ei#hteen (/9* $unicipalities of Sulu, respondent

Provincial -oard of &anvasser (P-&* reco$$ended to the

&OM')'& a recanvass of the election returns of Paran#

and Talipao. &OM')'&, accordin#l%, relieved all there#ular $e$bers of the Municipal -oard of &anvassers(M-&* and ordered such recanvass b% senior la!%ers

fro$ the &OM')'& office in Manila. Durin# the re@

canvass, private respondents ob"ected to the inclusion in

the canvass of the election returns of Paran#. Thereconstituted M-&, ho!ever, $erel% noted said ob"ections

and for!arded the sa$e to respondent P-& for resolution.

Subse<uentl%, the M-& sub$itted its certificate of

canvass to respondent P-& for canvass on the provinciallevel. Respondent P-&, ho!ever, denied aforesaid

ob"ections of private respondents, on the #round that onl%the certificate of canvass !as for!arded to it and that

private respondents alle#edl% failed to ob"ect to the

canvass of said certificate. The canvass of respondent

P-& sho!ed petitioners to have over!hel$in#l% !on in

the $unicipalit% of Paran#.

On 4une 26, /7, private respondents appealed to the&OM')'&, and such appeal !as doceted as SP& No.

7@6/; 5 !hich essentiall% <uestioned the aforesaid action

b% respondent P-&. Bo!ever, SP& 7@6/;, in !hich

private respondents for$all% sub$itted their appeal fro$

the o$nibus rulin# of respondent P-& den%in# theirob"ections to the election returns and?or certificate of

canvass, !as dis$issed b% the &OM')'& in an Order

pro$ul#ated on October 2;, /7. / Si#nificantl%, $uch

earlier, that is, on 4une , /7, private respondents had

alread% filed a petition doceted as SP1 No. 7@290 0

!hich pra%ed that the elections in Paran#, Sulu, be set

aside and annulled on the #round that there !as failure of

election in said $unicipalit% due to $assive fraud.

Bearin# on SP1 No. 7@290 !as held on 4une 29, /7. 8



1fter said hearin#, the &o$$ission issued an Order, dated

4ul% 0, /7, directin# the Provincial 'lection Supervisor

of Sulu to brin# to the &OM')'& central office the &'

For$ 2 !hich pertains to the list of voters !ith votin#

records used in the Ma% 9, /7 elections and the boos of

voters for all precincts. 1nticipatin# that the &OM')'&

!ould use the said docu$ents to conduct a technicale8a$ination of the si#natures and thu$b$ars affi8ed in

the list of voters !ith votin# records (&' For$ 2* and in

the re#istration for$s (&' For$ /*, petitioners )oon# andTula!ie pra%ed that the &OM')'& infor$ the$ as to!hether or not it !ould conduct a technical e8a$ination

of &' For$s / and 2, !hich e8a$ination, petitioners

ar#ued in their $otion, has been proscribed in pre@

procla$ation controversies b% this &ourt in the land$ar

case of -ianalan vs. C(ME)EC , 9 and that, in the

alternative, the sa$e e8a$ination be conducted as re#ards

&' For$s / and 2 of the $unicipalities of Siasi, Pan#li$a

'stino, Tapul, Pata and alin##alan# &aluan#, !here

private respondents alle#edl% co$$itted ra$pant fraud

durin# the elections.

In an Order, 1 dated 4ul% /9, /7, the &OM')'&

directed its Voters Identification Division to verif% and

e8a$ine the list of voters !ith the votin# records used in

the Ma% 9, /7 elections to#ether !ith the boos of

voters of all precincts for the $unicipalit% of Paran#, Sulu,

and to sub$it a report thereon !ithin fifteen (/7* da%s.

On 4ul% 2/, /7, petitioners countered b% filin# !ith the

&OM')'& a Petition to Declare a Failure of 'lection in

the Municipalities of Tapul, Pan#li$a 'stino, Pata, Siasi

and alin##alan# &aluan#, on the si$ilar #round of

$assive fraud resultin# in a statistical i$probabilit% in theelection results. Said petition !as doceted as SP1 No.

7@29, !hich, ho!ever, !as dis$issed b% the

&OM')'& in its En Banc Resolution dated Dece$ber /6,

/7.

G. R. o. "88"K%

This is a petition for Certiorari assailin# t!o &OM')'&

En Banc Resolutions, 11 both dated October , /7,

issued in the aforecited election cases of SP1 No. 7@290

and SP1 No. 7@29 !hich !ere ordered consolidated for

purposes of disposition, the petitions bein# that the%involve the sa$e parties and are so closel% connected that

resolution of one !ould necessaril% and $ateriall% affect

the outco$e of the other. The parties in both petitions

contend that no election !as ever conducted and no votin#

too place in the aforecited $unicipalities covered b% their

respective petitions. The &OM')'& disposed of pendin#

incidents in the consolidated cases SP1 No. 7@290 andSP1 No. 7@29 in this !ise

+B'R'FOR', !e su$$arie the

&o$$issions rulin#s, considered adopted

b% unani$ous or $a"orit% vote, asfollo!s

In SP1 No. 7@290,

(/* To annul the results of

the elections in the

$unicipalit% of Paran#,

Sulu, as to the positions

of Eovernor and Vice@

Eovernor:

(2* In the $eanti$e, to

reserve its rulin# on

!hether or not to hold

special elections in the

said $unicipalit%:

(6* To hold in abe%ance

the procla$ation of the

!innin# candidates for

Eovernor and Vice@Eovernor, until further

orders fro$ the

&o$$ission:

(0* To relieve the present

&hair$an and $e$bers

of the Provincial -oard of

&anvassers of Sulu, and

to appoint to their

respective positions 1tt%.

Ni$ia -. Suero,

&hair$an: 1tt%.1le8ander 1. Villanueva,

Vice@&hair$an, and 1tt%.

Teresita &. Suare,Me$ber@Secretar%, !ho

are directed to

i$$ediatel% re@convene

in Manila and proclai$

the !innin# candidates

for San##unian#

Panlala!i#an of the First

District of Sulu, on the

basis of the canvass dul%conducted.

In SP1 No. 7@29,

(/* To set the petition forhearin# and resolve the

<uestions therein raised

on (a* the ti$eliness of

the petition, and, (b*

!hether or not to order a

technical e8a$ination of

&' For$s / and 2 used inthe /7 elections for

Eovernor and Vice@

Eovernor in the

Municipalities or

Pan#li$a 'stino, Tapul,

Pata, Siasi and

alin##alan# &aluan#,Sulu.

SO ORD'R'D. 1

In essence, petitioners clai$ that the assailedresolutions of the &OM')'& !ere issued !ith

#rave abuse of discretion and !ithout "urisdiction

insofar as the &OM')'& order, on the basis of

the results of the technical e8a$ination of the

thu$b$ars of the voters affi8ed in &' For$s /

and 2, the annul$ent of the elections in Paran#,

Sulu, respectin# the positions or Eovernor and

Vice@Eovernor because, petitioners asseverate,

such technical e8a$ination has been held b% this&ourt to be prohibited in pre@procla$ation



controversies. Moreover, petitioners char#ed the

&OM')'& to have violated their funda$ental

ri#ht to due process !hen it annulled the elections

of Paran#, Sulu, on the basis of the results of said

technical e8a$ination !ithout #ivin# petitioners

prior opportunit% to be confronted !ith and to

refute, the said results.

On Dece$ber /0, /7, petitioners filed an

>r#ent Motion for the Issuance of a Te$porar%Restrainin# Order and Supple$ental Petition for

Certiorari 1. Said pleadin# further assailed

another En Banc Resolution 14 issued b% the

&OM')'& on Dece$ber /6, /7, in

consolidated cases SP1 No. 7@290 and SP1 No.

7@29. In that resolution, the &OM')'& ruled

1t this late date and usin# hindsi#ht, one

is inclined to as, !ere herein petitioners

so co$placent in a pre@deter$ined lead in

Paran#, that, #iven their a!areness of the

irre#ularities in the five (7* $unicipalities,the alle#ed lopsided results therein !ould

not upset their victor%L Faced !ith the

possible undoin# of the Paran# electionresults, !ould petitioners $ove to

$aintain their lead !ith a parallel undoin#

of !hat the% perceive as pro@Tan@and@

'stino results in other $unicipalitiesL In

SP1 7@290, respondents )oon# and

Tula!ie propose to sub$it for

e8a$ination the &' For$s / and 2 in

these five $unicipalities Cin te event C

and onl% then, a si$ilar e8a$ination isconducted on the Paran# docu$ents

It is ur#ed that parties co$e to this

&o$$ission !ith a shared purpose to

uphold the sacredness of an election.

)ooin# to the &onstitution for #uidance,

!e are constrained to !ithhold fro$

petitioners in SP1 7@ 29 the $eans

!hich !ould other!ise be theirs had the%

been $otivated !ith the principles of

fairness and inte#rit% in a political rivalr%

such as the /7 provincial elections inSulu. 1s !ith the &ourts, one $ust co$e

to the &o$$ission for ad"udication of hisri#hts !ith clean hands.

+e rule for the annul$ent of the elections

in Paran#, Sulu. +e also rule to dis$iss

the petition for a declaration of failure ofelections in the $unicipalities of

Pan#li$a 'stino, alin##alan# &aluan#,

Pata, Tapul and Siasi.

One final !ord on the $atter ofdeter$inin# the provincial !inners

follo!in# the annul$ent of a $unicipal

election

The approach to this issue !as varied in

the October , /7 resolution. +e have

re@assessed our position and abandoned

the option of a special election. +e tae

co#niance of the fact that the lists ofvoters used in the Ma% 9, /7 elections

have been annulled b% Republic 1ct No.

9;0=. 1 re#istration !as conducted in

Sulu, includin# Paran#, last 1u#ust /

and 2;. If the ne! list of voters is to be

used, there !ill be the le#al oddit% of

usin# a list !hich !as not in e8istence at

the ti$e the ori#inal election (Ma% 9,/7* !as held. 1 special election, to be

sure, is a $ere continuation of the election

first held. On the other hand, if the voterslist in the Ma% 9, /7 elections is used,there is the ano$al% of usin# a nullified

list of voters.

>pon these considerations !e have

abandoned the alternative of callin# aspecial election in Paran#.

There is reall% no co$pulsion for the

callin# of a special election. The voters of

Paran# constitute onl% about less than

/7U of the entire Sulu electorate. 1ndthere are results fro$ seventeen out of

ei#hteen $unicipalities of Sulu.

'8cludin# the Paran# election results, avalid procla$ation can still be had.

888 888 888

+e rule then for the outri#ht procla$ation

of provincial !inners, e8cludin# fro$ the

final canvass the results fro$ Paran#.

+B'R'FOR', +e hereb% render "ud#$ent as follo!s

/. The Provincial -oard of &anvassers for

Sulu as reconstituted in the October ,

/7 Resolution of this &o$$ission is

hereb% directed to reconvene, co$plete

the canvass, e8cludin# for the purpose the

&ertificate of &anvass?election returns of

Paran# and proclai$ the !innin#

candidates for Eovernor, Vice@Eovernor

and $e$bers of the San##unian#

Panlala!i#an: and

2. Dis$iss the petitions of Petitioners

Tupa% )oon# and i$ar Tula!ie in SP1

7@29.

SO ORD'R'D. 15

+e found the supple$ental petition for certiorari to besufficient in for$ and substance +e also found therein

co$pellin# reasons to #rant the $otion for issuance of

te$porar% restrainin# order. Thus, on Dece$ber /9, /7,

a te$porar% restrainin# order 1/ !as issued effective

i$$ediatel% orderin# the &OM')'& and the Provincial

-oard of &anvassers of Sulu to cease and desist fro$

i$ple$entin# and e8ecutin# the &OM')'& En Banc

Resolutions, dated October , /7 and Dece$ber /6,

/7, in consolidated cases

SP1 No. 7@290 and SP1 No. 7@29 and?or fro$

proclai$in# private respondents herein as !inners in the

Ma% 9, /7 elections for Eovernor and Vice@Eovernor of

Sulu.



On Dece$ber 29, /7, private respondents filed an

>r#ent Petition?Motion to )ift?Dissolve Te$porar%

Restrainin# Order. 10 Said petition?$otion !as noted b%

the &ourt in its En Banc Resolution 18 dated 4anuar% 26,

/=.

G. R. o. "88K$9

The petition is one for Prohibition pra%in# to prohibit the

Bonorable &o$$issioner Manolo Eorospe of the&OM')'& fro$ participatin# in the deliberations and

resolution of the re$ainin# issues in consolidated cases

SP1 No. 7@290 and SP1 No. 7@29. In an En Banc

Resolution, 19 dated Nove$ber 2/, /7, !e resolved to

dis$iss the petition for failure of the petitioners to

sufficientl% sho! that public respondent acted !ith #rave

abuse of discretion. On Dece$ber /9, /7, petitioners

filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for &onsolidation

of E.R. Nos. /22/63 and /2;92=. Said $otion !as

denied !ith finalit% in our En Banc Resolution 1 dated

4anuar% 26, /=.

&onsiderin# that (/* on March /, /6, entr% of

"ud#$ent has alread% been $ade in E.R. No. /;39/0@/7:

(2* petitioners $otion for reconsideration of our decision

in E.R No. /226= has alread% been denied !ith finalit%

in our resolution dated 4anuar% 26, /=: and (6* E.R No.

/2;92= has been rendered $oot and acade$ic, the

technical e8a$ination sou#ht to be restrained therein

havin# alread% been undertaen and results thereof havin# been $ade basis b% the &OM')'& in pro$ul#atin# its

resolutions, dated October , /7 and Dece$ber /6,

/7, sou#ht to be, on #rounds of #rave abuse of

discretion, annulled and set aside in E.R No. /22/63, !edee$ it necessar%, for the final and co$plete disposition

of these consolidated petitions, to ad"udicate upon this

re$ainin# sole issue !hether or not the &OM')'&

co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion correctable in

certiorari proceedin#s !hen on the one hand, it assu$ed

"urisdiction over and #ranted, private respondents petition

for annul$ent of the election results in Paran#, Sulu, on

the #round of statistical i$probabilit% and $assive fraud

and other election irre#ularities in the unravelin# of !hich

&OM')'& conducted a technical e8a$ination of the

thu$b$ars and si#natures affi8ed in the list of voters

!ith votin# records (&' For$ 2* and in the re#istrationfor$s (&' For$ /*, !hile on the other hand, it dis$issed

petitioners o!n petition for annul$ent of election resultsin the $unicipalities of Tapul, Pan#li$a 'stino, Pata,

Siasi, and alin##alan# &aluan#, even after $ain# a

findin# that Cthe sa$e bad#es of fraud evident fro$ the

results of the election based on the certificate of canvass

of the Provincial -oard of &anvassers of Paran#, Sulu, are

also evident in the election results of the Municipalities of

Pan#li$a 'stino, Tapul, Pata, Siasi and alin##alan#

&aluan#.C

+hile !e find that the &OM')'& has "urisdiction overthe petitions for annul$ent of election results filed b% both

petitioners and private respondents, the #rant of the latters

petition !ithout callin# for special elections and the

dis$issal of the for$ers petition upon no valid #round,

are actions tainted !ith #rave abuse of discretion that

necessitate correction in the instant certiorari proceedin#s.

1n anal%sis of the evolution of our election la!s

undeniabl% sho!s a para$ount concern for

conceptualiin# and devisin# the $ost effective $eans of

e8peditin# the procla$ation of !inners and the resolution

of all inds of post@votin# co$plaints, controversies and

disputes. The reason for this is al$ost self@evident:

election results are the e8pression of the !ill of the people

!hose !elfare and interests $ust i$$ediatel% be served

b% those upon !ho$ the people have placed their trust.

Peripherall% but not triviall%, elections need beconsu$$ated !ith dispatch because the losers or even

those "ust la##in# behind in the countin#, $ore often than

not, file all inds of protests and co$plaints andob"ections that dela% the election process and threaten toden% the people their representation in #overn$ent.

Since the )e#islature could not plu# all loopholes nor %et

foresee all proble$s that $a% arise in the electoral

process, our &onstitution has al!a%s vested in the&OM')'& the broad po!er to enforce and ad$inister all

the la!s and re#ulations relative to the conduct of

elections as !ell as the plenar% authorit% to decide all

<uestions affectin# elections e8cept the <uestion as to the

ri#ht to vote. 4 +hile, ho!ever, the scope of these

prero#atives $a% see$ boundless and enco$passin#, !ehave, as earl% as /0, in the case of acionalista Party

vs. Commission on Elections, e8plained that K

. . . such po!er is preventive onl% and not

curative also: that is to sa%, it is intended

to prevent an% and all for$s of election

fraud or violation of the 'lection )a!, but

if it fails to acco$plish that purpose, it is

not the &o$$ission on 'lections that is

char#ed !ith the dut% to cure or re$ed%

the resultin# evil but so$e other a#encies

of the Eovern$ent. +e note fro$ the te8tthat the po!er to decide <uestions

involvin# the ri#ht to vote is e8pressl%

!ithheld fro$ the &o$$ission . . .

parallel to the !ithholdin# of such po!er

fro$ the &o$$ission is the vestin# inother a#encies of the $ore inclusive

po!er to decide all contests relatin# to the

election, returns, and <ualifications of the

$e$bers of &on#ress, na$el%, the'lectoral Tribunal of the Senate in the

case of the senators and the 'lectoral

Tribunal of the Bouse of Representativesin the case of the $e$bers of the

latter. . . . 5

In vie! of that dis<uisition, !e held in the case of

A*es vs. &ommission on Elections that Cnothin# in

the fore#oin# constitutional precept !ill i$pl%

authorit% for &o$elec to annul an election . . . .

The boundaries of the forbidden area into !hich

&o$elec $a% not tread are also $ared b%

"urisprudence . . . . &o$elec is not the proper

foru$ to see annul$ent of an election based on

terroris$, frauds and other ille#al practices . . ./

It $ust be understood, ho!ever, that the aforecited

constitutional provision onl% disallo!s a derivation or

inference fro$ it of the po!er to annul elections on the

part of the &OM')'&: but said provision, si#nificantl%,

does not !ithhold the vestin# in the &OM')'& of that

sa$e po!er if such be dee$ed b% the )e#islature to be

necessar% in order that the &OM')'& be $ost effective

in the perfor$ance of its sacred dut% of insurin# the

conduct of honest and free elections. The &OM')'&,

therefore, can attribute to the aforecited constitutional



provision the #rant upon it of the po!er to annul elections,

if there be a valid statutor% enact$ent #rantin# the sa$e.

>nder the present state of our election la!s, the

&OM')'& has been #ranted precisel% the po!er to annul

elections. Section 0 of Republic 1ct No. 3/==, other!ise

no!n as, CThe S%nchronied 'lections )a! of //,C

provides that the &OM')'& sittin# En Banc b% a

$a"orit% vote of its $e$bers $a% decide, a$on# others,

the declaration of failure of election and the callin# ofspecial elections as provided in Section = of the O$nibus

'lection &ode. Said Section =, in turn, provides as

follo!s

Sec. =. Failure o1 election. K If, on

account of 1orce ma0eure, violence,

terroris$, fraud, or other analo#ous

causes the election in an% pollin# place

has not been held on the date fi8ed, or had

been suspended before the hour fi8ed b%

la! for the closin# of the votin#, or after

the votin# and durin# the preparation andthe trans$ission of the election returns or

in the custod% or canvass thereof, such

election results in a failure to elect, and inan% of such cases the failure or

suspension of election !ould affect the

result of the election, the &o$$ission

shall, on the basis of a verified petition b%

an% interested part% and after due notice

and hearin#, call for the holdin# or

continuation of the election not held,

suspended or !hich resulted in a failure to

elect on a date reasonabl% close to thedate of the election not held, suspended or

!hich resulted in a failure to elect but not

later than thirt% da%s after the cessation of

the cause of such postpone$ent or

suspension of the election or failure toelect.

The &OM')'& $a% e8ercise such po!er muto

rorio 0 or upon a verified petition. 8 The

hearin# of the case shall be su$$ar% in nature, 9

and the &OM')'& $a% dele#ate to its la!%ers

the po!er to hear the case and to receiveevidence. In the case of Mitmug vs. Commission

on Elections, !e held that before &OM')'& canact on a verified petition seein# to declare a

failure of election, t!o (2* conditions $ust

concur first, no votin# has taen place in the

precincts concerned on the date fi8ed b% la! or,

even if there !ere votin#, the election

nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect: and

second, the votes not cast !ould affect the result

of the election. 1 +e $ust add, ho!ever, that the

cause of such failure of election should have been

an% of the follo!in# 1orce ma0eure, violence,terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous causes. This is

an i$portant consideration for, !here the

propriet% of a pre@procla$ation controvers% ends,

there $a% be#in the real$ of a special action for

declaration of failure of elections.

Ver% fe! aspects of our la! toda% can $atch the

d%na$is$ that has characteried the for$ulation of our

"urisprudential rule on pre@procla$ation controversies,

The debate has, ho!ever, constantl% revolved around

!hether or not the &OM')'& $a% #o be%ond the face of

the election returns in deter$inin# their authenticit% and

#enuineness. The rule first established in illustrative cases

lie acionalista Party vs. Comelec and -izon vs.

Provincial Board is that the &OM')'& cannot #o

be%ond the election returns in canvassin# the sa$e. This

rule, ho!ever, !as eroded in subse<uent cases since /==,

!hen in the case of )agum*ay vs. Comelec, 4 !ee$po!ered the &OM')'& to nullif% certain contested

returns on the #round of statistical i$probabilit% C!here

the fraud is so palpable fro$ the return itself (res isalo3uitur K the thin# speas for itself*, there is no reasonto accept it and #ive it rima 1acie value.C 5 1nd then in

the /3/ case of -iaz, r . vs. Commission on Elections, /

in the li#ht of the alle#ations of petitioners therein to the

effect that the elections in <uestion !ere tainted !ith

fraud, terroris$ and other irre#ularities, !e sanctioned the

&OM')'&s procedure of causin# the e8a$ination b%

fin#erprint and hand!ritin# e8perts and anal%sis of the

si#natures and fin#erprints of the precinct boos of voters

and the &' 6s and votin# records, in order to deter$ine

!hether the reported elections !ere a sha$ a$ountin# to

no election at all and accordin#l% den% rima 1acie valueto the election returns and re"ect the$ as $anufactured or

false returns. +e reiterated this rulin# in Estaniel vs.

Commission on Elections 0 and a$plified the sa$e in

6sman vs. Commission on Elections. 8 1nd in the case of

(l1ato vs. Commission on Elections, 9 !e !ent as far as to

hold that the statutor% enu$eration of the #rounds proper

for filin# a pre@procla$ation controvers% is not e8clusive.

To #ive a strict interpretation of Section

/37 . . . of the /39 'lection &ode !ould

be to li$it the #rounds in pre@

procla$ation controversies to $atters purel% affectin# election returns. +'

believe that to revert to the old doctrine

prohibitin# the &o$elec fro$ looin#

behind the election returns as to the

e8istence of election irre#ularities is not

consistent !ith the ver% purpose of the

la!. &learl%, Sections /32, /36 and /30

onl% spea of irre#ularities co$$itted in

the preparation of election returns

the$selves. +' cannot see an% difference

ho!ever if the &o$elec be allo!ed to

suspend a canvass or suspend or annul a procla$ation of a candidate@elect on the

#round that irre#ularities or $istaes in

the preparation of returns such as

ta$perin#, alterin#, falsif%in# of returns,

$aterial defects or discrepancies of

election returns e8ist and den% saidauthorit% to the &o$elec if based on

#rounds not apparent on the face of the

election returns but indirectl% affectin#

their inte#rit%. &ertainl%, it !ould be

ridiculous to den% the &o$elec the

authorit% to suspend a canvass or suspend

or annul a procla$ation if based on

#rounds of

election irre#ularities co$$itted durin#

the election !hich !ould necessaril% also

vitiate or affect the inte#rit% of the

election returns such as fae voters . . .

althou#h not apparent upon the face.

See$in#l% #enuine returns based on fae

votes are e<uall% spurious as ta$pered

election returns. To sustain the validit% of

election returns despite a rima 1acie



sho!in# of the co$$ission prior to the

votin# of election irre#ularities

independent of the subse<uent act of

preparin# the election returns is to sta$p

our approval on $ain# said election

returns as an i$penetrable shield in the

perpetration of election ano$alies. 4

In all these aforecited eases, albeit in pre@

procla$ation cases, !e upheld the propriet% ofconductin# technical e8a$inations of fin#erprints

and si#natures in votin# paraphernalia to

deter$ine the inte#rit% of certain election returns

!hich, on their face, are re#ular and see$in#l%

authentic but the circu$stances of !hose

production are ine8tricabl% lined !ith fraudulentsche$es and other #rave electoral irre#ularities.

The %ear /93 $ared the return to the previous rule that

in pre@procla$ation controversies, alle#ations that clean,

re#ular election returns are in fact sha$ returns because

no free and honest elections had at all been held due tofraud, terroris$ and other ille#al electoral practices, are to

be re"ected and held to be inappropriate $atters to be

raised in pre@procla$ation cases, the sa$e bein# properl%the office of election contests over !hich electoral

tribunals have sole, e8clusive "urisdiction. So !e held in

the land$ar case of -ianalan vs. Commission on

Elections 41

. . . -iaz v. Commission on Elections, 20

S&R1 02=: Estaniel v. Commission on

Elections, 02 S&R1 06=: and 6sman vs.

Commission on Elections, 02 S&R1 ==3,!ere decided in /3/, and )agum*ay v.

Climaco and Comelec, /= S&R1 /3=,

even earlier, in /== . . . 1ll these cases

ruled that the &o$$ission on 'lections

could investi#ate char#es of irre#ularities

in the conduct of elections as an incident

of its po!er to canvass the votes and

proclai$ the !inners: and this !as

possible because its "urisdiction over pre@

procla$ation <uestions !as not li$ited

then and sub"ect to &o$elec abuse. No!,

it is e8pressl% li$ited to, under Section206 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode passed

on Nove$ber 29, /97 . . . 1 readin# ofthis section !ill readil% sho! that it

applies onl% to the specific deficiencies

therein enu$erated and that <uestions

relatin# to alle#ed irre#ularities in the

votin# such as fraud, substitution or vote@

bu%in# and terroris$ are proper $atters

for election protests under the sole

"urisdiction of the 'lectoral Tribunals.

888 888 888

. . . In fact, (l1ato is a to$bstone of the

absurd conse<uences of the past re#i$e

&o$elecs notorious flip@floppin#resolutions. There, the &o$elec

inconsistentl% too opposite positions b%

settin# aside its previous denial or

dis$issal of the petition for suspension or

annul$ent of procla$ation since the

#rounds alle#ed !ere proper #rounds for

election protest and declared the

procla$ation as $erel% Cte$porar%,C

sub"ect to the final outco$e of the petition

for annul$ent of procla$ation,

not!ithstandin# that the dul% proclai$ed

!inner (Olfato* had alread% assu$ed

office . . . The &ourt sustained the&o$elecs volte 1ace therein . . . -ut it is

the best proof of ho! such cavalier

treat$ent of settled doctrine and rulin#sdesi#ned to assure the pro$pt procla$ation of the election results and

leave the investi#ation of alle#ed

irre#ularities to a proper election protest

could derail the election process. . . . 4

The land$ar case or -ianalan, pro$ul#ated in

Nove$ber, /93, !as definitel% a departure fro$

the rulin# in (l1ato and its predecessor cases. -ut

as earl% as 1u#ust, /93, in the case of ancezvs. Commission on Elections, 4 !e had held that

the scope of pre@procla$ation controvers% isli$ited to the issues enu$erated under Section

206 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode

. . . The enu$eration therein of the issues

that $a% be raised in pre@procla$ation

controvers%, is restrictive and e8clusive.

In the absence of an% clear sho!in# or

proof that the election returns canvassed

are inco$plete or contain $aterial defects

(sec. 260*, appear to have been ta$pered

!ith, falsified or prepared under duress

(sec. 267* and?or contain discrepancies inthe votes credited to an% candidate, the

difference of !hich affects the result of

the election (sec. 26=*, !hich are the onl%

instances !here a pre@procla$ation

recount $a% be resorted to, #ranted the preservation of the inte#rit% of the ballot

bo8 and its contents . . . The co$plete

election returns !hose authenticit% is not

in <uestion, $ust be rima 1acie considered valid for the purpose of

canvassin# the sa$e and procla$ation of

the !innin# candidates.

. . . To e8pand the issues be%ond thoseenu$erated under sec. 206 and allo! a

recount?reappreciation of votes in ever%

instance !here a clai$ of $isdeclaration

of stra% votes is $ade !ould open the

flood#ates to such clai$s and paral%e

canvass and procla$ation proceedin#s,

#iven the propensit% of the loser to

de$and a recount. The la! and public

polic% $andate that all pre@procla$ation

controversies shall be heard su$$aril% b%the &o$$ission after due notice and

hearin# and "ust as su$$aril% decided . . .44

The polic% consideration underl%in# the

deli$itation both of substantive #round and

procedure is the polic% to deter$ine as <uicl% as

possible the result of the election on the basis of

canvass. Thus, in the case of -iatuan vs.

Commission on Elections, 45 !e cate#oricall%

ruled that in a pre@procla$ation controvers%,



&OM')'& is not to loo be%ond or behind

election returns !hich are on their face re#ular

and authentic returns, 1 part% seein# to raise

issues resolution of !hich !ould co$pel or

necessitate &OM')'& to pierce the veil of

election returns !hich are rima 1acie re#ular on

their face, has his proper re$ed% in a re#ularelection protest. -% their nature, and #iven the

obvious public interest in the speed%

deter$ination of the results of elections, pre@ procla$ation controversies are to be resolved insu$$ar% proceedin#s !ithout the need to present

evidence aliunde and certainl% !ithout havin# to

#o throu#h volu$inous docu$ents and sub"ectin#

the$ to $eticulous technical e8a$inations !hich

tae up considerable ti$e.

+ith the abandon$ent of the teachin#s of (l1ato and its

predecessor cases, it !as not a surprise !hen petitioners in

the case of -imaoro vs. Commission on Elections, 4/

pro$ul#ated in 4une, /;, ased the &ourt to re@e8a$ine

its decision in -ianalan so as to per$it petitioners tosub"ect to hand!ritin# and fin#erprint e8a$ination the

voters affidavits and votin# lists and other votin# records

in the contested precincts. +e responded in this !ise

+e are not persuaded b% petitioners

ar#u$ents on this point. It is i$portant to

bear in $ind that the nature, scope and

a$bit of a pre@procla$ation controvers%

as set out in Dianalan and Dipatuan and

the other cases there cited are deter$ined

b% statutor% provisions Sections

206 . . . 207 . . . and 20= . . . of theO$nibus 'lection &ode. 1s pointed out

above in Dipatuan, these statutor%

provisions reflect a ver% definite vie! of

!hat public polic% re<uires on the $atter.

It $a% !ell be true that public polic% $a%occasionall% per$it the occurrence of

C#rab the procla$ation and prolon# the

protestC situations: that public polic%,

ho!ever, balances the possibilit% of suchsituations a#ainst the shortenin# of the

period durin# !hich no !inners are

proclai$ed, a period co$$onl% frau#ht!ith tension and dan#er for the public at

lar#e. For those !ho disa#ree !ith that

public polic%, the appropriate recourse is

not to as this &ourt to abandon case la!

!hich $erel% interprets faithfull% e8istin#

statutor% nor$s, to en#a#e in "udicial

le#islation and in effect to re!rite

portions of the O$nibus 'lection &ode,

The appropriate recourse is, of course, to

the )e#islative Depart$ent of the

Eovern$ent and to as that Depart$ent

to strie a ne! and different e<uilibriu$in the balancin# of the public interests at

stae. 40

+e have recentl% reiterated the -ianalan and

-imaoro rulin#s in the case of Al1onso vs.

Commission on Elections, 48 pro$ul#ated in 4une,

/0. The prevailin# doctrine in this "urisdiction,

therefore, is that as lon# as the returns appear to be authentic and dul% acco$plished on their face,

the -oard of &anvassers cannot loo be%ond or

behind the$ to verif% alle#ations of irre#ularities

in the castin# or the countin# of the votes.

&orollaril%, technical e8a$ination of votin#

paraphernalia involvin# anal%sis and co$parison

of voters si#natures and thu$bprints thereon is

prohibited in pre@procla$ation cases !hich are

$andated b% la! to be e8peditiousl% resolved

!ithout involvin# evidence aliunde ande8a$ination of volu$inous docu$ents !hich tae

up $uch ti$e and cause dela% in defeat of the

public polic% underl%in# the su$$ar% nature of pre@procla$ation controversies.

+hile, ho!ever, the &OM')'& is restricted, in pre@

procla$ation cases, to an e8a$ination of the election

returns on their face and is !ithout "urisdiction to #o

be%ond or behind the$ and investi#ate electionirre#ularities, the &OM')'& is dut% bound to investi#ate

alle#ations of fraud, terroris$, violence and other

analo#ous causes in actions for annul$ent of election

results or for declaration of failure of elections, as the

O$nibus 'lection &ode deno$inates the sa$e. Thus, the

&OM')'&, in the case of actions for annul$ent ofelection results or declaration of failure of elections, $a%

conduct technical e8a$ination of election docu$ents and

co$pare and anal%e voters si#natures and fin#erprints in

order to deter$ine !hether or not the elections had indeed

been free, honest and clean. Needless to sa%, a pre@

procla$ation controvers% is not the sa$e as an action for

annul$ent of election results or declaration of failure of

elections. 49

In the instant case, private respondents as !ell as

petitioners filed, not pre@procla$ation cases, but actions

for annul$ent of election results or declaration of failureof elections over !hich the &OM')'& has statutor%

"urisdiction. In this re#ard, !e full% subscribe to the

follo!in# opinion of &o$$issioner Teresita D%@)iacco

Flores

The &o$$ission correctl% found that the

petitions, althou#h deno$inated

differentl% !here one is a petition to annul

and the other is a petition to declare a

failure of election, are actuall% of the

sa$e nature. 4ud#in# fro$ the #rounds

relied upon, both are basicall% petitions todeclare a failure of election under Section

= of the O$nibus 'lection &ode . . .

1 failure of election under the la! does

not arise fro$ findin#s of fraud, terroris$,

or 1orce ma0eure but fro$ the fact that

there !as a deni#ration of the e8pressionof the !ill of the people. The t!o

petitions are of this $old. -oth theorie

that the election results in the si8

$unicipalities in <uestion are not

e8pressive of the !ill of the people pri$aril% because the results are

statisticall% i$probable. -eneath those

neutral assertions, ho!ever, are

inti$ations of a !ide scale and $assive

fraud co$$itted durin# the preparation,

trans$ission, custod% or canvass of the

election returns.

Thus, in ad$ittin# SP1 7@290 as a

"usticiable election issue, the &o$$ission



anchored its "urisdiction on Sec. 0 of

Republic 1ct No. 3/== !hich e$po!ers

the &o$$ission, en *anc, to hear and

decide b% a $a"orit% vote the

postpone$ent, declaration of a failure of

election and the callin# of special

election. Such specific #rant of po!er toannul an election is fir$l% cushioned b%

the plenar% po!ers of the &o$$ission

#ranted b% the &onstitution pursuant tothe sa$e &o$$issions dut% of ensurin#clean, honest, orderl% and peaceful

elections.

I a$ in absolute a#ree$ent !ith the

$a"orit% !hen it ruled and ordered in SP17@290 for the technical e8a$ination of

the fin#erprints of voters in Paran#, #iven

the incredible election results therein. The

election results, standin# alone, points

undoubtedl% to a failure of election in said

$unicipalit%. The conclusion is clear andthe deduction #larin#l% obvious. Fraud of

such a $assive de#ree attended the

elections held in Paran# that !hat could

have been a de$ocratic process of

ascertainin# the !ill of the electorate !as

totall% vitiated. Such fraud !as the cause

!hich #ave rise to a failure to elect, a

#round for the declaration of a failure of

election. 5

The results of the technical e8a$ination, upon !hich the

&OM')'&, b% a unani$ous vote, based its decision toannul the election results of Paran#, Sulu, are chronicled

as follo!s

The election docu$ents !hich the

&o$$ission directed to

be sub$itted for e8a$ination b% the

'lection Records H Statistics

Depart$ent . . . !ere &' For$ / and &'

For$ 2. &' For$ / is the Voters

1ffidavit (no! called Voters Re#istration

Record*, a$on# the contents of !hich is

the individual voters si#nature, and leftand ri#ht thu$bprints . . . &' For$ 2 is

the co$puteried C)ist of Voters !ithVotin# RecordsC for each precinct, !hich

contains si#nature, thu$b$ar . . .

There !ere t!o e8a$inations conducted.

One e8a$ination !as a co$parison of thethu$b$ars to deter$ine !hether the

voters thu$b$ar in &' For$ 2 is

identical !ith either the ri#ht or left

thu$b$ar appearin# on &' For$ /.

There !as also an e8a$ination of all thethu$b$ars of the voters in each precinct

to deter$ine !hich thu$b$ars identical

to each other belon# to the sa$e person.

The other e8a$ination !as a co$parison

of the voters si#nature appearin# in &'

For$ No. 2 !ith that appearin# in &'

For$ No. /.

888 888 888

'ven before the technical e8a$ination

!as conducted, the &o$$ission alread%

noted certain bad#es of fraud "ust b%

looin# at the election results of Paran#,

Sulu.

-ased on the &ertificate of &anvass of the

Provincial -oard of &anvassers, Tupa%

)oon# #arnered a total of 20,30/ votes

!hile 1bdusaur Tan !as credited !ith399 votes. i$ar Tula!ie, the runnin#@

$ate of )oon#, !as not far behind !ith

20,2/2 votes !hile his opponent for the

position or Vice@Eovernor K Bad"i

Munib 'stino K !as credited !ith 3=6

votes.

1 ph%sical count of the Voters

1ffidavit?Re#istration Record (&' For$

/* sho!s that there !ere 27,679 re#istered

voters in /;0 precincts of Paran#, Sulu.

-ut if the votes of )oon# and Tan aretotalled (20,30/ 39/* it !ould be 27,72

votes, /3/ votes in e8cess of the

re#istered voters. 1lso, 922 voters !hohad no Voters 1ffidavit?Re#istration

Record (&' For$ /* !ere allo!ed to

vote.

. . . The thu$bprints found on &' For$ No. 2 (&o$puteried )ist of Voters !ith

Votin# Records* of each of the fourteen

thousand, four hundred ei#ht%@three

(/0,096* persons !ho voted do not tall%!ith the correspondin# thu$bprints in &'

For$ No. / (Voters 1ffidavit?Re#istration

Record*. The inescapable conclusion is

that the persons !ho voted !ere not the

re#istered voters the$selves. The% !ere

i$postors.

. . . 1 co$parison of thu$bprints of all the

voters in each of the /;2 precincts,

revealed that the thu$bprints of #roups of

voters in each precinct ca$e fro$ the

sa$e person. &ountin# the nu$ber ofvoters !ith si$ilar thu$bprints in all

#roupin#s in all of the /;2 precincts

e8a$ined, the nu$ber reach /;,39;. The

thu$bprints in &' For$ No. / or &'

For$ No. 2, nu$berin# ,079 voters,

!ere, ho!ever, s$ud#ed, blurred, or faint,

$ain# these thu$bprints unreadable andi$possible to anal%e for lac of

sufficient basis for co$parison . . .

These incontrovertible findin#s in the

/0,096 unidentical thu$b$ars are theresult of dact%loscopic e8a$ination based

on the science of fin#erprints. In precincts

!here Tan and 'stino had ero (;* votes,

undoubtedl%, all the votes ille#all% cast!ere in favor of )oon# and Tula!ie . . . 51

+hile, ho!ever, the &OM')'& acted !ithin its

"urisdiction in tain# co#niance of the private

respondents petition to annul the election results of or todeclare failure of elections in Paran#, Sulu, it co$$itted



#rave abuse of discretion !hen confronted !ith essentiall%

the sa$e situation in petitioners o!n petition to annul the

elections of or to declare failure of elections in the

$unicipalities of Tapul, Pan#li$a 'stino, Pata, Siasi and

alin##alan# &aluan#. The &OM')'& arbitraril% and

!ithout valid #round dis$issed the said petition

respectin# the afore$entioned five $unicipalities. Theunti$eliness of the petition is an untenable ar#u$ent for

such dis$issal, because as &o$$issioner Re#alado

Maa$bon# pointed out in his o!n dissentin# opinion, nola! provides for a re#le$entar% period !ithin !hich tofile annul$ent of elections !hen there is as %et no

procla$ation.

. . . 1fter procla$ation, ho!ever, there is

a re#le$entar% period to file an election protest or annul procla$ation, and be%ond

the ti$e li$it, it is barred. Thus, if the

ti$e has passed, a petitioner loses his case

even before it is filed.

Not in this case.

Since there is no re#le$entar% period to

file a petition for annul$ent of elections

before procla$ation, there is no le#al

i$pedi$ent a#ainst the e8a$ination of

&' For$s / and 2 in the five specified

$unicipalities. The re<uested technical

e8a$ination is not the petition proper. The petition is for annul$ent of elections. The

technical e8a$ination is but the $eans to

discover or obtain evidence !hich $a% or

$a% not sustain the petition. Thus, thetechnical e8a$ination is not ti$e@barred

either.

1d$inistration of "ustice is a difficult

process, but it !ould be in eepin# !iththe re<uire$ents of due process and e<ual

protection of the la!, if liti#ants are

treated in an e<ual $anner b% #ivin# the$

the sa$e ri#hts under si$ilar

circu$stances. 5

In the $a"orit% opinion penned b% &o$$issionerEorospe, the &OM')'& "ustified its dis$issal of

petitioners action to annul the election results in the

aforecited five $unicipalities upon the unti$eliness

thereof as !ell as its havin# filed alle#edl% onl% upon

petitioners realiation that their lead in Paran# !as in

dan#er of bein# eradicated b% the annul$ent of the

election results thereof. On this point, !e full% a#ree !ith

&o$$issioner Flores that K

888 888 888

The $a"orit% decision is $ade $ore be%ond co$prehension !hen it turned a

blind e%e to the funda$ental precepts of

fair pla%. To bar the petition of Tula!ie

and )oon#, the &o$$ission applied the

$a8i$ that Che !ho co$es to court $ust

co$e !ith clean hands.C Bo!ever, it

co$$itted a #rave affront to the

$ini$u$ re<uire$ents of e<ual

protection !hen, !ithout co$punction, it

discri$inatoril% applied such principle

a#ainst Tula!ie and )oon# !hen it should

have first applied it a#ainst candidate

1bdusaur Tan in SP1 7@290. That both

parties are si$ilarl% situated is a$pl%

supported b% a perusal of the petitions.

Bence, both $ust be accorded e<ual favor

before the la! and if the contrar% so!arrants, to suffer e<uall% the brunt of

said la!. It is doubl% hard, therefore, for

the &o$$ission to e8tricate itself fro$the <ua#$ire in !hich it has buried itself!hen it applied the la! !ith a $ared

bias in favor of one of the parties. For if it

had in $ind to punish candidates

evidentl% at fault %et see the aid of the

&o$$ission for the rectification of

irre#ularities alle#edl% co$$itted a#ainst

the$, the &o$$ission should have not

hesitated to !ave before petitioner Tan

the evidence !hich preponderates to his

#uilt and to dis$iss his petition outri#htl%.

Such !ould have been the prudentdecision because the parties are

apparentl% in ari delicto.

Thus, it re$ains ine8plicable ho! the

&o$$ission could have acted in defiance

of the &onstitution !hen it #ranted Tans

petition to annul the election in Paran#

but denied !ithout an% "ustifiable reason

)oon# and Tula!ies !hen both petitions

alle#e si$ilar #rounds and are

circu$scribed b% al$ost bis%$$etrical

factual circu$stances. Tan, upon !ho$si$ilar convincin# alle#ations of fraud

!ere i$puted and a#ainst !ho$

convincin# electoral statistics pointin# to

the fraud has been alle#ed !as undul%

favored because the hands that tipped the

scales failed to heed basic doctrines of

fairness. 5

The &OM')'&, in its resolution, dated October, /7, alread% noted that the sa$e bad#es of

fraud !ere evident in the election results of the

aforecited five $unicipalities disputed b% petitioners and even declared that Cthe la! $ust

be enforced in a fair $anner. 4ustice, fairness and

e<uit%, therefore, re<uire that the &o$$ission

should conduct a si$ilar technical e8a$ination of

&' For$

No. / . . . and &' For$ No. 2 . . . to deter$ine if

votin# irre#ularities in

the Municipalit% of Paran# !ere si$ilarl%

perpetrated in these five $unicipalities . . . SP1

No. 7@290 and SP1 No. 7@29 are so closel%

connected that a resolution of one !ould

necessaril% and $ateriall% affect the outco$e ofthe other. 1ll those !ho disre#ard the la! $ust be

$ade to e<uall% feel the !rath of its enforce$ent.54 It !as, therefore, #rave abuse of discretion on

the part of the &OM')'& to have arbitraril% and

!hi$sicall% dis$issed SP1 No. 7@29.

It !as also #rave abuse of discretion on the part of the

&OM')'& to have, after assu$in# "urisdiction over SP1 No. 7@290 upon the stren#th of its statutor% #rant of

po!er under Section 0 of R1. No. 3/== in relation to

Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode of the



Philippines, disre#arded the $andate of said provisions

and did a!a% !ith the holdin# of special elections in

Paran#, Sulu. +hile the $a"orit% acno!led#ed that a

decision annullin# an election no less re<uires a special

election in its after$ath, citin# the aforecited le#al

provisions, the $a"orit% considered such provisions

an%!a% ne#otiable fro$ !hich the% can deviate b% usin#Creasonable, practicable and e<uitableC solutions Cto end

the instant election controvers%C because Ce8ceptional and

supervenin# events so preponderate.C The dissent of&o$$issioner Maa$bon# echoes our o!n position on the$atter

+ith the annul$ent of the results of the

election in the Municipalit% of Paran#, no

procla$ation of the !inners for thecontested positions of Eovernor and Vice@

Eovernor can be $ade unless a special

election is held.

1n% procla$ation $ade !ill be null and

void because it !ould be based on aninco$plete canvass. The onl% e8ception is

if the election returns fro$ the elections

of Paran# !ill not affect the results of the provincial election. -ased on the nu$ber

of re#istered voters, ho!ever, the

e8clusion of Paran# !ill affect the results

of the provincial election. . . .

+hile it is true that an election can be

held !ith the participation of less than the

$a"orit% of re#istered voters, it can onl%

be valid if the canvass is co$plete.

The la! is clear on this point, and failure

to co$pl% !ith it is an election

offense . . .

The Supre$e &ourt has unifor$l% applied

the le#al re<uire$ent of a co$plete

canvass for a procla$ation to be valid.

888 888 888

If the absence of election returns of one precinct can result in inco$plete canvass,

bo! $uch $ore for one $unicipalit% lie

Paran#, Sulu. The nu$ber of re#istered

voters of Paran# are definitel% $uch $ore

than the e8istin# lead of 1bdusaur Tan

after the annul$ent of the results in that

$unicipalit%. . . . even !ith the broad

po!ers of the &o$$ission under the

&onstitution, I do not believe the

&o$$ission should violate the $andate

of the la! for !hatever reason. 55

Finall%, a peripheral issue that also needs to be addressed

is petitioners clai$ that the% have been denied their ri#ht

to due process !hen the% !ere not #iven the opportunit%

to rebut the results of the technical e8a$ination !hich !as

undertaen after the hearin# in SP1 7@290 and after saidcase !as dul% sub$itted for decision. In support of their

clai$, petitioners cite >s$an vs. &o$$ission on

'lections, 5/ !here !e found that the &OM')'& failed to

full% reco#nie and respect >s$ans ri#ht to due process!hen >s$an !as not allo!ed b% the &OM')'&, !ithout

sufficient reasons, to present an% evidence to rebut the

findin#s of its e8perts re#ardin# the thu$bprints and

si#natures in the &' For$ / and their correspondin# &'

For$ 6. 1ccordin#l%, !e ordered the &OM')'& in that

case to re@open the proceedin#s and set the case for

hearin# to afford >s$an his ri#hts.

+e find, ho!ever, that the circu$stances attendant to

petitioners case are distinct fro$ those characteriin# the

aforecited case of 6sman. For in the instant case, petitioners ad$itted in their pleadin#s that the% !ere full%

a!are of the issuance b% &OM')'& of an order directin#

the Provincial 'lection Supervisor of Sulu to brin# to the

&OM')'& office in Manila the election docu$ents to be

used in the technical e8a$ination. In fact, petitioners

anticipated such technical e8a$ination and filed a pleadin# before the &OM')'& in !hich the% pra%ed that

the% be infor$ed of an% subse<uent proceedin#s in the

sa$e case. In fine, it is undeniable that petitioners had the

opportunit% to participate in the proceedin#s respectin#

the technical e8a$ination, a!are as the% !ere of the intent

of the &OM')'& to conduct the sa$e. Militatin# a#ainstthe$ is the fact that the% did not do so !hen the% had the

opportunit% to, especiall% as public interest in the speed%

disposition of this case !ill onl% be further derailed b% the

reopenin# of the case for the benefit of petitioners !ho, if

the% could after all be this assertive of their due process

ri#hts no!, should have asserted the sa$e as earl% as

!hen the issues !ere ripe for debate.

+B'R'FOR', in vie! of all the fore#oin#, the

P'TITION FOR CER/(RAR in E.R. No. /22/63 is

B'R'-G ER1NT'D.

(/* The &OM')'& E BAC R'SO)>TIONS, dated

O&TO-'R , /7 and D'&'M-'R /6, /7, are

B'R'-G 1NN>))'D 1ND S'T 1SID'.

(2* The &OM')'& is B'R'-G ORD'R'D TO&OND>&T SP'&I1) ')'&TIONS IN TB'

M>NI&IP1)ITG OF P1R1NE, S>)>, and is

DIR'&T'D TO S>P'RVIS' TB' &O>NTINE OF T''

VOT'S 1ND TB' &1NV1SSINE OF TB' R'S>)TS

TO TB' 'ND TB1T TB' +INNINE &1NDID1T'S

FOR EOV'RNOR 1ND VI&'@EOV'RNOR FOR TB'

PROVIN&' OF S>)> -' PRO&)1IM'D 1S SOON1S POSSI-)'.

(6* The &OM')'& is B'R'-G ORD'R'D TO

R'INST1T' SP1 7@29 1ND TO &OND>&T TB'

N'&'SS1RG T'&BNI&1) 'A1MIN1TION, IF 1NG,

OF P'RTIN'NT ')'&TION DO&>M'NTS TB'R'IN

1ND TO BO)D SP'&I1) ')'&TIONS IN TB'

M>NI&IP1)ITI'S DISP>T'D IN SP1 7@29 IN TB'

'V'NT the &OM')'& 1NN>)S TB' ')'&TION

R'S>)TS TB'R'IN OR D'&)1R'S TB'R'1T

F1I)>R' OF ')'&TIONS.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&



G.R. No. 118 D'#';'( 5, 1990

RICARDO :BO: CANICOSA, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL

BOARD OF CAN-ASSERS OF CALAMBA,

LAGUNA $!) SE-ERINO LA*ARA, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

RI&1RDO C-OGC &1NI&OS1 and S'V'RINO

)141R1 !ere candidates for $a%or in &ala$ba, )a#una,

durin# the 9 Ma% /7 elections. 1fter obtainin# a

$a"orit% of so$e 20,;;; votes 1 )a"ara !as proclai$ed

!inner b% the Municipal -oard of &anvassers. On /7 Ma%

/7 &anicosa filed !ith the &o$$ission on 'lections

(&OM')'&* a Petition to -eclare Failure o1 Election

and to -eclare ull and 7oid te Canvass and

Proclamation because of alle#ed !idespread frauds and

ano$alies in castin# and countin# of votes, preparation ofelection returns, violence, threats, inti$idation, vote

bu%in#, unre#istered voters votin#, and dela% in the

deliver% of election docu$ents and paraphernalia fro$ the

precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.

&anicosa particularl% averred that (a* the na$es of the

re#istered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their

precincts: (b* $ore than one@half of the le#iti$ate

re#istered voters !ere not able to vote !ith stran#ers

votin# in their stead: (c* he !as credited !ith less votes

than he actuall% received: (d* control data of the election

returns !as not filed up in so$e precincts: (e* ballot bo8es

brou#ht to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer !ereunsecured, i.e., !ithout padlocs nor self@locin# $etalseals: and, (f* there !as dela% in the deliver% of election

returns. -ut the &OM')'& en *anc dis$issed the

petition on the #round that the alle#ations therein did not

"ustif% a declaration of failure of election.

Indeed, the #rounds cited b% &anicosa do not !arrant a

declaration of failure of election. Section = of -P -l#.

99/, other!ise no!n as the (mni*us Election Code,

reads

Sec. =. Failure o1 election K If, on account of 1orce ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or other

analo#ous causes the election in an% pollin# place

has not been held on the date fi8ed, or had beensuspended before the hour fi8ed b% la! for the

closin# of the votin#, or after the votin# and

durin# the preparation and the trans$ission of the

election returns or in the custod% or canvassthereof, such election results in a failure to elect,

and in an% of such cases the failure or suspension

of election !ould affect the result of the election,

the &o$$ission shall, on the basis of a verified

petition b% an% interested part% and after duenotice and hearin#, call for the holdin# or

continuation of the election not held, suspended or

!hich resulted in a failure to elect on a date

reasonabl% close to the date of the election not

held, suspended or !hich resulted in a failure to

elect but not later than thirt% da%s after the

cessation of the cause of such postpone$ent or

suspension of the election or failure to elect.

&learl%, there are onl% three (6* instances !here a failure

of election $a% be declared, na$el% (a* te election in

any olling lace as not *een eld on te date 1i+ed on

account of force ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or

other analo#ous causes: (b* te election in any olling

lace ad *een susended *e1ore te our 1i+ed *y law 1or

te closing o1 te voting on account of 1orce ma0eure,violence, terroris$, fraud, or other analo#ous causes: or

(c* a1ter te voting and during te rearation and

transmission o1 te election returns or in te custody orcanvass tereo1, suc election results in a 1ailure to elect on account of 1orce ma0eure. violence, terroris$, fraud, or

other analo#ous causes.

None of the #rounds invoed b% &anicosa falls under an%

of those enu$erated.

&anicosa be!ails that the na$es of the re#istered voters in

the various precincts did not appear in their respective lists

of voters. -ut this is not a #round to declare a failure of

election. The filin# of a petition for declaration of failure

of election therefore is not the proper re$ed%. The da%follo!in# the last da% for re#istration of voters, the poll

cler delivers a certified list of voters to the election

re#istrar, election supervisor and the &OM')'&, copiesof !hich are open to public inspection. On the sa$e da%,

the poll cler ports a cop% of the list of re#istered voters in

each pollin# place. 'ach $e$ber of the board of election

inspectors retains a cop% of the list !hich $a% be

inspected b% the public in their residence or in their office

durin# office hours.

Fifteen (/7* da%s before the re#ular elections on 9 Ma%

/7 the final list of voters !as posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. /09 of R.1. No. 3/==. -ased on the lists

thus posted &anicosa could have filed a petition for

inclusion of re#istered voters !ith the re#ular courts. The

<uestion of inclusion or e8clusion fro$ the list of voters

involves the ri#ht to vote !hich is not !ithin the po!er

and authorit% of &OM')'& to rule upon. The

deter$ination of !hether one has the ri#ht to vote is a

"usticiable issue properl% co#niable b% our re#ular courts.

Section /69, 1rt. AII, of the (mni*us Election Code

states:

Sec. /69. 5urisdiction in inclusion and e+clusioncases. K The $unicipal and $etropolitan trial

courts shall have ori#inal and e8clusive

"urisdiction over all $atters of inclusion and

e8clusion of voters fro$ the list in their respective

$unicipalities or cities. Decisions of the

$unicipal or $etropolitan trial courts $a% be

appealed directl% b% the a##rieved part% to the proper re#ional trial court !ithin five da%s fro$

receipts of notice thereof, other!ise said decision

of the $unicipal or $etropolitan trial court shall

decide the appeal !ithin ten da%s fro$ the ti$e

the appeal !as received and its decision shall bei$$ediatel% final and e8ecutor%. No $otion for

reconsideration shall be entertained b% the courts

(Sec. 63, PD /9=, as amended *.

On the other hand, &anicosa could have also filed !ith the

&OM')'& a verified co$plaint seein# the annul$ent of

the boo of voters pursuant to Sec. /;, of R.1. No. 3/==

Sec. /;. Annulment o1 te )ist o1 7oters. K 1n% boo of voters the preparation of !hich has been



affected !ith fraud, briber%, for#er%,

i$personation, inti$idation, force or an% other

si$ilar irre#ularit% or !hich is statisticall%

i$probable $a% be annulled after due notice and

hearin# b% the &o$$ission motu roio or after

the filin# of a verified co$plaint Provided , that

no order, rulin# or decision annullin# a boo ofvoters shall be e8ecuted !ithin si8t% (=;* da%s

before an election.

If indeed the situation herein described !as co$$on in

al$ost all of the 773 precincts as alle#ed b% &anicosa, 4

then it !as $ore e8pedient on his part to avail of the

re$edies provided b% la! in order to $aintain the

inte#rit% of the election. Since &anicosa failed to resort to

an% of the above options, the per$anent list of voters asfinall% corrected before the election re$ains conclusive on

the <uestion as to !ho had the ri#ht to vote in that

election, althou#h not in subse<uent elections. 5

&anicosa also avers that $ore than one@half (/?2* of the

le#iti$ate re#istered voters !ere not able to vote, instead,stran#ers voted in their behalf. 1#ain, this is not a #round

!hich !arrants a declaration of failure of election.

&anicosa !as allo!ed to appoint a !atcher in ever% precinct. The !atcher is e$po!ered b% la! to challen#e

an% ille#al voter. Thus, Secs. / and 2;2, 1rt. AVII, of

the (mni*us Election Code, provide

Sec. /. Callenges o1 illegal voters. K (a* 1n%voter, or !atcher $a% challen#e an% person

offerin# to vote for not bein# re#istered, for usin#

the na$e of another or sufferin# fro$ e8istin#

dis<ualification. In such case, the board ofelection inspectors shall satisf% itself as to

!hether or not the #round for the challen#e is true

b% re<uirin# proof of re#istration or identit% of the

voter . . .

Sec. 2;2. Record o1 callenges and oats. K The

poll cler shall eep a prescribed record of

challen#es and oaths taen in connection

there!ith and the resolution of the board of

election inspectors in each case and, upon the

ter$ination of the votin#, shall certif% that it

contains all the challen#es $ade . . .

The clai$ of &anicosa that he !as credited !ith less votes

than he actuall% received and that the control date of the

election returns !as not filled up should have been raised

in the first instance before the board of election inspectors

or board of canvassers. Section /3, 1rt. AV, of the

(mni*us Election Code clearl% provides for the ri#hts and

duties of !atchers K

Sec. /3. Rigts and duties o1 watcers. K . . .

The !atchers . . . shall have the ri#ht to !itness

and infor$ the$selves of the proceedin#s of the board of election inspectors . . . to file a protest

a#ainst an% irre#ularit% or violation of la! !hich

the% believe $a% have been co$$itted b% the

board of election inspectors or b% an% of its

$e$bers or b% an% persons, to obtain fro$ the

board of election inspectors

a certificates as to the filin# of such protest and?or

of the resolution thereon . . . and to be furnished

!ith a certificate of the nu$ber of votes in !ordsand fi#ures cast for each candidate, dul% si#ned

and thu$b$ared b% the chair$an and all the

$e$bers of the board of election inspectors . . .

To safe#uard and $aintain the sanctit% of election returns,

Sec. 2/2, 1rt. AVIII, of the (mni*us Election Code states

K

Sec. 2/2. Election returns. K . . . I$$ediatel%

upon the acco$plish$ent of the election returns,

each cop% thereof shall be sealed in the presenceof the !atchers and the public, and placed in the

proper envelope, !hich shall lie!ise be sealed

and distributed as herein provided.

Further$ore, it is provided in Sec. 2/7 of the (mni*us

Election Code

that K

Sec. 2/7. Board o1 election insectors to issue a

certi1icate o1 te num*er o1 votes olled *y te

candidates 1or an o11ice to te watcers. K 1fter

the announce$ent of the results of the electionand before leavin# the pollin# place, it shall be the

dut% of the board of election inspectors to issue a

certificate of the nu$ber of votes received b% a

candidate upon re<uest of the !atchers. 1ll

$e$bers of the board of election inspectors shall

si#n the certificate.

Supple$entin# the precedin# provisions, Secs. /= and /3

of R1 No. ==0= also re<uire K

Sec. /=. Certi1icate o1 votes. K 1fter the countin#

of the votes cast in the precinct and announce$entof the results of the election, and before leavin#the pollin# place, the board of election inspectors

shall issue a certificate of votes upon re<uest of

the dul% accredited !atchers . . .

Sec. /3. Certi1icate o1 7otes as Evidence. K The provisions of Secs. 267 and 26= of -atas

Pa$bansa -l#. 99/ not!ithstandin#, the

certificate of votes shall be ad$issible in evidence

to prove ta$perin#, alteration, falsification or

ano$al% co$$itted in the election returns

concerned . . .

Fro$ the fore#oin# provisions, it is clear that in case of

inconsistenc% as to the nu$ber of votes !ritten in theelection returns and the certificate of votes, a petition for

correction of election returns $ust i$$ediatel% be filed

!ith &OM')'& b% all or a $a"orit% of the $e$bers of

the board of election inspectors or an% candidate affected

b% the error or $istae. In order to $ae out a case for

correction of election returns, there $ust be an error and at

least a $a"orit% of the $e$bers of the board of election

inspectors a#rees that such error e8isted. &anicosa never

$entioned that he petitioned for the correction of theelection returns before the &OM')'&.

&anicosa co$plains that the election returns !ere

delivered late and the ballot bo8es brou#ht to the Office of

the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., !ithout padlocs

nor self@locin# $etal seals. These bare alle#ations cannot

i$pel us to declare failure of election. 1ssu$in# that the

election returns !ere delivered late, !e still cannot see

!h% !e should declare a failure to elect. The late

deliveries did not convert the election held in &ala$ba



into a $ocer% or farce to $ae us conclude that there

!as indeed a failure of election.

In fine, the #rounds cited b% &anicosa in his petition do

not fall under an% of the instances enu$erated in Sec. = of

the (mni*us Election Code. In Mitmug v. Commission on

Elections / !e ruled that before &OM')'& can act on a

verified petition seein# to declare a failure of election, at

least t!o (2* conditions $ust concur (a* no votin# has

taen place in the precincts on the date fi8ed b% la!, oreven if there !as votin#, the election nevertheless resulted

in failure to elect: and, (b* the votes that !ere not cast

!ould affect the result of the election. Fro$ the face of the

instant petition, it is readil% apparent than an election too

place and that it did not result in a failure to elect. 0

&anicosa finall% insists that it !as error on the part of

&OM')'& sittin# en *anc to rule on his petition. Be

$aintains that his petition should have first been heard b%

a division of &OM')'& and later b% the &OM')'& en

*anc upon $otion for reconsideration, pursuant to Sec. 6,

1rt. IA@&, of the &onstitution. 8

-ut this provision applies onl% !hen the &OM')'& acts

in the e8ercise of its ad"udicator% or 3uasi'0udicial

functions and not !hen it $erel% e8ercises purel%

ad$inistrative functions. To reiterate, the #rounds cited b%

&anicosa in his petition are that (a* the na$es of the

re#istered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their

respective precincts: (b* $ore than one@half of thele#iti$ate re#istered voters !ere not able to vote !ith

stran#ers votin# in their stead: (c* he !as credited !ith

less votes than he actuall% received: (d* the control data of

the election returns !as not filled up in so$e precincts: (e* ballot bo8es brou#ht to the Office of the Municipal

Treasurer !ere unsecured, i.e., !ithout padlocs nor self@

locin# $etal seals: and, (f* there !as dela% in the

deliver% of election returns.

&learl%, all these $atters re<uire the e8ercise b% the

&OM')'& of its ad$inistrative functions. Section 2, 1rt.

IA@&, of the /93 &onstitution #rants e8tensive

ad$inistrative po!ers to the &OM')'& !ith re#ard to

the enforce$ent and ad$inistration of all la!s and

re#ulations relative to the conduct of elections. )ie!ise,

Sec. 72 of -P -l#. 99/, other!ise no!n as the (mni*us Election Code, states

Sec. 72. Powers and 1unctions o1 te Commission

on Elections. K In addition to the po!ers and

functions conferred upon it b% the &onstitution,

the &o$$ission shall have e8clusive char#e of the

enforce$ent and ad$inistrative of all la!s

relative to the conduct of elections of the purposes

of ensurin# free, orderl% and honest elections . . .

uite obviousl%, it is onl% in the e8ercise of its

ad"udicator% or 3uasi'0udicial po!ers that the &OM')'&is $andated to hear and decide cases first b% Division and

then, upon $otion for reconsideration, b% the &OM')'&

en *anc. This is !hen it is "urisdictional. In the instant

case, as aforestated, the issues presented de$and onl% the

e8ercise b% the &OM')'& of its ad$inistrative functions.

The &OM')'& e8ercises direct and i$$ediate

supervision and control over national and local officials or

e$plo%ees, includin# $e$bers of an% national or local

la! enforce$ent a#enc% and instru$entalit% of the

#overn$ent re<uired b% la! to perfor$ duties relative to

the conduct of elections. Its po!er of direct supervision

and control includes the po!er to revie!, $odif% or set

aside an% act of such national and local officials. 9 It

e8ercises i$$ediate supervision and control over the

$e$bers of the boards of election inspectors and

canvassers. Its statutor% po!er of supervision and controlincludes the po!er to revise, reverse or set aside the action

of the boards, as !ell as to do !hat the boards should have

done, even if <uestions relative thereto have not beenelevated to it b% an a##rieved part%, for such po!erincludes the authorit% to initiate motu rorio or b% itself

such steps or actions as $a% be re<uired pursuant to la!. 1

Specificall%, &anicosa alle#ed that he !as credited !ith

less votes than the actuall% received. -ut he did not raisean% ob"ection before the Municipal -oard of &anvassers:

instead, he !ent directl% to the &OM')'&. Be no!

clai$s, after the &OM')'& en *anc dis$issed his

petition, that it !as error on the part of &OM')'& to rule

on his petition !hile sittin# en *anc.

+e have alread% disposed of this issue in Castromayor v.

Commission on Elections 11 thus K

It should be pinpointed out, in this connection,

that !hat is involved here is a si$ple proble$ of

arith$etic. The State$ent of Votes is $erel% a

tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained b%

the candidates as reflected in the election returns.In $ain# the correction in co$putation, the

M-& !ill be actin# in an ad$inistrative capacit%,

under the control and supervision of the

&OM')'&. Bence, an% <uestion pertainin# to the proceedin#s of the M-& $a% be raised directl% to

the &OM')'& en *anc in the e8ercise of its

constitutional function to decide <uestions

affectin# elections.

Moreover, it is e8pressl% provided in Rule 23, Sec. 3, of

the &o$elec Rules of Procedure that an% part% dissatisfied

!ith the rulin# of the board of canvassers shall have a

ri#ht to appeal to the &OM')'& en *anc

Sec. 3. Correction o1 Errors in /a*ulation or

/allying o1 Results *y te Board o1 Canvassers. K (a* +here it is clearl% sho!n before procla$ation

that $anifest errors !ere co$$itted in the

tabulation or tall%in# or election returns, or

certificates of canvass, durin# the canvassin# as

!here (/* a cop% of the election returns of one

precinct or t!o or $ore copies of a certificate of

canvass !ere tabulated $ore than once, (2* t!o

copies of the election returns or certificate of

canvass !ere tabulated separatel%, (6* there !as a

$istae in the addin# or cop%in# of the fi#ures

into the certificate of canvass or into the state$ent

of votes b% precinct, or (0* so@called electionreturns fro$ non@e8istent precincts !ere included

in the canvass, the board $a% motu rorio, or

upon verified petition b% an% candidate, political

part%, or#aniation or coalition of political parties,after due notice and hearin#, correct the errors

co$$itted . . . (h* The appeal shall be heard and

decided b% the &o$$ission en *anc.

The /atlongari v. Commission on Elections 1 it !as$ade to appear in the Certi1icate o1 Canvass o1 7otes and



Proclamation o1 te inning Candidates that respondent

therein received 0,7/ votes or $ore than !hat he actuall%

obtained. In resolvin# the case !e ruled that the correction

of the $anifest $istae in $athe$atical addition calls for

a $ere clerical tas of the board of canvassers. The

re$ed% invoed !as purel% ad$inistrative. In Feliciano

vs. )ugay 1 !e cate#oried the issue concernin#re#istration of voters, !hich &anicosa cited as a #round in

his petition for declaration of failure of election, as an

ad$inistrative <uestion. )ie!ise, <uestions as to !hether elections have been held or !hether certain returns !erefalsified or $anufactured and therefore should be

e8cluded fro$ the canvass do not involve the ri#ht to vote.

Such <uestions are properl% !ithin the ad$inistrative

"urisdiction of &OM')'&, 14 hence, $a% be acted upon

directl% b% the &OM')'& en *anc !ithout havin# to pass

throu#h an% of its divisions.

+B'R'FOR', findin# no #rave abuse of discretion

co$$itted b% public respondent &o$$ission on

'lections, the petition is DISMISS'D and its Resolution

en *anc of 26 Ma% /7 dis$issin# the petition before iton the #round that the alle#ations therein did not "ustif% a

declaration of failure of election is 1FFIRM'D.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 151 *u& 18,

BAGO P. PASANDALAN, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) BAI

SALAMONA L. ASUM, respondents.

CARPIO, J .

1 petition for declaration of failure of election $ust

specificall% alle#e the essential #rounds that !ould "ustif%

the e8ercise of this e8traordinar% re$ed%. Other!ise, the&o$elec can dis$iss outri#ht the petition for lac of

$erit. No #rave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the

&o$elec in such a case because the &o$elec $ust

e8ercise !ith ut$ost circu$spection the po!er to declarea failure of election to prevent disenfranchisin# voters and

frustratin# the electorates !ill.

T"' C$s'

-efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorari of the

Resolution/ of the &o$$ission on 'lections en *anc dated

October /2, 2;;/ dis$issin# petitioner -a#o P.

Pasandalans (CPasandalanC for brevit%* petition to declare

a failure of election.

Pasandalan and private respondent -ai Sala$ona ). 1su$

(C1su$C for brevit%* !ere candidates for $a%or in the

Municipalit% of )u$ba%ana#ue, )anao del Sur durin# the

Ma% /0, 2;;/ elections.

On Ma% 26, 2;;/, Pasandalan filed a petition2 before

public respondent &o$$ission on 'lections (C&o$elecC

for brevit%* seein# to nullif% the election results in

-aran#a% &abasaran (Precinct Nos. 1, /;1, //1 and

/21*, -aran#a% Dero$o%od (Precinct Nos. 201, 271 and

2=1*, )a$in (Precinct Nos. 21 and 6;1*, -aran#a%

+a#o (Precinct Nos. 0=1, 031 and 091*, -aran#a%

Meniros (Precinct Nos. 621, 661 and 601*, -aran#a%

-ualan (Precinct Nos. =1, 31 and 91* and -aran#a%

Pantaon (Precinct Nos. 691 and 61*, all of)u$ba%ana#ue, )anao del Sur.

Petitioner alle#ed that on Ma% /0, 2;;/, !hile votin# !as#oin# on, so$e &af#us stationed near Sultan Euntin#

'le$entar% School indiscri$inatel% fired their firear$s

causin# the voters to panic and leave the pollin# center

!ithout castin# their votes. Tain# advanta#e of the

confusion, supporters of 1su$ alle#edl% too the official

ballots, filled the$ up !ith the na$e of 1su$ and placedthe$ inside the ballot bo8es. The incident alle#edl%

$arred the election results in Precinct Nos. 1@/21, 201@

2=1 and 21@6;1.

In Precinct Nos. 0=1, 03 and 091, the $e$bers of the

-oard of 'lection Inspectors (C-'IC for brevit%* alle#edl%failed to si#n their initials at the bac of several official

ballots and to re$ove the detachable coupons. The -'I

$e$bers alle#edl% affi8ed their initials onl% durin# thecountin# of votes.

In Precinct Nos. =1@91, 621@601 and 691@61,

Pasandalan clai$s that 1su$s supporters, tain#

advanta#e of the fistfi#ht bet!een 1su$s nephe! and thesupporters of candidate Norania Salo, #rabbed the official

ballots and filled the$ up !ith the na$e of 1su$.

Pasandalan contends that a technical e8a$ination ofseveral official ballots fro$ the contested precincts !ouldsho! that onl% a fe! persons !rote the entries.

On 4une 2=, 2;;/, 1su$ filed an 1ns!er den%in#

Pasandalans alle#ation that the volle% of shots fired on

Ma% /0, 2;;/ disrupted the votin#. Private respondent

countered that the #unshots !ere heard around 267 p.$.

and not at the start of the votin#. On 4une 6;, 2;;/, 1su$

!as s!orn into office and assu$ed the position of

$unicipal $a%or of the )u$ba%ana#ue, )anao del Sur.

On October /2, 2;;/, the &o$elec issued a Resolutiondis$issin# the petition for lac of $erit.6

Bence, this petition.

T"' Co''#s Ru!g

The &o$elec ruled that the po!er to declare a failure of

election, bein# an e8traordinar% re$ed%, could bee8ercised onl% in three instances (/* the election is not

held: (2* the election is suspended: or (6* the election

results in a failure to elect. The third instance is

understood in its literal sense, that is, nobod% !as elected.

The &o$elec dis$issed the petition because none of the

#rounds relied upon b% Pasandalan falls under an% of the

three instances "ustif%in# a declaration of failure of

election. First, the elections in the <uestioned precincts!ere held as scheduled. Second, the #unshots heard durin#

the castin# of votes did not suspend the election as the

votin# continued nor$all%. Third, 1su$ !as elected b% a

pluralit% of votes.



The authenticit% and inte#rit% of the election returns !ere

left undisturbed throu#hout the preparation, trans$ission,

custod% and canvass of the returns. Pasandalan alle#es

fraud and terroris$, in that there !as $assive substitution

of voters, firin# of #uns to fri#hten the voters, and failure

of the -'I $e$bers to si#n at the bac of so$e official

ballots and to re$ove the detachable coupons. The&o$elec ruled that these alle#ations are better ventilated

in an election contest.

The &o$elec did not #ive credence to Pasandalans

evidence in support of his alle#ations of terroris$ and

fraud since the evidence consisted onl% of affidavits

e8ecuted b% Pasandalans o!n poll !atchers. The

&o$elec considered these affidavits self@servin# and

insufficient to annul the results of the election. Thus, the&o$elec dis$issed the petition for lac of $erit.

T"' Issu's

Pasandalan no! assails the &o$elecs dis$issal of his

petition, raisin# the follo!in# issues

C/. +B'TB'R TB' &OMMISSION ON

')'&TIONS 1&T'D +ITBO>T OR IN

'A&'SS OF 4>RISDI&TION OR +ITB

ER1V' 1->S' OF DIS&R'TION IN

DISMISSINE TB' P'TITION IN SP1 NO. ;/@

6;7 FOR 1))'E'D )1& OF M'RIT:

2. +B'TB'R TB' &OMMISSION ON

')'&TIONS &OMMITT'D ER1V' 1->S'

OF DIS&R'TION 1MO>NTINE TO )1& OF

4>RISDI&TION IN NOT 1NN>)INE TB'')'&TION OR D'&)1RINE 1 F1I)>R' OF

')'&TION IN TB' SIAT''N (/=*

>'STION'D PR'&IN&TS:

6. +B'TB'R TB' &OMMISSION ON

')'&TIONS 1&T'D +ITBO>T OR IN

'A&'SS OF ITS 4>RISDI&TION OR +ITB

ER1V' 1->S' OF DIS&R'TION IN NOT

D'&)1RINE 1S I))'E1), N>)) 1ND VOID

1- INITIO TB' PRO&)1M1TION OF TB'

PRIV1T' R'SPOND'NT 1S TB' D>)G

')'&T'D M1GOR OF )>M-1G1N1E>',)1N1O D') S>R IN TB' )1ST M1G /0, 2;;/

R'E>)1R ')'&TIONS 1ND M1G 6;, 2;;/

SP'&I1) ')'&TIONS.C0

T"' Cou(ts Ru!g

+e rule that the petition is !ithout $erit. The &o$elec

correctl% dis$issed the petition for declaration of failure

of election because the irre#ularities alle#ed in the petition

should have been raised in an election protest, not in a

petition to declare a failure of election.

>nder Republic 1ct No. 3/==, other!ise no!n as CThe

S%nchronied 'lections )a! of //,C7 the &o$elec en

*anc is e$po!ered to declare a failure of election under

Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/*.

Section = of the &ode prescribes the conditions for the

e8ercise of this po!er, thus

CS'&. =. Failure of 'lection. @ If, on account of

force $a"eure, violence, terroris$, fraud or other

analo#ous causes the election in an% pollin# place

has not been held on the date fi8ed, or had been

suspended before the hour fi8ed b% la! for



election returns or in the custod% or canvass

thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,

and in an% of such cases the failure or suspensionof election !ould affect the result of the election,


petition b% an% interested part% and after duenotice and hearin#, call for the holdin# orcontinuation of the election not held, suspended or

!hich resulted in a failure to elect but not later

than thirt% da%s after the cessation of the cause of

such postpone$ent or suspension of the election

or failure to elect.C

-ased on the fore#oin# provision, three instances "ustif% a

declaration of failure of election. These are

C(a* the election in an% pollin# place has not been

held on the date fi8ed on account of 1orcema0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud or other

analo#ous causes:

(b* the election in an% pollin# place has been

suspended before the hour fi8ed b% la! for the

closin# of the votin# on account of force $a"eure,

violence, terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous

causes: or

(c* after the votin# and durin# the preparation and

trans$ission of the election returns or in the

custod% or canvass thereof, such election results ina failure to elect on account of force $a"eure,violence, terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous

causes.C=

+hat is co$$on in these three instances is the resultin#

failure to elect.3 In the first instance, no election is held

!hile in the second, the election is suspended.9 In the third

instance, circu$stances attendin# the preparation,

trans$ission, custod% or canvas of the election returns

cause a failure to elect. The ter$ failure to elect $eansnobod% e$er#ed as a !inner.

Pasandalan asserts that the conditions for the declaration

of failure of election are present in this case. The volle% of

shots fro$ hi#h@po!ered firear$s alle#edl% forced thevoters to sca$per a!a% fro$ the pollin# place, pavin# the

!a% for 1su$s supporters to !rite the na$e of 1su$ on

the ballots. The #unfire also fri#htened Pasandalans poll

!atchers. The heav% firin# alle#edl% suspended or prevented the holdin# of elections in the contested

precincts, resultin# in failure to elect. The victor% of 1su$

is thus put in serious doubt.

+e do not a#ree. Pasandalans alle#ations do not fallunder an% of the instances that !ould "ustif% the

declaration of failure of election. The election !as held in

the /= protested precincts as scheduled. 1t no point !as

the election in an% of the precincts suspended. Nor !as

there a failure to elect because of 1orce ma0eure, violence,

terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous causes durin# the

preparation, trans$ission, custod% and canvass of the

election returns. The alle#ed terroris$ !as not of such

scale and prevalence to prevent the holdin# of the election

or to cause its suspension. In fact, the castin# and countin#



of votes, the preparation, trans$ission and canvassin# of

election returns and the procla$ation of the !innin#

candidate too place in due course.

&ourts e8ercise the po!er to declare a failure of election

!ith deliberate caution so as not to disenfranchise the

electorate./; The fact alone that actual votin# too place

alread% $ilitates a#ainst Pasandalans cause. 1lso,

Pasandalans alle#ations of terroris$ and fraud are not

sufficient to !arrant a nullification of the election in theabsence of an% of the three instances "ustif%in# a

declaration of failure of election. Terroris$ $a% not be

invoed to declare a failure of election and to

disenfranchise the #reater nu$ber of the electorate

throu#h the $isdeeds of onl% a fe!,// absent an% of the

three instances specified b% la!.

To !arrant a declaration of failure of election on the

#round of fraud, the fraud $ust prevent or suspend the

holdin# of an election, or $ar fatall% the preparation,

trans$ission, custod% and canvass of the election returns./2

The conditions for the declaration of failure of election arestrin#ent. Other!ise, elections !ill never end for losers

!ill al!a%s cr% fraud and terroris$./6

The alle#ations of $assive substitution of voters, $ultiple

votin#, and other electoral ano$alies should be resolved

in a proper election protest/0 in the absence of an% of the

three instances "ustif%in# a declaration of failure of

election. In an election protest, the election is not setaside, and there is onl% a revision or recount of the ballots

cast to deter$ine the real !inner./7

The nullification of elections or declaration of failure ofelections is an e8traordinar% re$ed%./= The part% !hosees the nullification of an election has the burden of

provin# entitle$ent to this re$ed%. It is not enou#h that a

verified petition is filed. The alle#ations in the petition

$ust $ae out a rima 1acie case for the declaration offailure of election, and convincin# evidence $ust

substantiate the alle#ations./3

In the instant case, it is apparent that the alle#ations do not

constitute sufficient #rounds for the nullification of theelection. Pasandalan even failed to substantiate his

alle#ations of terroris$ and irre#ularities. Bis evidenceconsisted onl% of affidavits. Mere affidavits are

insufficient,/9 $ore so in this case since the affidavits !ere

all e8ecuted b% Pasandalans o!n poll !atchers. Factual

findin#s of the &o$elec are bindin# on this &ourt./

1ccordin#l%, the follo!in# findin#s of the &o$elec in the

instant case $ust be respected

C888 There !as an alle#ation in the a$ended

petition that !hile votin# !as tain# place in

Sultan Euntin# 'le$entar% School, #unshots !ere

heard causin# the voters to sca$per for safet% and

leave the pollin# center !ithout havin# cast theirvotes. Bo!ever, other than his bare alle#ation and

the Wpre@t%ped affidavits of his !atchers,

petitioner did not present substantial and

convincin# evidence to support his clai$. On the

other hand, / )t. Frederic Ealan# Pa of the 2th

Infantr% -attalion assi#ned in )u$ba%ana#ue

cate#oricall% declared in his affidavit that despite

the #unshots !hich !ere heard at around 267 PM

!hen the polls !ere about to close, Cthe votin#continued nor$all%.C This state$ent !as bolstered

b% the narrative report of >ran#utan Ma$ailao,

'lection Officer of )u$ba%ana#ue, on the

conduct of the election in said $unicipalit%. The

report !as spontaneousl% prepared !hen the

incident happened. Taen in the li#ht of the

presu$ption of re#ularit% in the perfor$ance of

official functions, these t!o affidavits carr% #reat!ei#ht. Third, the authenticit% and inte#rit% of the

election returns are left undisturbed throu#hout

the preparation, trans$ission, custod% and canvassthereof. There !as no alle#ation, $uch less proofthat the sanctit% of the election returns !as

defiled.

888

1 thorou#h e8a$ination of the affidavits reveals

that the% suffer fro$ both e8trinsic and intrinsic

invalidit%. The for$ and the contents of the

affidavits !ere pre@t%ped, and all the affiants had

to do !as to fill@up the blan spaces for their

na$es and precinct assi#n$ents. This clearl%sho!s that so$e other person prepared the

affidavits and it is doubtful !hether the affiants

understood the contents thereof before the% si#nedthe$.

1lso !orth notin# is the fact that the contents of

the affidavits are identical. It is hi#hl%

<uestionable !h% different persons have e8actl%the sa$e observation of different incidents. 'ven

persons confronted !ith the sa$e occurrence

!ould have different observations of the sa$e

incident because hu$an perception is essentiall%affected b% several factors lie the senses, $ental

condition, personal disposition, environ$ent, etc.

Moreover, the affidavits contain inconsistent

state$ents and incredible alle#ations !hich bolster the conclusion that the% !ere tailored to

suit the needs of the petitioner. For e8a$ple, the

"oint@affidavit of -ad"o$ura &alauto and

Macaruo# 1$puan states that the% !ere in

-aran#a% &abasaran durin# the Ma% /0 election

!hen the% sa! the $en of respondent fill@up the

ballots in Precinct Nos. 21@6;1 of -aran#a%)a$in. The venue of votin# for -aran#a%

&abasaran !as Sultan Euntin# &entral

'le$entar% School !hile that of -aran#a% )a$in

!as )a$in Pri$ar% School. Bo! the% !ere able

to !itness said incident !hen the% !ere $iles

a!a% fro$ !here it happened is $%stif%in#.

-esides, this is not the proper foru$ to challen#eille#al voters. 'ven at the precinct level,

petitioners !atchers are e$po!ered to <uestion

an% irre#ularit% !hich the% thin $a% have been

co$$itted b% an% person or to challen#e the

capacit% of an% person offerin# to vote. Failin# toavail hi$self of this re$ed%, petitioner cannot

no! pass the burden to innocent voters b% callin#

for the annul$ent of the results of a validl% held

election.C2;

Pasandalan be!ails the &o$elecs dis$issal of his petition

!ithout first conductin# a technical e8a$ination of the

<uestioned precincts. Pasandalan clai$s that had the

&o$elec $ade a technical e8a$ination of the <uestioned

precincts, the &o$elec !ould have discovered $assive



substitution of voters, terroris$, violence, threats,

coercion, inti$idation and other electoral frauds, resultin#

in a failure of election. Pasandalan insists that a technical

e8a$ination in this case !ould have been proper as in

/yoco, 5r. v. Commission on Elections,2/ !hich is also a

case of failure of election.

The &o$elec is not $andated to conduct a technical

e8a$ination before it dis$isses a petition for nullification

of election !hen the petition is, on its face, !ithout $erit.In /yoco, petitioner T%poco buttressed his petition !ith

independent evidence that co$pelled the &o$elec to

conduct a technical e8a$ination of the <uestioned returns.

T%poco filed a Motion to 1d$it 'vidence to prove that a

substantial nu$ber of election returns !ere $anufactured.

T%poco clai$ed that the returns !ere prepared b% onl%one person based on the report of Francisco S. &ru, a

licensed e8a$iner of <uestioned docu$ents, !ho

e8a$ined copies of the election returns of )aas@N>&D.

In the present case, Pasandalan failed to attach

independent and ob"ective evidence other than the self@

servin# affidavits of his o!n poll !atchers.

In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections,22 !e ruled that the

&o$elec could dis$iss outri#ht a petition for nullificationof election if it is plainl% #roundless and the alle#ations

therein could be better ventilated in an election protest. In

Banaga, 5r. v. Commission on Elections,26 !e reiterated

this doctrine, thus @

CFinall%, petitioner clai$s that public respondent

#ravel% abused its discretion !hen it dis$issed his

petition $otu propio. Bo!ever, the fact that a

verified petition has been filed does not $ean thata hearin# on the case should first be held before

&o$elec can act on it. The petition to declare a

failure of election and?or to annul election results

$ust sho! on its face that the conditions

necessar% to declare a failure to elect are present.

In their absence, the petition $ust be denied

outri#ht. Public respondent had no recourse but to

dis$iss the petition. Nor $a% petitioner no!

co$plain of denial of due process, on this score,

for his failure to properl% file an election protest.

The &o$elec can onl% rule on !hat !as filed

before it. It co$$itted no #rave abuse ofdiscretion in dis$issin# his petition Wto declare

failure of elections and?or for annul$ent ofelections for bein# #roundless, hence !ithout

$erit.C

&learl%, the fact that a verified petition is filed !ith the

&o$elec does not necessaril% $ean that a technicale8a$ination or a hearin# on the case should be conducted

first before the &o$elec can act on the petition. There is

no #rave abuse of discretion if the &o$elec dis$isses the

petition even !ithout a technical e8a$ination or hearin# if

the petition fails to sho! on its face the e8istence of an% of the three instances re<uired b% la! to declare a failure of

election. The &o$elec in this case correctl% dis$issed the

petition.

Pasandalan believes that not!ithstandin# the fact that

actual votin# too place in the <uestioned precincts, the

election in this case, "ust lie in Baser v. Commission on

Elections,20 !as Cille#al, irre#ular, and void.C27 &itin#

Baser , Pasandalan ar#ues that the peculiar set of facts in

this case do not $erel% sho! a failure of election Cbut the

absence of a valid electoral e8ercise.C2=

The fact that an election is actuall% held prevents as a rule

a declaration of failure of election. It is onl% !hen the

election is attended b% patent and $assive irre#ularities

and ille#alities that this &ourt !ill annul the election.

Baser is an e8a$ple of such a case.

In Baser , after a series of failed elections in -aran#a%Maidan, Municipalit% of Tu#a%a, )anao del Sur durin# the

/3 baran#a% elections, the election !as reset to 1u#ust

6;, /3. Due to the prevailin# tension in the localit%, the

votin# started onl% at around p.$. and lasted until the

earl% $ornin# of the follo!in# da%. -asher filed a petition

for the nullification of election. The &o$elec ruled a#ainst

a failure of election because actual votin# had taen place.

Bo!ever, !e overturned the &o$elec rulin# because the

election !as unauthoried and invalid. The electorate !as

not #iven sufficient notice that the election !ould push

throu#h after p.$. of the sa$e da%. Moreover, the votin#

did not co$pl% !ith the procedure laid do!n b% la! and b% &o$elec rules as to the ti$e and place of votin#. Thus,

!e held that the CelectionC !as ille#al, irre#ular and void.

&onse<uentl%, !e annulled the procla$ation of the!innin# candidate and ordered a special election.

Baser does not appl% to this case. >nlie in Baser , the

election in this case proceeded as scheduled, in

accordance !ith la! and &o$elec rules. None of thee8tre$e circu$stances that $arred the election in Baser

is present in this case. +e have ruled that there is failure

of election onl% if the !ill of the electorate is $uted and

cannot be ascertained.23

If the !ill of the people isdeter$inable, the sa$e $ust be respected as $uch as

possible.29 In this case, the !ill of the electorate is readil%

discernible. Pasandalan should have filed an election

protest to substantiate his alle#ations of electoral

ano$alies, not a petition to declare a failure of election.

@HEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The

assailed Resolution of public respondent &o$elec is

AFFIRMED. &osts a#ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1/191 No=';'( 9, 1999

*ESUS O. TPOCO, *R., petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMELEC EN

BANC, $!) *ESUS EMMANUEL PIMENTEL,

respondents.

GON6AGA2REES, J.:

-efore us is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to

annul and set aside the resolution of the &o$$ission on



'lections (&OM')'&* En Banc dated October /2, /9

!hich dis$issed herein petitioner 4esus T%poco, 4r.s

(TGPO&O* petition for 1nnul$ent of 'lection or 'lection

Results and?or Declaration of Failure of 'lections

doceted as SP1 No. 9@0/6.

The factual antecedents insofar as pertinent to the instant

petition are as follo!s

TGPO&O and private respondent 4esus Pi$entel(PIM'NT')* !ere both candidates for the position of

Eovernor in &a$arines Norte durin# the Ma% //, /9

elections. On Ma% 22, /9, TGPO&O to#ether !ith

+inifredo Oco (O&O*, a candidate for the position of

&on#ress$an of the )one District of &a$arines Norte

filed a 4oint 1ppeal before the &OM')'& doceted as

SP&@No. 9@/66. TGPO&O and O&O <uestioned therein

the rulin# of the Provincial -oard of &anvassers of

&a$arines Norte !hich included in the canvass of votes

the &ertificate of &anvass of the Municipalit% of )abo,

&a$arines Norte. TGPO&O also filed a Motion to 1d$it

'vidence to Prove That a Substantial Nu$ber of 'lectionReturns +ere Manufactured as The% +ere Prepared b%

One Person based on the report of one Francisco S. &ru,

a )icensed '8a$iner of uestioned Docu$ent, !hoe8a$ined copies of election returns of the )11S@

N>&D.

On 4une 0, /9, &OM')'& (Second Division* issued an

Order dis$issin# the 4oint 1ppeal. Thereafter, TGPO&Ofiled a Motion for Reconsideration reiteratin# his $otion

to ad$it evidence to prove the $anufacturin# and?or

spurious character of the <uestioned returns !hich !ere

alle#edl% prepared in #roup b% onl% one person and !hich!ill $ateriall% affect the results of the election for the

position of Eovernor.

In the $eanti$e, on 4une /;, /9, TGPO&O and O&O

filed !ith the &OM')'& En Banc a separate petition for1nnul$ent of 'lection or 'lection Results and?or

Declaration of Failure of 'lections in several precincts,

doceted as SP1 No. 9@0/6, sub"ect of the instant

petition. The petition alle#ed that $assive fraud and

irre#ularities attended the preparation of the election

returns considerin# that upon technical e8a$ination, 6;7

election returns !ere found to have been prepared in#roup b% one person.

On 4ul% /7, /9, the &OM')'& En Banc issued an

Order directin# the Voters Identification Division of the

&o$$issions 'lection Records and Statistics Depart$ent

('RSD* to e8a$ine the &OM')'& copies of the 6;7

election returns <uestioned b% TGPO&O.

On 1u#ust /2, /9, the &OM')'&s 'RSD Voters

Identification Division sub$itted its uestioned

Docu$ent Report to the &OM')'& En Banc on the

results of its technical e8a$ination of the <uestionedelection returns. The report disclosed, a$on# others, that

the Chand!ritten entries on 239 &OM')'& copies of

election returns particularl% under the colu$ns

&on#ress$an?Eovernor?Vice@Eovernor?Nicna$e or

Sta#e Na$e, !ere !ritten b% one and the sa$e person in

#roups.C 1

On 1u#ust 6/, /9, the &OM')'& En Banc issued the

resolution den%in# petitioners $otion for reconsideration

in SP& No. 9@/66 on the #round that an election protest

is the proper re$ed%.

TGPO&O then filed a petition for certiorari and

prohibition under Rule =7 !ith pra%er for the issuance of a

te$porar% restrainin# order and?or !rit of preli$inar%

in"unction assailin# the Order dated 4une 0, /9 and the

Resolution dated 1u#ust 6/, /9, respectivel% issued in

SP& No. 9@/66 b% the &OM')'& (Second Division*

and the &OM')'& En Banc.

In a resolution datedSepte$ber 22, /9, this &ourt dis$issed the petition

findin# no #rave abuse of discretion on the part of

respondent &OM')'& in issuin# the aforesaid assailed

orders. TGPO&Os $otion for reconsideration !as

lie!ise denied b% this &ourt !ith finalit% on Septe$ber

2, /9.

On October /2, /9, the &OM')'& En Banc

pro$ul#ated a resolution in SP1 9@0/6, dis$issin#

TGPO&Os petition for the Declaration of Failure of

'lections and?or 1nnul$ent of 'lections in &a$arines

Norte for lac of $erit, thus

The #rounds cited b% petitioners do not

fall under an% of the instances enu$erated

in Sec. = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode.

In Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections,

26; S&R1 70, the Supre$e &ourt ruled

that before the &o$elec can act on a

verified petition seein# to declare a

failure of elections, at least t!o (2*

conditions $ust concur (a* no votin# has

taen place in the precincts on the datefi8ed b% la!, or even if there !as votin#,the election nevertheless resulted in

failure to elect: and (b* the votes that !ere

not cast !ould affect the result of the

election. Fro$ the alle#ations of the petition in the instant cases, it is clear that

an election too place and that it did not

result in a failure to elect. In fact, b%

separate resolution, the &o$$ission has

authoried the provincial board of

canvassers to proclai$ the !innin#

candidates and this as been i$ple$ented.

+B'R'FOR', the &o$$ission hereb%

DISMISS'S the petition in each of the

above cases, for lac of $erit.

Bence, the instant petition on the #rounds that the

&OM')'& En Banc #ravel% abused its discretion asfollo!s /. in holdin# that the #rounds cited b% TGPO&O

do not fall under an% of the instances enu$erated in

Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode: 2. in refusin# to

annul the election or the election results or to declare a

failure of election despite the fact that $assive fraud andirre#ularities attended the preparation of the election

returns: 6. in failin# to proclai$ TGPO&O as the !innin#

candidate for Eovernor: 0. in failin# to annul the

procla$ation of PIM'NT') !hich is null and void fro$

the be#innin#: 7. in rulin# that an election protest is the

proper re$ed% and not an annul$ent of the election or

election results and?or declaration of failure of elections. 4

Si$pl% stated, did the &OM')'& co$$it #rave abuse of

discretion in not declarin# a failure of elections for the



position of Eovernor in &a$arines Norte in the Ma% //,

/9 electionsL

In a Manifestation and Motion (In )ieu of &o$$ent* filed

b% the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral (OSE*, the latter

"oins TGPO&Os pra%er for affir$ative relief. The OSE

e8plains thus

/6. The petition a 3uo (SP1 No. 9@0/6*

specificall% pra%ed for annul$ent ofelection returns and?or election results in

the protested precincts !here $assive

fraud and irre#ularities !ere alle#edl%

co$$itted in the preparation of the

election returns !hich, upon technical

e8a$ination of their authentic copies,

!ere found to have been prepared in

#roups b% one person (Petition, 1nne8 1,

p. 2*.

/0. On this score, it should be stressed

that election returns are preparedseparatel% and independentl% b% the

-oard of 'lection Inspectors assi#ned in

each and ever% precinct. Bence,

unifor$it% in the hand!ritten entries in

the election returns e$anatin# fro$

different electoral precincts, as in this case

speas onl% of one thin# K TB'

')'&TION R'T>RNS +'R'F1-RI&1T'D OR T1MP'R'D +ITB.

Bere, the &OM')'& itself, throu#h its

o!n Voters Identification Depart$ent,certified that out of the 6;7 electionreturns in the /2 $unicipalities of

&a$arines Norte, 239 or /./0U thereof

!ere found to have been !ritten b% one

person !hich fact lucidl% speas ofC$assive fraudC in the preparation of

election returns.

/7. Precisel%, $assive fraud co$$itted

after the votin# and durin# the preparationof the election returns resultin# in a

failure to elect, is a #round for annul$entof election under Section = of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode. 1s such

therefore, the case at bar falls !ithin the

"urisdiction of &OM')'&.

888 888 888

/9. 1t an% rate, there is $erit to

petitioners clai$ that the votes in the

sub"ect election returns, if correctl%

appreciated, !ill $ateriall% affect the

results of the election for Eovernor, i.e.,

TGPO&O PIM'NT')

Votes per P-& &anvass

76,070 =0,679

)ess Votes obtained fro$

Fraudulent Returns

//,276 23,;=;

Difference 02,2;/ 63,627

7ote )ead o1 Petitioner

,!%9 5

The authorit% of the &OM')'& to declare a failure of

elections is derived fro$ Section 0 of Republic 1ct No.3/==, other!ise no!n as, CThe S%nchronied 'lections

)a! of //, C!hich provides that the &OM')'& sittin#

En Banc b% a $a"orit% vote of its $e$bers $a% decide,a$on# others, the declaration of failure of election and the

callin# of special elections as provided in Section = of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode. Said Section =, in turn, provides

as follo!s



terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous causes

the election in an% pollin# place has not

been held on the date fi8ed or had been

suspended before the hour fi8ed b% the

la! for the closin# of the votin#, or afterthe votin# and durin# the preparation and

the trans$ission of the election returns or

in the custod% or canvass thereof, such

election results in a failure to elect, and in

an% of such cases the failure or


result of the election, the &o$$ission

shall, on the basis of verified petition b%an% interested part% and after due notice



suspended or !hich resulted in a failure toelect on a date reasonabl% close to the

date of the election not held, suspended or


later than thirt% da%s after the cessation of

the cause of such postpone$ent or

suspension of the election or failure to

elect.

The sa$e provision is reiterated under Section 2, Rule 2=

of the Revised &OM')'& Rules.

-ased on the fore#oin# la!s, the instant petition $ust fail because the alle#ations therein do not "ustif% a declaration

of failure of election.

The &OM')'& correctl% pointed out that in the case of

Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections /, this &ourt held

that before &OM')'& can act on a verified petition

seein# to declare a failure of election, t!o (2* conditions$ust concur 1irst , no votin# has taen place in the

precincts concerned on the date fi8ed b% la! or, even if

there !as votin#, the election nevertheless resulted in a

failure to elect: and second , the votes cast !ould affect the

result of the election. In )oong vs. Commission on Elections 0, this &ourt added that the cause of such failure

of election should have been an% of the follo!in# 1orce

ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud of other analo#ous

cases. Further, in Bor0a, 5r . vs. Commission on Elections 8,

!e stated that

The &OM')'& can call for the holdin#

or continuation of election b% reason of

failure of election onl% !hen the election

is not held, is suspended or results in a



failure to elect. The latter phrase, in turn,

$ust be understood in its literal sense,

!hich is Cno*ody was elected .C

&learl% then, there are onl% three (6* instances !here a

failure of election $a% be declared, na$el% (a* the

election in an% pollin# place has not been held on the date

fi8ed on account of 1orce ma0eure, violence, terroris$,

fraud, or other analo#ous causes: (b* the election in an%

pollin# place had been suspended before the hour fi8ed b%la! for the closin# of the votin# on account of 1orce

ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous

causes: (c* after the votin# and durin# the preparation and

trans$ission of the election returns or in the custod% or

canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect

an account of 1orce ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud, orother analo#ous

causes. 9 In all instances there $ust have been failure to

elect: this is obvious in the first scenario !here the

election !as not held and the second !here the election

!as suspended. 1s to the third scenario, the preparation

and trans$ission of the election returns !hich #ive rise tothe conse<uence of failure to elect $ust as aforesaid be

literall% interpreted to $ean that nobod% e$er#ed as a

!inner.

None of these circu$stances is present in the case at bar.

+hile the OSE "oins TGPO&O in pinpointin# ano$alies

in the preparation of the election returns due to the

unifor$it% of the hand!ritin# in the sa$e, i$pl%in# that

fraud !as co$$itted at that sta#e, the fact is that the

castin# and countin# of votes proceeded up to the

procla$ation of the !innin# candidate thus precludin# the

declaration of a failure of election. +hile fraud is a#round to declare a failure of election, the co$$ission of

fraud $ust be such that it prevented or suspended the

holdin# of an election includin# the preparation and

trans$ission of the election returns. 1

It can thus readil% be seen that the #round invoed b%

TGPO&O is not proper in a declaration of failure of

election. TGPO&Os relief !as for &OM')'& to order a

recount of the votes cast, on account of the falsified

election returns, !hich is properl% the sub"ect of an

election contest. 11

The &OM')'&, therefore, had no choice but to dis$iss

TGPO&Os petition in accordance !ith clear provisions of

the la! and "urisprudence.

+B'R'FOR', findin# no #rave abuse of discretion

co$$itted b% public respondent &o$$ission on

'lections, the petition is DISMISS'D and its Resolution

En Banc of October /2, /9 dis$issin# the petition

before it on the #round that the alle#ations therein do not

"ustif% a declaration of failure of election is 1FFIRM'D.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 198 A%( 1,

HAD*I RASUL BATADOR BASHER, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) ABUL<AIR

AMPATUA, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

1n election $ust be held at the place, date and ti$e prescribed b% la!. )ie!ise, its suspension or

postpone$ent $ust co$pl% re<uire$ents. Other!ise, it isirre#ular and void.

/e Case

Petitioner 1 assails before us the 4une 9, / Resolution

of the &o$$ission on 'lections (&o$elec* in SP1 &ase

No. 3@23= !hich dis$issed a Petition to Declare a

Failure of 'lection and to &all Special 'lection in Precinct

No. /2, -aran#a% Maidan, Tu#a%a, )anao del Sur. The

assailed Resolution disposed as follo!s

In vie! of the fore#oin# considerations,

+e hereJb% hold that the special

elections in -aran#a% Maidan, Tu#a%a

)anao del Sur on 1u#ust 6;, /3 did not

fail. The result thereof $ust therefore be

accorded respect.

+B'R'FOR', pre$ises considered, the

&o$$ission En Banc R'SO)V'S to

DISMISS the petition for lac of $erit.

/e Facts

Petitioner Bad"i Rasul -atador -asher and Private

Respondent 1bulair 1$patua !ere both candidates for

the position of Punon# -aran#a% in -aran#a% Maidan,

Tu#a%a, )anao del Sur durin# the Ma% /2, /3 baran#a%

election. The election !as declared a failure and a special

one !as set for 4une /2, /3. 1#ain the election failed

and !as reset to 1u#ust 6;, /3.

1ccordin# to the &o$elec, the votin# started onl% around;; p.$. on 1u#ust 6;, /3 because the prevailin#

tension in the said localit%. 'lection Officer Diana Datu@

I$a$ reported that she !as alle#edl% advised b% so$e

reli#ious leaders not to proceed !ith the election because

Cit $i#ht tri##er bloodshed.C She also clai$ed the to!n

$a%or, Cbein# too h%sterical, %elled and threatened $e to

declare aJ failure of election in Maidan.C Subse<uentl%,

the ar$ed follo!ers of the $a%or pointed their #uns at her

$ilitar% escorts, !ho responded in a lie $anner to!ards

the for$er. The parties !ere then pacified at the PNP

head<uarters. +ith the arrival of additional troops, the

election officer proceeded to Maidan to conduct the

election startin# at ;; p.$. until the earl% $ornin# of the

follo!in# da%. The holdin# of the election at that particular ti$e !as alle#edl% announced Cover the

$os<ue.C 4

The tall% sheet for the said CelectionC sho!ed the

follo!in# results private respondent K 27; votes:

petitioner K /7 votes: and -aulo 1bdul Raul, a third

candidate K /; votes. 5 Private respondent !as

proclai$ed !inner.



Petitioner then filed a Petition before the &o$elec pra%in#

that the election be declared a failure. 1lle#in# that no

election !as conducted in place and at the ti$e prescribed

b% la!, petitioner narrated that there !as a dispute that

da% (1u#ust 6;, /3* a$on# the candidates re#ardin# the

venue of the election in the lone votin# precinct of the

baran#a%. In order to avoid bloodshed, the% ulti$atel%a#reed that no election !ould be conducted. 1ccordin#l%,

the election officer turned over for safeeepin# the ballot

bo8 containin# election paraphernalia to the actin# stationco$$ander (OI&* of the Philippine National Police(PNP*. The follo!in# da%, petitioner and the third

candidate !ere surprised to learn that the election officer

had directed the -oard of 'lection Tellers to conduct the

election and to fill up the election returns and certificates

of canvass on the ni#ht of 1u#ust 6;, /3 at the

residence of the for$er $a%or. Petitioner also stated that

no announce$ent to hold the election at the for$er

$a%ors house that ni#ht !as ever $ade. /

1s earlier stated, the &o$elec dis$issed the Petition.

Bence, this recourse to this &ourt.0

Ruling o1 te Comelec

The &o$elec ruled a#ainst a failure of election because

the t!o conditions laid do!n in Mitmug v. Comelec 8 !ere

not established. It held that the Celection !as conducted on

the scheduled date. The precinct functioned. 1ctual votin#

too place, and it resulted not in a failure to elect.C 9

In "ustif%in# the ballotin# at the dead of ni#ht, the poll

bod% cited Section 22, 1rticle IV of &o$elec Resolution

23/, !hich provided in part that CiJf at three ocloc,there are still voters !ithin thirt% $eters in front of the pollin# place !ho have no cast their votes, the votin# shall

continue to allo! said voters to cast their votes !ithout

interruption. . . .C The &o$elec then !ent on to state that

Ce8perience had sho!n that even !hen there is a lon#dela% in the co$$ence$ent of the votin#, voters continue

to sta% !ithin the area of the pollin# place.C 1

ssue

Petitioner sub$its the follo!in# <uestions for the

consideration of the &ourt

/. +hether or not the election held at

around /;;; ocloc in the evenin# of

1u#ust 6;, /3 after the 1ctin# 'lection

Officer had verball% declared or

announced a failure of election in Precinct

No. /2, -aran#a% Maidan, Tu#a%a, )anao

del Sur is contrar% to la!, rule and

"urisprudence:

2. +hether or not the election held at the

residence of an '8@$a%or far fro$ thedesi#nated Pollin# Place of Precinct No.

/2, -aran#a% Maidan, Tu#a%a, )anao del

Sur is le#al or valid:

6. +hether or not the procla$ation of the

private respondent as the dul% elected

Punon# -aran#a% of -aran#a% Maidan

and the seven (3* -aran#a% is ille#al, null

and void a* initio. 11

In the $ain, the crucial <uestion that needs to be

addressed is !hether the CelectionC held on the date, at the

ti$e and in the place other than those officiall% desi#nated

b% the la! and b% the &o$elec !as valid.

/e CourtLs Ruling

The Petition is $eritorious.

Main ssue

7alidly o1 te ecial Election

&itin# Mitmug v. Comelec, 1 the &o$elec points our that

a failure of election re<uires the concurrence of t!o

conditions, na$el% (/* no votin# too place in the precinct

or precincts on the date fi8ed b% la!, or even if there !as

votin#, the election resulted in a failure to elect: and (2*

the votes not cast !ould have affected the result of the

election. It ruled that these re<uire$ents !ere not

$et."wi".nHt

+e do not a#ree. The peculiar set of facts in the present

case sho! not $erel% a failure of election but the absence

of a valid electoral e8ercise. Other!ise stated, the disputed

CelectionC !as ille#al, irre#ular and void.

Election itus as llegal

First , the place !here the votin# !as conducted !as

ille#al. Section 02 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode providesthat CtJhe chair$an of the board of election tellers shall

desi#nate the public school or an% other public buildin#

witin te *arangay to be used as pollin# place in case the

baran#a% has one election precinct . . .. C Petitioner, citin#

an 1ffidavit 1 supposedl% e8ecuted b% the $e$bers of the

-oard of 'lection Tellers (-'T* for -aran#a% Maidan,

alle#es that the election of officials for said baran#a% !as

held at the residence of for$er Ma%or 1lan# Sa#usara

Puunun, !hich is located at -aran#a% Pandarianao,

instead of the officiall% desi#nated pollin# precinct at

&a#a%an 'le$entar% School. If this alle#ation !ere true,

such CelectionC cannot be valid, as it !as not held !ithin

the baran#a% of the officials !ho !ere bein# elected. On

the other hand, it is ad$itted that there !as a public schoolor buildin# in -aran#a% Maidan K the &a#a%an

'le$entar% School, !hich !as the earlier validl%

desi#nated votin# center.

+hile the -'T $e$bers later repudiated their 1ffidavit,

the% could onl% clai$ that the election !as held Cin

-aran#a% Maidan.C 14 The%, ho!ever, failed to specif% the

e8act venue. In fact, to this date, even the respondents

have failed to disclose !here e8actl% the votin# !asconducted. This #larin# o$ission definitel% raises serious

<uestions on !hether the election !as indeed held in a

place allo!ed b% la!.

7oting /ime as )ikewise rregular

econd , as to the ti$e for votin#, the la! provides that

CtJhe castin# of votes shall start at seven ocloc in the

$ornin# and shall end at three ocloc in the afternoon,

e8cept !hen there are voters present !ithin thirt% $eters

in front of the pollin# place !ho have not %et cast their

votes, in !hich case the votin# shall continue but onl% to

allo! said voters to cast their votes !ithout interruption.C15 Section 22, 1rticle IV of &o$elec Resolution No. 23/



also specifies that the votin# hours shall start pro$ptl% at

3;; a.$. and end at 6;; p.$. of the same da%.

Bo!ever, the CelectionC for -aran#a% Maidan officials

!as supposed to have been held after ;; p.$. of 1u#ust

6;, /3 until the !ee hours of the follo!in# da%.

&ertainl%, such schedule !as not in accordance !ith la!

or the &o$elec Rules. The &o$elec erred in rel%in# on

the second sentence of Section 22, 1rticle IV of &o$elec

Resolution 23/, !hich states that CiJf at three ocloc inthe afternoonJ, there are still voters !ithin thirt% $eters in

front of the pollin# place !ho have not cast their votes, the

votin# shall continue to allo! said voters to cast their

votes !ithout interruption.C This sentence presupposes

that the election commenced durin# the official ti$e and is

si$pl% continued be%ond 6;; p.$. in order toacco$$odate voters !ho are !ithin thirt% $eters of the

pollin# place, alread% !aitin# for their turn to cast their

votes. This is clearl% the $eanin# and intent of the !ord

continue K Cto #o on in a specified course of action or

condition.C 1/ The action or condition alread% subsists and

is allo!ed to #o on. Other!ise, the la! should have statedinstead that Cthe votin# $a% also start even be%ond 6;;

p.$. if there are voters !ithin thirt% $eters in front of the

pollin# place.C

The strained interpretation espoused b% the &o$elec

encoura#es the conduct of clandestine Celections,C for it

virtuall% authories the holdin# of elections be%ond

nor$al hours, even at $idni#ht !hen circu$stances could

be $ore threatenin# and conductive to unla!ful activities.

On a doctrinal basis, such nocturnal electoral practice

discoura#es the peoples e8ercise of their funda$ental

ri#ht of suffra#e, b% e8posin# the$ to the dan#ersconco$itant to the dead of ni#ht, especiall% in far@lun#

baran#a%s constantl% threatened !ith rebel and $ilitar%

#unfires.

Election -ate as nvalid

/ird , the &o$elec scheduled the special election on

1u#ust 6;, /3. 1n% suspension or postpone$ent of an

election is #overned b% Section 2 of R1

==3, 10 !hich states that C!Jhen for an% serious cause

such as rebellion, insurrection, violence, terroris$, loss or

destruction of election paraphernalia, and an% analo#ouscauses of such nature that the holdin# of a free, orderl%

and honest election should beco$e i$possible in an%

baran#a%, the &o$$ission on 'lection motu rorio or

upon s!orn petition of ten (/;* re#istered voters of a

baran#a%, after su$$ar% proceedin#s of the e8istence of

such #rounds, shall suspend or postpone the election

therein to a date reasonabl% close to the date of theelection that is not held or is suspended or postponed, or

!hich resulted in a failure to elect, but not later than thirt%

(6;* da%s after the cessation of the cause for such

suspension or postpone$ent of the election or failure to

elect, and in all cases not later than ninet% (;* da%s fro$the date of the ori#inal election.C

'lection Officer Diana Datu@I$a$ of Tu#a%a, )anao del

Sur practicall% postponed the election in -aran#a% Maidanfro$ the official ori#inal schedule of 3;; a.$. to 6;;

p.$. of 1u#ust 6;, /3 to /;;; p.$. of 1u#ust 6;, /3

until the earl% $ornin# of 1u#ust 6/, /3. She atte$pted

to "ustif% her postpone$ent of the election b% citin#

threats of violence and bloodshed in the said baran#a%.

1lle#edl% because of the tension created b% ar$ed escorts

of the $unicipal $a%or and the $ilitar%, Datu@I$a$

declared a failure of election in order Cto ease their

a##ression.C Bo!ever, as election officer, she has no

authorit% to declare a failure of election. Indeed, onl% the

&o$elec itself has le#al authorit% to e8ercise such

a!eso$e po!er. 1n election officer alone, or even !ith

the a#ree$ent of the candidates, cannot validl% postponeor suspend the elections.

Election Postonement as nvalid

Fourt, Datu@I$a$ did not follo! the procedure laid

do!n b% la! for election postpone$ent or suspension or

the declaration of a failure of election. She narrated the

circu$stances surroundin# her declaration as follo!s 18

+hen I returned to asJcertain the

situation in Maidan, the Ma%or, bein# too

h%sterical, %elled and threatened $e to

declare aJ failure of elections in Maidan.

+hen I insisted to personall% confir$ the

probable cause of bloodshed (at Maidan*,his ar$ed follo!ers?escorts pointed their

#uns to $e and $% escorts. )ie!ise $%

$ilitar% escorts pointed their #uns to the

$a%or and his $en CMan to ManC. The

Datus and reli#ious leaders pacified us at

the PNP Bead<uarters.

1fter a couple of hours, the $ilitar%

officers and I a#reed to adapt another

strate#% "ust to pursue !ith the elections

in Maidan b%J hoo or b% croo.

&onsiderin# that the% forcibl% too a!a%fro$ us the ballot bo8 containin# paraphernalia of Maidan, I didnt have an%

recourse but #ive the$. I turned@over the

ballot bo8 to the 1ctin# &hief of Police,

Mali -antuas !ith proper receipt, tain#a!a% fro$ the bo8 the &'F 2 H 2@1,

declarin# verball% a failure of elections in

Maidan "ust to ease their a##ression and

so that !e could pull@out of the place

freel%.

It clearl% appears fro$ the ver% report of Datu@I$a$ tothe &o$elec that she did not conduct an% proceedin#,

su$$ar% or other!ise, to find out !hether an% of the le#al

#rounds for the suspension or postpone$ent or the

declaration of failure of the election actuall% e8isted in the

baran#a% concerned.

otice as rregular

Finall% and ver% si#nificantl%, the electorate !as not #iven

a$ple notice of the e8act schedule and venue of the

election. The election officer herself

relates 19

+hen the tension !as sli#htl% alleviated,

I directed the $ilitar% personnel to pull@

out of the Municipio and !ithdre! to a

nearb% -aran#a% (for safet%* !here so$eof the $ilitaries ( sic* !ere deplo%ed.

1fter plannin# and coordinatin# !ith the

-atallion ( sic* &o$$ander, !e !aited for

the additional troups ( sic* that arrived ataround 96; in the evenin#. 1t the stroe



of ;; ocloc, !e started for Maidan via

the national Bi#h!a% thru the

Municipalit% of -alindon# and others thru

a short@cut !a% ( sic* east!ard of Tu#a%a.

>tiliin# the election paraphernalia earlier

shipped b% the &o$$ission as I have

re<uested ( sic* and a ballot bo8 fro$ theP'S, !e !ent on !ith the election (after

announcin# it over the $os<ue*

peacefull% orderl% despite the tiredness( sic* and e8haustion felt b% the people the!hole da% !aitin#?e8pectin# for the

election as I have assured the$ earlier

( sic*. . . .

1s can be #leaned easil% fro$ the above report, theelectorate of -aran#a% Maidan !as not #iven due notice

that the election !ould push throu#h after ;; p.$. that

sa$e da%. 1pparentl%, the election officers decision to

hold the election on the ni#ht of 1u#ust 6;, /3 !as

precipitate. Onl% after additional $ilitar% troops had

arrived at their site in a nearb% baran#a% about 96; p.$.did the election officers proceed to -aran#a% Maidan.

1rrivin# at Maidan, the% alle#edl% proceeded to conduct

the election Cafter announcin# it over the $os<ue.C

Such abbreviated announce$ent Cover the $os<ueC at

such late hour did NOT constitute sufficient notice to the

electorate. &onse<uentl%, not the entire electorate or even

a respectable nu$ber could have no!n of the activit%

and actuall% participated therein or voluntaril% and

discernin#l% chosen not to have done so.

Indeed, the &ourt in 2assan v. Comelec

held that thenotice #iven on the afternoon of the election da% resettin#

the election to the follo!in# da% and transferrin# its venue

!as Ctoo short.C +e said that CtJo re<uire the voters to

co$e to the polls on such short notice !as hi#hl%

i$practicable. . . . It is essential to the validit% of the

election that the voters have notice in so$e for$, either

actual or constructive, of the ti$e, place and purpose

thereof. 1 The ti$e for holdin# it $ust be authoritativel%

desi#nated in advance.C

In the case at bar, te announcement was made only

minutes before the supposed votin#. If one@da% notice !asheld to be insufficient in 2assan, the $uch shorter notice

in the present case should all the $ore be declared

!antin#. It should in fact be e<uated !ith Cno notice.C

In su$, the CelectionC supposedl% held for officials of

-aran#a% Maidan cannot be clothed !ith an% for$ of

validit%. It !as clearl% unauthoried and invalid. It had no

le#al le# to stand on. Not onl% did the

suspension?postpone$ent not co$pl% !ith the procedure

laid do!n b% la! and the &o$elec Rules, neither !as

there sufficient notice of the ti$e and date !hen and the

place !here it !ould actuall% be conducted. It !as thus asif no election !as held at all. Bence, its results could not

deter$ine the !innin# punon# baran#a%.

+B'R'FOR', the Petition is hereb% ER1NT'D and the

assailed Resolution S'T 1SID'. The procla$ation of

private respondent as punon# baran#a% is hereb% declared

VOID. Respondent &o$elec is ORD'R'D to conduct a

special election for punon# baran#a% of Maidan, Tu#a%a,

)anao del Sur as soon as possible. No pronounce$ent asto costs.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1110 *u& , 1994

@ILMAR P. LUCERO, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) *OSE L. ONG,

*R., respondents.

G.R. No. 1159 *u& , 1994

*OSE L. ONG, *R., petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) @ILMAR P.

LUCERO, respondents.

Cesar A. evilla Associates 1or ilmar )ucero.

aolean G. Rama and Remollo Melocoton Associates

1or 5ose ). (ng, 5r.

DA-IDE, *R., J.:

1fter the issues had been "oined in these consolidated

cases, the &ourt resolved to #ive due course to the

petitions therein and to decide the cases on the $erits. It

can no lon#er allo! the parties to dela% these cases. Their

le#al sir$ishes, !hich have undul% $a#nified

unco$plicated issues, have effectivel% deprived the people

of the Second )e#islative District of Northern Sa$ar of

representation in the Bouse of Representatives for $ore

than t!o %ears no!.

These cases are se<uels to E. R. No. /;73/3, entitled

C4ose ). On#, 4r. vs. &o$$ission on 'lections and +il$ar

P. )ucero,C !hich !e finall% resolved on 22 1pril /6. 1

The petitioners !ere t!o of the five candidates for the

Second )e#islative District of Northern Sa$ar in the

s%nchronied national and local elections held on // Ma%

/2.

The canvass of the Provincial -oard of &anvassers (P-&*

of Northern Sa$ar credited 4ose ). On#, 4r. !ith 20,232

votes and +il$ar P. )ucero !ith 20,;=9 votes, or a lead

b% On# of 2;0 votes. Bo!ever, this tall% did not includethe results of Precinct No. 3 of the $unicipalit% of Silvino

)obos, !here the sub$itted election returns had not been

canvassed because the% !ere ille#ible: of Precinct No. /6of Silvino )obos, !here the ballot bo8es !ere snatched

and no election !as held: and of Precinct No. /=, also of

Silvino )obos, !here all copies of the election returns

!ere $issin#.

On 22 Ma% /2, )ucero ased the &o$$ission on

'lections (&OM')'&*, in SP1 No. 2@292, to



/. Forth!ith order Respondent Provincial

-oard of &anvassers for Northern Sa$ar

to suspend the procla$ation of Private

Respondent 4ose ). On#, 4r.:

2. Direct Respondent Provincial -oard of

&anvassers for Northern Sa$ar to correct

the &ertificate of &anvass (&'F 2;* for

)as Navas and, accordin#l%, to correct the

total votes so far counted b% it forPetitioner fro$ 20,;=9 to 20,;99, thus

reducin# the $ar#in it found in favor of

Private Respondent 4ose ). On#, 4r. fro$

2;0 to /90 votes onl%:

6. Order a special election in Precinct /6,

-aran#a% Eusaran, Silvino )obos,

pursuant to Section = of the O$nibus

'lection &ode:

0. Order a recount of the votes for

Representative of the Second District of Northern Sa$ar in Precinct /=, -aran#a%

Tub#on, and Precinct 3, -aran#a%

&a$a%aan, both of Silvino )obos,

pursuant to Section 260 of the O$nibus

'lection &ode:

7. Order a recount of the votes for

Representative in the 72 precincts herein

above enu$erated in order to correct

C$anifest errorsC pursuant to Section /7

of Republic 1ct 3/== and for this purpose

order the i$poundin# and safeeepin# ofthe ballot bo8es of all said precincts inorder to preserve the inte#rit% of the

ballots and other election paraphernalia

contained therein.

On 2 4une /2, the &OM')'&, actin# on )uceros

ur#ent $anifestation, directed the P-& to desist fro$

reconvenin# until further orders.

On 9 4une /2, On# $oved to lift the suspension of the

proceedin#s b% the P-&, !hich )ucero opposed on /;

4une /2 on the #round that the canvass could not beco$pleted even if the P-& !ere to reconvene because no

election !as held in Precinct No. /6 (-aran#a% Eusaran*

of Silvino )obos and there !as no canvassin# of the votesin Precinct No. 3 (-aran#a% &a$a%aan* and Precinct No.

/= (-aran#a% Tub#on* both of Silvino )obos.

On /6 4une /6, the &OM')'& en *anc pro$ul#ated a

resolution, the dispositive portion of !hich reads

1ccordin#l%, the &o$$ission

hereb% orders the Provincial

'lection Supervisor of NorthernSa$ar to brin# to the

&o$$ission !ithin three (6* da%s

fro$ receipt hereof the ballot

bo8es fro$ Precinct 3 and /= of

Silvino )obos, to be escorted b%representatives fro$ the

petitioner and the respondents as

!ell as other parties !ho have an

interest to protect, and to notif%said parties hereof. The Municipal

Treasurer of said to!n is directed

to turn over custod% of said ballot

bo8es to the Provincial 'lection

Supervisor, and the e%s thereof

shall lie!ise be turned over b%

the appropriate officials in

custod% thereof to the P'S, !hoshall in turn #ive one e% for each

ballot bo8 to the dul% authoried

representatives of the petitionerand the respondent.

The &o$$ission lie!ise orders

the 'lection Re#istrar of Silvino

)obos, Northern Sa$ar, and the

&hair$an and $e$bers of the-oards of 'lection Inspectors of

Precincts 3 and /= of said

$unicipalit% to appear before the

&o$$ission !ithin three (6* da%s

fro$ receipt hereof.

-elo! the si#natures of the &hair$an and the si8

&o$$issioners, ho!ever, &hair$an &hristian S. Monsod

and &o$$issioners Ba%dee -. Gorac, Dario &. Ra$a andRe#alado '. Maa$bon# directed as follo!s

+e vote in favor of this resolution

e8cept that portion !hich denied

the correction of the &ertificate of &anvass for )as Navas.

&orrection of the &ertificate of

&anvass for )as Navas is in order

in vie! of the testi$on% of theelection re#istrar of )as Navas to

the effect that +il$ar )ucero

#arnered 2,763 votes for )as

Navas and not 2,7/3. Petition for

correction !as dul% filed b%

)ucero !ith the Provincial -oard

of &anvassers of Northern Sa$ar

on Ma% /, /2. The Provincial

-oard of &anvassers of Northern

Sa$ar is therefore directed to

retabulate the total nu$ber of

votes for )as Navas for )uceroand enter the sa$e in the

Provincial &ertificate of &anvass.4

On /7 4une /2, )ucero filed an ur#ent $otion to

constitute a Special -oard of 'lection Inspectors (S-'I*

to count the votes of Precincts Nos. 3 and /= of Silvino)obos. 5

On 2; 4une /2, On#, in a special civil action for

certiorari filed !ith this &ourt and subse<uentl% doceted

as E. R. No. /;73/3, <uestioned the order for the recountof ballots in Precincts No. 3 and /=. Despite the pendenc%

of this petition, the &OM')'& ordered the recount of the

ballots in Precinct No. /= b% a S-'I !hich recorded 06

votes for )ucero and 2 votes for On#. /

On 27 4une /2, this &ourt issued in E. R. No. /;73/3 a

te$porar% restrainin# order a#ainst the i$ple$entation b%

the &OM')'& of its Order of 2 4une /2 and its

Resolution of /6 4une /2.



On 26 Dece$ber /2, this &ourt pro$ul#ated its

decision in E. R. No. /;73/3, 0 the dispositive portion of

!hich reads

+B'R'FOR', the

petition for certiorari is

ER1NT'D and a !rit of

preli$inar% in"unction is

hereb% ISS>'D directin#

the &OM')'& to&'1S' and D'SIST

fro$ i$ple$entin# its

order of 4une 2, /2, and

its resolution dated 4une

/6, /2, and the sa$e

are hereb% declared N>))IFI'D.

&onse<uentl%, the

election returns based on

the recounted ballots

fro$ Precinct /= are

hereb% DIS&1RD'D andin lieu thereof, authentic

returns fro$ said precinct

should instead be $ade a

basis for the canvassin#.

The Provincial -oard of

&anvassers of Northern

Sa$ar is hereb% directed

to PRO&''D +ITB

DISP1T&B in the

canvassin# of ballots

until co$pleted and to

PRO&)1IM the dul%elected !inner of the

con#ressional seat for the

Second District of

Northern Sa$ar.

This decision is

i$$ediatel% e8ecutor%. 8

1ctin# on the $otions for reconsideration and clarification

respectivel% filed b% the &OM')'& and )ucero, this

&ourt, on 22 1pril /6, $odified 9 its aforesaid

disposition in E. R. No. /;73/3 as follo!s:

IN VI'+ OF 1)) TB' FOR'EOINE,

the dispositive portion of the Dece$ber

26, /2 Decision is hereb% MODIFI'D

to read as follo!s:

C+B'R'FOR', TB'

P'TITION IS

ER1NT'D. TB' 4>N'

2, /2 ORD'R OF

R'SPOND'NT

&OMMISSION ON')'&TIONS IN SP1

NO. 2@292 IS B'R'-G

1NN>))'D 1ND S'T

1SID'. ITS 4>N' /6,/2 R'SO)>TION

TB'R'IN IS )I'+IS'

1NN>))'D 1ND S'T

1SID' INSOF1R 1S IT

1FF'&TS PR'&IN&T

NO. 3 OF SI)VINO

)O-OS, TB'

R'&O>NT OF VOT'S

IN TB' 72 OTB'R

PR'&IN&TS 1ND TB'

&ORR'&TION OF TB'

&'RTIFI&1T' OF

&1NV1SS OF )1S N1V1S, ->T IS

1FFIRM'D +ITB

R'SP'&T TO TB'ISS>' OF BO)DINE 1SP'&I1) ')'&TION IN

PR'&IN&T NO. /6 1ND

TB' R'&O>NT OF

TB' -1))OTS IN

PR'&IN&T

NO. /=.

TB' R'SPOND'NT

&OMMISSION ON

')'&TIONS IS

B'R'-G DIR'&T'DTO 1SSIEN SP1 NO.

2@292 TO 1NG OF ITS

DIVISIONS

P>RS>1NT TO ITS

R>)' ON R1FF)' OF

&1S'S FOR IT TO

R'SO)V' TB' PR'@

PRO&)1M1TION

ISS>'S TB'R'IN,

T1INE INTO

1&&O>NT TB'

1-OV'PRONO>N&'M'NTS

1ND TB'

'A&'PTIONS

PROVID'D FOR IN

S'&TION /7 OF R. 1.

NO. 3/==.

+B'N'V'R

+1RR1NT'D -G TB'&IR&>MST1N&'S,

TB' &OMMISSION

M1G (1* &1)) 1SP'&I1) ')'&TION IN

PR'&IN&T NO. /6 OF

SI)VINO )O-OS,

NORTB'RN S1M1R,

1ND (-* R'&ONV'N'

TB' SP'&I1)

M>NI&IP1) -O1RD

OF &1NV1SS'RS 1ND

TB' SP'&I1)

PROVIN&I1) -O1RD

OF &1NV1SS'RS IT

B1D '1R)I'R&ONSTIT>T'D OR

&R'1T' N'+ ON'S.

1)) TB' FOR'EOINE

SBO>)D -' DON'

+ITB P>RPOS'F>)

DISP1T&B TO TB'

'ND TB1T TB'+INNINE &1NDID1T'

FOR &ONER'SSM1N

R'PR'S'NTINE TB'



S'&OND

&ONER'SSION1)

DISTRI&T OF

NORTB'RN S1M1R

M1G -'

PRO&)1IM'D 1S

SOON 1S POSSI-)'.C1

1s to the certificate of canvass of the $unicipalit% of )as Navas, this &ourt e8plicitl% stated:

The correction of the certificate of

canvass of )as Navas is lie!ise in order.

'ven thou#h a pre@procla$ation issue is

involved, the correction of the $anifest

error is allo!ed under Section /7 of R. 1.

No. 3/==. 11

&onfor$abl% !ith the aforesaid $odified "ud#$ent in E.

R. No. /;73/3, SP1 No. 2@292 !as raffled to the First

Division of the &OM')'& !hich conducted hearin#sthereon and received the ar#u$ents and evidence of both

parties !ho then sub$itted their respective $e$oranda on

27 4une /0. Bo!ever, durin# the consultations on the

case b% the Me$bers of the First Division, the

concurrence of at least t!o of the$ could not be obtained:

accordin#l%, pursuant to the &OM')'& Rules, the case

!as elevated for proper disposition to the &OM')'& en

*anc to !hich the parties sub$itted their respective$e$oranda on / Nove$ber /6. 1

On 3 4anuar% /0, the &OM')'& en *anc pro$ul#ated

a resolution 1 !hose dispositive portion reads as follo!s

/. To direct the special Provincial -oard

of &anvassers for Northern Sa$ar (a* to

include in the $unicipal certificate of

canvass of Silvino )obos the fort%@three

(06* votes of petitioner )ucero and the

t!o (2* votes of private respondent On#

as reflected in the election returns of

Precinct No. /= (-aran#a% Tub#on*

prepared b% the special -oard of 'lectionInspectors constituted b% the &o$$ission

to recount the votes (ballots* in said precinct, as canvassed b% the special

Municipal -oard of &anvassers for

Silvino )obos: (b* to include in the

$unicipal certificate of canvass of Silvino

)obos, the si8t%@one (=/* votes of private

respondent On# and 2, 6;, or 6/ votes of

petitioner )ucero as reflected in the

election returns (M-& &op% sub$itted as

C&o$elec &op%C* of Precinct No. 3

(-aran#a% &a$a%a@an*, as canvassed b%

the special Municipal -oard of

&anvassers for Silvino )obos: (c* toretabulate the total nu$ber of votes of

petitioner )ucero for the Municipalit% of

)as Navas and to enter in the provincial

certificate of canvass the correct total!hich is t!o thousand five hundred

thirt%@seven (2,763* as reflected in the

State$ent of Votes (&. '. For$ 2;@1*

prepared and sub$itted b% the Municipal

-oard of &anvassers for )as Navas: and

(d* to sub$it to the &o$$ission a

co$putation of the votes of the

contendin# parties includin# therein all

the votes of petitioner )ucero (!ith

alternative totals* and private respondent

On#, in Precinct Nos. 3 and /= of Silvino

)obos and the total votes of petitioner

)ucero in the Municipalit% of )as Navasas corrected. Bo!ever, under no

circu$stances should the -oard proclai$

an% !innin# candidate until instructed todo so b% the &o$$ission:

2. To issue an Order callin# for a special

election in the last re$ainin# Precinct No.

/6 (-aran#a% Eusaran* of the

Municipalit% of Silvino )obos if "ustified b% the result of the canvass b% the

Provincial -oard of &anvassers for

Northern Sa$ar, and to notif% the parties

of the schedule of election activities for

that precinct: and

6. 1fter includin# in the tabulation the

results of the special election of Precinct

No. /6, to decide the issue of the recountof the votes (ballots* of Precinct No. 3 of

Silvino )obos, pursuant to Section 26= of

the O$nibus 'lection &ode, to resolve the

discrepanc% of the votes of petitioner

)ucero in the sa$e return, if such

discrepanc% of votes of the candidates

concerned !ould affect the over@all

results of the election after the totalit% of

the votes of the contendin# parties shallhave been deter$ined.

-oth )ucero and On# have co$e to this &ourt b% !a% of

separate special civil actions for certiorari to challen#e the

Resolution.

In E. R. No. //6/;3, )ucero $aintains that (/* the count

of the ballots in Precinct No. 3 of Silvino )obos $ust be

unconditional because the election returns therefro$ are

invalid: and (2* his chances in the special election in

Precinct No. /6 of Silvino )obos !ould be spoiled if the

returns for Precinct No. 3 !ere to be included beforehandin the canvass.

In E. R. No. //67;, On# <uestions (/* the authorit% of

the &OM')'& to order the correction of the alle#ed

$anifest error in the Municipal &ertificate of &anvass of

)as Navas despite the absence of an% appeal: and (2* the

authorit% of the &OM')'& to call for a special election in

Precinct No. /6 al$ost t!o %ears after the re#ular

election.

1s !e see it, the core issues in these consolidated cases

are

(/*

+hether

there

should

first be a

count of

the

ballots of

Precinct



No. 3 of

Silvino

)obos

before

deter$ini

n# the

necessit%of

holdin# a

specialelectionin

Precinct

No. /6 of

Silvino

)obos

(2*

+hether

the

&OM')

'& acted!ith

#rave

abuse of

discretio

n in

orderin#

the

correctio

n of the

alle#ed

$anifest

error inthe

Municipa

l

&ertificat

e of

&anvass

of )as

Navas:

and

(6*

+hetherthe

&OM')

'& acted

!ith

#rave

abuse of

discretio

n in

callin#

for a

special

electionin

Precinct

No. /6

after

al$ost

t!o (2*

%ears, or

$ore

specifical

l% after

one (/*

%ear and

ten (/;*

$onths,

follo!in#

the da%

of the

s%nchronied

elections.

+e shall tae up these issues seriatim.

I.

The ans!er to the first issue is in the affir$ative.

+e find the &OM')'&s disposition re#ardin# Precinct

No. 3 to be unclear. In the first para#raph of the

dispositive portion of the challen#ed resolution, it directs

the Provincial -oard of &anvassers Cto include in the

$unicipal certificate of canvas of Silvino )obos the si8t%@

one (=/* votes of private respondent On# and 2, 6;, or 6/votes of petitioner )ucero as reflected in the election

returns (M-& cop% sub$itted as C&OM')'& &op%C* of

Precinct No. 3 (-aran#a% &a$a%a@an*, as canvassed b%

the special Municipal -oard of &anvassers for Silvino

)obos,C and Cto sub$it to the &o$$ission a co$putation

of the votes of the contendin# parties includin# therein all

the votes of petitioner )ucero (!ith alternative totals* and

private respondent On#, in Precinct Nos. 3 and /= of

Silvino )obos. . . .C On the other hand, in the fourth

para#raph of the said dispositive portion, it orders the

Provincial -oard of &anvassers, after Cincludin# in the

tabulation the results of the special election of Precinct No. /6,C to Cdecide the issue of the recount of the votes(ballots* of Precinct No. 3 of Silvino )obos, pursuant to

Section 26= of the O$nibus 'lection &ode andJ to

resolve the discrepanc% of the votes of petitioner )ucero

in the sa$e return, if such discrepanc% of votes of thecandidate concerned !ould affect the over@all results of

the election after the totalit% of the votes of the contendin#

parties shall have been deter$ined.C

Obviousl%, instead of orderin# an outri#ht recount of the ballots of Precinct No. 3, the &OM')'& !ould first #ive

full faith and credit to the <uestioned election returnsthereof, !hich it describes as the C&o$elec &op%,C and,

accordin#l%, direct the P-& to include in the $unicipal

certificate of canvass of Silvino )obos the =/ votes for

On# and the uncertain votes for )ucero K 2, 6;, or 6/.

The recount !ould onl% be $ade if after a special election

in Precinct No. /6 shall have been held, it shall be

deter$ined that such a recount !ould be necessar%.

+e fail to #rasp the lo#ic of the proposition. First, it is

clear to us that the &OM')'&, !hich has in its

possession the so@called C&o$elec &op%C of the

<uestioned election returns of Precinct No. 3 and heard the!itnesses !ho testified thereon, doubts the authenticit% of

the so@called C&o$elec &op%C of the election returns of

Precinct No. 3: 14 hence, it authories the P-& to decide

the issue of a recount Cpursuant to Section 26= of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode.C Since it doubts such

authenticit%, it could not, !ithout arbitrariness and abuse

of discretion, order the inclusion of the CvotesC of On# and

)ucero found in the doubtful C&o$elec &op%C of the

election returns in the $unicipal certificate of canvass.Second, it is an uncontroverted fact that an election !as



held in Precinct No. 3. None !as held in Precinct No. /6

for reasons the parties full% ne!. Pursuant to Section = of

the O$nibus 'lection &ode (-.P. -l#. 99/*, a special

election $a% be held in Precinct No. /6 onl% if the failure

of the election therein C!ould affect the result of the

election.C This Cresult of the electionC $eans the net result

of the election in the rest of the precincts in a #ivenconstituenc%, such that if the $ar#in of a leadin# candidate

over that of his closest rival in the latter precincts is less

than the total nu$ber of votes in the precinct !here there!as failure of election, then such failure !ould certainl%affect Cthe result of the electionC: hence, a special election

$ust be held. &onse<uentl%, the holdin# of a special

election in Precinct No. /6 can onl% be deter$ined after

the votes in Precinct No. 3 shall have been included in the

canvass b% the Provincial -oard of &anvassers.

+e $a% further state that the so@called C&o$elec &op%C of

the election returns of Precinct No. 3 can b% no $eans be

validl% included in the $unicipal canvass. The su$$ar%

of the evidence in the CpreparationC of the election returns

of Precinct No. 3, both in the challen#ed Resolution and inthe separate &oncurrin# and Dissentin# Opinion of

&o$$issioners Eorospe and &laravall, leaves no roo$ for

doubt that there !as actuall% no counting of the votes in

Precinct No. 3. uoted in the challen#ed Resolution is a

portion of the testi$on% of Sabina T. 4arito, Precinct

&hair$an of Precinct No. 3, !hich clearl% sho!s that on

<uestions b% &OM')'& &hair$an &hristian S. Monsod

and &o$$issioner Vicente -. de )i$a, the !itness

candidl% ad$itted that the election returns !ere prepared

at the NmunisiyoN or $unicipal buildin# and not at the

pollin# place of Precinct No. 3 in baran#a% &a$a%a@an. 15

This NmunisiyoN is located at the o*lacion of Silvino)obos. >nder the la!, the board of election inspectors

shall prepare the election returns si$ultaneousl% !ith the

countin# of votes in the pollin# place. 1/ There is no

evidence !hatsoever that the &OM')'& had, for valid

reasons, authoried the transfer of venue of the countin#

of the votes of Precinct No. 3 fro$ the pollin# place in

baran#a% &a$a%a@an to the $unicipal buildin# and that

the countin# did in fact tae place at the latter. 1lthou#h in

the &oncurrin# and Dissentin# Opinion of &o$$issioners

Eorospe and &laravall there is a reference to '8hibit C',C

the 4oint 1ffidavit of Sabina 4arito and Mevil%n Surio

!herein the% declare that after the votin# the -oard of'lection Inspectors unani$ousl% approved to transfer the

countin# of votes to the Municipal -uildin# in the

Poblacion of Silvino )obos, !hich !as alle#edl%

concurred in b% all the !atchers of political parties and the

candidates present, the alle#ed Ccountin#C at the $unicipal

buildin# !as denied b% no less than the Municipal'lection Officer of Silvino )obos, 1ntonio Tepace, and

the Municipal Treasurer thereof, Mr. Eabriel -asarte, in

their affidavits $ared as '8hibit CFC and '8hibit CE,C

respectivel%. 10

Since there !as no countin# of the votes of Precinct No. 3,no valid election returns could be $ade and an% cop% of

election returns purportin# to co$e therefro$ is a

fabrication. 1 recount thereof, !hich presupposes a riorcount , !ould obviousl% be un!arranted.

Onl% a count then of the votes of Precinct No. /6 !ould

heretofore be in order. Sections 260, 267, and 26= of the

O$nibus 'lection &ode are thus still inapplicable. 1nd, inthe li#ht of !hat !e stated before in relation to the holdin#

of a special election, such a count of the votes of Precinct

No. 3 $ust, perforce, precede the special election in

Precinct No. /6.

II.

On#s first #rievance in E. R. No. //67; is !ithout $erit.

The order of the &OM')'& for the correction of the

$anifest error in the $unicipal certificate of canvass of

)as Navas !as $ade pursuant to the declaration $ade b%this &ourt in E. R. No. /;73/3 ((ng vs. C(ME)EC * 18

that

The correction of the

certificate of canvass of

)as Navas is lie!ise in

order. 'ven thou#h a pre@

procla$ation issue is

involved, the correction

of the $anifest error is

allo!ed under Sec. /7 of

R. 1. No. 3/==.

Since no $otion for reconsideration !as filed in that case,

the decision therein beca$e final and entr% of "ud#$ent

!as $ade on 0 1u#ust /6. &onse<uentl%, On# cannotno! re@liti#ate the issue of the correction of the certificate

of canvass of )as Navas.

III

On the authorit% of the &OM')'& to order the holdin# of

a special election, Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode

provides



terroris$, fraud, or other analo#ous

causes the election in an% pollin# place

has not been held on the date fi8ed, or had

been suspended before the hour fi8ed b%

la! for the closin# of the votin#, or after

the votin# and durin# the preparation and

the trans$ission of the election returns or

in the custod% or canvass thereof, suchelection results in a failure to elect, and if

in an% of such cases the failure or


result of the election, the &o$$issionshall, on the basis of a verified petition b%

an% interested part% and after due notice



suspended or !hich resulted in a failure to

elect on a date reasonabl% close to the

date of the election not held, suspended or


later than thirt% da%s after the cessation of the cause of such postpone$ent or

suspension of the election or failure to

elect.

The first para#raph of Section 0 of R. 1. No. 3/==

lie!ise provides

Sec. 0. Postonement, Failure o1 Election

and ecial Elections. K The

postpone$ent, declaration of failure of



election and the callin# of special

elections as provided in Sections 7, = and

3 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode shall be

decided b% the &o$$ission sittin# en

*anc b% a $a"orit% votes of its $e$bers.

The causes for the declaration of a failure

of election $a% occur before or after thecastin# of votes or on the da% of the

election.

There are, therefore, t!o re<uisites for the holdin# of

special elections under Section = of the O$nibus 'lection

&ode, viz., (/* that there is a failure of election, and (2*

that such failure !ould affect the results of the election.

The parties ad$it that the failure of the election in

Precinct No. /6 !as due to ballot@bo8 snatchin# and donot dispute the findin# of the &OM')'& as to the

necessit% and inevitabilit% of the holdin# of a special

election in said precinct, even if the result of Precinct No.

3 should be based on the <uestionable C&o$elec &op%C of

its election returns. The &OM')'& held

-ased on the ad"ud#ed

correction of the votes in

favor of petitioner )uceroin the Municipalit% of )as

Navas, the results of the

recount of votes (ballots*

of Precinct No. /=

(ilvino )o*os*, and the

votes reflected in the

available cop% of the

election returns for

Precinct No. 3 (ilvino )o*os*, it is safe to

predict that !hen the

special Provincial -oard

of &anvassers !ill

reconvene to su$ up thevotes of the contendin#

parties, the ori#inal lead

of private respondent On#

of t!o hundred four (2;0*votes a#ainst petitioner

)ucero K 8,8%8 as

against 8,&9! K !ill bereduced to either /37 or

/36 dependin# on

!hether )ucero !ill be

credited a lo! of 2 or a

hi#h of 6/ votes as

reflected in the election

returns of Precinct No. 3.

+ithout pree$ptin# the

e8act fi#ures !hich onl%

the special Provincial

-oard of &anvassers cancorrectl% deter$ine,

undoubtedl% it is

inevitable that a special

election !ill have to be

held in Precinct No. /6

(-aran#a% Eusaran* of

the Municipalit% of

Silvino )obos.

. . .

Eiven the established

lead of private respondent

On# over petitioner

)ucero, +e ans!er in the

affir$ative. 1ccordin# to

&o$elec records, the

nu$ber of re#isteredvoters in Precinct No. /6

is two undred tirteen

:8"K;. Since the lead ofrespondent On# is lessthan the nu$ber of

re#istered voters, the

votes in that precinct

could affect the e8istin#

result because of the

possibilit% that petitioner

)ucero $i#ht #et a

$a"orit% over On# in that

precinct and that $a"orit%

$i#ht be $ore than the

present lead of On#.

19

On the basis of the additional votes credited so far to the

parties, the follo!in# co$putation is in order to On#s

20,232 votes !ill be added 2 $ore fro$ Precinct No. /=,

to $ae a total of 20,230, !hile to )uceros 20,;=9 votes

!ill be added 2; $ore fro$ )as Navas and 06 fro$

Precinct No. /=, for a total of 20,/6/. On#s earlier lead

!ill thus be reduced to /06, !hich is ad$ittedl% less than

the 2/6 re#istered voters in Precinct No. /6. 1

The t!o re<uire$ents then for a special election under

Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode have indeed been$et.

In fi8in# the date of the special election, the &OM')'&

should see to it that (/* it should be not later than thirt%

da%s after the cessation of the cause of the postpone$ent

or suspension of the election or the failure to elect, and (2*

it should be reasonabl% close to the date of the election not

held, suspended, or !hich resulted in failure to elect. The

first involves <uestions of fact. The second $ust be

deter$ined in the li#ht of the peculiar circu$stances of a

case. In the instant case, the dela% !as not attributable to

the poor voters of Precinct No. /6 or to the rest of theelectorate of the Second )e#islative District of Northern

Sa$ar. The dela% !as, as stated in the openin# para#raphof this onencia, pri$aril% caused b% the le#al sir$ishes

or $aneuvers of the petitioners !hich $uddled si$ple

issues. The &ourt taes "udicial notice of the fact that E.

R. No. //67; is the third case On# has brou#ht to this

&ourt. &onsiderin# then that the petitioners the$selves

$ust share the bla$e for the dela%, and tain# into

account the fact that since the ter$ of the office of the

contested position is onl% three %ears, the holdin# of a

special election in Precinct No. /6 !ithin the ne8t fe!

$onths $a% still be considered Creasonabl% close to thedate of the election not held.C On#s postulation should

then be re"ected.

In the course of the deliberations on these cases, the &ourt

considered the possible application, b% analo#%, of Section

/;, 1rticle VII of the /93 &onstitution providin# that no

special election in the event of a vacanc% in the Offices of

the President and Vice President Cshall be called if the

vacanc% occurs !ithin ei#hteen $onths before the date of

the ne8t presidential election,C and of the second

para#raph of Section 0 of R. 1. No. 3/== !hich provides



In case a per$anent

vacanc% shall occur in the

Senate or Bouse of

Representatives at least

one (/* %ear before the

e8piration of the ter$, the

&o$$ission shall calland hold a special

election to fill the

vacanc% not earlier thansi8t% (=;* da%s nor lon#er than ninet% (;* da%s

after the occurrence of

the vacanc%. Bo!ever, in

case of such vacanc% in

the Senate, the special

election shall be held

si$ultaneousl% !ith the

ne8t succeedin# re#ular

election.

1 vie! !as e8pressed that !e should not hold thespecial election because the underl%in#

philosoph% for the prohibition to hold the special

election if the vacanc% occurred !ithin a certain

period before the ne8t presidential election or the

ne8t re#ular election, as the case $a% be, is

obviousl% the avoidance of the e8pense to be

incurred in the holdin# of a special election !hen

a re#ular election is, after all, less than a %ear

a!a%. The &ourt ulti$atel% resolved that the

aforesaid constitutional and statutor% proscriptions

are inapplicable to special elections !hich $a% be

called under Section = of the O$nibus 'lection&ode. First, the special election in the for$er is to

fill per$anent vacancies in the Office of the

President, Vice President, and Me$bers of

&on#ress occurrin# after the election, !hile the

special election under the latter is due to or b%

reason of a failure of election. Second, a special

election under Section = !ould entail $ini$al

costs because it is li$ited to onl% the precincts

involved and to the candidates !ho, b% the result

of the election in a particular constituenc%, !ould

be affected b% the failure of election. On the other

hand, the special election for the Offices of thePresident, Vice President, and Senators !ould be

nation@!ide, and that of a Representative, district@

!ide. Third, Section =, !hen specificall% applied

to the instant case, presupposes that no candidate

had been proclai$ed and therefore the people of

the Second )e#islative District of Northern Sa$ar !ould be unrepresented in the Bouse of

Representatives until the special election shall

ulti$atel% deter$ine the !innin# candidate, such

that if none is held, the% !ould have no

representation until the end of the ter$. under the

aforesaid constitutional and statutor% provisions,

the elected officials have alread% served their

constituencies for $ore than one@half of their

ter$s of office. Fourth, if the la! had found it fit

to provide a specific and deter$inate ti$e@fra$e

for the holdin# of a special election under Section

=, then it could have easil% done so in Section 0 of

R. 1. No. 3/==.

1nother serious obstacle to On#s proposition is that,

considerin# the &OM')'&s disposition of Precinct No. 3

in the challen#ed Resolution, he !ould then be declared

and proclai$ed the dul% elected Representative of the

Second )e#islative District of Northern Sa$ar despite the

fact that as earlier observed, there !as no countin# of the

votes of Precinct No. 3, and the results of the district

elections for Representative !ould be affected b% the

failure of the election in Precinct No. /6. To accept the

proposition is to allo! a procla$ation based on aninco$plete canvass !here the final result !ould have been

affected b% the uncanvassed result of Precinct No. 3 and

b% the failure of the election in Precinct No. /6 and toi$pose upon the people of the Second )e#islative Districtof Northern Sa$ar a Representative !hose $andate is, at

the ver% least, uncertain, and at the $ost, ine8istent.

IN VI'+ OF 1)) TB' FOR'EOINE, "ud#$ent is

hereb% rendered

I. DISMISSINE, for lac of $erit, the

petition in E. R. No. //67;: and

II. In E. R. No. //6/;3, DIR'&TINE the

respondent &o$$ission on 'lections to

(/* Reconvene, in its $ain office of

Manila, !ithin five (7* da%s fro$ notice

hereof, the Special -oard of &anvassers

of the $unicipalit% of Silvino )obos,

Northern Sa$ar, !hich shall then, as a

special -oard of 'lection Inspectors of

Precinct No. 3 of said $unicipalit%, !ithin

fort%@ei#ht (09* hours fro$ its

reconvenin#, count the ballots of said

Precinct No. 3, and deliver to the special

Provincial -oard of &anvassers of thesaid Province a cop% of the electionreturns:

(2* Reconvene, in its $ain office in

Manila, !ithin the sa$e period as

aforestated, the special Provincial -oard

of &anvassers of Northern Sa$ar !hich

shall then, !ithin sevent%@t!o (32* hours

fro$ its reconvenin#

(a* Include in the

Municipal &ertificate of&anvass of Silvino )obos

(/* the total nu$ber of

votes for petitioner+il$ar P. )ucero and for

petitioner 4ose ). On#,

4r., respectivel%, in

Precinct No. 3 of Silvino)obos as recorded in the

election returns sub$itted

b% the afore$entioned

special Municipal -oard

of &anvassers, and (2* thefort%@three (06* votes for

petitioner +il$ar P.

)ucero and the t!o (2*

votes for petitioner 4ose

). On#, 4r. as reflected in

the election returns of

Precinct No. /=

(-aran#a% Tub#on*

prepared, after a recountof the ballots, b% the



special -oard of

&anvassers: and after

such inclusions to enter

the ne! totals of the votes

for the petitioners in the

&ertificate of Provincial

&anvass:

(b* Retabulate the total

nu$ber of votes for+il$ar P. )ucero for the

Municipalit% of )as

Navas, Northern Sa$ar,

!hich shall be t!o

thousand and five

hundred thirt%@seven(2,763* as reflected in the

State$ent of Votes (&.'.

For$ 2;@1* prepared and

sub$itted b% the

Municipal -oard of

&anvassers of )as Navas,and to enter the sa$e in

the &ertificate of

Provincial &anvass:

(c* 1fter the

acco$plish$ent of all the

fore#oin#, to su$ up

ane! in the &ertificate of

Provincial &anvass the

canvassed $unicipal

certificates of canvass of

all the $unicipalities ofthe Second )e#islative

District of Northern

Sa$ar and if the sa$e

!ould establish that the

difference in votes bet!een petitioner

+il$ar P. )ucero and

petitioner 4ose ). On#, 4r.

is less than t!o hundredand thirteen (2/6*, hence

the failure of the election

in Precinct No. /6 !ouldunavoidabl% and

inevitabl% affect then the

result of the election, to

report to the &o$$ission

on 'lections such fact

and to furnish the latter

!ith a certified

photocop% of the

&ertificate of Provincial

&anvass:

(6* +ithin three (6* da%s after receipt ofthe aforesaid report fro$ the special

Provincial -oard of &anvassers, to &1))

a special election in Precinct No. /6 of

Silvino )obos, !hich shall be held not

later than thirt% (6;* da%s fro$ such call:

a cop% of the election returns of said

special election shall forth!ith be

trans$itted to the Special Provincial-oard of &anvassers of Northern Sa$ar,

!hich shall then enter the results thereof

in its canvass and $ae a final su$$ation

of the results in the &ertificate of

Provincial &anvass, and thereafter,

pursuant to the O$nibus 'lection &ode,

pertinent election la!s and rules and

resolutions of the &o$$ission, proclai$

the !innin# candidate for Representative

of the Second )e#islative District of Northern Sa$ar.

If for an% reason !hatsoever it !ould not be possible to i$$ediatel% reconvene the

Special Municipal -oard of &anvassers of

Silvino )obos and the Special Provincial

-oard of &anvassers of Northern Sa$ar,

the &OM')'& $a% create ne! ones.

No pronounce$ents as to costs.

SO ORD'R'D.


SUPREME COURTManila

'N -1N&

G.R. No. 1/40 S'%t';'( 15, 4

POLALA SAMBARANI, *AMAL MIRAATO,

SAMERA ABUBACAR $!) MACABIGUNG

MASCARA, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS $!) EO ESMAEL

MAULA,

A#t!g E'#to! O++#'(, T$%$($!, L$!$o )' Su( o(

"o'='( s $#t!g o! "s ;'"$+, respondents.

D ' & I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

T"' C$s'

&hallen#ed in this petition for certiorari/ !ith pra%er for

te$porar% restrainin# order and preli$inar% in"unction isthe Resolution of the &o$$ission on 'lections en *anc

(C&OM')'&C*2 dated 9 October 2;;6. The &OM')'&

declared a failure of election but refused to conduct

another special election.

T"' F$#ts

In the /7 4ul% 2;;2 S%nchronied -aran#a% and

San##unian# abataan 'lections (CelectionsC*, Polala

Sa$barani (CSa$baraniC*, 4a$al Miraato (CMiraatoC*,

Sa$era 1bubacar (C1bubacarC*, Macabi#un# Mascara

(CMascaraC* and 1lias#ar Da%ondon# (CDa%ondon#C* ranfor re@election as unong *arangay in their respective

baran#a%s, na$el% Occidental )inu, Pindolonan

Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Ne! )u$bacain#ud, and

Tata%a!an South (Cfive baran#a%sC*, all in Ta$paran,

)anao del Sur.

Due to a failure of elections in eleven baran#a%s in )anao

del Sur, the &OM')'& issued Resolution No. 703

settin# special elections on /6 1u#ust 2;;2 in the affected

baran#a%s in )anao del Sur includin# the five baran#a%s.



On /0 1u#ust 2;;2, 1ctin# 'lection Officer 's$ael

Maula% (C'O Maula%C* issued a certification that there

!ere no special elections held on /6 1u#ust 2;;2.

&onse<uentl%, Sa$barani, Miraato, 1bubacar, Mascara

and Da%ondon# (C"oint@petitionersC* filed a 4oint Petition

seein# to declare a failure of elections in the five

baran#a%s and the holdin# of another special election. The

4oint Petition attributed the failure of the special elections

to 'O Maula%s non@co$pliance !ith &OM')'&&o$$issioner Mehol . Sadains (C&o$$issioner

SadainC* directive. &o$$issioner Sadain had directed 'O

Maula% to use the 1utono$ous Re#ion of Musli$

Mindanao (C1RMMC* 2;;/ co$puteried Voters )ist and

the Voters Re#istration Records of the Provincial 'lection

Officer durin# the Dece$ber 2;;/ re#istration of ne!voters.

The parties did not attend the hearin# scheduled on //

Septe$ber 2;;2 despite due notice. In the / October 2;;2

hearin#, counsel for "oint@petitioners as !ell as 'O

Maula% and his counsel appeared. The &OM')'&ordered the parties to sub$it their $e$oranda !ithin 2;

da%s. The &OM')'& also directed 'O Maula% to e8plain

in !ritin# !h% he should not be ad$inistrativel% char#edfor failin# to co$pl% !ith &o$$issioner Sadains

directive. The "oint@petitioners filed their Me$orandu$ on

27 October 2;;2. 'O Maula% did not file a $e$orandu$

or a !ritten e8planation as directed. The &OM')'&

considered the case sub$itted for resolution.

On 9 October 2;;6, the &OM')'& issued the assailed

Resolution, disposin# as follo!s

1&&ORDINE)G, the Depart$ent of Interior and)ocal Eovern$ent is hereb% DIRECTED to

proceed !ith the appoint$ent of -aran#a%

&aptains and -aran#a% a#a!ads as !ell as S

&hair$en and S a#a!ads in -aran#a%s

O##)'!t$ L!u , P!)oo!$! Mo($t$o S$(%,

T$u;, T$t$&$$! Sout", and N'

Lu;$#$!gu), all of Ta$paran, )anao del Sur,

in accordance !ith the pertinent provisions of

Republic 1ct No. 3/=;, other!ise no!n as the

)ocal Eovern$ent &ode of //, and other

related la!s on the $atter.

)et a cop% of this Resolution be furnished to the

Depart$ent of Interior and )ocal Eovern$ent, the

Municipalit% of Ta$paran, )anao dJel Sur, and

the respective San##unian# -aran#a%s of

-aran#a%s Occidental )inu, Pindolonan

Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Tata%a!an South and Ne!

)u$bacain#ud, of Ta$paran.

Finall%, let a cop% of this Resolution be furnished

to the )a! Depart$ent for Preli$inar%

Investi#ation of Respondent 'SM1') M1>)1Gfor possible co$$ission of election offense?s, and

conse<uentl%, the filin# of ad$inistrative char#es

a#ainst hi$ if !arranted.

SO ORDERED.6

Sa$barani, Miraato, 1bubacar and Mascara (CpetitionersC*

filed the instant petition.0

T"' COMELECs Ru!g

The &OM')'& a#reed !ith petitioners that the secial

elections held on /6 1u#ust 2;;2 in the five baran#a%s

failed. The &OM')'&, ho!ever, ruled that to hold

another special election in these baran#a%s as pra%ed for

b% petitioners is untenable. The &OM')'& e8plained that

it is no lon#er in a position to call for another special

election since Section = of the O$nibus 'lection &ode provides that Cspecial elections shall be held on a date

reasonabl% close to the date of the election not held, but

not later than thirt% da%s after cessation of the cause ofsuch postpone$ent.C The &OM')'& noted that $orethan thirt% da%s had elapsed since the failed election.

The &OM')'& also pointed out that to hold another

special election in these baran#a%s !ill not onl% be tedious

and cu$berso$e, but a !aste of its precious resources.The &OM')'& left to the Depart$ent of Interior and

)ocal Eovern$ent (CDI)EC* the process of appointin# the

-aran#a% &aptains and -aran#a% a#a!ads as !ell as the

San##unian# abataan (CSC* &hair$en and S

a#a!ads in these baran#a%s Cin accordance !ith the

)ocal Eovern$ent &ode of // and other related la!s onthe $atter.C7

T"' Issu's

Petitioners contend that the &OM')'& acted !ith #rave

abuse of discretion a$ountin# to lac of "urisdiction in X

/. Den%in# the pra%er to call for another special

election in baran#a%s Occidental )inu,

Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Ne!

)u$bacain#ud (Csub"ect baran#a%sC*:

2. Directin# the DI)E to proceed !ith the

appoint$ent of the baran#a% captains, baran#a%

a#a!ads, S chair$en and S a#a!ads in the

sub"ect baran#a%s:

6. Not declarin# the petitioners as the ri#htful

incu$bent baran#a% chair$en of their office until

their successors have been elected and <ualified.

T"' Cou(ts Ru!g

The petition is $eritorious.

First Issue

eter /o Call Anoter ecial Election

Petitioners fault the &OM')'& for not holdin# another

special election after the failed /6 1u#ust 2;;2 special

election. Petitioners insist that the special baran#a% and

S elections in the sub"ect baran#a%s failed because 'O

Maula% did not use the voters list used durin# the 2;;/

1RMM elections. Neither did Maula% se#re#ate ande8clude those voters !hose Voters Re#istration Records

(CVRRsC* !ere not a$on# those 7;; VRRs bearin# serial

nu$bers ;;;37;/ to ;;;9;; allocated and released to

Ta$paran. Finall%, Maula% did not delete fro$ the

certified list of candidates the na$e of dis<ualified

candidate &andidato Mandin#. Petitioners contend that

&OM')'&s refusal to call another special election

conflicts !ith established "urisprudence, specificall% the

rulin# in Basher v. Commission on Elections.=



The Solicitor Eeneral supports the &OM')'&s stance

that a special election can be held onl% !ithin thirt% da%s

after the cause of postpone$ent or failure of election has

ceased. The Solicitor Eeneral also $aintains that the

DI)E has the po!er to appoint and fill vacancies in the

concerned elective baran#a% and S offices.

Section 2(/* of 1rticle IA(&* of the &onstitution #ives the

&OM')'& the broad po!er to Cenforce and ad$inister

all la!s and re#ulations relative to the conduct of anelection, plebiscite, initiative, referendu$, and recall.C

Indisputabl%, the te8t and intent of this constitutional

provision is to #ive &OM')'& all the necessary and

incidental po!ers for it to achieve its pri$ordial ob"ective

of holdin# free, orderl%, honest, peaceful and credible

elections.3

The functions of the &OM')'& under the &onstitution

are essentiall% e8ecutive and ad$inistrative in nature. It is

ele$entar% in ad$inistrative la! that Ccourts !ill not

interfere in $atters !hich are addressed to the sound

discretion of #overn$ent a#encies entrusted !ith there#ulation of activities co$in# under the special technical

no!led#e and trainin# of such a#encies.C9 The authorit%

#iven to &OM')'& to declare a failure of elections andto call for special elections falls under its ad$inistrative

function.

The $ared trend in our la!s has been to #rant the

&OM')'& a$ple latitude so it can $ore effectivel% perfor$ its dut% in safe#uardin# the sanctit% of our

elections. -ut !hat if, as in this case, the &OM')'&

refuses to hold elections due to operational, lo#istical and

financial proble$sL Did the &OM')'& #ravel% abuse itsdiscretion in refusin# to conduct a second special

-aran#a% and S elections in the sub"ect baran#a%sL

Neither the candidates nor the voters of the affected

baran#a%s caused the failure of the special elections. The&OM')'&s o!n actin# election officer, 'O Maula%,

readil% ad$itted that there !ere no special elections in

these baran#a%s. The &OM')'& also found that the

Provincial 'lection Supervisor of )anao del Sur and the

Re#ional 'lection Director of Re#ion AII did not contest

the fact that there !ere no special elections in these

baran#a%s.

1n election is the e$bodi$ent of the popular !ill, the

e8pression of the soverei#n po!er of the people./; It

involves the choice or selection of candidates to public

office b% popular vote.// The ri#ht of suffra#e is enshrined

in the &onstitution because throu#h suffra#e the people

e8ercise their soverei#n authorit% to choose their

representatives in the #overnance of the State. The fact

that the elections involved in this case pertain to the

lo!est level of our political or#aniation is not a

"ustification to disenfranchise voters.

&OM')'& anchored its refusal to call another special

election on the last portion of Section = of the O$nibus

'lection &ode ( CSection =C* !hich reads

S'&. =. F$u(' o+ ''#to!. X If, on account of

1orce ma0eure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or other

analo#ous cases the election in an% pollin# place

has not been held on the date fi8ed, or had been

suspended before the hour fi8ed b% la! for the



election returns or in the custod% or canvass

thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,

and in an% of such cases the failure or suspension

of election !ould affect the result of the election,


petition b% an% interested part% and after duenotice and hearin#, call for the holdin# or

continuation of the election not held, suspended or

!hich resulted in a failure to elect o! $ )$t'('$so!$;& #os' to t"' )$t' o+ t"' ''#to! !ot

"'), sus%'!)') o( "#" ('sut') ! $ +$u('

to ''#t ;ut !ot $t'( t"$! t"(t& )$&s $+t'( t"'

#'ss$to! o+ t"' #$us' o+ su#" %ost%o!''!t o(

sus%'!so! o+ t"' ''#to! o( +$u(' to ''#t.

('$phasis supplied*

The &ourt construed Section = in Pangandaman v.

COMELEC ,/2 as follo!s X

In fi8in# the date for special elections the

&OM')'& should see to it that /.J it should not be later than thirt% (6;* da%s after the cessation of

the cause of the postpone$ent or suspension of

the election or the failure to elect: and, 2.J itshould be reasonabl% close to the date of the

election not held, suspended or !hich resulted in

the failure to elect. The first involves a <uestion of

fact. The second must *e determined in te ligt

o1 te eculiar circumstances o1 a case. T"us, t"'

"o)!g o+ ''#to!s t"! t"' !'t +' o!t"s

+(o t"' #'ss$to! o+ t"' #$us' o+ t"'

%ost%o!''!t, sus%'!so! o( +$u(' to ''#t

$& st ;' #o!s)'(') :('$so!$;& #os' to t"')$t' o+ t"' ''#to! !ot "').C ('$phasis

supplied*

The prohibition on conductin# special elections after thirt%

da%s fro$ the cessation of the cause of the failure of

elections is not absolute. It is director%, not $andator%,

and the &OM')'& possesses residual po!er to conduct

special elections even be%ond the deadline prescribed b%

la!. The deadline in Section = cannot defeat the ri#ht of

suffra#e of the people as #uaranteed b% the &onstitution.

The &OM')'& erroneousl% perceived that the deadline

in Section = is absolute. The &OM')'& has broad po!eror authorit% to fi8 other dates for special elections to

enable the people to e8ercise their ri#ht of suffra#e. The&OM')'& $a% fi8 other dates for the conduct of special

elections !hen the sa$e cannot be reasonabl% held !ithin

the period prescribed b% la!.

More in point is Section 07 of the O$nibus 'lection &ode(CSection 07C* !hich specificall% deals !ith the election

of baran#a% officials. Section 07 provides

S'&. 07. Post%o!''!t o( +$u(' o+ ''#to!. X

+hen for an% serious cause such as violence,terroris$, loss or destruction of election

paraphernalia or records, 1orce ma0eure, and other

analo#ous causes of such nature that the holdin#

of a free, orderl% and honest election should beco$e i$possible in an% baran#a%, the

&o$$ission, upon a verified petition of an

interested part% and after due notice and hearin# at

!hich the interested parties are #iven e<ual

opportunit% to be heard, shall postpone the



election therein for such ti$e as it $a% dee$

necessar%.

If, on account of 1orce ma0eure, violence,

terroris$, fraud or other analo#ous causes, the

election in an% baran#a% has not been held on the

date herein fi8ed or has been suspended before the

hour fi8ed b% la! for the closin# of the votin#

therein and such failure or suspension of election

!ould affect the result of the election, t"'Cosso!, o! t"' ;$ss o+ $ ='(+') %'tto!

o+ $! !t'('st') %$(t&, $!) $+t'( )u' !ot#' $!)

"'$(!g, $t "#" t"' !t'('st') %$(t's $('

g='! 'u$ o%%o(tu!t& to ;' "'$() s"$ #$

+o( t"' "o)!g o( #o!t!u$to! o+ t"' ''#to!

t"! t"(t& )$&s $+t'( t s"$ "$=' ='(+')

$!) +ou!) t"$t t"' #$us' o( #$us's +o( "#"

t"' ''#to! "$s ;''! %ost%o!') o( sus%'!)')

"$=' #'$s') to 'st or upon petition of at least

thirt% percent of the re#istered voters in the

baran#a% concerned.

+hen the conditions in these areas !arrant, upon

verification b% the &o$$ission, or upon petition

of at least thirt% percent of the re#istered voters inthe baran#a% concerned, it shall order the holdin#

of the baran#a% election !hich !as postponed or

suspended. ('$phasis supplied*

>nlie Section =, Section 07 does not state that specialelections should be held on a date reasonabl% close to the

date of the election not held. Instead, Section 07 states that

special elections should be held !ithin thirt% da%s fro$

the cessation of the causes for postpone$ent. )o#icall%,special elections could be held an%ti$e, provided the date

of the special elections is !ithin thirt% da%s fro$ the ti$e

the cause of postpone$ent has ceased.

Thus, in Basher /6 the &OM')'& declared the 23 Ma%/3 baran#a% elections a failure and set special elections

on /2 4une /3 !hich also failed. The &OM')'& set

another special election on 6; 1u#ust /3 !hich this

&ourt declared irre#ular and void. On /2 1pril 2;;;, this

&ourt ordered the &OM')'& Cto conduct a special

election for unong *arangay of Maidan, Tu#a%a, )anao

del Sur as soon as possible.C This despite the provision inSection 2/0 of Republic 1ct No. ==3 (CR1 ==3C*/7

statin# that the special baran#a% election should be held

Cin all cases not later than ninet% (;* da%s fro$ the date

of all the ori#inal election.C

Bad the &OM')'& resolved to hold special elections in

its Resolution dated 9 October 2;;6, it !ould not be as

pressed for ti$e as it is no!. The operational, lo#istical

and financial proble$s !hich &OM')'& clai$s it !ill

encounter !ith the holdin# of a second special election

can be solved !ith proper plannin#, coordination and

cooperation a$on# its personnel and other deputieda#encies of the #overn$ent. 1 special election !ill re<uire

e8traordinar% efforts, but it is not i$possible. In appl%in#

election la!s, it !ould be better to err in favor of popular

soverei#nt% than to be ri#ht in co$ple8 but littleunderstood le#alis$s./= In an% event, this &ourt had

alread% held that special elections under Section = !ould

entail $ini$al costs because it covers onl% the precincts in

the affected baran#a%s./3

In this case, the cause of postpone$ent after the second

failure of elections !as &OM')'&s refusal to hold a

special election because of (/* its erroneous interpretation

of the la!, and (2* its perceived lo#istical, operational and

financial proble$s. +e rule that &OM')'&s reasons for

refusin# to hold another special election are void.

Second and Third Issues: Whether the IL! ma"

#$$oint

the Baranga" and S% O&&icials

Petitioners contend that the &OM')'& #ravel% abused its

discretion in directin# the DI)E to proceed !ith the

appoint$ent of -aran#a% &aptains and -aran#a%

a#a!ads as !ell as S chair$en and S a#a!ads in

the four baran#a%s. Petitioners ar#ue that as the incu$bent

elective unong *arangays in the four baran#a%s,/9 the%

should re$ain in office in a hold@ over capacit% until their

successors have been elected and <ualified. Section 7 of

Republic 1ct No. /=0 (CR1 /=0C*/ provides

Sec. 7. 2old (ver . X 1ll incu$bent baran#a%

officials and san##unian# abataan officials shall

re$ain in office unless sooner re$oved or

suspended for cause until their successors shall

have been elected and <ualified. The provisions of

the O$nibus 'lection &ode relative to failure of

elections and special elections are hereb%

reiterated in this 1ct.

R1 /=0 is no! the la! that fi8es the date of

baran#a% and S elections, prescribes the ter$ of

office of baran#a% and S officials, and providesfor the <ualifications of candidates and voters for

the S elections.

1s the la! no! stands, the lan#ua#e of Section 7

of R1 /=0 is clear. It is the dut% of this &ourt to

appl% the plain $eanin# of the lan#ua#e of

Section 7. Since there !as a failure of elections in

the /7 4ul% 2;;2 re#ular elections and in the /6

1u#ust 2;;2 special elections, petitioners can

le#all% re$ain in office as baran#a% chair$en of

their respective baran#a%s in a hold@over capacit%.

The% shall continue to dischar#e their po!ers andduties as unong *arangay, and en"o% the ri#hts

and privile#es pertainin# to the office. True,

Section 06(c* of the )ocal Eovern$ent &odeli$its the ter$ of elective baran#a% officials to

three %ears. Bo!ever, Section 7 of R1 /=0

e8plicitl% provides that incu$bent baran#a%

officials $a% continue in office in a hold overcapacit% until their successors are elected and

<ualified.

Section 7 of R1 /=0 reiterates Section 0 of R1

==3 !hich provides that C1Jll incu$bent baran#a% officials 888 shall re$ain in office

unless sooner re$oved or suspended for cause

888 until their successors shall have been elected

and <ualified.C Section 9 of the sa$e R1 ==3

also states that incu$bent elective baran#a%

officials runnin# for the sa$e office Cshall

continue to hold office until their successors shall

have been elected and <ualified.C



The application of the hold@over principle preserves

continuit% in the transaction of official business and

prevents a hiatus in #overn$ent pendin# the assu$ption

of a successor into office.2; 1s held in To$acio 'ueno v.

#ngeles,2/ cases of e8tre$e necessit% "ustif% the

application of the hold@over principle.

@HEREFORE, !e GRANT the instant petition. The

Resolution of the &o$$ission on 'lections dated 9

October 2;;6 is declared -OID e8cept insofar as itdirects its )a! Depart$ent to conduct a preli$inar%

investi#ation of 's$ael Maula% for possible co$$ission

of election offenses. Petitioners have the ri#ht to re$ain in

office as baran#a% chair$en in a hold@over capacit% until

their successors shall have been elected and <ualified. The

&o$$ission on 'lections is ordered to conduct special-aran#a% elections in -aran#a%s Occidental )inu,

Pindolonan Moriatao Sarip, Talub, Ne! )u$bacain#ud,

all in Ta$paran, )anao del Sur !ithin thirt% (6;* da%s

fro$ finalit% of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

-avide, 5r., Puno, Pangani*an, Ouisum*ing, Jnares'

antiago, andoval'Gutierrez, Austria'Martinez, Corona

full text cases-election law

Documents