PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
Petitioner,
G.R.
Nos.
149164-73
December 10, 2003
-versus-
HON. DOLORES L.
ESPAÑOL,
PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 90, IMUS, CAVITE,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:cralaw:red
This
is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, as amended, filed by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)
for the nullification of the Order of the respondent judge dated
February
20, 2001, denying the "Omnibus Motion to Dismiss" filed by the
petitioner
in Criminal Case Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00, and the Order dated May 16,
2001,
denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Antecedents
During the elections
on May 11, 1998, Florentino A. Bautista was the official candidate of
the
Lakas for the position of Municipal Mayor of Kawit, Cavite. He executed
an Affidavit-Complaint charging the incumbent Municipal Mayor Atty.
Federico
"Hit" Poblete, Vice-Mayor Reynaldo Aguinaldo, Bienvenido Pobre, Arturo
Ganibe, Leonardo Llave, Diosdado del Rosario, Manuel Ubod, Angelito
Peregrino,
Mario Espiritu, Salvador Olaes and Pedro Paterno, Jr. of violation of
paragraphs
(a) and (b) of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (vote buying)
and
filed the same with the Law Department of the COMELEC. The complaint
was
entitled Florentino A. Bautista vs. Federico A. Poblete, et al., and
docketed
as EO Case No. 98-219. Of the 77 persons offered by the complainant to
prove the charges, 44 executed their respective affidavits and swore
and
subscribed to the truth thereof, on the vote-buying of the respondents.
The Law Department of the petitioner conducted the requisite
preliminary
investigation, after which it submitted its comments and
recommendations
to the COMELEC En Banc. On February 25, 1999, the COMELEC En Banc
issued
Resolution No. 99-0346, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESOLVED:
(a)
to file the necessary information against respondents Federico A.
Poblete,
Bienvenido C. Pobre, Reynaldo B. Aguinaldo, Leonardo Llave, Diosdado
del
Rosario, Angelito Peregrino, Mario Espiritu, Salvador Olaes, Pedro
Paterno,
Jr., Arturo Ganibe and Manuel Ubod, before the proper Regional Trial
Court
of Cavite for violation of Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus
Election
Code; and to authorize the Director IV of the Law Department to
designate
a COMELEC prosecutor to handle the prosecution of the case until
termination
thereof, with the duty to submit periodic report after every hearing of
the case; and (b) to file a Motion before the Court for the preventive
suspension for a period of ninety (90) days of respondents Mayor
Bienvenido
Pobre, Vice-Mayor Reynaldo Aguinaldo and Sangguniang Bayan members
Leonardo
Llave, Diosdado del Rosario, Angelito Peregrino, Mario Espiritu,
Salvador
Olaes and Pedro Paterno, Jr., while the case is pending pursuant to
Section
60 Chapter IV of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government
Code of 1991 specifically on the ground of commission of an offense
involving
moral turpitude.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner, through
its Law Department, filed an Information against the respondents with
the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite, docketed as Criminal Case No. 7034-99,
raffled to Branch 90, presided by the respondent judge. On May 10,
1999,
the court issued an order directing the Law Department of the
petitioner
to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, citing the ruling of this
Court
in Lozano vs. Yorac[2]
and Nolasco vs. Commission on Elections.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, Gerardo
Macapagal and Inocencio Rodelas filed a criminal complaint for
violation
of Section 261 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code (vote selling) against
the witnesses of Florentino A. Bautista in Criminal Case No. 7034-99.
The
complaint was docketed as I.S. No. 1-99-1080. The Office of the Cavite
Provincial Prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation of the
complaint,
in his capacity as a deputy of the petitioner. On April 10, 2000, the
Office
of the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution in I.S. No.
1-99-1080
finding probable cause against the respondents for violations of
Section
261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code, and filed separate
Informations
against them with the RTC of Cavite. The dispositive portion of the
Resolution
reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in the light of the preceding premises, let separate Informations for
"vote-selling"
penalized under Section 261 (a) (b) of the Omnibus Election Code be
immediately
filed against all respondents, thirteen of whom were deemed to have
waived
their right to present evidence in their behalf during the preliminary
investigation.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The cases were raffled
and assigned to the RTC branches as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal Case
No.
Branch Number
7940-00 to 7949-00 and
7981-00
Branch 22
7973-00 to 7979-00 and
7970-00
Branch 21
7950-00 to 7959-00 and
7980-00
Branch 20
7960-00 to
7969-00
Branch 90
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 15, 2000, the
respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 received copies of the Resolution of
the Provincial Prosecutor, and on June 23, 2000 appealed the same to
the
petitioner, contending that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Violation
of
Section 261 (a)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code is an election offense
under Article XXII of the same code. Under Section 265 of the Code, it
is this Honorable Commission which has the exclusive power to conduct
(the)
preliminary investigation thereof, and to prosecute the same. As such,
it is also this Honorable Commission which has the "exclusive power" to
review, motu proprio or through an appeal, the "recommendation or
resolution
of investigating officers" in the preliminary investigation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This appeal is,
therefore,
made pursuant to this Honorable Commission's "exclusive power to
conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses x
x
x and to prosecute the same" and to review the recommendation or
resolution
of investigating officers, "like the" chief state prosecutor and/or
provincial/city
prosecutors" in preliminary investigations thereof under Section 265 of
the Omnibus Election Code and Section 10, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 6, 2000, the
petitioner came out with Minute Resolution No. 00-1378 denying the
appeal
of the respondents-appellants therein for lack of jurisdiction. But on
the same day, the respondents-appellants filed an "Urgent Motion to
Withdraw
or Revoke the Delegated Authority of the Law Department to Direct the
Said
Office to Suspend or Move for the Suspension of the Prosecution of
Criminal
Cases Nos. 7940-00 to 7981-00." The respondents-appellants also filed a
Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Set for Hearing Re: Appeal from the
Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor of Resolution No. I.S. No.
1-99-1080.
On September 7, 2000, the COMELEC approved Resolution No. 00-1826,
thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Commission,
after due deliberation, RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to defer action
on the aforesaid matter. Meanwhile, to refer the same to the Law
Department
for comment and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let the Law Department
implement this resolution.[6]
On October 24, 2000,
the Law Department of the petitioner filed a motion before Branches 20,
21, 22 and 90, praying for the suspension of the proceedings against
all
the accused until the petitioner shall have resolved the incidents
before
it. The public prosecutor did not object to the motion. On October 25,
2000, RTC, Branch 22, issued an Order granting the motion in the
criminal
cases before it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, acting on
the appeal of the respondents-appellants in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, Atty.
Michael
L. Valdez submitted his recommendation in behalf of the COMELEC's Law
Department,
Investigation and Prosecution Division on November 13, 2000. It was
recommended
that the petitioner nullify the Resolution of the Office of the Cavite
Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, for the reason that the
respondents-appellants
are exempt, under Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. 6646, from
prosecution
for violation of Section 261(a)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Law Department RECOMMENDS to declare as null
and
void the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal (Prosecutor)
of Cavite in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, entitled "Gerardo Macapagal, et al.
vs.
Celerino Villarosa, et al., finding the existence of a probable cause
against
the respondents for being a violation of Section 28(4) of Rep. Act No.
6646, and to exempt them from criminal prosecution, accused: Celerino
Villarosa,
Felisa Villarosa, Leonardo Collano, Azucena Collano, Jonathan
Francisco,
Berna Francisco, David Zablan, Teresita Zablan, Rowel Del Rosario,
Reynaldo
Morales, Lolita Morales, Sherlita Borejon, Leonardo Mabiliran, Virgilio
Duco, Marina Duco, Bencio Planzar, Rudy Solomon, Nenita Viajador,
Antonio
De la Cruz, Guinata Agarao, Luis Cantiza, Ramilo Pinote, Miriam Pinote,
Wilfredo/Fredo Rodriguez, Marlene/Marlyn Rodriguez, Rodelio Pinote,
Saludia
Pinote, Ronel Escalante, Alejandrino Duco, Dominga Duco, Joel De la
Rosa,
Shirley De la Rosa, Ernesto Del Rosario, Nilda Del Rosario, Rodger
Pinote,
Ma. Theresa Pinote, Wilfredo Del Rosario, Roberto Pinote, Jocelyn
Pinote,
Norma De la Rosa, Lita Montad and Nacy Daiz, whose cases are pending
before
Branches Nos. 20, 21, 22, and 90, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite,
and
who are witnesses of the prosecution in Crim. Case No. 7034-99,
Regional
Trial Court, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, and to direct the Law Department
to file the necessary motion before the court to dismiss their cases,
by
citing Section 28(4) of Rep. Act No. 6646.[7]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the regular
meeting of the COMELEC En Banc on November 23, 2000, the Chairman and
two
other commissioners were on official leave. The remaining four
commissioners
met and issued Resolution No. 00-2453 approving the foregoing
recommendation,
to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Commission
RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the recommendation of the
Law
Department as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. to
declare
the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite in
I.S. No. 1-99-1080 (Gerardo Macapagal, et al. vs. Celerino Villarosa,
et
al.) as null and void, and to exempt the aforementioned accused from
criminal
prosecution pursuant to Section 28(4) of R.A. No. 6646; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. to direct the
Law
Department to file the necessary motion to dismiss before the proper
court
the cases against the herein-named accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let the Law
Department
implement this resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In compliance with
the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, its Law Department, through
Attys.
Jose P. Balbuena and Michael Valdez, filed with the RTC, Branch 90, an
Omnibus Motion (1) Motion for Reconsideration Re: Order of this Court
dated
November 22, 2000; (2) Motion for Leave to Reiterate Urgent Motion to
Suspend
Proceedings; and (3) Motion to Dismiss filed on January 8, 2001. The
Public
Prosecutor opposed the petitioner's motion to dismiss on the following
grounds: (a) the exemption under the last paragraph of Section 28 of Republic
Act No. 6646 applies only to the offense of vote-buying, as the
accused
in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 in which the respondents-appellants gave
their
sworn statements was for vote-buying; this exemption will not apply to
the charge for vote-selling which was the crime charged in I.S. No.
1-99-1080;
(b) the July 6, 2000 Resolution No. 00-1378 of the petitioner had
become
final and executory; hence, it is no longer subject to review by the
petitioner;
and (c) the review of the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution made by
the
petitioner was a re-investigation of the case, and was done without
prior
authority of the Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 20, 2001,
the trial court issued an Order denying the Omnibus Motion of the
petitioner.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said order on
March 31, 2000. The Provincial Prosecutor opposed the motion. On May
16,
2001, the trial court issued an Order denying the said motion holding
that
the petitioner had no absolute power to grant exemptions under Section
28 of Republic Act No. 6648. The trial court also held that the issue
of
whether or not the accused are exempt from prosecution and consequent
conviction
for vote-buying is a matter addressed to the Court and not to the
petitioner.cralaw:red
In its petition at bar,
the petitioner raises the following issues for resolution, viz: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) WHETHER
THE ACCUSED ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 28
(4) OF R.A. No. 6646.
(2) WHETHER THERE
IS
NO NEED FOR AN EN BANC RESOLUTION REVOKING THE AUTHORITY OF THE
PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR FROM HANDLING THE CASES FILED IN COURT SINCE THE COMELEC EN
BANC ALREADY DIRECTED THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS
THESE
CASES;[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the first issue,
the petitioner contends that the complainants-appellees in I.S. No.
1-99-1080
failed to file any motion for the reconsideration of the petitioner's
Resolution
No. 00-2453 reversing Resolution No. 00-1378 which, in turn, dismissed
the respondents-appellants' appeal. Neither did the said
complainants-appellees
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court from
its Resolution No. 00-2453. Consequently, Resolution No. 00-2453 has
become
final and executory; hence, is binding and conclusive on the
complainants-appellees,
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and the herein respondent
judge.
The petitioner further asserts that the respondents-appellants' motion
for reconsideration in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 of COMELEC Resolution No.
00-1378
is not a prohibited pleading under Rule 13, Section 1, paragraph (d) of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to the petitioner,
the prosecution of election offenses is under its sole control. Any
delegation
of its authority to the Provincial or City Prosecutor to prosecute
election
cases may be revoked or withdrawn by it, expressly or impliedly, at any
stage of the proceedings in the RTC. The petitioner, through Atty.
Michael
Valdez of its Law Department, had already entered his appearance for
the
petitioner as public prosecutor before the respondent judge. The
Provincial
Prosecutor was, thus, ipso facto divested of his authority, as
deputized
prosecutor, to represent the petitioner on the motion to dismiss and to
prosecute the cases before the respondent judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent judge,
for her part, avers that COMELEC Resolution No. 00-2453 was approved
only
by four of the seven members of the petitioner sitting en banc, and as
such, could not have validly revoked Resolution No. 00-1378 which was,
in turn, approved by unanimous vote of the Commission Members sitting
en
banc. It behooved the petitioner to conduct a joint reinvestigation in
I.S. No. 1-99-1080 and EO No. 98-219 to ascertain whether the
respondents-appellants
in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 were exempt from prosecution for vote-selling.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, according to
the respondent judge, Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure is contrary to Section 265 of the Omnibus
Election Code, which does not allow the petitioner to withdraw its
deputation of Provincial or City Prosecutors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article IX, Section
2(b) of the Constitution,[10]
the petitioner is empowered to investigate and, when appropriate,
prosecute
election offenses. The grant by the Constitution to the petitioner of
the
express power to investigate and prosecute election offenses is
intended
to enable the petitioner to assure the people of a fine, orderly,
honest,
peaceful and credible election.[11]
Under Section 265 of the Omnibus
Election Code, the petitioner, through its duly authorized legal
officers,
has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election
offenses punishable under the Omnibus
Election Code, and to prosecute the same. The petitioner may avail
of the assistance of the prosecuting arms of the government.[12]
In Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, all Provincial and City Prosecutors and/or
their
respective assistants are given continuing authority as its deputies to
conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election
offenses
under election laws and to prosecute the same. The complaints may be
filed
directly with them or may be indorsed to them by the petitioner or its
duly authorized representatives.[13]
The respondent's assertion that Section 2, Rule 34, of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure is a violation of Section 265 of the Omnibus
Election Code has been laid to rest by this Court in Margarejo vs.
Escoses,[14]
wherein this Court ruled that until revoked, the continuing authority
of
the Provincial or City Prosecutors stays.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The deputation of the
Provincial and City Prosecutors is necessitated by the need for prompt
investigation and dispensation of election cases as an indispensable
part
of the task of securing fine, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections.
Enfeebled by lack of funds and the magnitude of its workload, the
petitioner
does not have a sufficient number of legal officers to conduct such
investigation
and to prosecute such cases. The prosecutors deputized by the
petitioner
are subject to its authority, control and supervision in respect of the
particular functions covered by such deputation. The acts of such
deputies
within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal
contemplation,
the acts of the petitioner itself.[15]
Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn any time by the petitioner,
either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment such revocation or
withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the process to
promote
the common good, or where it believes that successful prosecution of
the
case can be done by the petitioner. Moreover, being mere deputies or
agents
of the petitioner, provincial or city prosecutors deputized by the
petitioner
are expected to act in accord with and not contrary to or in derogation
of the resolutions, directives or orders of the petitioner in relation
to election cases such prosecutors are deputized to investigate and
prosecute.
Otherwise, the only option of such provincial or city prosecutor is to
seek relief from the petitioner as its deputy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The withdrawal by the
petitioner of its deputation of the provincial or city prosecutors may
not be interfered with or overruled by the trial court. In this case,
the
petitioner had resolved to approve the recommendation of its Law
Department
and nullified the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No.
1-99-1080,
and directed its Law Department, not the Provincial Prosecutor, to
implement
the said resolution and file the necessary motion to dismiss Criminal
Cases
Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00 pending with the respondent judge. The Law
Department
did file before the respondent a "Motion to Dismiss" the said cases and
a motion for the respondent to, in the meantime, suspend the
proceedings.
Atty. Michael L. Valdez, a legal officer of the petitioner's Law
Department,
entered his appearance for the petitioner. The Provincial Prosecutor
was
thereby relieved of his deputation to represent the petitioner in
connection
with the said motion. However, the Provincial Prosecutor refused to
give
way to the Legal Officer of the petitioner and even opposed the said
motion.
The act of the Provincial Prosecutor constituted a defiance of the
resolution
of the petitioner and should have been ignored by the respondent judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears stressing that
when the Provincial Prosecutor conducted the preliminary investigation
of I.S. No. 1-99-1080, and filed the Information in Criminal Cases Nos.
7960-00 to 7969-00, he did so because he had been duly deputized by the
petitioner. He did not do so under the sole authority of his office.[16]
The resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 was
subject
to appeal by the aggrieved party to the petitioner and may be reversed
by the petitioner in the exercise of its supervision and control of its
deputies/subordinates.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While it is the true
that the petitioner initially dismissed the appeal of the
respondents-appellants
from the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I. S. No.
1-99-1080,
the petitioner later gave due course and granted the appeal, and
nullified
the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor. Contrary to the latter's
claim,
the petitioner did not conduct a reinvestigation of I.S. No. 1-99-1080.
It merely acted on the appeal of the respondents-appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent has failed
to cite any COMELEC rule which requires the unanimous votes of all its
Commissioners sitting en banc for the reversal or revocation of a prior
resolution approved by unanimous vote. On the other hand, Section 5,
Rule
2 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 5.
Quorum;
Votes Required. — (a) When sitting en banc, four (4) Members of the
Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. The
concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Commission shall be
necessary
for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order or ruling.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, COMELEC
Resolution No. 00-2453 was approved by four of the seven Commissioners
of the petitioner, three of whom were on official leave. Irrefragably,
the said resolution of the petitioner giving due course to the appeal
of
the respondents-appellants in I.S. No. 1-99-1087 was a valid reversal
of
COMELEC Resolution No. 00-1378 which initially denied the said appeal
of
the respondents-appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The conduct of a preliminary
investigation of election offenses for the purpose of determining
whether
or not there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of
the offense charged and, therefore, should be subjected to trial is the
function of the petitioner.[18]
The Court will not even interfere with the finding of the petitioner
absent
a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Neither should the
respondent.
This principle emanates from the COMELEC's exclusive power to conduct
preliminary
investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same except
as may otherwise be provided by law. While it is the duty of the
petitioner
to prosecute those committing election offenses, it is equally its duty
not to prosecute those offenses where no probable cause exists. The
exclusion
and inclusion of persons in Informations for election offenses is a
prerogative
granted by the law and the Constitution to the petitioner.[19]
The petitioner may not be compelled to charge a person or include the
latter
in an Information when it believes that under the law and on the basis
of the evidence in its possession, such person should not be charged at
all.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the second issue,
the petitioner contends that respondents-appellants in I.S. No.
1-99-1080,
who were its witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99, had been granted
exemptions
from prosecution and punishment for the offense of vote-buying,
pursuant
to Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. 6848. The petitioner avers that
the
respondents-appellants in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, are also exempt from
criminal
liability for the offense of vote-selling; hence, should not be charged
with the latter offense. Thus, Criminal Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00
should
be dismissed. The petitioner avers that the witnesses had executed
their
respective affidavits as to where and how the accused in Criminal Case
No. 7034-99 committed the crimes of vote-buying. The petitioner also
contends
that the charges of vote-selling filed against the said witnesses in
Criminal
Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00 were designed to frighten and discourage
them from testifying against the vote buyers, who are the accused in
Criminal
Case No. 7034-99. The respondent, thus, committed a grave abuse of
discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying its motion to
dismiss
Criminal Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00 grounded on the exemption of the
accused therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For her part, the respondent
avers that under Section 265 of the Omnibus
Election Code, both the vote-buyer and the vote-seller must be
charged,
investigated and prosecuted by the petitioner for violation of Section
261 (a)(b) of Republic Act No. 6648, as provided for in Section 28 of
Rep.
Act No. 6698. She cites the ruling of the Court in Lozano vs. Yorac, et
al.[20]
to support her stand. She contends that vote-buyers cannot be exempt
from
criminal liability for vote-buying because there can be no vote-buying
without someone selling his vote. Preliminary investigations of the
charges
for vote-buying and vote-selling must be jointly conducted. This is to
enable the COMELEC's Law Department to determine whether the witnesses
in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 had voluntarily presented themselves to
give
information on the vote-buying of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos.
7960-00
to 7969-00. Based on the records, the witnesses in Criminal Case No.
7034-99
executed their sworn statements only after the preliminary
investigation
of EO No. 98-219; hence, the Law Department of the petitioner could not
have intelligently determined whether the said witnesses were exempt
from
prosecution or not.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 261(a)(b) of
the Omnibus
Election Code penalizes vote-buying and vote-selling and conspiracy
to bribe voters.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
Vote-buying
and vote-selling. — (1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money
or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment,
franchise
or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure,
directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any
person,
association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce
anyone
or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or
withhold
his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for
the
nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar election
process of a political party.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Conspiracy to
bribe
voters. — Two or more persons, whether candidates or not, who come to
an
agreement concerning the commission of any violation of paragraph (a)
of
this section and decide to commit it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not only principals
but also accomplices and accessories are criminally liable for election
offenses.[21]Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6648 governs the prosecution of the
crimes
of vote-buying and vote-selling, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 28.
Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-selling.- The presentation of a
complaint
for violations of paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to
the offer or promise by or of the voter's acceptance of money or other
consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a
candidate,
shall be sufficient basis for an investigation to be immediately
conducted
by the Commission, directly or through its duly authorized legal
officers,
under Section 68 or Section 265 of said Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the last
paragraph
of the said provision, any person guilty of vote-buying and
vote-selling
who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on violations
of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of the Omnibus
Election Code shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for
the
offense with reference to which their information and testimony were
given,
without prejudice to their liability for perjury and false testimony,
thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 265.
Prosecution.-
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The giver,
offerer,
and promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and
conspirator
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That any person,
otherwise
guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and
willingly
testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or
proceeding
shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with
reference
to which his information and testimony were given: Provided, further,
That
nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for
perjury
or false testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 265 of
the Omnibus
Election Code, the petitioner is mandated to conduct a preliminary
investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same. The
general
rule is that the petitioner must investigate, charge and prosecute all
those committing election offenses without any discrimination to ensure
a clean, orderly and speedy elections. A joint preliminary
investigation
thereof must be conducted and the appropriate Information filed in
court
against all the offenders. To enable the petitioner to comply with its
mandate to investigate and prosecute those committing election
offenses,
it has been vested with authority under the last paragraph of Section
28
of Republic Act No. 6648 to exempt those who have committed election
offenses
under Section 261 (a) and (b) but volunteer to give informations and
testify
on any violation of said law in any official investigation or
proceeding
with reference to which his information and testimony is given. The law
is an immunity statute which grants transactional immunity to
volunteers
from investigation and prosecution for violation of Section 261 (a) and
(b) of the Omnibus
Election Code.[22]
The immunity statute seeks a rational accommodation between the
imperatives
of the privilege against self-incrimination and the legitimate demands
of government to encourage citizens, including law violators
themselves,
to testify against law violators. The statute operates as a complete
pardon
for the offenses to which the information was given. The execution of
those
statutes reflects the importance of the testimony therefor, and the
fact
that many offenses are of such character that the only persons capable
of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crimes. Indeed,
their origins were in the context of such offenses and their primary
use
has been to investigate and prosecute such offenses.[23]
Immunity from suit is the only consequence flowing from a violation of
one's constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable search and
seizure, his right to counsel and his right not to be coerced into
confessing.[24]
By voluntarily offering to give information on violations of Section
261(a)
and (b) and testify against the culprits, one opens himself to
investigation
and prosecution if he himself is a party to any violation of the law.
In
exchange for his testimony, the law gives him immunity from
investigation
and prosecution for any offense in Section 261 (a) and (b) with
reference
to which his information is given. He is, therefore, assured that his
testimony
cannot be used by the prosecutors and any authorities in any respect,
and
that his testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties
on him.[25]
The testimony of a voluntary witness in accord with his sworn statement
operates as a pardon for the criminal charges to which it relates.[26]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears stressing
that one may voluntarily give information on violations of Section
261(a)
and (b) and execute an affidavit before a complaint is filed with the
petitioner,
or any provincial or city prosecutor. This may be done even during the
preliminary investigation or even after an Information is filed, on the
condition that his testimony must be in accord with or based on his
affidavit.
If such witness later refuses to testify or testifies but contrary to
his
affidavit, he loses his immunity from suit, and may be prosecuted for
violations
of Section 261(a) and (b) of the Omnibus
Election Code, perjury under Article 183 of the Revised
Penal Code, or false testimony under Article 180 of the same Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The power to grant exemptions
is vested solely on the petitioner. This power is concomitant with its
authority to enforce election laws, investigate election offenses and
prosecute
those committing the same. The exercise of such power should not be
interfered
with by the trial court. Neither may this Court interfere with the
petitioner's
exercise of its discretion in denying or granting exemptions under the
law, unless the petitioner commits a grave abuse of its discretion
amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no showing
in the record that the petitioner committed abuse of discretion in
granting
immunity to the witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 and in
nullifying
the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. 1-99-1080.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It cannot be over-emphasized
that the authority given to the petitioner to grant exemptions should
be
used to achieve and further its mandate to insure clean, honest,
peaceful
and orderly elections.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents' reliance
on the ruling of this Court in Lozano v. Yorac is misplaced. The issue
of the application of the immunity statute was not raised in that case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum then, the Court
finds that the respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motion to
dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00 before it and the motion
for reconsideration of the said denial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated February
20, 2001 and May 16, 2001 are SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge Dolores
Español,
RTC, Imus, Cavite, Branch 90, is directed to dismiss Criminal Cases
Nos.
7960-00 to 7969-00. No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
203 SCRA 270 (1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
275 SCRA 780 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., at 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 30-31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions
in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or
omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Bay Tan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
SEC. 265. Prosecution. — The Commission shall, through its duly
authorized
legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
investigation
of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute
the
same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting
arms
of the government: Provided, however, That in the event that the
Commission
fails to act on any complaint within four months from his filing, the
complaint
may file the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the
Ministry
of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
[13]
SEC. 2. Continuing Delegation of Authority to Other Prosecution Arms of
the Government. — The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City
Fiscals,
and/or their respective assistants are hereby given continuing
authority,
as deputies of the Commission, to conduct preliminary investigation of
complaints involving election offenses under the election laws which
may
be filed directly with them, or which may be indorsed to them by the
Commission
or its duly authorized representatives and to prosecute the same. Such
authority may be revoked or withdrawn any time by the Commission
whenever
in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect
the
integrity of the Commission, promote the common good, or when it
believes
that successful prosecution of the case can be done by the Commission.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
365 SCRA 190 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Basilla, 179 SCRA 87 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.; People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
SEC. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor, Provincial or
City Fiscal. — Appeals from the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or
Provincial or City Fiscal on the recommendation or resolution of
investigating
officers may be made only to the Commission within ten (10) days from
receipt
of the resolution of said officials; Provided, however, that this shall
not divest the Commission of its power to motu proprio review, revise,
modify or reverse the resolution of the chief prosecutor and/or
provincial/city
prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on said appeals shall be
immediately
executory and final. (Rule 34, Section 10, Rules of Procedure for
COMELEC).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Judge Inting, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Lim v. Court of Appeals, et al., 222 SCRA 279 (1993). chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Section 263, Omnibus Election Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Immunities are also provided:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article
XIII, Section 18 (8) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the
Commission
of Human Rights shall have the power to grant immunity from prosecution
to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other
evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation
conducted by it or under its authority.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Presidential
Decree No. 749. Granting immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes
and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft
cases
against public officers.
Presidential
Decree No. 1731, October 8, 1980. Providing for rewards and incentives
to government witnesses and informants and other purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Presidential
Decree No. 1732, October 8, 1980. Providing immunity from criminal
prosecution
to government witnesses and for other purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Republic
Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the "Witness Protection Security and
Benefit
Act."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section
3. Admission into the Program. — Any person who has witnessed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section
17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Discharge of
State
Witness)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec.
17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or more
persons
are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Kastigar vs. United States, 33 Led. 2d. 345.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Piccirillo vs. New York State, 27 L. ed. 2d. 596 (1978).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|