Case Digest: Comelec vs Español

Comelec vs Español : 149164-73 : December 10, 2003 (417 SCRA 554)

Facts: Bautista filed before the LAw Department of the Comelec a complaint against certain individuals for vote buying. By virtue of a resolution, an information was filed against respondents with the RTC. Meanwhile, criminal complaints were filed against Bautista's witnesses for vote selling.

the Law Department of the COMELEC later on recommended that the resolutionof the Office of the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor be nullified because the accused are exempt and that the prosecution of election offesnses were under the sole cotrol of the COMELEC.

Issue: Whether or not the review of the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution by COMELEC and the subsequent request for its nullification was proper.

Held:

Under Article IX, Section 2(b) of the Constitution, 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. 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 but as held in Margarejo vs.Escoses until revoked, the continuing authority of the Provincial or City Prosecutors stays.

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.

Read More

Case Digest: Rulloda vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 154198            January 20, 2003

PETRONILA S. RULLODA vs. COMELEC and REMEGIO PLACIDO

Facts:

Comelec denied petitioner’s request to substitute her deceased husband in the Barangay Chairman Candidacy despite the fact that petitioner apparently garnered the highest votes when constituents wrote her name in the ballots. Respondents cited resolution 4801 and Section 7 of the Omnibus Election Code which prohibits substitution of candidates. Private respondent Placido contended that it was only right that he be proclaimed winner since he was the only one who filed a certificate of candidacy and, hence, the only candidate running.

Issue:

Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion when Comelec denied petitioner’s request that she be allowed to run for elections.

Ruling:

There being no specific provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections, a prohibition against said substitution cannot be said to exist.

Petitioner’s letter-request was considered a certificate of candidacy when COMELEC issued its resolution denying the same. In the contested election, it was petitioner who obtained the plurality of votes. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.

Read More