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.
