7/23/2019 Case123

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case123 1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G. R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60 February 1! "00#

COMM$SS$ON ON E%ECT$ONS! petitioner,

vs.

ON %UCEN$TO N. T'G%E! Pres()(*+ ,u)+e! Re+(o*a Tr(a Cour! /ra* "0! $2us!

Ca3(e! respondent.

D E C I S I N

'$E! ,R.! CJ.:

In this special civil action for certiorari and !anda!us, petitioner Co!!ission on Elections"CME#EC$ see%s the nullification of the orders of &' March ())&& and * Ma+ ())&( of respondent

ud-e #ucenito N. a-le of the Re-ional rial Court "RC$, Branch (), I!us, Cavite, den+in-

petitioner/s !otion to dis!iss Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)) and !otion for

reconsideration, respectivel+.

Durin- the && Ma+ &**3 elections, 4lorentino A. Bautista ran for the position of !a+or in the

Municipalit+ of 5a6it, Cavite. n 3 ul+ &**3, he filed 6ith the CME#EC a co!plaint a-ainst then

incu!bent !a+or Att+. 4ederico Poblete, Bienvenido Pobre, Re+naldo A-uinaldo, Arturo 7anibe,

#eonardo #lave, Diosdado del Rosario, Manuel 8bod, An-elito Pere-rino, Mario Espiritu, Salvador

laes and Pedro Paterno, r., for violation of Section ('& "a$ and "b$ of the !nibus Election Code.

he co!plaint 6as supported b+ the separate affidavits of fort+2four "99$ 6itnesses attestin- to the

vote2bu+in- activities of the respondents and 6as doc%eted as E.. Case No. *32(&*.

n (1 4ebruar+ &***, upon the reco!!endation of its #a6 Depart!ent, the CME#EC en banc

issued a resolution: directin- the filin- of the necessar+ infor!ation a-ainst the respondents in E..

Case No. *32(&* and authori;in- the Director I< of the #a6 Depart!ent to desi-nate a CME#EC

prosecutor to handle the prosecution of the cases and to file the appropriate !otion for the

preventive suspension of the respondents.

he #a6 Depart!ent filed the correspondin- infor!ation a-ainst the respondents in E.. Case No.

*32(&* before the RC, Branch *), I!us, Cavite, 6hich 6as doc%eted as Cri!inal Case No. 0):92

**.

Before the trial of Cri!inal Case No. 0):92** co!!enced, or on ( Dece!ber &***, a co!plaint 6as

filed b+ Innocencio Rodelas and 7erardo Macapa-al 6ith the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor in

I!us, Cavite, for violation of Section ('&"a$ of the !nibus Election Code a-ainst the 6itnesses in

the cri!inal case for vote2bu+in-, 6ho 6ere the 6itnesses in E.. Case No. *32(&*. he co!plaint

6as doc%eted as I.S. No. &2**2&)3).

n &) April ())), the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor resolved to file separate infor!ations for

vote2sellin- in the various branches of the RC in I!us, Cavite, a-ainst the respondents in I.S. No.

7/23/2019 Case123

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case123 2/5

&2**2&)3). he cases 6ere doc%eted as "&$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*9)2)) to 0*9*2)) and 0*3&2)),

6hich 6ere assi-ned to Branch ((= "($ Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*0:2)) to 0*0*2)) and 0*0)2)),

assi-ned to Branch (&= ":$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)), assi-ned to

Branch ()= and "9$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*')2)) to 0*'*2)), assi-ned to Branch *).

n (: une ())), the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3) appealed before the CME#EC the &)

 April ())) Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor. n ' ul+ ())), the CME#EC en banc denied

the appeal for lac% of >urisdiction.9 ?o6ever, upon the ur-ent !otion to set for hearin- the appeal, the

CME#EC en banc resolved to defer action on the appeal and refer the sa!e to the #a6

Depart!ent for co!!ent and reco!!endation.1

he #a6 Depart!ent of the CME#EC filed !otions to suspend proceedin-s before Branches (),

(&, (( and *) of the RC of I!us, Cavite, until the CME#EC 6ould have resolved the appeal of the

respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3). he Presidin- ud-e of Branch (( -ranted the !otion for the

suspension of proceedin-s in Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*9)2)) to 0*9*2)) and 0*3&2)). 1awphi1.nét 

In its Minute Resolution No. ))2(91:,' the CME#EC en banc, upon the reco!!endation of its #a6

Depart!ent, declared null and void the resolution of the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S.No. &2**2&)3). It held that the respondents therein are e@e!pt fro! cri!inal prosecution pursuant to

the fourth para-raph of Section (3 of R.A. No. ''9',0 other6ise %no6n as he Electoral Refor!s

#a6 of &*30, 6hich -rants i!!unit+ fro! cri!inal prosecution persons 6ho voluntaril+ -ive

infor!ation and 6illin-l+ testif+ a-ainst those liable for vote2bu+in- or vote2sellin-. It further directed

the #a6 Depart!ent to file the necessar+ !otions to dis!iss the cri!inal cases filed a-ainst the said

respondents.

Pursuant to Minute Resolution No. ))2(91:, the #a6 Depart!ent filed a !otion to dis!iss3 Cri!inal

Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)) before Branch () of the RC of I!us, Cavite, presided

b+ herein respondent >ud-e. he latter, ho6ever, denied the said !otion and the !otion for

reconsideration.1a\^/phi1.net  Accordin- to respondent >ud-e, before one can be e@e!pt fro! prosecution under

the fourth para-raph of Section (3 of R.A. No. ''9', it is necessar+ that such person has alread+perfor!ed the overt act of voluntaril+ -ivin- infor!ation or testif+in- in an+ official investi-ation or

proceedin- for the offense to 6hich such infor!ation or testi!on+ 6as -iven. It 6as thus pre!ature

to e@e!pt the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3) fro! cri!inal prosecution, since the+ have not +et

testified.

?ence, this petition, ascribin- to the respondent >ud-e -rave abuse of discretion a!ountin- to

e@cess or lac% of >urisdiction in pere!ptoril+ den+in- the prosecution/s !otion to dis!iss Cri!inal

Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)).

his Court referred the petition to the ffice of the Solicitor 7eneral "S7$ and reuired it to

!anifest 6hether it is adoptin- the petition.* In a Manifestation and Motion&) filed 6ith this Court, the

S7 stated that it repleads the sub!issions contained in the petition and adopts the petition as itso6n.

he petition is !eritorious.

 A free, orderl+, honest, peaceful, and credible election is indispensable in a de!ocratic societ+.

ithout it, de!ocrac+ 6ould not flourish and 6ould be a sha!. Election offenses, such as vote2

bu+in- and vote2sellin-, are evils 6hich prostitute the election process. he+ destro+ the sanctit+ of

7/23/2019 Case123

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case123 3/5

the votes and abet the entr+ of dishonest candidates into the corridors of po6er 6here the+ !a+ do

!ore har!. As the Bible sa+s, one 6ho is dishonest in ver+ s!all !atters is dishonest in -reat ones.

ne 6ho co!!its dishonest+ in his entr+ into an elective office throu-h the prostitution of the

electoral process cannot be reasonabl+ e@pected to respect and adhere to the constitutional precept

that a public office is a public trust, and that all -overn!ent officials and e!plo+ees !ust at all ti!es

be accountable to the people and e@ercise their duties 6ith ut!ost responsibilit+, inte-rit+, lo+alt+,

and efficienc+.

he provision of la6 alle-ed to have been violated b+ the respondents in E.. Case No. *32(&*, 6ho

are the accused in Cri!inal Case No. 0):92**, reads as follo6s

SEC. ('&. Prohibited Acts. 2 he follo6in- shall be -uilt+ of an election offense

"a$ <ote2bu+in- and vote2sellin-. 2 "&$ An+ person 6ho -ives, offers or pro!ises !one+ or

an+thin- of value, -ives or pro!ises an+ office or e!plo+!ent, franchise or -rant, public or

private, or !a%es or offers to !a%e an e@penditure, directl+ or indirectl+, or cause an

e@penditure to be !ade to an+ person, association, corporation, entit+, or co!!unit+ in order 

to induce an+one or the public in -eneral to vote for or a-ainst an+ candidate or 6ithhold hisvote in the election, or to vote for or a-ainst an+ aspirant for the no!ination or choice of a

candidate in a convention or si!ilar selection process of a political part+.

"($ An+ person, association, corporation, -roup or co!!unit+ 6ho solicits or

receives, directl+ or indirectl+, an+ e@penditure or pro!ise of an+ office or

e!plo+!ent, public or private, for an+ of the fore-oin- considerations.

"b$ Conspirac+ to bribe voters. 2 6o or !ore persons 6hether candidates or not, 6ho co!e

to an a-ree!ent concernin- the co!!ission of an+ violation of para-raph "a$ of this section

and decide to co!!it it.

ne of the effective 6a+s of preventin- the co!!ission of vote2bu+in- and of prosecutin- thoseco!!ittin- it is the -rant of i!!unit+ fro! cri!inal liabilit+ in favor of the part+ 6hose vote 6as

bou-ht. his -rant of i!!unit+ 6ill encoura-e the recipient or acceptor to co!e into the open and

denounce the culprit2candidate, and 6ill ensure the successful prosecution of the cri!inal case

a-ainst the latter. Con-ress sa6 the 6isdo! of this proposition, and so Section (3 of R.A. No. ''9'

on Prosecution of <ote2Bu+in- and <ote2Sellin- concludes 6ith this para-raph

he -iver, offeror, the pro!isor as 6ell as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to

in para-raphs "a$ and "b$ of Section ('& of Batas Pa!bansa Bl-. 33& shall be liable as principals

Provided, hat an+ person, other6ise -uilt+ under said para-raphs 6ho voluntaril+ -ives infor!ation

and 6illin-l+ testifies on an+ violation thereof in an+ official investi-ation or proceedin- shall be

e@e!pt fro! prosecution and punish!ent for the offenses 6ith reference to 6hich his infor!ation

and testi!on+ 6ere -iven Provided, further, hat nothin- herein shall e@e!pt such person fro!

cri!inal prosecution for per>ur+ or false testi!on+.

?o6ever, to avoid possible fabrication of evidence a-ainst the vote2bu+ers, especiall+ b+ the latter/s

opponents, Con-ress sa6 it fit to 6arn vote2sellers 6ho denounce the vote2bu+in- that the+ could

be liable for per>ur+ or false testi!on+ should the+ not tell the truth.

7/23/2019 Case123

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case123 4/5

It !ust be stressed that the CME#EC has the e@clusive po6er to conduct preli!inar+ investi-ation

of all election offenses punishable under the election la6s and to prosecute the sa!e, e@cept as

!a+ other6ise be provided b+ la6.&& he Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and Cit+ Prosecutors,

or their respective assistants are, ho6ever, -iven continuin- authorit+, as deputies of the CME#EC,

to conduct preli!inar+ investi-ation of co!plaints involvin- election offenses and to prosecute the

sa!e.&( his authorit+ !a+ be revo%ed or 6ithdra6n b+ the CME#EC an+ti!e 6henever, in its

 >ud-!ent, such revocation or 6ithdra6al is necessar+ to protect the inte-rit+ of the CME#EC andto pro!ote the co!!on -ood, or 6hen it believes that the successful prosecution of the case can be

done b+ the CME#EC.&:

In this case, 6hen the CME#EC nullified the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. &2

**2&)3), 6hich 6as the basis of the infor!ations for vote2sellin-, it, in effect, 6ithdre6 the

deputation -ranted to the prosecutor. Such 6ithdra6al of the deputation 6as clearl+ in order,

considerin- the circu!stances obtainin- in these cases 6here those 6ho voluntaril+ e@ecuted

affidavits attestin- to the vote2bu+in- incident and beca!e 6itnesses a-ainst the vote2bu+ers no6

stand as accused for the sa!e acts the+ had earlier denounced. hat the Prosecutor did 6as to

sabota-e the prosecution of the cri!inal case a-ainst the vote2bu+ers and put in serious peril the

inte-rit+ of the CME#EC, 6hich filed the said case for vote2bu+in-. If the Prosecutor had listened to

the co!!and of prudence and -ood faith, he should have brou-ht the !atter to the attention of the

CME#EC.

Petitioner CME#EC found that the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3), 6ho e@ecuted affidavits and

turned 6itnesses in Cri!inal Case No. 0):92**, voluntaril+ ad!itted that the+ 6ere the acceptors or

recipients in the vote2bu+in- done b+ the accused in said case. It 6as precisel+ because of such

voluntar+ ad!ission and 6illin-ness to testif+ that the CME#EC en banc, in its Minute Resolution

No. ))2(91:, declared null and void the resolution of the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite

in I.S. No. &2**2&)3) and held that the respondents therein are e@e!pt fro! cri!inal prosecution

pursuant to the last para-raph of Section (3 of R.A. No. ''9'. ?ence, it directed its #a6 Depart!ent

to file a !otion to dis!iss the cri!inal cases 6hich the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor filed in

court a-ainst the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3).

e a-ree 6ith the petitioner and hold that the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3), 6ho are the

accused in Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)), are e@e!pt fro! cri!inal

prosecution for vote2sellin- b+ virtue of the proviso in the last para-raph of Section (3 of R.A. No.

''9'. Respondent >ud-e lost si-ht of the fact that at the ti!e the co!plaint for vote2sellin- 6as filed

6ith the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor, the respondents in I.S. No. &2**2&)3) had alread+

e@ecuted s6orn state!ents attestin- to the corrupt practice of vote2bu+in- in the case doc%eted as

Cri!inal Case No. 0):92**. It cannot then be denied that the+ had alread+ voluntaril+ -iven

infor!ation in the vote2bu+in- case. In fact, the+ 6illin-l+ testified in Cri!inal Case No. 0):92** per

petitioner/s Me!orandu! filed 6ith this Court.&9

In a futile atte!pt to >ustif+ his denial of the !otion to dis!iss Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)), respondent >ud-e averred in his co!!ent on the petition that nothin- 6as

!entioned in the !otion to dis!iss that the accused in said cases had alread+ -iven infor!ation or

testified in an+ proceedin-. 1a\^/phi1.net  Besides, no record of an+ preli!inar+ investi-ation 6as attached to the

!otion to dis!iss. he petitioner !erel+ referred to the dispositive portion of Minute Resolution No.

))2(91: 6ithout !entionin- an+ preli!inar+ investi-ation conducted b+ the #a6 Depart!ent of the

CME#EC.

7/23/2019 Case123

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case123 5/5

his contention is 6ithout basis. A readin- of the !otion to dis!iss Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to

0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)) sho6s that a certified true cop+ of CME#EC Minute Resolution No. ))2(91:

6as attached thereto and 6as !ade an inte-ral part thereof. he attached resolution indicated that

the accused in the cases sou-ht to be dis!issed had voluntaril+ -iven infor!ation and 6ere 6illin-

to testif+ a-ainst the vote2bu+ers, and are therefore utili;ed as 6itnesses in the pendin- case for

vote2bu+ers doc%eted as Cri!inal Case No. 0):92**.

Clearl+ then, respondent >ud-e co!!itted -rave abuse of discretion 6hen he denied the !otion to

dis!iss Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)) despite CME#EC/s deter!ination

that the accused therein are e@e!pt fro! cri!inal prosecution for vote2sellin- pursuant to the

proviso in the fourth para-raph of Section (3 of R.A. No. ''9'.

?ERE4RE, the petition is 7RANED. he challen-ed orders dated &' March ())& and * Ma+

())& of respondent >ud-e in Cri!inal Cases Nos. 0*1)2)) to 0*1*2)) and 0*3)2)) before Branch

() of the Re-ional rial Court in I!us, Cavite, are hereb+ SE ASIDE, and said cri!inal cases are

ordered DISMISSED.

No pronounce!ent as to costs.

S RDERED.

Bellosillo, Puno, <itu-, Mendo;a, Pan-aniban, uisu!bin-, Fnares2Santia-o, Sandoval27utierre;,

Carpio, Austria2Martine;, Corona, Carpio2Morales and A;cuna, ., concur.

Calle>o, r., ., no part.