G.R. Nos.

83938-40 November 6, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 

vs.
HON. HENRY B. BASILLA, SALVACION COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION
TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON, respondents.

The Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.

Ruben A. Songco for respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

As an aftermath of the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, complaints for violations of
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed with the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal of Masbate against the private respondents as follows:

1) by Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Governor, against

the spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong — for violation of Section 261, paragraph
a-1, for vote-buying;

2) by Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot — for violation of Section 261,

paragraph a-1, also for vote buying; and

3) by PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson — for violation of Section 261,
paragraph p, for carrying of deadly weapon.

After preliminary investigation of the foregoing complaints, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate filed in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate,. the following criminal complaints: (1,)
Criminal Case No. 324 against the spouses Tayong; (2) Criminal Case No. 326 against Salvacion
Colambot and (3) Criminal Case No. 375 against Melchor Yanson.

In three (3) separate orders, all dated 6 October 1987, and Identical in tenor save for the names of
the accused respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed the three (3) informations filed
by the Provincial Fiscal, giving the following justification:

xxx xxx xxx

The record shows that the complainant filed the complaint with the fiscal and not with
the COMELEC. The COMELEC did not investigate the case.

The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines says:

"Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) The Commission on Election shall exercise

the following powers and functions:

xxx xxx xxx

 ... ; investigate and, when appropriate prosecute cases of violation of
election laws, including acts or omissions, constituting election frauds
offenses, malpractices."

The Omnibus Election Election Code of the Philippines (BP Blg, 881) says:

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. (Sec. 182, 1978,
EC; and Sec. 66. BP 697)

In the landmark case of De Jesus vs. People, L-60998, February 120 SCRA 760, the
the Supreme Court ruled:

The grant to the COMELEC of the power. among others, to enforce

and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election and the
concomitant authority to investigate andprosecute election offenses
is not without compelling reason. The evident constitutional
intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to ensure the
free, and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result i ii
the frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere Idle
ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to
vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and
prosecute election offenses committed by public officials in relation to
their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving
this clear constitutional mandate.

Consistently, and lately, in Corpu[s], et al. vs. Tanodbayan of the Philippines', et al.,
L-62075, April 15, 1987, our Supreme Court rules:

An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Election

Code of 1978 reveals the clear intention to place in the COMELEC
exclusive jurisdiction to investigateand prosecute election offenses
committed by any person, whether private individual or public officer
or employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the
offense is committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other
words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the
offender that matters. As long as the offense is an election offense
jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in
view of its all embracing power over the conduct of election.

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, inasmuch as the election offense was not
investigated and prosecuted by the COMELEC. the case is motu proprio dismissed. 1

The People moved for reconsideration of respondent Judge's orders, without success.
The instant Petition for Review assails the three (3) orders dismissing the three (3 ) criminal
informations against the private respondents, as constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction. The Petition argues principally that the Commission on Elections ("Comelec") has
authority to deputize the chief state prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals and their assistants,
under Sections 2 (4) and (8 ), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, and that the Comelec did
deputize such prosecution officers to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints for alleged
violation of election laws and to institute criminal informations therefor.

The Petition must be granted.

There is no dispute that the Comelec is vested with power and authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Election Code and to prosecute
such offenses in court. Section 265 of this Code reads as follows:

See. 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 complainant may file the complaint with the office of
the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if
warranted. (Sec. 182, 1973 EC; and Sec. 66, BP 697) (Emphasis supplied)

We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary
investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the Comelec, it at the same time
authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Government.
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1 987 Constitution clearly envisage that the Comelec would not be
compelled to carry out all its functions directly and by itself alone:

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and
functions:

(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

xxx xxx xxx

(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcementi agencies and
instrumantalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.

xxx xxx xxx

(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 violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices.

xxx xxx xxx

 (8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard
of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.

xxx xxx xxx

(Emphasis supplied)

The concurrence of the President with the deputation by Comelec of the prosecuting arms of the
Government, was expressed in general terms and in advance in Executive Order No. 134. dated 27
February 1987, entitled "Enabling Act for the Elections for members of Congress on May 11, 1987,
and for other purposes." Executive Order No. 134 provided in pertinent portion as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

See. 11. Prosecution. — Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers,
have exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses
punishable as provided for in the preceding section, and to prosecute the
same: Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any complaint
within two (2) months from filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the
Office the Fiscal or with the Department for Justice for proper investigation and
prosecution, if warranted.

The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government.

(Emphasis supplied)

On 9 March 1987, the Comelec enacted its Resolution No. 1862. The pertinant operative portions of
this resolution are the following:

xxx xxx xxx

NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers vested in

it by the Constitution of the Republic of the, Philippines, the Omnibus Election Code
and Executive Orders Nos. 50, 94, 134 and 144, has RESOLVED to designate, as it
hereby designates the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscalss and
their respective Assistants as its deputies in connection with the elections for
Members of Congress on May 11, 1987, to perform the following duties and
functions:

1. Conduct prelimiry investigation of complaints involving election offenses under the

Omnibus Election Code which may be filed directly with them, or which may be
endorsed to them by the Commission or its authorized representatives; and

2. Whenever a prima facie case exists, file the proper information in court and
prosecute the same.

Preliminary investigation of cases filed directly with, or endorsed to, Provincial and
City Fiscals, and/or their respective Assistants shall be conducted immediately and
shall be finished within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof and, for this purpose,
 they are enjoined to hold office on a twenty-four (24) hour basis during the
registration of voters on April 11 and 12, 1987, on Election Day on May 11, 1987,
and until midnight on Revision Day on May 2, 1987.

Provincial and City Fiscals and their respective Assistants shall submit to the
Commission a report on every case directly filed with them and thereafter, monthly
progress reports on the status of the cases handled by them, including those
endorsed by the Commission or its authorized representatives.

This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 2 (Emphasis supplied)

The contention of private respondents that the deputation by the Comelec of the prosecuting arms of
the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to ensure tree, honest,
orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-keeping functions of
policemen, lack substance. There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article IX-C of the Constitution which
requires such a pinched niggardly interpretation of the authority of the Comelec to appoint as its
deputies, officials or employees of other agencies and instrumentalities of the government. The
prompt investigation and prosecution and disposition of election offenses constitute an indispensable
part of the task of securing free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. The investigation
and prosecution of election offenses are, in an important sense, more important than the
maintenance of physical order in election precinct. 'without the assistance of provincial and city
fiscals and their assistants and staff members, and of the state prosecutors of the Department of
Justice, the prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses committed before or in
the course of nationwide elections would simply not be possible, unless, perhaps, the Comelec had
a bureaucracy many times larger than what it actually has. Moreover, the prosecution officers
designated by the Comelec become deputies or agents of the Comelec and pro tantosubject to the
authority, control and supervision of the Comelec 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 Comelec itself. The only limitation the Constitution itself places
upon the Comelec's authority over its deputies relates to the enforcement of such authority through
administrative sanctions. Such sanctions-e.g., suspension or removal-may be recommended by the
Comelec to the President (Sec. 2 [8], Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution) rather than directly imposed by
the Comelec, evidently, to pre-empt and avoid potential difficulties with the executive department of
the Government where the prosecution and other officers deputized are ordinarily located.

All this the respondent Judge disregarded when he motu proprio dismissed the criminal informations
filed in this case. The cases he cited in his identical orders — De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760
(1983) and Corpus, et al. v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987) can offer him no comfort at all; for
these cases do not relate to the authority of the Comelec to deputize the regular prosecution arms of
the Government for the investigation and prosecution of election offenses and those cases are not in
conflict with our ruling here.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED due course and the Orders
of the trial court all dated October 6, 1987 in Criminal Cases Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and the Order
dated December 7, 1987 in the same cases denying the People's Motion for Reconsideration, are
hereby SET ASIDE and ANNULLED. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed forthwith with the
continuation of Criminal Cases Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and until termination thereof. Costs against
private respondents.

SO ORDERED.