EN BANC

[G.R. No. 210303. April 21, 2015.]

BERTRAND A. BATERINA, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated
APRIL 21, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210303 — BERTRAND A. BATERINA, Petitioner, v.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, and RONALD SINGSON, Respondents.
In this Petition for Certiorari, petitioner Bertrand A. Baterina assails the
August 15, 2013 and October 24, 2013 Resolutions of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which respectively dismissed
Baterina's petition for Quo Warranto for having been filed out of time and
denied his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Baterina likewise assails
the August 13, 2013 Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
dismissing the Petition for Disqualification he filed against private respondent
Ronald V. Singson.
In the May 13, 2013 local elections, petitioner Baterina and Singson
contended for the position of Representative of the First District of Ilocos Sur.
However, shortly before the election, on April 24, 2013, Baterina filed with the
COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification with Motion to Suspend Proclamation
Ad Cautelam against Singson on the ground that the latter was disqualified as
a candidate for having been convicted by final judgment of drug trafficking,
which is allegedly an offense involving moral turpitude.
The day after the elections, on May 14, 2013, with Singson garnering
83,910 votes as against 40,135 for Baterina, the former was proclaimed the
winning candidate.
On June 27, 2013, while Baterina's Petition for Disqualification was
pending with the COMELEC, he filed a Petition for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam
(On the Eligibility of Ronald V. Singson as Member of the House of
Representatives) with the HRET, wherein he again alleged that Singson was
disqualified to run for public office on account of his final conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
On August 13, 2013, the COMELEC issued the first assailed Resolution
dismissing the disqualification case for lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent
portions of the resolution read:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 However, the instant case has been overtaken by the 13 May
2013 Elections wherein Respondent was proclaimed as the winning
candidate for Member of the House of Representatives for the First
District of Ilocos Sur. For lack of jurisdiction, the Commission is
precluded from taking cognizance of the instant case.
In view of the fact that Respondent is now a bona fide Member of
the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction to try this electoral case is
not anymore with the Commission but with the HRET. 1
On August 27, 2013, Baterina, claiming that "to date, and despite the
lapse of the period to decide, this Honorable Commission has yet to issue a
Decision/Resolution on the Petition filed by the Petitioner," 2 withdrew his
Petition for Disqualification with the COMELEC. Baterina received the assailed
Resolution by the COMELEC on August 28, 2013.
In the meantime, on August 15, 2013, the HRET issued the second
assailed Resolution dismissing Baterina's petition for quo warranto. The HRET,
noting that Singson was proclaimed on May 14, 2013, ruled that the filing of
the petition on June 27, 2013 was beyond the reglementary period of 15 days
from the proclamation of the winner.
On September 19, 2013, Baterina filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
alleging that there is a need to revisit the HRET Rules with respect to the
period for filing a petition for quo warranto in light of the pronouncement of
this Court in Reyes v. COMELEC 3 that the jurisdiction of the HRET begins once
the winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office.
On October 24, 2013, the HRET issued the third assailed Resolution
denying Baterina's Motion for Reconsideration. According to the HRET, the
argument of Baterina that the jurisdiction of the HRET began only at noon of
June 30, 2013 is inconsistent with his filing of the petition for quo warranto on
June 27, 2013.
On December 26, 2013, Baterina filed the present petition for Certiorari
assailing the August 13, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC and the August 15,
2013 and October 24, 2013 Resolutions of the HRET on the following grounds:
I.
THE HONORABLE COMELEC AND THE HONORABLE HRET ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN THEY DID NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CONVICTION OF
RESPONDENT SINGSON FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING IN HONG KONG,
WHICH WOULD WARRANT HIS DISQUALIFICATION AND/OR
INELIGIBILITY AS MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FIRST DISTRICT OF ILOCOS SUR.
II.
THE HONORABLE COMELEC AND THE HONORABLE HRET ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
UPHOLDING THE CANDIDACY OF RESPONDENT SINGSON AS A
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRST DISTRICT
OF ILOCOS SUR IN THE 13 MAY 2013 ELECTIONS.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 III.
THE HONORABLE COMELEC AND THE HONORABLE HRET ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
NOT PROCLAIMING THE PETITIONER AS THE LONE AND WINNING
CANDIDATE FOR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FIRST DISTRICT OF ILOCOS SUR IN THE 13 MAY 2013 ELECTIONS
DUE TO THE APPARENT DISQUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENT
SINGSON.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COMELEC AND HONORABLE HRET ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT SINGSON FILED AN
INVALID "COC" AND WAS THEREFORE NOT A CANDIDATE FOR MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRST DISTRICT OF
ILOCOS SUR FOR THE 13 MAY 2013 ELECTIONS.
V.
THE HONORABLE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT RESOLVE
THE PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONER WITHIN
THE MANDATORY PERIOD OF RESOLVING IT FROM THE TIME IT WAS
SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION.
VI.
THE HONORABLE HRET ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE
PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO DESPITE HAVING BEEN TIMELY FILED. 4
Whether there was grave abuse of
discretion in the August 13, 2013
resolution of the Comelec
As previously discussed, Baterina moved to withdraw the Petition for
Disqualification he filed with the COMELEC in a Manifestation filed on August
27, 2013. Baterina, who received the assailed August 13, 2013 Resolution on
August 28, 2013, claimed in his Manifestation that "to date, and despite the
lapse of the period to decide, this Honorable Commission has yet to issue a
Decision/Resolution on the Petition filed by the Petitioner." 5 With his
withdrawal of the petition for disqualification, Baterina is deemed to have
waived his right to assail the same.
Baterina may have also overlooked that it is Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court, in relation to Rule 65 thereof, which governs the review of judgments
and final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC. Under said rule, particularly
Section 3 thereof, the period within which to file a petition for certiorari is 30
days, starting from notice of the judgment and final order or resolution sought
to be reviewed. In this case, the Petition for Certiorari was filed on December
26, 2013, or 120 days after notice, thus, way beyond the reglementary period
of just 30 days, and should be dismissed with respect to its prayer to declare
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the COMELEC Resolution void.
Whether there was grave abuse of
discretion in the resolutions of the
HRET
Singson was proclaimed on May 14, 2013. Baterina filed with the HRET
his Petition for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam on June 27, 2013, way beyond the
period provided for in Rule 17 of the 2011 Rules of the HRET, which provides:
RULE 17. Quo Warranto. — A verified petition for quo warranto
contesting the election of a Member of the House of Representatives on
the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines shall be filed by any registered voter of the district
concerned within fifteen (15) days from the date of the proclamation of
the winner. The party filing the petition shall be designated as the
petitioner while the adverse party shall be known as the respondent.
On Motion for Reconsideration, Baterina alleged that there is a need to
revisit the HRET Rules with respect to the period for filing a petition for quo
warranto in light with the pronouncement of this Court in Reyes v. COMELEC
6 that the jurisdiction of the HRET begins once the winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office. However, as correctly
discussed in the assailed resolution, the argument of Baterina that the
jurisdiction of the HRET began only at noon of June 30, 2013 is inconsistent
with his invocation of the jurisdiction of the HRET on June 27, 2013.
The HRET, therefore, was not in error, much less in grave abuse of
discretion, when it dismissed Baterina's Petition for Quo Warranto.
Nevertheless, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the
HRET had jurisdiction over the petition, the same would still fail even when
adjudged on the merits.
Baterina claims that Singson's alleged conviction in Hong Kong, which
he asserts to be a crime involving moral turpitude, warrants Singson's
disqualification and ineligibility as a Member of the House of Representatives.
Baterina contends that the fact of his conviction is of notorious public
knowledge and subject to mandatory judicial notice on account of the
extensive media coverage.
Contrary to Baterina's argument, it is well-settled that our courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, foreign judgments
must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. 7 The printout 8
of the downloaded copy of the Hong Kong decision from an unverified website
cannot therefore be considered in evidence.
However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the HRET
can take judicial notice of the conviction of Singson in a Hong Kong court, and
consider the printout submitted by Baterina as authentic, we nevertheless
find that such judgment would not warrant his disqualification based on
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides:
Section 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been
declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been
sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or
for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been
given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
These disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be
deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said
insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a
period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same
period he again becomes disqualified.
The printout of the Hong Kong judgment provides that Singson, while
charged for the offense of trafficking in dangerous drugs, pleaded guilty to and
was found to have merely possessed the illegal drugs for his own
consumption. 9
We have held that moral turpitude implies something "immoral in itself,
regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not merely be
mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the
act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral
turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves
immoral but whose illegality lies in the fact of their being positively
prohibited." 10 Mere possession of a prohibited drug cannot be considered
immoral by itself if it were not punishable by law, much like illegal possession
of a deadly weapon 11 and incidental participation in illegal recruitment. 12
This, however, should be distinguished from the act of pushing said prohibited
drugs. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado, 13 the case cited by
Baterina in order to prove that possession of a prohibited drug is a crime
involving moral turpitude, the respondent therein was held guilty of both
selling and possession of said drugs. A careful examination of the discussion by
this Court shows that it is the pushing or selling of said prohibited drugs, and
not the mere possession thereof, that is considered a crime involving moral
turpitude:
This case involves a conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude as a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Law.
Under the rules of the Civil Service Commission, conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude is considered a grave offense punishable, upon
first commission, by dismissal. As this Court has held, it alone suffices
as a ground for the dismissal of a civil service employee.
Drug-pushing, as a crime, has been variously condemned as "an
especially vicious crime," "one of the most pernicious evils that has ever
crept into our society." For those who become addicted to it "not only
slide into the ranks of the living dead, what is worse, they become a
grave menace to the safety of law-abiding members of society," while
"peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction. They deserve no
less than the maximum penalty [of death]."
There is no doubt that drug-pushing is a crime which involves
moral turpitude and implies "everything which is done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals" including "acts of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes
to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the accepted rule
of right and duty between man and man." Indeed nothing is more
depraved than for anyone to be a merchant of death by selling
prohibited drugs, an act which, as this Court said in one case, often
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 breeds other crimes. It is not what we might call a 'contained' crime
whose consequences are limited to that crime alone, like swindling and
bigamy. Court and police records show that a significant number of
murders, rapes, and similar offenses have been committed by persons
under the influence of dangerous drugs, or while they are 'high.' While
spreading such drugs, the drug-pusher is also abetting, through his
greed and irresponsibility, the commission of other crimes.
In all, we find that Baterina has presented insufficient basis for his
charge that the COMELEC and the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion
in dismissing his Petitions for Disqualification and Quo Warranto, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED."
Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., no part. (adv52)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

6. Supra note 3.
7. Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014; Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas,
G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 266, 281; Garcia v. Recio, 418
Phil. 723, 732 (2001).

8. Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 347-352.

13. 329 Phil. 432, 435-436 (1996).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com