People v. Golez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed on February 2, 1968, charging Retogo Arciga with violation of Section 87 of the Revised Election Code for allegedly absenting himself from his post as a member of the board of election inspectors for more than twenty minutes without permission and taking the keys to the ballot boxes, thereby causing the failure to canvass votes. The offense was allegedly committed on November 14, 1967, an election day, in Roxas City. Procedural History: On May 22, 1968, the respondent Judge Cesario C. Golez dismissed the information, citing the ruling in Albano v. Arranz which held that the Court of First Instance cannot legally conduct a preliminary investigation under Section 13, Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court of an offense in an information filed by the Fiscal. The City Fiscal's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 11, 1968, with the judge reiterating that a preliminary investigation by the Court of First Instance on an information filed by the fiscal is null and void and that courts may ex mero motu dismiss cases for want of jurisdiction. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the City Fiscal, filed a petition for certiorari on July 22, 1968, assailing the dismissal order. The private respondent, Retogo Arciga, filed an answer contending that the fiscal had no authority to file the information and that he was denied due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the information for violation of the Revised Election Code. Whether the Court of First Instance has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of election offenses filed by the Fiscal via an information.
Ruling
The Court directed the respondent judge to refer the records of the case to the Commission on Elections for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's authority to dismiss the information: The Court found that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the information. While the case was filed under the Revised Election Code, the Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Golez, et al. (116 SCRA 165), which involved the same respondent judge and fiscal and a similarly worded information, was applicable. This prior ruling established that by reason of Section 182 of Presidential Decree No. 1296 (The 1978 Election Code), it is no longer the Courts of First Instance but the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that shall conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses. Although PD 1296 was repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), the COMELEC retained its exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses. Therefore, the respondent judge's reliance on Albano v. Arranz was misplaced in light of subsequent amendments and the clear mandate of the Election Code regarding the venue for preliminary investigations of election offenses. The dismissal was premature and erroneous given the established jurisdiction of the COMELEC. On the issue of the Court of First Instance's authority to conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses: The Court reiterated that the authority to conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses has been transferred from the Courts of First Instance to the Commission on Elections. Presidential Decree No. 1296 explicitly vested this power in the COMELEC. This was further reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which made the COMELEC's power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses exclusive, as stated in Section 265. This section clearly provides that the COMELEC shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Code and to prosecute the same. The Court emphasized that the fiscal's role in initiating such cases is now subordinate to the COMELEC's exclusive investigative and prosecutorial power, with a provision for the complainant to file with the fiscal or Ministry of Justice only if the COMELEC fails to act within four months. Thus, the Court of First Instance lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with the preliminary investigation based on an information filed by the fiscal for an election offense.
Main Doctrine
The preliminary investigation of election offenses is now exclusively vested with the Commission on Elections, not the Courts of First Instance, pursuant to PD 1296 and BP 881.