Commission On Elections v. Honorable Manuel v. Romillo, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 24, 1972, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) filed four (4) criminal complaints against Eden Asuncion for election offenses allegedly committed on November 8, 1971, at Polling Precinct No. 58, Laoag City. These cases were filed for preliminary investigation. The offenses charged were: (1) violation of Section 61 of the Election Code of 1971 for carrying a gun inside the polling place; (2) violation of Section 172 for unlawfully entering the polling place; (3) violation of Section 231(a), par. 25 for employing unlawful means to discover or read the contents of ballots; and (4) violation of Section 231(a), par. 32 for disorderly conduct interrupting voting proceedings. Procedural History: After preliminary investigation, the respondent Judge dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. 119-II, 121-II, and 122-II for insufficiency of evidence. He also quashed the complaint in Criminal Case No. 120-II, ruling that the mere presence of an unauthorized person in a polling place does not constitute an offense. The COMELEC's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The COMELEC filed a Petition for certiorari and Mandamus seeking to annul the respondent Judge's Orders dismissing the complaints and quashing the charge in Criminal Case No. 120-II.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the criminal complaints for election offenses. Whether the mere presence of an unauthorized person in a polling place constitutes a violation of Section 172 of the Election Code of 1971.
Ruling
The Petition for certiorari and mandamus is denied. The quashal of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 120-II is upheld, as is the dismissal of the other cases, for insufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the criminal complaints for election offenses: The Supreme Court held that while the respondent Judge may have erred in his rationalization for quashing the complaint in Criminal Case No. 120-II, the dismissal of all the cases would still be upheld on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The Court found that the testimony of the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors did not establish a prima facie case against the accused, Eden Asuncion. The Chairman testified that he stopped Asuncion from entering the voting booth and sent him out, and that he never saw Asuncion carrying a firearm or watching voters fill up ballots. Therefore, the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the charges. On the issue of whether the mere presence of an unauthorized person in a polling place constitutes a violation of Section 172 of the Election Code of 1971: The Supreme Court acknowledged that Section 172 of the Election Code of 1971, when read in relation to Sections 230 and 233, is penal in character. Section 172 lists the persons allowed inside a polling place during voting. However, the Court ultimately found that the evidence presented did not prove that Eden Asuncion violated this provision. The testimony indicated that Asuncion was stopped from entering the voting booth and was sent out, implying that his unauthorized presence was brief and that he did not engage in any prohibited activities within the polling place that would violate the sanctity of the ballot.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal complaint for insufficiency of evidence, even if the judge's reasoning for the dismissal is flawed, will be upheld if the evidence presented does not establish a prima facie case against the accused.