Faelnar v. People
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eugenio Faelnar filed a certificate of candidacy for Barangay Chairman. Subsequently, a basketball tournament, the "2nd JING-JING FAELNAR'S CUP," was held outside the official campaign period. A complaint for electioneering was filed against petitioner, alleging that the tournament was a campaign gimmick, evidenced by a streamer with his name, repeated mentions over the microphone, newspaper publicity, and a raffle with prizes. Petitioner denied participation, claiming the event was sponsored by Gillamac Marketing, Inc. and was for the youth. Procedural History: The COMELEC's Law Department recommended filing cases against petitioner and Cecilio Gillamac for violation of election laws. The COMELEC en banc initially dismissed the case but later reconsidered and ordered the filing of Informations. Petitioner and Gillamac were charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. Petitioner moved to quash the information, arguing that the initial dismissal resolution was immediately executory and irreconsiderable. The RTC denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the RTC orders. He reiterated his argument that the COMELEC's dismissal resolution was immediately final and executory, making the subsequent order to file charges ultra vires. He also contended that the motion for reconsideration filed by Antonio Luy was a prohibited pleading.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari to set aside the trial court's denial of the motion to quash is the proper remedy to assail a COMELEC resolution. Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 97-3040, which dismissed the criminal complaint, was immediately final and executory, precluding reconsideration. Whether a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling of the COMELEC in election offense cases is allowed under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Whether Section 10, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, regarding the finality of decisions on appeals from provincial or city fiscals, applies to resolutions made by the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cebu City, dated July 29, 1999, and October 4, 1999, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari to set aside the trial court's denial of the motion to quash was an improper remedy. The petitioner's grounds were directed at the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 98-2914, which ordered the filing of charges. The proper remedy to annul such a resolution was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, filed within 30 days from notice. The present petition was filed more than a year after the COMELEC resolution, rendering it final and binding. The Court emphasized that this petition was an attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the COMELEC. On the finality and reconsiderability of the COMELEC dismissal resolution: The Court found the petitioner's contention that the dismissal resolution was immediately final and irreconsiderable to be untenable. The petitioner relied on the 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which prohibited motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings. However, the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which were in effect, explicitly allowed motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings, orders, or decisions except in election offense cases. The Court clarified that the exception was removed, and motions for reconsideration are indeed allowed in election offense cases under the current rules. On the allowance of a motion for reconsideration in election offense cases: The Supreme Court clarified that under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order, or decision is allowed in election offense cases. Therefore, Antonio Luy's motion for reconsideration of COMELEC Resolution No. 97-3040 was a permissible pleading, contrary to the petitioner's assertion. On the applicability of Rule 34, Section 10: The Court distinguished the present case from the scenario governed by Rule 34, Section 10 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. That rule pertains to appeals from the resolutions of the State Prosecutor or Provincial/City Fiscal on the recommendation of investigating officers. In such cases, the COMELEC's decision on the appeal is immediately executory and final because it represents a second look at the probable cause determination. However, when the COMELEC itself conducts the preliminary investigation, its en banc resolution determining probable cause is subject to a motion for reconsideration under the general rules, allowing for a review of the initial resolution.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to set aside trial court orders denying a motion to quash, which are based on the alleged invalidity of a COMELEC resolution, is an improper remedy when the petitioner failed to file a timely special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to annul the COMELEC resolution itself. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC en banc resolution in election offense cases is permissible under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and the finality of such resolutions is governed by specific rules pertaining to the COMELEC's original jurisdiction over preliminary investigations, not those concerning appeals from provincial or city fiscals.