Commission On Elections v. Tagle
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the May 11, 1998 elections, Florentino A. Bautista, a mayoral candidate in Kawit, Cavite, filed a complaint with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against the incumbent mayor and others for alleged vote-buying. Subsequently, witnesses who provided affidavits and testified in the vote-buying case were themselves charged with vote-selling based on a complaint filed by Innocencio Rodelas and Gerardo Macapagal. 2. Procedural History: The COMELEC initially directed the filing of informations for vote-buying. However, after the witnesses were charged with vote-selling, the COMELEC denied their appeal regarding the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution to file charges. The COMELEC later reconsidered, declared the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution void, and found the witnesses exempt from prosecution for vote-selling under R.A. No. 6646, directing the dismissal of the cases. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, presided by Judge Lucenito N. Tagle, denied the COMELEC's motion to dismiss these vote-selling cases, prompting the COMELEC to file the instant petition. 3. The Petition: The COMELEC filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to nullify the RTC's orders denying its motion to dismiss the vote-selling cases. The COMELEC argued that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to dismiss the cases, as the witnesses had already voluntarily given information and testified in the vote-buying case, thereby qualifying them for exemption from prosecution for vote-selling under Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the criminal cases for vote-selling. Whether the accused in the vote-selling cases are exempt from criminal prosecution under Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The challenged orders dated 16 March 2001 and 9 May 2001 of respondent judge in Criminal Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00 before Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court in Imus, Cavite, are SET ASIDE, and said criminal cases are ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the criminal cases for vote-selling. The Court reiterated that the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses and to prosecute them, and can withdraw the deputation of provincial prosecutors. In this case, the COMELEC nullified the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor, effectively withdrawing the deputation, because the witnesses in the vote-buying case had become accused in a vote-selling case for the same acts they denounced. On the issue of exemption from prosecution: The Court found that the respondents in the vote-selling cases (accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00) were indeed exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-selling by virtue of the proviso in the last paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646. This exemption applies to any person otherwise guilty under the said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding. The respondent judge erred in requiring prior testimony, as the exemption is triggered by the voluntary giving of information and willingness to testify, which had already occurred when the respondents executed sworn statements attesting to vote-buying and became witnesses in the related vote-buying case (Criminal Case No. 7034-99). The attached certified true copy of COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 00-2453 clearly indicated that the accused had voluntarily given information and were willing to testify, thus qualifying them for exemption. The respondent judge's denial of the motion to dismiss, despite this clear determination by the COMELEC, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses and to prosecute the same, and may withdraw the deputation of provincial prosecutors. Persons who voluntarily give information and willingly testify on violations of vote-buying and vote-selling provisions are exempt from criminal prosecution under Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646, provided they testify truthfully.