Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito J. Cardino were candidates for Mayor of Dapitan City in the May 2010 elections. Cardino filed a petition to deny due course and cancel Jalosjos' certificate of candidacy, alleging that Jalosjos falsely represented his eligibility. Cardino asserted that Jalosjos had been convicted of robbery by final judgment and had not served his sentence, despite a subsequent probation order and a certification of compliance. The COMELEC's investigation revealed that Jalosjos' probation was revoked in 1987, and a certification of compliance later issued was found to be fraudulent by the Sandiganbayan. 2. Procedural History: The COMELEC First Division granted Cardino's petition and cancelled Jalosjos' certificate of candidacy on May 10, 2010, finding that Jalosjos had made a material misrepresentation regarding his eligibility due to his unserved sentence. The COMELEC En Banc denied Jalosjos' motion for reconsideration on August 11, 2010, ordering him ousted from office and directing that succession rules apply. Jalosjos filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 193237), which this Court initially dismissed on February 22, 2011. Cardino also filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 193536) challenging the COMELEC's application of succession rules. The cases were consolidated. Jalosjos later resigned as Mayor, but the Court determined the cases were not moot. 3. The Petition: In G.R. No. 139237, Jalosjos argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by ruling his probation was revoked, that he was disqualified, and by cancelling his certificate of candidacy without finding deliberate misrepresentation. He claimed good faith reliance on prior COMELEC decisions. In G.R. No. 193536, Cardino argued the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by applying succession rules instead of declaring him the elected mayor, as Jalosjos' certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's cancellation of Jalosjos' certificate of candidacy, holding that his conviction for robbery with a sentence of prisión mayor carried accessory penalties of perpetual special disqualification, rendering him ineligible. The Court modified the COMELEC En Banc resolution to declare Cardino as the duly elected Mayor, having run unopposed due to Jalosjos' void certificate of candidacy.
Issue(s)
Whether Jalosjos's final conviction for robbery, which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification, renders him ineligible to run for public office. Whether Jalosjos's declaration of eligibility in his COC, despite his ineligibility, constitutes a false material representation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, warranting the cancellation of his COC. Whether the rule on succession under the Local Government Code applies, or if the second-placer (Cardino) should be proclaimed the winner upon the cancellation of the first-placer's (Jalosjos's) COC.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 193237 is DENIED, and the Petition in G.R. No. 193536 is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated 10 May 2010 and 11 August 2010 of the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc, respectively, are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Agapito J. Cardino is declared the duly elected Mayor of Dapitan City, having run unopposed in the May 2010 elections.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Yes, Jalosjos is perpetually ineligible to run for public office. The Court held that the penalty of prisión mayor, imposed on Jalosjos, automatically carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage under Article 42 of the Revised Penal Code. Citing its ruling in Lacuna v. Abes, the Court explained that this penalty deprives the convict of the right to be elected to or hold public office perpetually. This ineligibility takes effect immediately upon the finality of the conviction and does not depend on whether the convict serves his jail sentence. Therefore, Jalosjos became perpetually ineligible to hold or run for any elective public office from the time his judgment of conviction became final. On Issue 2: Yes, Jalosjos's declaration of eligibility constitutes a false material representation. Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code requires a candidate to state under oath that he is 'eligible for said office.' Since Jalosjos was suffering from perpetual special disqualification, he was not eligible to run for public office. His statement to the contrary in his COC was a false material representation, which is a ground for a petition to cancel the COC under Section 78 of the Code. The Court, referencing Fermin v. Commission on Elections, emphasized that a Section 78 petition deals with eligibility and qualifications, and a false statement on such matters empowers the COMELEC to cancel the certificate. The Court also clarified that this ineligibility is not a ground under Section 68 of the OEC, as robbery is not one of the election offenses enumerated therein. On Issue 3: The second-placer, Cardino, should be proclaimed the winner. The Court ruled that Jalosjos's COC was void ab initio because his ineligibility existed at the time he filed it. This means he was never a valid candidate from the very beginning. Consequently, all votes cast for this non-candidate are considered stray votes and should not be counted. The Court distinguished this situation from prior rulings where the second-placer was not proclaimed. Those cases involved COCs that were valid at the time of filing but were later cancelled due to a post-filing violation. In this case, since the COC was void from the start, Cardino was effectively the only qualified candidate who garnered the highest number of valid votes and should be proclaimed the winner.
Main Doctrine
A candidate who is ineligible due to a final conviction carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification makes a false material representation in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) when he declares he is eligible for office. This is a ground for cancellation of the COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Such a COC is void ab initio, meaning the person was never a valid candidate. Consequently, all votes cast for this non-candidate are considered stray votes, and the qualified candidate who garnered the highest number of remaining valid votes (the 'second-placer') shall be proclaimed the winner, as the rule on succession does not apply in this specific instance.