Case Digests Admin

8/10/2019 Case Digests Admin

1/11

SANCHEZ VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS(114 SCRA 454)

FACTS:

The Resolution of the Commission on Elections, dated May 15, 1980, in Pre-Proclamation Case No !1 entitled "ir#ilio$anche% &s Mayor 'rmando P (ili)an# and the Munici*al (oard of Can&assers of $an +ernando, Pam*an#a

n the local elections held on anuary .0, 1980, "ir#ilio $anche% )as the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party /NPfor Munici*al Mayor of $an +ernando, Pam*an#a, )hile 'rmando (ili)an# )as the ilusan# (a#on# 2i*unan,s / (2official candidate for the same *osition

3n +e4ruary 1, 1980, $anche% filed )ith the Commission on Elections a Petition to declare null and &oid the localelections in $an +ernando, Pam*an#a due to alle#ed lar#e scale terrorism 3n the same day, the C3ME2EC denied thePetition for lac of merit $anche% mo&ed for reconsideration 3n +e4ruary 8, 1980, the C3ME2EC recalled its Resolutionand re6uired (ili)an# and the Munici*al (oard of Can&assers to ans)er 7earin#s )ere conducted thereafter

3n No&em4er 19, 1980, $anche% filed a *etition for Certiorari )ith this court, doc eted as R No 5551., )herein hesee s a modification of the *ortion of the C3ME2EC Resolution of May 15, 1980 refusin# to call a s*ecial election

3n ecem4er :, 1980, (ili)an# instituted, also )ith this Court, a Petition for Certiorari, Prohi4ition and Mandamus,doc eted as R No 55:!;, assailin# the same C3ME2EC Resolution and alle#in# that same 4ody has no *o)er toannul an entire munici*al election

These t)o Petitions )ere ordered consolidated and )ere heard 4y the court en 4anc on uly ;8, 1981

ISSUES:

oes the C3ME2EC ha&e the *o)er to annul an entire munici*al election on the #round of *ost-election terrorismi Nor (asher 2 7assan, and *ri&ate res*ondent, Man#ondaya P 7assan (uatan )ere candidates for the 3ffice of the "ice-Mayor )hilethe other *ri&ate res*ondents )ere candidates for councilors in Madalum, 2anao del $ur in the last re#ular local elections of May 8, 1995 7o)e&er, due tothreats of &iolence and terrorism in the area there )as failure of elections in si@ out of t)enty four *recincts in Madalum The 4allot 4o@es )ere 4urned andthere )ere threats 4y unidentified *ersons in Precinct No =-' n Precinct Nos 9, 9-', 10, 1., and 1!, elections did not ta e *lace 4ecause the mem4ersof the (oard of Election ns*ectors /(E failed to re*ort to their res*ecti&e *ollin# *laces Thus, the Monitorin# $u*er&isin# Team/C3ME2EC Teamheaded 4y Re#ional Election irector "ir#ilio 3 arcillano recommended to the C3ME2EC the holdin# of s*ecial elections in said *recincts Thes*ecialelections )ere there4y set on May ;=, 1995 3n said date, ho)e&er, themem4ers of the (E a#ain failed to re*ort for duty in their res*ecti&e *ollin# *lacesnan 3rder dated May ;8, 1995, the C3ME2EC Team rescheduled the elections in these*recincts for May ;9, 1995 at 2ian#an Elementary /'ra4ic

$chool, )hich is 15 ilometers a)ay from the desi#nated *ollin# *laces, 3n May ;9, 1995, the mem4ersof the (oard did not a#ain re*ort for duty 7ence,the C3ME2EC Team )asconstrained to a**oint *oliceDmilitary *ersonnel to act as su4stitute mem4ers so as to*ush throu#h )ith the elections Theherein *ri&ate res*ondent filed a *etition for herimmediate *roclamation, on the other hand the *etitioner filed the *resent case dueto the same #round of terrorism

$$AE

hether or not failure of election shall 4e declared

RA2 N

The court held that there )as actually failure of election The re-schedulin# of the s*ecial elections from May ;= to May ;9, )as donein uncommon haste and unreasona4ly too close for all &oters to 4e notified of the chan#es, not only as to thedate 4ut as to the desi#nated *ollin# *lacee must a#ree )ith the dissentin#o*inion that e&en in hi#hly ur4ani%ed areas, the dissemination of notices *oses to 4ea *ro4lem n the a4sence of *roof

that actual notice of the s*ecial elections hasreached a #reat num4er of &oters, )e are constrained to consider the May ;9elections as in&alid f only toascertain the )ill of the *eo*le and to *re&ent that )illfrom 4ein# muted, it is necessary that a s*ecial election 4e held in &ie) of the failureof elections inMadalum, 2anao del $ur the Court has ruled that the *reconditions fordeclarin# a failure of election areF /1 that no &otin# has 4een held in any *recinctor*recincts 4ecause of force ma>eure, &iolence or terrorism, and /; that the &otes notcast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections Theconcurrence of these t)o/; circumstances are re6uired to >ustify the callin# of a s*ecial election 7o)e&er,due to the insufficiency of the information thecourt )as constrained to ascertain the&otes to 4e counted thereof

CASE NO.2. R C'R 3 G(3HG C'N C3$' and $E"ER N3 2' 'R' )ere candidates for mayor in Calam4a, 2a#una,durin# the 8 May 1995 elections 'fter o4tainin# a ma>ority of some ;!,000 &otes 2a>ara )as *roclaimed )inner 4y theMunici*al (oard of Can&assers 3n 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed )ith the Commission on Elections /C3ME2EC a Petition


3/11

to eclare +ailure of Election and to eclare Null and "oid the Can&ass and Proclamation 4ecause of alle#ed )ides*readfrauds and anomalies in castin# and countin# of &otes, *re*aration of election returns, &iolence, threats, intimidation, &ote4uyin#, unre#istered &oters &otin#, and delay in the deli&ery of election documents and *ara*hernalia from the *recinctsto the 3ffice of the Munici*al Treasurer Canicosa *articularly a&erred thatF /a the names of the re#istered &oters did nota**ear in the list of &oters in their *recinctsI /4 more than one-half of the le#itimate re#istered &oters )ere not a4le to&ote )ith stran#ers &otin# in their steadI /c he )as credited )ith less &otes than he actually recei&edI /d control data of the election returns )as not filed u* in some *recinctsI /e 4allot 4o@es 4rou#ht to the 3ffice of the Munici*al Treasurer )ere unsecured, i e , )ithout *adloc s nor self-loc in# metal sealsI and, /f there )as delay in the deli&ery of electionreturns (ut the C3ME2EC en 4anc dismissed the *etition on the #round that the alle#ations therein did not >ustify adeclaration of failure of election / Ref. RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. G.R. No.120318 Decem e! , 1##$%.

JAE$T 3NF 1 (ased on the alle#ations of Canicosa, )ould you a#ree that there )as a failure of elections< hya &s C3ME2EC K;95 $CR' 15=I R 1..!95, $e*tem4er ., 1998L

Posted 4y Pius Morados on No&em4er :, ;011

&M'()c)*+ Co!*o!+-)o(, D)s '+ )f)c+-)o(, S'ccess)o( / E ce*-)o( -o - e 3 -e!m )m)-%

Facts F Pri&ate res*ondent ose T Ca*co, r )as elected &ice-mayor of Pateros on anuary 18, 1988 for a term endin#une .0, 199; 3n $e*tem4er ;, 1989, he 4ecame mayor, 4y o*eration of la), u*on the death of the incum4ent, Cesar

(or>a +or the ne@t t)o succeedin# elections in 199; and 1995, he )as a#ain re-elected as Mayor

3n March ;=, 1998, *ri&ate res*ondent Ca*co filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Pateros relati&e to the May 11,1998 elections Petitioner (en>amin A (or>a, r , )ho )as also a candidate for mayor, sou#ht Ca*co?s dis6ualification onthe theory that the latter )ould ha&e already ser&ed as mayor for three consecuti&e terms 4y une .0, 1998 and )ouldtherefore 4e ineli#i4le to ser&e for another term after that

The $econd i&ision of the Commission on Elections ruled in fa&or of *etitioner and declared *ri&ate res*ondent Ca*codis6ualified from runnin# for reelection as mayor of Pateros 4ut in the motion for reconsideration, ma>ority o&erturned theori#inal decision

Iss ! F 3N Ca*co has ser&ed for three consecuti&e terms as Mayora +or the ne@t t)o succeedin# elections in 199; and 1995, he )as a#ain re-elected as Mayor

3n March ;=, 1998, *ri&ate res*ondent Ca*co filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Pateros relati&e to the May 11,1998 elections Petitioner (en>amin A (or>a, r , )ho )as also a candidate for mayor, sou#ht Ca*co?s dis6ualification onthe theory that the latter )ould ha&e already ser&ed as mayor for three consecuti&e terms 4y une .0, 1998 and )ouldtherefore 4e ineli#i4le to ser&e for another term after that

The $econd i&ision of the Commission on Elections ruled in fa&or of *etitioner and declared *ri&ate res*ondent Ca*codis6ualified from runnin# for reelection as mayor of Pateros 4ut in the motion for reconsideration, ma>ority o&erturned theori#inal decision

ISSUE:1 )Dn Ca*co has ser&ed for three consecuti&e terms as Mayor ; )Dn Ca*co can run a#ain for Mayor in the ne@t election

HELD:1 No Ca*co )as not elected to the office of mayor in the first term 4ut sim*ly found himself thrust into it 4y o*eration of la) Neither had he ser&ed the full term 4ecause he only continued the ser&ice, interru*ted 4y the death, of the deceased

mayor ' te@tual analysis su**orts the rulin# of the C3ME2EC that 'rt , $ec 8 contem*lates ser&ice 4y local officials for three consecuti&e full terms as a result of election t is not enou#h that an indi&idual has ser&ed three consecuti&e termsin an electi&e local officials, he must also ha&e 4een elected to the same *osition for the same num4er of times 4efore thedis6ualification can a**ly; Hes 'lthou#h he has already first ser&ed as mayor 4y succession, he has not actually ser&ed three full terms in all for the *ur*ose of a**lyin# the three-term limit The three-term limit shall a**ly )hen these ; conditions concurF /1 the localofficial concerned has 4een elected three consecuti&e timesI and /; he has fully ser&ed three consecuti&e terms

$ENITO V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 1'4 1' (%AN 1 & 2 1)

FACTS:

(enito and *ri&ate res*ondent Pa#aya)an )ere ; of 8 candidates &yin# for the *osition ofmunici*al mayor in Calano#as,2anao del $ur durin# the May 11, 1998 elections 5 *recinctsclustered in the $ultan isim4an Elementary $chool )eremet )ith &iolence )hen some .0 armedmen a**eared at the school *remises and fired shots into the air This so)ed*anic amon# the&oters and elections officials, causin# them to scatter in different directions t ha**ened 4eforenoon atthe day of election ' s*ot re*ort re*orted the incident (oth *arties are contendin# contrary facts Petitioner alle#ed thatthe &otin# ne&er resumed e&enafter the la)less elements left 3n the other hand, *ri&ate res*ondent alle#ed that &otin#resumed)hen the armed men left around 1 *m in the afternoon Petitioner is only as in#, ho)e&er, adeclaration of failureof elections on the first three *recincts, not )ith the entire fi&e *recincts urin#the countin#, the 4allots from the three*recincts )ere e@cluded Ne&ertheless, the )inner )as the*ri&ate res*ondent 'nd e&en if the &otes from the threee@cluded *recincts )ere added, *ri&ateres*ondent still emer#ed as the )inner

Petitioner then filed a *etition to declare failure of election and to call a s*ecial election C3ME2ECho)e&er denied the*etition and affirmed the *roclamation

HELD:

Petition ismissed 1 T)o *reconditions must e@ist 4efore a failure of election may 4e declaredF /1 no &otin# has4eenheld in any *recinct due to force ma>eure, &iolence or terrorismI and /; the &otes not casttherein are sufficient to affect theresults of the election The cause of such failure may arise 4eforeor after the castin# of &otes or on the day of theelection ; hether there )as a resum*tion of &otin# is essentially a 6uestion of fact $uch are not *ro*er su4>ects of in6uiry in a *etition for certiorari under Rule :5 . "otin# in all fi&e *recincts resumed after *eace and order )as re-esta4lished in the isim4anElementary $chool There )as no o4>ection raised to the count of &otes in the said t)o*recinctsdurin# the countin# of &otes at the countin# center $o )hy a selecti&e o4>ection to the three*recincts hereinect election *recincts 7o)e&er, there can 4e a failure of election in a*olitical unit only if the )ill of the ma>ority has4een defiled and cannot 4e ascertained (ut if it can4e determined, it must 4e accorded res*ect 'fter all, there is no


5/11

*ro&ision in our election la)s )hichre6uires that a ma>ority of re#istered &oters must cast their &otes 'll the la) re6uiresis that a )innin#candidate must 4e elected 4y a *lurality of &alid &otes, re#ardless of the actual num4er of 4allotscast 5 The *o)er to thro) out or annul an election should 4e e@ercised )ith the utmost care andonly under circumstances )hich demonstrate 4eyond dou4t either that the disre#ard of the la)had 4een so fundamental or so*ersistent and continuous that it is im*ossi4le to distin#uish )hat&otes are la)ful and )hat are unla)ful, or to arri&e at anycertain result )hatsoe&er, or that the#reat 4ody of &oters ha&e 4een *re&ented 4y &iolence, intimidation and threats frome@ercisin#their franchise

SAM$ARANI V COMELEC& 4'* SCRA '1 G.R. N+. 1, 42-& S! t!/0! 15& 2 4

FACTS F

' $ynchroni%ed (aran#ay and $an##unian# a4ataan Elections )ere held on uly 15, ;00; in 2anao del $ur $am4arani,Miraato, '4u4acar, Mascara and ayondon# ran for re-election as *unon# 4aran#ay in their res*ecti&e4aran#ay, namelyF3ccidental 2inu , Pindolonan Moriatao $ari*, Talu4, Ne) 2um4acain#udand Tataya)an $outh The C3ME2ECsu4se6uently issued Resolution No 5!=9 )hich sets the date for s*ecialelections on 'u#ust 1., ;00;, due to failure of elections in ele&en 4aran#ays includin# the fi&e 4aran#aysmentioned 3n 'u#ust 1!, ;00;, 'ctin# Election 3fficer EsmaelMaulay issued a certification that there )ere nos*ecial elections held on 'u#ust 1.,;00; The *etitioners filed a >oint*etition for holdin# of another s*ecial election They also contend that the failure of election )as due to the failure of

Maulay to follo)the directi&e of Commissioner $adain to use the 'RMM?s ;001 com*uteri%ed &oter?s list and&oter?s re#istration records $ince Maulay failed to file a )ritten e@*lanation, the C3ME2EC mo&ed for the resolutionof the case t directed the 2 to a**oint (aran#ay Ca*tains and (aran#ay a#a)ads in the fi&e4aran#ays mentionedin *ursuance to R' =1:0 The *etitioners filed an instant *etition to hold another s*ecialelection )hich the C3ME2ECsu4se6uently denied on the #round that the .0-day *eriod already la*sed

ISSUE:

1 hether or not the C3ME2EC erred in its decision in denyin# the *etition to hold another s*ecial election

; hether the 2 can a**oint 4aran#ay and $ officials as directed 4y the C3ME2EC

HELD F

1 Hes The C3ME2EC?s decision denyin# the *etition for another s*ecial election is &oid $ection : of the3mni4usElection Code )hich is the 4asis of the C3ME2EC?s denial of the *etition is merely direc

ti&e and not mandatory $ection !5 also *ro&ides that in case of *ost*onement or failure of election the C3ME2EC shallset theelections )ithin thirty days from the cessation of the causes for *ost*onement The elections may 4e heldanytime)ithin the thirty day *eriod from the time the cause of the *ost*onement ceased

; No The 2 cannot a**oint 4aran#ay and $ officials due to $ection 5 of the R' 91:! )hich *ro&ides for ahold o&er *eriod )here an incum4ent officer may remain in office until their successors ha&e already 4een electedand 6ualifiedTherefore, the *etitioners can assume office in a hold-o&er ca*acity *endin# the assum*tion of asuccessor into office

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO a # ARTURO C. MO%ICA 3s. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS& SENATOR RAL H G.RECTOa # SENATOR GREGORIO $. HONASAN

FACTS F

Petitioners assailed the manner 4y )hich the simultaneous re#ular and s*ecial elections of ;001 )ere conducted4y theC3ME2EC Petitioners contend that, if held simultaneously, a s*ecial and a re#ular election must 4edistin#uished in the


6/11

documentation as )ell as in the can&assin# of their results Thirteen senators )ere*roclaimed from the said election )iththe 1.th *lacer to ser&e that of the remainin# term of $en uin#ona, )ho&acated a seat in the senate Petitioners sou#htfor the nullification of the s*ecial election and, conse6uently, thedeclaration of the 1. th elected senator

Iss !s:

1 hether or not Court had >urisdiction

; hether or not the *etition )as moot

. hether or not *etioners had locus standi

! hether a $*ecial Election for a $in#le, Three-Hear Term$enatorial $eat )as "alidly 7eld on 1! May ;001

RULING:

3n the issue of >urisdiction, Court had >urisdiction 4ecause )hat *etitioners )ere 6uestionin# )as the &alidity of thes*ecial election on 1! May ;001 in )hich 7onasan )as elected and not to determine 7onasan?s ri#ht in the e@ercise of his office as $enator *ro*er under a 6uo )arranto 3n the issue of mootness, it )as held that courts )ill decide a 6uestionother)ise moot if it is ca*a4le of re*etitionyet e&adin# re&ie) 3n the issue of locus standi, the court had rela@ed there6uirement on standin# and e@ercised our discretion to #i&e due course to &oters? suits in&ol&in# the ri#ht of suffra#e,considerin# that the issue raised in this *etition is li ely to arise a#ain 3n the "alidity of the Election, the Court held that

the May 1!, ;001 Election )as &alid The Court held that C3ME2EC?s +ailure to i&e Notice of the Time of the $*ecialElection as re6uired under R' ::!5, as amended, did Not Ne#ate the Callin# of such Election $ection ; of R ' No ::!5itself *ro&ides that incase of &acancy in the $enate, the s*ecial election to fill such &acancy shall 4e held simultaneously)ith the ne@t succeedin# re#ular election

The la) char#es the &oters )ith no)led#e of this statutory notice and C3ME2EC?s failure to #i&e the additional notice did not ne#ate thecallin# of such s*ecial election, much less in&alidate it

+urther, there )as No Proof that C3ME2EC?s +ailure to i&e Notice of the 3ffice to 4e +illed and the Manner ofeterminin# the inner in the $*ecial Election Misled "oters T could not 4e said that the &oters )ere not informed since

there had 4een other accessi4le information resources +inally, the Court held that unless there had 4een a *atentsho)in# of #ra&e a4use of discretion, the Court )ill not interfere )ith the affairs and conduct of the Comelec

The Constitutional Con&ention of 19=1 scheduled an ad&ance *le4iscite concernin# only the *ro*osal to lo)er the &otin#a#e from ;1 to 18 This )as e&en 4efore the rest of the draft of the Constitution /then under re&ision had 4een a**ro&ed

'rturo Tolentino then filed a motion to *rohi4it such *le4iscite

ISSUE F hether or not the *etition )ill *ros*er

HELD: Hes f the ad&ance *le4iscite )ill 4e allo)ed, there )ill 4e an im*ro*er su4mission to the *eo*le $uch is notallo)ed The *ro*osed amendments shall 4e a**ro&ed 4y a ma>ority of the &otes cast at an election at )hich theamendments are su4mitted to the *eo*le for ratification Election here is sin#ular )hich meant that the entire constitutionmust 4e su4mitted for ratification at one *le4iscite only +urthermore, the *eo*le )ere not #i&en a *ro*er Bframe of reference in arri&in# at their decision 4ecause they had at the time no idea yet of )hat the rest of the re&ised Constitution)ould ultimately 4e and therefore )ould 4e una4le to assess the *ro*osed amendment in the li#ht of the entire documentThis is the B octrine of $u4mission )hich means that all the *ro*osed amendments to the Constitution shall 4e*resented to the *eo*le for the ratification or re>ection at the same time, N3T *iecemeal

TOLENTINO 3. COMELECGR 14**''4 ( 1 21 4)Facts:


7/11

Pres M', after her succession to the *residency in ;001, nominated $enator uin#ona as "ice-President, thus, lea&in#a &acancy in the $enate The $enate *assed Res 8! callin# on C3ME2EC to fillthe said &acancy throu#h a s*ecialelection to 4e held $ MA2T'NE3A$2H )ith the re#ular electionson May the same year 1; senators each )ith a :-yr term)ere to 4e elected Res 8! *ro&ided that the candidate )ith the 1. th hi#hest num4er of &otes shall ser&e for the une@*iredterm of former $en uin#ona /. years

re#orio 7onasan ran ed 1. th in the *olls C3ME2EC issued Res 01-005 *ro&isionally *roclaimin#the 1; senators /)ith:-yr terms and the 1. th senator /for the une@*ired term

Petitioners /Tolentino and Mo>ica filed a *etition for *rohi4ition a#ainst C3ME2EC, en>oinin# themfrom the final*roclamation the 1. th senator, and *rayed for the nullification of Res 01-005

ISSUES F

1 ProceduralF

3N *etition is actually for 6uo )arranto to 4e decided 4y the $enateElectoral tri4unal /and not the $C

; 3n the meritsF 3N the s*ecial election )as held &alidlyF

a 3N Comelec?s failure to #i&e notice as to the time of the s*ecial election ne#ate thecallin# of said election

4 3N Comelec?s failure to #i&e notice of office to 4e filled and the manner of determinin# the )inner misled &oters

c 3N se*arate can&assin# and documentation for the s*ecial election )as re6uired

HELD F

1 No The *etitioner does not see to determine 7onasan?s ri#ht in the e@ercise of his office in the

$enate hat the *etitioners alle#e is C3ME2EC?s failure to com*ly )ith certain re6uirements

*ertainin# to the conduct of the s*ecial election 7ence, the court has >urisdiction

; Hes $*ecial election )as held &alidly 7ence, *etition has no merit

a No $ec ; of R' ::!5 /)hich )as *assed to im*lement art :, sec 9 of the constitution ,E PRE$$2HPR3" E$ that in case of a &acancy in the $enate, the s*ecial election shall 4e heldsimultaneously )ith thene@t succeedin# re#ular election n a s*ecial election, the rule is that if a statute e@*ressly *ro&ides that anelection to fill the &acancy shall 4e held at the ne@t re#ularelection, the statute + E$ the date, hence, theelection is N3T N"'2 'TE 4y the fact that the4ody char#ed 4y la) )ith the duty /in this case, C3ME2ECfailed to do so /as o**osed to if thela) does not fi@ the time and *lace 4ut em*o)ers some authority to fi@

those, the statutory*ro&ision on the #i&in# of notice is considered mandatory and failure to do so )ill ma eelection&oid The la) then char#es the &oters )ith no)led#e of the statutory notice and C3ME2EC?s failureto #i&e additional notice does not ne#ate the election

4 No The test in determinin# the &alidity of a s*ecial election in relation to the failure to #i&e notice is )hether the lac of notice resulted in misleadin# a sufficient num4er of &oters The *etitioners )ere not a4le to *ro&ethat C3ME2EC?s failure to #i&e the notice misled a sufficient num4er of &oters as )ould chan#e the resultof the &ote

c No No such re6uirements e@ist hat is mandatory under R' ::!5 is for C3ME2EC to fi@ the date if necessary and state the officeDs to 4e &oted for The method ado*ted 4y C3ME2EC merely im*lemented R'No 8! that Bthe senatorial candidate #arnerin# the 1. th hi#hest num4er of &otes shall ser&e only for the


8/11

une@*ired term of former $en uin#ona /an amendment introduced 4y $en Roco B 7ERE+3RE, )eM $$ the *etition for lac of merit $o ordered

/Note ho)e&er, that $C reminded C3ME2EC to com*ly strictly )ith all the re6uirements under a**lica4lela)s relati&e to the conduct of elections

Ma 6 !7 3s COMELEC GR 112** (A 8" 1*& 1 5)

FACTS F(ien&enido Mar6ue%, a defeated candidate in the Pro&ince of Jue%on filed a *etition for certiorari *rayin# for the re&ersalof the C3ME2EC Resolution )hich dismissed his *etition for 6uo )arranto a#ainst Eduardo Rodri#ue%, for 4ein# alle#edlya fu#iti&e from >ustice t is a&erred that at the time *ri&ate res*ondent filed his certificate of candidacy, a criminal char#ea#ainst him for ten /10 counts of insurance fraud or #rand theft of *ersonal *ro*erty )as still *endin# 4efore theMunici*al Court of 2os 'n#eles udicial istrict, County of 2os 'n#eles, $tate of California, A $ ' ' )arrant issued 4ysaid court for his arrest, it is claimed, has yet to 4e ser&ed on *ri&ate res*ondent on account of his alle#ed Bfli#ht fromthat country

Petitioner?s su4se6uent recourse /in R No 105.10 from the C3ME2EC?s May 8, 199; resolution )as dismissed)ithout *re>udice, ho)e&er, to the filin# in due time of a *ossi4le *ost-election 6uo )arranto *roceedin# a#ainst *ri&ateres*ondent

(efore the 11th May 199; elections, *etitioner filed a *etition )ith the C3ME2EC for cancellation of res*ondent?s CoC onaccount of the candidate?s dis6ualification under $ec !0 /e of the 2 C

Pri&ate res*ondent )as *roclaimed o&ernor-elect of Jue%on on ;9 May 199; +orth)ith, *etitioner instituted 6uo)arranto *roceedin#s /EPC 9;-;8 a#ainst *ri&ate res*ondent 4efore the C3ME2EC

ISSUE Fhether *ri&ate res*ondent )ho, at the time of the filin# of his certificate of candidacy /and to date , is said to 4e facin# a

criminal char#e 4efore a forei#n court and e&adin# a )arrant for his arrest comes )ithin the term Bfu#iti&e from >usticecontem*lated 4y $ection !0/e of the 2 C and is, therefore, dis6ualified from 4ein# a candidate for, and there4y ineli#i4lefrom holdin# on to, an electi&e local office

HELD F$ection !0/e of the 2 C /R' =1:0 *ro&ide that a B+u#iti&e from >ustice in criminal cases here and a4road areBdis6ualified from runnin# for any electi&e local *osition t has 4een held that construction *laced u*on la) 4y the officialsin char#e of its enforcement deser&es #reat and considera4le )ei#ht /'tlas Consolidated Minin# and e&elo*ment Cor*&s C', 18; $CR' 1::,181 7o)e&er, )hen there clearly is no o4scurity and am4i#uity in an ena4lin# la), it must merely4e made to a**ly as it is so )ritten 'n administrati&e rule or re#ulation can neither e@*and nor constrict the la) 4ut mustremain con#ruent to it

The confinement of the term Bfu#iti&e from >ustice in 'rticle =. of the Rules and Re#ulations m*lementin# the 2 C of 1991 to refer only to a *erson B)ho has 4een con&icted 4y final >ud#ment is an inordinate and undue circumscri*tion of the la)

Anfortunately, the C3ME2EC did not ma e any definite findin# on )hether or not *ri&ate res*ondent is in fact a Bfu#iti&efrom >ustice as such term must 4e inter*reted and a**lied in the li#ht of the Court?s o*inion The omission isunderstanda4le since the C3ME2EC outri#htly dismissed the *etition for 6uo )arranto on the 4asis instead of Rule =. of the Rules and Re#ulations *romul#ated 4y the 3&ersi#ht Committee The Court, not 4ein# a trier of facts, is thusconstrained to remand the case to the C3ME2EC for a determination of this unresol&ed factual matter

MAR9UEZ 3! s s COMELEC (24' SCRA 5'*)

Facts:

Mar6ue%, a candidate for an electi&e *osition in Jue%on Pro&ince durin# the 1998 elections, filed a *etition *rayin# for thecancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Rodri#ue% on the #round of dis6ualification under section !0 of the 2ocal

o&ernment Code /$ection !0 is6ualification The follo)in# *ersons are dis6ualified from runnin# for any local electi&e*osition /e +u#iti&e from >ustice in criminal or non-*olitical cases here or a4road Rodri#ue% is alle#edly criminallychar#ed )ith insurance fraud or #rand theft of *ersonal *ro*erty in the Anited $tates and that his arrest is yet to 4e ser&ed
https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/marquez-vs-comelec/https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/marquez-vs-comelec/


9/11

4ecause of his fli#ht from the country The C3ME2EC dismissed Mar6ue%?s Petition Rodri#ue% )as *roclaimed theo&ernor-elect of Jue%on

Iss !:

hether or not *ri&ate res*ondent, )ho at the time of the filin# of his C3C is said to 4e facin# criminal char#es 4efore aforei#n court and e&adin# a )arrant of arrest comes )ithin the term Bfu#iti&e from >ustice

H!"#:

N3 'lthou#h it is *ro&ided in 'rticle =. of the Rules and Re#ulations im*lementin# the 2ocal o&ernment Code of 1991that for a *erson to 4e considered a fu#iti&e from >ustice, he or she has to 4e con&icted 4y final >ud#ment, 4ut suchdefinition is an ordinate and under circumscri*tion of the la) +or the term f' )-)ve f!om 's-)ce includes not only those )hoafter con&iction to a&oid *unishment 4ut li e)ise those )ho, after 4ein# char#ed, flee to a&oid *rosecution This definitiontruly finds su**ort from >uris*rudence, and it may 4e conceded as e@*ressin# the #eneral and ordinary connotation of theterm

EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ 3s. COMELEC& $IENVENIDO O. MAR9UEZ& %R. G.R. N+. 12 % " 24& 1 ,

FACTS:

Petitioner Eduardo T Rodri#ue% and *ri&ate res*ondent (ien&enido 3 Mar6ue% r /Rodri#ue% and Mar6ue%, for 4re&ity)ere*rota#onists for the #u4ernatorial *ost of Jue%on Pro&ince in the May 199; elections Rodri#ue% )on and )as*roclaimed duly-elected #o&ernor

Mar6ue% challen#ed Rodri#ue% &ictory &ia *etition for 6uo )arranto 4efore the C3ME2EC, alle#in# that the latter has a*endin# casein 2', hence, a fu#iti&e from >ustice and thus dis6ualified for the electi&e *osition

Mar6ue% ecisionFGfu#iti&e from >usticeG includes not only those )ho flee after con&iction to a&oid *unishment 4ut li e)ise those)ho, after 4ein# char#ed, flee to a&oid *rosecution This definition truly finds su**ort from >uris*rudence / , and it may 4esoconceded as e@*ressin# the #eneral and ordinary connotation of the term

n *re&ious case, hether or not Rodri#ue% is a Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG under the definition thus #i&en )as not *assedu*on 4y theCourt That tas )as to de&ol&e on the C3ME2EC u*on remand of the case to it, )ith the directi&e to *roceedthere)ith )ithdis*atch conforma4ly )ith the M'RJAEQ ecision

Rodri#ue% and Mar6ue% rene)ed their ri&alry for the same *osition of #o&ernor This time, Mar6ue% challen#ed

Rodri#ue% candidacy &ia *etition for dis6ualification 4efore the C3ME2EC, 4ased *rinci*ally on the same alle#ation thatRodri#ue% is a Gfu#iti&efrom >ustice G

The C3ME2EC, alle#edly ha&in# e*t in mind the M'RJAEQ ecision definition of Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG, foundRodri#ue% to 4e one

't any rate, Rodri#ue% a#ain emer#e as the &ictorious candidate in the May 8, 1995 election for the *osition of #o&ernor


10/11

Mar6ue% filed ur#ent motions to sus*end Rodri#ue% *roclamation )hich the C3ME2EC #ranted ssueF hether *etitioner is dis6ualified to the electi&e *osition7eldF No

The definition thus indicates that the intent to e&ade is the com*ellin# factor that animates one s fli#ht from a *articular >urisdiction 'nd o4&iously, there can only 4e an intent to e&ade *rosecution or *unishment )hen there is no)led#e 4y thefleein# su4>ect of analready instituted indictment, or of a *romul#ated >ud#ment of con&iction

o There is no dis*ute that his arri&al in the Phili**ines from the A$, as *er certifications issued 4y the (ureauof mmi#rations, *receded the filin# of the felony com*laint in the 2os 'n#eles Court

To ela4orate, the same *arties /Rodri#ue% and Mar6ue% and issue /)hether or not Rodri#ue% is a Gfu#iti&e from >usticeGarein&ol&ed in the M'RJAEQ ecision and the instant *etition The M'RJAEQ ecision )as an a**eal /the Mar6ue%6uo )arranto*etition 4efore the C3ME2EC The instant *etition is also an a**eal althou#h the C3ME2EC resol&ed thelatter >ointly /Mar6ue% *etition for the dis6ualification of Rodri#ue% Therefore, )hat )as irre&oca4ly esta4lished as thecontrollin# le#al rule in theM'RJAEQ ecision must #o&ern the instant *etition 'nd )e s*ecifically refer to the conce*t of Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG as defined inthe main o*inion in the M'RJAEQ ecision )hich hi#hli#hts the si#nificance of anintent to e&ade 4ut )hich Mar6ue% and theC3ME2EC, )ith their *ro*osed e@*anded definition, seem to tri&iali%e

To re-define Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG )ould only foment insta4ility in our >uris*rudence )hen hardly has the in dried in theM'RJAEQ ecision

To summari%e, the term Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG as a #round for the dis6ualification or ineli#i4ility of a *erson see in# to runfor anyelecti&e local *etition under $ection !0/e of the 2ocal o&ernment Code, should 4e understood accordin# to thedefinition #i&en inthe M'RJAEQ ecision

3 ' Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG includes not only those )ho flee after con&iction to a&oid *unishment 4ut li e)ise those)ho,after 4ein# char#ed, flee to a&oid *rosecution /Em*hasis ours

ntent to e&ade on the *art of a candidate must therefore 4e esta4lished 4y *roof that there has already 4een acon&iction or atleast, a char#e has already 4een filed, at the time of fli#ht

oNot 4ein# a Gfu#iti&e from >usticeG under this definition, Rodri#ue% cannot 4e denied the Jue%on Pro&ince#u4ernatorial*ost

RODRIGUEZ 3s COMELEC

FACTS:

Eduardo Rodri#ue% and (ien&enido Mar6ue% )ere *rota#onist for the #u4ernatorialseat in the Pro&ince of Jue%on urin# the 199; elections, Rodri#ue%)on )hich )as6uestioned 4y Mar6ue% throu#h a 6 + ;a a t+ !t8t8+ (E C 2ustice F

Bi n c l u d e s n o t o n l y t h o s e ) h o f l e e a f t e r c o n & i c t i o n t o a & o i d * u n i s h m e n t 4 u t l i e ) i s et h o s e ) h o a f t e r 4 e i n # c h a r # e d , f l e e t o a & o i d

+s!c t8+ >. t REM'M E the case to the C3ME2EC for its factual determination 3N Rodri#ue% )as in fact a fu#iti&e of >ustice Motion for Reconsideration filed 4yRodri#ue% and su4se6uently an Ar#ent Motion to 'dmit 'dditional 'r#ument in su**ortof such motion )as filed to )hich )as


11/11

attached a certification from the Commission on mmi#ration sho)in# that Rodri#ue% left the A$ on ;5 un 1985 /*rior the char#ea#ainst him )as e&er filed Pendin# the decision of the $u*reme Court on the Motion for Reconsideration, durin#the 1995 elections )herein Rodri#ue% and Mar6ue% rene)edtheir ri&alry for the same *osition Mar6ue% this time challen#ed Rodro#ue%? candidacy &ia a !t8t8+ ?+ #8s6 a"8?8cat8+ (S A

5< * ) on the same #rounds as EPC 9;-;8, this )as filed on 11 '*ril 1995 $u4se6uently the Motion for Reconsideration of Rodri#ue% re#ardin#R 11;889 )as $M $$E There4y, the C3ME2EC *romul#ated a C3N$32 'TE Resolutiondated = May 1995 on EPC 9;-;8 and $P' 95-089,

rulin# in fa&or of Mar6ue% 3rderedRodri#ue% to immediately &acate his *osition and his certificate of candidacy )assetaside 't any rate Rodri#ue% emer#ed &ictorious in the 8 May 1995 elections and he )as*roclaimed 4y the Pro&incial (oard of Can&assers as o&ernor des*ite the sus*ensionfrom the C3ME2EC in relation to the consolidated resolution *romul#ated in = May1995 This order of sus*ension of *roclamation is the issue of this !t8t8+ ?+ c! t8+ a 8

(GR12 ) as filed 4y Rodri6ue% on 1: May 1995 The decision of the court )ith re#ard tothis *etition RECTE C3ME2EC to recei&e ande&aluate e&idence 'fter the *ro*er *roceedin# C3ME2EC declared Rodri#ue% N3T a fu#iti&e from >ustice, the

8 t! t t+!3a#! is material to the definition of Bfu#iti&e from >ustice in t

he Mar6ue% ecision, such intent is '($ENT in Rodri#ue%?s case e&idence has esta4lished that Rodri6ue%

arri&ed in the Phili**ines lon# 4efore the criminal char#e )as instituted in the A$ (ut itfurther stated that it )ould 4e more comforta4le if the $u*reme Courtdecided on thematter #i&en the conflictin# inter*retations of the *arties as to the definition *ro&ided inthe Mar6ue% ecision

ISSUE F

hether or not, Roodri#ue% )as a Bfu#iti&e from >ustice as defined in the Mar6ue% ecision, renderin# him ineli#i4le to run for office as*ro&ided for in $ec !0 /e of the 2 C

R "8 =s F

N3, the element of i n t e n t t o e & a d e not *resent in the case of Rodri#ue%, )hichis a com*ellin# factor in the Mar6ue%ecision definition, he cannot 4e held as a fu#iti&efrom >ustice

Case Digests Admin

Documents

Transcript of Case Digests Admin