People vs. Basilla

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. HENRY B. BASILLA, SALVACION COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON

G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989

FACTS:

Complaints for violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate by Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Governor against the spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong vote-buying, Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot for vote buying and PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson for carrying of deadly weapon.

The Provincial Fiscal filed three separate criminal complaints against the three accused but respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed it on the ground that the complainant filed the complaint with the fiscal and not with the COMELEC and the COMELEC did not investigate the case which violates Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) which states that The Commission on Election shall “ investigate and, when appropriate prosecute cases of violation of election laws, including acts or omissions, constituting election frauds offenses, malpractices."

The private complainants alleged that the act of Respondent Judge dismissing the three criminal information constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction since the COMELEC has authority to deputize the chief state prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals and their assistants, under Sections 2 (4) and (8 ), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, and that the COMELEC did deputize such prosecution officers to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints for alleged violation of election laws and to institute criminal information thereof.

On the other hand, private respondents contend that the deputation by the COMELEC of the prosecuting arms of the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to ensure tree, honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-keeping functions of policemen, lack substance.

The Respondent Judge denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to deputize the regular prosecution arms of the Government for the investigation and prosecution of election offenses?

 RULING:

We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the COMELEC, it at the same time authorizes the COMELEC to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Government. Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1 987 Constitution clearly envisage that the COMELEC would not be compelled to carry out all its functions directly and by itself alone.

The contention of private respondents that the deputation by the COMELEC of the prosecuting arms of the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to ensure tree, honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-keeping functions of policemen, lack substance. There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article IX-C of the Constitution which requires such a pinched niggardly interpretation of the authority of the COMELEC to appoint as its deputies, officials or employees of other agencies and instrumentalities of the government. The prompt investigation and prosecution and disposition of election offenses constitute an indispensable part of the task of securing free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. The investigation and prosecution of election offenses are, in an important sense, more important than the maintenance of physical order in election precinct. 'without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals and their assistants and staff members, and of the state prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses committed before or in the course of nationwide elections would simply not be possible, unless, perhaps, the COMELEC had a bureaucracy many times larger than what it actually has. Moreover, the prosecution officers designated by the COMELEC become deputies or agents of the COMELEC and pro tanto subject to the authority, control and supervision of the COMELEC in respect of the particular functions covered by such deputation. The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC itself. The only limitation the Constitution itself places upon the COMELEC’s authority over its deputies relates to the enforcement of such authority through administrative sanctions.

The Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.