People vs. Delgado

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. GUALBERTO P. DELGADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, Br. 29, Toledo City, ELSIE RAGO LUMANGTAD, VIVENCIA ABARIDO, AVELINA BUTASLAC, ROSELLANO BUTASLAC, HAYDELISA LUMANGTAD, SILVESTRE LUMANGTAD, MAXIMO RACAZA, NENA RACAZA, VICTORIANO/ VICTOR RAGO, EDNA TEJAS, MERCEDITA TEJAS, TEOFISTO TEJAS, BERNABE TOQUERO, JR., and PEDRO RAFAELA

G.R. Nos. 93419-32 September 18, 1990

FACTS:

Atty. Lauron E. Quilatan, Election Registrar of Toledo City filed a complaint against private respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC directed Atty. Manuel Oyson, Jr., Provincial Election Supervisor of Cebu, to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case. Atty. Oyson submitted a report finding a prima facie case and recommending the filing of information against each of the private respondents for violation of Section 261 (y) (2) and (5) of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC en banc resolved to file the information against the private respondents as recommended.

Fifteen information were filed against each of private respondents in the RTC of Toledo City. In three separate manifestations the Regional Election Director of Region VII was designated by the COMELEC to handle the prosecution with the authority to assign another COMELEC prosecutor.

Private respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest with the respondent court on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. Respondent court issued an order directing the COMELEC to conduct a reinvestigation of said cases and to submit the report within 10 days after termination. The Toledo City INP was directed to hold in abeyance the service of the warrants of arrest until the submission of the reinvestigation report.

The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration and opposition to the motion for reinvestigation alleging therein that it is only the Supreme Court that may review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions of the COMELEC but it was denied.
On the other hand, the private respondents contend that since the cases were filed in court by the COMELEC as a public prosecutor, and not in the exercise of its power to decide election contests, the trial court has authority to order a reinvestigation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC has the authority to order reinvestigation of the actions of the COMELEC in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses filed in its court?

RULING:
It is clear that aside from the adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC to decide election contests and administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public prosecutor with the exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election offenses punishable under the Code before a competent court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the approval of the court.  The COMELEC cannot conduct a re-investigation of the case without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by the court. 

The records of the preliminary investigation required to be produced by the court must be submitted by the COMELEC. The trial court may rely on the resolution of the COMELEC to file the information, by the same token that it may rely on the certification made by the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation, in the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Nevertheless, the court may require that the record of the preliminary investigation be submitted to it to satisfy itself that there is probable cause which will warrant the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 

The refusal of the COMELEC or its agents to comply with the order of the trial court requiring them to conduct a reinvestigation in this case and to submit to the court the record of the preliminary investigation on the ground that only this Court may review its actions is certainly untenable.