People vs. Inting

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORABLE ENRIQUE B. INTING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 38, DUMAGUETE CITY, AND OIC MAYOR DOMINADOR S. REGALADO, JR.

G.R. No. 88919 July 25, 1990

FACTS:
Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the Commission on Elections, for allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay without obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.

COMELEC directed Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, Provincial Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City: to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case, to prepare and file the necessary information in court, to handle the prosecution if the evidence submitted shows a prima facie case and to issue a resolution of prosecution or dismissal as the case may be pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 1752. The resolution is based on sec. 2, Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution which charged the COMELEC with the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections and on the Omnibus Election Code which implements the constitutional provision.

 Atty. filed with the respondent Trial Court a criminal case for violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor. The respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor and fixed the bail at P5,000.00 as recommended by the Provincial Election Supervisor. However, before the accused could be arrested, the Trial Court issued another order setting aside its previous order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The court gave Atty. Lituanas 15 days to file another information charging the same offense with the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal.

Atty. Lituanas failed to comply with the order. The trial court quashed the information and denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Fiscal now Provincial Prosecutor, before the Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not probable cause exists?

RULING:
In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not only to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws. This means that the COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and for filing information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC.

The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election and the concomitant authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not without compelling reason. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate.

An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Election Code of 1978 reveals the clear intention to place in the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses committed by any person, whether private individual or public officer or employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an election offense jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over the conduct of elections.

The respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional provision when it quashed the information filed by the Provincial Election Supervisor. The order to get the approval of the Provincial Fiscal is not only superfluous but unwarranted.