Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 170447

June 23, 2009

BIENVENIDO DIO and RENATO COMPARATIVO, Petitioners,


vs.
PABLO OLIVAREZ,1 Respondent.

That on or about the 10th day of May 2004, in the City of Paraaque,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, Remedios Malibiran and Pablo Olivarez,
conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, engage in vote buying activities on election day of
May 10, 2004, by distributing or giving Uniwide gift certificates, a
thing of value, as consideration to induce or influence the voters to
vote for candidate Pablo Olivarez, a candidate for the City Mayor of
Paraaque, in violation of Omnibus Election Code.
Criminal Case No. 04-1105

DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Petitioners Bienvenido Dio and Renato Comparativo assail the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated 28 September 2005 in CAG.R. SP No. 89230, nullifying the Orders3 dated 12 January 2005, 9
March 2005, and 31 March 2005 of Judge Fortunito L. Madrona of
Branch 274 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City, in
Criminal Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105.
Petitioners instituted a complaint for vote buying against respondent
Pablo Olivarez. Based on the finding of probable cause in the Joint
Resolution issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta PabloMedina, with the approval of the city prosecutor of Paraaque, two
Informations4 were filed before the RTC on 29 September 2004
charging respondent Pablo Olivarez with Violation of Section 261,
paragraphs a, b and k of Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code,
which read:
Criminal Case No. 04-1104

That on or about the 10th day of May, 2004, in the City of


Paraaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, Carmelo Jaro and Pablo Olivarez,
conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, engage in vote buying activities on election day of
May 10, 2004, by distributing or giving Uniwide gift certificates, a
thing of value, as consideration to induce or influence the voters to
vote for candidate Pablo Olivarez, a candidate for the City Mayor of
Paraaque, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
The arraignment of the respondent was initially set on 18 October
2004.5
On 7 October 2004, respondent filed before the Law Department of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an "[a]ppeal of [the] Joint
Resolution of the City Prosecutor of Paraaque City with Motion to
Revoke Continuing Authority" pursuant to Section 10, Rule 34 of the
1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Respondent argued that the
pendency of the appeal of the Joint Resolution before the COMELEC
should prevent the filing of the Informations before the RTC as there
could be no final finding of probable cause until the COMELEC had

resolved the appeal. Moreover, he argued that the charges made


against him were groundless.6
In a letter7 dated 11 October 2004, the Law Department of the
COMELEC directed the city prosecutor to transmit or elevate the
entire records of the case and to suspend further implementation of
the Joint Resolution dated 20 September 2004 until final resolution of
the said appeal before the COMELEC en banc.
On 11 October 2004, respondent filed a Motion to Quash the two
criminal informations on the ground that more than one offense was
charged therein, in violation of Section 3(f), Rule 117 of the Rules of
Court, in relation to Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. 8 This
caused the resetting of the scheduled arraignment on 18 October
2004 to 13 December 2004.9
Before Judge Madrona could act on the motion to quash, Assistant
Prosecutor Pablo-Medina, with the approval of the city prosecutor,
filed on 28 October 2004 its "Opposition to the Motion to Quash and
Motion to Admit Amended Informations.10 " The Amended
Informations sought to be admitted charged respondent with violation
of only paragraph a, in relation to paragraph b, of Section 261, Article
XXII of the Omnibus Election Code.11
On 1 December 2004, Judge Madrona issued an Order resetting the
hearing scheduled on 13 December 2004 to 1 February 2005 on
account of the pending Motion to Quash of the respondent and the
Amended Informations of the public prosecutor.12
On 14 December 2004, respondent filed an "Opposition to the
Admission of the Amended Informations," arguing that no resolution
was issued to explain the changes therein, particularly the deletion of
paragraph k, Section 261, Article XXII of the Omnibus Election
Code . Moreover, he averred that the city prosecutor was no longer
empowered to amend the informations, since the COMELEC had

already directed it to transmit the entire records of the case and


suspend the hearing of the cases before the RTC until the resolution
of the appeal before the COMELEC en banc.13
On 12 January 2005, Judge Madrona issued an order denying
respondents Motion to Quash dated 11 October 2004, and admitted
the Amended Informations dated 25 October 2004.14 Respondent
filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 January 2005
thereon.15
On 1 February 2005, Judge Madrona reset the arraignment to 9
March 2005, with a warning that the arraignment would proceed
without any more delay, unless the Supreme Court would issue an
injunctive writ.16
On 9 March 2005, respondent failed to appear before the RTC.
Thereupon, Judge Madrona, in open court, denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion to Quash and
admitting the Amended Informations, and ordered the arrest of
respondent and the confiscation of the cash bond. 17
On 11 March 2005, respondent filed an "Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and/or to Lift the Order of Arrest of Accused Dr.
Pablo Olivarez,"18 which was denied in an Order dated 31 March
2005. The Order directed that a bench warrant be issued for the
arrest of respondent to ensure his presence at his arraignment. 19
On 5 April 2005, the Law Department of the COMELEC filed before
the RTC a Manifestation and Motion20wherein it alleged that pursuant
to the COMELECs powers to investigate and prosecute election
offense cases, it had the power to revoke the delegation of its
authority to the city prosecutor. Pursuant to these powers, the
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 745721 dated 4 April 2005.
The dispositive portion of Resolution No. 7457 states:

Considering the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby


RESOLVES, to APPROVE and ADOPT the recommendation of the
Law Department as follows:
1. To revoke the deputation of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Paraaque to investigate and prosecute
election offense cases insofar as I.S. Nos. 04-2608 and 042774, entitled "Renato Comparativo vs. Remedios Malabiran
and Pablo Olivarez" and "Bienvenido et. al. vs. Sally Rose
Saraos, et. al.," respectively, are concerned; and
2. To direct the Law Department to handle the prosecution of
these cases and file the appropriate Motion and
Manifestation before the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque,
Branch 274, to hold in abeyance further proceedings on
Criminal Case Nos. 1104 and 1105 until the Commission has
acted on the appeal of respondents.
Let the Law Department implement this Resolution.
Thus, the Law Department of the COMELEC moved (1) that the RTC
hold in abeyance further proceedings in Criminal Cases No. 04-1104
and No. 04-1105 until the COMELEC has acted on respondents
appeal; and (2) to revoke the authority of the city prosecutor of
Paraaque to prosecute the case, designating therein the lawyers
from the Law Department of the COMELEC to prosecute Criminal
Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105.
On 8 April 2005, respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari
before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89230,
assailing the Orders, dated 12 January 2005, 9 March 2005 and 31
March 2005 of the RTC. The appellate court granted the appeal in a
Decision dated 28 September 2005 declaring that the COMELEC
had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of election
offenses and to prosecute the same. As such, the COMELEC may

delegate such authority to the Chief State Prosecutor, provincial


prosecutors, and city prosecutors. The COMELEC, however, has the
corresponding power, too, to revoke such authority to delegate.
Thus, the categorical order of the COMELEC to suspend the
prosecution of the case before the RTC effectively deprived the city
prosecutor of the authority to amend the two informations. The
appellate court also pronounced that Judge Madrona erred in
admitting the amended informations, since they were made in
excess of the delegated authority of the public prosecutor, and his
orders to arrest the respondent and to confiscate the latters cash
bond were devoid of legal basis.22 The fallo of the Decision reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the petition at
bench must be, as it hereby is, GRANTED. The impugned Orders of
the public respondent Judge Fortunito L. Madrona of Branch 274,
Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City dated 12 January 2005, 9
March 2005, and 31 March 2005 are hereby VACATED and
NULLIFIED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued in the instant
petition is made PERMANENT. Without costs in this instance. 23
Hence, the present petition under Rule 65 where the petitioners
enumerate the following assignments of error, to wit:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NULLIFYING
THE ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO AS IT BASICALLY ERRED IN
ITS APPRECIATION THAT THE TWO AMENDED INFORMATIONS
WERE FILED AT A TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HAD
NO MORE AUTHORITY TO DO SO;
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO ACCUSEDS ALLEGATION THAT COMELEC

RESOLUTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE PROSECUTOR "DAYS


BEFORE THE (sic) FILED THE AMENDED INFORMATIONS;"
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING
AS PERMANENT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
EARLIER ISSUED.24
This Court finds merit in the present petition.
At the outset, it should be noted that the appropriate remedy for
petitioners is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as
petitioners aver in their Manifestation and Motion dated 9 January
2006. However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the
Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, this Court has decided to
treat the present petition for certiorari as having been filed under
Rule 45, especially considering that it was filed within the
reglementary period for the same. Petitioners received the Court of
Appeals Resolution on 24 November 2005 and filed an Urgent
Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal on 6 December 2005, within
the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review
on certiorari. This Court granted the motion of petitioners for an
extension of 30 days from 9 December 2005, the expiration of the
reglementary period, and the petitioners were able to file their
petition on 6 January 2006 within the period for extension granted by
this Court. It cannot therefore be claimed that this petition is being
used as a substitute for appeal after the remedy has been lost
through the fault of the petitioner.25
The main issues in this case are (1) whether or not the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Paraaque had acted in excess of its jurisdiction
when it filed the Amended Informations, and whether Judge Madrona
had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he admitted the said

Amended Informations and denied the respondents motion to


quash; and (2) whether or not Judge Madrona had acted in
accordance with law when he issued the warrant for the arrest of
respondent and ordered the confiscation of his cash bond due to the
latters failure to appear for arraignment.
There is no dispute that the COMELEC is empowered to investigate
and prosecute election offenses, and that the Chief State Prosecutor,
the provincial prosecutors and city prosecutors, acting on its behalf,
must proceed within the lawful scope of their delegated authority.
Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
Section 265. Prosecution.The Commission shall, through its duly
authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under
this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of
the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government:
Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act
on any complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant
may file the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry
of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for
the continuing delegation of authority to other prosecuting arms of
the government, an authority that the COMELEC may revoke or
withdraw in the proper exercise of its judgment.
Section 2. Continuing Delegation of Authority to Other Prosecution
Arms of the Government.The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial
and City Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants are herby given
continuing authority, as deputies of the Commission, to conduct
preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses
under the election laws which may be filed directly with them, or
which may be indorsed to them by the Commission or its duly
authorized representative and to prosecute the same. Such authority

may be revoked or withdrawn any time by the Commission whenever


in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect
the integrity of the Commission, promote the common good, or when
it believes that successful prosecution of the case can be done by
the Commission.
Furthermore, Section 10 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides that the COMELEC is empowered to revise, modify and
reverse the resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor and/or
provincial/city prosecutors.
Section 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor,
Provincial or City Fiscal.Appeals from the resolution of the State
Prosecutor or Provincial or City Fiscal on the recommendation or
resolution of investigating officers may be made only to the
Commission within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution of
said officials, provided, however that this shall not divest the
Commission of its power to motu proprio review, revise, modify or
reverse the resolution of the chief state prosecutor and/or
provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on said
appeals shall be immediately executory and final.
Be that as it may, this Court finds that the public prosecutors, in filing
the Amended Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by
the COMELEC. Resolution No. 7457, which effectively revoked the
deputation of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Paraaque, was
issued on 4 April 2005, after the Amended Informations were filed on
28 October 2004. The letter dated 11 October 2004, written by
Director Alioden D. Dalaig of the COMELEC Law Department, did
not revoke the continuing authority granted to the City Prosecutor of
Paraaque. It simply reads:
In this connection, you are hereby directed to transmit the entire
records of the case to the Law Department, Commission on
Elections, Intramuros, Manila by the fastest means available. You are

further directed to suspend further implementation of the questioned


resolution until final resolution of said appeal by the Comelec En
Banc.26
The filing of the Amended Informations was not made in defiance of
these instructions by the COMELEC; rather it was an act
necessitated by the developments of the case. Respondent filed a
Motion to Quash on 11 October 2004 on the ground that more than
one offense was charged therein. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure, provides:
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at
any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of
court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights
of the accused. x x x. (Emphasis provided.)
Since the Rules of Court provided for a remedy that would avert the
dismissal of the complaints on the ground that more than one offense
was charged, the public prosecutor filed the Amended Informations.
The instructions of the COMELEC, in the letter dated 11 October
2004, were clearly intended to allow sufficient time to reconsider the
merit of the Joint Resolution, not to have the public prosecutor
abandon the prosecution of the case and negligently allow its
dismissal by not filing the Amended Informations, thus, leaving the
COMELEC in a quandary should it later dismiss the appeal before it.
By filing the Amended Informations, the public prosecutor had
avoided such an undesirable situation, which would have forced the
COMELEC to re-file the cases, waste government resources, and
delay the administration of justice. Thus, the precautionary measure
taken by the public prosecutor was clearly not intended to disobey
the COMELEC, or to flout its authority or diminish its powers to
review the appealed Joint Resolution. As such, the filing of the
Amended Informations cannot in any way be considered improper.

Consequently, Judge Madrona acted in accordance with law when


he admitted these Informations and dismissed the respondents
Motion to Quash, as the ground stated thereinthe informations
charged more than one offensecould no longer be sustained.

(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending


at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President;
Provided, That the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60)
days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

Moreover, no abuse of discretion can be attributed to Judge Madrona


when he issued the Orders, dated 9 March 2005 and 31 March 2005,
for the arrest of the respondent due to his failure to be present for his
arraignment and for the confiscation of his cash bond. These Orders
are consistent with criminal procedure.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the arraignment of the accused is


not indefinitely suspended by the pendency of an appeal before the
Department of Justice or, in this case, Law Department of the
COMELEC; rather, the reviewing authority is allowed 60 days within
which to decide the appeal. In this case, respondent filed his Appeal
of the Joint Resolution at the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Paraaque on 7 October 2004. Thus, the arraignment that was
scheduled on 11 October 2004 was re-scheduled to 13 December
2004, approximately 60 days thereafter. On 1 December 2004, the
arraignment scheduled on 13 December 2004 was reset to 1
February 2005 because of the pending Motion to Quash. When the
respondent failed to appear on the scheduled arraignment, Judge
Madrona nonetheless reset the arraignment to 9 March 2005, with
the warning that the court would impose the appropriate sanctions,
should respondent still fail to appear therein. It was only on 9 March
2005, or five months after the respondent filed his appeal before the
Law Department of the COMELEC that Judge Madrona held the
arraignment and issued the Bench Warrant of Arrest against
respondent.29 Five months, which far exceeded the sixty days
provided by the rules, was ample time for the respondent to obtain
from COMELEC a reversal of the Joint Resolution.

The filing of an information in the trial court initiates a criminal action.


The trial court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. After the
filing of the complaint or the information, a warrant for the arrest of
the accused is issued by the trial court. When the accused voluntarily
submits himself to the court or is duly arrested, the court then
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.27 In this case,
the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused
Carmelo Jaro, Remedios Malibaran, and the respondent, who posted
bail bonds after the trial court issued a Warrant of Arrest on 4
October 2004. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial
discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed
in court, once the case has been brought to court, whatever
disposition the fiscal may feel is proper in the case should be
addressed to the consideration of the trial court. 28
Thereafter, arraignment shall follow as a matter of course. Section
11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, enumerates the
instances that can suspend the arraignment of the accused:
Section 11. Suspension of arraignment.Upon motion of the proper
party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
xxxx

In pronouncing that Judge Madrona acted in grave abuse of


discretion when he failed to defer the arraignment of the respondent,
the Court of Appeals cited Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge
How,30 wherein this Court cautioned judges to refrain from
precipitately arraigning the accused to avoid any miscarriage of
justice. However, this case was decided before the Rules of Criminal
Procedure were revised on 1 December 2000; and the rule setting
the 60-day period for the suspension of the arraignment of the

accused pending an appeal or a petition for review before a


reviewing authority was not yet applicable. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that even in Solar, this Court did not sanction an indefinite
suspension of the proceedings in the trial court. Its reliance on the
reviewing authority, the Justice Secretary, to decide the appeal at the
soonest possible time was anchored on the rule provided under
Department Memorandum Order No. 12, dated 3 July 2000, which
mandates that the period for the disposition of appeals or petitions
for review shall be 75 days.31

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the


Court of Appeals dated 28 September 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No.
89230 is REVERSED. This Court orders the continuation of the
proceedings in Criminal Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105 before
the RTC, the prosecution of which shall be under the direction of the
Law Department of the COMELEC. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Вам также может понравиться