CRIMINAL LAW 1

Atty. Lorenzo Luigi T. Gayya

UST Faculty of Civil Law, 2019, 1G

Rimando vs. COMELEC,  AUTHOR: Daguno, Abrielle Paz Viktoria M.

[G.R. No. 176364, September 18, 2009] NOTES: *

TOPIC: Petition for Certiorari to Reverse & Set Aside COMELEC

Issuances

PONENTE: Leonardo-De Castro, J.

THESIS STATEMENT:

Juanito R. Rimando petitions for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction to reverse and set aside the following issuances of the COMELEC En Banc:

Resolution (October 11, 2005)

 granted Norma Magno’s Motion for Reconsideration and directed the COMELEC’s Law Department to file the proper
information against Juanito Rimando for violation of Article XXII, Section 261, paragraph (s) of the Omnibus Election
Code: Wearing of uniforms and bearing arms (Omnibus means a volume containing several items previously published
separately)

 Resolution (January 5, 2007 in Election Offense Case No. 01-130)

 denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

CASE LAW/DOCTRINE: Section 261 (s) of the Omnibus Election Code, to wit:

(4) The offender does not fall under this exception: He is guarding the residence of private persons or guarding private
residences, buildings or offices; Provided, that prior written approval of the Commission shall be obtained.

Factual Antecedents:

July 13, 2001:  Norma O. Magno, with COMELEC, Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Santa Cruz Laguna presented a
Complaint accusing Jacinto Carag, Jonry Enaya, and petitioner Juanito R. Rimando of violating the ff.:

1.      Comelec Resolution No. 3328 (in relation to the OEC Section 261: Wearing of Uniforms and Bearing Arms & R.A. No.
7166 Section 32: Who May Bear Firearms)

  Section 2, paragraph (e) –Prohibition: to bear firearms outside the immediate vicinity of his place of work
  Section 3, paragraph (d) –Exception: in the actual performance in the specific area of their assignment, of their duties
with prior written authority from the Commission

FACTS:

 Juanito R. Rimando
o President and General Manager of Illustrious Security & Investigation Agency, Inc.
  February 19, 2001
o COMELEC denied his/its application for a Firearms & Other Deadly Weapons Ban Exemption
 February 27, 2001
o Election Period (January 2, 2001 - June 13, 2001), in Quezon City and Santa Rosa, Laguna within
COMELEC
o Juanito still permitted his Security Guards Jacinto Carag & Jonry Enaya to work using 12 GA (shotgun)
knowing fully well that they had no prior written COMELEC authority to do so
o Security Guard Jacinto Carag, in his uniform,  shoot to death with a shotgun Jonathan Magno, 19 /o, student
o Carag fled and is still at large
 Murder Weapon
o Recovered by the agency
o But has not yet been surrendered by Rimando to the Police

ISSUE(S): 

 Whether or not respondent Rimando violated the COMELEC Gun Ban enforced during the 2001 election period
 Whether or not respondent Rimando can be held liable therefor

PROSECUTION THEORY

Petitioner: Juanito R. Rimando Respondents: COMELEC and Norma O. Magno

 Denied having violated the COMELEC Resolution No.
3328
 Averred that on the day of the shooting incident, SG
Carag & Enaya were within the vicinity of Sta. Rosa
Homes; they were assigned to secure the residents
thereof
 Provided with licensed firearms which they never brought
outside the subdivision
 Has Memorandum 31-2000 (only prohibited private
security agencies, company security forces, government
security forces and their security guards from bearing
guns outside the immediate vicinity of their places of work
without written authority from the COMELEC.
 Magno appealed to the COMELEC, argued that
prior written authority from the COMELEC was
necessary before firearms could legally be
carried even in the place of assignment during
the election period
 COMELEC En Banc rendered a Resolution
affirming the dismissal of the complaint against
SG Enaya & Carag BUT directing its Law
Department to file the proper info AGAINST
Juanito Rimando for Violation of Article XXII
Section 261

RULING: 

 WHEREFORE, complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, and the Resolution of the Commission
promulgated on 30 January 2004 is hereby RECONSIDERED.
 The COMELEC En Banc emphasized that in light of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case, it was ruling pro
hac vice (for or on this occasion only)
 WHEREFORE, The Resolutions of the COMELEC En Banc issued on October 11, 2005 and January 5, 2007 in
Election Case No. 01-130 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.