Scribd
Upload
644 views3 pages

People vs. Basilla (DIGEST)

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has the authority to deputize other law enforcement agencies and prosecuting arms of the government, including provincial and city fiscals, to investigate and prosecute election cases. This is by virtue of the Constitution granting COMELEC the power to deputize agencies for ensuring free, orderly, honest and credible elections. The Court denied the trial court's dismissal of 3 election violation cases, noting that the COMELEC had specifically deputized provincial and city fiscals to handle such preliminary investigations and prosecutions through a resolution. The trial court's order was thus set aside.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
644 views3 pages

People vs. Basilla (DIGEST)

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has the authority to deputize other law enforcement agencies and prosecuting arms of the government, including provincial and city fiscals, to investigate and prosecute election cases. This is by virtue of the Constitution granting COMELEC the power to deputize agencies for ensuring free, orderly, honest and credible elections. The Court denied the trial court's dismissal of 3 election violation cases, noting that the COMELEC had specifically deputized provincial and city fiscals to handle such preliminary investigations and prosecutions through a resolution. The trial court's order was thus set aside.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

University

of the Philippines College of Law


BAR D2022

Case Name People vs. Basilla


Topic Deputize Law Enforcement Agents & Recommend Their Removal
Case No. |
GR No. 83938-40, Nov 6, 1989
Date
Ponente Feliciano, J.
After the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate filed before the trial court with regards to 3 cases
involving election violations (2 vote-buying, and carrying a deadly weapon), the Trial
Court Judge, Henry Basilla, dismissed the 3 cases since he argued that the cases should
have been filed by the COMELEC and that the latter should have investigated it
exclusively.
Case

Summary
The court denied the ruling of the trial court saying that the COMELEC, by virtue of Art.
IX, C, Sec. 2 (4) of the 1987 Constitution, has the power to avail itself of the assistance of
other prosecuting arms of the Government with regards to cases involving election
violations although it having "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary investigation of
election offenses and to prosecute the same.
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2 (4) of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and
functions:
Doctrine
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumantalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
the exclusive purpose of ensuring free orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.


RELEVANT FACTS
• As an aftermath of the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, 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 against the private respondents as follows:

- Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Governor, against the spouses Jaime
and Adoracion Tayong — for violation of Section 261, paragraph a-1, for vote-buying;

- by Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot — for violation of Section 261, paragraph a-1,
also for vote buying; and

- by PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson — for violation of Section 261, paragraph p, for
carrying of deadly weapon.
• In three (3) separate orders, Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed the three (3) cases since
"The record shows that the complainant filed the complaint with the fiscal and not with the
COMELEC. The COMELEC did not investigate nor prosecute the case."
University of the Philippines College of Law
BAR D2022

• The instant Petition for Review assails the three (3) orders dismissing the three (3) criminal
information against the private respondents, as constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.
• The Petition argues principally that the Commission on Elections ("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 informations therefor.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
WON COMELEC has YES.
the authority to
delegate the There is no dispute that the Comelec is vested with power and authority to conduct
investigation and preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus
prosecution of Election Code and to prosecute such offenses in court.
election cases to
chief state We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests "exclusive power" to conduct
prosecutors, preliminary investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon
provincial and city the Comelec, it at the same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the
fiscals and their assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Government. Section 2 of Article IX-
assistants C of the 1987 Constitution clearly envisage that the Comelec would not be
compelled to carry out all its functions directly and by itself alone:

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and
functions:

(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcementi agencies
and instrumantalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free orderly, honest, peaceful,
and credible elections.

Sec. 11. Prosecution. — Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal
officers, have exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election
offenses punishable as provided for in the preceding section, and to prosecute
the same: Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
complaint within two (2) months from filing, the complainant may file the
complaint with the Office the Fiscal or with the Department for Justice for proper
investigation and prosecution, if warranted.

The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government.

On 9 March 1987, the Comelec enacted its Resolution No. 1862. The pertinant
operative portions of this resolution are the following:
xxx xxx xxx
University of the Philippines College of Law
BAR D2022


NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers vested
in it by the Constitution of the Republic of the, Philippines, the Omnibus Election
Code and Executive Orders Nos. 50, 94, 134 and 144, has RESOLVED to designate,
as it hereby designates the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City
Fiscalss and their respective Assistants as its deputies in connection with the
elections for Members of Congress on May 11, 1987, to perform the following
duties and functions:

1. Conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses
under the Omnibus Election Code which may be filed directly with them, or
which may be endorsed to them by the Commission or its authorized
representatives; and

2. Whenever a prima facie case exists, file the proper information in court and
prosecute the same.


RULING
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED due course and the Orders of the trial
court all dated October 6, 1987 in Criminal Cases Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and the Order dated December 7,
1987 in the same cases denying the People's Motion for Reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE and
ANNULLED. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed forthwith with the continuation of Criminal Cases Nos.
324, 326 and 375 and until termination thereof. Costs against private respondents.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy