Today is Saturday, March 07, 2020

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-61998 February 22, 1983

ROGELIO DE JESUS, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., respondents.

Jaime G. Fortes for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

ESCOLIN, J.:

The question of law posed for determination in this petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the
Sandiganbayan may be propounded thus: Which of these entities have the power to investigate, prosecute and try
election offenses committed by a public officer in relation to his office — the Commission on Elections and the Court
of First Instance [now the regional trial court] or the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan?

After the local elections of January 18, 1980, Ananias Hibo defeated candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the
office of mayor of the Municipality of Casiguran, Sorsogon filed with the COMELEC a complaint charging petitioner
Rogelio de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar of Casiguran, with violation of the 1978 Election Code. Copy of the
complaint was sent to the Ministry of Justice which endorsed the same to the Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for
investigation. Noting that petitioner was being charged in relation to his office, Asst. Fiscals Manuel Genova and
Delfin Tarog in their capacity as deputized Tanodbayan prosecutors, conducted an investigation. Thereafter Fiscal
Genova issued a resolution finding the existence of a prima facie case against petitioner for violation of section 89 1
and sub-sections [x] 2 and [mm] 3 of Section 178 of the Election Code of 1978. After approval thereof by the
Tanodbayan, the following information, dated January 27, 1982, was filed before the Sandiganbayan:

That on or about January 30, 1980 and sometime thereafter to February 6, 1980, in the Municipality of
Casiguran Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused while discharging the Office of the Election Registrar in the Municipality of
Casiguran, Province of Sorsogon, taking advantage and abusing his official position, did there and
there wilfully unlawfully and feloniously by reason of his being a registrar knowingly registered persons
in order to vote on January 30, 1980 being an election day and at the same time issuing Identification
cards during election day, thereby violating the provision of the Election Code of 1978 and at the same
time tampering with the election reports by mag it appear that 10,727 persons were the total number of
registered voters for the election of January 30, 1980, when in truth and in fact the actual total number
of voters as - sported on January 27, 1980 by the accused was only 10,532 but then changed to
10,727, thereby violating the provisions of Section '89' and Section.'178' under Article XVI specifically
sub- section 'X' and sub-section 'MM' which is a violation of the Election Code of 1978 to the erosion of
public faith and confidence.

The case, docketed as SB Criminal Case No. 5054, was raffled to the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/feb1983/gr_l_61998_1983.html 3/7/20, 5:59 AM

Page 1 of 4
 Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information, contending that neither the Tanodbayan nor the Sandiganbayan
has the authority to investigate, prosecute and try the offense

xxx xxx xxx

[x] Any election registrar or any person acting in his behalf who issues or causes the issuance of a
voter's certificate of registration or cancels or causes the cancellation thereof the violation of the
provisions of this Code.

xxx xxx xxx

[mm] Any person who, without authority, acts as, or assumes r performs any -function of a member of
the election committee, or the board of canvassers, or deputy of representative of the Commission.

charged in the information, the same being an election offense over which the power to investigate, prosecute and
try is lodged by law in the COMELEC and the Court of First Instance. In its opposition, the prosecution maintained
the Tanodbayan's exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office, and consequently, the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction to try and decide the
charges against petitioner.

The COMELEC, having learned of the pendency of the case, entered its appearance as amicus curiae, and through
its law department manager, Atty. Zoilo Gomez, Jr., submitted a memorandum supporting petitioner's stand. 4

On August 13, 1982, the Sandiganbayan issued the questioned resolution denying the motion to quash. Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The legal question posed being one of first impression, this, Court resolved to give due course to the petition,
treating the same as an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the proper mode by which
relief from the resolution of the Sandiganbayan could be obtained from this Tribunal. Petitioner and respondents rely
on different provisions of the 1973 Constitution as bases for their respective contentions. Petitioner invokes Section
2 of Article XII[c] of the 1973 Constitution which vests upon the COMELEC the power "to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of elections," and its implementing legislation, Section 182 of the 1978 Election Code,
which provides the following:

Section 182 — Prosecution. The Commission shall, thru its duly authorized legal officer, have the
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.

Petitioner further cites Section 184 of the same Code which invests the court of first instance with "exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this code except those relating to the
offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction of the city or municipal courts. ...
The Solicitor General supports the petitioner's views. 5

Upon the other hand, the Sandiganbayan, in its resolution of August 13, 1982, 6 asserts its jurisdiction over Criminal
Case No. 5054 on the authority of Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution, which mandated the creation by the
Batasan Pambansa of "a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal
and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices, and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be
determined by law."

To the Sandiganbayan, as set forth in the challenged resolution, ... the key phrase in the determination as to which
of the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts of first instance should take cognizance of an election offense, is the
phrase, 'in relation to their office'." Thus, it would distinguish between election offenses committed by public officers
and employees in relation to their office and those committed not in relation to their office, in this manner:

If the election offense is committed by a public officer or employee NOT in relation to their office,
generally, jurisdiction will be assumed by the regular courts. If, on the other hand, the offense was
committed by a public officer or employee in relation to their office, then there is no other tribunal

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/feb1983/gr_l_61998_1983.html 3/7/20, 5:59 AM

Page 2 of 4
 vested with jurisdiction to try such offense but this court, in consonance with the mandate of the
Constitution that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, lover ... offenses committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office.

We find the position of the Sandiganbayan devoid of merit.

The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
election and the concomittant 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.

From a careful scrutiny of the constitutional provisions relied upon by the Sandiganbayan, We perceive neither
explicit nor implicit grant to it and its prosecuting arm, the Tanodbayan, of the authority to investigate, prosecute and
hear election offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, as contra-distinguished from the clear
and categorical bestowal of said authority and jurisdiction upon the COMELEC and the courts of first instance under
Sections 182 and 184, respectively, of the Election Code of 1978.

Under the Constitution, the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over ... offenses committed by public officers ... in
relation to their office as may be determined by law" [Sec. 5, Art. XIII]; while the Office of the Tanodbayan shall
"receive and investigate complaints relative to public office." [Sec. 6, Art. XIII]. The clause, "as may be determined
by law" is, to Our mind imbued with grave import. It called for a legislation that would define and delineate the power
and jurisdiction of both the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan, as what, in fact had been provided for in
Presidential Decree Nos. 1606 and 1607, creating the said entities.

Thus, under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over:

[a] Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379;

[b] Crimes committed by public officers and employees, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes; and,

[c] Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office.

Plainly, the above quoted paragraph [c] is but a re-statement of the constitutional provision relating to the
Sandiganbayan. It is also to be noted that it is phased in terms so broad and general that it cannot be legitimately
construed to vest said entity with exclusive jurisdiction over election offenses committed by public officers in relation
to their office. Neither can it be interpreted to impliedly repeal the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted by
Section 184 of the Election Code of 1978 to the court of first instance to hear and decide all election offenses,
without qualification as to the status of the accused.

Apart from the fact that repeals by implication are not favored. it is noted that while Section 184 of the Election Code
deals specifically with election offenses, Section 4[c] of P.D. No, 1606 speaks generally of "other crimes or offenses
committed by public officers ... in relation to their office." Needless to state, as between specific and general statute,
the former must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than a general statute does. 7 And where a
reconciliation between the statute is possible, as in the case at bar, the former should be deemed an exception to
the latter. 8

The same principle of statutory construction should be applied with respect to the powers vested upon the
COMELEC and the Tanodbayan in so far as election offenses are concerned.

Moreover, as aptly observed by the COMELEC as well as the Solicitor General, splitting the jurisdiction over election
offenses would serve no beneficial purpose but would rather spawn much controversy — "complaints about unequal
protection, about inconsistent decisions, etc. (which are) not conducive to a fair and speedy administration of

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/feb1983/gr_l_61998_1983.html 3/7/20, 5:59 AM

Page 3 of 4
 justice." [p. 17, Comment, Solicitor General].

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Sandiganbayan Second Division dated August 13, 1982 is hereby set aside and
Criminal Case No. 5054. entitled "People of the Philippines versus Rogelio de Jesus" is ordered dismissed. The
COMELEC is hereby directed to forthwith conduct an investigation, and if the evidence so warrants, to prosecute the
complaint against petitioner before the proper court of first instance. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, Relova and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., reserves his vote.

Aquino, J., is on leave.

Abad Santos, J., I reserve my vote.

Footnotes

1 Section 89 of the 1978 Election Code provides:

Sec. 89. Certified list of voters.— Not later than three days before the day of the election, the election
registrar and the members of the citizens election committee shall prepare and certify, in three copies,
a complete list of voters for each voting center containing the names, in alphabetical order, and
addresses of all voters registered in the city, municipality or municipal district based on the approved
applications in the books of voters. One copy should be delivered to the election committee together
with the books of voters for use on election day, one copy shall be delivered to the barangay captain
concerned who shall inform the voters of their voting center, and the third copy shall be retained by the
election registrar.

2&3 Sub-sections "x" and "mm" of Section 178 of the 1978 Election petition Code read as follows:

"Sec. 178. Prohibited Acts.— The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

4 Annex "F", p. 47, Rollo.

5 Solicitor General's Comment dated January 11, 1983.

6 p. 124, Rollo.

7 Lacsamana, vs. Baltazar, 92 Phil. 32; Wilhemsen vs. Baluyot, 83 SCRA 38.

8 Lichauco vs. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138; Butuan Saw Mill Inc. vs. City of Butuan, et al, 16 SCRA 755.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/feb1983/gr_l_61998_1983.html 3/7/20, 5:59 AM

Page 4 of 4