G.R. No. L-36388. March 16, 1988.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., District Judge, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Branch II), respondent.
FACTS
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) filed four criminal complaints against Eden Asuncion for various election offenses allegedly committed on November 8, 1971, at a polling precinct in Laoag City. Among these was Criminal Case No. 120-II, which charged Asuncion with violating Section 172 of the Election Code of 1971 (Republic Act No. 6388) by unlawfully entering the polling place while voting was in progress. After conducting a preliminary investigation, respondent Judge Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., issued an Order dated October 27, 1972, dismissing three cases for insufficiency of evidence and quashing the complaint in Criminal Case No. 120-II. The quashal was specifically grounded on the judge’s conclusion that the mere presence of an unauthorized person in the polling place, without more, did not constitute a criminal offense under the law. The COMELEC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of this petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the said orders.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the criminal complaint for violation of Section 172 of the Election Code of 1971.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, thereby upholding the quashal of the complaint, albeit for a different legal reason than that provided by the respondent Judge. The Court clarified that Section 172, in relation to Sections 230 and 233 of the Election Code, is indeed penal in character, contrary to the lower court’s ruling that mere unauthorized presence was not an offense. The provision explicitly restricts entry to the polling place and prescribes a severe penalty for its violation, classifying it as a serious election offense.
However, the Court sustained the dismissal based on the established insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case, a ground the respondent Judge had applied to the other three cases. The testimony of the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, which was quoted in the dismissal order, revealed that when Asuncion attempted to enter the voting booth, he was immediately stopped and sent out by the Chairman, who also did not see him commit any other disruptive acts. This factual finding demonstrated that the core purpose of Section 172—to protect the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot by preventing unauthorized intrusion and interference—was not compromised. Consequently, no violation of the statute could be inferred from the incident as described. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the ultimate result of the quashal, as the evidence on record failed to substantiate the essential elements of the offense charged.