G.R. No. 212738 . March 09, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ATTY. ANNA LIZA R. JUAN-BARRAMEDA, MISCHAELLA SAVARI, AND MARLON SAVARI, PETITIONERS, VS. RUFINO RAMOY AND DENNIS PADILLA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners served as pollwatchers during the 2010 Barangay Elections. They filed complaints alleging election offenses. Based on these, the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed three criminal Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 101. The Informations charged respondents, along with others, with: 1) soliciting votes and undertaking propaganda on election day inside a polling place (Criminal Case No. Q-11-169067, alleged violation of Section 261(k) in relation to other provisions of the Omnibus Election Code); and 2) two counts of engaging in partisan political activity by campaigning and soliciting votes before the campaign period on September 25, 2010 (Criminal Case No. Q-11-169068) and October 10, 2010 (Criminal Case No. Q-11-169069), allegedly violating Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Informations on grounds including that they charged more than one offense. The RTC denied the motion. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC Orders, and quashed the Informations, holding that each Information charged more than one offense. Petitioners filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the subject Informations charged more than one offense, warranting their quashal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC Orders denying the motion to quash. The Court held that the Informations did not charge more than one offense. In Criminal Case No. Q-11-169067, the acts of “soliciting votes” and “distributing election paraphernalia” on election day inside a polling place constitute a single offense of unlawful electioneering under Section 261(k) of the Omnibus Election Code, as they are component acts that form one continuing crime. In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-11-169068 and Q-11-169069, the acts of “campaigning and soliciting votes” and “visiting the houses of voters and thereafter holding a meeting” for the purpose of soliciting votes before the campaign period constitute a single offense of engaging in partisan political activity outside the campaign period under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. The use of the word “and” in the Informations denotes the continuity of the acts constituting one offense, not the allegation of separate offenses. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. The cases were remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.