GR 108120; (January, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108120 January 26, 1994
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SIXTO B. DELA VICTORIA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, and CONGRESSMAN CARMELO J. LOCSIN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sixto B. dela Victoria was a candidate who lost the mayoralty election in Albuera, Leyte on February 1, 1988. On February 8, 1990, the Commission on Elections filed an information before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Baybay, Leyte (Criminal Case No. B-1588), charging respondent Congressman Carmelo J. Locsin with violation of Section 261(f) of the Omnibus Election Code for allegedly intimidating the Municipal Board of Canvassers during the canvassing. After arraignment and plea of not guilty, and after the prosecution rested its case, respondent Locsin filed a Demurrer to Evidence claiming insufficiency of prosecution evidence. The trial court denied the demurrer. Respondent Locsin then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals to set aside the trial court’s order. The Solicitor General, in his comment to the petition, recommended dismissal of the criminal case, stating the prosecution “utterly failed to come up with even a single iota of evidence.” On May 7, 1992, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, dismissed Criminal Case No. B-1588, and annulled the trial court’s order. The COMELEC and Dela Victoria filed the instant petition.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the COMELEC and petitioner Dela Victoria have the personality or authority to file the petition; and (2) whether the dismissal of the criminal case by the Court of Appeals places respondent Locsin in double jeopardy.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition.
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the COMELEC has sufficient interest and authority to file the petition. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to prosecute cases of violations of election laws. Given the peculiar circumstance where the Solicitor General took a position antagonistic to the COMELEC by siding with the accused, it is proper to allow the COMELEC to file the petition. The ruling in People v. Calo was extended to a government agency like the COMELEC entrusted with prosecution.
On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal by the Court of Appeals, being on the merits and based on insufficiency of evidence, amounts to an acquittal. The grant of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is equivalent to an acquittal. Double jeopardy attaches when the accused, after being arraigned and pleading, is acquitted or the case is dismissed on such ground. Therefore, the dismissal cannot be corrected due to the timely plea of double jeopardy. The Court also found no impropriety in the Solicitor General’s act of recommending dismissal, as he may abandon the prosecution in the exercise of his sound discretion.