GR 140850; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 140850-51 May 4, 2000
Eugenio “Jing-Jing” Faelnar, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Hon. Ramon Codilla, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City, and Commission on Elections, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for Barangay Chairman on April 8, 1997. The next day, a basketball tournament named the “2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar’s Cup” commenced at a local sports complex, lasting until April 30, 1997, which was before the official campaign period. A complaint for electioneering was filed, alleging the tournament was a campaign gimmick featuring streamers with petitioner’s name, announcements over a microphone, newspaper publicity, and a raffle with prizes. After investigation, the COMELEC en banc initially dismissed the case via Resolution No. 97-3040.
However, upon the complainant’s motion, the COMELEC reconsidered and ordered the filing of criminal Informations against Faelnar. He moved to quash these Informations in the Regional Trial Court, arguing that the initial COMELEC dismissal resolution was immediately final and executory and could no longer be reconsidered. The trial court denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc’s Resolution No. 97-3040, which initially dismissed the election offense complaint, was immediately final and executory, thereby depriving the COMELEC of authority to reconsider it and order the filing of criminal charges.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. First, the Court ruled that petitioner’s proper remedy was to directly challenge the COMELEC’s reconsideration resolution (No. 98-2914) via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 within 30 days from notice, as prescribed by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. By failing to do so and instead filing the present petition over a year later, he allowed the COMELEC resolution to become final and binding.
Second, on the substantive issue, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC en banc resolution in an election offense case is expressly allowed. Petitioner erroneously relied on the 1988 COMELEC Rules. The applicable 1993 Rules of Procedure explicitly provide an exception to the prohibition against motions for reconsideration “except in election offense cases.” Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its authority in reconsidering its initial dismissal and ordering the prosecution. The trial court correctly denied the motion to quash, as the COMELEC, through its Law Department, had the continuing authority to prosecute election offenses.