G.R. No. 148948, February 17, 2003
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

After the 1998 elections, a complaint for vote-buying was filed with the COMELEC against several individuals, docketed as E.O. Case No. 98-219. The COMELEC en banc directed the filing of an information, resulting in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 before the RTC. The complaint was supported by sworn affidavits from forty-four witnesses. Subsequently, a separate complaint for vote-selling was filed with the Provincial Prosecutor against these same witnesses, leading to the filing of various criminal cases, including Criminal Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00, assigned to respondent Judge Tagle’s branch.
The COMELEC, upon appeal, declared the Provincial Prosecutor’s resolution to file the vote-selling cases null and void. It ruled that the witnesses were exempt from prosecution under Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), which grants immunity to persons who voluntarily give information and testify in vote-buying or vote-selling cases. Pursuant to this, the COMELEC filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases before respondent judge. The judge denied the motion, reasoning that immunity required the actual performance of testifying, which he deemed had not yet occurred.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the COMELEC’s motion to dismiss the criminal cases for vote-selling against the witnesses.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the respondent judge’s orders and dismissing the criminal cases. The legal logic centers on the proper interpretation and application of the immunity provision under the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646. This provision states that any person who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies against any person liable for vote-buying or vote-selling shall be exempt from prosecution.
The Court clarified that the grant of immunity is not contingent upon the witness having already completed testimony in court. The provision’s plain language and intent are to encourage the disclosure of election offenses by protecting informants from retaliatory prosecution. The witnesses had already executed sworn statements attesting to the vote-buying activities, which constituted voluntarily giving information in the official investigation (E.O. Case No. 98-219). The COMELEC, in its Minute Resolution, had determined they were utilized as witnesses in the related vote-buying case. Therefore, the condition for immunity was satisfied.
The respondent judge’s insistence on completed courtroom testimony imposed a requirement not found in the law, constituting a grave abuse of discretion. His denial of the motion to dismiss, despite the COMELEC’s authoritative resolution and the attached evidence showing compliance with the immunity clause, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The COMELEC possesses the exclusive authority to prosecute election offenses, and its determination on the applicability of immunity should be respected to serve the law’s objective of cleansing the electoral process.