GR 153945; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153945 ; February 4, 2003
REYNATO BAYTAN, REYNALDO BAYTAN and ADRIAN BAYTAN, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, on June 15, 1997, were led by Barangay Captain Roberto Ignacio to register in Precinct No. 83-A of Barangay 18, Cavite City. After realizing their residence was actually within Barangay 28, they registered anew in Precinct 129-A of that barangay on June 22, 1997. Subsequently, on August 21, 1997, petitioners sent a letter to COMELEC officials explaining the error, requesting advice on cancellation of their first registration, and expressing their intent to rectify the mistake. This led to a COMELEC investigation.
The Provincial Election Supervisor recommended filing an information for double registration. The COMELEC en banc, via a Minute Resolution, affirmed this recommendation and directed its Law Department to file the case. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition asserting good faith, substantial compliance via their letter, and a claim of COMELEC en banc’s lack of original jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the recommendation to prosecute petitioners for double registration.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the offense of double registration under Section 261(y)(5) of the Omnibus Election Code is malum prohibitum. The law punishes the act of registering anew without filing an application for cancellation of previous registration, regardless of the registrant’s intent or good faith. Petitioners’ honest mistake and subsequent letter do not negate the commission of the act itself. Their letter was a mere inquiry, not the formal application for cancellation required by law.
On the procedural issue, the Court held the COMELEC en banc did not exercise original jurisdiction in violation of the Constitution. The assailed resolutions were issued in the context of a preliminary investigation—an executive, not adjudicative, function aimed at determining probable cause. The constitutional provision requiring cases to be first heard by a Division applies to the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial powers, not to its investigatory and prosecutory powers under its constitutional mandate to enforce election laws. The COMELEC en banc acted within its authority in affirming the investigating officer’s recommendation to prosecute.