GR 170447; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170447; December 4, 2009
BIENVENIDO DIÑO and RENATO COMPARATIVO, Petitioners vs. PABLO OLIVAREZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for vote-buying against respondent Pablo Olivarez. The City Prosecutor of Parañaque found probable cause and filed two Informations before the RTC on September 29, 2004. Respondent filed an appeal of the Joint Resolution with the COMELEC Law Department and a Motion to Quash the Informations. On October 11, 2004, the COMELEC Law Department directed the city prosecutor to transmit the records and suspend further implementation of the Joint Resolution until final resolution of the appeal. Before the trial court could act on the Motion to Quash, the public prosecutor filed an Opposition and a Motion to Admit Amended Informations on October 28, 2004, which charged only a specific violation. Respondent opposed the admission, arguing the city prosecutor was no longer empowered to amend after the COMELEC’s directive. On January 12, 2005, Judge Madrona denied the Motion to Quash and admitted the Amended Informations. Respondent failed to appear at his arraignment on March 9, 2005, leading the judge to order his arrest and the confiscation of his cash bond. On April 4, 2005, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7457, revoking the deputation of the city prosecutor and directing its Law Department to handle the prosecution. Respondent filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, which granted it, nullifying the trial court’s orders. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially reversed the CA in a June 23, 2009 Decision. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the public prosecutor retained the authority to file the Amended Informations on October 28, 2004, given the COMELEC Law Department’s October 11, 2004 directive to transmit records and suspend implementation of the Joint Resolution pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Motion for Reconsideration, SET ASIDE its June 23, 2009 Decision, and REINSTATED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Amended Informations filed by the City Prosecutor on October 28, 2004, are declared VOID and of NO EFFECT. The Court held that the COMELEC’s October 11, 2004 directive was a revocation of the delegated authority to prosecute. The directive to “suspend further implementation” of the Joint Resolution encompassed the filing of amended pleadings. Therefore, the public prosecutor acted without authority in filing the Amended Informations, rendering them patent nullities. Consequently, all subsequent orders of the trial court based on these void amended informations, including the denial of the Motion to Quash, the admission of the informations, and the orders for arrest and bond confiscation, were likewise invalid.