GR 172840; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172840 , June 7, 2007
NELSON T. LLUZ and CATALINO C. ALDEOSA, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CAESAR O. VICENCIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Caesar O. Vicencio was a candidate for Punong Barangay in the 2002 elections. In his Certificate of Candidacy, he stated his profession as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). After he won, petitioners charged him before the COMELEC Law Department for violation of Section 262 (penalties) in relation to Section 74 (contents of certificate of candidacy) of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging he misrepresented his CPA status. The Professional Regulation Commission certified that Vicencio’s name did not appear in the official registry of CPAs and that he had failed the CPA board examinations.
The COMELEC Law Department initially recommended dismissal, citing jurisprudence that misrepresentation must be material to a candidate’s eligibility. The COMELEC En Banc later reversed this, ordering the filing of an information, ruling that election offenses are mala prohibita and materiality is not required for prosecution. However, upon Vicencio’s motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc ultimately dismissed the case, holding that the misrepresentation, while deceitful, was not material to his qualifications for the barangay office.
ISSUE
Whether a candidate’s misrepresentation of his profession in a Certificate of Candidacy constitutes an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, absent a showing that the fact misrepresented is material to his eligibility for the office.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC resolutions. The Court held that for a misrepresentation in a Certificate of Candidacy to be punishable as an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74, it must pertain to a material fact. The Court reasoned that Section 262 penalizes the violation of the “pertinent portions” of Section 74. Following the rule of statutory construction that penal laws must be construed strictly against the state, the term “pertinent portions” was interpreted to refer only to those portions of Section 74 that require the disclosure of qualifications for elective office.
The misrepresentation involved—falsely claiming to be a CPA—concerns a candidate’s occupation, which is not a qualification prescribed by law for the position of Punong Barangay. The material facts in a certificate of candidacy are those that relate to the candidate’s eligibility, such as citizenship, residency, age, and other legal qualifications. Since occupation is not a statutory qualification, its misstatement, however dishonest, does not fall under the penal provisions of the election law. The Court emphasized that while the act is morally reprehensible, it may be subject to other administrative or criminal actions, but not to prosecution for an election offense.