GR 83938; (November, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. HENRY B. BASILLA, SALVACION COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON, respondents.
FACTS
Following the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, three separate complaints for violations of the Omnibus Election Code were filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal against private respondents. The charges included vote-buying against spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong and Salvacion Colambot, and carrying a deadly weapon against Melchor Yanson. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal filed corresponding criminal informations in the Regional Trial Court.
Respondent Judge Henry Basilla, in three identical orders, motu proprio dismissed all three criminal cases. The judge ruled that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) possesses the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code and Article IX-C of the Constitution. Since the complaints were filed directly with the Provincial Fiscal and not investigated by the COMELEC, the court deemed itself without jurisdiction. The People’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal informations on the ground that the COMELEC did not conduct the preliminary investigation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the trial court’s orders. The legal logic centers on the proper interpretation of the COMELEC’s exclusive authority. While Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code grants the COMELEC the “exclusive power” to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses, it simultaneously authorizes the COMELEC to “avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.” This provision is reinforced by Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution , which empowers the COMELEC to deputize, with the consent of the President, any government official or employee.
The Court clarified that the COMELEC, given its limited bureaucracy and the nationwide scale of elections, is not compelled to perform all investigative and prosecutorial functions directly. By deputizing prosecuting officers like provincial fiscals, these officers become agents of the COMELEC, and their acts are considered acts of the COMELEC itself within the scope of their delegated authority. The trial judge’s rigid interpretation erroneously disregarded this deputization mechanism. The cited cases of De Jesus v. People and Corpus v. Tanodbayan were inapposite as they did not address the COMELEC’s power to deputize. Consequently, the dismissal orders constituted grave abuse of discretion. The cases were reinstated and the trial court was ordered to proceed with the trials.