GR L 20808; (July, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20808 July 31, 1965
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Braulio de Venecia, accused-appellee.
FACTS
Braulio de Venecia was prosecuted in the Pangasinan Court of First Instance for electioneering. The information alleged that he willfully induced, influenced, swayed, and made electors vote in favor of NP candidate Felipe Oda for Municipal Mayor of Binalonan in the November 10, 1959 election by distributing election handbills. A sample leaflet (Annex “A”) was attached, which bore the Nacionalista Party symbol and contained a message from gubernatorial candidate Conrado F. Estrella urging voters to support Mayor Felipe Oda and not to vote for an independent candidate, thereby endorsing a straight Nacionalista ticket. The prosecution was based on Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. The trial court granted a motion to quash and dismissed the case, holding that Section 54 had been repealed by Section 29 of Republic Act 2260. The Government appealed, insisting that Section 54 was not repealed and that De Venecia’s conduct violated it.
ISSUE
Whether Section 29 of Republic Act 2260 repealed Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
RULING
No, Section 29 of Republic Act 2260 did not repeal Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal and remanded the record for further proceedings. The Court held that Section 29 is administrative in nature, granting or reserving privileges to civil public servants, while Section 54 is a penal statute. The last sentence of Section 29, which allows officers and employees to express views on political issues or mention names of candidates they support, operates as an exception or amendment to Section 54. However, this exception is limited and must be strictly construed. Distributing handbills that solicit votes for a specific candidate, as done by De Venecia, constitutes “aiding” a candidate and exerting influence in the election, which is prohibited under Section 54. This act goes beyond merely expressing views or mentioning a candidate’s name, as permitted by Section 29. Therefore, De Venecia’s alleged conduct violated Section 54, and the information should not have been quashed.