G.R. No. L-29267 September 15, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch I, and RETOGO ARCIGA, respondents.

FACTS

On February 2, 1968, the City Fiscal of Roxas City filed an information before the Court of First Instance of Capiz, presided by respondent Judge Cesario C. Golez, charging private respondent Retogo Arciga with a violation of Section 87 of the Revised Election Code. The information alleged that on election day, November 14, 1967, Arciga, a member of the board of election inspectors, willfully absented himself from the polling place for over twenty minutes without permission or a substitute, taking the ballot box keys and preventing the canvass of votes. The filing was for preliminary investigation pursuant to the Election Code.
Respondent Judge dismissed the information on May 22, 1968, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Albano v. Arranz. He held that a Court of First Instance could not legally conduct a preliminary investigation on an information filed by a fiscal, as such power was only available upon a complaint. The City Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioner, through the fiscal, subsequently filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the dismissal deprived the government of its day in court and that the fiscal retained the power to initiate prosecution.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the information for an election offense filed by the City Fiscal, and which entity possesses the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of such offenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal by the respondent Judge was procedurally correct based on the applicable law at the time of his order, but the ultimate disposition required referral to the Commission on Elections. The legal logic is anchored on the specific jurisdiction over election offenses. Following the precedent set in People v. Golez, 116 SCRA 165, a twin case, the Court clarified the procedural framework. Initially, under the old rules, a Court of First Instance could only conduct a preliminary investigation upon a complaint, not an information filed by a fiscal, as held in Albano v. Arranz.
However, the governing law had since been superseded. Presidential Decree No. 1296 (The 1978 Election Code) transferred the power to conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses from the Courts of First Instance to the Commission on Elections. Although P.D. No. 1296 was later repealed by the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), the Commission retained and was granted the exclusive power to conduct such preliminary investigations under its Section 265. Consequently, the proper course was not to merely dismiss but to refer the case to the Commission on Elections for appropriate action. The Court thus directed the respondent judge to refer the records of the case to the Commission on Elections.