G.R. No. L-6445, March 11, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. SILVINO MADAMBA

FACTS

Silvino Madamba was convicted in the lower court for violating the Election Law, as amended by Section 3 of Act No. 1948 . This law prohibited any person holding an appointive public office from announcing candidacy for an elective public office within 90 days preceding a general election. Madamba admitted announcing his candidacy for municipal president in the November 2, 1909 elections in Dingras, Ilocos Norte. At that time, he had not formally resigned from his appointive position as a member of the municipal school board, to which he was appointed on April 26, 1909. Madamba argued that he did not consider himself a member of the school board because he never took the oath of office, never attended any board meetings, or acted as a member from the date of his appointment. He had, however, resigned as auxiliary justice of the peace in compliance with the Election Law.

ISSUE

Whether Madamba “held” an appointive public office as a member of the municipal school board at the time he announced his candidacy, thereby violating the Election Law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Madamba, reversing the lower court’s conviction. The Court held that Madamba did not “hold” the office of municipal school board member in the sense contemplated by the penal provision of the Election Law. Despite his appointment, he never took the oath of office, never performed any duties, or acted as a member of the board. Thus, he was not a de facto member at the time he announced his candidacy. Even if he could be considered to have held the office at some point, his renunciation of it relieved him of criminal liability under the statute. The Court emphasized that it was not laying down a general rule on what constitutes holding a public office but based its decision on the specific circumstances of Madamba’s non-acceptance and non-performance of the role.