EUGENIO "JING-JING" FAELNAR, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON CODILLA, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City, and COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondents.
FACTS:
On April 8, 1997, pet Eugenio Faelnar filed a certificate of candidacy for
the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City in the
May 12, 1997 barangay elections. The following day, on April 9, 1997, a
basketball tournament, dubbed the "2nd JING-JING FAELNARS CUP," opened
at the Guadalupe Sports Complex and lasted up to April 30, 1997. This gave
rise to a complaint for electioneering filed against petitioner and Cecilio
Gillamac by Antonio Luy. The complaint alleged that the basketball
tournament was actually a campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign
period which officially started on May 1, 1997, in violation of the Omnibus
Election Code. Luy alleged that: (1) during the tournament, a streamer
bearing petitioners name was placed on the facade of the Guadalupe Sports
Complex; (2) petitioners name was repeatedly mentioned over the
microphone during the games; (3) the tournament was widely published in
the local newspaper; and (4) a raffle sponsored by Cecilio Gillamac was held
with home appliances given away as prizes.
Petitioner denied participation in the tournament and claimed that its
major sponsor was Gillamac Marketing, Inc. He contended that the same was
purely a sporting event for the benefit of the youth. The complaint was
investigated by Atty. Edwin Cadungog, election officer of Cebu City, who later
recommended the dismissal of the charges against petitioner and Gillamac.
On the other hand, the Law Department of the COMELEC recommended the
filing of a case against petitioner and Gillamac for violation of 80, in relation
to 262, of the Omnibus Election Code, and 50 of COMELEC Resolution No.
2888, in relation to 12 of Republic Act No. 6679.
The COMELEC en banc resolved to dismiss the case. However, on
motion of Antonio Luy, the COMELEC reconsidered its action. Accordingly, pet
and Gillamac were formally charged in the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City
under two Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-49941 and CBU-49942.
Petitioner moved to quash the information or, in the alternative, for
reinvestigation of the case, contending that Resolution No. 97-3040, which
dismissed the complaint against him, was immediately executory and could
no longer be reconsidered. Petition was denied.
ISSUE: WON the first resolution of the COMELEC is final and
executory.
Held:
1. The first resolution of COMELEC (dismissing the case against Faelnar) was
not final and may be subject to a Motion for Reconsideration.

Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide
for an exception in what pleadings are not allowed:
o
motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or
decision, except in election offense cases

An MR of a ruling, resolution or decision of the COMELEC en banc is

allowed in cases involving election offenses. There is no question that what is
involved in this case is a resolution in an election offense. Therefore, an MR is
allowed under the Rules.

Faelnar, likewise, invokes Rule 34, Section 10 of the same Rules which
states that:
SEC. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor, Provincial or
City Fiscal. Appeals from the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial
or City Fiscal on the
recommendation or resolution of investigating

officers may be made only to the

Commission within ten (10) days from
receipt of the resolution of said officials,
provided, however that this
shall not divest the Commission of its power to motu
proprio review,
revise, modify or reverse the resolution of the chief state prosecutor
and/or
provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on said appeals
shall be immediately executory and final. (Emphasis added)
However, this section does not apply to investigations conducted by
COMELEC, but to the resolutions of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City
Fiscal, who has the delegated power to conduct preliminary investigation of
election offense cases. But if COMELEC conducts the investigation through its
own investigating officer, the section does not apply.
2. However, even if it was final, Faelnars motion to quash was not the proper
remedy as it was an attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the COMELEC.
The proper remedy would have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 64,
which must be filed within 30 days from notice of judgment. In this case,
Faelnar filed his motion to quash more than a year after.
LAUREL V. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE
323
RA 779
FACTS:
Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified letter-complaint to Jose P.
Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of Public Documents"
and violation of [Section 74] of the Omnibus Election Code. It alleged that
both his father and mother were Chinese citizens but when petitioner filed a
certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator he stated that his a
natural-born Filipino citizen.
An investigation was conducted by the COMELEC Law Department and
a Report was made recommending the filing of Information. During en banc,
COMELEC resolved to file the necessary information against respondent and
to file a criminal complaint against respondent for falsification. Director
Balbuena filed an information for Violation of Section 74, in relation to Section
262 of the Omnibus Election Code. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition,
seeking the inhibition of the entire COMELEC because of its bias in rendering
a resolution.
Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging lack of
jurisdiction and lack of authority on the part of Director Balbuena to file the
information. However, it was denied which prompted him to file a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and ruled that the proper
procedure was followed by the COMELEC but directed the trial court to
remand the case to the COMELEC for reception of petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated January 25, 1996, which
approved the filing of a criminal complaint against petitioner.
Issue: WON the CA erred in holding that there was no flaw in the procedure
followed by the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
HELD:
1. It was error for the Court of Appeals to hold there was no flaw in the
procedure followed by the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation.
There are two ways through which a complaint for election offenses
may be initiated. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu proprio, or it may be
filed via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate,

registered political party, coalition of political parties or organizations under

the partylist system or any accredited citizens arms of the Commission.
- Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the COMELEC
and need not be verified.
On the other hand, complaints filed by parties other than the COMELEC must
be verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence. The complaint in
question in this case is one filed by Pardo in his personal capacity and not as
chairman of the COMELEC. There is nothing in the rules that require that only
the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department for
investigation. There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman directing the
conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself were the
complainant in his private capacity.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's protestations on
COMELEC's having acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge and
executioner in the conduct of the preliminary investigation ring hollow.
-No. the records show that there is basis to at least find probable cause to
indict the petitioner for violation of the Omnibus Election Code and it appears
from the records that Chairman Pardo had no other participation in the
proceedings which led to the filing of the Information.
-The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from investigating the
complaint filed against petitioner, as the latter would like the courts to do.
The COMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution to investigate
and prosecute, when necessary, violations of election laws. This power is
lodged exclusively with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit
itself from investigating the complaint against petitioner would be nothing
short of an abandonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code
Tan vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353, October 4, 1994
Facts:
On May 10, 1992, the petitioner, as an incumbent City Prosecutor of
Davao City, was designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the City
Board of Canvassers in the said area for the May 11, 1992, synchronized
national and local elections conformably with the provisions of Section 20 (a)
of Republic Act 6646 and Section 221 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code.
On the basis of the votes canvassed by the Board of Canvassers,
Manuel Garcia was proclaimed the winning candidate for a congressional seat
to represent the Second District of Davao City in the House of
Representatives.
Private respondent Alterado, himself a candidate for the position, filed
a number of cases questioning the validity of the proclamation of Manuel
Garcia and accusing the members of the City Board of Canvassers of
"unlawful, erroneous, incomplete and irregular canvass." Meanwhile, the
electoral protest of private respondent Alterado was dismissed by the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal ("HRET"). The criminal complaint for
"Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act" before the Office of the Ombudsman was likewise dismissed on
the ground of lack of criminal intent on the part of therein respondents. Still
pending is an administrative charge, instituted in the COMELEC against the
City Board of Canvassers, including herein petitioner, for "Misconduct,
Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service."
Petitioner moved to dismiss the administrative complaint against him
for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC thereover, he being under the

Executive Department of the government. The COMELEC denied petitioner's

motion to dismiss.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has the jurisdiction to take
action on the administrative case when in fact the petitioner as a
City prosecutor is under the Administrative jurisdiction.
Held: The COMELECs authority under Section 2 (6-8), Article 9 of the
Constitution is virtually all-encompassing when it comes to election matters,
also Section 52, Article 7 of the Omnibus Election Code. It should be stressed
that the administrative case against petitioner is in relation to the
performance of his duties as an Election canvasser and not as a City
Prosecutor. The COMELECs mandate includes its authority to exercise direct
and immediate suspension and control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national and local law enforcement
agency and instrumentality of the government, required by law to perform
duties relative to the conduct of elections. To say that the COMELEC is
without jurisdiction to look into charges of election offenses committed by
officials and employees of government outside the regular employ of the
COMELEC would be to unduly deny to it the proper and sound exercise of
such recommendatory power and, perhaps more than that, even a possible
denial of the process to the official or employee concerned.
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA
LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA, respondents.
FACTS:
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for
mayor in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections. After obtaining
a majority of some 24,000 votes, Lajara was proclaimed winner by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed with the
COMELEC a Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void
the Canvass and Proclamation because of alleged widespread frauds and
anomalies in casting and counting of votes, preparation of election returns,
violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and
delay in the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the
precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.
Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names of the registered
voters did not appear in the list of voters in their precincts; (b) more than
one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with
strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he
actually received; (d) control data of the election returns was not filled up in
some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals;
and, (f) there was delay in the delivery of election returns.
But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground
that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.
ISSUE: WON the grounds cited by Canicosa warrants a declaration of
failure of election.
HELD: NO.
Indeed, the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of failure
of election. Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, reads:
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place
has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour

fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure
to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election
may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in
a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes.
None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those
enumerated.
Canicosa bewails that the names of the registered voters in the various
precincts did not appear in their respective lists of voters. But this is not a
ground to declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for declaration
of failure of election therefore is not the proper remedy.
Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 the final list of
voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No. 7166.
Based on the lists thus posted Canicosa could have filed a petition for
inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts. The question of
inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is
not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon. The
determination of whether one has the right to vote is a justiciable issue
properly cognizable by our regular courts.
On the other hand, Canicosa could have also filed with the COMELEC a
verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters pursuant to
Sec. 10, of RA No. 7166.
Canicosa also avers that more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered
voters were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their behalf. Again,
this is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election.
Canicosa was allowed to appoint a watcher in every precinct. The watcher is
empowered by law to challenge any illegal voter. In fine, the grounds cited
by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances enumerated
in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.