People v. Delgado Case

People v.
Delgado Case
FACTS:
COMELEC received reports agains private respondents for alleged violation of the
Omnibus Election Code. After conducting a preliminary investigation on said report, The
Provincial Election Supervisor found a prima facie case and recommended filing of an
information against each respondents for violation of Sec. 261 (y) (2) and (5) of the Omnibus
Election Code. The COMELEC en banc, in a minute resolution, resolved to file information
against the private respondents.
Informations were filed against the respondents in the RTC. The Regional Election
Director was designated by COMELEC to handle the prosecution with the authority to assign
another COMELEC prosecutor.
Private respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant
of arrest with the respondent court on the ground that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. RTC ordered the reinvestigation of the case and the suspension of the service of the
warrants pending submission of the reinvestigation report of the COMELEC.
COMELEC prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that only the Supreme
Court can review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions of the COMELEC but was
denied.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not only the Supreme Court can review orders of the COMELEC.
2. Whether or not the respondent court has the authority to order the reinvestigation of the case
and to order the COMELEC Law Department to furnish said respondent the records of the
preliminary investigation of the case for the purpose of determining probable cause.
RULING:
First Issue
The Court held that "what is contemplated by the term final orders, rulings and decisions' of the
COMELEC reviewable on certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those
rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by said body
in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers." Thus, the decisions of the
COMELEC on election contests or administrative questions brought before it are subject to
judicial review only by this Court.
However, under Section 2(6), of Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC may
"investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts
or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices." Under Section 265 of the
Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC, through its duly authorized legal officers, "have the
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under
this Code, and to prosecute the same."
Section 268 of the same Code provides that: "The regional trial courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this
Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be
under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of the
courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases."
From the foregoing provisions of the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that
aside from the adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC to decide election contests
and administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public prosecutor with the exclusive
authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election offenses
punishable under the Code before the competent court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its
duly authorized law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an election offense and
upon a prima facie finding of a probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said
court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of
said case must be subject to the approval of the court. The COMELEC cannot conduct a
reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by the court.
Second Issue
The records of the preliminary investigation required to be produced by the court must be
submitted by the COMELEC. The trial court may rely on the resolution of the COMELEC to file
the information, by the same token that it may rely on the certification made by the prosecutor
who conducted the preliminary investigation, in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
Nevertheless the court may require that the record of the preliminary investigation be submitted
to it to satisfy itself that there is probable cause which will warrant the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
The refusal of the COMELEC or its agents to comply with the order of the trial court requiring
them to conduct a reinvestigation in this case and to submit to the court the record of the
preliminary investigation on the ground that only this Court may review its actions is certainly
untenable.
The petition is brought in the name of the People of the Philippines. Thus, Only the Solicitor
General can represent the People of the Philippines in this proceeding. The consent of the Office
of the Solicitor General should have been secured by the COMELEC before the filing of this
petition. On this account alone, the petition should be dismissed.
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

People v. Delgado Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Delgado Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Delgado Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

Hence, the present petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

You might also like