Case Digest (G.R. No. 158734)
Facts:
The case is Albana, et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 158734, October 02, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Roberto Albana, Katherine Belo, Generoso Derramas, Vicente Duran, Ricardo Araque, Merlinda Degala, Gabriel Aranas, Ernesto Bitoon and Juvic Deslate; respondents are Pio Jude S. Belo, Rodolfo Deocampo and Lorencito Diaz. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari (in relation to COMELEC Rule 37) attacking the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of February 28, 2003 and June 3, 2003.During the May 14, 2001 elections in Panitan, Capiz, petitioners were proclaimed winners and proclaimed on May 18, 2001 to various municipal posts. On June 23, 2001 respondents filed a complaint with the COMELEC Law Department alleging vote-buying (Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code) and acts of terrorism (Section 261(e)), and prayed for criminal prosecution and disqualification under Section 68 of the Code and Sections 28 and 6 of RA No. 6646. The Law Department found a prima facie case and on January 15, 2002 recommended filing an Information and the disqualification of petitioners.
Acting on that recommendation, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution on February 28, 2003 directing the Law Department to file the necessary Information and ordering the Clerk to docket the electoral aspect as a disqualification case. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC denied on June 3, 2003. The Clerk docketed the disqualification case as SPA No. 03-006 and the First Division, on October 21, 2003, annulled petitioners’ proclamation and ordered a new board of canvassers; the En Banc later denied reconsideration on May 5, 2004. Petitioners then filed a separate petition with this Court (G.R. No. 163302); in Albana v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163302, July 23, 2004, this Court nullified the October 21, 2003 and May 5, 2004 COMELEC Resolutions and set aside the subsequent proclamation of respondents.
The present petition challenges the February 28, 2003 and June 3, 2003 COMELEC Resolutions insofar as they directed criminal prosecution and ordered docketing of the disqualification case. The Office of the Solicitor Ge...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to prosecute petitioners for election offenses under Section 261(a) and (e) of the Omnibus Election Code?
- Was the COMELEC authorized to docket and proceed with a disqualification case after petitioners’ proclamation, notwithstanding COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 and this Court’s prior decision in Albana v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163302?
- Did the COMELEC’s February 28, 2003 Resolution violate Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution by failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it was based?
- Was the COMELEC’s denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration improper because it applied ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)