G.R. No. 148948 - Commission on Elections vs. Tagle

During the 11 May 1998 elections, Florentino A. Bautista ran for mayor in the Municipality of Kawit, Cavite.
On 8 July 1998, Bautista filed a complaint with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against the then-incumbent mayor and several others for violations of Section 261(a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code.
The complaint was supported by separate affidavits of 44 witnesses attesting to vote-buying activities and was docketed as E.O. Case No. 98-219.

On 25 February 1999, upon recommendation of its Law Department, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution directing the filing of the necessary information and designated a COMELEC prosecutor for the prosecution in E.O. Case No. 98-219.
The corresponding information was filed before the RTC, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 7034-99.

Before the trial of Criminal Case No. 7034-99 commenced (on or before 2 December 1999), a complaint was filed by Innocencio Rodelas and Gerardo Macapagal with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for violation of Section 261(a) against the witnesses in the vote-buying case.
The said complaint was docketed as I.S. No. 1-99-1080.
On 10 April 2000, the Provincial Prosecutor resolved to file separate informations for vote-selling across various branches of the RTC in Imus, Cavite, resulting in assignments of Criminal Cases to Branches 22, 21, 20, and 90.

On 23 June 2000, the respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 appealed the Provincial Prosecutor’s 10 April 2000 resolution before the COMELEC, which was initially denied on 6 July 2000 for lack of jurisdiction.
Following an urgent motion to set the appeal for hearing, the COMELEC en banc deferred action and referred the appeal to its Law Department.
The COMELEC Law Department subsequently filed motions to suspend the proceedings in the various RTC branches until the COMELEC resolved the appeal.

In Minute Resolution No. 00-2453, the COMELEC en banc nullified the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. 1-99-1080.
The resolution declared that the respondents (the accused witnesses in Criminal Case No. 7034-99) were exempt from criminal prosecution under the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646, as they had voluntarily given information and were willing to testify.
Pursuant to this determination, the Law Department filed a motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00 before RTC Branch 20, which was presided over by Judge Lucenito N. Tagle.
The respondent judge denied both the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, contending that the exemption could only apply if the accused had already testified—which he claimed had not occurred yet.

The COMELEC petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction against the respondent judge for his denial of the motion to dismiss.
The petition was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which adopted the petition, repleading the submissions contained therein.
The petition emphasized the necessity of a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election; and that election offenses such as vote-buying and vote-selling corrupt the electoral process.
The case centered on whether the respondents had fulfilled the requirement for exemption from prosecution under R.A. No. 6646 by voluntarily providing information, notwithstanding the absence of formal testimony.

Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 were invoked.
Section 261 defines vote-buying, vote-selling, and related conspiracies, while Section 28 provides for immunity from prosecution for persons who voluntarily give information and testify against election offenders.
The COMELEC’s exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses was reiterated as central to preserving the sanctity of the electoral process.

Whether the respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, who had willingly given information in connection with a vote-buying case, are exempt from prosecution for vote-selling under the proviso in the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646.
Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00 by requiring an overt act of testimony for claiming immunity.
Whether the actions and procedural steps taken by the COMELEC, including the nullification of the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and the filing of the motion to dismiss, were sufficient to negate further criminal prosecution based on the granted immunity.
Whether the respondent judge’s denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion, especially in light of the COMELEC en banc’s determination and directives.