Title
Supreme Court
Dino vs. Olivarez
Case
G.R. No. 170447
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2009
A mayoral candidate faced vote-buying charges; COMELEC revoked prosecutor's authority post-filing of amended charges. Supreme Court upheld prosecutor's actions, ordered trial continuation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170447)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • Petitioners: Bienvenido Diao and Renato Comparativo, who initiated a complaint for vote buying.
    • Respondent: Pablo Olivarez, charged with engaging in vote buying activities during the May 10, 2004, elections in ParaAaque City.
    • Involvement of Other Persons: Co-accused such as Remedios Malibiran (in Criminal Case No. 04-1104) and Carmelo Jaro (in Criminal Case No. 04-1105).
  • Charging Documents and Allegations
    • Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on September 29, 2004.
    • The Informations charged respondent with violations of Section 261, paragraphs a, b, and k of Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code, which pertained to the unlawful distribution of Uniwide gift certificates to induce voters in favor of his mayoral candidacy.
    • Specific allegations in each Criminal Case:
      • Criminal Case No. 04-1104: Accused along with Remedios Malibiran for conspiring in vote buying.
      • Criminal Case No. 04-1105: Accused along with Carmelo Jaro for engaging in similar vote buying activities.
  • Initial Proceedings and COMELEC Involvement
    • Joint Resolution: Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo-Medina, with the city prosecutor’s approval, issued a Joint Resolution based on a finding of probable cause.
    • COMELEC Appeal: On October 7, 2004, respondent filed an appeal with the Law Department of the COMELEC challenging the Joint Resolution, arguing that no final finding of probable cause had been reached.
    • Administrative Directive: A letter dated October 11, 2004, from COMELEC’s Law Department directed the city prosecutor to transmit the entire case records and suspend further implementation of the resolution pending final disposition of the appeal.
  • Motion to Quash and Amended Informations
    • Motion to Quash: Respondent filed a motion on October 11, 2004, arguing that the Informations charged more than one offense in violation of Section 3(f), Rule 117 in connection with Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
    • Amended Informations:
      • Filed by the prosecutor on October 28, 2004, to charge respondent solely for violation of paragraph a (in relation to paragraph b) of Section 261, Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code.
      • Aimed at remedying the duplicity error while complying with existing court rules.
  • Court Scheduling and Procedural Developments
    • Initial Arraignment Schedule: Set for October 18, 2004, which was postponed following the filing of motions and appeals.
    • Rescheduling:
      • The arraignment was first reset to December 13, 2004, and subsequently to February 1, 2005, to allow for adjudication of pending motions.
      • A final scheduled arraignment took place on March 9, 2005, after repeated postponements.
    • Consequences of Nonappearance:
      • Respondent failed to appear on the scheduled arraignment on March 9, 2005.
      • Judge Madrona, in open court, denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant along with the confiscation of his cash bond.
  • COMELEC Resolution and Intervention
    • On April 5, 2005, the Law Department of the COMELEC filed a Manifestation and Motion before the RTC indicating its power to revoke the delegation of authority to the city prosecutor.
    • COMELEC Resolution No. 7457, issued on April 4, 2005, directed the revocation of the deputation of the Office of the City Prosecutor for the prosecution of the case, transferring responsibility to the COMELEC’s Law Department.
  • Appeal and Judicial Review
    • Special Civil Action for Certiorari: Respondent filed this action before the Court of Appeals on April 8, 2005, contesting the RTC’s orders dated January 12, 2005, March 9, 2005, and March 31, 2005.
    • Court of Appeals Decision (September 28, 2005):
      • Held that COMELEC had the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to delegate prosecutorial powers to the Chief State Prosecutor, provincial prosecutors, and city prosecutors.
      • Concluded that Judge Madrona had erred by admitting the Amended Informations, which were allegedly filed in excess of delegated authority, and by ordering the arrest and bond confiscation.
    • Supreme Court’s Intervention: The Supreme Court later reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that the actions of the city prosecutor and Judge Madrona were in conformity with law and procedure.
  • Procedural Timing and Extensions
    • Petitioners responded to the Court of Appeals’ resolution by filing an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to appeal within the 15-day reglementary period.
    • An extension of 30 days was granted, allowing petitioners to file their petition on January 6, 2006, within the permissible period.

Issues:

  • Delegation and Scope of Prosecutorial Authority
    • Whether the Office of the City Prosecutor of ParaAaque acted within its delegated authority when filing the Amended Informations despite the pending appeal before the COMELEC.
    • Whether the city prosecutor’s actions exceeded the parameters set by the COMELEC’s letter instructions and the continuing delegation of authority.
  • Jurisdiction and Procedure in Admitting Amended Informations
    • Whether Judge Madrona exceeded his jurisdiction by admitting the Amended Informations after the respondent challenged the filing of multiple offenses in one information.
    • Whether the denial of the respondent’s Motion to Quash was proper given the procedural rules embodied in Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
  • Validity of Subsequent Court Orders
    • Whether Judge Madrona’s issuance of an arrest warrant and the order for confiscation of the respondent’s cash bond were in conformity with procedural and substantive criminal law.
    • Whether the extended suspension of the arraignment due to the pending appeal was justified within the ambit of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms