Facts:

The case involves Eugenio "Jing-Jing" Faelnar as the petitioner against the People of the Philippines, Hon. Ramon Codilla (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19), and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as respondents. The events began on April 8, 1997, when Faelnar filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City, for the elections scheduled on May 12, 1997. Following this, a basketball tournament was hosted at the Guadalupe Sports Complex, which started on April 9, 1997, and concluded on April 30, 1997. A complaint was lodged against Faelnar and Cecilio Gillamac by Antonio Luy, alleging that the tournament was a guise for electioneering, violating the Omnibus Election Code since it occurred before the official campaign period that began on May 1, 1997. Luy provided evidence of Faelnar's name being prominently displayed and mentioned during the tournament acti

...

Facts:

Petitioner’s Candidacy and Subsequent Events

• On April 8, 1997, Eugenio “JING-JING” Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections.
• On April 9, 1997, a basketball tournament known as the “2nd JING-JING FAELNARaS CUP” opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex and continued until April 30, 1997.

Allegations of Electioneering

• Antonio Luy filed a complaint for electioneering against petitioner and Cecilio Gillamac.
• The allegations asserted that the tournament was a campaign gimmick staged outside the official campaign period (which began on May 1, 1997) in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Specific allegations included:
• Displaying a streamer with petitioner’s name on the facade of the Guadalupe Sports Complex.
• Repeated mention of petitioner’s name over the public address system during the games.
• Extensive publicity of the tournament in local newspapers.
• Conducting a raffle, sponsored by Cecilio Gillamac, with home appliances as prizes.

Petitioner’s Denials and Contentions

• Faelnar denied his participation in the tournament, attributing the event solely to sporting purposes aimed at benefiting the youth.
• He asserted that the major financial sponsor of the event was Gillamac Marketing, Inc.
• He contended that the basketball tournament was not a campaign activity but an independent sporting event.

Administrative and Investigative Proceedings

• Atty. Edwin Cadungog, the election officer of Cebu City, investigated the complaint and recommended dismissal of the charges against Faelnar and Gillamac.
• Contrarily, the Law Department of the COMELEC recommended filing a case under provisions:
• A80 in relation to A262 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• A50 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2888 concerning A12 of Republic Act No. 6679.

COMELEC’s Resolutions and Subsequent Developments

• On September 16, 1997, COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 97-3040 dismissing the complaint.
• Antonio Luy’s motion led COMELEC to reconsider its action; subsequently, it ordered the filing of the necessary Informations against Faelnar and Gillamac.
• Consequently, Faelnar was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under two Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-49941 and CBU-49942).

Trial Court Proceedings and Petitioner's Motions

• Faelnar moved to quash the information or, alternatively, for reinvestigation of the case, arguing that the dismissal resolution (No. 97-3040) was final and not subject to reconsideration.
• On July 29, 1999, the RTC denied his motion to quash the complaint.
• His subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on October 4, 1999.

Petition for Certiorari and Contentions on COMELEC’s Resolutions

• Faelnar filed a petition for certiorari challenging the RTC orders denying his motions, effectively targeting COMELEC Resolution No. 98-2914, which directed the filing of charges.
• He argued that the dismissal resolution was immediately final and executory, rendering any motion for reconsideration by the COMELEC unauthorized.
• Petitioner maintained that the motion for reconsideration by Antonio Luy violated the rules, as it was a pleading not permitted under the relevant COMELEC Rules of Procedure (citing the 1988 version).

COMELEC Rules and Procedural Arguments

• Faelnar’s argument rested on the premise that, under the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC, the dismissal was final and non-revisable.
• He further contended that the filing of the Informations pursuant to Resolution No. 98-2914 was ultra-vires.
• The petitioner also invoked Rule 34, A10 of the COMELEC Rules concerning appeals from prosecutorial actions, though its applicability was questioned.

Timeliness and Proper Forum for Relief

• The petition for certiorari was filed on November 12, 1999, well beyond the 30-day period provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for reviewing COMELEC resolutions.
• It was argued that the proper remedy to challenge COMELEC’s resolution would have been a special civil action for certiorari within the prescribed period.

Final Contention

• The petitioner’s claims were ultimately characterized as an attempt to circumvent a final and binding COMELEC resolution.
• The COMELEC maintained that even if the resolution were found erroneous, its finality rendered it effective and binding.

Issue:

• Whether the dismissal resolution (COMELEC Resolution No. 97-3040) dismissing the complaint against Faelnar was immediately final and executory and, consequently, not subject to reconsideration.
• Whether the filing of Informations pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 98-2914 was ultra-vires due to the final and executory nature of the earlier dismissal.
• Whether the petitioner’s challenge, raising issues originally directed at the COMELEC resolution, was properly filed as a petition for certiorari against the trial court’s orders rather than through the proper administrative remedy.
• Whether the petitioner’s reliance on the 1988 COMELEC Rules (prohibiting the motion for reconsideration) was valid in light of the amended 1993 COMELEC Rules, which permit such motions in election offense cases.
• Whether the timing of the petitioner’s petition (filed over a year after the COMELEC resolution became final) precluded judicial intervention.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)