G.R. No. 244027 - Jovit Buella y Abalain vs. People

Five separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 61, charging illegal possession, custody, and control of various bladed instruments during the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections in violation of:

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 10015 (ban on bearing, carrying, transporting firearms and other deadly weapons),
Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), and
Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166.

The accused were Matea C. Obay, Jeffrey A. Esperas, Ruel A. Valencia, Joel C. Pastorizo, and petitioner Jovit A. Buella.

Obay and Esperas filed a Motion to Dismiss (July 1, 2016) assailing the constitutionality of including “all types of bladed instruments” in the definition of deadly weapons under COMELEC Resolution No. 10015.
The RTC issued a Joint Resolution (July 29, 2016) granting the motion, declaring Rule II, Sec. 1(a) in relation to Rule I, Sec. 1(f) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 unconstitutional, and dismissing the cases against Obay and Esperas.
On August 1, 2016, the RTC issued three separate Orders dismissing the cases against Valencia (Crim. Case No. 2016-0131), Buella (No. 2016-0281), and Pastorizo (No. 2016-0313) by reference to the July 29 Joint Resolution.
The prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration (August 10, 2016) was denied in the RTC’s Joint Resolution II (August 25, 2016).

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP 148051) before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA Decision (June 22, 2018) annulled and set aside the RTC’s Joint Resolutions and separate Orders and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution (January 10, 2019).

Only petitioner Buella filed an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the CA Decision and Resolution.
Petitioner argued that:

He had locus standi to directly challenge the constitutionality of the COMELEC resolution, and
The RTC properly exercised its duty to determine constitutionality in a criminal case.

The OSG contended that the constitutional question was a collateral attack and that the proper remedy was by direct action (Rule 63 or Rule 65).

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that the petitioner did not have the requisite personality (locus standi) to challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 10015.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the RTC judge should not have heard and decided the issue of constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015.