Case Digest (G.R. No. 244027)
Facts:
Buella v. People, G.R. No. 244027, April 11, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jovit A. Buella and four others (Matea C. Obay, Jeffrey A. Esperas, Ruel A. Valencia, Joel C. Pastorizo) were charged in separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 61, with violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015—the COMELEC rule banning the bearing, carrying or transporting of “firearms or other deadly weapons” during the May 2016 election period—allegedly for having various bladed instruments in public without a COMELEC permit. Each Information expressly alleged possession “without the written permit” from COMELEC as an element of the offense.
Respondents Obay and Esperas filed a Motion to Dismiss (July 1, 2016) arguing that Sec. 1(f), Rule I of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 (defining “deadly weapon” to include “all types of bladed instruments”) exceeded COMELEC’s authority and was unconstitutional because the statutory scheme (Sec. 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code, and Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 7166) contemplated regulated weapons (firearms) subject to licensing/authorization, not unregulated bladed instruments. The prosecutor opposed, arguing the challenge was collateral and COMELEC intended to include bladed instruments.
The RTC, in a July 29, 2016 Joint Resolution, granted the motion to dismiss as a direct constitutional attack, declared the cited provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 unconstitutional insofar as they “include all types of bladed instruments,” and ordered release of Obay and Esperas. On August 1, 2016 the RTC issued separate Orders dismissing the cases against Valencia, Buella (petitioner), and Pastorizo invoking the Joint Resolution. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an August 25, 2016 Joint Resolution II.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a June 22, 2018 Decision the CA granted the petition, annulled and set aside the RTC’s Joint Resolutions and the three August 1 Orders, and remanded the criminal cases to the RTC for further proceedings; the CA held the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing a collateral attack via motion to dismiss and that direct remedies (e.g., Rule 63 or Rule 65) were proper. The CA denied reconsideration in a January 10, 2019 Resolution.
Only petitioner Buella filed an appe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner had the requisite personality (standing) to directly challenge the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 in the RTC via a motion to dismiss.
- Whether the RTC judge gravely abused his discretion in hearing and deciding the constitutional question; and, substantively, whether COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 validly included “bladed instruments” within the term “deadly weapons” for p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)