Case Digest (G.R. No. 172840)
Facts:
Petitioners Nelson T. Lluz and Catalino C. Aldeosa filed a petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of 1 February 2006 and 25 May 2006 in E.O. Case No. 04-5, which declined to order prosecution of respondent Caesar O. Vicencio for alleged misrepresentation of his profession in his certificate of candidacy for punong barangay in the 15 July 2002 elections. Petitioners had presented a PRC certification and testimony showing Vicencio did not appear in the Board of Accountancy roll and had failed the 1993 CPA exams; the COMELEC Law Department recommended dismissal, the En Banc initially ordered prosecution, then on reconsideration held materiality required and dismissed the charge.
Issues:
- Is an alleged misrepresentation of profession or occupation in a certificate of candidacy punishable as an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of B.P. 881?
- If materiality is required, was respondent’s misrepresentation of profession a material misrepresentation affecting eligibility?
Ruling:
The Court answered the first issue in the negative and dismissed the petition, affirming the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of 1 February 2006 and 25 May 2006. The Court held that misrepresentation of profession in the certificate of candidacy is not a ground for prosecution under Section 262 because it is not a material misrepresentation concerning qualifications for elective office.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the introductory phrase "pertinent portions" in Section 262 limits penal coverage to those parts of Section 74 that concern a candidate's qualifications; construing penal statutes narrowly, only misrepresentations that affect eligibility fall within Section 262. Decisions in Abella v. Larrazabal and Salcedo establish that a misrepresentation is material when it pertains to qualifications for elective office, and R.A. 7160, Section 39 shows profession is not a qualification for local elective office; moreover, perjury under Art. 183 RPC likewise requires materiality and the heavier penalties under Section 264 of B.P. 881 counsel against extending criminal liability to nonmaterial inaccuracies.
Doctrine:
- A misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is material only if it pertains to a qualification for elective office.
- The penal scope of Section 262 is limited to the "pertinent portions" of the provisions it cites.
- Profession or occupation is not a qualification for elective local office under R.A. 7160, Section 39.
- Statutes imposing criminal liability are construed narrowly, and materiality is an essential element of perjury and similar prosecutions arising from certificates of candidacy.