Title
Moreno vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 168550
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2006
A probationer, Urbano Moreno, successfully challenged his disqualification from running for Punong Barangay, as the Supreme Court ruled that probation suspends sentence execution, restoring his civil rights and exempting him from the Local Government Code's disqualification provision.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168550)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Proceedings
  • Petitioner Urbano M. Moreno filed a petition dated July 6, 2005 before the Supreme Court assailing Comelec resolutions disqualifying him from running for Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar.
  • Respondents are the Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc and Norma L. Mejes, who originally filed the disqualification petition with Comelec.
  • Underlying Events
  • Norma L. Mejes petitioned Comelec to disqualify Moreno on the ground of his conviction by final judgment for Arbitrary Detention (sentenced August 27, 1998 by RTC Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar to four months and one day to two years and four months imprisonment).
  • Moreno was granted probation; the trial court issued an order of final discharge on December 18, 2000, thereby restoring all civil rights lost or suspended by his conviction under Sec. 16 of the Probation Law.
  • The Comelec First Division (November 15, 2002) and en banc (June 1, 2005) disqualified him under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, ruling that disqualification runs for two years “after serving sentence,” which they deemed to commence upon Moreno’s discharge from probation.
  • Moreno argued that probation suspends the imposition and execution of sentence (citing Baclayon v. Mutia and the Probation Law), thus he never served the adjudged sentence and the disqualification period never began. He also contended that his election constituted an implied pardon.
  • The Office of the Solicitor General, in Comment, relied on Dela Torre v. Comelec to uphold that probation does not affect the disqualification under Sec. 40(a). Moreno filed a Reply distinguishing Dela Torre on facts and eligibility for probation.

Issues:

  • How should the phrase “within two (2) years after serving sentence” in Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code be interpreted: does it apply to probationers who did not undergo actual service of the sentence?
  • Whether Moreno’s grant of probation and final discharge constitute “serving sentence,” thereby triggering the two-year disqualification period.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.