Title
Noveras vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 268891
Decision Date
Oct 22, 2024
Gerardo Noveras was disqualified from the vice-governorship due to unlawful use of government resources for campaign materials, based on Section 261(d)(1) and (e) of the Omnibus Election Code.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 268891)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Filing of Candidacy and Incident Discovery
    • Gerardo "Jerry" A. Noveras, then incumbent governor of Aurora, filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Vice-Governor of Aurora on October 6, 2021 for the May 9, 2022 general elections.
    • On March 30, 2022, Narciso Dela Cruz Amansec and his wife visited the Aurora Training Center (ATC) compound.
    • Amansec saw tarpaulin printing with a red background, bearing images linked to Noveras’s vice-gubernatorial campaign.
    • Michael Tecuico, a casual employee of the Aurora Local Government Unit (LGU), was operating the tarpaulin printing machine within LGU premises.
    • Upon inquiry by Amansec, Tecuico responded angrily and forcibly removed Amansec, prompting Amansec to file a police report and secure a search warrant for the ATC compound.
  • Search and Confiscation
    • On March 31, 2022, RTC Branch 91 issued a search warrant for illegally printed election campaign materials and printing machines inside ATC.
    • The warrant was executed on April 2, 2022, recovering tarpaulin printers, computers, a semi-automatic eyelet machine, and 41 tarpaulin materials bearing names of Noveras and other candidates.
    • The search was witnessed by barangay officials and media representatives; photo evidence showed materials paid by Christian Noveras, incumbent vice-governor and brother of Gerardo Noveras.
  • Legal Actions and Disqualification Petition
    • Amansec filed a criminal complaint against Noveras, Tecuico, and others for violating Section 261(o) (use of government resources for election campaign) and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
    • Amansec filed a petition before COMELEC to disqualify Noveras based on the same alleged violation.
    • Noveras denied knowledge and claimed Section 261(o) is not a ground for disqualification under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code or Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
  • Proceedings and Resolutions
    • Despite Amansec's non-appearance in the preliminary conference, COMELEC First Division granted the petition based on substantial evidence linking Noveras to acts of coercion and undue influence over Tecuico pursuant to Section 261(d)(1).
    • The First Division concluded that Tecuico would not have used LGU resources to print campaign materials without Noveras's knowledge or influence.
    • The COMELEC further held that Section 261(d)(1) remains a valid ground for disqualification notwithstanding its apparent repeal by Republic Act (RA) No. 7890, interpreting the repeal narrowly.
    • Commissioner Maceda concurred with the above and added that Noveras’s acts also violated Section 261(e) concerning fraudulent schemes and inducement.
    • The COMELEC En Banc denied Noveras’s motion for reconsideration and sustained the disqualification on grounds of Sections 261(d)(1) and 261(e).
    • Noveras filed a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court questioning the legal basis of disqualification and due process violations.
    • The Department of Justice dismissed criminal charges against Noveras for Section 261(o) violations.
  • Substitution and Jurisdictional Issues
    • Amansec died on October 3, 2022; his daughter, Naryne Amansec, sought substitution as party in the case.
    • The Supreme Court allowed substitution based on principles from Lanot v. COMELEC.

Issues:

  • Whether Gerardo Noveras can be disqualified based on Section 261(d)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code despite its repeal by RA No. 7890.
  • Whether Gerardo Noveras’s disqualification based on Section 261(e) is supported by substantial evidence.
  • Whether Noveras was denied due process when COMELEC disqualified him on grounds not explicitly alleged in the disqualification petition.
  • Whether the use of circumstantial evidence concerning moral ascendancy and employment relationship suffices to establish violations under Sections 261(d)(1) and 261(e).
  • Whether the substitution of Amansec by his daughter is valid in the disqualification proceeding.

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.