G.R. No. L-10058 - Asuncion vs. Benalisa

In the aftermath of the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, several complaints were filed for alleged violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Big. 881).
Complaints lodged were as follows:

Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Governor, filed a complaint against spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong for vote-buying (violating Section 261, paragraph a-1).
Ladislao Bataliran filed a complaint against Salvacion Colambot for a similar vote-buying violation under Section 261, paragraph a-1.
PC/Sgt. Arturo Rebaya brought a complaint against Melchor Yanson for carrying a deadly weapon (violation under Section 261, paragraph p).

Following preliminary investigations, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate instituted criminal complaints in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate:

On October 6, 1987, Judge Henry Basilla, acting motu proprio, dismissed the information in all three cases.
The dismissal was premised on the contention that the complaints were filed with the fiscal rather than with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which, by law, held exclusive jurisdiction to conduct investigations and prosecute election offenses as provided under:

Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code which vests the COMELEC with the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses.
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly enjoins the COMELEC to enforce, administer, and, where appropriate, prosecute election law violations.

The decision also referenced landmark cases such as De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983) and Corpus, et al. v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987), reinforcing the principle that election offenses are to be exclusively handled by the COMELEC.

The People filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the dismissal orders of October 6, 1987, as well as an order denying their motion for reconsideration dated December 7, 1987.
The principal argument in the petition was that:

The COMELEC had the authority, under both the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, to deputize other prosecuting arms of the government—such as the chief state prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals and their assistants—to undertake the investigation and prosecution of election offenses.
This deputation was supported by Section 2 (4) and (8) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and was further underscored by Executive Order No. 134 and COMELEC Resolution No. 1862.

The petition stressed that the dismissal of the criminal informations was an overreach in light of the delegated powers of the COMELEC, arguing that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion and a lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the cases.

Whether the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations and to prosecute election offenses as provided by the Omnibus Election Code and the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the delegation (deputation) of prosecution duties to other government prosecuting arms is constitutionally valid.

Whether Judge Henry Basilla correctly exercised his discretion by admittance of the argument that complaints not filed directly with the COMELEC should be dismissed.
Whether the dismissal of the criminal informations was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, given the COMELEC’s authority to deputize other prosecuting officers.

Whether the precedents cited (De Jesus v. People and Corpus, et al. v. Tanodbayan) effectively support the trial court’s decision, particularly in relation to the handling of election offenses against public officials and private individuals.
The proper interpretation of “exclusive jurisdiction” in the context of delegated authority and whether it limits the involvement of state prosecutors in election-related offenses.