G.R. No. L-20808 - People vs. De Venecia

Ask AI

G.R. No. L-20808: People vs. De Venecia

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: People vs. De Venecia

Case: G.R. No. L-20808

Decision Date: Jul 31, 1965

Braulio de Venecia distributed election handbills endorsing a candidate, violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, as it constituted active electioneering, not protected by Section 29 of RA 2260.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20808)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background and Prosecution

The case involves Braulio de Venecia, who was prosecuted in the Pangasinan Court of First Instance.
He was charged with electioneering, specifically for allegedly "wilfully induc[ing], influenc[ing], sway[ing] and mak[ing] the electors vote" for NP candidates during the November 10, 1959 election.

Alleged Act of Electioneering

De Venecia distributed election handbills (Annex "A") which bore the symbol of the Nacionalista Party.
The content of the handbills explicitly endorsed the NP candidate, Felipe Oda, for Municipal mayor of Binalonan.
The leaflet not only mentioned but urged electors to support the candidate, including statements such as: "To all party-men of Binalonan. You should vote for Mayor Felipe Oda..." and instructions to reject an opposing candidate.

Statutory Basis and Prosecution

The prosecution rested on Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, which prohibits public officers and employees from aiding or influencing the election, other than casting a vote or preserving public peace.
Section 54 explicitly forbids classified civil service employees from actively aiding candidates in elections.

Issue of Statutory Repeal

During the preliminary proceedings, a motion to quash the information was filed on the basis that Section 54 had been repealed by Section 29 of Republic Act 2260.
Section 29, however, governs political activity by civil service employees, restricting them from engaging in partisan political activities but allowing them to express opinions and mention candidates without active involvement.

Judicial Considerations on Statutory Nature

The court noted that Section 29 is administrative in nature, imposing regulatory measures on political activities.
In contrast, Section 54 is penal, establishing criminal liability for actions that constitute active interference with the electoral process.
The court observed that while Section 29 allows the discussion of political opinions, it does not extend to permitting acts amounting to "aiding" a candidate as proscribed in Section 54.

Issues:

Whether Section 54 of the Revised Election Code was effectively repealed by Section 29 of Republic Act 2260.

The crux of the matter is the statutory interpretation concerning the nature and scope of both provisions.
Whether an administrative provision that permits political expression (Section 29) can nullify the penal prohibitions imposed by Section 54.

Whether the act of distributing the election handbills constituted an illegal "aiding" of a candidate.

The issue involves distinguishing between mere expression of political opinions and actively influencing voters by aiding a candidate.
The determination requires an analysis of whether the contents and purpose of the handbills exceeded permissible political expression and fell within the ambit of a criminal offense.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END