Title
Spouses Romualdez vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 167011
Decision Date
Apr 30, 2008
Spouses Romualdez challenged COMELEC's criminal charges for alleged voter registration fraud, claiming false residency in Leyte. SC upheld charges, ruling no due process violation and Section 45(j) of RA 8189 as constitutional.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246231)

Facts:

  • Petition and COMELEC Resolutions
    • Spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez (“petitioners”) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (with prayer for TRO/injunction) seeking to annul COMELEC En Banc Resolutions dated 11 June 2004 and 27 January 2005.
    • Those Resolutions directed the COMELEC Law Department to file Informations against petitioners for violation of Sec. 10(g) and (j) in relation to Sec. 45(j) of RA 8189 (Voter’s Registration Act of 1996).
  • Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit
    • On 12 July 2000, private respondent Dennis Garay filed a Complaint-Affidavit with COMELEC, charging petitioners with:
      • Violations of Sec. 261(y)(2) & (5) of the Omnibus Election Code (double registration and false statements in registration applications).
      • Violation of Sec. 12 of RA 8189 (failure to apply for transfer after change of residence).
    • Petitioners had existing voter registrations in Quezon City (Precinct 4419-A) but on 9 and 11 May 2000 applied as new voters in Burauen, Leyte, indicating Burauen residence, leaving “period of residence” blank, and not canceling their QC registrations.
    • On 2 April 2001, petitioners filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss, contending they intended to reside in Burauen since 1989, took actual residence there and had sought barangay support and transfer of registration under Sec. 12, RA 8189.
  • Investigating Officer’s Recommendation and En Banc Actions
    • On 28 November 2003, COMELEC Investigating Officer Tangaro-Casingal recommended filing of Informations for violation of Sec. 10(g) & (j) in relation to Sec. 45(j), RA 8189.
    • On 11 June 2004, COMELEC En Banc affirmed the recommendation and on 27 January 2005 denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
  • Filing of Informations
    • On 12 January 2006, the COMELEC Law Department filed separate Criminal Informations in RTC‐Burauen against each petitioner:
      • For violation of Sec. 10(g) (failure to state period of residence) in relation to Sec. 45(j).
      • For violation of Sec. 10(j) (false statement of non-registration in another precinct) in relation to Sec. 45(j).

Issues:

  • Did the COMELEC En Banc commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and directing filing of Informations for violation of Sec. 10(g) & (j) in relation to Sec. 45(j), RA 8189?
  • Were petitioners denied due process—specifically fair notice and opportunity to refute the charges—by the COMELEC’s change in the statutory basis of the offenses?
  • Is Sec. 45(j) of RA 8189 unconstitutionally vague, violating the due process fair-notice requirement?

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. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.