Case Digest (G.R. No. 219603)
Facts:
Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Philip Arreza Pichay, G.R. No. 219603, January 26, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado challenged the HRET Decision and Resolution that declared respondent Philip A. Pichay eligible to serve as Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Surigao del Sur.On September 16, 2008, this Court rendered a final judgment in Tulfo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 161032 and 161176) convicting Pichay of four counts of libel; the decision became final and executory on June 1, 2009. In lieu of imprisonment the Court imposed fines of P6,000 per count and awarded P1,000,000 moral damages. Pichay paid the moral damages and the fines on February 17, 2011.
On October 9, 2012, Pichay filed his certificate of candidacy for the May 13, 2013 elections. On February 18, 2013, Ty-Delgado filed before the Commission on Elections a petition for disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging that the libel convictions involved moral turpitude and rendered Pichay ineligible. The Comelec First Division dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on June 4, 2013.
Following Pichay’s proclamation by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on May 16, 2013, Ty-Delgado filed an ad cautelam petition for quo warranto before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) on May 31, 2013; the parties agreed the case presented only legal issues and waived trial. In its Decision dated March 18, 2015, the HRET held it had jurisdiction but found that the circumstances of Pichay’s conviction did not show moral turpitude insofar as he was the publisher/president of the company and not necessarily the author; it therefore dismissed the quo warranto petition and declared Pichay eligible. T...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the HRET commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the circumstances of Pichay’s libel conviction did not show that moral turpitude was involved?
- Was Pichay disqualified under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code for his final conviction for libel?
- Did Pichay materially misrepresent his eligibility in his certificate of candidacy under Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code?
- If the certificate of candidacy is void, are votes cast for Pichay stray and is the certificate void ab initio?
- If so, should the second placer be proclaimed the winner, and specifically, should Ty-Delgado be declared the rightful winner of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)