Title
Supreme Court
Dino vs. Olivarez
Case
G.R. No. 170447
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2009
A mayoral candidate faced vote-buying charges; COMELEC revoked prosecutor's authority post-filing of amended charges. Supreme Court upheld prosecutor's actions, ordered trial continuation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170447)

Timeline of Events

The sequence of events commenced with the filing of a complaint for vote buying against Olivarez, which led to the issuance of a Joint Resolution by Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo-Medina. The prosecution filed two Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on September 29, 2004, charging Olivarez with violations under the Omnibus Election Code. The arraignment was initially set for October 18, 2004, but subsequent motions by the respondent delayed the proceedings.

Legal Actions Taken by the Respondent

On October 7, 2004, Olivarez filed an appeal with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the Joint Resolution, arguing it should pause the formal proceedings in the RTC. Following directions from COMELEC, the city prosecutor was instructed to suspend the implementation of the Joint Resolution until the appeal was resolved.

Initial Court Proceedings and Motions

In a response to the charges, Olivarez filed a Motion to Quash the two Informations, alleging duplicity of charges. Despite this, the prosecutor submitted Amended Informations on October 28, 2004, which refocused the charges. Judge Fortunito Madrona of the RTC issued an order on January 12, 2005, admitting the Amended Informations and denying Olivarez's Motion to Quash. This sparked further motions from Olivarez, including a motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Involvement

After Olivarez failed to appear for his arraignment on March 9, 2005, Judge Madrona ordered his arrest and the confiscation of his cash bond. In response, Olivarez filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Olivarez on September 28, 2005, declaring that the COMELEC had the authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses and revoked the RTC's acceptance of the Amended Informations.

Supreme Court Review

The petitioners sought review from the Supreme Court, questioning the Court of Appeals' conclusions regarding the authority of the City Prosecutor to amend the Informations. The Supreme Court noted that the filing of Amended Informations occurred before COMELEC's revocation of prosecutorial authority and found that the public prosecutors acted within the bounds of their authority.

Jurisdiction and Arraignment Procedures

The Supreme Court clarified that a trial court acquires jurisdiction once an information is filed, affirming the continuity of prosecutorial authority until formally revoked. The arraignment could not indefinitely be postponed due to Olivarez’s appeal process, as procedural rules permitted only a set suspension period.

Final Ruling

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rev

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.