Case Summary (G.R. No. 172031)
Applicable Law
The relevant laws include the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) and the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The case examines disqualification grounds under Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code, which disallows candidates sentenced for offenses involving moral turpitude from running for office within two years of serving their sentence.
Background of the Case
Following the elections, Moll faced a disqualification petition initiated by his opponent, Ceriola, alleging that Moll had been convicted of usurpation of authority. The Comelec initially dismissed the petition but later reversed its decision, resulting in Moll's disqualification and the announcement of Ceriola as the mayor-elect.
Comelec's Ruling
On March 19, 2003, the Comelec ruled that Moll was disqualified due to his prior conviction, which rendered votes cast for him as invalid. Thus, it proclaimed Ceriola the winner. The proclamation was contested through petitions filed by Kare and Moll, seeking to nullify the Comelec's resolution.
Issues Before the Court
The Court identified two key issues: (1) whether Moll should be disqualified from running for mayor, and (2) if disqualified, who should succeed to the mayoralty—Ceriola or the elected vice mayor Kare.
Court's Ruling on Disqualification
The Court found merit in Kare's petition partially, ruling that Moll's conviction had indeed become final as he failed to timely perfect an appeal. The motions he filed were found ineffective in staying the judgment's finality, affirming the Comelec's determination that Moll was disqualified under Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
Decision on Succession
Regarding the succession to the mayorship, the Court emphasized the principle that voters' will must be upheld. It articulated that the situation did not permit the second placer, Ceriola, to be automatically regarded as the winner due to the disqualification of Moll. Instead, the law provides that if a permanent vacancy occurs because of disqualification, the vice mayor (Kare) should assume the office as per the Local Government Code.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that Moll's disqualification created a permanent vacancy in the office of mayor, and thus, Kare, as the duly elected vice mayor, should succeed to the posi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172031)
Case Background
- The case involves two Petitions for Certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioners: Emiliana Toral Kare (GR No. 157526) and Salvador K. Moll (GR No. 157527).
- Respondent: Commission on Elections (Comelec).
- The case originated from a resolution issued by the Comelec on March 19, 2003, disqualifying Salvador K. Moll from the mayoralty of Malinao, Albay, and proclaiming Avelino Ceriola as the mayor-elect.
- The resolution's decretal portion declared Moll's candidacy void ab initio and directed the proclamation of Ceriola.
Facts of the Case
- In the May 14, 2001 elections, Moll received the highest number of votes for mayor, while Ceriola came in second, with a significant margin of 987 votes.
- Emiliana Toral Kare was elected vice mayor in the same election.
- On May 18, 2001, Ceriola filed a petition to confirm the disqualification of Dindo K. Moll (Moll's relative) based on a previous conviction for usurpation of authority.
- The Comelec First Division dismissed this petition, but the Comelec en banc later reversed this decision on August 31, 2001, remanding the case for further hearing.
- After the hearing, the Comelec en banc issued the contested resolution confirming Moll's disqualification and declaring Ceriola the winner.
Issues Presented
- Should Salvador K. Moll be disqualified from running for mayor?
- If the first issue is affirmed, who should be d