Case Summary (G.R. No. 88919)
Relevant Facts
Mrs. Barba filed a complaint with COMELEC alleging that OIC-Mayor Regalado improperly transferred her to a remote barangay without prior COMELEC clearance. Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 1752 (January 14, 1986) and Executive Order No. 134 (February 27, 1987), Atty. Lituanas conducted a preliminary investigation, found a prima facie case, and filed an information for violation of Section 261, paragraph (h) of the Omnibus Election Code on September 26, 1988. The trial court issued a warrant and fixed bail on September 30, 1988 but subsequently set aside the order and required written approval of the Provincial Fiscal before proceeding. The trial court later quashed the information when COMELEC’s legal officer failed to procure the Provincial Fiscal’s written approval.
Procedural History
- COMELEC directed Provincial Election Supervisor to investigate and prosecute (February–September 1988).
- Information filed with RTC (September 26, 1988); warrant issued and bail fixed (September 30, 1988).
- RTC set aside its order and required Provincial Fiscal approval (October 3, 1988), ordered re-filing with Fiscal approval (November 22, 1988), then quashed the information (December 8, 1988).
- Petition for certiorari filed to challenge the RTC’s requirement that COMELEC’s investigation obtain Provincial Fiscal approval.
Issues Presented
- Whether a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor pursuant to COMELEC authority must be routed through or approved by the Provincial Fiscal before the Regional Trial Court may determine probable cause.
- Whether the RTC erred in quashing the information on the ground that COMELEC’s legal officer lacked authority under the 1987 Constitution to determine probable cause.
Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Law
- 1987 Constitution: Article III, Section 2 (right against unreasonable searches and seizures; probable cause to be determined personally by the judge); Article IX-C, Section 2 (COMELEC powers including investigation and prosecution of election offenses).
- Omnibus Election Code (Section 261, relevant provisions authorizing prosecution of election offenses).
- COMELEC Resolution No. 1752 (authorizing Regional Election Directors and Provincial Election Supervisors to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute pursuant to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code).
- Executive Order No. 134 (Enabling Act for 1987 elections; Section 11 affirming COMELEC’s exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses, with a proviso allowing complainant recourse to fiscals/DOJ if COMELEC fails to act within two months).
Legal Analysis — Nature of Probable Cause Determination
The 1987 Constitution vests the power to determine probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest in the judge personally. This is a judicial function that cannot be delegated. The judge alone must make the ultimate determination whether the facts and supporting papers establish probable cause for issuance of a warrant. A preliminary certification of probable cause by a prosecutor or any investigator does not bind the judge; the judge may and should independently examine the affidavits, documents, and other supporting materials submitted.
Legal Analysis — Distinction Between Preliminary Investigation and Preliminary Examination
Two distinct inquiries must be kept separate: (1) Preliminary investigation proper — an executive function conducted by prosecutors or authorized investigating officers to determine whether there is sufficient ground to file an information (i.e., whether the case should be prosecuted); and (2) Preliminary examination (or preliminary inquiry for probable cause) — a judicial function by which a judge determines whether probable cause exists for issuance of arrest or search warrants. The Rules on Criminal Procedure removed trial judges’ role in conducting preliminary investigations to determine sufficiency for filing charges, but they retained the judge’s constitutional duty to decide probable cause for arrest.
Legal Analysis — COMELEC’s Constitutional Authority and Its Legal Officers
Article IX-C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution expressly empowers the COMELEC to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute election offenses. The constitutional grant is exclusive and intended to ensure the effective enforcement of election law necessary to protect the integrity of elections. COMELEC’s implementing resolutions and EO No. 134 authorize its duly authorized legal officers, including Provincial Election Supervisors designated as legal officers, to conduct preliminary investigations and to file informations and prosecute election offenses. This power is exclusive to COMELEC except in the limited circumstance where COMELEC fails to act within the period specified in EO No. 134, allowing a complainant to seek prosecution through the Office of the Fiscal or the Department of Justice.
Role of the Provincial Fiscal/Prosecutor
The Provincial Fiscal or prosecutor does not automatically have supervisory or approval authority over COMELEC’s exercise of its constitutional power to investigate and prosecute election offenses. A fiscal becomes involved in election prosecution only if deputized by COMELEC or if the statutory/constitutional exception (e.g., COMELEC’s failure to act within the prescribed time) applies. A demand by the RTC that the COMELEC legal officer obtain a Provincial Fiscal’s written approval before the court may proceed imposes an unwarranted procedural requirement inconsistent with COMELEC’s exclusive constitutional authority.
Court’s Holding and Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the RTC erred in requiring the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal and in quashing the information filed by COMELEC’s Provincial Election Supervisor. The Court reaffirmed that: (a) the judge alone determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest; (b) preliminary investigations to de
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88919)
Citation, Court and Panel
- 265 Phil. 817 EN BANC; G.R. No. 88919; Decision dated July 25, 1990.
- Decision delivered by Justice Gutierrez, Jr., sitting en banc.
- Justices Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.
Central Question Presented
- Whether a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor (COMELEC legal officer) involving election offenses must be coursed through the Provincial Fiscal (Provincial Prosecutor) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether probable cause exists.
Factual Background
- February 6, 1988: Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental.
- Allegation: The OIC-Mayor transferred Barba, a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I in the Mayor’s office, to a remote barangay without prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.
- COMELEC’s directive (pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 1752 dated January 14, 1986) to Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, Provincial Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City:
- (1) Conduct the preliminary investigation of the case;
- (2) Prepare and file the necessary information in court;
- (3) Handle the prosecution if evidence shows a prima facie case; and
- (4) Issue a resolution of prosecution or dismissal as appropriate.
- Atty. Lituanas conducted a preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case.
- September 26, 1988: Atty. Lituanas filed a criminal case in the RTC for violation of Section 261, Paragraph (h) of the Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor.
- September 30, 1988: The respondent RTC issued a warrant of arrest and fixed bail at P5,000, as recommended by the Provincial Election Supervisor.
- October 3, 1988: The RTC set aside its September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas was not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the court stated it would give due course only if the information had the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal and prosecution thereafter would be under the Fiscal’s supervision and control (Rollo, p. 23).
- November 22, 1988: The RTC gave Atty. Lituanas fifteen (15) days from receipt to file another information charging the same offense with the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal.
- Atty. Lituanas failed to comply.
- December 8, 1988: The RTC quashed the information; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The People of the Philippines filed the present petition challenging the RTC’s orders.
Relevant Statutes, Resolutions and Executive Action Cited
- COMELEC Resolution No. 1752 dated January 14, 1986 — authorizing Regional Election Directors and Provincial Election Supervisors to conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses, file complaints/informations in court, and prosecute pursuant to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code (Rollo, p. 15).
- Omnibus Election Code:
- Section 265 referenced (COMELEC authority under 1985 code context).
- Section 261, Paragraph (h) — offense charged in the information.
- 1987 Constitution:
- Article III, Section 2 — “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge …” (text relied upon to emphasize judge’s role in probable cause determination).
- Article IX-C, Section 2 — COMELEC powers and functions, including: (6) file, upon verified complaint or on its own initiative, petitions in court and investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violation of election laws (emphasis supplied in source).
- 1973 Constitution (Sec. 2, Article XII-C) cited as a basis for Resolution No. 1752’s enforcement rationale.
- Executive Order No. 134 dated February 27, 1987 — Enabling Act for Elections for Members of Congress on May 11, 1987, Section 11: COMELEC, through duly authorized legal officers, has exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses and to prosecute same; proviso allowing complainant to file with Fiscal/DOJ if COMELEC fails to act within two months; COMELEC may avail itself of other prosecuting arms’ assistance.
Pertinent Precedents and Authorities Discussed
- Castillo v. Villaluz, 171 SCRA 39 (1989) — discussed distinction that RTC judges no longer have authority to conduct preliminary investigations (executive function) but retain power to determine probable cause for issuance of warrants.
- Salta v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 228 — cited for proposition that conduct of preliminary investigation is part of prosecution’s job, an executive function.
- People v. Solon, 47 Phil. 443; references to historical rules granting preliminary investigation power to judges prior to 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- Corpus v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987) — affirms COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction to inve