Case Summary (G.R. No. 212738)
Petitioners
The People of the Philippines and private complainants (Atty. Juan-Barrameda, Mischaella Savari, Marlon Savari) sought review of the Court of Appeals’ decision quashing three criminal informations.
Respondents
Rufino Ramoy and Dennis Padilla, joined by five other candidates and one community leader, moved to quash informations charging them with unlawful electioneering and premature campaigning.
Key Dates
• October 25, 2010: First complaint filed against community leader Borja.
• January 17, 2011: Supplemental complaint added respondents and co-defendants.
• February 18, 2011: Prosecutor finds probable cause and files three criminal informations.
• February 15 & November 28, 2012: Regional Trial Court (RTC) denies motion to quash and reconsideration.
• September 27, 2013 & May 27, 2014: Court of Appeals (CA) grants certiorari and quashes the three informations.
• March 9, 2022: Supreme Court issues decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – presumption of innocence, separation of powers, right to speedy disposition.
• Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), particularly Sections 79 (definitions), 80 (premature campaigning), 192 (persons allowed in polling place), and 261 cc(6) (prohibited acts on election day).
Factual Background
Petitioners, as accredited pollwatchers, filed complaints alleging that community leader Borja and respondents, acting in conspiracy, solicited votes and distributed paraphernalia inside and outside polling places before and on election day. The assistant city prosecutor found probable cause and filed three separate criminal informations before the RTC.
Procedural History and CA Decision
Respondents moved to quash the informations on grounds of duplicity and non-constitution of offenses; the RTC denied these motions. The CA granted certiorari, holding that each information charged multiple offenses and therefore was duplicitous, and quashed all three.
Standards for Interlocutory Orders
Though appeals from interlocutory orders are generally prohibited, the Court entertained this certiorari petition due to (1) grave abuse of discretion by lower courts, (2) novel legal questions, and (3) undue delay hindering the right to speedy disposition under the Constitution.
Ruling on Premature Campaigning (Criminal Cases Q-11-169068 & Q-11-169069)
The Court held that “premature campaigning” outside the official campaign period is no longer punishable under current law. Section 80’s prohibition on partisan activity before the campaign period cannot apply to non-candidates, who only become candidates at campaign start. Acts charged—visiting houses, holding meetings, soliciting votes before the campaign period—are not criminal offenses. Consequently, these two informations were quashed for failure of the facts to constitute an offense.
Ruling on Duplicity and Doctrine of Absorption (Criminal Case Q-11-169067)
Information Q-11-169067 charged respondents with:
- Soliciting votes and undertaking propaganda inside the polling place on election day (Sec. 261 cc(6)); and
- Being unlawfully inside the polling place (Sec. 192).
Both are mala prohibita offenses under the Omnibus Election Code, and the unauthorized presence at the polling place is an element inherent in the offense of unlawful electioneering. Under the doctrine of absorption, the act of entering and remaining within the polling place is subsume
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212738)
Antecedents and Factual Background
- Petitioners served as pollwatchers in the 2010 Barangay Elections in Quezon City.
- On October 25, 2010, Mischaella and Marlon Savari filed a complaint against Paul Ramones Borja for soliciting votes and distributing paraphernalia inside a polling place.
- On January 17, 2011, petitioners charged respondents and five other candidates with conspiracy with Borja, alleging multiple acts of vote‐soliciting and campaigning outside and inside polling places.
- A Joint Supplemental Complaint Affidavit joined Atty. Juan-Barrameda to the complaint, leading ACP Resurreccion to find probable cause on February 18, 2011, for two counts under Sec. 80 and one count under Sec. 261(k) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Charges and Informations
- Three criminal informations were filed in RTC Quezon City, Branch 101:
• Q-11-169067: Soliciting votes and distributing paraphernalia inside the polling place on election day (Sec. 261 cc(6)) and related offenses.
• Q-11-169068: Campaigning and soliciting votes before campaign period by visiting houses and holding meetings (Sec. 80).
• Q-11-169069: Similar premature campaigning on October 10, 2010 (Sec. 80).
Pre-Trial Motions and Department of Justice Action
- Respondents and co-defendants moved to quash the informations for charging more than one offense and for insufficiency of facts.
- They petitioned the DOJ to review ACP Resurreccion’s resolution; arraignment was deferred.
- On January 30, 2012, the DOJ denied their petition for review.
- On February 15, 2012, RTC denied the Omnibus Motion to Quash, ruling the informations charge a single crime of unlawful electioneering.
- On November 28, 2012, RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration and set arraignment for Dece