Case Summary (G.R. No. 219603)
Key Dates
Promulgation of Tulfo v. People (conviction): 16 September 2008; decision became final and executory: 1 June 2009. Payment of fines and moral damages by Pichay: 17 February 2011. Filing of certificate of candidacy (COC) by Pichay for 2013 elections: 9 October 2012. Petition for disqualification filed by Ty-Delgado before COMELEC: 18 February 2013. Proclamation of Pichay as winner: 16 May 2013. Quo warranto filed with HRET: 31 May 2013. HRET Decision dismissing quo warranto: 18 March 2015; HRET Resolution denying reconsideration: 3 August 2015. Supreme Court decision reversing HRET: 26 January 2016.
Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
Because the decision date is 2016, the 1987 Constitution is the governing constitution. Relevant statutory provisions cited: Section 12 (Disqualifications), Section 74 (Contents of certificate of candidacy), and Section 78 (Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy) of the Omnibus Election Code; Articles 353 (definition of libel) and 360 (responsibility of publisher) of the Revised Penal Code. HRET’s constitutional role as the “sole judge” of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of House members is recognized, subject to Supreme Court review for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Facts and Procedural Posture
Pichay was convicted by final judgment for four counts of libel in Tulfo v. People, and sentenced to fines and moral damages. He paid the fines and moral damages on 17 February 2011. He filed his COC on 9 October 2012 and was proclaimed the winning candidate after the May 2013 elections. Ty-Delgado pursued a petition for disqualification before COMELEC and later filed an ad cautelam quo warranto with the HRET after Pichay’s proclamation, alleging that the libel conviction involved moral turpitude and that the five-year disqualification period under Section 12 had not expired at the time he filed his COC.
HRET’s Ruling
The HRET asserted jurisdiction over quo warranto but concluded that the circumstances of Pichay’s conviction—specifically his role as president of the publishing company rather than as direct author—did not demonstrate that his conviction involved moral turpitude. The HRET therefore dismissed the quo warranto and declared Pichay eligible to serve.
Legal Standard on Disqualification and Moral Turpitude
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code disqualifies persons sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude unless plenarily pardoned or after five years from service of sentence. The Court adopted the provided definition of moral turpitude as acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals — acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties. The Court reiterated the general rule that crimes mala in se typically involve moral turpitude, and cited precedents treating various crimes (e.g., libel) as involving moral turpitude.
Nature of Libel and the Element of Malice
Libel is defined by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as the public and malicious imputation of a discreditable act or condition. The elements of libel include allegation of a discreditable act or condition, publication, identification of the person defamed, and existence of malice. Malice is central to libel; it denotes ill will, bad faith, or an intention to injure and may be established by showing publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Application of Law to Pichay’s Conviction
The Supreme Court recognized that in Tulfo v. People the Court found that Pichay and others published four defamatory articles with reckless disregard of their falsity, establishing actual malice. The subsequent publication of another libelous article after the filing of the complaint was viewed as additional evidence of malice. Given that malice was established and libel is a crime involving moral turpitude, the Court concluded Pichay’s conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Publisher Liability and the Effect of Reduced Penalty
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code makes authors, editors, and business managers equally responsible for defamations contained in publications. The Court held that the statute does not distinguish degrees of participation among those responsible for publication; therefore, Pichay’s liability as president/publisher is coextensive with the authors’. The imposition of a fine (instead of imprisonment) because of first-offender status does not negate the classification of a crime as involving moral turpitude, as established by prior precedent.
Computation of the Five-Year Disqualification Period
Under Section 12, the five-year disqualification period runs from the service of sentence. The Court applied prior holdings (e.g., Teves) treating payment of the fine as service of sentence. Since Pichay paid the fines on 17 February 2011, the five-year disqualification would run until 16 February 2016, meaning he remained disqualified at the time he filed his COC in October 2012 and at the May 2013 elections.
False Material Representation in the Certificate of Candidacy
Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code require a candidate to state under oath that he is eligible, and provide for denial of due course or cancellation of a COC when material representations are false. The Court applied prior precedent (Jalosjos) holding that a candidate barred by final judgment who still swears to eligibility in the COC makes a false material representation
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 219603)
The Case (Nature, Relief Sought, and Tribunal Being Reviewed)
- Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure challenging the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) Decision dated 18 March 2015 and Resolution dated 3 August 2015 in HRET Case No. 13-022.
- Petition assails HRET’s declaration that respondent Philip A. Pichay (Pichay) is eligible to hold and serve as Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Surigao del Sur.
- Relief sought: reversal and setting aside of HRET Decision and Resolution; declaration that Pichay is ineligible; declaration of petitioner Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado (Ty-Delgado) as the rightful winner of the 13 May 2013 elections for the district.
Chronology of Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- 16 September 2008: Supreme Court promulgated Decision in Tulfo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 161032 and 161176) convicting Pichay of four counts of libel.
- 1 June 2009: Tulfo decision became final and executory.
- 17 February 2011: Pichay paid One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as moral damages and Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as fine per count of libel.
- 9 October 2012: Pichay filed his certificate of candidacy for Member of the House of Representatives, First Legislative District, Surigao del Sur, for the 13 May 2013 elections.
- 18 February 2013: Ty-Delgado filed petition for disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code with the Comelec.
- 14 May 2013: Ty-Delgado filed motion to suspend proclamation before Comelec.
- 16 May 2013: Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Pichay as duly elected (76,870 votes).
- 31 May 2013: Ty-Delgado filed ad cautelam petition for quo warranto before HRET.
- 22 October 2013: Preliminary conference before HRET; parties waived presentation of evidence, case to involve legal issues only.
- 18 March 2015: HRET issued Decision dismissing quo warranto petition and declaring Pichay eligible.
- 3 August 2015: HRET Resolution denied Ty-Delgado’s motion for reconsideration.
- 26 January 2016: Supreme Court rendered decision granting the petition and reversing HRET (notice received by HRET office 29 January 2016).
Factual Background (Conviction and Candidacy)
- Tulfo v. People of the Philippines (587 Phil. 64, 2008) found Pichay guilty of four counts of libel for publishing defamatory articles with reckless disregard for their falsity; ordered fine of P6,000 per count and moral damages of P1,000,000 jointly and severally.
- Pichay paid the monetary penalties on 17 February 2011.
- Pichay filed certificate of candidacy on 9 October 2012 despite prior conviction and payment.
- Ty-Delgado argued in disqualification petition that libel is a crime involving moral turpitude and that five-year disqualification period had not yet lapsed when Pichay paid the penalty, rendering him ineligible to be a candidate.
- Pichay admitted conviction but contended libel does not necessarily involve moral turpitude, and asserted diminished personal participation as publisher, arguing petition was untimely or mischaracterized procedurally.
Proceedings Before the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
- Ty-Delgado filed petition for disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (18 February 2013).
- Pichay answered (4 March 2013), admitting conviction but contesting moral turpitude finding and raising procedural defenses (petition as attempt to cancel COC under Sections 74 & 78 and timeliness).
- Comelec First Division, in Resolution dated 4 June 2013, dismissed the petition for disqualification for lack of jurisdiction.
- Ty-Delgado then filed ad cautelam quo warranto before the HRET on 31 May 2013.
HRET Proceedings and Decision (18 March 2015 and 3 August 2015)
- HRET accepted jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition challenging eligibility of a Member of the House on disqualification under Section 12.
- HRET found that Tulfo did not establish direct personal participation by Pichay in writing the libelous articles beyond his role as president of the publishing company.
- HRET concluded the circumstances of Pichay’s conviction did not show libel as involving moral turpitude in his case.
- HRET dismissed the quo warranto petition and declared Pichay eligible to serve as Member representing the First Legislative District of Surigao del Sur (dispositive portion: petition dismissed; Pichay declared eligible; no pronouncement as to costs).
- HRET denied Ty-Delgado’s motion for reconsideration on 3 August 2015 for lack of merit.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court by Petitioner Ty-Delgado
- Whether HRET gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the circumstances of Pichay’s conviction did not involve moral turpitude, contrary to the factual and legal findings of Tulfo.
- Whether HRET gravely abused its discretion in failing to declare Pichay ineligible or disqualified from holding the congressional seat on account of his conviction for libel (a crime involving moral turpitude).
- Whether HRET gravely abused its discretion in failing to declare that Pichay falsely represented his eligibility in his certificate of candidacy.
- Whether HRET gravely abused its discretion in failing to declare Pichay’s certificate of candidacy void ab initio, and that Pichay never became a candidate.
- Whether the jurisprudence on proclaiming a “second placer” should apply if the first placer’s certificate of candidacy is cancelled.
- Whether Ty-Delgado should be declared the sole legitimate candidate and rightful winner for the seat.
Legal Provisions and Definitions Central to the Decision
- Section 12, Omnibus Election Code (Disqualifications):
- Persons sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude are disqualified to be a candidate or hold office unless pardoned or amnestied.
- Disqualification is deemed removed after five years from service of sentence (unless disqualified again within that period).
- Section 74, Omnibus Election Code (Contents of Certificate of Candidacy):
- COC must state the filer is eligible for the office and that facts stated are true to the best of the filer’s knowledge.
- Section 78, Omnibus Election Code (Petition to deny due course to or cancel Certificate of Candidacy):
- Verified petition may be filed on ground that any material