Competencias municipales

A,. Criminal and Electorate Aspects of An Election Offense

An election offense has criminal as well as electoral aspects ( Sunga vs COMELEC 288 SCRA 76)

1) Its criminal aspect involves the ascertainment of the guilt or innocence of the accused candidate like in any other criminal case, it usually entails a full-blown hearing and the quantum of proof required to secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

2) Its electoral aspect is a determination of whether the offender should be qualified from office. This is done through administrative proceeding which is summary in character and requires only a clear preponderance of evidence.

B. Jurisdiction to try the case

The expanded jurisdiction of the Municipal Trail Court ( RA 7691) does not include criminal cases involving election offenses,

because by special provision of Sec 268 of BP 881 they fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (COMELEC vs Noynay 292 SCRA 354)

Under Sec 268 of BP 881, regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation of the Code including those penalized by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, but except those relating to the offense of failure to vote ( Juan vs People 322 SCRA 125)

C. Offenses 1. Vote-buying

a. The fact that at least one voter in at least 20% of the precincts in a municipality , city or province was offered money by the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a candidate to promote his election shall create a presumption of conspiracy to bribe voters.

b. The fact that at least 20% of the precincts of the municipality, city or province to which the office aspired for by the candidate is affected by the offer creates the presumption that the candidate and his campaign managers are involved in the conspiracy.

c. Any person who is guilty and willingly testifies shall be exempt from prosecution ( Sec 28, RA 6646)

d. The traditional gift-giving by the municipality during Christmas which was done to induce voters for the mayor does not constitute vote-buying ( Lozano vs Martinez, 285 SCRA 256)

2. Appointment of New Employees

The prohibition against appointment of a government employee within 45 days before regular election refers to positions covered by the civil service and does not apply to

the replacement of a councilor who died ( Ong vd Martinez, 188 SCRA 830)

3. Unauthorized Entry into Polling Place Mere presence of unauthorized person inside a polling place is an offense ( COMELEC vs Romillo, 158 SCRA 716) 4. Transfers of Government Employees Since the Omnibus Election Code does not per se prohibit the transfer of government employees during the election period but only penalizes such transfers made without the prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance with the implementing regulations, the transfer of government employees before the publication of the implementing regulations is not an election offense. ( People vs Reyes, 247 SCRA 328) Two elements of the offense prescribed under Sec 261 (h) of BP 881, as amended are:

(1) a public officer or employee is transferred or detailed within the election period as fixed by the COMELEC, and (2) the transfer or detail was effected without prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance with its implementing rules and regulations (Regalado vs CA 325 SCRA 516) 5. Carrying Deadly Weapon in Precinct To support a conviction carrying a deadly weapon inside a precinct, it is necessary that the deadly weapon be seized from the accused while he was in precinct (Mappala vs Munoz 240 SCRA 600)

6. Failure to make Proclamation

Proclaiming a losing candidate instead of the winner also constitutes failure to make a proclamation (Agujetas vs CA 261 SCRA 17)

7. Refusing to credit candidate with vote Under section 27(b) of RA 6646, two act not one, are penalized i.e, first, the tampering, increasing or decreasing of votes received by a candidate in any election, and second, the refusal, after proper verification and hearing to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.(Pimentel vs. COMELEC,289 SCRA 586)

D. Prosecution

1. Section 2(6),Art IX-C “File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.”

The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of and prosecute election offenses (Naldaza vs. Lavilles,254 SCRA 286)

2. This holds true even if the offense is committed by a public officer in relation to his office.(Corpuz vs. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 2281)

3. Whatever initiated motu propio or filed with the COMELEC by any other party, the complaint shall be referred to the COMELEC Law Department for investigation.. The COMELEC Chairman, in his personal capacity may file directly with the COMELEC Law Department pursuant to Section 4, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. No requirement in section 5 that only the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department for investigation nor is there a rule against the COMELEC Chairman directing the conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself were the complainant in his private capacity…

Where the complaint was directly filed with the Law Department under Section 4 of Rule 32 of the COMELEC RULES of Procedure obviously there is no need to refer such complaint to the same Law Department… Under Section 5 of Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the preliminary investigation may be delegated to any of those officials specified in the rule upon the direction of the COMELEC Chairman (Laurel vs. Presiding Judge, RTC Manila Br 10, 323 SCRA 778)

4. A provincial election supervisor authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation may file a case without need of approval of the provincial prosecutor. (Pp. Vs. Inting,187 SCRA 788)

The COMELEC can deputize prosecutors to investigate and prosecute offenses even after election. (Pp. Vs. Basilla,179 SCRA 87) Since it is a preliminary investigation, it is the COMELEC who will determine the existence of probable cause, the complainant cannot ask it to gather evidence in support of the complaint. (Kilosbayan Inc vs. COMELEC,280 SCRA 8920

The court in which a criminal case was filed may order the COMELEC to order a reinvestigation. (Pp. Vs. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715)

A prosecutor who was deputized by the COMELEC cannot oppose the appeal filed by the COMELEC from the dismissal of a case, since the power to prosecute election offenses is vested in the COMELEC.(COMELEC vs. Ssilva,286 SCRA 177)