NLLSON 1. LLUZ AND CA1ALINO C. ALDLOSA v.

COMMISSION ON LLLC1IONS AND CALSAR O. VICLNCIO

G.R. No. J72840, 7 June 2007, Car pi o J . ( Ln Banc)



. vi.rere.evtatiov iv a certificate of cavaiaac, i. vateriat rbev it refer. to a qvatificatiov for etectire office ava
affect. tbe cavaiaate`. etigibitit,. !bev a cavaiaate covvit. a vateriat vi.rere.evtatiov, be or .be va, be roceeaea
agaiv.t tbrovgb a etitiov to aev, ave covr.e to or cavcet a certificate of cavaiaac, vvaer ectiov , or tbrovgb crivivat
ro.ecvtiov vvaer ectiov 22 for riotatiov of ectiov 1of .P. 1. . vi.rere.evtatiov of a vovvateriat fact, or a vov
vateriat vi.rere.evtatiov, i. vot a grovva to aev, ave covr.e to or cavcet a certificate of cavaiaac, vvaer ectiov . v
otber rora., for a cavaiaate`. certificate of cavaiaac, to be aeviea ave covr.e or cavcetea b, tbe COMC, tbe fact
vi.rere.evtea vv.t ertaiv to a qvatificatiov for tbe office .ovgbt b, tbe cavaiaate.


Vicencio was a candidate or the post o punong barangay o Barangay 2, Poblacion, Catubig,
Samar in the July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Llections. In his certiicate o
candidacy, he stated his proession or occupation as a certiied public accountant ,CPA,. Vicencio won
in the elections.
Sometime ater Vicencio`s proclamation, petitioners charged him beore the Law Department o
the COMLLLC ,Law Department, with iolation o Section 262 in relation to Section 4 o B.P. 881.
Petitioners claimed they had proo that Vicencio misrepresented himsel as a CPA. Attached to
petitioners` complaint was a Certiication signed the Regulations Oice o the Proessional Regulation
Commission ,PRC,, stating that Vicencio`s name does not appear in the book which contains the names
o those duly authorized to practice accountancy in the Philippines.

Vicencio maintained that he was a CPA and alleged that he passed the CPA Board
Lxaminations. le argued that he could not be held liable or an election oense because his alleged
misrepresentation o proession was not material to his eligibility as a candidate.

1he Law Department issued a subpoena requiring the Chie o the PRC`s Records Section to
appear beore it and settle the controersy on whether Vicencio was indeed a CPA. PRC Records
Section Oicer-in-Charge appeared beore the Law Department and produced a Certiication showing
that Vicencio had taken the October 1993 CPA Board Lxaminations and obtained a ailing mark.

1he Law Department, howeer, recommended the dismissal o petitioners` complaint. Citing
the rulings o the Supreme Court in RovvataeMarco. r. COMC and atceao r. COMC, the
Law Department held that the misrepresentation in Vicencio`s certiicate o candidacy was not material
to his eligibility as a candidate and could not be a ground or his prosecution.

Upon motion o petitioners, the COMLLLC v avc by Resolution ordered the Law
Department to ile an inormation against Vicencio or iolation o Section 262 in relation to Section 4
o B.P. 881. In reersing the resolution o the Law Department, the COMLLLC v avc ruled that
RovvataeMarco. and atceao were disqualiication cases not applicable to the case o Vicencio who is
sought to be prosecuted or an election oense. As such, the misrepresentation made by Vicencio need
not be material to his eligibility as a candidate in order to hold him liable under Section 262. 1he
COMLLLC v avc urther ruled that election oenses are vata robibita, in which case no proo o
criminal intent is required and good aith, ignorance, or lack o malice are not alid deenses. Vicencio
moed or reconsideration.

1he COMLLLC v avc reconsidered its earlier Resolution. Petitioners iled a motion or
reconsideration, which the COMLLLC v avc denied declaring that while it condemn|ed| in the
strongest possible terms` priate respondent`s morally appalling, deious, calculating, and deceitul` act,
it could not prosecute priate respondent or an election oense, but possibly only or an administratie
or criminal oense.
lence, this petition.

ISSUL:
\hether or not an alleged misrepresentation o proession or occupation on a certiicate o
candidacy punishable as an election oense under Section 262 in relation to Section 4 o B.P. 881


HLLD:
1he petition is DISMISSLD. 1he v avc Resolutions o the Commission on Llections is
AllIRMLD.

In urging the Court to order the COMLLLC to ile the necessary inormation against Vicencio,
petitioners inoke Sections 262 and 4 o B.P. 881

According to the Supreme Court, the penal coerage o Section 262 is limited. 1he Court
explained that the listing o sections in Section 262 is introduced by the clause: Violation o the
proisions, or pertinent portions, o the ollowing sections shall constitute election oenses: x x x.`
1he phraseology o this introductory clause alerts us that Section 262 itsel possibly limits its coerage to
only pertinent portions o Section 4. 1hat such a possibility exists must not be taken lightly or two
reasons. lirst, were the phrase not necessary, the law`s ramers would hae instead directly declared that
iolation o the proisions` or any proision` o the enumerated sections - without any qualiication
- would constitute an election oense. It is a settled principle in statutory construction that wheneer
possible, a legal proision, phrase, or word must not be so construed as to be meaningless and a useless
surplusage in the sense o adding nothing to the law or haing no eect on it. Second, equally well-
settled is the rule that a statute imposing criminal liability should be construed narrowly in its coerage
such that only those oenses clearly included, beyond reasonable doubt, will be considered within the
operation o the statute.

Section 4 enumerates all inormation which a person running or public oice must supply the
COMLLLC in a sworn certiicate o candidacy. It does not expressly mention which portion in its
proisions is pertinent to Section 262, or which among its proisions when iolated is punishable as an
election oense. Nothing in Section 4 partakes unmistakably o a penal clause or a positie prohibition
comparable to those ound in other sections also mentioned in Section 262 that use the words shall
not.` 1he Court is then let to interpret the meaning o Section 4 to determine which o its proisions
are penalized under Section 262, and particularly i disclosure o proession or occupation is among such
proisions.

1he SC rulings in Abella . Larrazabal and Salcedo clariied the concept o misrepresentation
under B.P. 881. lrom these two cases seeral conclusions ollow. lirst, a misrepresentation in a
certiicate o candidacy is material when it reers to a qualiication or electie oice and aects the
candidate`s eligibility. Second, when a candidate commits a material misrepresentation, he or she may be
proceeded against through a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certiicate o candidacy under
Section 8, or through criminal prosecution under Section 262 or iolation o Section 4. 1hird, a
misrepresentation o a non-material act, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny
due course to or cancel a certiicate o candidacy under Section 8. In other words, or a candidate`s
certiicate o candidacy to be denied due course or canceled by the COMLLLC, the act misrepresented
must pertain to a qualiication or the oice sought by the candidate.

1he SC urther explained that proession or occupation is not a qualiication or electie oice,
and thereore not a material act in a certiicate o candidacy. No electie oice, not een the oice o
the President o the Republic o the Philippines, requires a certain proession or occupation as a
qualiication. lor local electie oices including that o punong barangay, Republic Act No. 160 ,R.A.
160, or the Local Goernment Code o 1991 prescribes only qualiications pertaining to citizenship,
registration as a oter, residence, and language.

Proession or occupation not being a qualiication or electie oice, misrepresentation o such
does not constitute a material misrepresentation. Certainly, in a situation where a candidate misrepresents
his or her proession or occupation in the certiicate o candidacy, the candidate may not be disqualiied
rom running or oice under Section 8 as his or her certiicate o candidacy cannot be denied due
course or canceled on such ground.