Faelnar vs People

GR Nos. 140850-51 May 4, 2000

Facts:

Faelnar filed a certificate for candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe,
Cebu in the 1997 barangay elections. The day after he filed his certificate, a basketball tournament, the
“2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar’s Cup,” opened opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex. Due to the basketball
tournament, Antonio Luy filed a complaint for electioneering against Faelnar and Cecilio Gillamac. It
alleged that: 1) during the game, a streamer with Faelnar’s name was placed on the facade of the
complex, 2) his name was repeatedly mentioned over the microphone, 3) the tournament was widely
published in the local newspaper, and 4) a raffle sponsored by Gillamac was held (home appliances were
given away). Faelnar calimed that it was purely a sporting event for the benefit of the youth. Atty.
Cadungog, election officer of Cebu, investigated the complaint and recommended the dismissal of the
charges. The law department of COMELEC recommended the filing of the case. The COMELEC en banc
resolved to dismiss the case (in a Resolution). Antonio Luy filed an MR, and COMELEC ordered the filing
of the necessary informations. Faelnar and Gillamac were formally charged in the RTC (criminal cases).
Petitioner moved to quash the information, or a reinvestigation, due to the fact that the decision of the
COMELEC is final and executory and could no longer be reconsidered.

Issue: Whether the first resolution of COMELEC was final executory and could not be reconsidered?

Held:

1. The first resolution of COMELEC (dismissing the case against Faelnar) was not final and may be
subject to a Motion for Reconsideration.

Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide for an exception in what
pleadings are not allowed: o “motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or
decision, except in election offense cases” An MR of a ruling, resolution or decision of the COMELEC en
banc is allowed in cases involving election offenses. There is no question that what is involved in this
case is a resolution in an election offense. Therefore, an MR is allowed under the Rules. Faelnar,
likewise, invokes Rule 34, Section 10 of the same Rules. However, this section does not apply to
investigations conducted by COMELEC, but to the resolutions of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or
City Fiscal, who has the delegated power to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases.
But if COMELEC conducts the investigation through its own investigating officer, the section does not
apply.

2. However, even if it was final, Faelnar’s motion to quash was not the proper remedy as it was an
attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the COMELEC. The proper remedy would have been a petition
for certiorari under Rule 64, which must be filed within 30 days from notice of judgment. In this case,
Faelnar filed his motion to quash more than a year after.