You are on page 1of 3

PERFECTO V.

GALIDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SATURNINO R. GALEON, respondents
G.R. No. 95346
January 18, 1991

Facts:
Petitioner Galido and private respondent Galeon were candidates during the
January 1988 local elections for mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. Petitioner was
proclaimed the duly-elected Mayor. Private respondent filed an election protest before
the RTC. After hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner. Private
respondent appealed the RTC decision to the COMELEC. Its First Division reversed the
RTC decision and declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor. After the
COMELEC en banc denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the
decision of its First Division. The COMELEC held that the fifteen (15) ballots in the
same precinct containing the initial “C” after the name “Galido” were marked ballots and,
therefore, invalid.

Undaunted by his previous failed actions the petitioner filed the present petition
for certiorari and injunction before the Supreme Court and succeeded in getting a
temporary restraining order. In his comment to the petition, private respondent moved
for dismissal, citing Article IX (C), Section 2(2), paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
that “Final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election contests involving
elective municipal offices are final and executory, and not appealable.

Issue:
Whether or not a COMELEC decision may, if it sets aside the trial court’s
decision involving marked ballots, be brought to the Supreme Court by a petition for
certiorari by the aggrieved party?

Held:
The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not
appealable, does not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of
certiorari. Under Article IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, which petitioner cites, it is
stated, “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt thereof.” We resolve this
issue in favor of the petitioner. “We do not, however, believe that the respondent
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in rendering the questioned decision. The COMELEC has the inherent
power to decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and
apply established jurisprudence, in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the
extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion, the exercise of which
should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of
either party. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DIMISSSED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,


vs.
HONORABLE ENRIQUE B. INTING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 38, DUMAGUETE CITY, AND OIC MAYOR DOMINADOR S.
REGALADO, JR., respondents
G.R. No. 88919
July 25, 1990

Facts:
Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador
Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for allegedly transferring her,
a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very
remote barangay and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC
as required by law.

After a preliminary investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a


prima facie case. Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the respondent trial court
a criminal case for violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the
OIC-Mayor. In an Order dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court issued a
warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor.

However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the accused could be
arrested, the trial court set aside its September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty.
Lituanas is not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court later on quashed the information. Hence, this
petition.

Issue:
Does a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor
involving election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before
the Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation and determine
whether or not probable cause exists?

Held:
The 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct preliminary
investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge
determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive
with COMELEC. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the
COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which
would result in the frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere idle
ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the
COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public
officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in
achieving this clear constitutional mandate. Bearing these principles in mind, it is
apparent that the respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional provision when it
quashed the information filed by the Provincial Election Supervisor.

You might also like