G.R. No. 132365 July 9, 1998 COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, petitioner,
<&=t is worth pointing out that all the accused are unifor!l% charged for ualification to hold pulic office or deprivation of the right of suffrage.
vs. HON. TOMAS B. NOYNAY, Ac!"# $%&'!(!"# Ju(#&, R!o")l T%!)l Cou%, B%)"c* 23, All&", No%*&%" S)+)%, )"( IOSAA -. AMOR, ESBEL CHA, )"( RBEN MAGLYOAN, respondents.
A/IE,, JR., A/IE
J.:
The pivotal issue raised in this special civil action for certiorari with with mandamus mandamus is is whether R.A. No. 7691 1 has divested Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over election offenses, which are punishale with i!prison!ent of not e"ceeding si" #6$ %ears. The antecedents are not disputed. &n its 'inute Resolution No. 96()*76 of +9 ctoer 1996, the Co!!ission on -lections #C'--C$ resolved to file an infor!ation for violation of /ection +61#i$ of the !nius -lection Code against private respondents 0iosdada A!or, a pulic school principal, and -sel Chua and Ruen 'aglu%oan, oth pulic school teachers, for having engaged in partisan political activities. The C'--C authoried its Regional 0irector in Region 2&&& to handle the prosecution of the cases. 3orthwith, nine infor!ations for violation of /ection +61#i$ of the !nius -lection were filed with 4ranch +) of the Regional Trial Court of Alien, Northern /a!ar, and doc5eted therein as follows a$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. A(1)9 and A(1+, against private respondents 0iosdada A!or, -sel Chua, and Ruen 'aglu%oan. $ Cri!inal Case No. A(1), against private respondents -sel Chua and Ruen 'aglu%oan. c$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. A(1 and A(18, against private respondent -sel Chua onl% d$ Cri!inal Cases Nos. A(16 to A(19, against private respondent 0iosdada A!or onl%. &n an rder 2 issued on +8 August 1997, respondent :udge To!as 4. No%na%, as presiding judge of 4ranch +), motu proprio ordered proprio ordered the records of the cases to e withdrawn and directed the C'--C aw 0epart!ent to file the cases with the appropriate 'unicipal Trial Court on the
/ec. )1 uired the respondents and the ffice of the /olicitor Deneral to
&n its 'anifestation of 8 'arch 199?, the ffice of the /olicitor Deneral infor!s us that it is BadoptingB the instant petition on the ground that the challenged orders of pulic respondent Bare clearl% not in accordance with e"isting laws and jurisprudence.B
within the e"clusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the /andigana%an, the 'etropolitan Trial Courts, 'unicipal Trial Courts, and 'unicipal Circuit Trial Courts shall e"ercise
&n his 'anifestation of 1+ 'arch 199?, pulic respondent avers that it is the dut% of counsel for private respondents interested in sustaining the challenged orders to appear for and defend hi!.
#1$ -"clusive original jurisdiction over all violations of cit% or !unicipal ordinances co!!itted within their respective territorial jurisdiction and
&n their Co!!ent, private respondents !aintain that R.A. No. 7691 has divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where the i!posale penalt% is not !ore than 6 %ears of i!prison!ent !oreover, R.A. 7691 e"pressl% provides that all laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent with its provisions are dee!ed repealed or !odified accordingl%. The% then conclude that since the election offense in >uestion is punishale with i!prison!ent of not !ore than 6 %ears, it is cogniale % 'unicipal Trial Courts.
#+$ -"clusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishale with i!prison!ent not e"ceeding si" #6$ %ears irrespective of the a!ount of fine, and regardless of other i!posale accessor% or other penalties, including the civil liailit% arising fro! such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of 5ind, nature, value or a!ount thereof Provided , however , That in offenses involving da!age to propert% through cri!inal negligence, the% shall have e"clusive original jurisdiction thereof.
Ee resolved to give due course to the petition. Fnder /ection +6? of the !nius -lection Code, Regional Trial Courts have e"clusive original jurisdiction to tr% and decide an% cri!inal action or proceedings for violation of the Code e"cept those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote. 6 &t reads as follows /ec. +6?. Jurisdiction of courts. @ The regional trial court shall have the e"clusive original jurisdiction to tr% and decide an% cri!inal action or proceedings for violation of this Code, e"cept those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall e under the jurisdiction of the !etropolitan or !unicipal trial courts. 3ro! the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other cri!inal cases. A!ong the offenses punished under the -lection Code are those enu!erated in /ection +61 thereof. The offense allegedl% co!!itted % private respondents is covered % paragraph #i$ of said /ection, thus /ec. +61. Prohibited Acts. @ The following shall e guilt% of an election offense #i$ Intervention of public officers and employees. @ An% officer or e!plo%ee in the civil service, e"cept those hol ding political offices an% officer, e!plo%ee, or !e!er of the Ar!ed 3orces of the ;hilippines, or an% police forces, special forces, ho!e defense forces, aranga% self(defense units and all other para(!ilitar% units that now e"ist or which !a% hereafter e organied who, directl% or indirectl%, intervenes in an% election ca!paign or engages in an% partisan political activit%, e"cept to vote or to preserve pulic order, if he is a peace officer. Fnder /ection +6 of the Code the penalt% for an election offense under the Code, e"cept that of failure to register or failure to vote, is Bi!prison!ent of not less than one %ear ut not !ore than si" %earsB and the offender shall not e suject to proation and shall suffer dis>ualification to hold pulic office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. /ection )+ of 4.;. 4lg. 1+9 as a!ended % /ection + of R.A. No. 7691, provides as follows
Ee have e"plicitl% ruled in Morales v. Court of Appeals that % virtue of the e"ception provided for in the opening sentence of /ection )+, the e"clusive original jurisdiction of 'etropolitan Trial Courts, 'unicipal Trial Courts, and 'unicipal Circuit Trial Courts does not cover those cri!inal cases which % specific provisions of law fall within the e"clusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the /andigana%an, regardless of the penalt% prescried therefor. therwise stated, even if those e"cepted cases are punishale % i!prison!ent of not e"ceeding si" #6$ %ears #i .e., prision correccional, arresto mayor , or arresto menor $, jurisdiction thereon is retained % the Regional Trial Courts or the /andigana%an, as the case !a% e. A!ong the e"a!ples cited in Morales as falling within the e"ception provided for in the opening sentence of /ection )+ are cases under #1$ /ection +* of 4.;. 4lg. 1+9 #+$ Article )6* of the Revised ;enal Code, as a!ended #)$ the 0ecree on &ntellectual ;ropert% 8 and #$ the 0angerous 0rugs Act of 197+, 9 as a!ended. Fndoutedl%, pursuant to /ection +6? of the !nius -lection Code, election offenses also fall within the e"ception. As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred % the Constitution or % Congress. utside the cases enu!erated in /ection 8#+$ of Article 2&&& of the Constitution, Congress has the plenar% power to define, prescrie, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Congress !a% thus provide % law that a certain class of cases should e e"clusivel% heard and deter!ined % one court. /uch law would e a special law and !ust e construed as an e"ception to the general law on jurisdiction of courts, na!el%, the :udiciar% Act of 19?, as a!ended, and the :udiciar% Reorganiation Act of 19?*. R.A. No. 7691 can % no !eans e considered as a special law on jurisdiction it is !erel% an a!endator% law intended to a!end specific sections of the :udiciar% Reorganiation Act of 19?*. ence, R.A. No. 7691 does nut have the effect of repealing laws vesting upon Regional Trial Courts or the /andigana%an e"clusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases therein specified. That Congress never intended that R.A. No. 7691 should repeal such special provisions is induital% evident fro! the fact that it did not touch at all the opening sentence of /ection )+ of 4.;. 4lg. 1+9 providing for the e"ception. &t is ovious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening sentence of /ection )+ of 4.;. 4lg. 1+9, as a!ended. &t is thus an opportune ti!e, as an%, to re!ind hi!, as well as other judges, of his dut% to e studious of the principles of law, 1 to ad!inister his office with due regard to the integrit% of the s%ste! of the law itself, 11 to e faithful to the law, and to !aintain professional co!petence. 12
Counsel for petitione r, Att%. :ose ;. 4aluena, 0irector &2 of petitioners aw 0epart!ent, !ust also e ad!onished for his utter carelessness in his reference to the case against :udge :uan avilles, :r. &n the !otion for Reconsideration 13 he filed, with the court elow, Att%. 4aluena stated
% wa% of e"ception e"ercise jurisdiction onl% on offenses relating to failure to register or to vote. Noting that these provisions stands together with the provision that an% election offense under the code shall e punishale with i!prison!ent for one #1$ %ear to si" #6$ %ears and shall not e suject to proation #/ection +6, !nius -lection Code$. Ee su!it that it is the special intention of the code to vest upon the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over election cases as !atter of e"e!ption to the provisions on jurisdiction over cri!inal cases found under 4.;. Reg. 1+9, as a!ended. Conse>uentl%, the a!end!ent of 4.;. Reg. 1+9 % Repulic Act. No. 7691 does not vest upon the 'TC jurisdiction over cri!inal election offenses despite its e"panded jurisdiction.
As a !atter of fact, the issue on whether the Regional Trial Court has e"clusive jurisdiction over election offenses is alread% a settled issue in the case of Alberto Naldea !vs! Jud"e Juan #avilles, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ!$%! &''$, March (, &$$) , where the /upre!e Court succinctl% held A review of the pertinent provision of law would show that pursuant to /ec. +68 and +67 of the !nius -lection Code, the C'--C, has the e"clusive power to conduct preli!inar% investigation of all election offenses punishale under the Code and the *TC shall have the e+clusive ori"inal urisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedin"s for violation of the same. The 'etropolitan, or 'TC, % wa% of e"ception e"ercises jurisdiction onl% on offenses relating to failure to register or to vote. Noting that these provisions stand together with the provisions that an% election offense under the code shall e punishale with i!prison!ent of one #1$ %ear to si" #6$ %ears and shall not e suject to proation #/ec. +6), !nius -lection Code$, we submit that it is the special intention of the Code to vest upon the *TC urisdiction over election cases as a matter of e+ception to the "eneral provisions on urisdiction over criminal cases found under -.P. &$ by *A /)$& does not vest upon the MTC urisdiction over criminal election offenses despite its e+panded urisdiction. #-!phasis ours$ Also, in this petition, Att%. 4aluena states 16. This onorale /upre!e Court, in the case of BAlerto (vs( :udge :uan avilles, :r.,B +8 /CRA +?6 involving the sa!e issue of jurisdiction etween the lower courts and Regional Trial Court on election offenses, has ruled, thus
&f Att%. 4aluena was diligent enough, he would have 5nown that the correct na!e of the co!plainant in the case referred to is neither Alberto Naldea as indicated in the !otion for reconsideration nor Alberto alone as stated in the petition, ut A4-RT NA0GA. 'oreover, the case was not reported in volu!e +8 of the /upre!e Court Reports Annotated #/CRA$ as falsel% represented in the paragraph 16 of the petition, ut in volu!e +8 of the /CRA. Eorse, in oth the !otion for reconsideration and the petition, Att%. 4aluena delieratel% !ade it appear that the >uoted portions were findings or rulings, or, put a little differentl%, our own words. The truth is, the >uoted portion is just a part of the !e!orandu! of the Court Ad!inistrator >uoted in the decision. Rule 1*.*+ of Canon 1* of the Code of ;rofessional Responsiilit% 10 !andates that a law%er shall not 5nowingl% !is>uote or !isrepresent the te"t of a decision or authorit%. &N 2&-E 3 A T- 3R-D&ND, the instant petition is DRANT-0. The challeng ed orders of pulic respondent :udge To!as 4. No%na% of +8 August 1997 and 17 ctoer 1997 in Cri!inal Cases Nos. A(1)9 and A(1+ to A(19 are /-T A/&0-. Respondent :udge is 0&R-CT-0 to tr% and decide said cases with purposeful dispatch and, further, A0'N&/-0 to faithfull% co!pl% with Canons and 1? of the Canons of :udicial -thics and Rule ).*1, Canon ) of the Code of :udicial Conduct. Att%. :ose ;. 4aluena is A0'N&/-0 to e !ore careful in the discharge of his dut% to the court as a law%er under the Code of ;rofessional Responsiilit%. No costs.
Eith respect to the other charges, a review of the ;ertinent ;rovision of aw would show that pursuant to /ection +68 and +67 of the !nius -lection Code the Co!elec has the power to conduct preli!inar% investigations all election offenses punishale under the code and the Regional Trial Court shall have the e"clusive original jurisdiction to tr% and decide an% cri!inal action or proceedings for violation of the sa!e. The 'etropolitan Trial Court,
/ R0-R-0.