ASG Law

Tag: COMELEC

  • Moral Turpitude and Fencing: Understanding Disqualification in Philippine Elections

    Fencing as a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Can Disqualify a Candidate

    G.R. No. 121592, July 05, 1996

    Imagine a local election where a candidate, seemingly popular, is suddenly disqualified. The reason? A past conviction for fencing. This scenario highlights the critical intersection of criminal law, election law, and moral standards in the Philippines. The case of Dela Torre v. COMELEC delves into whether the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude, a factor that can disqualify individuals from holding public office under the Local Government Code. The Supreme Court’s resolution clarifies this issue, providing guidance for future election disputes and underscoring the importance of ethical conduct for public servants.

    Understanding Moral Turpitude and Its Impact on Candidacy

    The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) sets forth specific disqualifications for individuals seeking elective local positions. Section 40(a) is particularly relevant, stating that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment within two (2) years after serving sentence are disqualified from running for any elective local position.

    The key phrase here is “moral turpitude.” The Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has defined it using Black’s Law Dictionary as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”

    However, not all crimes automatically involve moral turpitude. Generally, crimes mala in se (inherently wrong) involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita (wrong because prohibited by law) do not. But this is not a definitive rule. As the Supreme Court noted in International Rice Research Institute v. NLRC, whether a crime involves moral turpitude ultimately depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the violation.

    In simpler terms, consider theft (mala in se) versus violating a traffic law (mala prohibita). Theft inherently involves dishonesty and a disregard for another’s property rights, suggesting moral turpitude. A traffic violation, while illegal, doesn’t necessarily reflect a similar level of moral depravity.

    The Dela Torre Case: Fencing Under Scrutiny

    Rolando P. Dela Torre, a candidate for Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna, faced disqualification due to a prior conviction for violating Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualified him, arguing that fencing involves moral turpitude. Dela Torre appealed, claiming that the probation granted to him suspended the applicability of Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey:

    • 1. Dela Torre was convicted by the Municipal Trial Court for violation of P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).
    • 2. He appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed his conviction. The conviction became final on January 18, 1991.
    • 3. Dela Torre was granted probation on December 21, 1994.
    • 4. COMELEC disqualified him from running for Mayor in the May 8, 1995 elections, citing Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code.
    • 5. Dela Torre filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

    The Supreme Court had to determine two key issues: (1) whether fencing involves moral turpitude, and (2) whether the grant of probation affected the applicability of Section 40(a).

    To resolve the first issue, the Court analyzed the elements of fencing, which are:

    1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
    2. The accused, not a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, etc., property derived from the said crime.
    3. The accused knows or should have known that the property was derived from the robbery or theft.
    4. The accused intends to gain for himself or another.

    The Court emphasized the third element, stating, “Actual knowledge by the ‘fence’ of the fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are crimes of moral turpitude.”

    In its decision, the Supreme Court quoted:

    “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of the offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of the high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist. On the other hand, the words ‘should know’ denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in the performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.”

    Regarding the second issue, the Court clarified that probation only suspends the execution of the sentence. Dela Torre’s conviction for fencing, a crime involving moral turpitude, remained valid and unaffected by the probation. The Court also cited previous cases confirming that a judgment of conviction ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for probation.

    The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Dela Torre’s petition and affirmed the COMELEC’s resolutions.

    Practical Implications of the Ruling

    This case reinforces the principle that certain crimes, even if not inherently violent, can disqualify individuals from holding public office if they involve moral turpitude. It highlights the importance of due diligence and ethical conduct in all transactions, particularly when dealing with property. Furthermore, it clarifies that probation does not erase a conviction for purposes of disqualification under the Local Government Code.

    Imagine a business owner who knowingly buys goods at significantly below-market prices, suspecting they might be stolen. This ruling suggests that such behavior, if proven, could not only lead to criminal charges for fencing but also potentially disqualify the business owner from holding any public office in the future.

    Key Lessons

    • A conviction for fencing, a crime involving moral turpitude, can disqualify an individual from running for public office.
    • Probation only suspends the execution of a sentence; it does not erase the conviction.
    • Individuals must exercise due diligence to ensure that the property they acquire is not derived from illegal activities.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    1. What is moral turpitude?

    Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity that violates accepted moral standards.

    2. How does moral turpitude affect someone’s eligibility for public office?

    Under the Local Government Code, a final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude can disqualify an individual from running for an elective local position.

    3. Does probation erase a criminal conviction?

    No, probation only suspends the execution of the sentence. The conviction remains valid.

    4. What is fencing?

    Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in any article or item of value that one knows, or should know, to have been derived from robbery or theft.

    5. What should I do if I suspect that goods being offered to me are stolen?

    Exercise extreme caution. Verify the seller’s credentials, the origin of the goods, and the legitimacy of the transaction. If in doubt, refrain from the purchase and report your suspicions to the authorities.

    6. Can a pardon remove a disqualification based on moral turpitude?

    While a pardon can restore certain rights, its effect on disqualifications for public office may depend on the specific circumstances and the terms of the pardon itself.

    7. Is ignorance of the law an excuse for fencing?

    No, the law presumes that individuals are aware of the laws. The element of “should have known” in the definition of fencing implies a duty to inquire and verify the source of goods.

    8. What are the penalties for fencing in the Philippines?

    The penalties for fencing vary depending on the value of the stolen property and are outlined in P.D. 1612.

    ASG Law specializes in election law and criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Election Disputes: Annulment, Failure of Elections, and Technical Examinations in the Philippines

    Understanding the Power of COMELEC: Annulment of Elections and the Importance of Due Process

    G.R. Nos. 107814-107815, G.R. NO. 120826, G.R. NO. 122137, G.R. NO. 122396. MAY 16, 1996

    Imagine an election where the results are so improbable that they defy logic. What recourse do candidates and voters have? This Supreme Court case delves into the powers of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul election results, declare a failure of elections, and order special elections. It highlights the critical balance between ensuring the sanctity of the ballot and upholding due process for all parties involved.

    This case arose from the 1995 elections in Sulu, involving allegations of massive fraud and statistical improbabilities in several municipalities. The central legal question revolves around the extent of COMELEC’s authority to investigate and act upon these allegations, particularly when technical examinations of voting records reveal significant irregularities.

    The Legal Framework: COMELEC’s Powers and Limitations

    The COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations related to elections. This includes the power to decide all questions affecting elections, except the right to vote. However, this power is not unlimited.

    As the Supreme Court has clarified, COMELEC’s power is primarily preventive, not curative. It can act to prevent election fraud, but it’s not necessarily the agency tasked to remedy all resulting evils. That responsibility may fall upon other government bodies.

    Crucially, the COMELEC’s authority to annul an election stems from statutory grants, not directly from the Constitution. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 (the Synchronized Elections Law of 1991) and Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provide COMELEC with the power to declare a failure of election and call for special elections under specific circumstances.

    Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code states:

    “SEC. 6. Failure of election.– If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.”

    Two conditions must be met before COMELEC can declare a failure of election: (1) no voting took place or the election resulted in a failure to elect, and (2) the votes not cast would affect the election result. The cause must be force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other similar reasons.

    The Sulu Election Saga: A Case of Statistical Improbability and Disputed Results

    The 1995 elections in Sulu were hotly contested, with Tupay T. Loong and Abdusakur Tan vying for the governorship. After the canvass of most municipalities, the Provincial Board of Canvassers recommended a re-canvass of Parang and Talipao due to irregularities. This led to a series of legal challenges and accusations of fraud.

    Private respondents (Tan et al.) questioned the election returns of Parang, alleging massive fraud. The COMELEC ordered a technical examination of signatures and thumbprints on voter registration forms (CE Forms 1 and 2). This examination revealed significant discrepancies, leading COMELEC to annul the election results in Parang.

    Meanwhile, petitioners (Loong et al.) also filed a petition to annul the election results in five other municipalities, alleging similar fraud. However, the COMELEC dismissed this petition, citing untimeliness and questioning the petitioners’ motives.

    The Supreme Court addressed several key issues:

    • Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the Parang election results based on the technical examination.
    • Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ petition to annul elections in the five other municipalities.
    • Whether COMELEC should have ordered special elections after annulling the Parang results.

    The Court emphasized that while COMELEC has the power to investigate allegations of fraud in actions for annulment of election results, it must do so fairly and consistently.

    The Court quoted COMELEC’s own findings regarding the irregularities:

    “Even before the technical examination was conducted, the Commission already noted certain badges of fraud just by looking at the election results of Parang, Sulu… 822 voters who had no Voters’ Affidavit/Registration Record (CE Form 1) were allowed to vote… The thumbprints found on CE Form No. 2 (Computerized List of Voters with Voting Records) of each of the fourteen thousand, four hundred eighty-three (14,483) persons who voted do not tally with the corresponding thumbprints in CE Form No. 1 (Voter’s Affidavit/Registration Record). The inescapable conclusion is that the persons who voted were not the registered voters themselves. They were impostors.”

    The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ petition concerning the five municipalities, as the same badges of fraud were evident. The Court also held that COMELEC erred in not ordering special elections in Parang after annulling the original results.

    Practical Implications: Ensuring Fair and Consistent Election Procedures

    This case underscores the importance of consistent application of election laws and the need for COMELEC to act impartially when addressing allegations of fraud. It also clarifies the circumstances under which COMELEC can annul election results and the subsequent requirement for special elections.

    The ruling serves as a reminder that while technical examinations of voting records are permissible in actions for annulment of elections, due process must be observed, and all parties must be given an opportunity to present their case.

    Key Lessons

    • COMELEC has the power to annul election results and declare a failure of elections under specific circumstances.
    • Technical examinations of voting records are permissible in actions for annulment of elections.
    • COMELEC must apply election laws fairly and consistently, avoiding arbitrary or discriminatory decisions.
    • Due process must be observed in all election-related proceedings.
    • Special elections are generally required after annulling election results.

    Consider this example: If a candidate suspects widespread voter impersonation in a municipality, they can file a petition with COMELEC to annul the election results. If COMELEC finds sufficient evidence of fraud through technical examinations or other means, it can annul the election and order a special election to ensure the true will of the people is reflected.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a pre-proclamation controversy?

    A pre-proclamation controversy is a dispute that arises before the proclamation of election results, typically involving issues related to the canvassing of votes or the validity of election returns.

    What is an action for annulment of election results?

    This is a legal action seeking to invalidate election results due to fraud, terrorism, or other irregularities that undermine the integrity of the election process.

    When can COMELEC declare a failure of election?

    COMELEC can declare a failure of election if no voting has taken place, or the election resulted in a failure to elect due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, and the votes not cast would affect the election result.

    What is the role of technical examinations in election disputes?

    Technical examinations, such as comparing signatures and thumbprints, can be used to investigate allegations of fraud in actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections.

    Is COMELEC required to hold special elections after annulling election results?

    Yes, generally, COMELEC is required to hold special elections to fill the positions affected by the annulment, unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from this requirement.

    What is grave abuse of discretion?

    Grave abuse of discretion refers to an act by a government agency or official that is so patently and grossly inconsistent with the law or established legal principles that it amounts to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.

    ASG Law specializes in election law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Re-election Does Not Condon Prior Misconduct When Removal is Already Final

    Re-election Does Not Condon Prior Misconduct When Removal is Already Final

    G.R. No. 120905, March 07, 1996; G.R. No. 120940, March 07, 1996

    Imagine a scenario where a local official, facing administrative charges for alleged corruption, wins re-election. Does this victory erase their past misdeeds? This case clarifies that re-election does not automatically condone prior misconduct, especially if the removal from office was already final before the election.

    This case revolves around Renato U. Reyes, the former mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, who faced disqualification due to a prior administrative case that ordered his removal. The Supreme Court tackled whether his re-election absolved him of the administrative charges and whether a candidate with the second-highest votes could be proclaimed the winner in his stead.

    Understanding Disqualification in Philippine Elections

    Philippine election laws have specific provisions that disqualify individuals from running for office. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) is particularly relevant. Section 40 outlines various disqualifications, including:

    § 40. Disqualification. – The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

    …………………….

    (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.

    This provision means that if a person is removed from office due to an administrative case, they are barred from seeking any elective local position. The key here is the removal must be a result of due process and a final decision.

    To illustrate, consider a barangay captain found guilty of misusing public funds and subsequently removed from office. According to Section 40(b), that individual cannot run for mayor, governor, or any other local elective post in the next election cycle.

    The Omnibus Election Code also plays a crucial role. Section 78 allows for petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it contains false statements or if the candidate is not eligible. This provision ensures that only qualified individuals can hold public office.

    The Case of Renato U. Reyes: A Timeline

    The story of Renato Reyes is a complex one, involving administrative complaints, court petitions, and election victories. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • October 26, 1994: An administrative complaint is filed against Mayor Renato U. Reyes by Dr. Ernesto Manalo, alleging corruption and misuse of funds.
    • February 6, 1995: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds Reyes guilty and orders his removal from office.
    • February 7, 1995: Reyes files a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to halt the proceedings, obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO).
    • March 3, 1995: After the TRO expires, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan attempts to serve the decision, but Reyes refuses to accept it.
    • March 20, 1995: Reyes files his certificate of candidacy for mayor.
    • March 24, 1995: Rogelio de Castro, a registered voter, seeks Reyes’ disqualification based on his prior removal from office.
    • May 8, 1995: Elections are held, and Reyes is voted into office.
    • May 9, 1995: The COMELEC Second Division disqualifies Reyes and cancels his certificate of candidacy.
    • May 10, 1995: Despite the COMELEC decision, Reyes is proclaimed the duly-elected mayor.
    • July 3, 1995: The COMELEC en banc denies Reyes’ motion for reconsideration and denies Julius Garcia’s petition to be proclaimed mayor.

    The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the COMELEC, emphasizing that Reyes’ removal from office was final and executory before the election. The court noted that Reyes and his counsel deliberately avoided receiving the decision, which constituted a waiver of his right to appeal. As the court stated:

    If a judgment or decision is not delivered to a party for reasons attributable to him, service is deemed completed and the judgment or decision will be considered validly served as long as it can be shown that the attempt to deliver it to him would be valid were it not for his or his counsel’s refusal to receive it.

    Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Reyes’ re-election condoned his prior misconduct. Citing the Local Government Code, the Court stated that:

    [A]t the time the Aguinaldo cases were decided there was no provision similar to § 40 (b) which disqualifies any person from running for any elective position on the ground that he has been removed as a result of an administrative case.

    Practical Implications for Public Officials and Voters

    This case has significant implications for public officials and voters alike. It reinforces the principle that administrative accountability cannot be circumvented through re-election. Public officials must understand that prior misconduct can lead to disqualification, regardless of subsequent electoral success.

    Moreover, the ruling clarifies that a candidate with the second-highest number of votes cannot automatically be proclaimed the winner when the winning candidate is disqualified. The votes cast for the disqualified candidate are not considered stray votes but rather votes cast under the belief that the candidate was qualified.

    Key Lessons

    • Accountability Matters: Re-election does not erase prior administrative liabilities.
    • Final Decisions Stand: A final and executory removal order disqualifies a candidate, even if they are subsequently elected.
    • Second Placer Doesn’t Win: The candidate with the second-highest votes is not automatically entitled to the position if the winner is disqualified.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: Does re-election always condone past misconduct?

    A: No. Re-election does not condone past misconduct if a final removal order was already in place before the election.

    Q: What happens if a winning candidate is disqualified after the election?

    A: The candidate with the second-highest number of votes does not automatically assume the position. A special election may be called, or other legal remedies may be pursued.

    Q: What is the effect of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on an administrative decision?

    A: A TRO only temporarily suspends the implementation of a decision. If a preliminary injunction is not issued, the decision can become final and executory upon the TRO’s expiration.

    Q: Can a candidate be disqualified even after being proclaimed the winner?

    A: Yes. The COMELEC can continue disqualification proceedings even after the election and order the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong.

    Q: What should a public official do if facing administrative charges?

    A: Public officials should fully cooperate with the investigation, present their defense, and exhaust all available administrative and legal remedies to challenge the charges.

    Q: What is the relevance of Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code?

    A: Section 40(b) disqualifies individuals removed from office as a result of an administrative case from running for any elective local position.

    Q: Are votes cast for a disqualified candidate considered stray votes?

    A: No, votes cast for a disqualified candidate are presumed to have been cast in the belief that the candidate was qualified and are not considered stray, void, or meaningless.

    Q: What happens if a public official refuses to accept a decision against them?

    A: Refusal to accept a decision does not prevent it from becoming final and executory. Service is deemed completed if the refusal is attributable to the party or their counsel.

    ASG Law specializes in election law and administrative cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.