BIENVENIDO DIO and RENATO G.R. No.

RENATO G.R. No. 170447 Petitioners instituted a complaint for vote buying against respondent Pablo Olivarez.
COMPARATIVO vs. PABLO OLIVAREZ Two Informations were filed before the RTC charging respondent Pablo Olivarez
December 4, 2009 CHICO-NAZARIO, J. with Violation of Section 261, paragraphs a, b and k of Article XXII of the Omnibus
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Power of the Department Digest By: PUNZALAN Election Code
of Justice
SUMMARY:A complaint for vote buying was filed by petitioners against The arraignment of the respondent was initially set on 18 October 2004.
Olivarez. After arraignment was set, the Law Dept of COMELEC directed the
city prosecutor to transmit or elevate the entire records of the case and suspend On 7 October 2004, respondent filed before the Law Department of the COMELEC
further implementation of resolution finding probable cause. Respondent filed a an appeal of the Joint Resolution of finding of probable cause with Motion to
Motion to Quash. City prosecutor opposed this and moved to amend the Revoke Continuing Authority pursuant to Section 10, Rule 34 of the 1993
complaint. Amendment was allowed by the Court. COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

DOCTRINE: The trial courts knowledge that the filing of the amended informations On 11 October 2004, the Law Department of the COMELEC directed the city
was done by the public prosecutor in excess of his delegated authority no longer prosecutor to transmit or elevate the entire records of the case and to suspend further
gives him the discretion as to whether or not accept the amended informations. The implementation of the Joint Resolution dated 20 September 2004 until final
only option the trial court had was not to admit the amended informations as a sign resolution of the said appeal before the COMELEC en banc.
of deference and respect to the COMELEC, which already had taken cognizance of
respondents appeal. This, the trial court did not choose. It insisted on admitting the
On 11 October 2004, respondent filed a Motion to Quash the two criminal
amended informations, which were patent nullities for being filed contrary to the
informations on the ground that more than one offense was charged therein, in
directives of the COMELEC. Necessarily, all actions and rulings of the trial court
violation of Section 3(f), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 13,
arising from these amended informations must likewise be invalid and of no effect.
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. This caused the resetting of the scheduled
arraignment on 18 October 2004 to 13 December 2004.
As it stands, since there are no amended informations to speak of, the trial court has
no basis for denying respondents motion to quash. Consequently, there can be no
Before Judge Madrona could act on the motion to quash, Assistant Prosecutor Pablo-
arraignment on the amended informations. In view of this, there can be no basis for
Medina, with the approval of the city prosecutor, filed on 28 October 2004 its
ordering the arrest of respondent and the confiscation of his cash bond.
Opposition to the Motion to Quash and Motion to Admit Amended Informations.
The Amended Informations sought to be admitted charged respondent with violation
of only paragraph a, in relation to paragraph b, of Section 261, Article XXII of the
Omnibus Election Code.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:
Motion for Reconsideration of SC Decision filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez
Judge Madrona issued an Order resetting the hearing scheduled on 13 December
2004 to 1 February 2005 on account of the pending Motion to Quash of the
In the SC decision, it found that the public prosecutor, in filing the Amended
respondent and the Amended Informations of the public prosecutor.
Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). We likewise ruled that no abuse of discretion could be
attributed to Judge Fortunito L. Madrona (Madrona) when he issued the On 14 December 2004, respondent filed an Opposition to the Admission of the
Orders dated 9 March 2005 and 31 March 2005 for the arrest of respondent due Amended Informations, arguing that no resolution was issued to explain the changes
to his failure to be present for his arraignment and for the confiscation of his therein, particularly the deletion of paragraph k, Section 261, Article XXII of the
cash bond. Omnibus Election Code . Moreover, he averred that the city prosecutor was no
longer empowered to amend the informations, since the COMELEC had already
directed it to transmit the entire records of the case and suspend the hearing of the
FACTS: cases before the RTC until the resolution of the appeal before the COMELEC en
banc.
Page 1 of 3
 Judge Madrona erred in admitting the amended informations, since they were made
On 12 January 2005, Judge Madrona issued an order denying respondents Motion to in excess of the delegated authority of the public prosecutor, and his orders to arrest
Quash dated 11 October 2004, and admitted the Amended Informations dated 25 the respondent and to confiscate the latters cash bond were devoid of legal basis. The
October 2004.Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 fallo of the Decision.
January 2005 thereon.

ISSUE: WON the city prosecutor defied the order or directive of the
On 1 February 2005, Judge Madrona reset the arraignment to 9 March 2005, with a
COMELEC when it filed the amended informations. - Yes
warning that the arraignment would proceed without any more delay, unless the
Supreme Court would issue an injunctive writ.
HELD:
Under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC, through its duly
On 9 March 2005, respondent failed to appear before the RTC. Thereupon, Judge authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power to conduct a preliminary
Madrona, in open court, denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Election Code,
the Motion to Quash and admitting the Amended Informations, and ordered the and to prosecute the same. The COMELEC may avail itself of the assistance of other
arrest of respondent and the confiscation of the cash bond. prosecuting arms of the government.

On 11 March 2005, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Section 265. Prosecution.The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal
Lift the Order of Arrest of Accused Dr. Pablo Olivarez, which was denied in an officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all
Order dated 31 March 2005. The Order directed that a bench warrant be issued for election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The
the arrest of respondent to ensure his presence at his arraignment. Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government: Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act
On 5 April 2005, the Law Department of the COMELEC filed before the RTC a on any complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant may file the
Manifestation and Motion wherein it alleged that pursuant to the COMELECs complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper
powers to investigate and prosecute election offense cases, it had the power to investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
revoke the delegation of its authority to the city prosecutor. Pursuant to these powers,
the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 7457 dated 4 April 2005. Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure details the continuing
solution delegation of authority to other prosecuting arms of the government, which authority
the COMELEC may revoke or withdraw anytime in the proper exercise of its
Thus, the Law Department of the COMELEC moved (1) that the RTC hold in judgment.
abeyance further proceedings until the COMELEC has acted on respondents appeal;
and (2) to revoke the authority of the city prosecutor of Paraaque to prosecute the Section 2. Continuing Delegation of Authority to Other Prosecution Arms of the
case, designating therein the lawyers from the Law Department of the COMELEC to Government.The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their
prosecute Criminal Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105. respective assistants are hereby given continuing authority, as deputies of the
Commission, to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election
offenses under the election laws which may be filed directly with them, or which
On 8 April 2005, respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari before the
may be indorsed to them by the Commission or its duly authorized representative
Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted the appeal declaring that the
and to prosecute the same. Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn any time by
COMELEC had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of election
the Commission whenever in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is
offenses and to prosecute the same. As such, the COMELEC may delegate such
necessary to protect the integrity of the Commission, promote the common good, or
authority to the Chief State Prosecutor, provincial prosecutors, and city prosecutors.
when it believes that successful prosecution of the case can be done by the
cThe COMELEC, however, has the corresponding power, too, to revoke such
authority to delegate. Thus, the categorical order of the COMELEC to suspend the Commission.
prosecution of the case before the RTC effectively deprived the city prosecutor of the
authority to amend the two informations. The appellate court also pronounced that Furthermore, Section 10 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives the COMELEC

Page 2 of 3
the power to motu proprio revise, modify and reverse the resolution of the Chief resolution of said appeal, it was but proper for the City Prosecutor of Paraaque to
State Prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors. have held in abeyance any action until after the resolution of the appeal by the
COMELEC En Banc. This suspension of delegated authority was made permanent
Section 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor, Provincial or City and this delegated authority was revoked upon issuance of COMELEC Resolution
Fiscal.Appeals from the resolution of the State Prosecutor or Provincial or City No. 7457 because of the City Prosecutors willful disobedience of the order of the
Fiscal on the recommendation or resolution of investigating officers may be made COMELEC En Banc, through the COMELEC Law Department, to suspend further
only to the Commission within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution of said implementation of the questioned resolution until final resolution of said appeal by
officials, provided, however that this shall not divest the Commission of its power to the COMELEC En Banc.
motu proprio review, revise, modify or reverse the resolution of the chief state
prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on In filing the Amended Informations despite the order to hold the proceedings in
said appeals shall be immediately executory and final. abeyance until final resolution of said appeal, the City Prosecutor of Paraaque
clearly exceeded the legal limit of its delegated authority. As a deputy of the
From the foregoing, it is clear that the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City COMELEC, the public prosecutor acted on its own and wantonly defied the
Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants have been given continuing authority, as COMELECs directives/orders. For that reason, we rule that any action made
deputies of the Commission, to conduct a preliminary investigation of complaints by the City Prosecutor of Paraaque in relation to the two criminal cases
involving election offenses under the election laws and to prosecute the same. Such subsequent to the issuance of the COMELEC order dated 11 October 2004, like
authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by the COMELEC, either expressly the filing of the amended informations and the amended informations
or impliedly, when in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to themselves, is declared VOID and of NO EFFECT.
protect the integrity of the process to promote the common good, or where it believes
that successful prosecution of the case can be done by the COMELEC. Moreover, Motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez is GRANTED.
being mere deputies or agents of the COMELEC, provincial or city prosecutors The amended informations filed by the City Prosecutor of Paraaque on 28
deputized by it are expected to act in accord with and not contrary to or in derogation October 2004 are declared VOID and of NO EFFECT.
of its resolutions, directives or orders in relation to election cases that such
prosecutors are deputized to investigate and prosecute. Being mere deputies,
provincial and city prosecutors, acting on behalf of the COMELEC, must proceed
within the lawful scope of their delegated authority.

We stand by our ruling that it was COMELEC Resolution No. 7457 that revoked the
deputation of the City Prosecutor of Paraaque. However, when the COMELEC Law
Department directed the City Prosecutor of Paraaque to transmit the entire records of
the case to the Law Department, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila, by
the fastest means available and to suspend further implementation of the questioned
resolution until final resolution of said appeal by the Comelec En Banc, it had the
effect of SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of the City Prosecutor to prosecute the
case. This was what we did not consider in our decision. We overlooked the fact that
the order issued by the COMELEC Law Department was with the authority of the
COMELEC En Banc. In other words, it was as if the COMELEC En Banc was the
one that ordered the public prosecutor to transmit the entire records and to suspend
further implementation of the questioned resolution until it finally resolves the
appeal. As contained in the letter of the COMELEC Law Department, an appeal has
been filed before the COMELEC and has yet to be resolved. Since the COMELEC
has already taken cognizance of the appeal, and the public prosecutor has been
directed to suspend further implementation of the questioned resolution until final

Page 3 of 3