AREEJ

CASE 1-B
RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
BIENVENIDO DIÑO and RENATO COMPARATIVO, petitioners, vs. PABLO OLIVAREZ, respondent.
December 4, 2009

FACTS: This is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez, assailing the decision of the Supreme Court
dated June 23, 2009 (the one digested by ate Raiza) which reversed CA’s decision and ruled that the public prosecutor, in
filing the Amended Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by the COMELEC. SC also ruled that no abuse of
discretion could be attributed to Judge Fortunito L. Madrona (Madrona) when he issued the Orders dated 9 March 2005
and 31 March 2005 for the arrest of respondent due to his failure to be present for his arraignment and for the confiscation
of his cash bond.

In the said June 23, 2009 decision, the Supreme Court, in finding that the public prosecutor of Parañaque, in filing
the Amended Informations, did not exceed the authority delegated by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), said that
the public prosecutor’s delegated authority to prosecute the case was not yet revoked when said amended informations
were filed on 28 October 2004, since the authority was revoked only on 4 April 2005 when COMELEC Resolution No. 7457
was issued. It explained that the letter from the COMELEC Law Department dated 11 October 2004, which directed the
public prosecutor to transmit the entire records of the case by the fastest means available and to suspend further
implementation of the questioned resolution until final resolution of respondent’s appeal therefrom by the COMELEC En
Banc, did not revoke said delegated authority. SC added that the filing of the amended informations was not made in
defiance of the instructions from the said letter of the COMELEC Law Department, but was rather "an act necessitated by
the developments of the case." SC also said that the instructions were intended not to have the public prosecutor abandon
the prosecution of the case and negligently allow its dismissal by not filing the Amended Informations. By filing the
amended informations, the public prosecutor avoided the undesirable situation that would have forced the COMELEC to
re-file the cases, waste government resources and delay the administration of justice.

As regards Judge Madrona, in the June 23, 2009 decision, SC also ruled that he did not abuse his discretion when he issued
the Orders denying respondent’s MR on his motion to quash and for the arrest of respondent due to his failure to be
present for his arraignment and for the confiscation of his cash bond. Having acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the
persons of the accused, the disposition thereof, regardless of what the fiscal may have felt was the proper course of action,
was within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence and discretion of the court.

ISSUE/S: (1) Whether or not the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque had acted in excess of its jurisdiction delegated
by the COMELEC when it filed the Amended Informations;

(2) Whether or not Judge Madrona commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he
admitted the amended informations despite full knowledge that the COMELEC had ordered the City Prosecutor of
Parañaque to suspend further implementation of the questioned resolution until final resolution of the appeal before it.

RULING/MAINPOINT:
(1) YES. The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants have been given
continuing authority, as deputies of the Commission, to conduct a preliminary investigation of complaints
involving election offenses under the election laws and to prosecute the same. Such authority may be revoked
or withdrawn anytime by the COMELEC, either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment such revocation or
withdrawal is necessary to 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.

In this case, it was indeed COMELEC Resolution No. 7457 that revoked the deputation of the City Prosecutor of
Parañaque. However, when the COMELEC Law Department directed the City Prosecutor of Parañaque 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. This Court 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. This suspension of delegated authority was made permanent and this delegated authority was
revoked upon issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 7457 because of the City Prosecutor’s willful disobedience of
the order of the COMELEC En Banc, through the COMELEC Law Department, to suspend further implementation
of the questioned resolution until final resolution of said appeal by the COMELEC En Banc.

Quite irremissibly, his defiance of the order of the COMELEC, by itself, more than sufficed to warrant the
revocation of the authority delegated to him. Considering that it was patently beyond his powers or authority
to do such act, the amended informations are deemed scraps of papers, which have been stripped bare of their
legal effect whatsoever.

In filing the Amended Informations despite the order to hold the proceedings in abeyance until final resolution of
said appeal, the City Prosecutor of Parañaque clearly exceeded the legal limit of its delegated authority. As a
deputy of the COMELEC, the public prosecutor acted on its own and wantonly defied the COMELEC’s
directives/orders. For that reason, we rule that any action made by the City Prosecutor of Parañaque in relation
to the two criminal cases subsequent to the issuance of the COMELEC order dated 11 October 2004, like the
filing of the amended informations and the amended informations themselves, is declared VOID and of NO
EFFECT.

(2) YES. He knew that the City Prosecutor no longer had any authority to amend the original informations. Despite this,
the trial court judge still admitted the amended informations. In doing so, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.

This Court is not unmindful of the settled jurisprudence that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the
said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. Under the circumstances obtaining in
this case, this Court holds that this settled jurisprudence does not apply in this case. The trial court’s knowledge that
the filing of the amended informations was done by the public prosecutor in excess of his delegated authority no longer
gives him the discretion as to whether or not accept the amended informations. The only option the trial court had was
not to admit the amended informations as a sign of deference and respect to the COMELEC, which already had taken
cognizance of respondent’s appeal.

JUDGMENT: The instant motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez is GRANTED, and SC’s assailed
decision dated 23 June 2009 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REINSTATED. The
amended informations filed by the City Prosecutor of Parañaque are declared VOID and of NO EFFECT.