“Election Offense, B. Jurisdiction Over Election Offenses”Facts: Special Provision No. 1 of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) under Republic Act No. 7180, allocates a specific amount of government funds for infrastructure and other priority projects and activities. In order to be valid, the useand release of said amount should have the following mandatory requirements: (1)Approval by the President of the Philippines; (2) Release of the amount directly to theappropriate implementing agency; and (3) List of projects and activities.Respondent Cesar Sarino, the then DILG Secretary, requested for authority tonegotiate, enter into, sign Memoranda of Agreements with accredited Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to utilize them to implement theprojects of the CDF provided for under R.A. No. 7180. Respondent Franklin Drilon,the then Executive Secretary, granted the abovementioned request of SecretarySarino. Such an authority was extended to all the Regional Directors of the DILG.Pursuant to the above-described authority granted him, respondent Tiburcio Relucio,on April 24, 1992, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with an accreditedNGO known as the “Philippine Youth Health and Sports Development Foundation,Inc.” (PYHSDFI). COMELEC received from petitioner Kilosbayan a letter informingthe former of “two serious violations of election laws,” among them that the amount of P70 million was released by the Budget Department, shortly before the elections of May 11, 1992, in favor of “PYHSDFI” a private entity, which had reportedly engagedin dirty election tricks and practices in said elections and requesting that theseoffenses and malpractices be investigated promptly, thoroughly, impartially, withoutfear of favor.Issue: Based on recommendations by the Comelec Law Department, theCommission en banc dismissed the letter-complaint for lack of evidence.Held: The constitutional and statutory mandate for the Comelec to investigate andprosecute cases of violation of election laws translates, in effect, to the exclusivepower to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the twin purpose of filing an information in court and helping the Judge determine, inthe course of preliminary inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued.Although only a low quantum and quality of evidence is needed to support a findingof probable cause, the same cannot be justified upon hearsay evidence that is never given any evidentiary or probative value in this jurisdiction.