SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, TEOFILO CORPUZ, ANACLETO
TANGILAG and VICTOR DOMINGUEZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 146943, October 4, 2002
FACTS:
On July 31, 1998, Sario Malinias and Roy S. Pilando, who were candidates
for governor and congress representative positions, respectively, filed a
complaint with the COMELEC's Law Department against Victor Dominguez,
Anacleto Tangilag and others for their violation of the following laws:
1. Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646; and
2. Sections 232 and 261 (i) of B.P. Blg. 881.
Dominguez was then the incumbent Congressman of Poblacion, Sabangan,
Mountain Province. Corpuz was then the Provincial Director of the Philippine
National Police in Mountain Province while Tangilag was then the Chief of
Police of the Municipality of Bontoc, Mountain Province.
The petitioners said that due to said violations, their supporters were
deprived from participating in the canvassing of election returns as they were
blocked by a police checkpoint in the course of their way to the canvassing
site at the Provincial Capitol Building in Bontoc, Mountain Province.
Among the private respondents, only Corpuz and Tangilag submitted their
joint Counter-Affidavit, wherein they admitted that they ordered the
establishment of checkpoints all over the province to enforce the COMELEC
Gun Ban and its other pertinent rules pursuant to COMELEC Res. No. 2968
purposive of the maintenance of peace and order around the vicinity of the
canvassing site.
Also, they said that the presence of the policemen within the said area is to
prevent some groups who were reportedly had the intention to disrupt the
canvass proceedings. They claimed that such a response was not
unwarranted as this has already happened in the past, wherein, in fact, the
petitioners were among them.
COMELEC’s Ruling:
After investigating the allegations, COMELEC ruled to dismiss the petition
against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable
cause. Malinias filed an MR but it was also denied for failure of adducing
additional evidence thereon.
Not satisfied with the same, Malinias filed to SC a petition for review on
certiorari on this case.
ISSUE:
Did COMELEC abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of
probable cause?
RATIO DECIDENDI OF SC:
No. SC AFFIRMED the decision of COMELEC and found the conduct of its
investigation and ruling on the case to be in accord with its jurisdiction and
duties under the law. In this case, COMELEC did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion as there is nothing capricious or despotic in the manner
of their resolution of the said complaint, hence, SC cannot issue the
extraordinary writ of certiorari.
On the said violations, the only evidence that was successfully presented
by the petitioner is the mass-affidavits of his supporters, which were
considered self-serving and cannot be admitted by the court thus, the same
are not enough to prove his claims.
Also, the allege violation of the respondents of Sec. 25 of R.A. 6646 and
Sec. 232 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 are not included in the acts defined as
punishable criminal election offenses under Sec. 27 of R.A. 6646 and Sec.
261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. No. 881, respectively.
Here, Sec. 25 merely highlights one of the rights of a political party or
candidate during elections whereas, the violation of Sec. 232, which
enumerates the persons who are not allowed inside the canvassing site,
can only be subjected to an administrative disciplinary action and cannot
Page 1 of 2
be punished by imprisonment as provided for under Sec. 264 of the same
law.

Moreover, it is clear in the defense of the respondents that they did not
violate Sec. 261 (i), a criminal offense, which prohibits any officer or
employee of political offices or police force from intervening in any election
campaign or from engaging in any partisan activity except to vote or
maintain public order.

In the said defense, the respondents said that setting up the checkpoints
was done to enforce the COMELEC's firearms ban, pursuant to COMELEC
Resolution No. 2968 and not to prejudice any candidate from participating
in the canvassing. As such, the actions of the respondents are deemed
lawful and not in excess of their authority.

Ruling related to Statutory Construction

Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio

alterius, there is no ground to order the COMELEC to prosecute private
respondents for alleged violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 precisely
because this is a non-criminal act.

"It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one
person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule
is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number

of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed
puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit cessare tacitum.
Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it
may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.

Page 2 of 2