BIENVENIDO DIÑO and RENATO COMPARATIVO vs.

PABLO OLIVAREZ
December 4, 2009

FACTS:

A Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Pablo Olivarez, assailing the decision of the
Supreme Court (SC) dated June 23, 2009 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 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2004, since the authority was revoked only on 4 April 2005 when COMELEC Resolution No. 7457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 to Judge Madrona, 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, was within the
exclusive jurisdiction, competence and discretion of the court.

ISSUE/S:

1. Did the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque acted in excess of its jurisdiction delegated by
the COMELEC when it filed the Amended Informations?

2. Did 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:

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, COMELEC Resolution No. 7457 indeed 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, 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.

The 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.

The defiance of the order of the COMELEC, by itself, sufficed to warrant the revocation of the
authority delegated to him. 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. Judge Madrona 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.

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