3.

PILAR VS COMELEC
GR NO. 115245
July 11, 1995
Petitioner: Juanito Pilar Respondent: COMELEC

FACTS:
On March 22, 1992 petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member
of Sanguniang Panlalawigan of Isabela. On March 25 of the same year, he withdrew his
certificate of candidacy. COMELEC imposed upon the petitioner the fine of Php 10,000.00 for
failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Section 14 of RA No 7166 “An Act
Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing
Appropriations Therefore and for other Purposes” provides that, every candidate of a political
party shall within thirty days after the day of the election file with the office of COMELEC the full,
true, and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the
election. To implement the latter the COMELEC also promulgated Resolution No. 2348 “Rules
and Regulations Governing Electoral Contributions and Expenditures that provides under
Section 13 that all candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy shall comply with their
obligation to file their statements of contribution and expenditures in connection with the
election. Petitioner contends that he cannot liable for failure to file a statement of contribution
and expenditures because he was a non-candidate and argues that the candidate pertained in
the law are those who have entered the political contest and should either win or lose.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition can be held liable for non compliance of filing the statement
of contribution and expenditure in the elections.

RULING:
Yes, the petitioner is liable. Section 14 of RA 7166 states that every candidate has the
obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. As a rule in Statutory
Construction where the law does not distinguish, the courts shall not distinguish. No distinction
shall be made in the application of the law, where none is indicated. In this case, the law does
not make any distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued or his candidacy
or pursued the same, the term candidate must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who
pursued the campaign but also to the one who withdrew his candidacy.
4. PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA & TUGONON
GR NO. 110898
FEBRUARY 20, 1996

FACTS:
Respondent Tugonon was charged with frustrated homicide in the RTC of Misamis
Oriental alleging that on May 26, 1988 in Brgy Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental the
accused with the intent to kill and with the use of a knife he assaulted and stab Roque T. Bade
who inflicted injuries. He was found guilty and sentenced to one year of prision correccional and
is ordered to pay the medical expenses of Bade. RTC appreciated the attendance of privilege
mitigating circumstances of incomplete self defense and voluntary surrender. On appeal the
Court of Appeals, modified his sentence by imposing on him an indeterminate penalty of 2
months of arresto mayor as minimum to 2 years to 4 years of prision correccional as maximum.
On December 28, 1992 Tugonon filed a petition for probation, the RTC ordered him to report for
an interview to the Provincial Probation Officer (PBO). PBO denied the application of Tugonon
because the latter waived his right to file an appeal.. RTC set aside the PBO’s recommendation
and granted Tugonon’s application for probation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.
RULING:
Yes, Before in PD No. 1990 in 1986 it was possible for probation to be granted even
after an accused has appealed his sentence and failed to obtain an acquittal just so long as he
had not started to serve the sentence. This law however is amended on January 15, 1986 to put
a stop to the practice of appealing from judgements of conviction even if the sentence is
probationable for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for probation only if the
accused fails in his bid, it provided that no application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgement of conviction and the filing
of application shall be deemed as waiver of the right of appeal. Having appealed from the
judgement of the trial and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had
affirmed his conviction he was precluded from benefits of probation.