THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SIXTO B.

DELA VICTORIA,
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, and CONGRESSMAN CARMELO J. LOCSIN ,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 108120. January 26, 1994.]
J. Quiason

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: 2000 Rules on CrimPro – Role of the Public Prosecutor in the prosecution of offenses – Role of
the Office of the Solicitor General in the prosecution of offenses

Case Summary: Petitioner, COMELEC filed a complaint against respondent, Locsin for violation of the
Omnibus Election Code (coercion) in relation to the special election for mayoralty in Albuera, Leyte.
Petitioner, Dela Victoria was a candidate in the race, lost to party-mate of Locsin. CA dismissed case
upon recommendation of the SolGen.
COMELEC and Dela Victoria appealed before SC. Respondents argue that only SolGen can appeal from
criminal cases filed in the name of the People of the Philippines.
SC held that while as a general rule, government agencies are expected to avail of services of SolGen for
legal representation this is not an absolute rule. COMELEC, as a government agency with authority to
prosecute election related offenses has standing to file a special civil action before appellate courts in
cases where the SolGen takes an antagonistic position to theirs.

Petitioners: COMELEC, Sixto Dela Victoria

Respondents: CA, office of the SolGen, Congressman Carmelo Locsin

Doctrines Involved: COMELEC as a government agency with authority to prosecute election case has
standing to file special civil actions before the appellate courts where the SolGen assumes a position
antagonistic to that of said agency. Simlarly, government agencies can handle their cases before appellate
courts to the exclusion of the SolGen so long as there is a valid reason such as loss of confidence in the
SolGen.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner, Sixto was a candidate for the Feb 1988 special elections for the mayor of Albuera,
Leyte.
a. Lost to one Genoveva Mesina – same political party as respondent, Camilo Locsin
(Congressman of Leyte 4th district)
2. Feb 8 1990 – COMELEC filed an information before the RTC of Leyte, charging respondent
Locsin of violation of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code) Sec. 261(f) 1 against Locsin.

1
Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense: (f)
Coercion of election officials and employees. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens,
intimidates, terrorizes or coerces any election official or employee in the performance of his
election functions or duties.
 a. Accused of intimidating the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Albuera
Leyte – during canvassing of election returns – and preventing them from performing
their functions and duties
b. Upon arraignment, Locsin pled not guilty.
3. Proceedings before the RTC:
a. After prosecution rested its case, Locsin filed a Demurrer to evidence, claiming that
prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove guilt. – COMELEC file
opposition to Demurrer.
b. Aug 9 1991 – RTC denied the Demurrer
4. Sept 23 1991 – Locsin alleged GAD on the part of the RTC, filing a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the CA.
a. Comments before CA
i. SolGen – recommended that the criminal case be dismissed on the basis of
insufficiency of evidence (see notes).
5. May 7 1992 – CA granted the petition for certiorari, dismissing the criminal case.
a. May 7 1992 – CA granted the petition for certiorari, dismissing criminal case
6. Current case – Appeal for certiorari of the CA decision that dismissed the criminal case before
the RTC.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: GAD in dismissing certiorari.
 Respondent’s Argument related to Doctrine: Locsin – COMELEC and Dela Victory has no
authority to file current petition, because criminal action was filed in the name of the People of
the Philippines, therefore only solicitor general can file the current petition.
o Cites case of Republic v. Partisala – only SolGen can bring or defend criminal actions in
behalf of the Republc of the PH or represent people in criminal proceedings pending
before the CA.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N only the SolGen can appeal criminal cases from decisions of the CA filed in behalf of the
People of the Philippines? – NO
a. Jurisprudence – initial ruling in Partisala where the SC held that only the SolGen can
bring or defend actions in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or represent the
People in criminal proceedings pending before the CA or SC.
i. Relaxed in People v. Calo - where SC allowed the offended party in a criminal
case to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul an order of judge
allowing the accused to bail in a murder case without a hearing. – in the interest
of substantial justice and speedy disposition of case – offended party in a
criminal case has standing to appeal criminal cases,
b. Application – Peculiar case, SolGen took side of the accused. COMELEC as a
government agency with authority to prosecute election case has standing to file special
civil actions before the appellate courts where the SolGen assumes a position antagonistic
to that of said agency.
i. COMELEC as empowered under Art. IX-c, Sec. 2(6) of the Constitution has
authority to prosecute cases of violation of election laws. It may avail of the
assistance of other prosecution arms of the government, reinforced by
COMELEC Rules of Procedure – where Chief, State, Provincial and City
 prosecutors are granted continuing authority as deputies to prosecute offenses
punishable under election laws.
ii. Development Bank of the PH v. Pundogar – Held that government agencies,
including government corporations must look at SolGen in the first instance to
represent them in legal proceedings. However, this is not essential. SolGen not
absolutely required to represent a government agency, government agency not
absolutely compelled to rely on SolGen services. Departure from general rule
allowed in cases such as where govt. agency has lost confidence in SolGen.
2. W/N dismissal of case via demurrer of evidence proper? – YES
a. Demurrer to evidence is governed by Rule 119 Sec. 15 of the RoC i - after prosecution has
rested its case, accused can motion with prior leave of court or, the court motu proprio
can dismiss the case against the accused on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence.
i. If the accused moves for dismissal with prior leave of court and is subsequently
denied, the accused may then present evidence to substantiate his defense. But, if
he fails to secure leave of court and demurrer is denied then he is deemed to have
waived his right to present evidence – case is then submitted for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
b. Grant of Demurrer – upon a grant of demurrer, the case is ordered dismissed. Such
dismissal being considered a dismissal on the merits is equivalent to an acquittal which
cannot then be appealed from under the right against double jeopardy.
i. Application – same circumstances here, CA dismissed on the basis of demurrer.
Therefore equivalent to an acquittal and thus cant be appealed from.
c. Rules of double jeopardy –
i. General Rule – double jeopardy attaches when the accused is acquitted or
convicted or the case is unconditionally dismissed without his express consent
after he has been arraigned and entered a plea.
1. Exception – even if motion to dismiss is made with the consent or by the
accused, double jeopardy attaches still if: (1) When the ground is
insufficiency of evidence or; (2) when the proceedings have been
prolonged unreasonably, in violation of the right to speedy trial.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED
DISSENT:

NOTES:

The Solicitor General pointed out that: (1) The Chairman and Secretary of the Municipal
Board of Canvassers whom the prosecution claimed were the ones whose official functions
were obstructed by the acts of coercion and intimidation of private respondent, denied that
the latter had committed such acts of coercion and intimidation. (2) Petitioner Dela Victoria
and his companions were able to take photographs of the canvassing, freely and without
obstruction from anyone. Petitioner admitted that he and his photographer were never
prevented from taking pictures of the canvassing. (3) The minutes of the canvassing did not
indicate any untoward incident taking place. (4) Petitioner admitted that he saw private
respondent when the latter was at the Office of the Election Register. The canvassing was
done at the session hall of the municipal building. (5) There is no basis for the trial court's
cdasia

conclusion that private respondent was responsible for the presence of soldiers in the
municipal building. The trial court's conclusions that private respondent had something to do
with the sending of the soldiers because they arrived at the municipal building about the
same time is tenuous and conjectured. (6) The police blotter (Exh. R) had entries stating that
the soldiers were sent to the municipal building to observe the peace and order and some of
the soldiers were even tasked by the COMELEC Register to perform some election chores
(Rollo, pp. 85-90).
i
After the prosecution has rested its case, the court may dismiss the case
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution an opportunity to be heard; and (2) on motion of the accused 􀀾led
with prior leave of court.
If the court denies the motion for dismissal, the accused may adduce
evidence in his defense. When the accused 􀀾les such motion to dismiss without
express leave of court, he waives the right to present evidence and submits the
case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution."cd