People vs.

Basilla
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. HENRY B. BASILLA, SALVACION COLAMBOT,
SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON
G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989

FACTS:

Complaints for violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed
with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate by Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of
the Office of the Governor against the spouses Jaime and Adoracion Tayong vote-buying,
Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot for vote buying and PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya
against Melchor Yanson for carrying of deadly weapon.

The Provincial Fiscal filed three separate criminal complaints against the three accused but
respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed it on the ground that the complainant
filed the complaint with the fiscal and not with the COMELEC and the COMELEC did not
investigate the case which violates Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) which states that The Commission on
Election shall “ investigate and, when appropriate prosecute cases of violation of election laws,
including acts or omissions, constituting election frauds offenses, malpractices."

The private complainants alleged that the act of Respondent Judge dismissing the three
criminal information constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
since the COMELEC has authority to deputize the chief state prosecutors, provincial and city
fiscals and their assistants, under Sections 2 (4) and (8 ), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution,
and that the COMELEC did deputize such prosecution officers to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints for alleged violation of election laws and to institute criminal
information thereof.

On the other hand, private respondents contend that the deputation by the COMELEC of the
prosecuting arms of the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to
ensure tree, honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-
keeping functions of policemen, lack substance.

The Respondent Judge denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to deputize the regular prosecution arms of
the Government for the investigation and prosecution of election offenses?

 RULING:
Yes. We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests "exclusive power" to conduct
preliminary investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the
COMELEC, it at the same time authorizes the COMELEC to avail itself of the assistance
of other prosecuting arms of the Government. Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution clearly envisage that the COMELEC would not be compelled to carry out all
its functions directly and by itself alone.

The contention of private respondents that the deputation by the COMELEC of the prosecuting
arms of the Government would be warranted only before the elections and only to ensure tree,
honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the peace-keeping functions
of policemen, lack substance. There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution which requires such a pinched niggardly interpretation of the authority of the
COMELEC to appoint as its deputies, officials or employees of other agencies and
instrumentalities of the government. The prompt investigation and prosecution and disposition
of election offenses constitute an indispensable part of the task of securing free, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections. The investigation and prosecution of election offenses
are, in an important sense, more important than the maintenance of physical order in election
precinct. 'without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals and their assistants and
staff members, and of the state prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the prompt
and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses committed before or in the
course of nationwide elections would simply not be possible, unless, perhaps, the
COMELEC had a bureaucracy many times larger than what it actually has. Moreover, the
prosecution officers designated by the COMELEC become deputies or agents of the COMELEC
and pro tanto subject to the authority, control and supervision of the COMELEC in respect of
the particular functions covered by such deputation. The acts of such deputies within the
lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC
itself. The only limitation the Constitution itself places upon the COMELEC’s authority
over its deputies relates to the enforcement of such authority through administrative
sanctions.

The Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.