SARIO MALINIAS vs COMELEC
GR No. 146943 October 4, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioners Sario Malinias and Roy Pilando were candidates for
governor and congress representatives respectively during the May 15,
1998 elections in Mountain Province. Petitioners filed a complaint
with COMELEC against private respondents Governor Dominguez,
and Provincial Director Corpuz and Police Chief Tangilag for alleged
violations of:
• Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646 and,
• Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881, respectively.
Petitioners alleged that on May 15, 1998, an illegal police checkpoint
set-up at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain Province blocked their
supporters who were on their way to Bontoc Provincial Capitol
Building for the canvassing of votes. They likewise alleged that the
Provincial Board of Canvassers never allowed the canvassing to be
made public and consented to the exclusion of the public or
representatives of other candidates except those of Dominguez. To
support their claims, their supporters executed so-called “mass
affidavits”
Private respondents submitted counter-affidavit stating that the
checkpoint was not a sole case and that it was set-up to enforce
COMELEC’s gun ban and that no group will disrupt the canvass
proceedings which happened several times in the past.
After investigation was conducted, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed
the case against the private respondents for lack of probable cause.
ISSUE:
Can COMELEC prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of
Sections 25 of RA 6646 and 232 of B.P. Blg. 881?
RULING:
No. The alleged 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.
The COMELEC and private respondents overlooked that Section 232
of B.P. Blg. 881 is not one of the election offenses explicitly
enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. While Section
232 categorically states that it is unlawful for the persons referred
therein to enter the canvassing room, this act is not one of the election
offenses criminally punishable under Sections 261 and 262 of B.P.
Blg. 881. Thus, the act involved in Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not
punishable as a criminal election offense. Though not a criminal
election offense, a violation of Section 232 certainly warrants, after
proper hearing, the imposition of administrative penalties.
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.