February 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 193237 : February 22, 2011]
DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND AGAPITO J. CARDINO
"G.R. No. 193237 (Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Agapito J. Cardino). - Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Commission on Elections (Comelec)-First Division resolution dated May 10, 2010 and Comelec En Banc resolution dated August 11, 2010 in SPA Case No. 09-076 (DC), which ordered the cancellation of petitioner Dominador G. Jalosjos' Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte.
On December 6, 2009, private respondent Agapito J. Cardino filed a Petition to Deny Due Course to and Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner before respondent Comelec. Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for Mayor of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte during the 2010 Elections. Private respondent alleged that petitioner misrepresented in his CoC that he was eligible to run for Mayor, when, in fact, he was not, since he had been convicted by final judgment of robbery, a crime involving moral turpitude, and he has failed to serve a single day of his sentence.[1]
The final judgment for robbery stems from the following factual antecedents:
On April 30, 1970, the then Circuit Criminal Court (now Regional Trial Court [RTC]) of Cebu City convicted petitioner of the crime of robbery and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.[2] Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). He later abandoned the appeal, which was thus dismissed on August 9, 1973. Sometime in June 1985, petitioner filed a petition for probation.
On July 9, 1985, Gregorio F. Bacolod (Bacolod), who was then the Supervising Probation Officer of the Parole and Probation Office, recommended to the RTC the grant of petitioner's application for probation. On the same day, the RTC issued an Order granting the probation for a period of one year subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.
However, on August 8, 1986, Bacolod filed a Motion for Revocation of the probation on the ground that petitioner failed to report to him, in violation of the condition of the probation. Accordingly, the RTC issued an Order dated March 19, 1987,[3] revoking the probation and ordering the issuance of a warrant of arrest.[4] A warrant of arrest was issued but remained unserved.
More than 16 years later, or on December 19, 2003, petitioner secured a Certification from the Central Office of the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA), which was signed by Bacolod, now Administrator of the PPA, attesting that petitioner had fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation.
At this time, the prosecution also decided to stir the case. It filed a motion for the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest. The RTC granted the motion on January 16, 2004 and issued an Order for the Issuance of an Alias Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.
On January 23, 2004, Bacolod submitted to the RTC a Termination Report stating that petitioner had fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and, hence, his case should be deemed terminated. On the same day, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Reconsider its January 16, 2004 Order and to Lift the Warrant of Arrest.
On January 29, 2004, James A. Adasa (Adasa), petitioner's opponent for the mayoralty position during the 2004 Elections, filed a Petition for Disqualification against petitioner, based on Section 40(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, on the ground that the latter has been convicted of robbery and failed to serve his sentence. Adasa later amended his petition to include Section 40(e) of the same law, claiming that petitioner is also a "fugitive from justice."
Meanwhile, acting on petitioner's urgent motion, the RTC issued an Order dated February 5, 2004, declaring that petitioner had duly complied with the order of probation, setting aside its January 16, 2004 Order, and recalling the warrant of arrest.[5]
Thus, in resolving Adasa's petition, the Comelec Investigating Officer cited the February 5, 2004 RTC Order and recommended that petitioner be declared qualified to run for Mayor. In the Resolution dated August 2, 2004, the Comelec-Second Division adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Officer and denied the petition for disqualification. It held that petitioner has amply proven that he had complied with the requirements of his probation as shown by the Certification from the PPA dated December 19, 2003, which was the basis of the February 5, 2004 RTC Order.
Adasa filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Comelec En Banc denied on December 13, 2006.
Adasa then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 176285). In a Resolution[6] dated June 3, 2008, the Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic, the three-year term of office having expired.
In a related incident, Bacolod, who issued the Certification dated December 19, 2003 to petitioner, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and falsification of public document under the Revised Penal Code for issuing said Certification. On September 29, 2008, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding Bacolod guilty as charged. It held that the Certification he issued was definitely false because petitioner did not actually fulfill the conditions of his probation as shown in the RTC Order dated March 19, 1987, which states that the probation was being revoked. Hence, at the time the Certification was issued, there was no longer a probation order to be fulfilled by petitioner.
On May 10, 2010, the elections were held, and petitioner won as Mayor of Dapitan City.
On the same day, the Comelec-First Division issued a resolution granting the Petition to Deny Due Course and canceling petitioner's CoC.[7] The Comelec noted that the dismissal of Adasa's petition for disqualification hinged on the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the PPA Certification dated December 19, 2003, declaring that petitioner had complied with the requirements of his probation. It opined that, with the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting Bacolod, it would now appear that the December 19, 2003 Certification was fraudulently issued and that petitioner had not actually served his sentence; thus, the ruling on Adasa's petition is "left with no leg to stand on."
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The Comelec En Banc denied the motion in a resolution dated August 11, 2010. The Comelec ordered him to cease and desist from occupying and discharging the functions of the Office of the Mayor of Dapitan City.
In this Petition for Certiorari, petitioner argues that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in (1) ruling that the probation has been revoked and that petitioner is disqualified to run for Mayor; and (2) canceling his CoC without a finding that he committed a deliberate misrepresentation as to his qualifications, considering that he merely relied in good faith upon the Comelec's previous decision on Adasa's petition for disqualification, which declared him eligible to run for the same position. Petitioner further argues that the assailed resolutions are null and void as they were not promulgated in accordance with the Comelec's Rules of Procedure.
Petitioner contends that the February 5, 2004 Order of the RTC, declaring that petitioner complied with the probation order, superseded the March 19, 1987 Order, revoking the probation. He avers that the COMELEC should not have relied on the Sandiganbayan decision convicting Bacolod, as said decision is not yet final and executory. He points out that, notwithstanding the Sandiganbayan decision, the February 5, 2004 Order stands, as it has not been modified or revoked. Petitioner further asserts that the COMELEC's previous decision involving the same issue constitutes the law of the case.
Petitioner also prays for the issuance of a Status Quo Order. He insists that one is needed because his political opponents will ensure that the Comelec resolution disqualifying him will be executed or implemented immediately. Thus, the Status Quo Order is needed to prevent the Comelec resolution from being an obstacle to the discharge of petitioner's duties as Mayor of Dapitan City.
We resolve to deny the Petition.
Petitioner's contention that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Orders is without merit.
We quote with agreement the following pronouncements of the Comelec En Banc in the assailed August 11, 2010 resolution:
Contrary to the claim of respondent, his probation was already revoked by the court way back on March 19, 1987. Interestingly, he filed a Petition for Probation only on June 17, 1985 or after fifteen (15) years from his conviction of robbery in 1970 and after the Court of Appeals had already dismissed his appeal. This is highly irregular and contrary to law. As it is, respondent is merely relying on the Certification issued by former Administrator Bacolod which was already ruled upon by the Sandiganbayan to be falsified. To compound matters, he utilized this Certification to secure the dismissal of the disqualification case filed by James Adasa against him.
The Supreme Court in the case of Soriano v. Court of Appeals stressed that the grant of probation is not a matter of right, viz:
It is a mere privilege whose grant rests upon the discretion of the trial court. Its grant is subject to certain terms and conditions that may be imposed by the trial court. Having the power to grant probation, it follows that the trial court also has the power to order its revocation in a proper case and under appropriate circumstances.
With the proper revocation of respondent's earlier probation and a clear showing that he has not yet served the terms of his sentence, there is simply no basis for respondent to claim that his civil as well as political rights have been violated. Having been convicted by final judgment, respondent is disqualified to run for an elective position or to hold public office. His proclamation as the elected mayor in the May 10, 2010 election does not deprive the Commission of its authority to resolve the present petition to its finality, and to oust him from the office he now wrongfully holds.[8]
It must be remembered that by the time Bacolod submitted his Termination Report on January 23, 2004, there was no longer a probation to speak of, the same having been revoked more than 16 years earlier. Under the Probation Law of 1976, the order of revocation is not appealable.[9] There is no showing that the RTC ever issued a subsequent order suspending the execution of petitioner's sentence and granting him probation again. In fact, the RTC issued an alias warrant of arrest on January 17, 2004 pursuant to the March 19, 1987 Order of revocation.
Thus, the same order revoking the grant of probation was valid and subsisting at the time that petitioner supposedly completed his probation. Petitioner could not have validly complied with the conditions of his probation and there would have been no basis for any probation officer to accept petitioner's compliance with a non-existent probation order.
This, plus the cloud of doubt created by Bacolod's conviction for falsification of the certification relied upon by petitioner, the Court cannot now rely on the presumption of regularity in the issuance of said certification in order for us to conclude that petitioner has in fact completed his probation. Considering that petitioner likewise has not served the sentence of his conviction for the crime of robbery, he is disqualified to run for and hold his current position as Mayor of Dapitan City.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution dated May 10, 2010 and Resolution dated August 11, 2010 of the Commission in Elections in SPA Case No. 09-076 (DC) are hereby AFFIRMED."
Carpio Morales, J., on official leave.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., no part and on official business.
Peralta, J., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Sec. 40 of R.A. No. 7160, the Local Government Code, reads:SEC. 40. Disqualifications. � The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (l).year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
x x x x
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad.
[2] Rollo, p. 85.
[3] Id. at 295.
[4] Id. at 87.
[5] Id. at 192.
[6] Id. at 233.
[7] Id. at 47.
[8] Id. at 55-56.
[9] P.D.No. 968, Sec. 15.
