Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    C. SEC2-26.People V Inting

    Uploaded by

    Gin Fernandez
    The COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation into a complaint filed against an OIC-Mayor for allegedly transferring a municipal employee in violation of election laws. Based on the investigation, the COMELEC filed criminal charges in court. However, the court dismissed the charges, finding that only the prosecutor could determine probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC exclusively to conduct preliminary investigations into election offenses in order to help courts determine probable cause and file charges. Divesting the COMELEC of this authority would undermine its effectiveness in ensuring free and honest elections in accordance with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    C. SEC2-26.People V Inting

    Uploaded by

    Gin Fernandez
    8 views1 page
    The COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation into a complaint filed against an OIC-Mayor for allegedly transferring a municipal employee in violation of election laws. Based on the investigation, the COMELEC filed criminal charges in court. However, the court dismissed the charges, finding that only the prosecutor could determine probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC exclusively to conduct preliminary investigations into election offenses in order to help courts determine probable cause and file charges. Divesting the COMELEC of this authority would undermine its effectiveness in ensuring free and honest elections in accordance with the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation into a complaint filed against an OIC-Mayor for allegedly transferring a municipal employee in violation of election laws. Based on the investigation, the COMELEC filed criminal charges in court. However, the court dismissed the charges, finding that only the prosecutor could determine probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC exclusively to conduct preliminary investigations into election offenses in order to help courts determine probable cause and file charges. Divesting the COMELEC of this authority would undermine its effectiveness in ensuring free and honest elections in accordance with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8 views1 page

    C. SEC2-26.People V Inting

    Uploaded by

    Gin Fernandez
    The COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation into a complaint filed against an OIC-Mayor for allegedly transferring a municipal employee in violation of election laws. Based on the investigation, the COMELEC filed criminal charges in court. However, the court dismissed the charges, finding that only the prosecutor could determine probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC exclusively to conduct preliminary investigations into election offenses in order to help courts determine probable cause and file charges. Divesting the COMELEC of this authority would undermine its effectiveness in ensuring free and honest elections in accordance with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    C.

    SEC2-26.People v Inting
    Facts:
    Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of
    Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for allegedly transferring her, a permanent
    Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay
    and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.
    After a preliminary investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima facie
    case. Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the respondent trial court a criminal
    case for violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor.
    In an Order dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest
    against the accused OIC Mayor.
    However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the accused could be arrested,
    the trial court set aside its September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is
    not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987
    Constitution. The trial court later on quashed the information. Hence, this petition.
    Issue:
    Whiter or not a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor
    involving election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before
    the Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether
    or not probable cause exists?
    Held:
    The 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigations in
    cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable
    cause and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC. The
    evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure
    the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the
    frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred
    right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority
    to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to their
    office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional
    mandate. Bearing these principles in mind, it is apparent that the respondent trial court
    misconstrued the constitutional provision when it quashed the information filed by the
    Provincial Election Supervisor.

    You might also like