Only Comelec can try poll offenses – SC

ILOILO City – Millions of pesos allegedly exchanged hands in some districts in the country to vote in favor of amending the Constitution through people’s initiative.

But the Commission on Elections (Comelec) quickly squelched such reports, saying they had not received any official communication on the issue.

When will the Comelec acquire jurisdiction over election-related offenses?

In the case of Naldoza versus Lavilles, Jr., the Supreme Court stressed that in Sections 265 and 267 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Comelec has the exclusive power to conduct a preliminary investigation of all election offenses.

The Regional Trial Court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the election code.

On the other hand, the metropolitan or municipal trial court may exercise jurisdiction only on offenses relating to failure to register or to vote.

Compl ainant Al berto Naldoza filed an administrative complaint against then Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr., presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Miagao, Iloilo, before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

Naldoza was the barangay chairman of Barangay Kirayan, Tacas, Miagao, Iloilo. He ran for re-election in the May 8, 1994 elections.

Naldoza accused Lavilles of irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, improper issuance of the warrant of arrest, and ignorance of law for vote- buying in violation of Article XII, Section 21 of Batas Pambansa 881, or the Omnibus Election Code. Naldoza was later arrested and detained based on the arrest warrant issued by Lavilles.

Replying to the charges, Lavilles said he examined the witnesses and conducted searching questions before issuing the warrants. The judge argued that placing Naldoza under arrest is a matter addressed to judicial discretion.

Lavilles stressed that Section 4 of Comelec Resolution No. 2695, which authorizes chiefs of police to conduct the preliminary investigation of charges for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, was filed on May 10, 1994, barely 45 days after the passage of such resolution.

Thus, Lavilles said they could not expect him to be immediately aware of the existence of Comelec Resolution No. 2695.

The Office of the Court Administrator( O CA) recommended that a fine equivalent to one month’s salary be imposed on the respondent.

However since there was no malice or evil intent in the judge’s actions in conducting the preliminary investigation on two separate complaints for vote-buying, OCA fined the judge of P5,000.

Under Comelec Resolution No. 2695, the conduct of preliminary examination is vested upon the chief of police or his duly authorized representative, of violations of the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws.

Likewise, Section 1 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that persons caught carrying and transporting firearms and employment of security personnel and other violations of the Omnibus Election Code during the election ban shall be under preliminary examination by the chief of police or his representative./