In Diño v. Olivarez, the Supreme Court addressed the extent of the COMELEC’s (Commission on Elections) power to revoke delegated authority to local prosecutors and the implications for amending criminal informations in election offense cases. The Court ruled that while the COMELEC can revoke a prosecutor’s authority, amendments to informations made before such revocation are valid. This means that actions taken by prosecutors within their delegated authority, prior to any official revocation, remain legally binding, ensuring the integrity of legal processes and protecting against potential disruptions in election-related prosecutions.

Election Offenses: Questioning the Authority to Amend Charges

The case began with vote-buying complaints filed by Bienvenido Diño and Renato Comparativo against Pablo Olivarez. The city prosecutor initially found probable cause, leading to two Informations filed against Olivarez for violating the Omnibus Election Code. Olivarez appealed to the COMELEC, questioning the findings and requesting a revocation of the prosecutor’s authority. During this appeal, the city prosecutor amended the Informations. The central question became whether these amended Informations were valid, considering Olivarez’s challenge to the prosecutor’s authority. The Court of Appeals ruled that the COMELEC’s order to suspend proceedings effectively stripped the city prosecutor of the authority to amend the informations.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the COMELEC’s power to investigate and prosecute election offenses, delegated to city prosecutors, had not yet been revoked when the Amended Informations were filed. The letter from the COMELEC Law Department merely directed the city prosecutor to transmit records and suspend implementation of the Joint Resolution, but it did not explicitly revoke the authority to prosecute the case. According to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code:

Section 265. Prosecution.—The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.

Building on this, the Court explained the COMELEC’s continuing delegation of authority and noted that this authority was still intact when the prosecutor amended the charges. The Court emphasized that prosecutors acted to avert a potential dismissal of the complaints. This action aligned with procedural rules allowing amendments before an accused enters a plea. According to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure:

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.

The Court reasoned that prosecutors, acting reasonably and in accordance with legal procedures, maintained the integrity of the case, thus contributing to effective administration of justice. The COMELEC Resolution No. 7457, which formally revoked the authority, occurred after the Amended Informations were already filed. Therefore, these amendments were valid, and the trial court did not err in admitting them and denying the motion to quash.

The Court also addressed the propriety of the arrest warrant. The trial court initially acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused. Arraignment, according to Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, can be suspended under specific circumstances; however, the arraignment of the accused is not indefinitely suspended by the pendency of an appeal. When the respondent failed to appear, the trial court acted within its rights to issue a warrant and order cash bond confiscation. By doing so, the High Tribunal overturned the Court of Appeals’ Decision and directed the lower court to proceed with Criminal Cases No. 04-1104 and No. 04-1105, with prosecution to be handled by COMELEC’s Law Department.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the city prosecutor exceeded their authority by filing amended informations after an appeal was filed with the COMELEC, but before the COMELEC formally revoked the prosecutor’s delegated authority.
Can the COMELEC revoke its delegated authority to local prosecutors?	Yes, the COMELEC has the power to revoke the authority it delegates to prosecuting arms of the government, such as city prosecutors, when necessary to protect the integrity of the commission or promote the common good.
When does the COMELEC’s revocation of authority take effect?	The revocation takes effect upon the issuance and implementation of a COMELEC resolution that explicitly revokes the delegated authority.
What happens if an information is amended before the COMELEC revokes authority?	If an information is amended before the COMELEC formally revokes the delegated authority, the amendments are considered valid, provided they comply with the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Why did the public prosecutor amend the informations in this case?	The public prosecutor amended the informations to address the respondent’s motion to quash, which argued that more than one offense was charged in the original informations.
Was the trial court correct in issuing a warrant of arrest against the respondent?	Yes, the trial court was correct in issuing a warrant of arrest because the respondent failed to appear for arraignment without a valid reason for the continued suspension of the proceedings.
What rule governs the amendment of complaints or informations?	Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure governs the amendment of complaints or informations, allowing amendments before the accused enters a plea.
What is the significance of this ruling for election offense cases?	The ruling clarifies the scope of authority of delegated prosecutors and protects against undue delays and technicalities that could impede the prosecution of election offenses.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Diño v. Olivarez underscores the importance of upholding legal procedures and the effective administration of justice in election-related cases. The ruling ensures that actions taken by prosecutors under delegated authority remain valid, provided they are within legal bounds and occur before any formal revocation by the COMELEC.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Diño v. Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, June 23, 2009