View full case

NELSON T. LLUZ v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a complaint against private respondent Caesar O. Vicencio for misrepresenting himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) in his certificate of candidacy for punong barangay. They provided a certification from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) stating that private respondent's name does not appear in the book of the Board of Accountancy. The COMELEC Law Department dismissed the complaint, stating that the misrepresentation was not material to private respondent's eligibility as a candidate. However, the COMELEC En Banc reversed the decision and ordered the filing of an information against private respondent. Later, the COMELEC En Banc reconsidered its decision and ruled that the misrepresentation should be material in order to be considered an election offense. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC En Banc denied.

The case involves the petitioners' argument that the COMELEC failed to prosecute the private respondent for an election offense. The private respondent was accused of making a misrepresentation of his profession or occupation in his certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC condemned the private respondent's act but believed that it could only prosecute him for an administrative or criminal offense, not an election offense. The petitioners contend that even if the misrepresentation is not material, it should still be considered an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

In interpreting Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code and its relevance to Section 262, the court notes that Section 74 requires candidates to provide certain information in their certificate of candidacy, including details about their candidacy, political party, civil status, date of birth, residence, and profession or occupation. The court acknowledges that Section 74 does not explicitly specify which provisions are relevant to Section 262 or indicate which violations would be punishable as election offenses. Thus, the court is tasked with interpreting Section 74 to determine if the disclosure of profession or occupation can be penalized under Section 262.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the misrepresentation of residence in a certificate of candidacy is a ground for disqualification.

  2. Whether a criminal complaint under Section 262 and a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 can be filed concurrently.

  3. Whether or not a misrepresentation of a non-material fact in a certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy.

  4. Whether or not profession or occupation is a qualification for elective office.

  5. Whether or not materiality is an essential element of any violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

  6. Whether the element of "material matter" in the crime of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code includes statements in a certificate of candidacy.

  7. Whether the penalty for perjury under Article 183 or the penalty for violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code applies when a false statement is made in a certificate of candidacy.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the misrepresentation of residence in a certificate of candidacy is a ground for disqualification. The Court held that the case falls within the provisions of Section 78 of B.P. 881, which allows the denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy if any material representation contained therein, required under Section 74, is false. Misrepresentation of residence, being a qualification for all elective local officials, gives rise to a cause of action under Section 78.

  2. Yes, a criminal complaint under Section 262 and a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 can be filed concurrently. The Court recognized that misrepresentation of residence in a certificate of candidacy gives rise to two causes of action: one under Section 262, which is a criminal complaint, and one under Section 78, which is a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. The Court emphasized that the administrative proceeding under Section 78 is a more direct and speedy process, considering the vital public interest involved and the necessity of resolving the question at the earliest possible time for the benefit of the inhabitants.

  3. A misrepresentation of a non-material fact in a certificate of candidacy is not a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy.

  4. Profession or occupation is not a qualification for elective office.

  5. Materiality is an essential element of any violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

  6. Yes, the material matter in perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code includes statements in a certificate of candidacy relevant to the validity of the certificate and the qualifications for elective office required to be stated in the certificate.

  7. The penalty for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code applies when a false statement is made in a certificate of candidacy. The penalty for violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code does not apply to false statements made in a certificate of candidacy.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Misrepresentation of residence in a certificate of candidacy is a ground for disqualification.

  • Section 78 of B.P. 881 allows the denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy if any material representation contained therein, required under Section 74, is false.

  • Misrepresentation of residence gives rise to two causes of action: a criminal complaint under Section 262 and a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78.

  • The administrative proceeding under Section 78 is a more direct and speedy process to resolve the qualification issues of a candidate.

  • A misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is material when it refers to a qualification for elective office and affects the candidate's eligibility.

  • A misrepresentation of a non-material fact, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.

  • No elective office, including the office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, requires a certain profession or occupation as a qualification.

  • In interpreting a law, the court must avoid an unreasonable or unjust construction.

  • Materiality of the misrepresentation is an essential element of any violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

  • Any complaint for perjury under the Revised Penal Code must allege the element of materiality.

  • The crime of perjury is determined by the willful assertion of a falsehood under oath upon a material matter.

  • A material matter in perjury refers to a fact that has an effect on the outcome of the proceeding for which the statement is being executed.

  • Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code carries a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, while the penalty for violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code carries a higher penalty range.

  • In cases of false statements made in a certificate of candidacy, the more reasonable construction is to apply the penalty for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.