FACTS:

This case involves a petition filed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against the respondent judge's orders denying the petitioner's motions in Criminal Case Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00. The case started with a complaint filed by Florentino A. Bautista, a candidate for Municipal Mayor, accusing the incumbent Municipal Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and others of vote buying. The complaint was filed with the Law Department of the COMELEC and later docketed as EO Case No. 98-219. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the COMELEC En Banc directed the filing of necessary information against the respondents and authorized the designation of a COMELEC prosecutor. The Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. The court ordered a reinvestigation based on previous rulings. Another complaint for vote selling was filed against the witnesses of Bautista, resulting in the filing of separate Informations against the respondents. The respondents appealed to the COMELEC, but the appeal was denied.

In a separate appeal filed by the respondents, they requested the withdrawal or revocation of the delegated authority of the Law Department to suspend or move for the suspension of the prosecution. The COMELEC approved a resolution deferring action on the matter and referring it to the Law Department for comment and recommendation. The Law Department recommended nullifying the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and exempting the respondents from criminal prosecution. The COMELEC En Banc approved the recommendation and directed the Law Department to file the necessary motion to dismiss the cases. The trial court denied the petitioner's omnibus motion and motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner argues that the accused are exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-buying and claims that the prosecution of election offenses is under its control, allowing it to revoke delegated authority to the prosecutor. The respondent judge argues that the petitioner's resolution cannot revoke the previous resolution approved unanimously and that a joint reinvestigation should have been conducted. The respondent judge also argues that a provision in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is contrary to the Omnibus Election Code. The petitioner's position is upheld.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the COMELEC has the sole control over the prosecution of election offenses.

2. Whether the revocation of the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to prosecute the election cases is valid.

3. Whether Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is contrary to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code.

4. Whether the petitioner has the authority to reverse the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and grant the appeal of the respondents-appellants.

5. Whether the resolution of the petitioner giving due course to the appeal of the respondents-appellants is a valid reversal of the prior resolution denying the said appeal.

6. Whether the petitioner has the exclusive power to conduct a preliminary investigation of election offenses and determine whether there is probable cause.

7. Whether the respondents-appellants are exempt from criminal liability for vote-selling.

8. Whether the petitioner is mandated to conduct a preliminary investigation of all election offenses and prosecute the offenders.

9. Whether the law grants immunity to volunteers who give information and testify on violations of Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code.

10. Whether or not the respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00.

11. Whether or not the authority to grant exemptions under the law should be interfered with by the trial court.

RULING:

1. Yes, the COMELEC has the sole control over the prosecution of election offenses. The Constitution grants the COMELEC the express power to investigate and prosecute election offenses in order to ensure a fine, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election.

2. The revocation of the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to prosecute the election cases is valid. The COMELEC may revoke or withdraw its deputation of Provincial or City Prosecutors at any stage of the proceedings if it deems necessary to protect the integrity of the process or when it believes that successful prosecution can be done by the COMELEC itself.

3. Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not contrary to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code. The authority of the Provincial and City Prosecutors under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure remains until revoked by the COMELEC. The deputation of prosecutors is necessary due to the lack of sufficient legal officers in the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute election cases.

4. Yes, the petitioner has the authority to reverse the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and grant the appeal of the respondents-appellants. The resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the petitioner, and the petitioner has supervision and control of its deputies/subordinates.

5. Yes, the resolution of the petitioner granting due course to the appeal of the respondents-appellants is a valid reversal of the prior resolution denying the said appeal. The petitioner only needs the concurrence of a majority of its members for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order, or ruling.

6. Yes, the petitioner has the exclusive power to conduct a preliminary investigation of election offenses and determine whether there is probable cause. The Court will not interfere with the findings of the petitioner absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

7. No, the respondents-appellants are not exempt from criminal liability for vote-selling. Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. 6848 exempts them from prosecution and punishment for the offense of vote-buying but does not extend to vote-selling. The charges of vote-selling against the respondents-appellants should not be dismissed.

8. Yes, the petitioner is mandated to conduct a preliminary investigation of all election offenses and prosecute the offenders. The general rule is that the petitioner must investigate, charge, and prosecute all those committing election offenses without any discrimination to ensure clean, orderly, and speedy elections. A joint preliminary investigation must be conducted, and the appropriate Information filed in court against all the offenders.

9. Yes, the law grants immunity to volunteers who give information and testify on violations of Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. The law is an immunity statute which grants transactional immunity to volunteers from investigation and prosecution for the offenses with reference to which their information and testimony are given. The execution of these statutes reflects the importance of the testimony and their primary use has been to investigate and prosecute election offenses.

10. The Court found that the respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 7960-00 to 7969-00. The Orders of the respondent judge were set aside, and the judge was directed to dismiss the said criminal cases.

PRINCIPLES:

• The COMELEC has the sole control over the prosecution of election offenses to ensure a fine, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election.

• The COMELEC has the power to revoke or withdraw its deputation of Provincial or City Prosecutors at any stage of the proceedings.

• The authority of the Provincial and City Prosecutors under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure remains until revoked by the COMELEC.

• The petitioner has the authority to reverse the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and grant appeals.

• The concurrence of a majority of the petitioner's members is necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order, or ruling.

• The petitioner has the exclusive power to conduct a preliminary investigation of election offenses and determine whether there is probable cause.

• Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. 6848 exempts respondents-appellants from prosecution and punishment for vote-buying but not for vote-selling.

• The petitioner is mandated to investigate, charge, and prosecute all those committing election offenses without discrimination.

• Volunteers who give information and testify on violations of Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code are granted immunity from investigation and prosecution for the offenses with reference to which their information and testimony are given.

• Immunity from suit is the only consequence flowing from a violation of one's constitutional rights, and it is granted in exchange for the testimony of a voluntary witness in accord with their sworn statement.

• The power to grant exemptions under the law is vested solely in the petitioner, who is tasked with enforcing election laws and prosecuting election offenses. The exercise of this power should not be interfered with by the trial court.

• The petitioner's discretion in granting or denying exemptions should not be interfered with by the courts, unless there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

• The authority to grant exemptions should be used to achieve and further the petitioner's mandate to ensure clean, honest, peaceful, and orderly elections.

• The ruling in a previous case is not applicable if the issue of the application of the immunity statute was not raised in that case.