9/23/2020
G.R. No. 153945
strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean `actual or positive cause’ nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an
inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the charge."6
There is no question that petitioners registered twice on different days and in different precincts without canceling
their previous registration. Aside from this, the COMELEC found certain circumstances prevailing in the case
sufficient to warrant the finding of probable cause. The COMELEC noted that petitioners wrote down their address in
Precinct No. 83-A of Barangay 18 as No. 709 T. Gomez Extension St., Barangay 18-Maya, Cavite City. However, in
Precinct No. 129-A of Barangay 28, petitioners registered as residents of No. 709 Magcawas St., Barangay 28Taurus, Caridad, Cavite City. The COMELEC noted further that the affidavits submitted by petitioners contained
glaring inconsistencies. Petitioners claimed that Ignacio led them to the wrong precinct to register. However,
Ignacio’s affidavit stated that while he led them to the voting precinct of Barangay 18, he immediately left the area
not knowing that petitioners registered in the wrong barangay. Contrary to petitioners’ sworn statements, Aurora
Baytan, mother of petitioners, had another version. She claimed in her affidavit that on June 15, 1997, Ignacio went
to their house to inform them about the redefinition of their barangay’s territorial jurisdiction. Right then and there,
Ignacio brought her sons to Barangay 18 to register.
The COMELEC also pointed out that since "double registration" is malum prohibitum, petitioners’ claim of lack of
intent to violate the law is inconsequential. Neither did the COMELEC consider petitioners’ letter dated August 22,
1997 as an application to cancel their previous registration. The COMELEC explained that this letter was sent after
their second registration was accomplished and after the election officer of Cavite City had already reported their act
of double registration to a higher official.
All told, a reasonably prudent man would readily conclude that there exists probable cause to hold petitioners for
trial for the offense of double registration.
Moreover, petitioners’ claims of honest mistake, good faith and substantial compliance with the Election Code’s
requirement of cancellation of previous registration are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper rather
than at the preliminary investigation.7 The established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for
the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.8
It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the
COMELEC’s sound discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses and malpractices.9 Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELEC’s exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same,
except as may otherwise be provided by law.10
We also cannot accept petitioners’ plea for a liberal construction of the laws on the ground of prescription.
Prescription of the crime or offense is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after the
lapse of a certain time.11
Section 267 of the Election Code provides that "election offenses shall prescribe after five years from the date of
their commission." In this case, the offense of double registration allegedly occurred on June 22, 1997 when
petitioners registered for a second time in a different precinct without canceling their previous registration. At this
point, the period of prescription for the alleged offense started to run.
However, prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the offender. Specifically, the period of
prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination
or investigation.12
The COMELEC initiated the complaint for double registration against petitioners motu proprio under Sections 3,13 414
and 5,15 Rule 34 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. On September 16, 1997, the Election Officer of Cavite
City forwarded copies of petitioners’ Voters’ Registration Records for evaluation to Atty. Juanito V. Ravanzo,
Provincial Election Supervisor of Cavite City, who was also tasked to investigate the case. Ravanzo endorsed the
matter to the Regional Director for prosecution. The Regional Director forwarded the case to the Law Department
and the latter re-endorsed the same to the office of Ravanzo for resolution. A preliminary investigation hearing was
conducted on January 19, 1998 where petitioners were instructed to submit their counter-affidavits. After the
preliminary investigation and based on the affidavits and other evidence submitted in the case, Ravanzo
recommended the prosecution of petitioners for the offense of double registration. Ineluctably, the prescriptive
period of the offense was interrupted upon the COMELEC’s initiation of proceedings against petitioners and remains
tolled pending the termination of the case.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_153945_2003.html
3/7