Scribd
Upload
384 views

MORENO vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Moreno was convicted of arbitrary detention but was granted probation. He ran for local office but his opponent challenged his candidacy, arguing the conviction disqualified him under the Local Government Code. The Comelec agreed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Probation Law, being discharged from probation restores all civil rights, including the right to run for office. As the Probation Law is a special law regarding probationers, it is an exception to the general disqualifications in the Local Government Code. Therefore, Moreno's grant of probation and discharge allowed him to run for public office.

Uploaded by

Joel G. Ayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
384 views

MORENO vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Moreno was convicted of arbitrary detention but was granted probation. He ran for local office but his opponent challenged his candidacy, arguing the conviction disqualified him under the Local Government Code. The Comelec agreed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Probation Law, being discharged from probation restores all civil rights, including the right to run for office. As the Probation Law is a special law regarding probationers, it is an exception to the general disqualifications in the Local Government Code. Therefore, Moreno's grant of probation and discharge allowed him to run for public office.

Uploaded by

Joel G. Ayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MORENO vs.

COMELEC Case Digest


URBANO M. MORENO vs. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168550. August 10, 2006

FACTS: Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to disqualify Moreno from running for
Punong Barangay on the ground that the latter was convicted by final judgment of the
crime of Arbitrary Detention. The Comelec en banc granted her petition and disqualified
Moreno. Moreno filed an answer averring that the petition states no cause of action
because he was already granted probation. Allegedly, following the case of Baclayon v.
Mutia, the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment, as well as the accessory
penalties, was thereby suspended. Moreno also argued that under Sec. 16 of the
Probation Law of 1976 (Probation Law), the final discharge of the probation shall
operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction
and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed.

However, the Comelec en banc assails Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code which
provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude
or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2)
years after serving sentence, are disqualified from running for any elective local
position. Since Moreno was released from probation on December 20, 2000,
disqualification shall commence on this date and end two (2) years thence. The grant of
probation to Moreno merely suspended the execution of his sentence but did not affect
his disqualification from running for an elective local office.

On his petition, Moreno argues that the disqualification under the Local Government
Code applies only to those who have served their sentence and not to probationers
because the latter do not serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law should
allegedly be read as an exception to the Local Government Code because it is a special
law which applies only to probationers. Further, even assuming that he is disqualified,
his subsequent election as Punong Barangay allegedly constitutes an implied pardon of
his previous misconduct.

ISSUE: Does Moreno’s probation grant him the right to run in public office?

HELD: Yes. Sec. 16 of the Probation Law provides that "[t]he final discharge of the
probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of
his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted." Thus, when Moreno was finally discharged upon the
court's finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his case
was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his
conviction were restored to him, including the right to run for public office.

It is important to note that the disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government
Code covers offenses punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, a penalty
which also covers probationable offenses. In spite of this, the provision does not
specifically disqualify probationers from running for a local elective office.

Probation Law should be construed as an exception to the Local Government Code.


While the Local Government Code is a later law which sets forth the qualifications and
disqualifications of local elective officials, the Probation Law is a special legislation
which applies only to probationers. It is a canon of statutory construction that a later
statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will
ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.

You might also like