Scribd
Upload
74 views

Comelec V Aguirre Digest

The case involved a respondent who voted illegally by impersonating another voter in a local election. The regional trial court (RTC) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, citing that offenses with less than 6 years imprisonment fall under the jurisdiction of lower courts. However, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) argued that under the Omnibus Election Code, all criminal cases for violations of the Code fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of RTCs, except for failure to register or vote. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of COMELEC, finding that while lower courts normally have jurisdiction over cases with less than 6 years imprisonment, Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code is an exception that gives RTCs exclusive jurisdiction over

Uploaded by

Clarisa Natividad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views

Comelec V Aguirre Digest

The case involved a respondent who voted illegally by impersonating another voter in a local election. The regional trial court (RTC) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, citing that offenses with less than 6 years imprisonment fall under the jurisdiction of lower courts. However, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) argued that under the Omnibus Election Code, all criminal cases for violations of the Code fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of RTCs, except for failure to register or vote. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of COMELEC, finding that while lower courts normally have jurisdiction over cases with less than 6 years imprisonment, Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code is an exception that gives RTCs exclusive jurisdiction over

Uploaded by

Clarisa Natividad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

COMELEC v AGUIRRE

FACTS

 During the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections, respondent Ma.
Leonisa Genovia willfully and unlawfully, cast her vote in substitution of another person by
misrepresenting herself to be Emely Genovia and voted in substitution of said Emely Genovia, a
registered voter in Precinct No. 779-A, Barangay 60, Caloocan City.

 Under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, violation of any election offense is punishable
as follows:

SECTION 264. Penalties. – Any person found guilty of any election offense under this
Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six
years…

 The Caloocan RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, it citing Section 32(2) of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) reading:

Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years…

 The COMELEC moved to reconsider the trial court’s dismissal order, inviting attention to Section
268 of the Omnibus Election Code which reads:

SECTION 268. Jurisdiction of courts. – The regional trial court shall have the exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this Code, except
those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of the courts, appeal
will lie as in other criminal cases.

 The trial court denied the COMELEC’s motion for "lack of merit."

 The COMELEC argues that under the above-quoted provision of Section 268 of the Omnibus
Election Code, all criminal cases for violation of the Code, except those relating to failure to
register or failure to vote which shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts, fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial courts.

ISSUE:

WON the RTC has Jurisdiction over the case


RULING:

Yes.

From the above-quoted provision of Section 32 of BP Blg. 129, jurisdiction of first-level courts –
the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts – does not cover
criminal cases which, by specific provision of law, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial
courts (and of the Sandiganbayan).

As correctly argued by the COMELEC, Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code specifically
provides, regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or
proceedings for violation of the Code "except those relating to the offense of failure to register or
failure to vote."

It bears emphasis that Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe and apportion the
jurisdictions of various courts. Hence, it may, by law, provide that a certain class of cases should be
exclusively heard and determined by a specific court. Section 268 of Omnibus Election Code is one
such and must thus be construed as an exception to BP Blg. 129, the general law on jurisdiction of
courts.

In fine, while BP Blg. 129 lodges in municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts and municipal
circuit trial courts jurisdiction over criminal cases carrying a penalty of imprisonment of less than one
year but not exceeding six years, following Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, any criminal
action or proceeding which bears the same penalty, with the exception of the therein mentioned two
cases, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of regional trial courts.

You might also like