Labao Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Martelino; Martinez-Martelino v. Commission on Elections and Vice Mayor Alba
**Facts:**
On May 8, 2013, Ludovico L. Martelino, Jr. filed a petition before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Leodegario A. Labao, Jr. from running for Mayor of Mambusao, Capiz, alleging that Labao was a fugitive from justice. The disqualification was based on a pending warrant of arrest issued on April 10, 2013, for Labao’s alleged involvement in the murder of Vice-Mayor Abel P. Martinez.
On September 24, 2013, COMELEC’s First Division disqualified Labao, Jr., finding he fled to avoid arrest and prosecution. Labao, Jr. appealed, asserting he had been undergoing medical treatment and was not aware of the timing of the warrant’s service. He further claimed his intent to comply once the court case resumed.
Meanwhile, Sharon Grace Martinez-Martelino, wife of Ludovico and daughter of the murdered Vice-Mayor, filed a motion to intervene, seeking Labao’s votes to be rendered stray, thereby positioning herself as the mayor-elect. A local chapter of Liga ng mga Barangay also intervened, asserting the case was moot with Labao’s election victory.
On November 4, 2013, the RTC temporarily suspended Labao’s arrest due to a DOJ resolution excluding him from the Information. However, DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima reinstated Labao Jr. as an accused. On May 21, 2014, RTC then dismissed the murder charge citing lack of probable cause.
The COMELEC En Banc on May 21, 2014, upheld the First Division’s disqualification of Labao, Jr., directing the application of the rule of succession. They found Labao to be a fugitive and thus disqualified under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code.
Labao, Jr. and Sharon filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court, with Labao asserting grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC and Sharon seeking the mayoralty based on second highest votes.
**Issues:**
1. Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a pre-proclamation controversy post-Labao’s proclamation.
2. Whether COMELEC erred in disqualifying Labao as a fugitive from justice when charges against him were dismissed, and the arrest warrants were lifted.
3. Whether Sharon should be proclaimed the duly elected Mayor having garnered the second highest number of votes.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. The Supreme Court decided the case was not a pre-proclamation controversy but rather a disqualification issue governed by Section 12 or 68 of OEC or Sections 40 of the LGC.
2. The Court found insufficient evidence to label Labao as a fugitive, ruling COMELEC abused its discretion. Labao’s fleeing was not established as deliberate evasion, given his ongoing public activities and legal proceedings.
3. Given the resolution of Labao’s petition, Sharon’s petition became moot and academic, and thus, dismissed.
**Doctrine:**
– A “fugitive from justice” under election laws requires proof of intent to evade prosecution.
– COMELEC’s authority to disqualify candidates does not extend to reevaluating dismissed criminal warrants if insufficient evidence of evasion exists.
– Proclamation of a second-placed candidate in the event of disqualification requires explicit statutory backing under the Omnibus Election Code and Local Government Code.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Elements of Disqualification (Election Law):**
– Proof of pending charges or conviction.
– Evidence of intent to evade prosecution.
– **Statutory Provisions:**
– Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code, prohibiting fugitives from running.
– Sections 241, 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, defining pre-proclamation controversies and related issues.
– **Principles Applied:**
– Due process in verifying intent to evade.
– Procedural distinction between pre-proclamation controversies and post-electoral disqualification.
**Historical Background:**
This case represents efforts to reconcile the election integrity against individual candidacy rights, dealing with the complexities introduced by allegations of criminal conduct intersecting with electoral mandates. The decision underscores the judiciary’s supervision over election bodies to prevent unjust disenfranchisement while ensuring lawful electoral processes.
Leave a Reply