THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. BRAULIO DE VENECIA, ACCUSED AND APPELLEE.

De Venecia versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of De Venecia versus People of the Philippines, a criminal prosecution for electioneering under the old election law. Braulio de Venecia was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan with inducing electors to vote for a candidate in the November 1959 elections by distributing election handbills. The trial court dismissed the charge on the theory that the penal provision he was accused of violating had been repealed by a later administrative statute. The case matters because the Supreme Court had to decide whether a later law of general administrative character silently repealed an earlier penal statute, and how a privilege granted to civil servants is to be read against a criminal prohibition.

Procedural History

Braulio de Venecia was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for electioneering. He filed a motion to quash the information. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, upon which the prosecution rested, had been repealed by Section 29 of Republic Act 2260. The Government appealed the order of dismissal directly to the Supreme Court, insisting that Section 54 had not been repealed and that the conduct charged violated it.

Facts

The information alleged that De Venecia wilfully induced, influenced, swayed, and made the electors vote in favor of candidates for public office in the November 10, 1959 election, namely Felipe Oda, Nacionalista Party candidate for municipal mayor of Binalonan. The means charged was the distributing, or causing the distribution, of election handbills, a sample of which was attached to the information and made an integral part of it. The leaflets were distributed to win votes for the Nacionalista candidates.

The leaflet in question bore the symbol of the Nacionalista Party. It called on all party members of Binalonan to vote for Mayor Felipe Oda because he was the party's official candidate, and it asked true party members not to vote for the independent candidate, Atty. Roque Tomelden, because he was destroying the party. It ended with the appeal to write the straight Nacionalista ticket, and it was signed by Conrado F. Estrella, a gubernatorial candidate.

On a motion to quash, the trial court dismissed the case, ruling that Section 54 of the Revised Election Code had been repealed by Section 29 of Republic Act 2260. The Government brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not Section 29 of Republic Act 2260 repealed Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
• Whether or not the distribution of the leaflets described in the information constituted aiding a candidate, exerting influence in the election, or taking part therein, contrary to Section 54.

Applicable Provisions

Section 54 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Section 54. Active intervention of public officers and employees. No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, no member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force, and no classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidates, or exert influence in any manner in any election or take part herein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.

This is the penal statute under which De Venecia was charged, and it prohibits a classified civil service employee from aiding any candidate or exerting influence in any election.

Section 29 of Republic Act 2260 provides:

Section 29. Political Activity. Officers and employees in the Civil service, whether in the competitive or classified, or non-competitive or unclassified service, shall not engage directly or indirectly in partisan political activities or take part in any election except to vote. Nothing herein provided shall be understood to prevent any officer or employee from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of candidates for public office whom he supports.

This is the later administrative statute whose effect on Section 54 was the very question before the Court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Section 29 did not repeal Section 54. It observed that Section 29 is administrative in nature, whereas Section 54 is a penal statute. The first contains prohibitions of administrative character even as it grants or reserves some privileges to civil public servants. A realistic view, the Court said, would hold that activities permitted in Section 29, though it is a mere administrative measure, should not be criminally dealt with under Section 54. The result is that although Section 54 prohibits a classified civil service employee from aiding any candidate, Section 29 allows such employee to express his views on current political problems or issues, or to mention the name of his candidate for public office, even if such expression may result in aiding one particular candidate. In other words, the last sentence of Section 29 is an exception to Section 54, at most an amendment to it. The Court added that an employee of the classified civil service who contributes money for election purposes to a candidate violates Section 54 and is punishable with imprisonment, because he aided a candidate and may not invoke the privilege reserved to him by Section 29.

On the second issue, the Court held that the distribution of the leaflets was undoubtedly aiding candidate Felipe Oda. It was not merely mentioning the candidate whom De Venecia supported, nor mere expression of his opinion on current political problems. It was solicitation of the elector's vote in favor of Oda, and an indorsement of the request for his support by gubernatorial candidate Conrado F. Estrella. By the act charged in the information, the defendant aided candidate Oda and exerted influence in the election and took part therein, contrary to the prohibitions of Section 54. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the information.

Doctrine

A later statute administrative in character does not repeal an earlier penal statute by implication; the privileges it grants to civil servants operate as an exception to the penal prohibition and, as an exception, should be strictly construed. The privilege to express views on current political problems or issues, or to mention the names of candidates supported, does not extend to soliciting votes or distributing campaign leaflets, which constitute aiding a candidate and exerting influence in an election under Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the record to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for further proceedings, so the prosecution prevailed on the appeal.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the last sentence of Section 29 is an exception to Section 54, at most an amendment to it, and that an exception is strictly construed. Examiners use this case on implied repeal, on the distinction between administrative and penal statutes, and on the limits of the civil servant's privilege to mention candidates as against actually soliciting votes.