MAGNO vs COMELEC and MONTES G.R. No. 147904 October 4, 2002

MAGNO vs COMELEC and MONTES G.R. No. 147904             October 4, 2002

FACTS:

                This petition originated from a case filed by private respondent on March 21, 2001 for the disqualification of petitioner Nestor Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that petitioner was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. It appears that on July 25, 1995, petitioner was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year 8 months and 21 days of prision correccional as maximum, for each of the four counts of direct bribery. Thereafter, petitioner applied for probation and was discharged on March 5, 1998 upon order of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija.

On May 7, 2001, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered a decision granting the petition of private respondent and declaring that petitioner was disqualified from running for the position of mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections citing Section 12 of the BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code which provides as follows:

Sec. 12. Disqualifications. – Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon, or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified.

On May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC in its resolution dated May 12, 2001.

Hence this petition.

Petitioner argues that direct bribery is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Likewise, he cites Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which he claims is the law applicable to the case at bar, not BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code as claimed by the COMELEC. Said provision reads:

Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) 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.

Petitioner insists that he had already served his sentence as of March 5, 1998 when he was discharged from probation. Such being the case, the two-year disqualification period imposed by Section 40 of the Local Government Code expired on March 5, 2000. Thus, petitioner was qualified to run in the 2001 elections.

ISSUES:

                Whether or not petitioner was disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001 elections?

                In resolving this, two sub-issues need to be threshed out, namely:

(1)    whether the crime of direct bribery involves moral turpitude;

(2)    whether it is the Omnibus Election Code or the Local Government Code that should apply in this situation?

RULING:

               

ON THE FIRST SUB-ISSUE:

“In this case, we need not review the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of the crime considering that petitioner did not assail his conviction. By applying for probation, petitioner in effect admitted all the elements of the crime of direct bribery:

1. the offender is a public officer;

2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;

3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and [Italics supplied]

4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.^3”

“Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element... That the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general... It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.”

ON THE SECOND SUB-ISSUE:

                “It should be noted that the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) was approved on December 3, 1985 while the Local Government Code (RA 7160) took effect on January 1, 1992. It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent expression of legislative will.⁴ Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant…the legislature is presumed to have knowledge of the older law and intended to change it.”

“In David vs. COMELEC⁵, we declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. Section 40 thereof specially and definitively provides for disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions. It is applicable to them only. On the other hand, Section 12 of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office. It deals with the election of all public officers. Thus, Section 40 of RA 7160, insofar as it governs the disqualifications of candidates for local positions, assumes the nature of a special law which ought to prevail.”

“Therefore, although his crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude, petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). Petitioner’s disqualification ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was therefore under no such disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 elections.”

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated May 7, 2001 and May 12, 2001 are hereby reversed and set aside.”

Query:

WHY CAN A  PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME  INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, WHO APPLIED FOR PROBATION, BE QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR AN ELECTION?

ANSWER:

                In the case supra, a convicted person involving moral turpitude can be eligible to run for election purposes, provided he has served his sentence under the following provisions:

1)      Section 12 of the BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code which provides:

Sec. 12. Disqualifications. – Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon, or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified.

Section 12 of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office. It deals with the election of all public officers.

2)      Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991:

Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a)     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.

Section 40 specifially and definitively provides for disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions. It is applicable to them only.