URBANO M. MORENO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NORMA L. MEJES G.R. NO. 168550, August 10, 2006, TINGA, J. CASE ACCUSED VICTIM LOCATION OUTCOME
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 Urbano Moreno Catbalogan, amar Moreno was not disqualified to run for Punong Barangay! "hose who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of #robation should not be equated with service of sentence! hould not li$ewise be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the two %&'(year #eriod of ineligibility under ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment Code does not even begin to run! Probation +aw should be construed as an e-ce#tion to the +ocal overnment Code!
!"ts# .orma +! Mejes %Mejes' filed a #etition 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 and was sentenced to suffer im#risonment of /our %)' Months and 0ne %1' Day to "wo %&' 2ears and /our %)' Months by the 3"C of Catbalogan, amar! Moreno filed an answer averring that the #etition states no cause of action because he was already granted #robation! Allegedly, Allegedly, following the case of Baclayon v. Mutia, Mutia, the im#osition of the sentence of im#risonment, as well as the accessory #enalties, was thereby sus#ended! Moreno also argued that under ec! 14 of the Probation +aw of 1564 %Probation +aw', the final discharge of the #robation shall o#erate to restore to him all civil rights lost or sus#ended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine im#osed! "he order of the trial court allegedly terminated his #robation and restored to him all the civil rights he lost as a result of his conviction, including the right to vote and be voted for in the elections! "he case was forwarded to the 0ffice of the Provincial 7lection u#ervisor of amar for #reliminary hearing! After due #roceedings, the 8nvestigating 0fficer recommended that Moreno be disqualified from running for Punong Barangay! "he Comelec /irst Division ado#ted this recommendation! 0n motion for reconsideration filed with the Comelec en Comelec en banc , the 3esolution of the /irst Division was affirmed! According to the Comelec en banc , ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment overnment Code #rovides #rovides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral tur#itude or for an offense #unishable by one %1' year or more of im#risonment, within two %&' years after serving sentence, are disqualified from running for any elective local #osition! ince Moreno was released from #robation on December &*, &***, disqualification shall commence on this date and end two %&' years thence! "he grant of #robation to Moreno merely sus#ended the e-ecution of his sentence but did not affect his disqualification from running for an elective local office! 8n this #etition, Moreno argues that the disqualification under the +ocal overnment Code a##lies only to those who have served their sentence and not to #robationers because the latter do not serve the adjudg adjudged ed senten sentence! ce! "he Proba Probatio tion n +aw should should allege allegedly dly be read read as an e-ce#t e-ce#tion ion to the +ocal +ocal overnment ent Code ode beca ecause it is a s#ecial law whic hich a##li #lies only to #robationer ners! Issu$9 Issu$9 ince ince Moreno Moreno was grante granted d #robat #robation ion and never never served served a day of his sentence sentence,, would would the disqualification under ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment Code a##ly to him:
%$&'# .o!
"he resolution of the #resent controversy de#ends on the a##lication of the #hrase ;within two %&' years after serving sentence; found in ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment Code, which reads9 ec! )*! Disqualifications! < "he following #ersons are disqualified from running for any elective local #osition9 %a' "hose sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral tur#itude or ()* !+ )(($+s$ u+-s!/&$ / )+$ 1 $!* )* 3)*$ )( -3*-s)+3$+t, 4-t-+ t4) 2 $!*s !(t$* s$*v-+g s$+t$+"$ =7m#hasis su##lied!> !!!! 8n Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court declared that an order #lacing defendant on #robation is not a sentence but is rather, in effect, a sus#ension of the im#osition of sentence! ?e held that the grant of #robation to #etitioner sus#ended the im#osition of the #rinci#al #enalty of im#risonment, as well as the accessory #enalties of sus#ension from #ublic office and from the right to follow a #rofession or calling, and that of #er#etual s#ecial disqualification from the right of suffrage! ?e thus deleted from the order granting #robation the #aragra#h which required that #etitioner refrain from continuing with her teaching #rofession! A##lying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory #enalties of sus#ension from #ublic office, from the right to follow a #rofession or calling, and that of #er#etual s#ecial disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the #enalty of arresto mayor in its ma-imum #eriod to prision correccional in its minimum #eriod im#osed u#on Moreno were similarly sus#ended u#on the grant of #robation! 8t a##ears then that during the #eriod of #robation, the #robationer is not even disqualified from running for a #ublic office because the accessory #enalty of sus#ension from #ublic office is #ut on hold for the duration of the #robation! Clearly, the #eriod within which a #erson is under #robation cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged! ec! ) of the Probation +aw s#ecifically #rovides that the grant of #robation sus#ends the e-ecution of the sentence! During the #eriod of #robation, the #robationer does not serve the #enalty im#osed u#on him by the court but is merely required to com#ly with all the conditions #rescribed in the #robation order! "hose who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of #robation which, we reiterate, should not be equated with service of sentence, should not li$ewise be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the two %&'(year #eriod of ineligibility under ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment Code does not even begin to run! "he fact that the trial court already issued an order finally discharging Moreno fortifies his #osition! ec! 14 of the Probation +aw #rovides that ;=t>he final discharge of the #robationer shall o#erate to restore to him all civil rights lost or sus#ended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine im#osed as to the offense for which #robation was granted!; "hus, when Moreno was finally discharged u#on the court@s finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his #robation, his case was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or sus#ended as a result of his conviction were restored to him, including the right to run for #ublic office! 8t is im#ortant to note that the disqualification under ec! )*%a' of the +ocal overnment Code covers offenses #unishable by one %1' year or more of im#risonment, a #enalty which also covers #robationable offenses! 8n s#ite of this, the #rovision does not s#ecifically disqualify #robationers from running for a local elective office! "his omission is significant because it offers a glim#se into the legislative intent to treat #robationers as a distinct class of offenders not covered by the disqualification! Probation +aw should be construed as an e-ce#tion to the +ocal overnment Code! ?hile the +ocal
overnment Code is a later law which sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of local elective officials, the Probation +aw is a s#ecial legislation which a##lies only to #robationers! 8t is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not e-#ressly re#ealing a #rior s#ecial statute, will ordinarily not affect the s#ecial #rovisions of such earlier statute! ence, ?e rule that Moreno was not disqualified to run for Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, amar in the uly 1, &**& ynchronied Barangay and angguniang Eabataan 7lections! Petition was 3A."7D!