Peope v.

Manantan
Full Text:http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1962/jul1962/gr_l-14
129_1962.php
Facts:
Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation ofSection 54, Revised Election Co
de. However, Manantan claims that as "justice of peace", the defendant is not on
e of the officers enumerated in the said section. The lower court denied the mot
ion to dismiss holding that a justice of peace is within the purview of Section
54.
Under Section 54, "No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any prov
ince, 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 o
r employee shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in any manner in a el
ection or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve
public peace, if he is a peace officer.".
Defendant submits that the said election was taken from Section 449 of the Revis
ed Administration Code wherein, "No judge of the First Instance, justice of the
peace, or treasurer, fiscal or assessor of any province and no officer or employ
ee of the Philippine Constabulary, or any Bureau or employee of the classified c
ivil service, shall aid any candidate or exert influence in any manner in any el
ection or take part therein otherwise than exercising the right to vote.". He cl
aims that the words "justice of peace" was omitted revealed the intention of Leg
islature to exclude justices of peace from its operation.
Issue:
Is justice of peace included in the prohibition of Section 64 of the Revised Ele
ction Code?
Held:
Yes, it is included in Section 54. Justices of the peace were expressly included
in Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code because the kinds of judges th
erein were specified, i.e., judge of the First Instance and justice of the peace
. In Section 54, however, there was no necessity therefore to include justices o
f the peace in the enumeration because the legislature had availed itself of the
more generic and broader term, "judge.", which includes all kinds of judges.
A "justice of the peace" is a judge. A "judge" is a public officer,who, by virtue
of his office, is clothed with judicial authority. This term includes all offic
ers appointed toto decide litigated questions while acting in that capacity, incl
uding justices of the peace, and even jurors, it is said, who are judges of fact
s.
From the history of Section 54 of REC, thefirst omission of the word "justice of
the peace" was effected in Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 357 and not in the
present code as averred by defendant-appellee. Whenever the word "judge" was qu
alified by the phrase "of the First Instance', the words "justice of the peace"
were omitted. It follows that when the legislature omitted the words "justice of
the peace" in RA 180, it did not intend to exempt the said officer from its ope
ration. Rather, it had considered the said officer as already comprehended in th
e broader term "judge".
The rule of "casus omisus pro omisso habendus est" is likewise invoked by the de
fendant-appellee. Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an
enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. However, it is app
licable only if the omission has been clearly established. In the case at bar, t
he legislature did notexcludeor omit justices of the peace from the enumeration of
officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. In Section 5
4, justices of the peace were just called "judges". Also, the application of thi
s rule does not proceed from the mere fact that a case is criminal in nature, bu
t rather from a reasonable certainty that a particular person, object or thing h
as been omitted from a legislative enumeration. In the case at bar, there is no

omission but only substitution of terms.

The rule that penal statutes are given a strict construction is not the only fac
tor controlling the interpretation of such laws; instead, the rule merely serves
as an additional, single factor to be considered as an aid in determining the m
eaning of penal laws.
Also, the purpose of the statute s to enlarge the officers within its purview.Jus
tices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and various judges, such as th
e judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, judges of the Court of Agrarian R
elations, etc., who were not included in the prohibition under the old statute,
are now within its encompass.
The rule "expressio unius est exclusion alterius" has been erroneously applied b
y CA and lower courts because they were not able to give reasons for the exclusi
on of the legislature for the term "justices of peace".