Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE --- Whether or not Moreno is qualified to run, which is dependent on WON his sentence was
served
HELD --- Morenos sentence was not served, hence he is qualified to run for Punong Barangay.
The resolution of the present controversy depends on the application of the phrase within two (2)
years after serving sentence found in Sec. 40(a) of the LGC.
In Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court declared that an order placing defendant on probation is not a sentence
but is rather, in effect, a suspension of the imposition of sentence. We held that the grant of probation
to petitioner suspended the imposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as the
accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from the right to follow a profession or calling,
and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. We thus deleted from the order
granting probation the paragraph which required that petitioner refrain from continuing with her
teaching profession.
Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory penalties of suspension from public office,
from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the
right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of
probation.
It appears then that during the period of probation, the probationer is not even disqualified from
running for a public office because the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is put on
hold for the duration of the probation.
Clearly, the period within which a person is under probation cannot be equated with service of the
sentence adjudged. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation
suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer does not
serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the
conditions prescribed in the probation order.
January 8, 2013
FACTS --- For four (4) successive regular elections, namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 national
and local elections, Petitioner Abelardo Abundo, Sr. (Abundo) vied for the position of municipal mayor.
In both the 2001 and 2007 runs, he emerged and was proclaimed as the winning mayoralty candidate
and accordingly served the corresponding terms as mayor. In the 2004 electoral derby, however, the
municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres (Torres), who, in due time,
performed the functions of the office of mayor. Abundo protested Torres election and proclamation.
Abundo was eventually declared the winner of the 2004 mayoralty electoral contest, paving the way
for his assumption of office starting May 9, 2006 until the end of the 2004-2007 term on June 30, 2007,
or for a period of a little over one year and one month. Then came the May 10, 2010 elections where
Abundo and Torres again opposed each other. When Abundo filed his certificate of candidacy for the
mayoralty seat relative to this electoral contest, Torres sought the formers disqualification to run.
The RTC declared Abundo as ineligible, under the three-term limit rule, to run in the 2010 elections for
the position of, and necessarily to sit as, mayor. In its Resolution, the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) Second Division affirmed the decision of RTC, which affirmed by COMELEC en banc.
ISSUE --- Whether or not Abundo has consecutively served for three terms.
HELD --- The petition is partly meritorious.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Involuntary Interruption of Service
The consecutiveness of what otherwise would have been Abundos three successive, continuous
mayorship was effectively broken during the 2004- 2007 term when he was initially deprived of title to,
and was veritably disallowed to serve and occupy, an office to which he, after due proceedings, was
eventually declared to have been the rightful choice of the electorate.
The declaration of being the winner in an election protest grants the local elected official the right to
serve the unexpired portion of the term. Verily, while he was declared winner in the protest for the
mayoralty seat for the 2004-2007 term, Abundos full term has been substantially reduced by the
actual service rendered by his opponent (Torres). Hence, there was actual involuntary interruption in
the term of Abundo and he cannot be considered to have served the full 2004-2007 term.
Prior to the finality of the election protest, Abundo did not serve in the mayors office and, in fact, had
no legal right to said position. During the pendency of the election protest, Abundo ceased from
exercising power or authority. Consequently, the period during which Abundo was not serving as mayor
should be considered as a rest period or break in his service because prior to the judgment in the
election protest, it was Abundos opponent, Torres, who was exercising such powers by virtue of the still
then valid proclamation.
Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
mayor, sought Capcos disqualification on the theory that the latter would have already served as
mayor for three consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and would therefore be ineligible to serve for
another term after that.
The Second Division of the Commission on Elections ruled in favor of petitioner and declared private
respondent Capco disqualified from running for reelection as mayor of Pateros but in the motion for
reconsideration, majority overturned the original decision.
ISSUE --1. w/n Capco has served for three consecutive terms as Mayor
2. w/n Capco can run again for Mayor in the next election
HELD --1. No. Capco was not elected to the office of mayor in the first term but simply found himself
thrust into it by operation of law. Neither had he served the full term because he only
continued the service, interrupted by the death, of the deceased mayor. A textual analysis
supports the ruling of the COMELEC that Art. X, Sec. 8 contemplates service by local officials
for three consecutive full terms as a result of election. It is not enough that an individual has
served three consecutive terms in an elective local officials, he must also have been elected to
the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.
2. Yes. Although he has already first served as mayor by succession, he has not actually served
three full terms in all for the purpose of applying the three-term limit. The three-term limit shall
apply when these 2 conditions concur: (1) the local official concerned has been elected three
consecutive times; and (2) he has fully served three consecutive terms.