Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Comelec vs. Nonay, GR. No. 132365, July 9, 1998

    Uploaded by

    roigtc
    This case discusses whether regional trial courts have jurisdiction over election offenses punishable by up to six years imprisonment under the Omnibus Election Code. The Supreme Court ruled that regional trial courts retain exclusive original jurisdiction over election offenses based on Section 268 of the Election Code, even if the penalty does not exceed six years. The Court held that R.A. No. 7691, which amended the Judiciary Act, did not divest regional trial courts of jurisdiction over election offenses as it was not a special law on jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comelec vs. Nonay, GR. No. 132365, July 9, 1998

    Uploaded by

    roigtc
    246 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether regional trial courts have jurisdiction over election offenses punishable by up to six years imprisonment under the Omnibus Election Code. The Supreme Court ruled that regional trial courts retain exclusive original jurisdiction over election offenses based on Section 268 of the Election Code, even if the penalty does not exceed six years. The Court held that R.A. No. 7691, which amended the Judiciary Act, did not divest regional trial courts of jurisdiction over election offenses as it was not a special law on jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether regional trial courts have jurisdiction over election offenses punishable by up to six years imprisonment under the Omnibus Election Code. The Supreme Court ruled that regional trial courts retain exclusive original jurisdiction over election offenses based on Section 268 of the Election Code, even if the penalty does not exceed six years. The Court held that R.A. No. 7691, which amended the Judiciary Act, did not divest regional trial courts of jurisdiction over election offenses as it was not a special law on jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    246 views2 pages

    Comelec vs. Nonay, GR. No. 132365, July 9, 1998

    Uploaded by

    roigtc
    This case discusses whether regional trial courts have jurisdiction over election offenses punishable by up to six years imprisonment under the Omnibus Election Code. The Supreme Court ruled that regional trial courts retain exclusive original jurisdiction over election offenses based on Section 268 of the Election Code, even if the penalty does not exceed six years. The Court held that R.A. No. 7691, which amended the Judiciary Act, did not divest regional trial courts of jurisdiction over election offenses as it was not a special law on jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    1/25/2020 Notes on Philippine Laws: COMELEC v. Noynay Case Digest [G.R. No. 132365.

    July 9, 1998]

    Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

    Notes on Philippine Laws


    Sunday, March 29, 2015 Search This Blog

    COMELEC v. Noynay Case Digest [G.R. No. 132365. July 9, Search


    1998]
    FACTS: Popular Posts

    Pursuant to a minute resolution by the COMELEC on October 29, 1996, nine informations for violation Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R.
    of Sec. 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code were filed with Branch 23 of the RTC of Allen, Northern No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
    Samar. FACTS: The plaintiffs in this case are
    all minors duly represented and joined
    In an Order issued on August 25, 1997, public respondent, presiding judge of Branch 23, motu by their parents. The first complaint
    proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law was filed as a taxpay...
    Department to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court on the ground that under Batas
    Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW):
    Pambansa Blg. 129, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since the maximum How to determine maximum and
    imposable penalty in each of the cases does not exceed six years of imprisonment. minimum penalties
    (Act no 4103 as amended) The
    All the accused are uniformly charged for Violation of Sec. 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, Indeterminate Sentence Law is
    which carries a penalty of not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years of imprisonment mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the
    and not subject to Probation plus disqualification to hold public office or deprivation of the right of accused will fall in any of the
    suffrage. following...

    Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest


    Motions for reconsiderations filed by the COMELEC have been denied. Petitioners then filed the [G.R. No. 135083. May 26, 1999]
    instant petition.
    FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado
    and Eduardo Manzano were both
    In its Manifestation, the Office of the Solicitor General, it is “adopting” the instant petition on the candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in
    ground that the challenged orders of public respondent “are clearly not in accordance with existing the May 11, 1998 elections. Based...
    laws and jurisprudence.”
    FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON.
    Public respondent avers that it is the duty of counsel for private respondents interested in sustaining RAUL MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668)
    Case Digest
    the challenged orders to appear for and defend him.
    Facts: After Ferdinand Marcos was
    deposed from the presidency, he and
    In their Comment, private respondents maintain that R.A. No. 7691 has divested the Regional Trial
    his family fled to Hawaii. Now in his
    Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of deathbed, petitioners are a...
    imprisonment; moreover, R.A. 7691 expressly provides that all laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent
    with its provisions are deemed repealed or modified accordingly. They then conclude that since the USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644
    election offense in question is punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years, it is cognizable Case Digest
    by Municipal Trial Courts. These are cases that have been
    consolidated because they all involve
    the doctrine of state immunity. The
    United States of America was not i...
    ISSUE:

    Whether R.A. No. 7691 has divested Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over election offenses, which
    are punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years.
    Blog Archive

    RULING: March (7)

    Under Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original February (2)
    jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the Code except those
    December (3)
    relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.
    November (4)
    In Morales v. Court of Appeals, the court held that by virtue of the exception provided for in the
    opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial July (7)
    Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not cover those criminal cases
    which by specific provisions of law fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts May (1)
    and of the Sandiganbayan, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefor. Otherwise stated, even if
    April (1)
    those excepted cases are punishable by imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years (i.e., prision
    correccional, arresto mayor, or arresto menor), jurisdiction thereon is retained by the Regional Trial October (8)
    Courts or the Sandiganbayan, as the case may be.
    September (3)
    Among the examples cited in Morales as falling within the exception provided for in the opening
    August (2)
    sentence of Section 32 are cases under (1) Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129; (2) Article 360 of the Revised
    Penal Code, as amended; (3) the Decree on Intellectual Property; and (4) the Dangerous Drugs Act July (8)
    of 1972, as amended.

    Undoubtedly, pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, election offenses also fall within
    the exception.

    phlawnotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/comelec-v-noynay-case-digest-gr-no.html 1/2
    1/25/2020 Notes on Philippine Laws: COMELEC v. Noynay Case Digest [G.R. No. 132365. July 9, 1998]
    As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by Congress. Outside the
    cases enumerated in Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power
    to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Congress may thus provide by
    law that a certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and determined by one court. Such law
    would be a special law and must be construed as an exception to the general law on jurisdiction of
    courts, namely, the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
    R.A. No. 7691 can by no means be considered as a special law on jurisdiction; it is merely an
    amendatory law intended to amend specific sections of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
    Hence, R.A. No. 7691 does not have the effect of repealing laws vesting upon Regional Trial Courts
    or the Sandiganbayan exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases therein specified.
    That Congress never intended that R.A. No. 7691 should repeal such special provisions is
    indubitably evident from the fact that it did not touch at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P.
    Blg. 129 providing for the exception.

    It is obvious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg.
    129, as amended. It is thus an opportune time, as any, to remind him, as well as other judges, of his
    duty to be studious of the principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of
    the system of the law itself, to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence.

    Instant petition is GRANTED

    Posted by gemendio at 8:03 AM

    Labels: COMELEC, Election Law, jurisdiction, R.A. 7691, RTC jurisdiction

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Enter your comment...

    Comment as: roigatoc1997@g Sign out


    Publish Preview Notify me

    Newer Post Home Older Post

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Awesome Inc. theme. Theme images by sndr. Powered by Blogger.

    phlawnotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/comelec-v-noynay-case-digest-gr-no.html 2/2

    You might also like