The Supreme Court ruled that the Probation Law is an exception to the provision of the Local Government Code regarding disqualification from running for local elective office. Specifically, Sec. 40(a) of the LGC, which disqualifies those sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more from running for two years after serving their sentence, does not apply to probationers. This is because those granted probation do not actually serve their sentence, as probation suspends the execution of the sentence. Therefore, petitioner Moreno, who was granted probation for his conviction but had his probation terminated two years before running for office, was not disqualified according to the Probation Law exception in the LGC.
Original Description:
Digest
Original Title
ElecLAw – Moreno vs. Comelec and Mejes, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006
The Supreme Court ruled that the Probation Law is an exception to the provision of the Local Government Code regarding disqualification from running for local elective office. Specifically, Sec. 40(a) of the LGC, which disqualifies those sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more from running for two years after serving their sentence, does not apply to probationers. This is because those granted probation do not actually serve their sentence, as probation suspends the execution of the sentence. Therefore, petitioner Moreno, who was granted probation for his conviction but had his probation terminated two years before running for office, was not disqualified according to the Probation Law exception in the LGC.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Probation Law is an exception to the provision of the Local Government Code regarding disqualification from running for local elective office. Specifically, Sec. 40(a) of the LGC, which disqualifies those sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more from running for two years after serving their sentence, does not apply to probationers. This is because those granted probation do not actually serve their sentence, as probation suspends the execution of the sentence. Therefore, petitioner Moreno, who was granted probation for his conviction but had his probation terminated two years before running for office, was not disqualified according to the Probation Law exception in the LGC.
2006 Doctrine: In harmonizing the LGC and the Probation Law, the Courts deem that the Probation Law is an exception to the LGC. Sec. 40(a) which provides that 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, are disqualified from running for any elective local position and this should not include probationers since they do not serve the sentence adjudged to them since probation suspends it and final discharge of probation shall operate to restore him all civil rights lost or suspended. Facts: In this Petition dated July 6, 2005, Urbano M. Moreno (Moreno) assails the Resolution COMELEC which disqualified him from running for the elective office of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. The disqualification was an off shoot of a petition filed by Norma L. Mejes on the ground that the latter was convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28 of Catbalogan, Samar on August 27, 1998. Moreno filed an answer claiming that the petition states no cause of action because he was already granted probation. But the COMELEC since he was only released from probation on December 20, 2000, disqualification shall commence on this date and end two (2) years thereafter thus he is still disqualified for the upcoming elections. Petitioner argues that the disqualification applies only to those who have served their sentence and not to probationers because the latter do not serve the adjudged sentence. The Probation Law should allegedly be read as an exception to the Local Government Code because it is a special law which applies only to probationers. Further, even assuming that he is disqualified, his subsequent election as Punong Barangay allegedly constitutes an implied pardon of his previous misconduct.Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is disqualified from running as Punong Barangay. SC Rulig: No. The Probation Law is an exception to the provision of the LGC as the legislature did not intend the inclusion of probationers in the disqualification as it can be gleaned from its act when it can, through its legislative wisdom and power, include Probationers since those covered by the disqualification also covers those who can apply for Probation. Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code appears innocuous enough at first glance. The phrase “service of sentence,” understood in its general and common sense, means the confinement of a convicted person in a penal facility for the period adjudged by the court. COMELEC has broadened the coverage of the law to include even those who did not serve a day of their sentence because they were granted probation. It is to be noted that those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of probation which, the Court reiterates, should not be equated with service of sentence, should not likewise be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the two (2)-year period of ineligibility under Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code does not even begin to run. Moreover, Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence and 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.
En Banc G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006 URBANO M. MORENO, Petitioner, vs. Commission On Elections and Norma L. Mejes, Chico-Nazario, Respondents. Decision