Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ElecLAw - Moreno vs. Comelec and Mejes, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    546 views2 pages
    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

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    546 views2 pages

    ElecLAw - Moreno vs. Comelec and Mejes, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ElecLAw – Moreno Vs. Comelec and Mejes, G.R. No.

    168550 August 10,


    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.

    You might also like