Malinias vs. COMELEC

A violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646 or Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 does not constitute a criminal election offense because these provisions are not included in the penal enumerations of their respective statutes, pursuant to the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius; strict interpretation is required in criminal prosecution for election offenses.

Sario Malinias and Roy Pilando were candidates for governor and congressional representative of Mountain Province in the May 11, 1998 elections. Following the voting, they alleged that a police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan blocked their supporters from proceeding to the Provincial Capitol, and that policemen prevented their supporters from entering the capitol grounds where the Provincial Board of Canvassers was conducting the canvass, effectively closing the proceedings to the public and favoring incumbent Congressman Victor Dominguez.

• The Elections and Canvassing: Petitioner Sario Malinias and Roy Pilando were candidates for governor and congressional representative of Mountain Province in the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers conducted the canvassing of election returns at the second floor of the Provincial Capitol Building in Bontoc, Mountain Province from May 11 to May 15, 1998.
• The Alleged Violations: On July 31, 1998, Malinias and Pilando filed a complaint alleging that on May 15, 1998, a police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan blocked their supporters from proceeding to Bontoc. They further alleged that policemen prevented their supporters who eventually reached the Capitol from entering the capitol grounds. "Mass affidavits" from supporters uniformly asserted that respondents prevented them from attending the provincial canvassing, padlocked the canvassing area, and threatened people who wanted to enter, and that the Board of Canvassers consented to the exclusion of the public except those of Congressman Victor Dominguez.
• The Counter-Affidavit: PNP Provincial Director Teofilo Corpuz and Bontoc Police Chief Anacleto Tangilag admitted ordering the setting up of the checkpoint but stated it was to enforce the COMELEC gun ban pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968. They posted policemen at the capitol grounds due to information that groups might disrupt the canvass, noting that a rally by Malinias and Pilando's supporters was occurring in front of the building.
• The COMELEC Findings: The COMELEC found that the Minutes of the Provincial Canvass showed Pilando was present and actively participated during the May 15 canvass, along with lawyers, watchers, and IBP representatives, with no recorded charges of irregularities. The checkpoint at Sabangan was established way before the campaign period to implement the firearms ban, not solely upon Dominguez's request on May 15.

• Denial of Right to be Present: Petitioner argued that private respondents denied him his right to be present and to counsel during the canvassing by blocking supporters and closing the room, in violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646. Even though Pilando was present, he allegedly only entered after eluding policemen through a rear entrance.
• Unauthorized Entry into Canvassing Room: Petitioner maintained that Corpuz and Tangilag entered the canvassing room in blatant violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881, basing this on supporter affidavits and the counter-affidavit's mention of persons inside the room.
• Partisan Political Activity: Petitioner contended that Corpuz and Tangilag engaged in partisan political activity under Section 261(i) of B.P. Blg. 881 by setting up the checkpoint and closing the canvassing room, unduly interfering with his rights to favor the other candidate.

• Validity of Checkpoint: Respondents countered that the checkpoint was established to enforce the COMELEC gun ban pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968, long before the campaign period, and was not set up to favor any candidate.
• Presence During Canvass: Respondents argued that the Minutes of the Provincial Canvass proved Pilando and other representatives were present and active, belying claims that the canvassing was closed to the public.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Respondents asserted that the complainants' evidence consisted mainly of self-serving affidavits from their own supporters, and that key witnesses (like the alleged sender of a radio message) were never presented to affirm the truth of the contents.

• Criminal Liability for Violation of Sec. 25 R.A. No. 6646: Whether a violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646 constitutes a criminal election offense.
• Criminal Liability for Violation of Sec. 232 B.P. Blg. 881: Whether a violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 constitutes a criminal election offense.
• Partisan Political Activity: Whether the setting up of a checkpoint and securing the canvassing site constituted partisan political activity under Section 261(i) of B.P. Blg. 881.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

• Criminal Liability for Violation of Sec. 25 R.A. No. 6646: No criminal liability attaches. Section 25 merely highlights a recognized right during elections but is not included in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6646, which enumerates election offenses. Furthermore, petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that his rights were prejudiced, as his co-complainant Pilando was present and actively participated in the canvassing.
• Criminal Liability for Violation of Sec. 232 B.P. Blg. 881: No criminal liability attaches. Section 232 is not among the election offenses enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. Under the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of punishable acts implies the exclusion of others. Strict interpretation in favor of the accused is required in criminal cases. While not criminally punishable, a violation of Section 232 may warrant administrative penalties.
• Partisan Political Activity: The setting up of a checkpoint and securing the canvassing site did not constitute partisan political activity. The acts were performed in accordance with the police officers' duty to maintain peace and order and enforce the COMELEC gun ban, and were untainted with any color of political activity. There was no clear indication that the police officers intended to favor the other candidates or unreasonably exceeded their authority.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was committed by the COMELEC. The dismissal was proper due to insufficiency of evidence, the complainants relying mainly on self-serving affidavits. The COMELEC's factual findings are entitled to utmost respect absent any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law of the utmost gravity.

• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. Where a statute is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not be extended by interpretation to other matters. Applied to hold that because Sections 261 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code expressly enumerate punishable election offenses and exclude Section 232, a violation of Section 232 is not a criminal offense.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — The capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power by reason of passion or prejudice, amounting to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law. Applied to find that the COMELEC's dismissal of the complaint based on insufficiency of evidence was a valid exercise of its constitutional authority, not a grave abuse of discretion.

• "It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
• "Also, since private respondents are being charged with a criminal offense, a strict interpretation in favor of private respondents is required in determining whether the acts mentioned in Section 232 are criminally punishable under Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. Since Sections 261 and 262, which lists the election offenses punishable as crimes, do not include Section 232, a strict interpretation means that private respondents cannot be held criminally liable for violation of Section 232."
• "This is not to say that a violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is without any sanction. Though not a criminal election offense, a violation of Section 232 certainly warrants, after proper hearing, the imposition of administrative penalties."

• Quilala vs. Commission on Elections, 188 SCRA 502 (1990) — Followed. Cited for the principle that a candidate must show prejudice from the failure of a watcher to attend the canvass, and that the COMELEC's conclusions on matters within its competence are entitled to utmost respect absent jurisdictional infirmity or grave error of law.
• People vs. Marave, 11 SCRA 618 (1964) — Followed. Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
• Casimiro vs. Commission on Elections, 171 SCRA 468 (1989) — Followed. Cited for the principle that reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits, particularly self-serving ones.

• Section 25, Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law) — Recognizes the right of registered political parties and candidates to be present and to counsel during the canvass of election returns. Held not to be a criminally punishable election offense because it is not included in the enumeration in Section 27 of the same law.
• Section 27, Republic Act No. 6646 — Enumerates the election offenses under the law. Does not include Section 25.
• Section 232, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) — Prohibits certain officers and armed persons from entering the room where canvassing is held and within a fifty-meter radius. Held not to be a criminally punishable election offense because it is not included in the enumeration in Sections 261 and 262 of the same Code.
• Sections 261 and 262, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 — Enumerate the election offenses punishable as crimes. Section 262 specifically lists the sections whose violations constitute election offenses; Section 232 is notably absent.
• Section 261(i), Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 — Prohibits intervention of public officers and employees in any election campaign or partisan political activity, except to vote or preserve public order. Applied to exonerate respondents, the checkpoint and security measures being legitimate acts to preserve public order and enforce the gun ban, untainted by partisan political activity.
• Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Grants the COMELEC the power to deputize government agencies to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, and to recommend the imposition of disciplinary action on deputized officers for violations of its directives.

Bellosillo (Acting C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Callejo, Sr.