BAYTAN Digest

Baytan vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 153945 February 4, 2003

CARPIO,  J.: FACTS: Petitioner Petitioners, s, Reynato Reynato Baytan, Baytan, Reynaldo Reynaldo Baytan and Adrian Adrian Baytan Baytan were on their way to register for the May 1998 elections when they met the newly elected Barangay Captain, Roberto Ignacio, in Barangay 18, Zone II of  Cavite City, who led them to register in Precinct No. 83-A of Barangay 18. Upon Upon realiz realizing ing that that their their reside residence nce is situa situated ted withi within n the jurisd jurisdict iction ion of  Barangay 28 not Barangay 18, petitioners proceeded to Precinct 129-A of  Barangay 28 and registered anew. Subs Subseq eque uent ntly ly,, peti petiti tion oner ers s sent sent a lett letter er to form former er COME COMELE LEC C As Assi sist stan antt Executive Director Jose Pio O. Joson requesting for advice on how to cancel their previous registration. registration. Petitioner Petitioners’ s’ Voters Voters Registrat Registration ion Records Records were forwarde forwarded d to the Provinci Provincial al Elec Electi tion on Supe Superv rvis isor or,, Atty Atty.. Juan Juanit ito o V. Rava Ravanz nzo, o, for for eval evalua uati tion on,, who, who, subseque subsequently, ntly, recommen recommended ded filing filing an informa information tion for double double registra registration tion against petitioners. The COMELEC affirmed Ravanzo’s resolution. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which, was denied by COMELEC en banc. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it recommended the prosecution of petitioners for double registration despite lack of intent and substantial compliance with the requirement of cancellation of previous registration. registration. HELD: No. There is no question that petitioners registered twice on different days and in different precincts without canceling their previous registration. Since "double registration" is malum prohibitum, petitioners’ claim of lack of  intent to violate the law is inconsequential. Neither is the letter to Joson an application to cancel their previous registration. This letter was sent after their second registration was accomplished and after the election officer of  Cavite City had already reported their act of double registration to a higher official. Moreover, petitioners’ claims of honest mistake, good faith and substantial compliance with the Election Code’s requirement of cancellation of previous registration are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper rather than than at the the prel prelim imin inar ary y inve invest stig igat atio ion. n.Th The e esta establ blis ishe hed d rule rule is that that a prelim prelimina inary ry inves investig tigati ation on is not the the occas occasion ion for the full full and exhaus exhaustiv tive e display of the parties’ evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only only as may may engend engender er a well-g well-grou rounde nded d belief belief that that an offens offense e has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.