Rodriguez vs. COMELEC

Doctrine: The definition of “fugitive from justice” indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor
that animates one's flight from a particular jurisdiction. And obviously, there can only be an intent to
evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted
indictment, or of a promulgated judgment of conviction.
Rodriguez vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 120099 July 24, 1996 Ponente: Francisco, J.
Facts: Petitioner Eduardo T. Rodriguez and private respondent Bienvenido O. Marquez Jr. (Rodriguez
and Marquez, for brevity) were protagonists for the gubernatorial post of Quezon Province in the May
1992 elections. Rodriguez won and was proclaimed duly-elected governor.
Marquez challenged Rodriguez' victory via petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC (EPC No.
92-28). Marquez revealed that Rodriguez left the United States where a charge, filed on November 12,
1985, is pending against the latter before the Los Angeles Municipal Court for fraudulent insurance
claims, grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property. Rodriguez is therefore a "fugitive
from justice" which is a ground for his disqualification/ineligibility under Section 40(e) of the Local
Government Code (R.A. 7160), so argued Marquez.
The COMELEC dismissed Marquez' quo warranto petition (EPC No. 92-28) in a resolution of February 2,
1993, and likewise denied a reconsideration thereof.
Marquez challenged the COMELEC dismissal of EPC No. 92-28 before this Court via petition
for certiorari. The crux of said petition is whether Rodriguez, is a "fugitive from justice" as contemplated
by Section 40 (e) of the Local Government Code based on the alleged pendency of a criminal charge
against him (as previously mentioned).
In resolving that Marquez petition, the Court in "Marquez, Jr. vs. COMELEC"' promulgated on April
18, 1995, and hereinafter referred to as the MARQUEZ Decision, declared that:
. . . , "fugitive from justice" includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid
punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. This
definition truly finds support from jurisprudence (. . .), and it may be so conceded as
expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term.
In the May 8, 1995 election, Rodriguez and Marquez renewed their rivalry for the same position of
governor. This time, Marquez challenged Rodriguez' candidacy via petition for disqualification before
the COMELEC, based principally on the same allegation that Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice." This
petition for disqualification (SPA No. 95-089) was filed by Marquez on April 11, 1995 when Rodriguez'
petition for certiorari (112889) — from where the April 18, 1995 MARQUEZ Decision sprung — was still
then pending before the Court.
On May 7, 1995 and after the promulgation of the MARQUEZ Decision, the COMELEC promulgated a
Consolidated Resolution for EPC No. 92-28 (quo warranto case) and SPA NO. 95-089 (disqualification
case) declaring Rodriguez as a fugitive from justice and to immediately vacate such office.
On December 26, 1995, a report entitled "'EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES and COMMISSION'S
EVALUATION" wherein the COMELEC, after calibrating the parties' evidence, declared that
Rodriguez is NOT a "fugitive from justice" as defined in the main opinion in the MARQUEZ Decision,
thus making a 180-degree turnaround from its finding in the Consolidated Resolution. In arriving at
this new conclusion, the COMELEC opined that intent to evade is a material element of the MARQUEZ
Decision definition. Such intent to evade is absent in Rodriguez' case because evidence has established
that Rodriguez arrived in the Philippines (June 25, 1985) long before the criminal charge was instituted
in the Los Angeles Court (November 12, 1985).
Issue/s: Whether Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice”.
Held:
No. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one's
flight from a particular jurisdiction. And obviously, there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or
punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment, or of a
promulgated judgment of conviction.
Rodriguez' case just cannot fit in this concept. There is no dispute that his arrival in the Philippines
from the US on June 25, 1985, as per certifications issued by the Bureau of Immigrations dated April 27
and June 26 of 1995, preceded the filing of the felony complaint in the Los Angeles Court on November
12, 1985 and of the issuance on even date of the arrest warrant by the same foreign court, by almost five
(5) months. It was clearly impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such felony complaint and
arrest warrant at the time he left the US, as there was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant — much
less conviction — to speak of yet at such time. What prosecution or punishment then was Rodriguez
deliberately running away from with his departure from the US? The very essence of being a "fugitive
from justice" under the MARQUEZ Decision definition, is just nowhere to be found in the circumstances
of Rodriguez.

Rodriguez vs. COMELEC - Tinoco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez vs. COMELEC - Tinoco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez vs. COMELEC - Tinoco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine: The definition of “fugitive from justice” indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor

G.R. No. 120099 July 24, 1996 Ponente: Francisco, J.

Issue/s: Whether Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice”.

You might also like