G.R. No.

120099 July 24, 1996 criminal charge against him (as previously Marquez challenged Rodriguez' candidacy
EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, mentioned). via petition for disqualification before the
vs. In resolving that Marquez petition COMELEC, based principally on the same
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, (112889), the Court in "Marquez, Jr. vs. allegation that Rodriguez is a "fugitive
BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, COMELEC"' promulgated on April 18, from justice." This petition for
JR., respondents. 1995, now appearing in Volume 243, page disqualification (SPA No. 95-089) was filed
  538 of the SCRA and hereinafter referred by Marquez on April 11, 1995 when
FRANCISCO, J.:p to as the MARQUEZ Decision, declared Rodriguez' petition for certiorari (112889)
Petitioner Eduardo T. Rodriguez and that: — from where the April 18,
private respondent Bienvenido O. Marquez . . . , "fugitive from justice" includes not 1995 MARQUEZ Decision sprung — was
Jr. (Rodriguez and Marquez, for brevity) only those who flee after conviction to still then pending before the Court.
were protagonists for the gubernatorial avoid punishment but likewise those who, On May 7, 1995 and after the
post of Quezon Province in the May 1992 after being charged, flee to avoid promulgation of the MARQUEZ Decision,
elections. Rodriguez won and was prosecution. This definition truly finds the COMELEC promulgated a Consolidated
proclaimed duly-elected governor. support from jurisprudence (. . .), and it Resolution for EPC No. 92-28 (quo
Marquez challenged Rodriguez' victory via may be so conceded as expressing the warranto case) and SPA NO. 95-089
petition for quo warranto before the general and ordinary connotation of the (disqualification case). In justifying a joint
COMELEC (EPC No. 92-28). Marquez term.1 resolution of these two (2) cases, the
revealed that Rodriguez left the United Whether or not Rodriguez is a "fugitive COMELEC explained that:
States where a charge, filed on November from justice" under the definition thus 1. EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No. 95-089 are
12, 1985, is pending against the latter given was not passed upon by the Court. inherently related cases
before the Los Angeles Municipal Court for That task was to devolve on the COMELEC 2. the parties, facts and issue involved are
fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft upon remand of the case to it, with the identical in both cases
and attempted grand theft of personal directive to proceed therewith with 3. the same evidence is to be utilized in
property. Rodriguez is therefore dispatch conformably with the MARQUEZ both cases in determining the common
a "fugitive from justice" which is a ground Decision. Rodriguez sought a issue of whether Rodriguez is a "fugitive
for his disqualification/ineligibility under reconsideration thereof. He also filed an from justice"
Section 40(e) of the Local Government "Urgent Motion to Admit Additional 4. on consultation with the
Code (R.A. 7160), so argued Marquez. Argument in Support of the Motion for Commission En Banc, the Commissioners
The COMELEC dismissed Marquez' quo Reconsideration" to which was attached a unanimously agreed that a consolidated
warranto petition (EPC No. 92-28) in a certification from the Commission on resolution of the two (2) cases is not
resolution of February 2, 1993, and Immigration showing that Rodriguez left procedurally flawed.
likewise denied a reconsideration thereof. the US on June 25, 1985 — roughly five Going now into the meat of that
Marquez challenged the COMELEC (5) months prior to the institution of the Consolidated Resolution, the COMELEC,
dismissal of EPC No. 92-28 before this criminal complaint filed against him before allegedly having kept in mind
Court via petition for certiorari, docketed the Los Angeles court. The Court however the MARQUEZ Decision definition
as G.R. No. 112889. The crux of said denied a reconsideration of the MARQUEZ of "fugitive from justice", found Rodriguez
petition is whether Rodriguez, is Decision. to be one. Such finding was essentially
a "fugitive from justice" as contemplated In the May 8, 1995 election, Rodriguez based on Marquez' documentary evidence
by Section 40 (e) of the Local Government and Marquez renewed their rivalry for the consisting of
Code based on the alleged pendency of a same position of governor. This time,
1. an authenticated copy of the November avoid and evade the warrant. This Rodriguez' proclamation thus gave rise to
12, 1995 warrant of arrest issued by the allegation in the Answer, however, was the filing of the instant petition
Los Angeles municipal court against not even fortified with any attached for certiorari (G.R. No. 120099) on May
Rodriguez, and document to show when he left the United 16, 1995.
2. an authenticated copy of the felony States and when he returned to this On May 22, 1995, Marquez filed an
complaint country, facts upon which the conclusion "Omnibus Motion To Annul The
which the COMELEC allowed to be of absence of knowledge about the Proclamation of Rodriguez, To Proclaim
presented ex-parte after Rodriguez criminal complaint may be derived. On the Marquez And To Cite The Provincial Board
walked-out of the hearing of the case on contrary, the fact of arrest of respondent's of Canvassers in Contempt" before the
April 26, 1995 following the COMELEC's wife on November 6, 1985 in the United COMELEC (in EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No.
denial of Rodriguez' motion for States by the Fraud Bureau investigators 95-089).
postponement. With the walk-out, the in an apartment paid for respondent in Acting on Marquez' omnibus motion, the
COMELEC considered Rodriguez as having that country can hardly rebut whatever COMELEC, in its Resolution of June 23,
waived his right to disprove the presumption of knowledge there is against 1995, nullified Rodriguez' proclamation
authenticity of Marquez' aforementioned the respondent.2 and ordered certain members of the
documentary evidence. The COMELEC And proceeding therefrom, the COMELEC, Quezon Province Provincial Board of
thus made the following analysis: in the dispositive portion, declared: Canvassers to explain why they should not
The authenticated documents submitted WHEREFORE, considering that respondent be cited in contempt for disobeying the
by petitioner (Marquez) to show the has been proven to be fugitive from poll body's May 11, 1995 Resolution
pendency of a criminal complaint against justice, he is hereby ordered disqualified suspending Rodriguez' proclamation. But
the respondent (Rodriguez) in the or ineligible from assuming and with respect to Marquez' motion for his
Municipal Court of Los Angeles, California, performing the functions of Governor of proclamation, the COMELEC deferred
U.S.A., and the fact that there is an Quezon Province. Respondent is ordered action until after this Court has resolved
outstanding warrant against him amply to immediately vacate said office. Further, the instant petition (G.R. No. 120099).
proves petitioner's contention that the he is hereby disqualified from running for Rodriguez filed a motion to admit
respondent is a fugitive from justice. The Governor for Quezon Province in the May supplemental petition to include the
Commission cannot look with favor on 8, 1995 elections. Lastly, his certificate of aforesaid COMELEC June 23, 1995
respondent's defense that long before the candidacy for the May 8, 1995 elections is Resolution, apart from the May 7 and May
felony complaint was allegedly filed, hereby set aside. 11, 1995 Resolutions (Consolidated
respondent was already in the Philippines At any rate, Rodriguez again emerge as Resolution and Order to suspend
and he did not know of the filing of the the victorious candidate in the May 8, Rodriguez' proclamation, respectively).
same nor was he aware that he was being 1995 election for the position of governor. As directed by the Court, oral arguments
proceeded against criminally. In a sense, On May 10 and 11, 1995, Marquez filed were had in relation to the instant petition
thru this defense, respondent implicitly urgent motions to suspend Rodriguez' (G.R. No. 120099) on July 13, 1995.
contends that he cannot be deemed a proclamation which the COMELEC granted Marquez, on August 3, 1995, filed an
fugitive from justice, because to be so, on May 11, 1995. The Provincial Board of "Urgent Motion for Temporary Restraining
one must be aware of the filing of the Canvassers nonetheless proclaimed Order Or Preliminary Injunction" which
criminal complaint, and his disappearance Rodriguez on May 12, 1995. sought to retain and enjoin Rodriguez
in the place where the long arm of the The COMELEC Consolidated Resolution in "from exercising the powers, functions
law, thru the warrant of arrest, may reach EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No. 95-089 and and prerogatives of Governor of
him is predicated on a clear desire to the May 11, 1995 Resolution suspending Quezon . . . ." Acting favorably thereon,
the Court in a Resolution dated August 8, justice" as defined in the main opinion in Black's Law Dictionary begins the
1995 issued a temporary restraining the MARQUEZ Decision, thus making a definition of the term by referring to a
order. Rodriguez' "Urgent Motion to Lift 180-degree turnaround from its finding in "fugitive from justice" as:
Temporary Restraining Order And/Or For the Consolidated Resolution. In arriving at (A) person, who, having committed a
Reconsideration" was denied by the Court this new conclusion, the COMELEC opined crime, flees from jurisdiction of the court
in an August 15, 1995 Resolution. Another that intent to evade is a material element where crime was committed or departs
similar urgent motion was later on filed by of the MARQUEZ Decision definition. from his usual place of abode and
Rodriguez which the Court also denied. Such intent to evade is absent in conceals himself within the district. . . .
In a Resolution dated October 24, 1995, Rodriguez' case because evidence has Then, citing King v. Noe, the definition
the Court established that Rodriguez arrived in the continues and conceptualizes a "fugitive
. . . RESOLVED to DIRECT the Chairman Philippines (June 25, 1985) long before from justice" as:
of the Commission on Elections the criminal charge was instituted in the . . . a person who, having committed or
("COMELEC") to designate a Los Angeles Court (November 12, 1985). been charged with a crime in one state,
Commissioner or a ranking official of the But the COMELEC report did not end has left its jurisdiction and is found within
COMELEC to RECEIVE AND EVALUATE there. The poll body expressed what it the territory of another when it is sought
such legally admissible evidence as herein describes as its "persistent discomfort" on to subject him to the criminal process of
petitioner Eduardo Rodriguez may be whether it read and applied correctly the former state. (our emphasis)
minded to present by way of refuting the the MARQUEZ Decision definition In Hughes v. Pflanz, the term was defined
evidence heretofore submitted by private of "fugitive from justice". So as not to as:
respondent Bienvenido Marquez, Sr., or miss anything, we quote the COMELEC's a person who, having committed within a
that which can tend to establish observations in full: state a crime, when sought for, to be
petitioner's contention that he does not . . . The main opinion's definition of a subjected to criminal process, is found
fall within the legal concept of a "fugitive "fugitive from justice" "include not only within the territory of another state.
from justice." Private respondent Marquez those who flee after conviction to avoid Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary, 5th
may likewise, if he so desires, introduce punishment but also those who, after Ed. considers the term as an:
additional and admissible evidence in being charged, flee to avoid prosecution." expression which refers to one having
support of his own position. The provisions It proceeded to state that: committed, or being accused, of a crime in
of Sections 3 to 10, Rule 33, of the Rules This definition truly finds support from one jurisdiction and is absent for any
of Court may be applied in the reception jurisprudence (Philippine Law Dictionary reason from that jurisdiction.
of the evidence. The Chairman of the Third Edition, p. 399 by F.B. Moreno; Specifically, one who flees to avoid
COMELEC shall have the proceedings Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. punishment . . . (emphasis ours)
completed and the corresponding report 671; King v. Noe, 244 SC 344; 137 SE 2d From the above rulings, it can be gleaned
submitted to this Court within thirty (30) 102, 103; Hughes v. Pflanz, 138 Federal that the objective facts sufficient to
days from notice hereof. Reporter 980; Tobin v. Casaus 275 Pacific constitute flight from justice are: (a) a
The COMELEC complied therewith by filing Reporter 2d p. 792), and it may be so person committed a "crime" or has been
before the Court, on December 26, 1995, conceded as expressing the general and charged for the commission thereof; and
a report entitled "'EVIDENCE OF THE ordinary connotation of the term. (b) thereafter, leaves the jurisdiction of
PARTIES and COMMISSION'S But in the majority of the cases cited, the the court where said crime was committed
EVALUATION" wherein the COMELEC, after definition of the term "fugitive from or his usual place of abode.
calibrating the parties' evidence, declared justice" contemplates other instances not Filing of charges prior to flight is not
that Rodriguez is NOT a "fugitive from explicitly mentioned in the main opinion. always an antecedent requirement to label
one a "fugitive from justice". Mere Citing State v. Richter (37 Minn. 436), the from justice", the determination of which,
commission of a "crime" without charges Court further ruled in unmistakeable as we have directed the COMELEC on two
having been filed for the same and flight language: (2) occasions (in the MARQUEZ
subsequent thereto sufficiently meet the The simple fact that they (person who Decision and in the Court's October 24,
definition. Attention is directed at the use have committed crime within a state) are 1995 Resolution), must conform to how
of the word "crime" which is not employed not within the state to answer its criminal such term has been defined by the Court
to connote guilt or conviction for the process when required renders them, in in the MARQUEZ Decision. To reiterate,
commission thereof. Justice Davide's legal intendment, fugitives from justice. a "fugitive from justice":
separate opinion in G.R. No. 112889 THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT GIVEN . . . includes not only those who flee after
elucidates that the disqualification for THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN G.R. NO. conviction to avoid punishment but
being a fugitive does not involve the issue 112889, THE MERE FACT THAT THERE likewise who, after being charged, flee to
of the presumption of innocence, the ARE PENDING CHARGES IN THE UNITED avoid prosecution.
reason for disqualification being that a STATES AND THAT PETITIONER The definition thus indicates that
person "was not brought within the RODRIGUEZ IS IN THE PHILIPPINES MAKE the intent to evade is the compelling
jurisdiction of the court because he had PETITIONER A "FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE". factor that animates one's flight from a
successfully evaded arrest; or if he was From the foregoing discussions, the particular jurisdiction. And obviously,
brought within the jurisdiction of the court determination of whether or not Rodriguez there can only be an intent to
and was tried and convicted, he has is a fugitive from justice hinges on evade prosecution or punishment when
successfully evaded service of sentence whether or not Rodriguez' evidence shall there is knowledge by the fleeing subject
because he had jumped bail or escaped. be measured against the two instances of an already instituted indictment, or of a
The disqualification then is based on mentioned in the main opinion, or is to be promulgated judgment of conviction.
his flight from justice." expanded as to include other situations Rodriguez' case just cannot fit in this
Other rulings of the United States alluded to by the foreign jurisprudence concept. There is no dispute that his
Supreme Court further amplify the view cited by the Court. In fact, the spirited arrival in the Philippines from the US on
that intent and purpose for departure is legal fray between the parties in this case June 25, 1985, as per certifications issued
inconsequential to the inquiry. The texts, focused on each camp's attempt to by the Bureau of Immigrations dated April
which are persuasive in our jurisdiction, construe the Court's definition so as to fit 273 and June 26 of 1995,4 preceded the
are more unequivocal in their or to exclude petitioner within the filing of the felony complaint in the Los
pronouncements. In King v. US (144 F. definition of a "fugitive from justice". Angeles Court on November 12, 1985 and
2nd 729), citing Roberts v. Reilly (116 US Considering, therefore, the equally valid of the issuance on even date of the arrest
80) the United States Supreme Court yet different interpretations resulting from warrant by the same foreign court,
held: the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. by almost five (5) months. It was clearly
. . . it is not necessary that the party 112889, the Commission deems it most impossible for Rodriguez to have known
should have left the state or the judicial conformable to said decision to evaluate about such felony complaint and arrest
district where the crime is alleged to have the evidence in light of the varied warrant at the time he left the US, as
been committed, after an indictment constructions open to it and to respectfully there was in fact no complaint and arrest
found, or for the purpose of avoiding an submit the final determination of the case warrant — much less conviction — to
anticipated prosecution, but that, having to the Honorable Supreme Court as the speak of yet at such time. What
committed a crime within a state or final interpreter of the law. prosecution or punishment then was
district, he has left and is found in another The instant petition dwells on that nagging Rodriguez deliberately running away from
jurisdiction (emphasis supplied) issue of whether Rodriguez is a "fugitive with his departure from the US? The very
essence of being a "fugitive from intent to evade the law at the time he left landmark dates hem in for petitioner a
justice" under the United States has any legal period of relentless, intensive and
the MARQUEZ Decision definition, is just consequence at all, it will be nothing more extensive activity of varied political
nowhere to be found in the circumstances than proof that even private respondent campaigns — first against the Marcos
of Rodriguez. accepts that intent to evade the law is a government, then for the governorship.
With that, the Court gives due credit to material element in the definition of a And serving the people of Quezon
the COMELEC in having made the same fugitive. province as such, the position entails
analysis in its ". . . COMMISSION'S The circumstantial fact that it was absolute dedication of one's time to the
EVALUATION". There are, in fact, other seventeen (17) days after Rodriguez' demands of the office.
observations consistent with such analysis departure that charges against him were Having established petitioner's lack of
made by the poll body that are equally filed cannot overturn the presumption of knowledge of the charges to be filed
formidable so as to merit their adoption as good faith in his favor. The same suggests against him at the time he left the United
part of this decision, to wit: nothing more than the sequence of events States, it becomes immaterial under such
It is acknowledged that there was an which transpired. A subjective fact as that construction to determine the exact time
attempt by private respondent to show of petitioner's purpose cannot be inferred when he was made aware thereof. While
Rodriguez' intent to evade the law. This from the objective data at hand in the the law, as interpreted by the Supreme
was done by offering for admission a absence of further proof to substantiate Court, does not countenance flight from
voluminous copy of an investigation report such claim. In fact, the evidence of justice in the instance that a person flees
(Exhibits I to I-17 and J to J-87 inclusive) petitioner Rodriguez sufficiently proves the jurisdiction of another state after
on the alleged crimes committed which led that his compulsion to return to the charges against him or a warrant for his
to the filing of the charges against Philippines was due to his desire to join arrest was issued or even in view of the
petitioner. It was offered for the sole and participate vigorously in the political imminent filing and issuance of the same,
purpose of establishing the fact that it was campaigns against former President petitioner's plight is altogether a different
impossible for petitioner not to have Ferdinand E. Marcos. For indeed, not long situation. When, in good faith, a person
known of said investigation due to its after petitioner's arrival in the country, leaves the territory of a state not his own,
magnitude. Unfortunately, such conclusion the upheaval wrought by the political homeward bound, and learns
misleads because investigations of this forces and the avalanche of events which subsequently of charges filed against him
nature, no matter how extensive or occurred resulted in one of the more while in the relative peace and service of
prolonged, are shrouded with utmost colorful events in the Philippine history. his own country, the fact that he does not
secrecy to afford law enforcers the The EDSA Revolution led to the ouster of subject himself to the jurisdiction of the
advantage of surprise and effect the former Pres. Marcos and precipitated former state does not qualify him outright
arrest of those who would be charged. changes in the political climate. And being as a fugitive from justice.
Otherwise, the indiscreet conduct of the a figure in these developments, petitioner The severity of the law construed in the
investigation would be nothing short of a Rodriguez began serving his home manner as to require of a person that he
well-publicized announcement to the province as OIC-Board Member of the subject himself to the jurisdiction of
perpetrators of the imminent filing of Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Quezon in another state while already in his country
charges against them. And having been 1986. Then, he was elected Governor in or else be disqualified from office, is more
forewarned, every effort to sabotage the 1988 and continues to be involved in apparent when applied in petitioner's
investigation may be resorted to by its politics in the same capacity as re-elected case. The criminal process of the United
intended objects. But if private Governor in 1992 and the disputed re- States extends only within its territorial
respondent's attempt to show Rodriguez' election in 1995. Altogether, these jurisdiction. That petitioner has already
left said country when the latter sought to may not place him under a similar have been laid down in People v. Pinuila,
subject him to its criminal process is obligation. His subsequent knowledge 103 Phil. 992, 999, to wit:
hardly petitioner's fault. In the absence of while in the Philippines and non- "Law of the case" has been defined as the
an intent to evade the laws of the United submission to the jurisdiction of the opinion delivered on a former appeal.
States, petitioner had every right to former country does not operate to label More specifically, it means that whatever
depart therefrom at the precise time that petitioner automatically a fugitive from is once irrevocably established as the
he did and to return to the Philippines. Not justice. As he was a public officer controlling legal rule of decision between
justifiable reason existed to curtail or appointed and elected immediately after the same parties in the same case
fetter petitioner's exercise of his right to his return to the country, petitioner continues to be the law of the case,
leave the United State and return home. Rodriguez had every reason to devote whether correct on a general principles or
Hence, sustaining the contrary proposition utmost priority to the service of his office. not, so long as the facts on which such
would be to unduly burden and punish He could not have gone back to the United decision was predicated continue to be the
petitioner for exercising a right as he States in the middle of his term nor could facts of the case before the court. (21
cannot be faulted for the circumstances he have traveled intermittently thereto C.J.S. 330)
that brought him within Philippine territory without jeopardizing the interest of the It may be stated as a rule of general
at the time he was sought to be placed public he serves. The require that of application that, where the evidence on a
under arrest and to answer for charges petitioner would be to put him in a second or succeeding appeal is
filed against him. paradoxical quandary where he is substantially the same as that on the first
Granting, as the evidence warrants, that compelled to violate the very functions of or preceding appeal, all matters,
petitioner Rodriguez came to know of the his office. questions, points, or issues adjudicated on
charges only later, and under his However, Marquez and the COMELEC (in the prior appeal are the law of the case on
circumstances, is there a law that requires its "COMMISSION'S EVALUATION" as all subsequent appeals and will not be
petitioner to travel to the United States earlier quoted) seem to urge the Court to considered or readjudicated therein. (5
and subject himself to the monetary re-define "fugitive from justice". They C.J.S. 1267)
burden and tedious process of defending espouse the broader concept of the term In accordance with the general rule stated
himself before the country's courts? and culled from foreign authorities (mainly in Section 1821, where, after a definite
It must be noted that moral uprightness is of U.S. vintage) cited in the MARQUEZ determination, the court has remanded
not a standard too far-reaching as to Decision itself, i.e., that one becomes the cause for further action below, it will
demand of political candidate the a "fugitive from justice" by the mere fact refuse to examine question other than
performance of duties and obligations that that he leaves the jurisdiction where a those arising subsequently to such
are supererogatory in nature. We do not charge is pending against him, regardless determination and remand, or other than
dispute that an alleged "fugitive from of whether or not the charge has already the propriety of the compliance with its
justice" must perform acts in order not to been filed at the time of his flight. mandate; and if the court below has
be so categorized. Clearly, a person who Suffice it to say that the "law of the case" proceeded in substantial conformity to the
is aware of the imminent filing of charges doctrine forbids the Court to craft an directions of the appellate court, its action
against him or of the same already filed in expanded re-definition of "fugitive from will not be questioned on a second appeal.
connection with acts he committed in the justice" (which is at variance with As a general rule a decision on a prior
jurisdiction of a particular state, is under the MARQUEZ Decision) and proceed appeal of the same case is held to be
an obligation not to flee said place of therefrom in resolving the instant petition. the law of the case whether that decision
commission. However, as in petitioner's The various definitions of that doctrine is right or wrong, the remedy of the party
case, his departure from the United States
deeming himself aggrieved being to seek To summarize, the term "fugitive from
a rehearing. (5 C.J.S. 1276-77). justice" as a ground for the
Questions necessarily involved in the disqualification or ineligibility of a person
decision on a former appeal will be seeking to run for any elective local
regarded as the law of the case on a petition under Section 40(e) of the Local
subsequent appeal, although the Government Code, should be understood
questions are not expressly treated in the according to the definition given in
opinion of the court, as the presumption is the MARQUEZ Decision, to wit:
that all the facts in the case bearing on A "fugitive from justice" includes not only
the point decided have received due those who flee after conviction to avoid
consideration whether all or none of them punishment but likewise those who, after
are mentioned in the opinion. (5 C.J.S. being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.
1286-87). (Emphasis ours.)
To elaborate, the same parties (Rodriguez Intent to evade on the part of a candidate
and Marquez) and issue (whether or not must therefore be established by proof
Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice") are that there has already been a conviction
involved in the MARQUEZ Decision and the or at least, a charge has already been
instant petition. The MARQUEZ filed, at the time of flight. Not being
Decision was an appeal from EPC No. 92- a "fugitive from justice" under this
28 (the Marquez' quo warranto petition definition, Rodriguez cannot be denied the
before the COMELEC). The instant petition Quezon Province gubernatorial post.
is also an appeal from EPC No. 92-28 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
although the COMELEC resolved the latter instant petition is hereby GRANTED and
jointly with SPA No. 95-089 (Marquez' the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC
petition for the disqualification of dated May 7, 1995 (Consolidated
Rodriguez). Therefore, what was Resolution), May 11, 1995 (Resolution
irrevocably established as the controlling suspending Rodriguez' proclamation) and
legal rule in the MARQUEZ Decision must June 23, 1995 (Resolution nullifying
govern the instant petition. And we Rodriguez' proclamation and ordering the
specifically refer to the concept Quezon Province Provincial Board and
of "fugitive from justice" as defined in the Canvassers to explain why they should not
main opinion in the MARQUEZ be cited in contempt) are SET ASIDE.
Decision which highlights the significance SO ORDERED.
of an intent to evade but which Marquez Romero, Melo, Puno, Kapunan,
and the COMELEC, with their proposed Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ.,
expanded definition, seem to trivialize. concur.
Besides, to re-define "fugitive from Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
justice" would only foment instability in  
our jurisprudence when hardly has the ink
dried in the MARQUEZ Decision.