MORENO VS COMELEC

PRINCIPLE: Grammar

In this case: Interpretation of a punctuation in a provision

FACTS:

Relief Sought & Parties: Urbano M. Moreno (Moreno) assails the Resolution of the Commission on
Elections (Comelec) en banc dated June 1, 2005 which disqualified him from running for the elective
office of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar. He wishes the resolution be annulled
and he not be disqualified from running.

Previous proceedings [there was no CA/RTC ruling in this case]:

Moreno was convicted by final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary Detention by the Regional Trial
Court of Catbalogan, Samar. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Months and One (1)
Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. A petition was filed against Moreno to disqualify him from
running for Punong Barangay on the ground of his conviction of final judgment. This was forwarded to
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor which recommended that Moreno be disqualified.

Argument: The Comelec adopted said recommendation, positing that Sec. 40(a) of the Local
Government Code 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. Moreno’s
probation merely suspended the sentence so he should still be disqualified.

Counterargument: Moreno argues that the disqualification under the Local Government Code applies
only to those who have served their sentence and not to probationers because the petitioners do not
serve the adjudged sentence.

Basis for Suit: This petition is hinged on the application of the phrase within two (2) years after
serving sentence found in Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, which reads:

Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local
position:

(a) 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;
[Emphasis supplied.]

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the phrase “within two years after serving sentence” applies to those who were
sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude AND those sentenced by final
judgment for an offense punishable by 1 year

RULING:

Petition is granted and COMELEC Resolution was annuled and set aside. Moreno was not disqualified.

“Within two years after serving sentence” applies to both those sentenced by final judgment for
moral turpitude offenses and those sentenced by final judgment for an offense punishable by 1 year
or more. The placing of the comma (,) in the provision means that the phrase modifies both parts of
Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code.

Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code disqualifies only those who have been sentenced by final
judgment for an offense punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more, within two (2) years
after serving sentence. This means that those who have not served their sentence because of
probation, like Moreno should not be disqualified since probation should not be equated with a
serving of sentence.