8/11/2019 Statcon Project

1/2

Expressio unius est exclusion alterius The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

G.R. No. : 146943Date : October 4, 2002Petitioner : Sario Malinias

Respondents : COMELEC, Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto Tangilag and Victor Dominguez

FACTS:Petitioners Sario Malinias and Roy Pilando were candidates for governor and congress representatives

respectively during the May 15, 1998 elections in Mountain Province. Petitioners filed a complaint with COMELECagainst private respondents Governor Dominguez, and Provincial Director Corpuz and Police Chief Tangilag foralleged violations of:

Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646 and, Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881, respectively.

Petitioners alleged that on May 15, 1998, an illegal police checkpoint set-up at Nacagang, Sabangan,Mountain Province blocked their supporters who were on their way to Bontoc Provincial Capitol Building wherethe canvassing was being held. They likewise alleged that the Provincial Board of Canvassers never allowed thecanvassing to be made public and consented to the exclusion of the public or representatives of other candidatesexcept those of Dominguez.

To support their claims, their supporters executed so- called mass affidavits assert ing that privaterespondents:(1) prevented them from attending the provincial canvassing,(2) padlocked the canvassing area, and(3) threatened the people who wanted to enter the canvassing room.

Private respondents submitted counter-affidavit stating that the checkpoint was not alone in the wholeprovince and that it was set- up to enforce COMELECs gun ban and upon learning that there were groups whowere out to disrupt the canvass proceedings which usually happens in the province during election.

After investigation was conducted, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed the case against the privaterespondents for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE: Can COMELEC prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of Sections 25 of RA 6646 and 232 of

B.P. Blg. 881?

HELD:

No. The alleged violation of the respondents of Sec. 25 of R.A. 6646 and Sec. 232 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 arenot included in the acts defined as punishable criminal election offenses under Sec. 27 of R.A. 6646 and Sec. 261and 262 of B.P. Blg. No. 881, respectively.

The COMELEC and private respondents overlooked that Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not one of theelection offenses explicitly enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. While Section 232 categoricallystates that it is unlawful for the persons referred therein to enter the canvassing room, this act is not one of theelection offenses criminally punishable under Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. Thus, the act involved inSection 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not punishable as a criminal election offense. Though not a criminal election offense,a violation of Section 232 certainly warrants, after proper hearing, the imposition of administrative penalties.

8/11/2019 Statcon Project

2/2

Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, there is no ground toorder the COMELEC to prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 preciselybecause this is a non-criminal act.

It is a se ttled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, orconsequence implies the exclusion of all others.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in anumber of ways. One variation of therule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facitcessare tacitum.Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation orconstruction, be extended to other matters