Dear PAO,
I deeply care about my province, so I always make it a point to go home every local election to vote for the right individual, who I think possesses the best qualifications to run the affairs of our local government. However, I am concerned that a person with financial resources, who I believe was in hiding during the past administration due to his involvement in various crimes, is now attempting to run for the highest position in our province. Is he considered as a fugitive from justice? Is this a valid ground for disqualification from holding public office?
Joshua
Dear Joshua,
The persons who are disqualified from holding local elective positions are enumerated in Section 40 of Republic Act (RA) 7160, otherwise known as the “Local Government Code of 1991,” to wit:
“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;
“(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
“(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;
“(d) Those with dual citizenship;
“(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;
“(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
“(g) The insane or feeble-minded.”
Clearly, being a fugitive from justice is one of the disqualifications for holding an elective position in the local government. The term “fugitive from justice” was defined in the en banc case of Rodriguez v. COMELEC and Marquez, Jr., GR 120099, July 24, 1996, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Ricardo Francisco, stated that:
“To summarize, the term ‘fugitive from justice’ as a ground for the disqualification or ineligibility of a person seeking to run for any elective local petition under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code should be understood according to the definition given in the MARQUEZ Decision, to wit:
“A ‘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. (Emphasis ours.)
“Intent to evade on the part of a candidate must, therefore, be established by proof that there has already been a conviction or, at least, a charge has already been filed at the time of flight. xxx”
Applying the afore-cited decision to your situation, there are two kinds of fugitives from justice — those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment and those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. Intent to evade after conviction or a charge must already have been filed at the time of the flight and must be established by proof. There is an intent to evade punishment or prosecution when the fugitive flees after he has knowledge of the indictment or judgment of conviction.
Thus, the mere fact that the person you are referring to has been hiding because of his involvement in various crimes does not automatically qualify him under the definition of fugitive from justice. However, he can be considered a fugitive from justice in the event that he has been hiding to avoid the service of sentence after conviction or he has been hiding after being charged to avoid prosecution.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our application of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
