Del Rosario, Michael Prince N.

Juris Doctor I

G.R. No. 120099 July 24, 1996

Eduardo T. Rodriguez vs. COMELEC, Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr.
Statement of the Facts:
Petitioner Eduardo Rodriguez and private respondent Bienvenido Marquez were
protagonists for the Governor position in Quezon Province in the 1992 elections. Marquez
challenged Rodriguez’ victory via petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC. Marquez
alleged that Rodriguez left the US where a charge, filed on November 12, 1985, is pending
against the latter before the LA Municipal Court for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft and
attempted grand theft of personal property making him a “fugitive from justice” which is a
ground for disqualification or ineligibility under Sec. 40(e) of RA 7160.
Rodriguez submitted a certification from the Commission on Immigration showing that
he left the US on June 25, 1985, five months prior to the institution of the criminal complaint
filed against him before the LA court.
In the 1995 elections, Rodriguez and Marquez renewed their rivalry for the same positon.
This time, Marquez challenged Rodriguez’ candidacy via petition for disqualification before the
COMELEC on the same allegation that the latter is a fugitive from justice. Such petition was
filed when Rodriguez’s petition for certiorari was still pending before the Supreme Court.
On May 7, 1995, and after the promulgation of the MARQUEZ decision, the COMELEC,
allegedly having kept in mind the MARQUEZ decision’s definition of fugitive from justice,
found Rodriguez to be one, ordering him to be disqualified or ineligible from assuming and
performin the functions of Governor of Quezon. At any rate, Rodriguez won the election for the
position.
Statement of the Case:
Marquez filed a petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC claiming that Rodriguez
is a “fugitive from justice” and therefore disqualified or inelegibile for the Governor position
under RA 7160. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, and likewise denied a reconsideration.
Marquez challeged the COMELEC dismissal before the Supreme Court via petition for
certiorari. Whether or not Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice” was not passed upon by the
Court and was devolved on the COMELEC, with the directive to proceed therewith with
dispatch comformably with the MARQUEZ decision. Rodriguez sought a reconsideration but was
denied.
On May 1995, COMELEC ruled that Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice, disqualifying
him from the position. Having walked-out of the hearing of the case, COMELEC considered
such as waiving his right to disprove the authenticity of Marquez’ documentary evidence.

Page 1 of 2
Del Rosario, Michael Prince N.
Juris Doctor I

After Rodriguez was proclaimed the winner, Marquez filed urgent motions to suspend the
proclamation which the COMELEC granted. The suspension of the proclamation gave rise to the
filing of this instant petition.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice”.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Rodriguez, not being a fugitive from justice under the
MARQUEZ definition, cannot be denied the Quezon Province gubernatorial post.
To reiterate from the MARQUEZ decision, a “fugitive from justice” includes not only
those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who, after being charged, flee
to avoid prosecution. 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 when there is knowledge of an already instituted indictment, or of a
promulagated judgment of conviction. Rodriguez’ case does not fit in this concept. There is no
dispute that Rodriguez’ arrival in the Philippines preceded the filing of the felony complaint in
the LA court.
It is acknowledged that there was an attempt by Marquez to show Rodriguez’ intent to
evade the law by offering for admission a voluminous copy of an invesigation report on the
alleged crimes. Unfortunately, such conclusion misleads because investigations of this nature,
are shrouded with utmost secrecy to afford law enforcers the advantage of surprise and effect the
arrest of those who would be charged.
To re-define “fugitive from justice” would only foment instability in our jurisprudence
when hardly has the ink dried in the Marquez decision.
The petition was granted.
Doctrines/Principles:
The “law of the case” doctrine forbids the Court to craft an expanded redefinition of
“fugitive from justice”. The “law of the case” has been defined as the opinion delivered on a
former appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule
of decision between the same parties in the same continues to be the law of the case, whether
correct on a general principls or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

Page 2 of 2