Case Digest (G.R. No. 261107)
Facts:
Ana Liza Arriola Peralta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 261107, January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ana Liza A. Peralta (a candidate for mayor of San Marcelino, Zambales in the May 10, 2010 elections) assails COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 18-0656 (Aug. 8, 2018) and Resolution No. 21-0472-57 (July 14, 2021) in E.O. Case No. 15-954, which found probable cause to hold her for trial for election overspending under Sec. 100 in relation to Sec. 262 of B.P. Blg. 881, as amended by R.A. No. 7166. The petition before the Court is styled as a Petition for Certiorari.Petitioner filed her Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) on June 7, 2010, declaring total campaign expenditures of PHP 285,500.00, while the allowable limit (PHP 3.00 per registered voter for a party candidate) was PHP 60,903.00 based on 20,301 registered voters. On October 1, 2014, the COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit (CFU) notified petitioner of the apparent overspending and requested explanation. Petitioner responded on March 2, 2015, submitting affidavits from contributors who corrected amounts and descriptions of contributions and explaining that errors were made by her personal secretary who prepared the SOCE.
The COMELEC CFU filed a motu proprio complaint on May 9, 2015 (docketed E.O. Case No. 15-954). Petitioner was subpoenaed (June 29, 2015), sought and was granted extensions, and filed a counter-affidavit on September 24, 2015. The COMELEC Law Department recommended filing an Information, finding petitioner could not avoid liability simply because her secretary prepared the SOCE. The COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 18-0656 (Aug. 8, 2018) adopting the Law Department’s recommendation, and later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 21-0472-57 (July 14, 2021). Petitioner received copies of the resolutions only much later (first copy received Feb. 18, 2020; denial copy received May 25, 2022). Petitioner then ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by conducting a preliminary investigation with inordinate delay that violated petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases?
- Did the COMELEC err in finding probable cause to charge petitioner with election overspending under Sec. 100 in relation t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)