UDK-16915 - Penas vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner Joseph Roble PeAas filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Digos City in the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections under the NPC banner and, on June 7, 2010, submitted his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) declaring total campaign expenses of ₱600,000.00.
By letter dated October 1, 2014, the COMELEC’s Campaign Finance Unit advised Petitioner that, under Section 13 of RA 7166, his campaign spending limit was ₱281,403.00 (₱3.00 per registered voter). Petitioner was given ten days to explain his expenditures.
On October 29, 2014, Petitioner filed an Affidavit of Correction explaining that ₱112,924.10 for sample ballots and ₱245,000.00 for legal fees were party expenses not to be included in his personal campaign limit, reducing his reportable expenses to ₱241,574.01.

On November 6, 2014, the COMELEC’s Campaign Finance Unit formally charged Petitioner with overspending (Violation of Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of BP 881, as amended).
Petitioner filed a Counter-Affidavit on February 9, 2015, reiterating that the contested items were authorized party expenses under Sections 102(i) and (k) of the OEC.
By Resolution No. 18-0665 (November 5, 2018), the COMELEC En Banc found probable cause to hold Petitioner for trial. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution No. 20-0121-33 (December 9, 2020).

Grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC in finding probable cause despite his correction;
Defective notarization of the SOCE; and
Inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation (approx. six years).

COMELEC/OSG opposed on procedural grounds (late filing; alternative remedy in trial court) and on the merits (presumption of probable cause; binding notarized SOCE; self-serving affidavit).

Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the thirty-day reglementary period under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
Whether certiorari is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy when criminal proceedings are available.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Petitioner despite his explanations.
Whether the COMELEC’s preliminary investigation was tainted by inordinate delay violating the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
Whether Petitioner waived his right to a speedy disposition by not objecting earlier.