Case Digest (UDK-16915)
Facts:
Joseph Roble Penas v. Commission on Elections, represented by the Campaign Finance Unit, UDK-16915, February 15, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Joseph Roble Penas ran for Mayor of Digos City in the 2010 National and Local Elections and, on June 7, 2010, filed his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) declaring total campaign expenditures of P600,000.00. Under Section 13 of RA 7166, a candidate belonging to a political party may spend only P3.00 per registered voter; with 93,801 registered voters in Digos City for 2010, petitioner’s lawful ceiling was P281,403.00. The COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit, by letter dated October 1, 2014, notified petitioner that his reported expenditures exceeded that limit and invited his explanation.
Petitioner submitted an Affidavit of Correction/Explanation (October 29, 2014), and later a counter-affidavit (January 26, 2015 / filed February 9, 2015) asserting that P112,924.10 for printing sample ballots and P245,000.00 for legal services were party (NPC) expenses and thus excludable under the OEC and COMELEC rules; excluding those items would reduce his campaign expense to P241,574.01, below the legal ceiling. Nonetheless, the COMELEC Law Department, and subsequently the COMELEC En Banc, found probable cause to file an information for violation of Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) by Resolution No. 18-0665 (November 5, 2018), concluding that the corrections were self-serving and subject to full trial scrutiny. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Minute Resolution No. 20-0121-33 dated December 9, 2020.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (filed March 8, 2021) assailing the COMELEC resolutions on grounds of grave abuse of discretion: (1) he had submitted a bona fide Affidavit of Correction/Explanation; (2) his SOCE was defective and thus not binding; and (3) the COMELEC committed inordinate delay in conducting the preliminary investigation (he invoked COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Sec. 8, Rule 34, prescribing a 20-day investigation period and 5-day resolution period). The COMELEC, through the OSG, opposed the petition on procedural grounds (arguing late filing under Section 3, Rule 64 and availabil...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari timely filed under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court?
- Was certiorari an inappropriate remedy because petitioner had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?
- Did the COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict petitioner by reason of inordinate delay in ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)