Title
Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals and People
Case
G.R. No. 276682
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2025
Guevarra, a candidate, was convicted for violating election laws for using his radio program to favor his candidacy, leading to an upheld conviction by the Court of Appeals.
elections
commentary
media law
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 276682)

Factual Background

Petitioner had been a radio commentator for a program titled “Batang Butuan: Oras Na! Raon Na!” aired on Radyo Trumpeta FM. An Information dated January 7, 2019 charged him that on or about April 12, 2016 and April 23, 2016, between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, and within the jurisdiction of the RTC, during the campaign period for the May 9, 2016 elections, he—then a candidate for city councilor under Action Demokratiko Party—took advantage of his profession as a radio commentator to engage in partisan political activity by uttering and broadcasting on air. The Information alleged that during the broadcast petitioner attacked the candidacy of incumbent Congressman Laurence Lemuel “Law” A. Fortun and the latter’s re-election campaign, and also maligned other political actors, in language described in the Information as, among others, calling Fortun a “traydor” and characterizing him as ignorant, liar, power and wealth hungry, corrupt, drug user, and a traitor.

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence showing that during the alleged broadcasts, petitioner was heard promoting his own candidacy and that of his party-mates, and maligning other candidates. Three witnesses—working for the campaign of another candidate—recorded the radio program on April 12 and April 23, 2016 and testified to what they heard from petitioner on those dates.

Petitioner denied the charge. He claimed that he had resigned as a radio commentator as early as 2012, and he submitted a copy of his resignation letter addressed to Radyo Trumpeta’s acting manager, Elmer Maboloc. He asserted that after resignation he went on to teach at an educational institution. He further argued that his appearance on the April 12 and 23, 2016 radio dates was only as a guest, and not as a commentator. To support this theory, Maboloc testified regarding petitioner’s resignation. Amihan J. Bayer, another radio commentator and petitioner’s former colleague, likewise testified that petitioner was merely a guest in the radio program and was not considered a commentator or a block-timer.

In rebuttal, the prosecution presented a witness who testified that petitioner was not merely a guest; he acted as the anchorman of the program, interviewing guests, and petitioner was identified as among block-timers consistently aligned against Mayor Ronnie Lagnada.

Trial Court Proceedings

In its Decision dated January 20, 2023, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. The RTC based its factual determination on the radio recordings. It concluded that petitioner was not simply a guest; he was the program’s anchorman and commentator. The RTC found that petitioner directed the flow of the program, introduced guests consisting of his fellow candidates, and introduced a person referred to as “Vic dela Victoria” as a co-anchor. The RTC also noted that petitioner was alone for most of the program, which it considered inconsistent with the defense that he had only been a guest.

From these observations, the RTC ruled that petitioner should be deemed a radio commentator within the meaning of Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, and he should therefore have been deemed resigned or taken a leave of absence from the practice of his profession during the campaign period. On petitioner’s resignation theory, the RTC gave little weight to the defense and held that even if the resignation were assumed true, media practitioners not employed by a media entity, such as talents or block-timers, were still prohibited by Section 34 from using airtime to favor any candidate or party.

The RTC thus imposed the straight penalty of imprisonment for a period of one year.

Appellate Proceedings and the Entry of Judgment

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated January 18, 2024, affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA rejected petitioner’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove the actual date of broadcast. It agreed with the RTC that the broadcast itself mentioned the broadcast date and that petitioner even thanked listeners who greeted him on his birthday on April 23. The CA further found, based on the manner by which the program was conducted, that petitioner steered the radio program on his own and was not a mere guest. It held that under Section 34, petitioner was a media practitioner who used his airtime to favor certain candidates and political parties. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated March 25, 2024.

The present petition for certiorari later relied on an additional procedural circumstance. Petitioner asserted that he sent a Letter dated March 5, 2024 to Atty. Joy Marie Badal-Pamisa, Executive Clerk of Court III of the Twenty-Third Division of the CA, to inform her that he severed his attorney-client relations with his counsel, Atty. Cyril Francis S. Casino, and requested that subsequent issuances be sent to petitioner’s address in Butuan City. The CA noted the letter in its March 25, 2024 Resolution and even listed petitioner’s new address. Nonetheless, the CA Resolution was allegedly sent to petitioner’s old address in Cavite. When the Resolution reached petitioner in Butuan City, the time to file a petition for review on certiorari had already lapsed, and the CA judgment was entered on August 16, 2024.

Petitioner claimed that the CA gravely abused its discretion in failing to send the Resolution to his proper address. He also maintained that the courts a quo erred in finding guilt, contending that his resignation as commentator should have been treated as sufficient. He further asserted that his conduct during the campaign period did not violate Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049.

The Issue

The Supreme Court framed the core question as whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the conviction and issuing an Entry of Judgment despite the alleged failure to send the CA Resolution to petitioner’s proper address.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court denied the petition. It first invoked the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. Once the time to file an appeal lapsed without a timely resort to the proper remedy, finality attached and a judgment that had acquired finality could no longer be modified in any respect. The Court acknowledged, however, that it had previously recognized exceptions in rare cases, including situations where relaxation of procedural rules would serve substantial justice, particularly when the circumstances involve matters of life, liberty, honor, or property, special or compelling circumstances, meritorious grounds, and a cause not attributable to the party’s own negligence, and when no unfair prejudice would result.

The Court addressed petitioner’s claim that the CA failed to send the March 25, 2024 Resolution to his correct address. It recognized that petitioner had submitted a letter to the CA asserting that he severed ties with Atty. Casino and had changed his address, and it acknowledged that the CA Resolution noted petitioner’s letter and listed the new address. Still, petitioner argued that service to his old address deprived him of the opportunity to seek further review. The Court found that while the CA had been remiss in not acknowledging petitioner’s new address for purposes of service, it had not erred in sending the Resolution to Atty. Casino.

The Court stressed that Atty. Casino remained counsel of record. Although termination of an attorney-client relationship is the client’s absolute right, the duty to inform the court of such termination falls on counsel, not the client. The appropriate measures for withdrawal of counsel were matters of counsel’s duties. Thus, absent proper notice by counsel, the CA could not be faulted for continuing to treat Atty. Casino as counsel of record. Service of the Resolution to Atty. Casino therefore constituted notice to petitioner. Given this proper service, the lapse of the period to file the proper pleading meant that finality already attached. The Court concluded that, therefore, the CA’s entry of judgment was not tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

More importantly, the Court also considered whether, assuming arguendo that the procedural finality could be relaxed, there was any reversible error in the merits. The Court found none.

On the substantive law, the Court analyzed Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049 in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 and the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. It identified that the legal framework implements Section 6.6 of Republic Act No. 9006, which requires certain media practitioners to be deemed resigned if required by their employers or to take leave of absence during the campaign period, subject to a proviso that any media practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of the campaign staff shall not use time or space to favor any candidate or political party.

The Court then closely read Section 34. It treated the provision as contemplating two classes of prohibited conduct by different categories of media practitioners. The first class covered a mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or reporter who is a candidate for public office or a party-list nominee, or who is a campaign volunteer for or employed or retained by any candidate or party. For this group, the provision deems them resigned if required by their employer, or requires them to take a leave of absence from their work during the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms