Photo by ABS-CBN
ANTECEDENTS
The petitioner ran for Mayor of San Marcelino, Zambales, in the May 10, 2010 elections. With 20,301 registered voters, the spending limit was PHP 60,903.00, calculated at PHP 3.00 per voter. However, the petitioner’s submitted Statement of Contributions & Expenditures (SOCE) reported expenditures of PHP 285,500.00. This apparent overspending prompted the COMELEC to request an explanation from the petitioner.
SPONSORED
In her response, the petitioner provided affidavits from her contributors and cited personal challenges, including surgery and restricted mobility due to an accident, which delayed her verification process. She claimed that the discrepancies in her SOCE were due to errors made by her secretary, Veron P. Tadena, who misreported contributions. According to corrected records, the petitioner argued her actual spending was only PHP 51,500.00.
Despite the petitioner’s explanations, COMELEC filed a complaint against her for election overspending. The petitioner denied the allegations, asserting that the complaint lacked sufficient factual and legal basis. Her secretary admitted to categorization errors and incorrect reporting of contributions, which led to the initial overspending allegations.
The Ruling of the COMELEC
In its Resolution No. 18-065636 dated August 8, 2018, the COMELEC En Banc adopted the recommendation of its Law Department that found probable cause to charge petitioner for the offense of election overspending under the OEC.
The COMELEC Law Department recommended filing an Information against the petitioner for election overspending, stating that as a former councilor and lawyer, she should understand campaign finance laws and their violations. Despite this, she delegated the preparation of her SOCE to her secretary, merely signing without review. The affidavits from her contributors lacked official receipts and could not counter the signed Report of Contributions. Her motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in Resolution No. 21-0472-5740 on July 14, 2021.
The Petition Before the Court
Petitioner now comes before the Court imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in that (1) there was inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation resulting in violation of petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases; (2) it found probable cause against petitioner despite the absence of all the elements constituting the election offense; and (3) it found probable cause against petitioner notwithstanding the absence of substantial basis that she spent beyond the limits of the law.
RULING
There was inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation before the COMELEC which violated petitioner's right to speedy disposition of cases. Hence, the dismissal of the complaint against her is warranted.
The 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 16, guarantees the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. This constitutional right is available not only to the accused in criminal proceedings but also to all parties in all cases, whether civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. Pursuant thereto, any party to a case may demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.51
Considering that the case pertains to the conduct of a preliminary investigation, there is no question that petitioner can invoke her constitutional right to the speedy disposition of her case before the COMELEC. It is important to note, however, that the right to a speedy disposition of a case is a relative or flexible concept; a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient as particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. Thus, in the determination of whether the right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the aggrieved party's assertion or failure to assert such right, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
Records show that the COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit filed the complaint against petitioner on May 9, 2015. Three years and nearly three months thereafter, or on August 8, 2018, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 18-0656 finding probable cause against her for election overspending. However, petitioner was only furnished with a copy of the Resolution after more than a year and a half from its issuance, or on February 18, 2020. She sought a reconsideration from the COMELEC; however, after one year and over four months, the COMELEC denied her motion in Resolution No. 21-0472-57, and she received a copy thereof only after more than ten (10) months following its issuance.
In other words, it took the COMELEC more than six years to finally recommend the filing of an Information against petitioner for overspending, or from the filing of the complaint on May 9, 2015, until the resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 14, 2021. Clearly, the preliminary investigation was terminated way beyond the 20-day period provided under Section 6, Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as follows:
Sec. 8. Duty of Investigating Officer. – The preliminary investigation must be terminated within twenty (20) days after receipt of the counter-affidavits and other evidence of the respondents, and resolution thereof shall be made within five (5) days thereafter.
Indeed, the underlying principle of the right to speedy disposition of cases remains to be the prevention, not only of delay in the administration of justice, but also of oppression of the citizen by indefinitely suspending criminal prosecution. A violation of this right results in the grant of the radical relief of immediate dismissal of the case.68
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 18-0656 dated August 8, 2018, and Resolution No. 21-0472-57 dated July 14, 2021, of the Commission on Elections En Banc in E.O. Case No. 15-954, are NULLIFIED for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The complaint against petitioner Ana Liza Arriola Peralta for alleged election overspending is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Comments