G.R. No. 263615 - PETRONILO SOLOMON SARIGUMBA, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CAMPAIGN FINANCE UNIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Law Department finds PROBABLE CAUSE to hold Respondent for trial and most respectfully recommends the FILING of INFORMATION against PETRONILO SOLOMON SARIGUMBA for violation of Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code as amended by R.A. 7166 in relation to Section 262 of the same Code . [45] (Emphasis in the original) Further, the Court observes that in the Comment to the present Petition as well as the COMELEC En Banc Minute Resolution dated July 28, 2021 which quoted pertinent portions of the Memorandum dated July 27, 2021 of Director Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal, Law Department of the COMELEC, the COMELEC En Banc did not give sufficient justification for the delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and resolution of the motu proprio Complaint against petitioner. Notably, in arguing that his right to speedy disposition of cases was violated, petitioner relies on the Court's ruling in Peñas . [46] On the other hand, the COMELEC argues that Peñas does not apply to the present case considering that while the petitioner in Peñas filed a counter-affidavit, petitioner herein did not file one. In Peñas , the COMELEC filed a motu proprio complaint against petitioner therein, a 2010 NLE candidate for mayor of Digos City, Davao Del Sur, for alleged election overspending. [47] While the COMELEC found probable cause against petitioner therein, the Court nullified the COMELEC Resolution finding probable cause against him and ultimately, dismissed the complaint. Anchored on the grounds of inordinate delay of about six years in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, and the COMELEC's utter failure to provide sufficient justification for such delay. [48] The Court ruled that petitioner's case did not at all involve complex or intricate issues which required scrutiny of voluminous records or evidence. Specifically, the Court emphasized that the lone issue needed to be resolved was whether petitioner therein spent beyond the prescribed campaign expenditure limit. The Court likewise underscored that there was only one respondent charged in the complaint. [49] The Court ruled in part: As stated, the complaint against petitioner was filed on November 12, 2014. Subsequently, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on February 9, 2015. By Resolution No. 18-0665 dated November 5, 2018, or about four (4) years from when the complaint was filed, the COMELEC ordered the filing of an Information against petitioner. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and this time, it took the COMELEC another two (2) years to issue Resolution No. 220-00121-33 dated December 9, 2020 to deny the motion. Indubitably, the COMELEC went beyond the prescribed period for the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Third . In view of the COMELEC's failure to observe its own prescribed period for resolving petitioner's case, the burden of justifying the delay is shifted to it. Consequently, it must prove first , that it followed the presc