Joseph Roble Penas vs. Commission on Elections, represented by the Campaign Finance Unit,
UDK-16915, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. On November 28, 2009, petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor.
2. On June 7, 2010, in compliance with COMELEC Resolution petitioner filed with respondent COMELEC his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) where he declared his total election campaign expenditures in the amount of P600,000.00.
3. By Letter dated October 1, 2014, respondent's Campaign Finance Unit informed petitioner that under Section 13 of RA 7166, a candidate who belongs to a political party is only allowed to spend three pesos for every registered voter in the constituency where he or she seeks to be elected. Hence, petitioner was allowed to spend up to P281,403.00 only for his election campaign.
4. Petitioner was given 10 days from receipt of the letter to submit his written explanation.
5. On October 29, 2014, petitioner submitted an Affidavit of Correction/Explanation.
6. On November 6, 2014, the COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit filed a formal complaint against petitioner for alleged violation of overspending.
7. By Resolution dated November 5, 2018, the COMELEC En Banc found probable cause to hold petitioner for trial and consequently ordered the filing of an Information
8. The COMELEC En Banc essentially ruled that petitioner's plea to admit the correction of entries in his SOCE was a mere afterthought to avoid criminal liability.
9. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated December 13, 2018 which was denied under Resolution No. 20-00121-33 dated December 9, 2020
10. Petitioner filed his petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on March 8, 2021.
Issues:
· Whether or not the petition for certiorari is filed on time
· Whether or not petition for certiorari is the proper remedy
· Whether or not there is inordinate delay on the part of COMELEC
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Court decreed that the fresh-period rule which resets the reglementary period for seeking judicial relief is inapplicable to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64. On the contrary, the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for reconsideration is deductible from the thirty (30) days granted under Section 3 thereof.
Petitioner received copy of the COMELEC En Bane's Resolution finding probable cause for his indictment on December 6, 2018. It took him at least 7 days therefrom to file his motion for reconsideration dated December 13, 2018. Deducting this 7-day period from the 30 days granted under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, petitioner had 23 days left to file the present petition for certiorari from February 4, 2021 when he received the Minute Resolution No. 20-0121-33, denying his motion for reconsideration. In other words, he had until February 27, 2021 to file the present petition. But petitioner filed his petition only on March 8, 2021, clearly beyond the period prescribed by Rule 64.
SECOND ISSUE
Recourse to Rule 65 does not require absence of a judicial remedy to a party. It is the inadequacy - not the absence - of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari.
A petition for certiorari or prohibition may even prosper despite the availability of other remedies in certain exceptional circumstances, such as: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictate; (b) when the interests of substantial justice so require; or (c) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
In petitioner's case, a full-blown trial is not a speedy and adequate remedy. Going through a public trial would not afford petitioner an expeditious relief from the detrimental effect of a wrongful charge of an election offense, especially one that is filed despite inordinate delay.
THIRD ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that any party to a case may demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice, including herein respondent COMELEC.
A respondent, such as petitioner, though not yet imprisoned is nevertheless disadva11tagcd by the uncertainties of his potential criminal case.
The COMELEC failed to observe its own prescribed period for resolving cases when it finally recommended the filing of an Information against petitioner on December 9, 2020 or more than six (6) years from when the formal complaint was filed on November 12, 2014.
Pursuant to its rule-making power, the COMELEC promulgated its Rules of Procedure, Section 8, Rule 34 of which ordains that a preliminary investigation must be terminated within twenty (20) days and a resolution must thereafter be issued within five (5) days.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment