BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
PETRONILO S. SARIGUMBA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 263615 (AUGUST 19, 2025): INORDINATE DELAY BY COMELEC IN THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR AN ELECTION OFFENSE
Petitioner Petronilo S. Sarigumba (Sarigumba) filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Municipal Mayor of Loboc, Bohol for the 2010 National and Local Elections. Petitioner Sarigumba lost. On November 3, 2014, he received a Letter from the Campaign Finance Unit (CFU) of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) requiring him to submit an explanation under oath of his alleged overspending during the 2010 Elections which he duly complied. CFU still filed a Complaint before the COMELEC’s Law Department which found probable cause to indict and file Information against petitioner Sarigumba for violation of Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7166. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Minute Resolution dated July 28, 2021, adopted the findings of the COMELEC Law Department. Petitioner Sarigumba received a copy of the Minute Resolution on August 18, 2022, or almost eight years after the filing of the Complaint before the Law Department. Hence, petitioner Sarigumba filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
On the first issue whether the Petition for Certiorari of petitioner Sarigumba falls within the exceptions to the rule that a motion for reconsideration should be filed first before resorting to this extraordinary remedy, the Court held that it falls within the exception as there is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to the speedy disposition of cases. The Supreme Court held that COMELEC’s proceedings – which led to the finding of probable cause against petitioner Sarigumba for election overspending in COMELEC En Banc Minute Resolution dated July 28, 2021 – were attended by inordinate delay.
On the second and main issue, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Sarigumba’s constitutional right under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution was violated. The said provision guarantees the right of all persons to speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. The Court held, “Based on the timeline of the proceedings before the COMELEC, petitioner’s preliminary investigation and resolution of the Complaint before the COMELEC lasted from December 20, 2014 until July 28, 2021 or six years and over seven months from the date the motu proprio Complaint was filed. Notably, it took the COMELEC six years and over one month from the time that petitioner was ordered to file his counter-affidavit through the Order dated June 11, 2015 to resolve the motu proprio Complaint against the petitioner.”
The Supreme Court also held that the COMELEC failed to observe the 20-day period to conclude preliminary investigation, and thereafter, the five-day period to render a resolution of the case under Rule 34, Section 8 in relation to Rule 34, Section 6 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court also held that there was no justification for the delay as it does not show that the COMELEC dealt with complex issues or voluminous records to justify a period of six years and over seven months, counted from the date the motu proprio complaint was filed. In fact, the Court held that the COMELEC Law Department, as affirmed by COMELEC En Banc, relied on the SOCE of petitioner Sarigumba as basis of finding probable cause against the latter.
The Court also applied the cases of Peňas vs. COMELEC, UDK-16915 (February 15, 2022), and Peralta vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 261107 (January 30, 2024), wherein the Supreme Court also found that the COMELEC committed inordinate delay in relation to the conduct of preliminary investigation for similar offense against the mayoralty candidates of Digos City, Davao del Sur and San Marcelino, Zambales, respectively. The Court still applied these cases even if the petitioners therein filed their Counter-Affidavits unlike petitioner Sarigumba in this case who did not submit a Counter-Affidavit. The Court held: “The failure of petitioner herein to file a counter-affidavit is not a blanket excuse for the COMELEC to unduly delay the resolution of the motu proprio Complaint. As the Court already discussed above, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are clear as to the COMELEC’s duty to make such determination even if petitioner failed to file a counter-affidavit. Thus, from the time that the period for petitioner to file a counter-affidavit lapsed, the investigating office has the duty to resolve the case based on available evidence with the COMELEC. At this point, the Court’s ruling in Peňas and Peralta applies – i.e., the delay in resolving the case was unjustified since the case did not involve complex or intricate issues or require a review of voluminous records or evidence.”