The Supreme Court dismissed an election offense case after finding that the Commission on Elections’ six-year delay in investigating the complaint violated a mayoral candidate’s right to the speedy disposition of his case.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario dated 19 August, the Supreme Court en banc nullified the COMELEC resolution finding probable cause to charge Petronilo Solomon Sarigumba with violating the Omnibus Election Code.

According to the Court, Sarigumba lost the mayoral race in Loboc, Bohol, during the May 2010 elections. A month later, he filed his Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures, as required by law.

Four years later, the COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit asked Sarigumba to explain his alleged overspending based on his SOCE. After he submitted his explanation, the unit filed a complaint against him before the COMELEC in December 2014.

The case was set for preliminary investigation on 14 April 2015, but Sarigumba sought several postponements due to illness. The COMELEC Law Department later directed him to submit his counter-affidavit on 11 July 2015, which he failed to do.

Six years later, the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution finding probable cause to charge Sarigumba with election overspending before the Regional Trial Court.

Sarigumba challenged the resolution before the Supreme Court, arguing that the poll body committed undue delay in investigating his case, thereby violating his constitutional right to a speedy resolution.

The COMELEC countered that while its rules set a 20-day limit for preliminary investigations, the period should begin only upon the respondent’s submission of a counter-affidavit. It also claimed Sarigumba waived his right by failing to participate in the proceedings and by raising the issue only years later.

The Supreme Court rejected these arguments.

Citing Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution, the Court stressed that all persons are guaranteed the right to the speedy disposition of cases before judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.

The Court said that when this right is violated, dismissal of the case is warranted.

It explained that under COMELEC rules, a preliminary investigation must be completed within 20 days after receipt of the respondent’s counter-affidavit or after the deadline to file one has lapsed, with a resolution required within five days thereafter.

The Court noted that more than six years had passed since Sarigumba was ordered to submit his counter-affidavit, yet the COMELEC failed to resolve the case within the time limits set by its own rules.

Sarigumba’s failure to file a counter-affidavit did not excuse the prolonged inaction, the Court said, adding that any delay after the filing period lapsed was attributable to the COMELEC.

The Court observed that the poll body offered no justification for the delay and that the case did not involve complex issues, as the finding of probable cause was based solely on Sarigumba’s SOCE.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Sarigumba could not be faulted for invoking his right to speedy disposition only after receiving the COMELEC resolution years later.

A respondent in a criminal investigation is not required to follow up on their case.

“It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint, as mandated by the Constitution, regardless of whether the petitioner did not object to the delay or that the delay was with his acquiescence provided that it was not due to causes directly attributable to him.”