G.R. No. 128054 October 16, 1997
KILOSBAYAN, INC., FERNANDO A. SANTIAGO, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, EMILIO C. CAPULONG JR., RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, FRANKLIN DRILON, CESAR SARINO, LEONORA V. DE JESUS, TIBURCIO RELUCIO, RONALDO V. PUNO, BENITO R. CATINDIG, MANUEL CALUPITAN III, VICENTE CARLOS, FRANCISCO CANCIO, JIMMY DURANTE, MELVYN MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Kilosbayan filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on December 14, 1993, alleging serious violations of election laws. The complaint centered on two main allegations: 1) The release of P70 million from the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) under Republic Act No. 7180 shortly before the May 11, 1992 elections to the Philippine Youth Health and Sports Development Foundation, Inc. (PYHSDFI), an NGO whose chairman, Ronaldo Puno, was identified as a key member of the “Sulo Hotel Operation” (SHO) allegedly engaged in dirty election tricks; and 2) The illegal diversion of P330 million by Malacañang from the CDF to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which disbursed the amount shortly before the elections. The Comelec docketed the complaint as E.O. Case No. 93-193 and directed its Law Department to investigate. Subpoenas were issued to respondents, and some filed counter-affidavits. Petitioner Kilosbayan then submitted “Interrogatories” to propound questions to respondents Enriquez, Carlos, and Mendoza. Respondents Enriquez and Mendoza opposed this, with Enriquez arguing it violated his right against self-incrimination. The Comelec Law Department scheduled clarificatory questioning. Respondents Enriquez and Mendoza filed Petitions for Certiorari before the Comelec En Banc assailing the orders of the Director. The Comelec En Banc treated these as motions for reconsideration. Subsequently, the Comelec Law Department submitted a study recommending the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. On January 20, 1997, the Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution dismissing E.O. Case No. 93-193 for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE

Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing E.O. Case No. 93-193 for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function, and in this case, was vested in the Comelec as the prosecutor of election offenses. The Comelec’s finding of lack of probable cause was based on its evaluation that the evidence presented—consisting mainly of newspaper columns by Teodoro Benigno, transcripts of congressional hearings, and an affidavit by Norberto Gonzales—was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court emphasized that probable cause requires more than mere suspicion; it necessitates facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. The Comelec concluded that the evidence failed to concretely prove that the released CDF funds were actually used for electioneering purposes. The Court ruled that absent a clear showing of arbitrariness or capriciousness, which petitioners failed to demonstrate, the Comelec’s dismissal of the complaint must be sustained. The petition was dismissed.