G.R. No. 167011 ; April 30, 2008
Spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez, petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections and Dennis Garay, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Dennis Garay filed a complaint-affidavit with the COMELEC, charging petitioners Spouses Carlos and Erlinda Romualdez with election offenses. The complaint alleged that on May 9 and 11, 2000, the spouses applied for registration as new voters in Burauen, Leyte, declaring under oath that they were residents of San Jose Street in that municipality. Garay contended this was a false representation, as the spouses were, in truth, registered voters and residents of Quezon City, with valid and subsisting voter registration records there. The spouses were thus accused of violating provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and the Voter’s Registration Act for making untruthful statements in their application and for registering anew without cancelling their previous registration.
In their defense, the spouses filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit asserting they did not make false statements. They claimed an intent to reside in Burauen since 1989 and that they took actual residence there by leasing a house on May 9, 2000. They also presented a Barangay Resolution welcoming Carlos Romualdez. The COMELEC Investigating Officer recommended the filing of an Information, and the COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated June 11, 2004, directed its Law Department to file the appropriate charges for violation of Section 10(g) and (j) in relation to Section 45(j) of Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996). Their motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioners with violation of the Voter’s Registration Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and in a petition for certiorari, the Court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The legal logic is clear: at the time the spouses applied for new registration in Burauen, Leyte, their existing voter registration in Quezon City was still valid and subsisting. Their act of filing a request for transfer or cancellation in Quezon City did not automatically nullify their existing registration record prior to the approval of such request. Consequently, by applying as “new voters” in a different municipality without their previous registration being officially cancelled, they prima facie violated the law which prohibits a registered voter from registering anew. The COMELEC’s finding was based on this objective fact—the coexistence of two registration records—and not on a capricious evaluation. The Court found no arbitrariness in the COMELEC’s conclusion that there was reasonable ground to believe an offense was committed, warranting a judicial trial for the full determination of the spouses’ criminal liability, including their defenses regarding residence.