G.R. No. 170256 ; January 25, 2010
ALVIN B. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Tomas R. Osmeña, a mayoral candidate in the 2004 elections in Cebu City, filed an election offense case against his rival, petitioner Alvin B. Garcia. The complaint alleged that from April 26 to May 2, 2004, political advertisements benefiting Garcia were published in the Sun Star tabloid. Specifically, the “IT’S A NO-CONTEST” advertisement was published daily for seven consecutive days. Osmeña contended these advertisements violated the thrice-a-week publication limit under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9006 (the Fair Elections Act) and Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520, and failed to indicate the true and correct name and address of the benefiting party or candidate as required. In his defense, Garcia argued the advertisements were for the entire slate of his Kusug-KNP Party (22 candidates), thus the party was entitled to up to 66 publications per week, and the advertisements substantially complied with the identification requirement by showing pictures and names of party candidates. The Office of the Regional Investigation and Prosecution Committee recommended dismissal. However, the COMELEC en banc, in a Resolution dated April 28, 2005, found probable cause that Garcia committed an election offense, directing the filing of an Information against him. The COMELEC held the “IT’S A NO-CONTEST” advertisement referred only to Garcia, with no mention of his party or party-mates, making it his advertisement alone subject to the thrice-a-week limit. It denied Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, which argued he did not cause the publication, as an organization named “Friends of Alvin Garcia” did. The COMELEC Law Department later directed the filing of the Information in court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that probable cause exists to prosecute Garcia, given his claim that the political advertisement did not exceed the allowed frequency of publication because it was for the benefit of his entire party slate.
2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that probable cause exists despite evidence that Garcia did not cause the publication of the advertisement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.
1. On the first issue, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s finding. The law (Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 9006 and Sec. 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520) clearly limits print advertisements for each candidate or each registered political party to a maximum of one-half page in tabloids thrice a week per newspaper. The COMELEC did not err in ruling that the “IT’S A NO-CONTEST” advertisement, which featured only Garcia and made no mention of his party or other candidates, was for his sole benefit and thus subject to the individual candidate limit. Garcia’s argument that the ad should be counted against the party’s aggregate limit was correctly rejected.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause is an executive function. The COMELEC, based on the evidence, found reason to believe Garcia committed an offense. The advertisement prominently featured him and aimed to promote his candidacy. The claim that a third party caused the publication does not automatically negate probable cause, as the law (Sec. 14 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520) requires written acceptance for donated propaganda, and violation of the rules is an election offense under the law. The COMELEC’s finding was not arrived at arbitrarily.