G.R. No. 264071. August 13, 2024.
BEN D. LADILAD, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MARY GRACE BANDOY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On June 27, 2013, a complaint for violation of Section 261(g) and (h) of the Omnibus Election Code was filed by Mary Grace Bandoy against Ben D. Ladilad, President of Benguet State University (BSU), and Luciana M. Villanueva, Vice President for Research and Extension of BSU. The complaint alleged they caused the illegal detail and transfer of BSU employees during the 2013 election period. On May 18, 2014, the Office of the Regional Election Director-Cordillera Administrative Region (ORED-CAR) recommended filing a criminal information for violation of Section 261(h) against Ladilad for one transfer. On November 4, 2014, the COMELEC En Banc found probable cause against both Ladilad and Villanueva for violation of Section 261(h) and ordered the filing of a criminal case. Ladilad and Villanueva moved for reconsideration. After almost eight years, on September 27, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration. Ladilad filed a petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC Resolutions, arguing violation of his right to speedy disposition of his case.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction due to inordinate delay in resolving the preliminary investigation, thereby violating petitioner Ladilad’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of his case.

RULING

Yes. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The right to speedy disposition of cases under Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution was violated. The COMELEC En Banc took almost eight years to resolve the motion for reconsideration of its November 4, 2014 Resolution, far beyond the 30-day period generally prescribed for deciding cases under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. This delay was inordinate and unjustified. The COMELEC failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the delay, merely arguing that Ladilad had waived his right. Ladilad did not waive his right; he moved for early resolution on September 14, 2014, and parties are not duty-bound to constantly follow up on their cases. Following the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the burden to justify the delay shifted to the prosecution (COMELEC) as the delay occurred beyond the given procedural period and the right was invoked. The COMELEC failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the complaint against Ladilad was dismissed.