Cumigad v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 245238. August 27, 2020.]

FERNANDO O. CUMIGAD, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 27, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 245238 — FERNANDO O. CUMIGAD v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Antecedents

Petitioner Fernando O. Cumigad was indicted for violation of Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7166 1 (RA 7166) which define and penalize spending for election purposes beyond the amounts allowed by law, under the following Information: 2

That during the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, in the Municipality of Gamu, Province of Isabela, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, who was running for Mayor of said Municipality under the Lakas CMD Party, did then and there, [willfully] and unlawfully spend for his election a total of One (H)undred (S)ixteen [T]housand [E]ight [H]undred [E]ighty-[F]our [P]esos and [E]leven centavos (P116,884.11), as declared in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) dated June 10, 2007 which amount is over and above of what is allowed by law, considering that the Municipality of Gamu has a total of Fifteen [T]housand [N]ine [H]undred [E]ighty [S]even (15,987) registered voters and the allowable expense for each registered voter is only Three [P]esos (P3.00) or for a total of Forty [S]even [T]housand [N]ine [H]undred [S]ixty-[O]ne [P]esos (P47,961.00) only.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. 4

Version of the prosecution

Petitioner is a member of the party-list Lakas Christian-Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD). He was Lakas-CMD's designated Coordinator of the Regional Party Chapter in Region II and Chairman of the Municipal Party Chapter in Gamu, Isabela. 5

During the 2007 elections, petitioner ran for Mayor of Gamu, Isabela as official nominee of the Lakas-CMD. He won. 6 His Statement of Contributions and Expenditures 7 (SOCE) showed that he spent P116,884.11 for his candidacy. Under RA 7166, however, petitioner was only allowed to spend up P3.00 for every registered voter in his constituency. Since the Municipality of Gamu, Isabela Province had 15,987 registered voters in 2007, petitioner was allowed to spend only up to P47,961.00 for his candidacy during the 2007 elections. The P116,884.11 reflected in his SOCE clearly exceeded the prescribed limit under the law. 8

Version of the defense

Petitioner asserted that aside from being the duly appointed Chairman of the Municipal Chapter and Coordinator of the Regional Party Chapter, he was also appointed as treasurer of the Lakas-CMD. He filed the SOCE in his dual capacity as candidate and as party treasurer. The total amount of P96,884.11 in his SOCE reflected the combined amount of P50,000.00 which pertained to campaign contributions and expenditures for the sole benefit of the party's senatorial candidates, while the remaining P46,884.00 was spent for his own candidacy. This amount was well within the prescribed limit under the law. 9

Ruling of the Trial Court

By Judgment 10 dated March 25, 2016, the trial court found petitioner guilty of violation of Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. Considering, however, that petitioner was already a senior citizen, it limited the penalty to one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years as maximum, without the benefit of probation. He was also adjudged disqualified from holding public office and stripped of his right to suffrage, viz.:

WHEREFORE, in the light [of all the] foregoing discussions, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the violation of Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act 7166, as charged in the Information of July 14, 2012. However, since the accused is now a senior citizen, in the spirit of compassion (Eliseo Eduarte v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176566, October 2, 2009), the accused is only penalized to suffer imprisonment with an indeterminate sentence of ONE (1) YEAR AS MINIMUM TO TWO (2) YEARS AS MAXIMUM, without the benefit of probation. In addition, the accused is sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of his right to suffrage.

SO ORDERED. 11

The trial court noted that the discovery of the correct amount in petitioner's SOCE was purely accidental when the complaint was filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) because in the SOCE itself, the sum stated was P96,884.11. But, in all the amounts therein were computed, the same would add up to P116,884.11 and not just P96,884.11 as petitioner initially claimed. In any case, petitioner stipulated that the correct sum was P116,884.11. 12

It held that unlike his designation as party coordinator, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was appointed treasurer of the Lakas-CMD party. Thus, the P50,000.00 that petitioner received from Lakas-CMD could not be considered as anything but the party's contribution for petitioner's own candidacy. Too, not being a treasurer, petitioner had no authorization to file SOCE in behalf of the party. More, even assuming that he was indeed appointed as treasurer, there was nothing in the law which authorized petitioner to file a "joint SOCE" for his own and the party's expenditures during the election period. This is because the cap of expenditures for an individual candidate and a party are different. 13

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed under its assailed Decision 14 dated May 4, 2018, viz.:

FOR THESE REASONS, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED, and the appealed Judgment dated 25 March 2016 rendered by Branch 18 of the Second Judicial Region of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela in Criminal Case No. 5958 is AFFIRMED in toto. 15

SO ORDERED.

It emphasized that the Omnibus Election Code and RA 7166 were both special laws, hence, petitioner's claim of good faith or absence of criminal intent was unavailing. 16

Through its assailed Resolution 17 dated February 15, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 18

The Present Petition

Petitioner now asks the Court to exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38977. We sum up petitioner's arguments in support of his plea for acquittal, 19viz.:

First. The mandatory nature of Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code was already repealed when Section 13 of RA 7166 deleted the word "shall" and in lieu thereof used the phrase "may spend" in referring to the maximum amounts of election expenses which candidates and political parties may incur. 20 Even the non-filing of SOCE under Section 107 of the Omnibus Election Code is no longer considered criminal but mere administrative infraction pursuant to Section 14 of RA 7166. Section 5, Rule 8, COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 in fact provides for imposition of administrative fine only, in lieu of imprisonment. 21

Second. He did not intend to violate the law.

In the alternative, petitioner prays that in the event of an unfavorable ruling, the Court should consider remanding the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence to give him one last chance to clarify the trial court's contrasting findings. 22

In its Comment 23 dated October 28, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, Assistant Solicitor General Alexander S. Salvador, and Senior State Solicitor Catalina A. Catral-Talatala counters that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error when it affirmed petitioner's conviction for violations of Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 13 of RA 7166. The trial court and Court of Appeals correctly found that petitioner spent more than what was allowed by election laws. With only 15,987 registered voters for the 2007 elections, petitioner was allowed to spend only up to P47,961.00. Petitioner's SOCE, however, reflects that he spent P116,884.11 for his mayoralty campaign. He even admitted these expenses during trial. 24

The OSG further argues that even assuming that out of the P116,884.11, P50,000.00 was spent for the party's campaign, that would still leave a difference of P66,884.11 which represents petitioner's expenses for his own campaign. This amount is still beyond the amount allowed by law. More, as the trial court aptly held, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was appointed as party treasurer. Hence, he has no authority to file SOCE in behalf of Lakas-CMD party. In any case, a party's SOCE and an individual candidate's SOCE must be filed separately seeing as they have different basis of computation. A party is allowed to spend up to P5.00 per registered voter, while an individual candidate is allowed to spend only up to P3.00 per registered voter in the concerned municipality or city. More, petitioner even admitted during trial that he came out with the amount in his SOCE by multiplying the number of voters by P3.00, which is the amount prescribed for individual candidates. In fact, there was no indication at all in the SOCE that petitioner filed the same in his dual capacity as individual candidate and as party treasurer. 25

Finally, the OSG submits that RA 7166 did not repeal Section 10 of the Omnibus Election Code. The former merely amended the latter insofar as the allowable amount of expenditure is concerned. 26 The offense charged against petitioner is mala prohibita, thus, the absence of criminal intent has no effect in his liability. 27

Issues

1. Did RA 7166 decriminalize election overspending?

2. Does petitioner's alleged lack of intent to violate Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code negate his liability for election overspending?

3. May petitioner be allowed to adduce additional evidence and clarify the trial court's purported contrasting findings?

Ruling

Sections 100 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code state:

Section 100. Limitations upon expenses of candidates. — No candidate shall spend for his election campaign an aggregate amount exceeding one peso and fifty centavos for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his candidacy: Provided, That the expenses herein referred to shall include those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate, whether in cash or in kind, including the use, rental or hire of land, water or aircraft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used in the campaign: Provided, further, that where the land, water or aircraft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used is owned by the candidate, his contributor or supporter, the Commission is hereby empowered to assess the amount commensurate with the expenses for the use thereof, based on the prevailing rates in the locality and shall be included in the total expenses incurred by the candidate.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 262. Other election offenses. — Violation of the provisions, or pertinent portions, of the following sections of this Code shall constitute election offenses: Sections x x x 100 x x x.

Section 13, RA 7166 amended Section 100, in this wise:

Section 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. — The agreement amount that a candidate or registered political party may spend for election campaign shall be as follows:

(a) For candidates. — Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice President; and for other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That a candidate without any political party and without support from any political party may be allowed to spend Five Pesos (P5.00) for every such voter; and

(b) For political parties. — Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any contribution in cash or in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to the Commission shall not be subject to the payment of any gift tax.

Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code provides the penalties for election offenses, thus:

Sec. 264. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has been instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty.

xxx xxx xxx

Under Section 13, RA 7166, an individual candidate who belongs to a party may, for his or her campaign, spend P3.00 for every registered voter in the constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy. A political party, on the other hand, may, for its campaign, spend a total of P5.00 for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates.

When petitioner ran for Mayor of the Municipality of Gamu, Isabela Province in 2007, there were 15,987 registered voters in that area. In accordance with Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Section 13 of RA 7166, petitioner may, for his campaign, spend up to P47,961.00.

Petitioner's SOCE and Schedule of Expenditures 28 bear the following entries:

 

Diesel consumption	P8,500.00
Snacks (meeting)	P12,177.50
Office supplies	P29,465.00
Diesel	P20,841.61
Rent (sound system)	P15,000.00
T-shirt (100 pieces)	P6,500.00
Printing	P1,200.00
Leaflets
Snacks meeting	P23,200.00
	=========
TOTAL	P116,884.11

 

As stated, for his election campaign, petitioner was allowed to spend up to P47,961.00 only. But, as it was, he overspent by P68,923.00.

Petitioner, nonetheless, argues that the total amount reflected in his SOCE and attachments, albeit more than what the law allowed, actually represented his joint expenditures both as mayoral candidate and as Lakas-CMD party treasurer. He asserts that P50,000.00 was spent for Lakas-CMD's senatorial candidates.

The argument fails to persuade.

One. The filing of a joint SOCE jointly reflecting the expenditures of an individual candidate and his political party is not allowed under the Omnibus Election Code nor RA 7166. The reason is simple. Since the standard for allowable expenditures for one (P3.00) is different from the other (P5.00), joining them in one SOCE will certainly breed confusion. In any event, petitioner's Schedule of Contributions Received 29 and Schedule of Expenditures 30 attached to his SOCE did not specify which contributions and/or expenses pertained to petitioner as a candidate and which ones pertained to his political party.

Two. Even assuming that joint filing of SOCE were allowed, petitioner's claim that he was indeed the designated party treasurer remains unsubstantiated. For unlike his designation as Coordinator of the Regional Party Chapter in Region II and Chairman of the Municipal Party Chapter in Gamu, Isabela, petitioner's alleged designation as party treasurer is uncorroborated by any appointment letter or designation. Bare allegations are not evidence. 31

Three. Even further assuming that petitioner was duly designated as party treasurer and the filing of a joint SOCE for himself and his party were allowed, he still exceeded the maximum amount fixed by law as a candidate himself.

Going back, the total expenditures reflected in petitioner's Schedule of Expenditures was P116,884.11. Deducting P50,000.00 (the amount the party purportedly spent for its senatorial candidates) from P116,884.11 would leave a balance of P66,884.11, the amount petitioner spent for his candidacy, which still exceeded the maximum limit of P47,961.00.

Petitioner further argues that Section 13 of RA 7166 has stripped Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code of its mandatory nature considering that Section 13 now uses the phrase "may spend," in lieu of "shall" found in Section 100. Side by side, the provisions read:

 

Section 100, Omnibus Election Code	Section 13, RA 7166
Section 100. Limitations upon expenses of candidates. — No candidate shall spend for his election campaign an aggregate amount exceeding one peso and fifty centavos for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his candidacy x x x	Section 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. — The (aggregate) amount that a candidate or registered political party may spend for election campaign shall be as follows:
(a) For candidates. — x x x and for other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy: x x x and
	(b) For political parties. — Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates.

 

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the provisions may have been differently worded but they mean the same thing. On one hand, Section 100, couched in the negative, states: "No candidate shall spend . . ." Clearly, it commands the candidate not to spend in excess of the maximum amount fixed therein. On the other hand, Section 13, couched in the affirmative, similarly fixes the maximum amount a candidate is allowed to spend, although he or she "may" or "may not" spend it all.

In any event, Section 13 must be read in harmony with Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code. "Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi." Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. 32

Petitioner, therefore, errs in concluding that RA 7166 has decriminalized "election overspending." To emphasize Section 39 33 of RA 7166 deleted only Sections 105 to 112 34 of the Omnibus Election Code from the list of election offenses. These deleted provisions referred to the accounting and reportorial requirements for candidates and political parties. Section 100, however, refers to the fixed maximum amounts a candidate or a political party may spend during election campaign. Its inclusion is retained in the enumeration of election offenses penalized under Sections 262 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.

True, Section 14, 35 RA 7166 and Section 5, Rule 8, COMELEC Resolution 9476 36 provides only for administrative fine. But these provisions refer to non-filing of statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures. It does not at all refer to the prohibition against spending in excess of the limits provided by law. Again, spending an amount in excess of the limits fixed under Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Section 13 of RA 7166, remains an election offense under Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Petitioner also posits that he had no intent to violate the rules. But violations of elections laws are malum prohibitum. Mere commission of the act itself is punished. Good faith, ignorance, or lack of malice is absolutely not a defense. 37

Finally, petitioner's prayer to remand the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is akin to a petition for new trial. Petitioner, however, has not cited any "newly discovered evidence" to justify the grant of a new trial here. The supposed "contrasting findings" of the trial court are definitely not newly discovered evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Decision dated May 4, 2018 and Resolution dated February 15, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 38977, AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations therefor, and for Other Purposes, dated November 26, 1991.

2.Rollo, p. 93.

3.Id. at 63 and 93.

4.Id. at 94.

5.Id. at 95.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 152-154.

8.Id. at 96-98.

9.Id. at 101-103.

10. Penned by Judge Rodolfo B. Dizon, id. at 93-116.

11.Id. at 116.

12.Id. at 110.

13.Id.at 111-115.

14. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by now Supreme Court Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Associate Justice Perdo B. Corales, id. at 62-75.

15.Id. at 74.

16.Id. at 73.

17.Id. at 91-92.

18.Id. at 76-90.

19.See Petition for Review dated March 12, 2019, id. at 40-57.

20.Id. at 47-48.

21.Id. at 45-47.

22.Id. at 53-54.

23.Id. at 173-189.

24.Id. at 180-181.

25.Id. at 181-186.

26.Id. at 186.

27.Id. at 186-187.

28.Id. at 154.

29.Id. at 153.

30.Id. at 154.

31.See Bago P. Pasandalan v. Commission on Elections, et al., 434 Phil. 161, 173-174 (2002).

32.Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Green Asia Construction & Development Corporation, 675 Phil. 846, 857 (2011) citing Gregorio B. Honasan v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, et al., 470 Phil. 659, 682 (2004).

33.Section 39. Amending and Repealing Clause. — Sections 107, 108 and 245 of the Omnibus Election Code are hereby repealed. Likewise, the inclusion in Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code of the violations of Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 as among election offenses is also hereby repealed. This repeal shall have retroactive effect.

34.Section 105. Accounting by agents of candidate or treasurer. — Every person receiving contributions or incurring expenditures by authority of the candidate or treasurer of the party shall, on demand by the candidate or treasurer of the party and in any event within five days after receiving such contribution or incurring such expenditure, render to the candidate or the treasurer of the party concerned, a detailed account thereof with proper vouchers or official receipts.

Section 106. Records of contributions and expenditures. —

(a) It shall be the duty of every candidate, treasurer of the political party and person acting under the authority of such candidate or treasurer to issue a receipt for every contribution received and to obtain and keep a receipt stating the particulars of every expenditure made.

(b) Every candidate and treasurer of the party shall keep detailed, full, and accurate records of all contributions received and expenditures incurred by him and by those acting under his authority, setting forth therein all information required to be reported.

(c) Every candidate and treasurer of the party shall be responsible for the preservation of the records of contributions and expenditures, together with all pertinent documents, for at least three years after the holding of the election to which they pertain and for their production for inspection by the Commission or its duly authorized representative, or upon presentation of a subpoena duces tecum duly issued by the Commission. Failure of the candidate or treasurer to preserve such records or documents shall be deemed prima facie evidence of violation of the provisions of this Article.

Section 107. Statement of contributions and expenditures. — Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, not later than seven days, or earlier than ten days before the day of the election, file in duplicate with the office indicated in the following section, full, true and itemized, statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

Within thirty days after the day of the election, said candidate and treasurer shall also file in duplicate a supplemental statement of all contribution and expenditures not included in the statement filed prior to the day of the election.

Section 108. Place for filing statements. — The statements of contributions and expenditures shall be filed as follows:

(a) Those of candidates for President and Vice-President, with the Commission.

(b) Those of candidates for Members of the Batasang Pambansa, with the provincial election supervisor concerned, except those of candidates in the National Capital Region which shall be filed with the regional election director of said region.

(c) Those of candidates for provincial offices, with the provincial election supervisor concerned.

(d) Those of candidates for city, municipal and barangay offices, with the election registrar concerned.

If the statement is sent by mail, it shall be by registered mail, and the date on which it was registered with the post office may be considered as the filing date thereof if confirmed on the same date by telegram or radiogram addressed to the office or official with whom the statement should be filed.

The provincial election supervisors and election registrars concerned shall, within fifteen days after the last day for the filing of the statements, send to the Commission duplicate copies of all statements filed with them.

Section 109. Form and contents of statement. — The statement shall be in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the candidate or by the treasurer of the party, shall be complete as of the date next preceding the date of filing and shall set forth in detail (a) the amount of contribution, the date of receipt, and the full name and exact address of the person from whom the contribution was received; (b) the amount of every expenditure, the date thereof, the full name and exact address of the person to whom payment was made, and the purpose of the expenditure; (c) any unpaid obligation, its nature and amount, and to whom said obligation is owing; and (d) such other particulars which the Commission may require.

If the candidate or treasurer of the party has received no contribution, made no expenditure, or has no pending obligation, the statement shall reflect such fact.

Section 110. Preservation and inspection of statements. — All statements of contributions and expenditures shall be kept and preserved at the office where they are filed and shall constitute part of the public records thereof for three years after the election to which they pertain. They shall not be removed therefrom except upon order of the Commission or of a competent court and shall, during regular office hours, be subject and open to inspection by the public. The officer in-charge thereof, shall, on demand, furnish certified copies of any statement upon payment of the fee prescribed under Section 270 hereof.

It shall be the duty of the Commission to examine all statements of contributions and expenditures of candidates and political parties to determine compliance with the provisions of this Article.

Section 111. Effect of failure to file statement. — In addition to other sanctions provided in this Code, no person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statements required herein within the period prescribed by this Code.

Section 112. Report of contractor and business firms. — Every person or firm to whom any electoral expenditure is made shall, within thirty days after the day of the election, file with the Commission a report setting forth the full names and exact addresses of the candidates, treasurers of political parties, and other persons incurring such expenditures, the nature or purpose of each expenditure, the date and costs thereof, and such other particulars as the Commission may require. The report shall be signed and sworn to by the supplier or contractor, or in case of a business firm or association, by its president or general manager.

It shall be the duty of such person or firm to whom an electoral expenditure is made to require every agent of a candidate or of the treasurer of a political party to present written authority to incur electoral expenditures in behalf of such candidate or treasurer, and to keep and preserve at its place of business, subject to inspection by the Commission or its authorized representatives, copies of such written authority, contracts, vouchers, invoices and other records and documents relative to said expenditures for a period of three years after the date of the election to which they pertain.

It shall be unlawful for any supplier, contractor or business firm to enter into contract involving election expenditures with representatives of candidates or political parties without such written authority.

35.Section 14. Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement. — Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

No person elected to any public offices shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement required herein within the period prescribed by this Act.

Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures are required herein shall constitute an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.

The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender.

It shall be the duty of every city or municipal election registrar to advise in writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within five (5) days from the date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures.

For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section, the administrative fine shall be from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

36. COMELEC Rules and Regulations Governing Campaign Finance and Disclosure.

37.SeeAmpo v. Court of Appeals, 517 Phil. 750, 757 (2006); Also see Spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, et al. 576 Phil. 357, 402 (2008).