Any complaint that charges the election offense of vote-buying must be supported by credible evidence that substantiates the elements of the offense. General averments of vote-buying, when accompanied by uncorroborated video clips and screenshots from such video clips, will be adjudged as mere speculation because they cannot substitute for proof required to establish probable cause.
The Case
Petitioners Edwin D. Rodriguez and Michael T. Defensor (collectively, petitioners) filed a Petition[1] for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside Resolution No. 10625[2] dated 14 November 2019 and Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14[3] dated 17 June 2020 rendered by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in E.O. Case No. 19-199. The COMELEC dismissed the Complaint Affidavit[4] filed by petitioners against respondents Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte-Alimurung[5] (Belmonte), Gian Carlo G. Sotto[6] (Sotto), Wilfredo B. Revillame[7] (Revillame), and Elizabeth Ancheta-Delarmente[8] (Delarmente) (collectively, respondents) for violation of Sec. 261(a)[9] of the Omnibus Election Code.[10]
Antecedents
Petitioners, Filipinos of legal age and residents of Quezon City, filed a Complaint Affidavit against respondents before the COMELEC. According to petitioners, respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente, then candidates for Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Representative of the First District of Quezon City, respectively, in the May 2019 National and Local Elections, along with respondent Revillame, a television personality who is known for hosting variety shows such as Masayang Tanghali Bayan, Wowowee, Willing Willie, and Wowowin.[11] committed the offense of vote-buying during a campaign rally on 11 May 2019. Belmonte and Sotto eventually won as Mayor and Vice Mayor of Quezon City, respectively, in the said elections,[12] and won anew for the same posts in the recently concluded May 2022 National and Local Elections.The Investigating Officer concluded:
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the role and object of preliminary investigation was "to secure the innocent against nasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions."
WHEREFORE, CONFORMABLY WITH [THE] FOREGOING PREMISES, the instant complaint docketed in EO Case No. 19-199 against respondents MA. JOSEFINA G. BELMONTE-ALIMURUNG, GIAN CARLO G. SOTTO, ELIZABETH A. DELARMENTE and WILFREDO B. REVILLAME is hereby DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence and utter lack of probable cause.[17]
After the Investigating Officer's evaluation, the Law Department proceeded to recommend the dismissal of the complaint to the COMELEC
En Banc. Preliminarily, the Law Department declared that the finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing the likelihood of commission of a crime. The determination of probable cause does not require authentication of petitioners' submitted video and photographs.
[18]The Law Department opined that the
miting de avance, or campaign rally of respondents Belmonte, Sotto and Delarmente, among others, and respondent Revillame's entertainment program were found to be two distinct and separate events. The candidates who spoke in the
miting de avance, left the venue before Revillame began his program. Respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente, who stayed behind, were mere spectators of Revillame's program.
[19] The Law Department summarized its recommendations thus:
In sum, the [Petitioners] were unable to present sufficient basis to support their allegations of vote-buying against Respondents Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte, Gian Carlo Jose G. Sotto, Elizabeth A. Delarmente, and Wilfredo B. Revillame. The video and photographs attached as evidence [do] not show any intent on the part of the Respondents to buy votes from the audience. Respondent Revillame was hired by his co-Respondents to give entertainment to the people who stayed after the miting de avance. There are no indications that Respondents conspired to commit vote-buying, so much so, with the event happening within the prying full view of the public and their political opponents.
WHEREFORE, the Law Department respectfully recommends the DISMISSAL of the Complaint filed against Respondents MA. JOSEFINA G. BELMONTE[-ALIMURUNG], GIAN CARLO JOSE G. SOTTO, ELIZABETH A. DELARMENTE and WILFREDO B. REVILLAME for violation of Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code for insufficiency of evidence and lack of probable cause.[20]
In adopting the Law Department's recommendation, the COMELEC
En Banc in its assailed Resolution No. 10625
[21] dated 14 November 2019 declared:
The Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to adopt the [R]ecommendation of the Law Department to dismiss the case against Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte[-Alimurung], Gian Carlo G. Sotto, Wilfredo B. Revillame, and Elizabeth A. Delarmente for alleged violation of Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code for lack of probable cause.
Let the Law Department implement this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.[22]
On 19 December 2019, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration-(MR)
[23] and alleged that the COMELEC
En Banc committed grave errors of fact and of law. Belmonte filed her Comment to petitioners' MR on 20 January 2020. The Law Department submitted a Memorandum dated 10 March 2020 which declared that after a thorough re-evaluation of the records of the case, there is no cogent reason to depart from the findings adopted by the COMELEC
En Banc in Resolution No. 10625. As the issues raised by petitioners merely rehashed the issues previously settled by the COMELEC
En Banc, the Law Department recommended the denial of petitioners' MR.
[24] The COMELEC
En Banc again adopted the Recommendation of the Law Department in its assailed Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14
[25] dated 17 June 2020 thus:
The Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to adopt the recommendation of the Law Department to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainants EDWIN D. RODRIGUEZ and MICHAEL T. DEFENSOR for being [a] mere rehash of issues already settled in En Banc Resolution No. 10695.
Let the Law Department implement this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.[26]
IssuesPetitioners come before this Court and raise the following grounds for consideration:
With all due respect, the respondent COMELEC committed error amounting to grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code considering that:
(1) | the evidence on record is sufficient to establish probable cause; |
|
|
(2) | the arguments of private respondents, which the COMELEC adopted, are matters best ventilated in the trial proper and not during the preliminary investigation; and |
|
|
(3) | the questioned resolutions are based on unwarranted assumptions.[27] |
For petitioners, the COMELEC
En Banc's assertion that Revillame cannot be held guilty of vote-buying due to his popularity and his brand of entertainment, is hasty and one-sided. They submit that, following such logic, any candidate can simply hire a public figure, or an artist, who can distribute money on their behalf.
Respondents Belmonte, Sotto and Delarmente filed their respective Comments.
[28] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation in lieu of Comment
[29] and argued that the COMELEC
En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code filed by petitioners against respondents. According to the OSG, there is probable cause to charge respondents with the offense of vote-buying.
[30]In its discussion, the OSG countered the COMELEC
En Banc's finding that respondents Belmonte, Sotto and Delarmente's
miting de avance and respondent Revillame's entertainment show are two separate and distinct events.
17. x x x [s]aid event was in reality a political rally that consisted of two parts: The first part was that portion wherein the the candidates delivered their speeches and presented their platform to the audience for the purpose of soliciting their votes, while the second part was the entertainment show provided by respondent Revillame. Clearly, therefore, the entertainment show of respondent Revillame formed part of the party's miting de avance. And, given the undeniable capability of respondent Revillame to draw huge crowds and to influence the public in anything, it is not accurate to say that he was merely invited to provide pure entertainment to the audience. On the contrary, he was invited thereto to influence the audience to vote tor respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente.
x x x x
24. That respondent Revillame did not directly tell the audience to vote for respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente is immaterial. His act of calling said respondents to the front of the stage during his show and respondent Belmonte's subsequent declaration of gratitude towards him for supporting their SPB Team strongly evinces the fact that he was endorsing respondent Belmonte and her co-respondents in the elections. Thus, respondent Revillame's entertainment show cannot be considered as separate from the miting de avance itself. His act of giving cash and other items of value to the crowd during said event in the presence of respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente who did not express any objection thereto, should be construed as a grand scheme to circumvent the prohibition against vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code. However, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Thus, in respondents' case, there is probable cause to charge them with vote-buying under the aforesaid law.[31]
The COMELEC
En Banc, in its Comment, denied the existence of probable cause and asserted that petitioners failed to satisfy the elements of vote-buying. Aside from reiterating that Revillame's entertainment portion was an event separate from the
miting de avance, the COMELEC
En Banc pointed out the deficiencies in petitioners complaint: the alleged acts were neither personally witnessed nor were they recipients of the alleged considerations. Furthermore, there was a lack of affidavits to support their allegations.
[32]Ruling of the CourtThe Petition lacks merit.
In issuing the challenged resolutions, the COMELEC
En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' Complaint Affidavit for lack of probable cause. Further, this Court has limited power to review findings of fact made by the COMELEC pursuant to its constitutional authority to investigate and prosecute actions for election offenses. Where there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law, this Court. may not review the factual findings of the COMELEC, nor substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.
[33]The Prosecution of the Election
Offense of Vote-BuyingPetitioners alleged that respondents committed vote-buying, an election offense, under Section 261(a)(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 881, or the Omnibus Election Code. The said provision states:
Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense:
(a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. — (1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
The offense of vote-buying is defined in Section 261(a)(1). The offender commits one of these acts: (1) gives, offers or promises money or anything of value; (2) gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private; (3) makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly; and (4) cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community. It is imperative for the prosecution of the offenses of vote-buying to show intent: (1) to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or (2) to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
The procedure for the initiation of the prosecution of the election offense of vote-buying, along with the offense of vote-selling, is prescribed in Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6646,
[34] or The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (Electoral Reforms Law).
Sec. 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-selling. — The presentation of a complaint for violations of paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or promise by or of the voter's acceptance of money or other consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a candidate, shall be sufficient basis for an investigation to be immediately conducted by the Commission, directly or through its duly authorized legal officers, under Section 68 or Section 265 of said Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
Proof that at least one voter in different precincts representing at least twenty percent (20%) of the total precincts in any municipality, city or province has been offered, promised or given money, valuable consideration or other expenditure by a candidates relatives, leaders and/or sympathizers for the purpose of promoting the election of such candidate, shall constitute a disputable presumption of a conspiracy under paragraph (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
Where such proof affects at least twenty percent (20%) of the precints of the municipality, city or province to which the public office aspired for by the favored candidate relates, the same shall constitute a disputable presumption of the involvement of such candidate and of his principal campaign managers in each of the municipalities concerned, in the conspiracy.
The giver, offeror, and promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were given: Provided, further, That nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.
Section 4 of Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure prescribes the form of the complaint and where to file it.
Sec. 4. Form of Complaint and Where to File. — (a) When not initiated motu proprio by the Commission, the complaint must be verified and supported by affidavits and/or any other evidence. Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the Commission, or the Director of the Law Department upon direction of the Chairman, and need not be verified;
(b) The complaint shall be filed with the Law Department of the Commission; or with the offices of the Election Registrars, Provincial Election Supervisors or Regional Election Directors, or the State Prosecutor, Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal. If filed with any of the latter three (3) officials, investigation thereof may be delegated to any of their assistants.
(c) If filed with the Regional Election Directors or Provincial Election Supervisors, said officials shall immediately furnish the Director of the Law Department a copy of the complaint and the supporting documents, and inform the latter of the action taken thereon.
The COMELEC
En Banc is correct in decreeing that petitioners' Complaint Affidavit, as filed, is insufficient to sustain their allegations of vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code. It is not "supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or promise by or of the voter's acceptance of money or other consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a candidate" as required under Section 28 of the Electoral Reforms Law. The absence of supporting affidavits shows the frailty of petitioners' Complaint Affidavit and makes it vulnerable to dismissal.
[35] Submission of self-serving statements, uncorroborated audio and visual recordings, and photographs are not considered as direct, strong, convincing and indubitable evidence.
[36] Indeed, a complaint, such as that filed by petitioners, must be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The importance of supporting affidavits is further underscored by the first paragraph
[37] of Section 28 of the Electoral Reforms Law. To comply with its mandate to investigate and prosecute those committing offenses under Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code, the last paragraph of Section 28 of the Electoral Reforms Law vests the COMELEC with the authority to give,
transactional immunity to those who voluntarily give information and willingly testify in any official proceeding for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were given.
[38] This grant of immunity is meant to encourage the recipient (or vote-seller) to come into the open and denounce the culprit-candidate (or vote-buyer) and to ensure the successful prosecution of the criminal case against the latter.
[39]x x x The immunity statute seeks a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege against self-incrimination and the legitimate demands of government to encourage citizens, including law violators themselves, to testify against law violators. The statute operates as a complete pardon for the offenses to which the information was given. The execution of those statutes reflects the importance of the testimony therefor, and the fact that many offenses are of such character that the only persons capable of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crimes. Indeed, their origins were in the context of such offenses and their primary use has been to investigate and prosecute such offenses. Immunity from suit is the only consequence flowing from a violation of one's constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to counsel and his right not to he coerced into confessing. By voluntarily offering to give information on violations of Section 261 (a) and (b) and testify against the culprits, one opens himself to investigation and prosecution if he himself is a party to any violation of the law. In exchange for his testimony, the law gives him immunity from investigation and prosecution for any offense in Section 261 (a) and (b) with reference to which his information is given. He is, therefore, assured that his testimony cannot be used by the prosecutors and any authorities in any respect, and that his testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on him. The testimony of a voluntary witness in accord with his sworn statement operates as a pardon, for the criminal charges to which it relates.
It bears stressing that one may voluntarily give information on violations of Section 261 (a) and (b) and execute an affidavit before a complaint is filed with the [COMELEC], or any provincial or city prosecutor. This may he done even during the preliminary investigation or even after an Information is filed, on the condition that his testimony must be in accord with or based on his affidavit. If such witness later refuses to testify or testifies but contrary. to his affidavit, he loses his immunity from suit, and may be prosecuted for violations of Section 261(a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code, perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, or false testimony under Article 180 of the same Code.
The power to grant exemptions is vested solely on the [COMELEC]. This power is concomitant with its authority to enforce election laws, investigate election offenses and prosecute those committing the same. The exercise of such power should not be interfered with by the trial court. Neither may this Court interfere with the [COMELEC's] exercise of its discretion in denying or granting exemptions under the law, unless the petitioner commits a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[40]
It requires more than a mere tenuous deduction to prove the offense of vote-buying. There must be concrete and direct evidence or, at least, strong circumstantial evidence to support the charge of vote-buying.
[41] In
Lozano v. Yorac,[42] We decreed that the physical presence of a mayoralty candidate during the distribution of the local government's Christmas gifts did not necessarily make the candidate the giver of said gifts. Complainant's witnesses even confirmed that the gift packages clearly indicated that the local government was the giver.
[43] In similar manner, petitioners' allegation that respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente were present when respondent Revillame gave cash to certain persons in the audience hastily concludes that the former were the givers. Revillame presented the affidavits of five recipients of his gifts. One recipient was a resident of Antipolo City and cannot be influenced to vote for Belmonte Sotto, and Delarmente, who were all candidates for positions in Quezon City. All these affiants-recipients stated that Revillame did not ask them whether they were registered Quezon City voters. What mattered to Revillame was their attendance in the program. They were also unanimous in stating that Revillame, not respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente, was the benevolent source of their gifts. That respondents were able to present the affidavits from the recipients of Revillame's gifts starkly contrasts with petitioners' lack of supporting evidence for their allegations.
The testimonies of the alleged vote-sellers are also invaluable in proving the intent of the vote-buyer. Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code explicitly states that intent an element the offenses of vote-buying and vote-selling. That the Omnibus Election Code is a special law does not necessarily mean that it is needless to prove intent. We agree with the COMELEC
En Banc that vote-buying is inherently immoral as it destroys the sanctity of votes and prostitutes the election process.
[44] An act prohibited by a special law does not automatically make it malum prohibitum. "When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law." The bench and bar must rid themselves of the common misconception that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special laws. The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act.[45]
Notwithstanding our limited power to review the COMELEC's findings of fact, We deem that the distinction between the
miting de avance. and the entertainment program was unnecessary for determining respondents' liability for vote-buying. Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code does not require that the offense be made during a political activity such as a
miting de avance. This, provided that all the elements of the offense are present, there is no escape from liability even if the vote buying was done at a distance, whether in terms of time or of physical space, from a political activity.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is
DISMISSED. Resolution No. 10625 dated 14 November 2019 and Minute Resolution No. 02-0268-14 of the Commission on Elections
En Banc in E.O. Case No. 19-199 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and
Singh, JJ., concur.
Hernando,* J., on leave.
Kho, Jr.,** J., no part – (with prior participation).
* On leave.
** With prior participation.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-21. Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Id. at 22-29. Signed by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Al A. Parreño, Luie Tito F. Guia, Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a Member of the Court)
[3] Id. at 30-33. Signed by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a Member of this Court).
[4] Id. at 34-36.
[5] Also referred to as Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte in various portions of the
rollo.
[6] Also referred to as Gian Carlo Jose G. Sotto in various portions of the
rollo.
[7] Also referred to as Kuya Wil in various portions of the
rollo.
[8] Also referred to as Elizabeth A. Delarmente in various portions of the
rollo.
[9] Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:
(a) Vote buying and vote-selling. -
(1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
(2) Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing considerations.
[10] Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Approved: 03 December 1985.
[11] Rollo, p. 38.
[12] Id. at 34.
[13] Id. at 35-36.
[14] Id. at 251-252.
[15] See
Id. at 22. Signed by Director Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal of the COMELEC Law Department.
[16] Id. at 22-28. Atty. Jubil S. Surmieda, Regional Election Director for the National Capital Region directed Atty. Jovencio G. Balanquit to conduct the preliminary investigation and submit his recommendation. The Law Department received the recommendation on 24 September 2019.
[17] Id. at 26-27.
[18] Id. at 27-28.
[19] Id. at 28.
[20] Id. at 28. Emphasis in the original.
[21] Id. at 22-29. Signed by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Al A. Parreño, Luie Tito F. Guia, Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a Member of this Court).
[22] Id. at 28. Emphasis in the original.
[23] Id. at 88-93.
[24] Id. at 31-32.
[25] Id. at 30-33. Signed by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a Member of the Court).
[26] Id. at 33. Emphasis in the original.
[27] Id. at 8-9.
[28] Id. at 130-165 (Revillame), 166-177 (Belmonte), 178-187 (Delarmente), 191-212 (Sotto).
[29] Id. at 262-276.
[30] Id. at 267-268.
[31] Id. at 270-272. Citation omitted.
[32] Id. at 254.
[33] Malinias v. Commission on Elections, 439 Phil. 319, 339 (2002).
[34] Approved: 05 January 1988.
[35] See
Bernardo, et al. v. Abalos, Sr., et al., 422 Phil. 807, 814 (2001).
[36] Id. at 813.
[37] Approved: 15 February 1993.
[38] See
Commission on Elections v. Español, 463 Phil. 240, 243 (2003).
[39] See
Commission on Elections v. Hon. Tagle, 445 Phil. 665, 671 (2003)
[40] Supra at note 38 at 260-261.
[41] Lozano v. Yorac, 280 Phil. 280, 296 (1991).
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[44] Rollo, p. 253.
[45] Cardona v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 244544, 06 July 2020 citing
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 519 Phil. 591, 596 (2006) and
Dungo v. People, 762 Phil. 630, 658-659 (2015).