G.R. No. 137266 - Bernardo vs. Abalos Sr.

On April 21, 1998, petitioners Antonio M. Bernardo, Ernesto A. Domingo, Jr., and Jesus C. Cruz filed a criminal complaint before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against respondents Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., Benjamin "Benhur" C. Abalos, Jr., Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Romeo F. Zapanta, and Arcadio de Vera for alleged vote buying.
The complaint was docketed as E.O. Case No. 98-110.

On April 14, 1998, the respondents allegedly conspired to sponsor an all-expense-paid trip, including transportation, food, and drinks for Mandaluyong City public school teachers, who were registered voters and members of the Board of Election Inspectors.
The event was held at Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Sariaya, Quezon Province, and was attended by numerous identified public school teachers and officers of the Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers.
Throughout the affair, a political jingle promoting Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos, Jr. was repeatedly played, and some participants wore T-shirts bearing his name.
Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. delivered a speech promising the public school teachers a "hazard" pay increase and an increase in their allowances, totaling P3,000.00 by the end of the month.
These offers and promises were allegedly made to influence the teachers and public in favor of Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos, Jr. in the May 11, 1998 elections.
The conduct was claimed to be a violation of Section 261, paragraphs (a), (b), and (j) of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 and Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.

The Director of the Law Department of COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation.
The private respondents filed counter-affidavits praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
On November 26, 1998, the Director submitted findings recommending the dismissal of the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence.
On December 1, 1998, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 98-3208 dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case.
The resolution emphasized that the complainant’s evidence was mere self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio, visual recordings, and a photograph, while respondents’ evidence had more probative value.
The burden of proof was placed on the complainants, who failed to meet it.

On February 9, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC.
Notably, petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration with COMELEC prior to elevating the case to the Court.
The Court noted petitioners’ failure to exhaust available remedies at the COMELEC level before seeking relief.

Whether or not petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc before elevating the case to the Supreme Court constituted a ground to dismiss the petition.

Whether or not the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for vote buying for insufficiency of evidence.

Whether or not the complainants’ failure to submit supporting affidavits as required under Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 rendered their complaint vulnerable to dismissal.