Case Digest (G.R. No. 255509)
Facts:
Edwin D. Rodriguez and Michael T. Defensor, G.R. No. 255509, January 10, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners filed a verified complaint-affidavit with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) accusing respondents Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte, Gian Carlo G. Sotto, Elizabeth A. Delarmente, and television personality Wilfredo B. Revillame of vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code). The complaint alleged that at a campaign rally/miting de avance on 11 May 2019 in Quezon City, Revillame gave cash to members of the audience in the presence of the three candidate-respondents and thereafter endorsed them, and that video footage and still photographs (submitted on DVD and as annexes) purportedly showed these acts.
The COMELEC Law Department assigned a Regional Election Director to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Investigating Officer reviewed petitioners’ allegations, the submitted video and photographs, and respondents’ counter-affidavits. Respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente denied giving money and maintained they were mere spectators of Revillame’s entertainment program; Revillame admitted giving small amounts of cash but said such gifts were his personal charitable acts during his show and were not intended to induce votes. Revillame produced affidavits of five recipients who described him as the giver; petitioners offered no supporting affidavits from recipients or witnesses with personal knowledge.
On 11 October 2019 the Law Department, adopting the Investigating Officer’s recommendation, found petitioners’ averments and the uncorroborated audiovisual material insufficient to establish probable cause, and observed that the showing required by Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law)—affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to offers, promises or acceptance of money—was lacking. The COMELEC En Banc adopted that recommendation in Resolution No. 10625 dated 14 November 2019 and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and lack of probable cause. Petitioners moved for reconsideration on 19 December 2019; the Law Department again recommended denial, and the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion in Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14 dated 17 June 2020.
Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in (1) finding lack of probable cause despite sufficient evidence; (2) treating as triable matters issues that should not have been re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC En Banc commit 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?
- Was there probable cause to charge respondents with vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) BP 881 given the submitted video footage and photographs without supporting affidavits of complaining witnesses as contemplated by Section 28 of RA 6646?
- Could the presence of respondents and Revillame’s giving of money at the event, together with his calling the candidates to the stage, supply the necessary...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)