Title
Bernardo vs. Abalos Sr.
Case
G.R. No. 137266
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2001
Petitioners accused respondents of vote-buying via a sponsored trip and promises of financial benefits. COMELEC dismissed the case for insufficient evidence; Supreme Court upheld dismissal due to procedural lapses and lack of corroborated proof.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137266)

Allegations of Vote Buying and Facts of the Case

The complaint accused the respondents of conspiration to conduct an all-expense-paid event for public school teachers at Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Quezon, which included free transportation, food, and political advertising materials endorsing Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos, Jr. The teachers were allegedly promised additional benefits including a "hazard" pay of P1,000 and increased allowances from P1,500 to P2,000. These promises were allegedly made with the intent to influence the teachers and other attendees to vote for the respondent candidate. The complainants argued that such acts violated the anti-vote-buying provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC and Its Findings

The Director of the Law Department of COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended dismissal of the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence, which the COMELEC En Banc adopted in Resolution No. 98-3208 dated December 1, 1998. The COMELEC found that the petitioners’ evidence were mainly self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio-visual recordings and photographs. The respondents’ evidence was deemed more credible and probative. The ruling emphasized that the complainants, bearing the burden of proof in this criminal matter, failed to adequately substantiate their allegations.

Petitioners’ Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, which is a mandatory procedural step under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 1, Rule 13. Although motions for reconsideration of en banc resolutions are generally disallowed, an exception exists for election offense cases such as this. The petitioners gave no plausible justification for their circumventing of this requirement, referring only to a broad claim that filing such a motion would cause unnecessary delay.

Supreme Court's Rationale on Procedural Requirements

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the procedural rule mandating motions for reconsideration as a mechanism for the COMELEC to correct any errors internally before judicial intervention. This mechanism aims to ensure orderly, just, expeditious, and inexpensive disposition of election-related cases. Failure to comply with this procedure renders the petition premature. The Court held that a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is appropriate only where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, which was not the case here due to the absence of a motion for reconsideration.

Substantive Considerations on the Insufficiency of Evidence

Beyond the procedural infirmity, the Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s factual findings noting that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.