G.R. No. 255509 - Rodriguez vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 255509)

Petition and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 (in relation to Rule 65) seeking annulment of COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 10625 (14 November 2019) and Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14 (17 June 2020) in E.O. Case No. 19-199. Those COMELEC resolutions dismissed petitioners’ Complaint Affidavit for alleged vote-buying under Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code for insufficiency of evidence and lack of probable cause.

Allegations in the Complaint Affidavit

Petitioners alleged that during the event on 11 May 2019 Willie Revillame went on stage, gave cash to members of the crowd on multiple occasions, and thereafter endorsed respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente to induce votes for them, in violation of Section 261(a)(1) of BP Blg. 881. Petitioners attached a video (allegedly broadcast live on a Facebook account), a DVD of the video, and still photographs purportedly showing Revillame giving cash and showing respondents with him. The Complaint Affidavit sought to charge all four respondents with vote-buying.

Respondents’ Defenses

Respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente denied giving money or intending to induce votes, asserting they were present as mere spectators and that Revillame’s entertainment show was separate from the miting de avance. Revillame admitted giving small amounts of cash and jackets but maintained these were personal acts of charity or entertainment, not intended to induce votes, and funded from his own pocket. Respondents also challenged petitioners’ capacity to swear to first-hand knowledge, and raised issues on admissibility and authentication of the video and photographs in the absence of witness testimony and chain of custody.

Investigating Officer and Law Department Findings

The Investigating Officer found petitioners’ allegations and submitted video/photographs insufficient to establish probable cause. The Investigating Officer emphasized the absence of corroborative witness testimony, characterized the videos/photos as having weak evidentiary value without authentication, and noted Revillame’s own statements that his giveaways were for relief (e.g., medicines, basic necessities) and not intended to induce votes. The COMELEC Law Department reproduced and adopted this recommendation, concluding the miting de avance and Revillame’s entertainment program were distinct events and that the evidence did not show intent or a conspiracy to engage in vote-buying.

COMELEC En Banc Resolutions and Motion for Reconsideration

The COMELEC En Banc adopted the Law Department’s recommendation and issued Resolution No. 10625 (14 November 2019) dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 19 December 2019. After re-evaluation, the Law Department again recommended denial of reconsideration as a rehash of settled issues. The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration via Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14 (17 June 2020).

Competing Arguments to the Supreme Court

Petitioners contended to the Supreme Court that the COMELEC erred in dismissing the complaint despite sufficient evidence, that factual disputes should be resolved at trial rather than in preliminary investigation, and that the COMELEC’s conclusions were based on unwarranted assumptions. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion and that probable cause existed because Revillame’s entertainment portion formed part of the political rally and his giveaways in the presence of the candidates amounted to an indirect scheme to buy votes. COMELEC defended its findings, reiterating the absence of direct witnesses, affidavits of recipients corroborating petitioners’ claims, and the insufficiency of petitioners’ evidence.

Applicable Legal Framework and Evidentiary Requirements

Primary statutory provisions applied: Section 261(a)(1) of BP Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) defining vote-buying (giving, offering or promising money or anything of value to induce votes) and Section 28 of RA 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law) prescribing the procedure for initiating prosecution for vote-buying and vote-selling. Section 28 requires that complaints be supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to offers/promises or acceptance by voters; presentation of such affidavits suffices as a basis for COMELEC investigation. COMELEC Rules (Rule 34, Sec. 4) require complaints to be verified and supported by affidavits and/or other evidence when not motu proprio. The decision applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing constitutional framework.

Standards on Probable Cause, Intent, and COMELEC Discretion

The Court reiterated that the offense of vote-buying requires proof of (a) the act of giving, offering, promising money or anything of value and (b) intent to induce votes. Even though vote-buying is penalized by special law and is malum in se, criminal intent remains an essential element. Section 28’s grant of potential transactional immunity to recipients who voluntarily give information and testify underscores the legislature’s emphasis on witness affidavits and direct testimony to establish vote-buying. The Supreme Court emphasized that preliminary investigation seeks to protect the innocent from unfounded prosecutions and that COMELEC’s determination of probable cause need only be based on evidence showing the likelihood of commission of a crime.

Evidentiary Assessment: Videos, Photographs, and Witness Testimony

The Court agreed with COMELEC that uncorroborated video clips and screenshots, absent authentication and supporting witness affidavits (particularly from recipients who could attest to offers/acceptances and intent), carry weak evidentiary weight and constitute hearsay for purposes of establishing probable cause. The petitioners’ reliance on self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio-visual materials

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 255509)

Court, Citation, and Author of Decision

Decided EN BANC by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 255509, dated January 10, 2023.
Decision penned by Justice Zalameda.
Case caption identifies petitioners Edwin D. Rodriguez and Michael T. Defensor, and respondents Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte (Belmonte), Gian Carlo G. Sotto (Sotto), Wilfredo B. Revillame (Revillame), and Elizabeth A. Delarmente (Delarmente).

Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 (in relation to Rule 65) of the Rules of Court.
The petition sought annulment and setting aside of COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 10625 dated 14 November 2019 and Minute Resolution No. 20-0268-14 dated 17 June 2020 in E.O. Case No. 19-199.
The challenged COMELEC resolutions dismissed petitioners’ Complaint Affidavit alleging violation of Section 261(a) (specifically Section 261(a)(1)) of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881), i.e., vote-buying.

Relevant Procedural Background and Antecedents

Petitioners are Filipinos of legal age and residents of Quezon City who filed a Complaint Affidavit before COMELEC.
The Complaint Affidavit accused respondents Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente (then candidates for Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Representative, First District, Quezon City) and Revillame (television personality) of vote-buying during a campaign rally on 11 May 2019.
Belmonte and Sotto later won as Mayor and Vice Mayor in May 2019 and again in May 2022; Delarmente also ran for Congresswoman.
The Complaint Affidavit was docketed as E.O. Case No. 19-199 and was preliminarily investigated by the COMELEC Law Department and an Investigating Officer.

Allegations in the Complaint Affidavit (as pleaded by petitioners)

On May 11, 2019, Belmonte, Sotto, and their party held a campaign rally (miting de avance) along Roosevelt Avenue, Pitimini, Quezon City with a stage where platforms were presented and support solicited.
Celebrities and guests, including Willie (Wil) Revillame, were invited to attract voters; Revillame was called onstage where Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente were also present.
While onstage, Revillame, accompanied by “wowowee girls,” performed and, on multiple occasions, gave cash to the crowd and thereafter endorsed the respondents.
Petitioners alleged that the cash was given to induce voters to vote for Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente, constituting a violation of Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code.
A video taken during the event allegedly showed Revillame giving cash in the presence of the respondents and was simultaneously broadcast live on Joy Belmonte’s Facebook account; petitioners attached a DVD (ANNEX “A”) and DVDs/still photos (ANNEX “B”, B-1’ to B-19) as exhibits.
Petitioners executed the Complaint Affidavit to charge the four respondents with vote-buying punishable under Section 261(a)(1).

Respondents’ General and Specific Defenses (Law Department summary and individual defenses)

Common defenses:
- All respondents denied vote-buying and sought outright dismissal for absence of elements of the offense and insufficiency of evidence; argued no probable cause.
- Petitioners were not present at the event and therefore lacked personal knowledge; evidence (videos/photos) lacked authentication and chain of custody; absence of witness testimony to corroborate alleged acts.
Belmonte:
- Characterized the complaint as harassment; denied giving money or anything of value to induce votes.
- Asserted Revillame’s show was a separate event held after the miting de avance; she and others remained mere spectators; Revillame’s production was under his team’s control.
- Recalled being briefly called to the front to greet and denied elements of vote-buying and vote-selling; stressed lack of evidence or witnesses.
Sotto:
- Denied allegations as frivolous; argued petitioners’ allegations were hearsay, speculation, conjecture and baseless.
- Claimed video stills were inadmissible absent authentication by the person who took them.
- Stated Revillame did not tell the audience to vote for Belmonte, Sotto or Delarmente and that Revillame’s statements about money being for basic needs did not indicate inducement to vote.
Delarmente:
- Described complaint as harassment; denied violation of Sec. 261(a)(1).
- Asserted the miting de avance and Revillame’s entertainment show were distinct events; sought dismissal for lack of elements.
Revillame:
- Admitted giving small cash amounts during his entertainment variety show (including the “bigyan ng jacket” segment), but insisted funds were from his pocket and intended as assistance to fans (children, senior citizens, PWDs) for necessities.
- Denied any intent to induce votes for the candidates and denied uttering or implying any requirement to vote for them.
- Maintained criminal intent (mens rea) was absent and sought dismissal.

Investigating Officer and Law Department Findings

The Investigating Officer (via Regional Election Director and Atty. Jovencio G. Balanquit) evaluated allegations, video footage, and photographs and found petitioners failed to establish by allegation or evidence that vote-buying took place or that respondents were probably guilty.
Findings included:
- Belmonte, Sotto, and Delarmente admitted presence but denied giving cash.
- Revillame gave cash to attendees but no indication respondents were aware or consented; Revillame characterized his acts as benevolent and not inducement to vote.
- Petitioners did not present corroborative testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge on the money-giving; video footage and stills lacked testimonial authentication and were weak hearsay evidence.
- Mens rea must be established for vote-buying; Revillame’s statements that money/jackets were to help buy medicines/daily necessities negated an express inducement to vote.
The Investigating Officer recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence and utter lack of probable cause, quoting the purpose of preliminary investigation to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution.

Law Department Recommendation to Dismiss and Rationale

The Law Department reproduced the Investigating Officer’s recommendation and recommended dismissal to the COMELEC En Banc.
Key Law Department positions:
- Probable cause requires evidence showing the likelihood of commission of a crime; authentication of videos/photos is not strictly required at the probable cause determination stage.
- The miting de avance and Revillame’s entertainment program were distinct events; candidates left before Revillame’s program or stayed only as spectators.
- The submitted evidence (video and photographs) did not show intent on the part of respondents to buy votes or of a conspiracy; Revillame was said to be hired to entertain those who stayed after the miting de avance.
- Petitioners failed to present sufficient basis to support allegations; recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence and lack of pro