Bernardo vs. Abalos

Certiorari will not lie where the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration expressly allowed by the COMELEC Rules in election-offense cases, there being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The COMELEC’s dismissal for insufficiency of evidence was likewise sustained, the complaint having lacked the supporting affidavits of complaining witnesses required to prosecute vote-buying.

Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. was the incumbent Mayor of Mandaluyong City, while his son Benjamin “Benhur” Abalos, Jr. was a candidate for City Mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. The other private respondents were Schools Division Superintendent Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent Romeo F. Zapanta, and Arcadio S. De Vera, President of the Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers. The governing framework invoked was Section 261, paragraphs (a), (b) and (j) of the Omnibus Election Code on vote-buying and vote-selling, in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, over which the COMELEC exercises investigatory and prosecutorial authority.

Petitioners Antonio M. Bernardo, Ernesto A. Domingo, Jr. and Jesus C. Cruz filed with the COMELEC on April 21, 1998 a criminal complaint against Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., mayoralty candidate Benjamin “Benhur” Abalos, Jr., Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Romeo F. Zapanta and Arcadio S. De Vera for vote-buying in violation of Section 261, paragraphs (a), (b) and (j) of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.

According to the complaint, on April 14, 1998, Mayor Abalos, Sr. and his son, conspiring with Diaz, Zapanta and De Vera, sponsored, arranged and conducted an all-expense-free transportation, food and drinks affair for Mandaluyong City public school teachers, who were registered voters of the city, at the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort in Sariaya, Quezon Province. The teachers were brought in around twelve buses and included named principals, assistant principals, district supervisors and officers and board members of the Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers. During the whole-day affair, the political jingle of candidate Benjamin “Benhur” Abalos, Jr., sung to the tune of “SHA LALA LALA,” was loudly and repeatedly played over the sound system, and some participants wore T-shirts with the name of candidate “Benhur” Abalos, Jr. printed in oversized colored letters.

Petitioners further alleged that Mayor Abalos, Sr. delivered a speech offering and promising the teachers and employees a “hazard” pay of P1,000.00 and an increase of their food allowances from P1,500.00 to P2,000.00, or a total of P3,000.00 to be received by the end of the month. The offers and promises, made a few weeks before the May 11, 1998 elections to teachers who were members of the Board of Election Inspectors and registered voters, were allegedly intended to induce or unduly influence them and the public in general to vote for Benhur Abalos, Jr., constituting vote-buying and vote-selling.

Thereafter, the Director of the COMELEC Law Department conducted a preliminary investigation, during which all private respondents filed separate counter-affidavits praying for dismissal. On November 26, 1998, the Director submitted findings recommending dismissal for insufficiency of evidence, and 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 COMELEC found petitioners’ evidence to consist of mere self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio and visual recordings and a photograph, deemed respondents’ evidence to have more probative value and to be more believable, and noted the absence of supporting affidavits from complaining witnesses.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC En Banc, in issuing Resolution No. 98-3208 dated December 1, 1998 dismissing the vote-buying complaint, acted with apparent grave abuse of discretion.
• Motion for Reconsideration as Dilatory: Petitioner maintained that it was best not to seek any further dilatory motion for reconsideration, even if allowed by Section 1(d) of COMELEC Rule 13, advancing this excuse only in the Consolidated Reply after respondents raised non-compliance.

• Failure to Seek Reconsideration: Respondent countered that the petition was procedurally defective because petitioners directly elevated the questioned Resolution to the Supreme Court without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc as required by Section 1, Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

• Exhaustion — Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the petition for certiorari is premature and must fail where petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC En Banc Resolution as required in election-offense cases.
• Sufficiency of Evidence — Vote-Buying: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the vote-buying complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case.

• Exhaustion — Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The petition is premature and must fail, a motion for reconsideration being expressly allowed in election-offense cases and constituting a plain, speedy and adequate remedy under Rule 65.
• Sufficiency of Evidence — Vote-Buying: No. No grave abuse was committed, the dismissal being supported by the self-serving and uncorroborated character of petitioners’ evidence and the absence of supporting affidavits of complaining witnesses.

• Exhaustion — Motion for Reconsideration: Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure disallows a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling except in election-offense cases, making such a motion the required recourse here since the complaint involved an election offense. Because its purpose is to afford the COMELEC an opportunity to correct an imputed error, characterizing the motion as dilatory disregarded rules intended to achieve an orderly, just, expeditious and inexpensive disposition of proceedings. Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari requires the absence of any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; having bypassed that remedy without plausible justification, the petition was premature.
• Sufficiency of Evidence — Vote-Buying: A criminal complaint must have its allegations supported by direct, strong, convincing and indubitable evidence, yet petitioners submitted only self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio and visual recordings and a photograph, while respondents’ evidence was found more probative and believable. Moreover, Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 requires a complaint for violation of Section 261(a) or (b) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 to be supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or promise or the voter’s acceptance of money or other consideration, and petitioners’ own cover letter showed no such supporting affidavits were submitted. The absence of those affidavits rendered the complaint frail and vulnerable to dismissal.

• Motion for reconsideration as condition for certiorari — Before resorting to certiorari under Rule 65, the aggrieved party must exhaust available remedies below, including a motion for reconsideration where expressly allowed. Applied here, Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure allows reconsideration of an en banc ruling in election-offense cases, so direct resort to the Supreme Court without such motion rendered the petition premature absent a plausible justification.
• Purpose of a motion for reconsideration — The motion affords the tribunal an opportunity to correct an error imputed to it; prompt correction makes it the most expeditious and inexpensive recourse, while refusal to correct a patently erroneous act constitutes the grave abuse that justifies certiorari. Petitioners’ dismissal of the motion as dilatory was thus rejected.
• Certiorari requires absence of plain, speedy and adequate remedy — Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari lies only where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Failure to invoke the allowed COMELEC motion for reconsideration left such a remedy unexhausted.
• Prosecution of vote-buying and vote-selling — Under Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646, a complaint for violation 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 or the voter’s acceptance of money or other consideration is the sufficient basis for immediate investigation by the Commission. The absence of those supporting affidavits showed the frailty of the complaint and justified dismissal.

• "Considering that this complaint, being criminal in nature, must have all its allegations supported by direct, strong, convincing and indubitable evidence; and that the submitted evidence of the complainant are mere self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio and visual recordings and a photograph; and considering further that the evidence of the respondents have more probative value and believable than the evidence of said complainants; and that the burden of proof lies with the complainants and not with the respondents." — States the COMELEC’s quoted ground for dismissing the vote-buying complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case.
• "A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, can only be resorted to if 'there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.'" — Defines the threshold requirement that barred the petition for bypassing the allowed motion for reconsideration.
• "SEC. 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-selling. - The representation 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 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." — Sets the statutory evidentiary predicate for vote-buying prosecution whose absence weakened petitioners’ complaint.

• D.C. Crystal, Inc. vs. Laya, 170 SCRA 734 (1989) — Cited with Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC and Amante vs. Sison and Manzanero to support the proposition that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to give the tribunal opportunity to correct an imputed error.
• Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 (1989) — Cited for the same reconsideration-purpose doctrine via Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated.
• Amante vs. Sison and Manzanero, 60 Phil. 949, 951 (1934) — Cited as foundational authority for the corrective function of a motion for reconsideration.
• Sunshine Transportation, Inc. vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51 (1996) — Cited to hold that failure to file the required motion for reconsideration rendered the instant petition premature.

• Section 261, paragraphs (a), (b) and (j), Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) — Prohibits vote-buying and vote-selling; the provisions petitioners alleged were violated by the promises of hazard pay and increased allowances to induce votes for the mayoralty candidate.
• Section 28, Republic Act No. 6646 — Requires a vote-buying complaint under Section 261(a) or (b) to be supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer, promise, or acceptance of money or other consideration; applied to show petitioners’ complaint lacked the required support.
• Section 68 and Section 265, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 — Referenced in Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 as the authority under which the Commission conducts immediate investigation of supported vote-buying complaints.
• Section 1(d), Rule 13, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Disallows motions for reconsideration of an en banc ruling except in election-offense cases; applied to require petitioners to seek reconsideration before certiorari.
• Section 3, Rule 1, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — States the Rules’ purpose to achieve an orderly, just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of actions before the Commission; invoked to reject treating reconsideration as dilatory.
• Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Allows certiorari only where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; applied to dismiss the petition as premature.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Carpio, JJ., concur. Buena, J., on official leave.