By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
In the case of COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Petitioner, v. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, Respondent (G. R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60, Feb. 17, 2003), the Supreme Court ruled on the election offenses of vote-buying and vote-selling, punishable under Sec. 261 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code). These are criminal cases and the preliminary investigations of these cases are exclusively lodged with the COMELEC, which may continually deputize the public prosecutors for assistance.
The case occurred because Florentino Bautista ran for mayor of Kawit, Cavite in the May 11, 1998 elections. He was defeated by Atty. Federico Poblete.
Bautista immediately filed with the COMELEC a complaint for vote-buying against Poblete, who was already the incumbent mayor, and 10 others, who were probably his fellow candidates and supporters.
Bautista attached to his complaint the affidavits of his 44 witnesses. This was the crux of the case.
COMELEC found that Bautista’s complaint was meritorious and ordered the filing of an information for vote-buying against Poblete, et al. The information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (Br. 90), Imus, Cavite.
Before trial could proceed, 2 persons filed a complaint for vote-selling against the witnesses before the Provincial Prosecutor.
The Provincial Prosecutor then resolved the complaint against the witnesses, and ordered the filing of information against them for vote-selling. The information was filed with the RTC branches, in Imus, Cavite, which included the branch presided by Judge Lucenito Tagle.
Finding themselves at the receiving end of criminal charges for vote-selling, the witnesses were forced to appeal to the COMELEC. At first, their appeal was denied. But later, the COMELEC took jurisdiction and ruled in their favor. It voided the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor charging the witnesses with vote-selling. It held that they were exempt from criminal prosecution “pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which grants immunity from criminal prosecution persons who voluntarily give information and willingly testify against those liable for vote-buying or vote-selling.”
Thus, COMELEC ordered the filing of motions to dismiss the vote-selling cases against the witnesses. These were granted except with the cases pending before Judge Tagle, who denied the motion and the motion for reconsideration.
Judge Tagle held that “before one can be exempt from prosecution under the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646, it is necessary that such person has already performed the overt act of voluntarily giving information or testifying in any official investigation or proceeding for the offense to which such information or testimony was given. It was thus premature to exempt the respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 from criminal prosecution, since they have not yet testified.”
COMELEC then filed this petition, arguing that Judge Tagle committed “grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in peremptorily denying the prosecutions motion to dismiss x x x.”
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the COMELEC and ordered the dismissal of the vote-selling cases pending before the sala of Judge Tagle.
The Court quoted Sec. 261 of BP 881, which punishes both vote-buying and vote-selling. Thus:
“SEC. 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be guilty of an election offense:
(a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. – (1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
(2) Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing considerations.
(b) Conspiracy to bribe voters. – Two or more persons whether candidates or not, who come to an agreement concerning the commission of any violation of paragraph (a) of this section and decide to commit it.”
Then, it quoted Sec. 28 of R.A. No. 6646 on the Prosecution of Vote-Buying and Vote-Selling:
“The giver, offeror, the promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were given: Provided, further, That nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Court stated that “the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws x x x. The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Prosecutors, or their respective assistants are, however, given continuing authority, as deputies of the COMELEC, to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses and to prosecute the same. This authority may be revoked or withdrawn by the COMELEC anytime whenever, in its judgment, such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the COMELEC and to promote the common good, or when it believes that the successful prosecution of the case can be done by the COMELEC.” (Emphasis supplied.) L((Underscoring supplied.)virtualibräry
The Court also held that when COMELEC nullified the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor “which was the basis of the informations for vote-selling, it, in effect, withdrew the deputation granted to the prosecutor. Such withdrawal of the deputation was clearly in order, considering the circumstances obtaining in these cases where those who voluntarily executed affidavits attesting to the vote-buying incident and became witnesses against the vote-buyers now stand as accused for the same acts they had earlier denounced.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The next statement is a slap on the Provincial Prosecutor: “What the Prosecutor did was to sabotage the prosecution of the criminal case against the vote-buyers and put in serious peril the integrity of the COMELEC, which filed the said case for vote-buying.” Please note the use of the word “sabotage” by the Court.
It then held that the witnesses, who became the accused in the cases pending before the sala of Judge Tagle “are exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-selling by virtue of the proviso in the last paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646. Respondent judge lost sight of the fact that at the time the complaint for vote-selling was filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 had already executed sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-buying in the case docketed as Criminal Case No. 7034-99. It cannot then be denied that they had already voluntarily given information in the vote-buying case. In fact, they willingly testified in Criminal Case No. 7034-99 per petitioners Memorandum filed with this Court.” Äläwvirtualibräry
The Court concluded that Judge Tagle “committed grave abuse of discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss x x x despite the COMELEC’s determination that the accused therein are exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-selling pursuant to the proviso in the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646.”
I now quote a portion of the decision which was penned by Chief Justice Hilario Davide for the Court en banc. Thus:
“A free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election is indispensable in a democratic society. Without it, democracy would not flourish and would be a sham. Election offenses, such as vote-buying and vote-selling, are evils which prostitute the election process. They destroy the sanctity of the votes and abet the entry of dishonest candidates into the corridors of power where they may do more harm. As the Bible says, one who is dishonest in very small matters is dishonest in great ones. One who commits dishonesty in his entry into an elective office through the prostitution of the electoral process cannot be reasonably expected to respect and adhere to the constitutional precept that a public office is a public trust, and that all government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and exercise their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
This case happened 23 years ago. It was the offshoot of the May 11, 1998 local elections in Kawit. You can read the move and the counter-moves by the parties.
The first move was fired by Bautista, the losing mayoralty candidate, with his criminal charge of vote-buying backed with the affidavits of his 44 witnesses against Mayor Poblete and those identified with him.
The Poblete camp countered this with a broadside: the filing of criminal charges of vote-selling against Bautista’s 44 witnesses. Remember that vote-buying and vote-selling are like the 2 sides of a coin: one cannot exist without the other. It was filed with the Provincial Prosecutor, who was probably their ally, and who approved the charges and immediately filed them in court.
The Supreme Court used the word “sabotage” to describe this act. I expected at least a warning from the Court for Judge Tagle, who was unscathed.
The parties’ conflict was due to their respective desires for political control of Kawit in the 1998 elections. The Court promulgated its decision in Feb. 17, 2003. This was 5 years after 1998. The term for local officials is only 3 years. When this decision was rendered, the term for which Bautista and Poblete clashed had already expired in 2001. It must have been an agonizing experience for the 44 witnesses to face the criminal charges of vote-selling for 5 years. And I am certain that they regretted their political involvement, having been caught in the crossfire of 2 powerful political groups for 5 years.
