GR 137266; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137266 . December 5, 2001. ANTONIO M. BERNARDO, ERNESTO A. DOMINGO, JR. and JESUS C. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., BENJAMIN “BENHUR” D. ABALOS, JR., DR. EDEN C. DIAZ, ROMEO F. ZAPANTA, ARCADIO S. DE VERA and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for vote-buying against respondents before the COMELEC. They alleged that on April 14, 1998, respondents sponsored an all-expense-paid outing for Mandaluyong City public school teachers at a resort in Quezon. During the event, the political jingle of mayoral candidate Benjamin “Benhur” Abalos, Jr. was played, some participants wore shirts bearing his name, and his father, incumbent Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., promised the teachers an increase in hazard pay and allowances. Petitioners contended this was done to induce the teachers, who were also registered voters and potential Board of Election Inspectors, to vote for Abalos, Jr. in the upcoming May 1998 elections.
After preliminary investigation, the COMELEC Law Department recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. The COMELEC En Banc adopted this recommendation in Resolution No. 98-3208, finding the evidence submitted by petitioners—self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio-visual recordings—insufficient to establish a prima facie case. It noted the evidence of respondents had more probative value and that the complaint lacked the supporting affidavits from complaining witnesses required by Section 28 of R.A. 6646. Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC En Banc’s dismissal of the vote-buying complaint.
RULING
No, the petition must be dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a condition precedent for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules explicitly allows a motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling in election offense cases. Petitioners’ direct recourse to the Supreme Court, without filing the required motion and without offering a plausible justification, rendered the petition premature. A petition for certiorari is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; here, such a remedy existed.
Moreover, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s dismissal. The COMELEC’s finding of insufficient evidence was based on valid grounds: the complainants’ evidence was deemed less credible and lacked the requisite supporting affidavits from witnesses attesting to the offer or acceptance of consideration, as mandated by Section 28 of R.A. 6646. The COMELEC acted within its discretion in evaluating the evidence and finding no prima facie case. Thus, the petition was dismissed.