VOTE-BUYING PRIMER

VOTE BUYING PRIMER

WHO MAY COMMIT

OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE

 

261. (a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. –

 

(1) Any person who gives, offers or 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 consideration.

         

(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.

Related Cases:

Bernardo vs. Abalos (GR No. 137266, December 5, 2001)

 

Petitioners’ complaint expressly states that no supporting affidavits were submitted by the complaining witness to sustain their charge of vote buying. Suffice it to state that the absence of such supporting affidavits shows frailty of petitioners’ complaint. Indeed, it is vulnerable to dismissal.

 

COMELEC vs. Tagle (G.R. Nos. 148948 & 148951, February 17, 2003)

ELEMENTS OF VOTE-BUYING

The Offender:

         a. Gives, offers or promises money or anything of value;

b. Gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private;

         c. Make or offers to make an expenditures, directly or indirectly, or

d. Cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community; and

The act was done 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 aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in any convention or similar selection process of a political party.

FORM OF COMPLAINT

Section 4 (a), Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure

When not initiated motu proprio by the Commission, the complaint must be verified and supported by affidavits and/or any other evidence.

Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chaiman of the Commission, or the Director of the Law Department upon direction of the Chairman, and need not be verified.

WHERE TO FILE

Section 4 (b), Rule 334 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure

The complaint shall be filed with the Law Department of the Commission; or with the offices of the Election Registrar (Election Officer), Provincial Election Supervisors or Regional Election Directors, or the State Prosecutor, Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal. If filed with any of the latter three (3) officials, investigation thereof may be delegated to any of their assistants.

WHO SHALL PROSECUTE

Section 43, Republic Act No. 9369

Section 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg 881 is hereby amended to read as follow:

Section 265. Prosecution. – The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and prosecute the same.

HOW PROSECUTED

Republic Act No. 6646

Section 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-Selling.- The presentation of a complaint for violations of paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) 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 relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a 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. 88.

Proof that at least one voter in different precincts representing at least twenty percent (20%) of the total precincts in any municipality, city or province has been offered, promised or given money, valuable consideration or other expenditure by a candidate’s relatives, leaders and/or sympathizers for the purpose of promoting the election of such candidate, shall constitute a disputable presumption of a conspiracy under paragraph (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

Where such proof affect at least twenty percent (20%) of the precincts of the municipality, city or province to which the public office aspired by the favoured candidate relates, the same shall constitute a disputable presumption of the involvement of such candidate and of his principal campaign managers in each of the municipalities concerned, in the conspiracy.

The giver, offerer, and promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraph (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That any persons, 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 from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.

VOTE BUYING AS A GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE

Section 68. Disquaification.- Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;

Related Case:

Ejercito vs. COMELEC and San Luis (G.R. No. 2121398, November 25, 2014)

As discussed in the case of Lanot vs. Comelec, each of the acts listed as ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the OEC has two aspects – electoral and criminal which may proceed independently from each other to wit:

x x x The electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office. Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear preponderance of evidence. An erring candidate maybe disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, vice-versa.

The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is a probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is a probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may include disqualififcation from holding a future public office.

COMMON PROBLEMS IN PROSECUTING VOTE-BUYING CASES

·         Insufficient evidence presented

·         Money evidence presented are only photocopies

·         Difficult to connect candidates with those actually doing the act of vote-buying

·         Length of time involved in prosecuting vote-buying cases eventually results in witnesses withdrawing their statements

LIMITATION

Omnibus Election Code, Section 266. Arrest in connection with the election campaign. – No person shall be arrested and/or detained at any time for any alleged offense committed during and in connection with any election through any act or language tending to support or oppose any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties under or pursuant to any order of whatever name or nature and whomsoever issued except only upon a warrant of arrest issued by a competent judge after all the requirement of the constitution shall have been strictly complied with.

-end-