Conspiracy to Bribe Voters

Francisco Francisco C. Banguis Jr. 11589450

Administrative Administrative Law Prosecutor Noemi Macababbad Conspiracy to Bribe Voters

 With the change to Automated Election System by virtue of R.A. R.A. No. No. 8436, the avenues for cheating has been successfully reduced. Despite such, it cannot be denied that election anomalies shifted to other forms of cheating such as vote buying and vote selling. There  were more incidents of vote buying recently and they have become a bit pricey as well. Instead of refraining from practicing and prohibiting it, the effect resulted to a contrary situation and it is getting to a point wherein people start to accept and think that this a normal part and process of the election.  According to B.P. Blg. 881, Section 261 (b), conspiracy conspiracy to bribe voters is committed by two or more persons, whether candidates or not, who come to an agreement concerning the vote-buying and vote-selling and decide to commit it. To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the following three requisites: (1) that two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) ( 2) that the agreement concerned concerned the commission of a crime, and (3) that the execution execution of the felony [was] decided upon. upon. Moreover, the Court has has held that in most instances, direct proof of previous agreement need not be established, for conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, concerted action and community of interest. It must be emphasized that not only principals but also accomplices and accessories are criminally liable for election offenses. But for those who volunteer to give information and testify on any violation of said law in any official investigation or proceeding with reference to which his information and testimony is given granted transactional immunity. Furthermore, according to Section 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, any person found guilty of vote-selling, vote buying and other election offenses under the code shall be criminally liable and be punished with, an imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years. Lastly, during the May 2013 National Elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9688 , which includes an act allowing the warrantless citizen ’s arrest of persons engaged in vote buying or selling. The following are instances wherein conspiracy to bribe voters were depicted: 1.  Where, in the case of Bernardo vs. Abalos, Sr., respondent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., and his son respondent Benjamin “Benhur” C. Abalos, Jr., candidate for City Mayor of the same city in the May 11, 1998 elections, conspiring  with respondents Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Schools Division Superintendent, Superintendent, Romeo F. Zapanta, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, and Arcadio de Vera, President, Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers, sponsored, arranged and conducted an all-expense-free transportation, food and drinks affair for

the Mandaluyong City public school teachers, registered voters of said city, at the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Sariaya, Quezon. However in this case, the Court dismissed it because Petitioners did not exhaust all the remedies available to them at the COMELEC level. Specifically, they did not seek a reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution as required by Section 1, Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. 2.  Where, in the case of Gallardo vs. Tabamo, Jr., the hiring of hundreds of laborers in the different projects continues unabated despite the 45-day  ban on public works imposed by the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) because they were not covered by detailed engineering plans, specifications or a program of work which are preconditions for the commencement of any public works project in flagrant violation of paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w). The illegal prosecution of these public work projects requiring massive outlay of public funds during this election period has been and is being done maliciously and intentionally for the purpose of corrupting the voters and inducing them to support the candidacy of Respondent Gallardo and his candidates in the coming May 11, 1992 election. However, in this case, the Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for further proceedings especially on the alleged  violations of BP Blg. 881. 3.  Where, in the case of  Nolasco vs. COMELEC , respondent’s wife and respondent’s  brother, Mariano Blanco, claiming to be the campaign manager of respondent in the Nationalist People’s Coalition Party, asked permission to enter the locked room so they could withdraw money in a vault inside the locked room to pay their watchers, and the teachers of Meycauayan in the 8 May 1995 elections. When the said PNP composite team examined them, contained therein were 200 pay envelopes, and each pay envelope when opened contained the amount of P1,000.00. When questioned, respondent’s brother Mariano Blanco and respondent’s wife, admitted to the raiding team that the total amount of money in the ten (10) plastic bags is P10,000,000.00. The labels found in the envelope shows that the money  were intended as respondent’s bribe money to the teachers, in conspiracy  with his brother and wife,of Meycauayan.  In this case, the Court disqualified Blanco and proclaimed the Vice Mayor Nolasco as mayor, instead of the opposing party Alarilla.  Vote buying will always be a reality that we have to contend with. However, let us remember that our vote costs more than that. Its value is equivalent to the future of our country, our family, and ourselves. The right to vote is our basic human right and let it not be violated by someone else.