BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
MATT ERWIN FLORIDO VS. JAN RAPHAEL PASILLAO, ET AL., G.R. NO. 280515 (AUGUST 12, 2025): REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF FILING PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO QUESTION A RULING OF COMELEC AND RESTATEMENT OF THE ELEMENTS OF VOTE-BUYING UNDER THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Petitioner Matt Erwin Florido was a candidate for Representative of the Third (3rd) District of Quezon Province during the last 2025 National and Local Elections. Respondents Jan Raphael O. Pasillao, Manolo De Leon Panganiban, Norita C. Victor, Jay-Ar C. Victor, and Mark A. Perdifias (Pasillao, et al.) are registered voters and residents of Buenavista, Quezon.
On April 5 and 6, 2025, Ricky Anyayahan, Florido’s representative invited Pasillao, et al. to attend a gathering in Catanauan, Quezon Province. Pasillao, et al. were not informed of the event’s purpose, but they were promised food and transportation. When they arrived, they signed an attendance sheet and were served meals and drinks. During the assembly, Florido delivered a speech expressly soliciting votes and urging support for his candidacy. His staff, wearing red campaign shirts, also spoke and held a candle-lighting ceremony as a symbolic show of support. Subsequently, the attendees were called individually to receive a campaign shirt and a brown envelope which contained a Php1,000.00 bill. Florido personally greeted them and shook their hands. Pasillao, et al. were transported back home after the event.
Pasillao, et al. filed a Petition for Disqualification before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for vote-buying. In response, Florido contended that Pasillao, et al. were campaign volunteers attending an internal orientation and that the Php1,000.00 given was a cash advance for campaign-related expenses, held in trust and subject to liquidation. He denied providing transportation and meals and claimed that any food was leftover and shared among volunteers. He also argued that the shirts were official volunteer uniforms and not election propaganda. The COMELEC Division rendered its Resolution holding that Florido committed vote-buying, which merited his disqualification under Section 68 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC En Banc affirmed the resolution.
On the issue of timeliness of the filing of Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Florido’s Petition for Certiorari was filed out of time having been filed 6 days late. The Court highlighted that Rule 64 of the Rules of Court specifically pertains to questioning the rulings of the Constitutional Commissions such as the COMELEC. Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition must be filed strictly within 30 days from receipt of the judgment, final order, or resolution being challenged. If a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, the running of the 30-day period is interrupted. If the motion is denied, the petitioners has only the remaining balance of the original 30-day period to file the petition, which in no case shall be less than 5 days from notice of the denial.
Citing Pates vs. COMELEC¸ G.R. No. 184915 (June 30, 2009), the Supreme Court held
“Clearly, Rule 64 and Rule 65 are distinct and separate provisions. The most notable difference lies in the prescribed period for filing petitions for certiorari. Under Rule 64, a petition must be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order of the COMELEC. This period is interrupted only by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and upon its denial, the petitioner may file the petition within the remaining balance of the original 30-day period, which must not be less than five days. In contrast, Rule 65 allows a 60-day period for filing, and under the ‘fresh period rule,’ the entire 60 days commences from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. This Court, in Pates, made it clear that this fresh period rule does not apply to petitions under Rule 64, reinforcing the strict and limited timeline for assailing decisions of constitutional commissions such as the COMELEC.”
On the substantive aspect of vote-buying, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the COMELEC. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion since its ruling had legal and factual bases. Under Section 261 (a) (1) of the Omnibus Election Code, vote-buying is committed as follows: first, there must be an act of giving, offering, or promising money, employment, franchise, or any material consideration, whether directly or indirectly; second, such act must be committed for the purpose of inducing a person or the public to vote for or against any candidate, or to withhold their vote altogether; third, the act must occur within the election period as defined by law; fourth, the intent to influence the electoral choice must be evident; and lastly, the recipient of the inducement must be a registered voter or any person capable of influencing the vote of others.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the COMELEC that respondents Pasillao, et al. were not campaign volunteers or workers as argued by petitioner Florido. The Court held:
“In its findings against petitioner, COMELEC determined that private respondents were not campaign volunteers of petitioner based on several indicators: (i) they were not part of the volunteers’ exclusive group chat; (ii) they were invited only on the day of the event; and (iii) they were excluded from logistical provisions such as meals. The petitioner’s own witness confirmed that the food given to private respondents was merely leftover lunch intended for actual volunteers. These facts led COMELEC to conclude that private respondents were mere participants, not volunteers, and that the event was not exclusive to campaign staff, but aimed at securing electoral support.
Consequently, COMELEC found that the distribution of material considerations, such as red t-shirts and PHP 1,000.00 cash, was neither documented nor subjected to liquidation, contrary to the petitioner’s claim that these were campaign-related advances. The absence of records, such as logbook entries or receipts, undermined petitioner’s defense and suggested that the funds were given to influence electoral choices … COMELEC emphasized that petitioner’s presence and active participation in the event, including delivering a campaign speech and engaging with private respondents during and after the distribution, demonstrated his knowledge and tacit consent. These acts, coupled with the timing and undocumented nature of the distributions, supported the finding that vote-buying occurred, in violation of Section261(a)(l) of the OEC.”