In a rare instance, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has charged Pagbilao, Quezon Mayor Angelica Portes Tatlonghari for alleged vote-buying in the May 2025 midterm elections.
In another rare instance, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has charged a local official in Quezon for alleged vote-buying in the May 2025 midterm elections.
In a resolution dated February 12, 2026 but was released only on March 24, Comelec en banc adopted a recommendation of its Law Department to file charges against Angelica Portes Tatlonghari, Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, for violation of Sec. 261 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code.
On February 10, 2026, Director Sittie Maimona Azisa Tawagon of the Comelec Law Department has submitted the recommendation on Election Offense Case No. 25-173 entitled Edmundo Bote Antipolo vs Angelica Portes Tatlonghari for alleged violation of Sec. 261 (a) of the OED on vote-buying.
Allegations
The charge stemmed from a complaint filed by a certain Edmundo Bote Antipolo, who claimed an incident of vote-buying during a campaign event in Barangay Pinagbayanan on May 11, 2025.
According to the complaint-affidavit filed by Antipolo, on May 11, 2025 at around 9:00 p.m., a certain Ruben Tiwi Merle called and instructed him to proceed to the entrance of Sito Urban, Brgy. Pinagbayanan in Pagbilao town where a jeep was waiting.
He went as ordered and from there, he and Merle went to the farm of Agripino ‘Ager’ Acesor Portes where some 600 people were gathered.
At the meeting, Tatlonghari was present and announced that, among others, P6,000 would be given to each coordinator to campaign for them with a promise of monthly allowance should Tatlonghari and her running mate vice mayor Gary Alcala win the election.
Later that night, Benjie Esguerra went to Antipolo’s house and informed him that a “batman” was waiting and who later on handed him an envelope containing P51,000.00 with instructions to distribute P3,000 to each of the intended beneficiaries.
On May 12, Monesa Andal gave Antipolo another P13,000.00 intended for distribution of P500 for each family. To support his complaint-affidavit, Antipolo submitted the joint affidavit of Nicanor Salva Jr. and Ma. Elena Zarsaga.
Rebuttal
In her defense, Tatlonghari alleged that George Erwin Ruben Merle is her coordinator and not Ruben Tiwi Merle as alleged by Antipolo.
She denied that Merle contacted Antipolo on the evening of May 11, 2025. She also denied that any meeting took place or that money was distributed at the farm of Mr. Ager on May 11-12, 2025.
Tatlonghari narrated her whereabouts from 9:00 p.m. of May 11 until her arrival at Mr. Ager’s farm around 4am of May 12, 2025.
To support her allegations, she submitted the separate joint affidavit of Merle, Carmen Acesor Jara, Jadel Pestano, Ryan Andrada, Romelito Sogocio Orian, Randolf Santos De Rama, Giddel Roperez Macalipay, Wacqui Kelly Cortiguerra Portes, Ager, Elisa Ayala and Maria Cecilia Pawang Espiritu.
Merle alleged that he was at home with this family on May 11, 2025 and denied calling Antipolo stating there was no reason to do so as they are not close friends.
He also denied that a meeting took place at the farm of Ager explaining that the farm had no office, only a kubo, a tarpaulin workshop, and a garage.
Jara and Pestano, on the other hand, both claim that as administrative assistant and administrative aide under the office of the municipal mayor they were with respondent Tatlonghari around 6:00 p.m. on May 11.
They accompanied her when she went to the old municipal building of Pagbilao, PNB Building, Petron Station, and eventually to the farm of Ager where they remained until 7:00 a.m. of May 12, 2025.
Macalipay, CCTV supervisor of the municipal hall of Pagbilao, attested that Tatlonghari requested a copy of CCTV footage covering 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. which showed her arrival at the PNB bldg. at 9:54pm; while Portes in his affidavit alleged the he met Tatlonghari at the Petron station and later accompanied to Ager’s farm where there was no indication that any meeting had occurred prior to their arrival.
Ager, the farm owner, attested that he was at the farm at 9pm on May 11 and confirmed that no meeting took place and further stated that no meeting happened on May 12 and a week after that contrary to Antipolo’s claims.
Ayala, a casual employee of the office of the mayor, claimed that she is not close with Antipolo and did not call him anyway, while Espiritu, a job order employee of the same office, asserted that she does not personally know the complainant and is not close to him.
On January 26, 2026, Tatlonghari filed a motion to dismiss and on Feb. 3, 2026, the Comelec Law Dept. received opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Atty. Kathlene Noveno, counsel for the complainant.
Comelec basis
After careful examination of the records of the case, the Comelec Law Department recommended the filing of information against Tatlonghari.
It defined what is vote-buying, cited a Supreme Court decision how vote-buying is committed, further cited Sec. 28 of Republic Act No. 6646, or The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 which provides for the procedure for the initiation of the prosecution of the election offense of vote buying and vote-selling; and the importance of supporting affidavits.
The Comelec Law Department argument said the complainant sufficiently established that he acted on the instruction to give or offer money, together with Salva and Zarsaga, to individuals whose names were listed in the complaint.
It also said the statements of Tatlonghari and her witnesses indicate that she and the complainant likely referred to the same coordinator, Merle, who gave instructions to distribute the money as well as the same staff member of Tatlonghari named “Elaiza” who called a week after the election to go to the farm of Ager, and that at some point in time, she was actually present at the farm.
It stressed that election offense partakes the nature of a criminal case hence the finding of probable cause is necessary to warrant the filing of information before the court.
It said it finds that the evidence presented established that there is probable cause that the election offence of vote buying in violation of Sec. 261 (a) of the OEC has been committed and that respondent Tatlonghari is probably guilty and should be held for trial.
On Jan. 26, 2026 Tatlonghari filed a motion to dismiss along with the submission of affidavit of desistance executed by Antipolo dated Dec 29, 2025 who withdrew his previous sworn affidavit citing that he was only induced by Kagawad Susan Merle and Mark Caringal in exchange of money and work and that he is no longer interested in proceeding with the case.
In recommending the filing of information against Tatlonghari, the Comelec Law Dept. said that as a rule, “a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Thus, it has been held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal.”
Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia signed the minute resolution, along with commissioners Aimee Ferolino, Ernesto Ferdinand Maceda, Jr., Maria Norina Tangaro-Casingal, Rey Bulay, Nelson Celis and Noli Pipo.