The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a suspect in a P17 million payment for a party-list nomination that never materialized, while acquitting another.

However, the SC Third Division barred the complainant from being indemnified the P17 million she paid, citing the doctrine of in pari delicto, due to equal culpability in the illegal transaction.

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, in a 20 August 2025 decision, stated: “Undoubtedly, contracts that have for their object the trafficking of public office by unlawful means or the manipulation of electoral processes are void for being contrary to public policy. They are not only tainted with illegality from inception, but also subvert democratic processes and erode public trust in the electoral system.”

Accused Mark Joel Morales was cleared of estafa, while the conviction of Armando Almo Co was affirmed, with a sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment.

The case stemmed from the complaint of Catherine Factor-Koura, who said she was offered a party-list nomination in exchange for payment.

Koura said she was assured she would be the nominee of Ang Chinoy in the May 2016 elections and that her money would be returned if she did not win.

When the Commission on Elections (Comelec) denied the accreditation of Ang Chinoy as a party-list group, Koura said she was told she would instead be the nominee of Akap Party-list or Anak Central Party-list (ACP).

Upon checking with Comelec, Koura found that Akap was not accredited, and while ACP was a registered group, she was not listed among its nominees. She then demanded the return of her money but received no response.

The Supreme Court decision acquitted Morales due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy. It noted that his mere association with the group and passive participation in political activities did not prove deceit or fraud.

Morales’ role was limited to introducing Koura to Co and attending some meetings. The court said it was Armando Co who exclusively curated and orchestrated the alleged scheme to facilitate the complainant’s congressional bid, and who received all payments.

The SC added that the prosecution’s own evidence, including email correspondences and testimonial declarations, pointed to Armando Co as the sole transacting party. Morales’ actions were deemed not to constitute fraudulent misrepresentation.

Morales was previously indicted based on his involvement with Ang Chinoy, his designation as a supposed second nominee of Akap Party-list, signing a certificate of candidacy with Koura, failing to dissuade Koura from transacting with Co, and remarks about her campaign efforts.

The court said: “Accordingly, the Petition for Review on certiorari is granted. The decision dated 8 November 2022, and the resolution dated 4 July 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44927 are reversed and set aside insofar as petitioner Mark Joel Morales y Bronola is concerned. He is hereby acquitted of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 17-335925 filed with Branch 42, Regional Trial Court, Manila. On the other hand, the conviction of Armando Almo Co, alias ‘Bobby,’ is affirmed with modification in that the award of civil liability in the amount of P17 million is deleted. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.”