EN BANC
DAVID K. SALAZAR, G.R.
No. 175112
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHICO-NAZARIO,
and MIGUELA M. DOLORIEL, GARCIA,
Respondents. VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
Promulgated:
April
24, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This is a petition[1]
for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, Status Quo Ante Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing
the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), First Division, and
the COMELEC en banc which were respectively issued on
The
facts[2]
are as follows:
Petitioner
and private respondent were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of
Barangay Poblacion, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections. Private respondent was
proclaimed the winner after garnering 1,399 votes as against petitioner’s 1,374
votes or a margin of 25 votes.
On
After
the revision of ballots, petitioner obtained a total of 1,025 votes while
private respondent’s votes were reduced to 919.
Consequently,
the lower court annulled and set aside the proclamation of private respondent
as Punong Barangay and ordered the latter to vacate and relinquish her post in
favor of petitioner.[3]
On appeal, the COMELEC, First Division, found that private
respondent won with a winning margin of 28 votes over petitioner. Thus, on
The
Commission (First Division) painstakingly examined every piece of evidence from
the records and used the applicable rules on appreciation of ballots enumerated
under Section 49 of Resolution No. 4846 (Rules and Regulations on the
Conduct of the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections) and
other applicable jurisprudence….
x x x
The
protestee-appellant DOLORIEL leads with a margin of 28 votes over
the protestant-appellee SALAZAR.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES
to GRANT the herein appeal. The decision of [the] Municipal Trial Court
In Cities, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur, dated December 10, 2003 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, Protestant-Appellant MIGUELA
M. DOLORIEL is hereby DECLARED the duly elected Barangay Chairman in
Barangay Poblacion, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur, during the July 15, 2002
Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On
On
On
Based on the above findings[,] only
six (6) ballots of the protestee contested by the protestant is invalidated,
therefore the final tally is one thousand three hundred ninety eight (1398)
votes for protestee-appellant Doloriel and one thousand three hundred seventy six
(1376) votes for protestant-appellee Salazar. Protestee-appellant Doloriel leads with a
margin of twenty two (22) votes over the protestant-appellee Salazar.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Commission’s (First Division) Resolution promulgated in
SO ORDERED.[5]
Hence, this petition based on the following grounds:
1.
The COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its
questioned Resolution dated April 18, 2006 in EAC No. 02-2004 reversing the
December 10, 2003 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bislig City,
Surigao del Sur in Election Protest Case No. 03 and thereby validating several
ballots in favor of Miguela M. Doloriel, said questioned Resolution not being
supported by evidence on record and is not in accordance with law.
2.
The COMELEC (en banc) committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its questioned
Resolution denying the herein petitioner David K. Salazar’s Motion for
Reconsideration and affirming with modification the said questioned Resolution
of the COMELEC (First Division) dated April 18, 2006 in EAC No. 02-2004, such resolution
being clearly without basis in fact and in law.
Briefly, the issue is whether the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in ruling that private respondent is the duly elected Punong Barangay
of Barangay Poblacion,
For grave abuse of discretion to
arise, the lower court or tribunal must have violated or contravened the
Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence.[6]
Here, the resolutions of the COMELEC
were based on the evidence on record, and the ballots were appreciated in
accordance with existing jurisprudence and the applicable provisions under
Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846 or the Rules and Regulations on
the Conduct of the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections.[7]
The applicable provisions under Section
49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846 are as follows:
…
(b) Where the first name of a candidate is
written on the ballot which when read has a sound similar to the surname of another
candidate, the vote shall be counted in favor of the candidate with such
surname.
…
(i) When in a space in the ballot there
appears a name of a candidate that is erased and another clearly written, the
vote is valid for the latter.
…
(l) Ballots which
contain prefixes such as “Sir”, “Mr.”, “Datu”, “Don”, “Ginoo”, “Hon”, “Gob”, or
suffixes like “Hijo”, “Jr.”, “Segundo” (sic)
are valid;
(m) The use of nicknames and appellations of affection
and friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the candidate,
does not annul such vote, except when they are used as a means to identify the
voter, in which case the whole ballot is invalid. Provided, that if the
nickname used is unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it is
one by which he is generally or popularly known in the locality, the name shall
be counted in favor of the said candidate for the same office with the same
nickname;
. . .
(o) Any ballot written with crayon, lead,
pencil or ink wholly or in part shall be valid;
…
(r) If the candidates voted for exceeded the
number of those to be elected, the ballot is valid, but the votes shall be
counted only in favor of the candidates whose names were firstly written by the
voter within the spaces provided for said office in the ballot until the
authorized number is covered;
(s) Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote, but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot;
…
(t) Circles and crosses, or line put on the spaces on which the voter has not voted shall be considered as signs to indicate the desistance from voting and shall not invalidate the ballot;
…
(u) Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification mark, commas, dots, or hyphens between the first name and the surname of a candidate, or in other parts of the ballots, traces of the letter ‘T’, ‘J’ and other similar ones, the first letters or syllables of names which the voter does not continue, of two (2) or more kinds in writing and unintentional or accidental flourishes, strokes, or strains shall not invalidate the ballot.
While both the Division and the
COMELEC en banc had similar findings as regards the winning candidate,
the Court agrees with the COMELEC en banc in invalidating the six (6)
ballots for protestee-appellant Doloriel for the reason that four of the
ballots were marked[8] and the rest
were written by two distinct persons.[9]
Based on the foregoing, the Court
does not find any ground to disturb the COMELEC’s ruling as the same is in
consonance with law and jurisprudence. Moreover, factual findings of the
COMELEC which are supported by substantial evidence are generally binding on
the Court.[10]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc dated
in EAC No. 02-2004 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 25-69.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Banal III v. Panaganiban,
G.R. No. 167474,
[7] Rollo, pp. 28-30, 61-62
[8] Big
bold letters that occupies all the spaces for the specific position should be
invalidated inasmuch as this is an evident intent to mark the ballot (Ong v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000, 347 SCRA 681). Also, where the
name of a candidate is written twice on the same space in the ballot by one who
apparently is an intelligent voter and a good writer the intent to mark the
ballot is manifest (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31775,
[9] Section
49 (w) of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846 provides that any ballot which clearly
appears to be filled by two distinct persons before it was deposited in the
ballot box during the voting is totally null and void. General appearance or
pictorial effect is not enough to warrant the conclusion that the two writings
are by the same hand. Where there are differences and variations in the ballots
concerned, and there is a view that such differences are due to differences in
authorship rather than disguise, the rule of liberality in the appreciation of
ballots demands that such doubts be resolved in favor of the ballots validity.
In other words, similarities in handwriting must be judged based on individual
characteristics or dents and scratches in sufficient quantity to exclude the
theory of mere coincidence (Silverio
v. Castro, G.R. No. L-23827,
[10] Baddiri v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 165677,