|
NELSON CUNDANGAN, Petitioner, |
G.R.
No. 174392 |
|
- versus - |
Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. |
|
THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CELESTINO V. CHUA, Respondents. |
Promulgated: August
28, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for certiorari assails the Resolution[1] dated October 25,
2005 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division and the Resolution[2] dated August 18,
2006 of the COMELEC En Banc in EAC
No. 174-2003. The Resolution dated
The
antecedent facts are as follows:
Cundangan and
Chua were candidates for Punong Barangay
for Barangay Sumilang, Pasig City in
the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay
and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections.
After the canvass of votes, Cundangan was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay.
On
After
the revision proceedings were concluded, the trial court rendered a Decision
dated
Unsatisfied
with the decision of the trial court, Chua filed on
On
Hence,
the instant petition raising issues on the following grounds:
I.
THE PUBLIC
RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION IN PROMULGATING ITS ASSAILED RESOLUTION (EN BANC) WHEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES FROM UNCONTESTED BALLOTS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND CONTRARY TO THE DECISION
OF THE TRIAL COURT AND IN THE RESOLUTION OF THE FIRST DIVISION ITSELF.
II.
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN PROMULGATING ITS ASSAILED RESOLUTION [(EN BANC)] WHEN THE COMELEC INVALIDATED VALID BALLOTS OF CUNDANGAN AS FOLLOWS:
a) GROUPS/SETS OF BALLOTS TOTALLING EIGHTY SEVEN (87) VALID BALLOTS OF CUNDANGAN ALLEGEDLY AS WRITTEN BY ONE PERSON (WBOP) IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCTS AND EXHIBITS NUMBERS, TO WIT:
a.1. Precinct No. 499A/499A-1 -- C-1 to C-3 (2 ballots);
a.2. Precinct No. 503A/504A -- C-15 to C-16, C-30 to C-33 (4 ballots);
a.3. Precinct 504A-1/508A -- C-4 to C-7 (4 ballots);
a.4. Precinct No. 505A/506A -- C-1 to C-15 (15 ballots);
a.5. Precinct No. 507A/507A-1 -- C-1 to C-13 (13 ballots);
a.6. Precinct No. 510A -- C-1 to C-25 (25 ballots);
a.7. Precinct No. 510A-1/512A -- C-1 to C-16 (16 ballots);
a.8. Precinct No. 514A-1/515A -- C-1 to C-4, C-13 to C-14 (6 ballots);
a.9. Precinct No. 518A/518A-1 -- E and F (2 ballots).
b) SINGLE BALLOTS TOTALLING NINETEEN (19) VALID BALLOTS OF CUNDANGAN ALLEGEDLY AS WRITTEN BY TWO PERSONS (WBTP) IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCTS AND EXHIBITS NUMBERS, TO WIT:
b.1. Precinct No. 498A/500A -- C-3 to C-15, C-17 to C-19 (16 ballots);
b.2. Precinct No. 504A/508A -- C-1 (1 ballot);
b.3. Precinct No. 510A -- C-45 and C-46 (2 ballots).
c) THREE (3) VALID BALLOTS OF CUNDANGAN ALLEGEDLY AS MARKED BALLOTS (MB) IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCTS AND EXHIBITS [NUMBERS], TO WIT:
c.1. Precinct No. 510A -- C-47 (1 ballot);
c.2. Precinct No. 510A-1/512A -- C-24 and C-25 (2 ballots).
III.
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN PROMULGATING ITS ASSAILED RESOLUTION (EN BANC) WHEN IT VALIDATED INVALID BALLOTS OF CHUA AS FOLLOWS:
a) GROUPS/SETS OF BALLOTS [TOTALLING] EIGHTY-NINE (89) INVALID BALLOTS OF CHUA AS WRITTEN BY ONE PERSON (WBOP), IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCTS AND EXHIBIT [NUMBERS]:
a.1. Precinct No. 498A/500A -- N-1 & N-2, N-3 & N-4, N-6 & N-7, N-14 & N-15, N-26 to N-28, N-31 to N-34, N-36 & N-37, N-45, N-46, N-50 & N-51 (21 ballots);
a.2. Precinct No. 499A/499A-1 -- N-1 to N-4, N-9, N-10, N-13, N-14, N-21 and N-22 (10 ballots);
a.3. [Precinct No.] 503A/504A -- N-55 and N-56 (2 ballots);
a.4. [Precinct No.] 504A-1/508A -- N-1 to N-3, N-4 & N-5, N-20, N-23, N-27, to N-29, N-51 & N-52 (12 ballots);
a.5. [Precinct No.] 507A/507A-1 -- N-2 to N-5, N-8 to N-13 (10 ballots);
a.6. [Precinct No.] 509A -- N-3 to N-5 (3 ballots);
a.7. [Precinct No.] 510A -- N-27, N-28, N-35 to N-37 (5 ballots);
a.8. [Precinct No.] 516A -- N-20 to N-22 (3 ballots);
a.[9]. [Precinct No.] 517A -- N-29 & N-30 (2 ballots);
a.[10]. [Precinct No.] 518A/518A-1 -- N-1 to N-6, N-11 to N-16, N-19 to N-23 (17 ballots);
a.[11]. [Precinct No.] 519A/520A -- N-30 & N-31 (2 ballots);
a.[12]. [Precinct No.] 521A/522A -- N-12 & N-13 (2 ballots).
b) FOUR (4) INVALID BALLOTS AS MARKED BALLOTS (MB), IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCT AND EXHIBIT [NUMBERS]:
b.1. [Precinct No.] 510A-1/512A -- N-43 to N-45 and N-49 (4 ballots)[.]
c) TWO (2) BALLOTS ADJUDICATED BY [THE] TRIAL COURT AS VALID FOR CUNDANGAN, WHICH HOWEVER, VALIDATED AS CLAIMED BALLOTS FOR CHUA BY THE HONORABLE COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), IN THE FOLLOWING PRECINCTS AND EXHIBIT NUMBERS:
c.1. [Precinct No.] 507A/507A-1 -- Exh. 44 (1 ballot); and
c.2. [Precinct No.] 521A/522A -- C-30 (1 ballot).
IV.
THE COMELEC
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN
IT DID NOT SQUARELY RULE ON THE
SERIOUS ISSUE RAISED BY CUNDANGAN REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF SPURIOUS AND FAKE
BALLOTS THAT WERE FOUND DURING THE REVISION OF BALLOTS IN THE TRIAL COURT.[3]
Essentially,
the issue is whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of COMELEC En Banc when it affirmed
the October 25, 2005 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.
Anent the first ground, Cundangan contends that there is a difference
between the number of uncontested ballots stated in the COMELEC En Banc Resolution and that stated in both
the COMELEC First Division Resolution and the Decision of the trial court. But as correctly explained by Chua, there was
no error in the number of uncontested ballots stated in the impugned COMELEC En Banc Resolution because it accounted
for only 17 precincts, unlike in the COMELEC First Division Resolution and the trial
court’s Decision which accounted for 19 precincts. The COMELEC En Banc excluded from its
count the ballots in two precincts, namely, 505A/506A[4]
and 510A,[5] after
it had determined that a number of ballots in said precincts were tampered.[6]
As for the second ground, Cundangan alleges that the COMELEC erred
when it invalidated 87 ballots in his favor for being WBOP; 19 ballots in his
favor for being WBTP; and 4 ballots in his favor for being marked ballots.
Cundangan
argues that the aforementioned 87 ballots were not WBOP considering that each
of them bears a distinctive handwriting and does not appear to be objectionable.[7] For his part, Chua insists that the said
ballots were WBOP, pointing out that his revisors had been able to identify the
said ballots to have been clearly written by only one hand during the revision
proceedings.[8] Citing Erni v. Commission on Elections,[9] Chua
likewise avers that evidence aliunde is not necessary for the COMELEC to determine whether
the questioned ballots were written by one hand.[10]
Arguing that the
aforesaid 19 ballots were not WBTP, Cundangan cites Section 211 (22)[11]
of the Omnibus Election Code and Ong v. Commission on
Elections,[12]
in which we ruled that “the appearance of print and script writings in a single
ballot does not necessarily imply that two persons wrote the ballot. The strokes of print and script handwriting
would naturally differ but would not automatically mean that two persons
prepared the same . . . . In the absence of any deliberate intention to put an
identification mark, the ballots must not be rejected.”[13]
Chua counters
by saying that his revisors identified that the questioned ballots had been
written by two persons during the revision proceedings.[14] He likewise cites Section 211 (23)[15]
of the Omnibus Election Code and Protacio v. De Leon,[16]
in which we invalidated a ballot for having been written by two hands, because the
writing of the names of some of the candidates therein bore distinct and marked
dissimilarities from the rest of the handwritings used.[17]
As to the four ballots[18]
which were considered marked, Cundangan contends that the COMELEC’s ruling
below was erroneous.
PRECINCT NO. |
EXHIBIT NO. |
RULING |
|
510A |
C-47 (1 ballot) |
The name “Boboy Benito” which was written and
repeated in lines 1 to 7 for Kagawads,
is a distinguishing mark meant to identify the voter. |
|
510A-1/512-A |
C-24 and C-25 (2 ballots) |
The name “Oyit Santos” written in lines 2-7 for Kagawads and the word “BO” serves as
an identification mark. |
|
521-A/522-A |
C-29 (1 ballot) |
The word “Boyer Quijano” written in big letters in
such a way that it occupies lines 1 to 7 for Kagawads is evidently intended to identify or mark this ballot. |
Cundangan
contends that the above ballots are not marked ballots because writing the name
of a candidate in big bold letters spanning several lines merely signifies
desistance from voting for other candidates and was only for emphasis.[19]
Chua, for his
part, maintains that the said ballots were marked and adds that the face of the
ballot itself contains a caution to the voter not to place any distinguishing
mark that will invalidate the ballot.[20]
We hold that
the COMELEC En Banc did not abuse its
discretion in invalidating all of the aforesaid contested ballots. In Idulza v. Commission
on Elections,[21]
we ruled that where the factual findings of a division of the COMELEC, as
affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc, are
supported by substantial evidence, they are beyond the ken of review by this
Court.[22] In the present petition, we have more reason
to respect the findings of the COMELEC En
Banc with regard to the questioned ballots, considering that the same is
consistent not only with the findings of the COMELEC First Division, but also those
of the trial court.
It must be stressed
that the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves a
question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized
agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. It is the constitutional commission vested
with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving
regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over
election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials.
Consequently, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any
jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions,
rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within
its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court.[23]
It is worth
pointing out that the invalidation of the four above-mentioned marked ballots is
in accord with our ruling in Ong v. Commission on
Elections,[24] in which we held that big bold letters that occupy all the
spaces for the specific position should be invalidated, inasmuch as this evinces
an evident intent to mark the ballot.[25]
Anent the third ground, Cundangan argues
that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused
its discretion when it validated allegedly invalid ballots in favor of Chua as
follows: (1) 89 ballots because they
were WBOP; and (2) four ballots because the same were marked ballots. Cundangan likewise assails the alleged validation
of two claimed ballots counted in favor of Chua.[26]
As for the 89
ballots allegedly WBOP, Cundangan argues that the same are WBOP because upon
perusal of the ballots, the handwritings on these ballots are clearly
identical.[27]
As for the
four allegedly marked ballots, he contends that the same are indeed marked
ballots, considering that the words papag, bangus, and kalabasa were written amidst the
names of different candidates for Kagawads,
and that the said words are irrelevant, impertinent and unnecessary.[28] He further argues that writing these
irrelevant words or expressions after or amidst the names of candidates voids the
ballot for being marked.[29]
He adds that a ballot bearing an
irrelevant epithet after the name of a candidate should also be invalidated.[30]
Cundangan likewise
assails the alleged validation of two ballots which Chua had claimed. He said that the two ballots should not have
been considered in Chua’s favor, because a perusal of both ballots would show
that his name was more clearly written than that of Chua.[31]
For his part,
Chua argues that the said ballots were validated by COMELEC En Banc, because they are valid
ballots in the first place, there being no grounds to invalidate them. He likewise points out that Cundangan even
admitted in his petition that the COMELEC has the required expertise and
authority for determining the validity of votes.[32]
In our view, the
validity of the questioned ballots should be upheld. As found after the scrutiny of the COMELEC, the
89 contested ballots could not have been WBOP, considering that there were
differences in how particular letters in each of the said ballots were written.[33]
The four ballots are likewise not marked
ballots because the mere presence of the words papag, kalabasa
and bangus
in the said ballots does not instantaneously make them marked ballots. For the said ballots to be considered marked
ballots, it must clearly appear that the said words were deliberately placed
thereon to serve as identification marks. In this case, there was no showing of the said
malicious intent.[34]
The COMELEC
likewise correctly counted the two claimed ballots in favor of Chua by reason
of the neighborhood rule,[35]
considering that the name of Chua was written on the first space for Kagawads and that the space for Punong
Barangay was left blank.[36]
Anent the final ground, we find that Cundangan’s
allegation, that the COMELEC En Banc
did not squarely rule on the issue regarding the existence of spurious and fake
ballots that were found during the revision of ballots in the trial court, is
clearly without basis. As explicitly
stated in the assailed COMELEC En Banc
Resolution, the ballot boxes of Precincts Nos. 498A/500A, 505A/506A, 507A/507A1,
510A, and 510A1/512A1 contained some tampered ballots; while the ballot box of
Precinct No. 503A/504A does not contain any tampered, fake or spurious ballots,
or ballots with forged Board of Election Inspector initials.[37]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC are
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
WE CONCUR:
Chief 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 |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA 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 |
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 50-118.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] G.R. No. 116246,
[10]
[11] Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks, . . . the use of two or more kinds of writing . . . shall not invalidate the ballot.
[12] G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000, 347 SCRA 681.
[13]
[14] Rollo, pp. 222-223.
[15] Any ballot which clearly appears to have been filled by two distinct persons before it was deposited in the ballot box during the voting is totally null and void.
[16] No. L-21135,
[17]
[18] Rollo, pp. 74-77.
[19]
[20]
[21] G.R. No. 160130,
[22]
[23] Punzalan
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 126669,
[24] Supra note 12.
[25]
[26] Rollo, pp. 32-34.
[27]
[28]
[29] Fausto
v. Villarta, 53 Phil. 166, 168 (1929).
[30] Protacio v. De
[31] Rollo, p. 35.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]