Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
CORNELIO
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO-MORALES,*
- versus - CALLEJO, SR.,*
AZCUNA,**
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS
and
ROMEO H. VASQUEZ, Promulgated:
Respondents. February 28, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 25, 2004 Resolution[1]
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division and the
The facts are as summarized by the COMELEC
and the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 23,
In the
Delos Reyes filed with the MeTC a
Petition for Recount[5]
of votes in all the precincts, namely Precinct Nos. 1815-A, 1816-A, 1817-A, and
1818-A on the ground that several votes in his favor were read and counted for
Vasquez and that the latter employed threat and intimidation against Delos
Reyess watchers in order to perpetrate election irregularities. Vasquez denied these allegations.[6]
Pursuant to a September 6, 2002 Order
of the MeTC, revision proceedings were conducted by a Revision Committee (Committee)
composed of Delos Reyes and Vasquez as members and the MeTC Branch Clerk of
Court as Chair. The Committee observed
that two of the three ballot boxes coming from the disputed precincts had
padlocks to which none of the three keys
provided by the COMELEC District Office of Manila fit. However, other than this observation, the
Committee found nothing more remarkable about the outward physical appearance
of the ballot boxes and decided to forcibly open the same. Inside were election paraphernalia in good
condition, with COMELEC paper seals still intact. A physical recount was conducted, resulting in
the following:
Precinct No.
a) 1815-A and
1817-A1 44
20
b) 1816-A and 1818-A
68
30
c) 1817-A 1
46
_________ _______
113
100 [sic][7]
However, Vasquez contested 106 ballots[8]
with votes cast for Delos Reyes while
the latter contested 67 ballots[9]
containing votes for Vasquez. Their objections were based on the grounds
that some ballots were marked while some contained votes written by only one
person.[10]
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the court hereby declares Mr. Cornelio Delos Reyes as the elected winner for the position
of Barangay Chairman of Barangay 414, Zone 42, District 4,
SO ORDERED.[11]
The MeTC based its Decision on the
result of the physical recount conducted by the Revision Committee where Delos
Reyes garnered 113 votes and Vasquez, 100[12]
votes. It did not reject any of the
contested ballots for it found no evidence to invalidate them.
Vasquez
appealed to the COMELEC, raising the following issues:
1. Whether or not the Court erred in
(a) Declaring
Delos Reyes as the duly elected
candidate for the position of Barangay Chairman [of Barangay] 414, Zone
42, District 4, Manila despite the absence of evidence to substantiate his
claim of threats, intimidation and cheating;
(b) Failing
to give weight and probative value to the tally sheets; (Annexes A, B, and
C) Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of winning candidates for Punong
Barangay (Annex D) and letter of the Board of Election Tellers to the Court
(Annex F) in the absence of evidence adduced to claim irregularities in the
conduct of election;
2. Whether or not the court erred in
declaring the validity of the votes counted in favor of Delos Reyes considering
that
(a) The
two padlocks protecting two different ballot boxes did not fit with the three
keys officially submitted by COMELEC District Office of Manila;
(b) The
one hundred six (106) ballots were questioned and or contested by Vasquez on
the ground that these were written by one and the same person.
3. Whether or not it is imperative for the
Honorable Commission to conduct a physical counting of the ballots cast to
determine the authenticity of the ballots counted in favor of Delos Reyes which
was written by one and the same person.[13]
In its October 25, 2004 Resolution being
assailed herein, the COMELEC Second
Division, upon examination of all the contested ballots, reversed the findings
and conclusion of the MeTC as follows:
1) Exhibts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21,
22, 38, 2-D, 2-E, 2-F, 2-G, 2-H, 2-I, 2-J, 2-K, 2-L,
2-M, 2-N, 2-O, 2-P, 2-Q, 2-R, 2-S, 2-T, 2-U, 2-V and 2-W
have all been written by one person. These
forty-one (41) ballots with votes for Delos Reyes are therefore considered
invalid.
1a) Exhibts 8, 25 and 26 have all been
written by one person. These three (3) ballots with votes for Delos Reyes are
therefore considered invalid.
2) Exhibit C - in the remaining spaces 2
to 7 for the position of Barangay Kagawad, the name
3) Exhibits C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6,
C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16,
C-17, C-18, C-19, C-20, C-21, C-22, [and] C-23, which are ballots
with votes for Vasquez, have three (3) consecutive stars affixed after the name
of Vasquez. However, a careful
examination would show that these distinguishing marks do not appear to have
been written by the voter himself. The
three consecutive stars appearing on the twenty-one (21) ballots all bear
similarity in appearance, stroke and ink-color, indicating that these were
written by a single hand. It would
therefore appear that the distinguishing marks were placed after the voter
concerned had already accomplished and deposited the ballot in the ballot box,
and were deliberately made for the purpose of invalidating the ballot. A mark placed on a ballot by a person other
than the voter himself does not invalidate the ballot (Juliano v. Court of
Appeals, 20 SCRA 808). Hence, these
ballots are considered valid votes for Vasquez.
4) There are no clear and sufficient
reasons or evidence to invalidate the remaining contested ballots. Hence, the same are considered valid.
Based
on the above findings, a total of forty-four (44) ballots, all with votes for
Delos Reyes, have been invalidated. On
the other hand, one (1) ballot with a vote for Vasquez has also been
invalidated. After accordingly deducting
the invalid votes from the original number of recounted votes of the parties,
as deteremine by the court a quo, we have the following results:
No. of votes based on the recount - 113
Less: Votes declared invalid - 44
___
Actual No. of Valid Votes
Obtained - 69
Vasquez
No. of votes
based on the recount - 100 [sic]
Less: Votes
declared as invalid -
1
___
Actual
No. of Valid Votes Obtained -
99 [14]
The above results therefore show
protestee-appellant Vasquez the winner over protestant-appellee Delos Reyes
with a plurality of thirty (30)[15]
votes.[16]
The
dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
SO ORDERED.[17]
Delos
Reyes filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the COMELEC En Banc denied in
the assailed
And
so, the present Petition questioning the COMELEC Resolutions on the following
grounds:
A. The COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack and excess of its jurisdiction in sweepingly
invalidating forty-five (45)[19]
valid ballots cast by the innocent voters for the petitioner, allegedly as
written by one person (WBOP) without any valid and legal justification,
particularly Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 38, 2-D, 2-E, 2-F, 2-G, 2-H,
2-I, 2-J, 2-K, 2-L, 2-M, 2-N, 2-O, 2-P, 2-Q, 2-R, 2-S,
2-T, 2-U, 2-V and 2-W; and Exhibits 8, [20]
25 and 26;
B.
The COMELEC gravely erred in finding that the twenty-one
(21) invalid ballots, particularly Exhibits C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7,
C-8, C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-17,
C-18, C-19, C-20, C-21, C-22, and C-23, were found to be valid for
private respondent despite the very obvious markings of three successive stars
written after his name.[21]
Petitioner Delos Reyes filed his Memorandum on
The petition is partly meritorious.
The will of the voters is embodied in
the ballots. To ascertain and carry out such will, their ballots must be read
and appreciated according to the rule that
every ballot is presumed valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify
its rejection.[24]
On this matter, the findings of the
COMELEC, which exercises original and
appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective officials in
the regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels, are
accorded great respect, if not finality by the Court.[25] The documents and evidence upon which the
COMELEC relies for its resolution, and the manner it appreciates said documents
and evidence in respect of their sufficiency are ordinarily beyond our scrutiny
for the latter is an independent Constitutional body of a level higher than
statutory administrative bodies.[26]
The COMELEC, however, is not
infallible. If it is shown to have issued
findings that are not supported by evidence or are contrary to the evidence, it
is deemed to have acted capriciously and whimsically. The Court steps in to
correct its grave abuse of discretion.[27]
This is one case in point.
In reversing the MeTC and holding
that the votes cast in favor of Delos
Reyes in the 44 ballots marked as Exhibits 1 to 22, Exhibit 38, Exhibits 2-D
to 2-W, and Exhibits 8, 25, and 26 were invalid for having been written
by one person, the COMELEC merely made a general declaration that there were
xxx no marked differences in the style of the handwritings x x x [28]
on all 44 ballots.
COMELECs reliance on only one aspect
of the handwritings on the ballots is tenuous. In Silverio v. Clamor,[29]
the Court reversed the trial court which
had invalidated certain ballots merely on a finding that the writings thereon
have the same general appearance and pictorial effect. Speaking through Justice
Jose Bengzon, the Court said:
Now
the court a quo invalidated the above
eleven ballots, as mentioned, upon the principle of general appearance or
pictorial effect. Yet, the very authority referred to and quoted by said court
stated that said general resemblance is not enough to warrant the conclusion
that two writings are by the same hand x x x:
In order to reach the conclusion that two writings are
by the same hand there must not only be present class characteristics but also
individual characteristics or dents and scratches in sufficient quantity to
exclude the theory of accidental coincidence; to reach the conclusion that
writings are by different hands we may find numerous likenesses in class characteristics
but divergences in individual characterisitcs, or we may find divergences in
both, but the divergence must be something more than mere superficial
differences. (Osborns Questioned Documents, p. 244) [30]
In the present case, the finding of
the COMELEC fell short of the foregoing standard. It saw no differences in the
handwritings on the 44 ballots yet it is
silent on whether it discerned in the ballots similarities and divergences in the class and individual characteristics of the
handwritings as would conclusively establish that these were made by the same
hand. There was therefore an
incompleteness in COMELECs appreciation of the ballots that it acted
prematurely when it declared said ballots invalid.
Moreover, the COMELEC referred solely
to the
ballots to resolve the issue of whether they were prepared by one
person. Delos Reyes questions this, arguing that to determine whether the
ballots were invalid for having been written by one person, it was not
sufficient for the COMELEC to have merely relied on the ballots alone; it
should have also consulted the Minutes of Voting and Counting in the contested precincts. [31]
Delos Reyes is correct.
It is true that in election contests,
where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is at issue, the
ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence, unless the same cannot be
produced, in which case the election returns would be the best evidence. And when the handwritings on the ballots are the subject
matter of the election contest, the best evidence would be the ballots
themselves as the COMELEC can examine or compare these handwritings even
without assistance from handwriting experts.[32]
However, in election contests
involving the issue of whether multiple ballots were written by one person, it
is not enough for the COMELEC to merely rely on said ballots. Assisted voting authorized under Section 196
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881[33]
is a reality which must be recognized
and given effect. Thus, in Torres v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal,[34]
the Court affirmed the procedure adopted by and the findings of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal on certain ballots which were disputed for
having been written by one person. The
Court held:
We find no reason to
disturb the Tribunals appreciation of the ballots contested as written by one person;
written by two persons; and as marked ballots. We quote pertinent portions of the
Tribunals resolution addressing these issues, to wit:
A. Ballots object to by the parties
1.
Multiple Ballots Written by One Person
The Tribunal ruled on the validity of written by one ballots only when such are objected to, or even if not objected, are plainly null and void. Taken into consideration is the existence of assisted voting where illiterate or physically disabled voters are allowed to vote with the aid of assistors, it being presumed that identically written ballots were prepared by the assistor, one for himself and the other/s for the illiterate or physically disabled voter/s. The presence of assisted voters was determined from the data reflected in the Minutes of Voting. The number was limited to three (3), unless the assistor was a member of the Board of Election Inspectors, in which case the limitation did not apply. Thus, the pairs or groups of ballots which were prepared by one person and which fall within the limits of assistecd voting were admitted, provided the handwriting thereon was similar to the signature of the assistor as appearing in the Minutes of Voting. The rest were rejected. Likewise, where the Minutes of Voting shows that there were no registered illiterate/disabled voters in the precinct or where the uniform handwritings on the pair or goup of ballots were not similar to that of the assistor indicated whose signature appeared on the Minutes of Voting, all ballots clearly appearing to have been written by only one person were invalidated. In those instances where the Minutes of the Voting was not available, the Computerized Voters list was used to deteremine if there were illiterate voters.[35]
x x x x
More important, in De Guzman v. Commission on Elections,[36]
the Court overturned the COMELEC which had perfunctorily rejected seven ballots
cast in favor of petitioner therein for having been written by one person. In reversing the COMELEC, we held:
As
regards the 7 ballots cast in favor of De Guzman which were rejected as
written-by-one in Precinct 27A Mabini, the COMELEC should have considered the
data reflected in the Minutes of Voting Precinct No. 47A Mabini. It shows the
existence of 24 illiterate or physically disabled voters which necessitated
voting by assistors pursuant to Section 196 of B.P. Blg. 881 x x x.[37]
Indeed,
even if it is patent on the face of the ballots that these were written by only
one person, that fact alone cannot invalidate said ballots for it may very well
be that, under the system of assisted voting, the latter was duly authorized to
act as an assistor and prepare all said ballots. To hinder disenfranchisement
of assisted voters, it is imperative that, in the evaluation of ballots
contested on the ground of having been prepared by one person, the COMELEC first
verify from the Minutes of Voting or the Computerized Voters List for the
presence of assisted voters in the contested precinct and take this fact into account when it evaluates
ballots bearing similar handwritings. Omission of this verification
process will render its reading and appreciation of the ballots incomplete.
In the present case, COMELECs
appreciation of the 44 contested ballots was deficient for it referred exclusively
to said ballots without consulting the Minutes of Voting or the Computerized
Voters List to verify the presence of assisted voters in the contested
precincts.
Thus, COMELEC acted with grave abuse
of discretion in overturning the presumption of validity of the 44 ballots and
in declaring them invalid based on an incomplete appreciation of said ballots.
However, under the circumstances
obtaining in this case, the Court is barred from ruling on the validity of the
44 contested ballots and restoring them in favor of Delos Reyes. Judicious resolution of this issue will
entail scrutiny of the ballots and the Minutes of the Voting, or if not
available, the Computerized Voters List, over which the COMELEC has primary
jurisdiction - a function the Court cannot pretend to exercise even for the
lofty purpose of determining in the soonest possible time as to who between
Delos Reyes and Vasquez was elected to the position of Barangay Chairman
of Barangay 414 during the July 15, 2002 Barangay Elections. The
original records of the case are not before this Court. This matter should
therefore be remanded to the COMELEC for expeditious and complete evaluation of
the subject ballots and Minutes of the Voting or Computerized Voters List, in
accordance with the procedure described above, having in mind that Synchronized
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections[38]
will be held on
As to the ruling of the COMELEC
sustaining the validity of the 21 ballots known as Exhibits C-3 to C-23 in
favor of Vasquez, the Court affirms the same.
It is axiomatic that a ballot should be counted if it is marked
afterwards by some person or persons other than the voter himself for such
unathorized changes should not be permitted to destroy the will of said voter.[39]
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed September 30, 2005
Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc affirming the October 25, 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division which reversed and set aside the October 15, 2002 Metropolitan Trial
Court Decision and declared Romeo H. Vasquez the winner for the position of Barangay
Chairman of Barangay 414, Zone 42, District 4, Manila, during the July
15, 2002 Barangay Elections is SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the COMELEC for full appreciation of
the 44 ballots (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 38;
Exhibits 2-D, 2-E, 2-F, 2-G, 2-H, 2-I, 2-J, 2-K, 2-L, 2-M,
2-N, 2-O, 2-P, 2-Q, 2-R, 2-S, 2-T, 2-U, 2-V, and 2-W) together
with the corresponding Minutes of Voting and if not available, the Computerized
Voters List, as discussed in the text of herein Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
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 |
(On Leave)
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate
Justice |
(On
Leave) (On Official Leave)
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. 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
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
* On Leave.
** On Official Leave.
[1]
Issued by Presiding Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain and
Commissioners Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.
and Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr., rollo, pp. 30-39.
[2] Issued by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and Commissioners Rufino B. Javier, Mehol K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borra, and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., id. at 41-46.
[3]
Entitled Cornelio
[4] MTC Decision, rollo, p. 47.
[5] Docketed as Civil Case No. 001406-EC.
[6] Supra note 4.
[7] This should be 96 votes.
[8] Exhibits 1 to 38, Exhibits 2, 2-A to 2-Z, 2-aa to 2-dd, and 37 other unmarked ballots.
[9] Exhibits A, A-1 to A-16, Exhibits B, B-1 to B-18, and Exhibits C, C-1 to C-30.
[10] Rollo, p. 48.
[11]
[12] This should be 96 votes.
[13]
[14] This should be 95 votes.
[15] This should be 26 votes.
[16] Rollo, pp. 36-38.
[17]
[18]
[19] This should be forty-four (44). See note 20.
[20] Exhibit 8 is twice mentioned.
[21] Petition, rollo, p. 15.
[22] Memorandum for Petitioner, id. at 80.
[23] Memorandum for Private Respondent, id. at 105.
[24]
Section 211, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code).
[25] Malabaguio v. Commission on Elections, 400 Phil. 551, 561 (2000).
[26] Sison v. Commission on Elections, 363 Phil. 510, 520-521 (1999); Mastura v. Commission on Elections, 349 Phil. 423, 429 (1998); Dagloc v. Commission on Elections, 463 Phil. 263, 288 (2003).
[27] De Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159713, March 31, 2004, 426 SCRA 698, 707-708.
[28] Rollo, p. 45.
[29] 125 Phil. 917 (1967).
[30]
[31] Petition, rollo, p. 18.
[32]
Bautista v. Castro,
G.R. No. 61260,
[33] Sec. 196. Preparation of ballots for illiterate and disabled persons. A voter who is illiterate or physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself may be assisted in the preparation of his ballot by a relative, by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or if he has none, by any person of his confidence who belongs to the same household or any member of the board of election inspectors, except the two party members: Provided, That no voter shall be allowed to vote as illiterate or physically disabled unless it is so indicated in his registration record: Provided, further, That in no case shall an assistor assist more than three times except the non-party members of the board of election inspectors. The person thus chosen shall prepare the ballot for the illiterate or disabled voter inside the voting booth. The person assisting shall bind himself in a formal document under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with the instructions of the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot prepared by him. Violation of this provision shall constitute an election offense.
[34] 404 Phil. 125 (2001).
[35]
[36] Supra note 27.
[37]
[38] Republic Act No. 9340.
[39]
Dojillo v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 166542,