LAISAN
T. PERMAN, G.R. No. 174010
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
-
versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS CHICO-NAZARIO,
and LINO LANDONG IDDONG, GARCIA,
Respondents. VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
Promulgated:
February 8, 2007
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
Before this Court is a Special Civil
Action for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court with Prayer for the
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Status Quo Ante Order.
Petitioner Laisan
T. Perman and private respondent Lino Landong Iddong were duly
certified candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Tipo-Tipo Proper,
Tipo-Tipo, Basilan in the
Petitioner filed an election protest with
the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Lamitan, Tipo-Tipo-Tuburan, Lamitan, Basilan, docketed as Election Protest Case No. 11-02. After
the revision of ballots, the trial court invalidated eighty-three (83) ballots
in favor of private respondent for being marked and deducted the same from his total
votes.
Consequently, on
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the
Protestant, LAISAN T. PERMAN as having won over Protestee, LINO LANDONG IDDONG,
with a majority of 13 votes during the Barangay Election[s] in Barangay Tipo-Tipo Proper,
SO
ORDERED.
Private respondent filed an appeal
with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).[2] On
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the
A perusal of the petition shows that
there is actually only one issue to be resolved: whether the COMELEC En banc
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in its appreciation of the contested ballots, sixty-five (65) ballots
for private respondent and two (2) ballots for petitioner.
The COMELEC En banc validated
sixty-five (65) ballots in favor of private respondent and added the same to his
total votes. Petitioner contends that said ballots should be invalidated for
having been written by two persons.
As for the other two (2) ballots for
petitioner, the COMELEC En banc invalidated them for being marked and accordingly
deducted petitioner’s total votes by two (2). Petitioner contends that the poll
body should have credited the two (2) ballots to him consistent with its rulings
on similarly situated ballots of private respondent and with the rules of
appreciation of ballots which favor validity in case of doubt in order to
uphold the will of the voters.
The petition is bereft of merit.
The applicable rule on appreciation
of ballots, embodied in Rule 23 under Sec. 211 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P.
Blg. 881), provides:
23. 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.
The Court had occasion to explain this
rule in Trajano v. Inciso.[5] The
rule of interpretation then in force was found in Sec. 149 (23) of Republic Act
No. 180 (Revised Election Code), the text of which is exactly as that found in
Sec. 211 (23) of the Omnibus Election Code quoted above. The Court in that case
held:
The
allowance or rejection of a ballot filled by more than one person depends on
its condition before it was cast in the ballot box: If at the time it was
cast it was filled only by one person, but thereafter it was tampered and
entries were made thereon by other persons, the ballot is valid. If, on the
other hand, it already bore the fillings of two or more persons when cast, said
ballots are deemed marked and thus void. [Emphasis supplied.]
The
presumption juris tantum is that a ballot found to be with the
handwriting of two or more persons suffered this defect before it was cast.[6] It
is only a presumption juris tantum, rebuttable by evidence. x x x
The presumption that a ballot found
to be in the handwriting of two or more persons suffered this defect before it
was cast was overcome in Trajano. Similarly,
in the case at bar, the COMELEC En banc, found that the presumption had indeed
been overcome. Following Columbres v.
COMELEC,[7] the
presumption was overcome by evidence that the ballots were tampered with after they
had been deposited in the ballot box.
The COMELEC En banc arrived at
the following findings:
1. In all the ballots coming from the three different precincts, only one and the same person made the insertions as can be gleaned from the singular handwriting that characterizes these insertions;
2. This person made it a point to always use a color of pen different from the one used by the original voter, as if he wanted to make sure that the insertion is readily noticed. The person even took the effort of overwriting his own color of pen with another upon noticing that the first pen he used matched the color of the pen used by the original voter. Thus, if the color of pen used by the original voter was black, the insertion was made with the use of a blue pen, and vice versa; and
3.
The insertions made were redundant. Even after
the original voter already wrote a clear and categorical vote for appellant,
the one person making the insertions still inserted the name of appellant,
either by writing it on the lines for kagawad or by adding it to the name
already written on the line for punong barangay.[8]
[Emphasis supplied.]
In arriving at the above findings,
the COMELEC En banc closely scrutinized the contested ballots. It
painstakingly described and examined each and every insertion or mark therein.
It then concluded that, in view of the findings above, the sixty-five (65)
ballots for private respondent were tampered with after they were deposited in
the ballot box. We agree with the conclusion reached by the COMELEC En banc.
Verily, it must have been a different
person or persons who made the marks. At the time the ballots in question were deposited
in the ballot box, these were not marked, containing, as they did, only the
will of the voters concerned as expressed in the writings originally found in
the ballots.
As
to the two (2) ballots for petitioner, experience has shown that it is
difficult to lay down any absolute rule as to what constitutes cause for
rejecting a ballot as marked, and, therefore, great care must be exercised in
rejecting such ballots.[9] In order for a ballot to be considered
marked, in the sense necessary to invalidate it, it must appear that the voter
designedly placed some superfluous sign or mark on the ballot which might serve
to identify it thereafter. No ballot should be discarded as a marked ballot
unless its character as such is unmistakable.[10]
The distinguishing mark which the law forbids to be placed on the ballots is
that which the elector may have placed with the intention of facilitating the
means of identifying said ballot, for the purpose of defeating the secrecy of
suffrage which the law establishes.[11]
Thus, marked ballots are ballots containing distinguishing marks, the purpose
of which is to identify them.
In
the case at bar, Exhibits 24 and 24-A contained the encircled numbers “16” and
“15,” respectively, in the voter’s own handwriting after the name of petitioner.
There can be no reason for placing the said numbers immediately after the name
of the candidate, which mark is too big for a period, except to mark the
ballot.[12] It
was also for this same reason that the COMELEC En banc similarly invalidated
eleven (11) ballots for private respondent.[13]
Finally,
this is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Under
this rule, findings of fact of the COMELEC supported by substantial evidence
shall be final and non-reviewable.[14] We see no reason to depart from the principle.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The
prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Status Quo Ante Order is DENIED for being moot. The questioned Resolutions
dated
SO ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
|
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 |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA 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
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[3]Rollo, pp. 28-41.
[4]
[6]Citing
Gutierrez v. Reyes, L-13137,
[9]See Sarenas v. Generoso, 61 Phil. 549 (1935).
[10]See
Valenzuela v. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil. 428 (1921) and Lucero
v. De Guzman, 45 Phil. 852 (1924).
[11]Cailles v. Gomez, 42 Phil. 496 (1921) and Lucero v. De
Guzman, 45 Phil. 852 (1924).
[12]See also Protacio v. De Leon, No.
L-21135,
[13]Exhibits SS (containing the letter “S” above the vote for Iddong), SS-1 (same with Exhibit SS), SS-2 (same with Exhibit SS), SS-3 (same with Exhibit SS), EEE (same with Exhibit SS), EEE-1 (same with Exhibit SS), EEE-2 (same with Exhibit SS), UU (containing a heart drawn on top of the ballot), UU-1 (containing two distinct parallel lines above the line for punong barangay), UU-2 (containing the letters “MLL” and underlined twice), and UU-3 (containing a diamond drawn on the line for punong barangay) were invalidated as they were in the voter’s handwriting to identify himself.
[14]See Rules of Court, Rule 64, Sec. 5.