EN BANC
|
ALDO
B. CORDIA, Petitioner, - versus - JOEL G. MONFORTE AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents. |
G.R. No.
174620
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,* CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,* CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA,*
CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: March 4, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Aldo B. Cordia (petitioner) and Joel
G. Monforte (respondent) were official candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay 16 (
After the canvassing of votes, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed
petitioner as the winning candidate, having obtained 614 votes against the 609
votes obtained by respondent.
On July 18, 2002, respondent filed an
Election Protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Legazpi
City, alleging that “(f)or lack of familiarity with the Rules on Appreciation
of ballot[s] under Sec. 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846 dated June 13, 2002,
the Board of Election Teller failed to credit [him]with as many as ten (10)
votes.”[1]
The MTCC ordered a recount of the
votes which yielded the following results:[2]
|
|
JOEL MONFORTE [respondent] |
ALDO CORDIA [petitioner] |
|
UNCONTESTED VOTES |
591 |
440 |
|
ADD: CONTESTED/OBJECTED But Credited Votes |
18 |
174 |
|
ADD: CLAIMED and ADMITTED VOTES |
7 |
0 |
|
TOTAL: |
616 |
614 |
The MTCC
thereupon rendered judgment in favor of respondent, accordingly annulling and
setting aside the proclamation of petitioner, declaring respondent as the
lawful and duly elected Punong Barangay,
directing
petitioner to vacate the Office of the Punong Barangay and to relinquish said
position to respondent, and ordering petitioner
to pay the total amount of P6,350.00 representing the honoraria of the
members of the Revision Committee and its support staff and other miscellaneous
expenses.[3]
On appeal, the Second Division of the
COMELEC affirmed the MTCC Decision by Resolution[4] of
On Motion for Reconsideration, the
COMELEC En Banc affirmed[5]
the decision of the Second Division by a 5-1 vote with Commissioner Rene V.
Sarmiento dissenting.[6]
Hence, petitioner’s present Petition
for Certiorari (With Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order),[7] alleging
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
(I)
x x x in applying the neighborhood rule
when it disregarded judicial precedents and credited as votes in favor of
respondent, a candidate for punong
barangay, the questioned ballots marked as Exhibits A, D, E, F, H, and K on
the mere basis that his name was written on the first space or line intended
for the position of kagawad
(II)
x x x in applying the principle of idem sonans when it counted in favor of
private respondent the vote “Mantete” appearing in the questioned ballot marked
as Exhibit “A” and worse, written not on the line or space for punong barangay but kagawad.
(III)
x x x when it ruled that the circle mark on
the ballot marked as Exhibit C-17 xxx is but an ink smudge which is not a
marking of the ballot.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
In the
meantime, the MTCC issued on
The Court
finds the petition bereft of merit.
The
object of the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the
intention of the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.[16] When placed in issue, the appreciation of
contested ballots and election documents, which involves a question of fact, is
best left to the determination of the COMELEC.[17]
The
COMELEC, in crediting to respondent the vote for “Mantete” in Exhibit “A,” following
the idem sonans rule, the Court finds
no grave abuse discretion.
Petitioner
posits that “Mantete” could refer to Pedro Andes, a candidate for kagawad who, according to him, was
fondly called “Pete” or “Mang Pete” in the barangay.[18] As
respondent counters, that there is no
proof that “Mang Pete” is
Neither does
the Court find grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s application to
Exhibits “A,” “D,” “E,” “F,” “H,” and “K”[20] of
the “neighborhood rule,” which rule refers to:
As used by this Court, this nomenclature, loosely based on a rule of the same name devised by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), refers to an exception to the rule on appreciation of misplaced votes under Section 211 (19) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) which provides:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 211 (19) is meant to avoid confusion in the minds of the election officials as to the candidates actually voted for and to stave off any scheming design to identify the vote of the elector, thus defeating the secrecy of the ballot which is a cardinal feature of our election laws. Section 211 (19) also enforces Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that in preparing the ballot, each voter must “fill his ballot by writing in the proper place for each office the name of the individual candidate for whom he desires to vote.”
Excerpted from Section 211 (19) are ballots with (1) a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for successive offices appearing in the ballot, (2) a single or double misplacement of names where such names were preceded or followed by the title of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the candidate’s name a directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name was intended; and (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a) off-center from the designated space, (b) slightly underneath the line for the contested office, (c) immediately above the title for the contested office, or (d) in the space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate presented himself. In these instances, the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the candidates for the office for which they presented themselves because the voters’ intention to so vote is clear from the face of the ballots. This is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters’ will.[21] (Underscoring and italics supplied)
Nor does the Court find grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s not
rejecting Exhibit “C-17”[22] as a
marked ballot, there being no indication that the blot therein was deliberately
placed to identify the voter. Thus, Section
211 (22) of the Omnibus Election Code states
Unless it should clearly
appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as
identification marks, commas, dots, lines, or hyphens between the first name and surname of a
candidate, or in other parts of the ballot, traces of the letter "T",
"J", and other similar ones, the first letters or syllables of names
which the voter does not continue, the use of two or more kinds of writing and
unintentional or accidental flourishes, strokes, or strains, shall not
invalidate the ballot. (Underscoring
supplied)
Petitioner argues, nevertheless, that the COMELEC did not examine the
original ballot marked as Exhibit “C-17,” for if it did, it could have seen
that what appears thereon is not a mere ink smudge but a hole with “searing
around it deliberately burned by a lighted cigarette.”[23] Both parties admitted the authenticity
of the copies of the ballots examined in the case, however.[24]
Even assuming that what appears to be an ink smudge on Exhibit “C-17” is
actually a hole burned by a lighted cigarette, there is no proof that the
burning was deliberately done to identify the voter.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice (ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO- DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby 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
* On official leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 51.
[2]
[3]
[4] Penned by Commissioner Florentino
A. Tuason, Jr. with the concurrences of Commissioenrs Ralph C. Lantion and
MeHol K. Sadain.
[5] Resolution of September 6, 2006,
penned by Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra,
with the concurrences of Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Florentino A.
Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer and with the dissent of
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Rollo, unnumbered page between pp. 164-165.
[16] Juan
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166639,
[17]
[18] Rollo, p. 30.
[19]
[20]
[21] Velasco
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
166931,
[22] Rollo, p. 46.
[23]
[24]