EN BANC
G.R. No. 186359 (Jesus O. Typoco v. Commission on
Elections; The New Municipal Board of Canvassers of Labo, Camarines Norte,
represented by its Chairman, Atty. Raffy Olano; The New Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Camarines Norte, represented by its Chairman, Atty. Allen Francis
B. Abaya; and Edgardo A. Tallado)
Promulgated:
March
5, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
VELASCO, JR., J.:
With due respect, I dissent.
A summary of the pertinent facts is as follows:
In the May 14, 2007 elections, both Typoco and Tallado
were candidates for the Office of the Governor of the
Previously, during the canvassing proceedings of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) of Camarines Norte, Tallado objected to
the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass (COC) from the Municipalities of
Paracale, Jose Panganiban, and Labo on the ground that they were falsified,
tampered, and manufactured. The
objections were subsequently denied by the PBOC, which prompted Tallado to
appeal the rulings of the PBOC to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The
cases were docketed as SPC Nos. 07-78, 07-79, and 07-80.
On May 25, 2007, the COMELEC Second Division issued an
Omnibus Resolution dismissing the appeal. Consequently, on May 29, 2007, the
PBOC convened and proclaimed Typoco as the governor-elect of Camarines Norte.
On June 4, 2007, Tallado filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the May 25, 2007 Omnibus Resolution. Likewise, he filed a
Petition for Annulment of Proclamation of Typoco, which was docketed as SPC No.
07-243. The petition was, however, subsequently dismissed by the COMELEC Second
Division in a Resolution dated August 22, 2007, prompting Tallado to move for
its reconsideration on September 3, 2007.
On September 11, 2007, the COMELEC Second Division
denied Tallado’s Motion for Reconsideration of the May 25, 2007 Omnibus
Resolution.
On September 17, 2007, Tallado filed a Petition for
Correction of Manifest Error before the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 07-312. He
contended that the proclamation of Typoco as governor-elect of Camarines Norte
was void, since it was predicated on void certificates of canvass coming from
the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) of Labo and Jose Panganiban, Camarines
Norte.
Answering, Typoco averred that the petition was filed
out of time and Tallado submitted manufactured Statement of Votes by Precinct
(SOVP).
On November 28, 2007, the COMELEC First Division
conducted a hearing on the petition and, thereafter, ordered the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.
In the meantime, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2008 in SPC No.
07-243 dismissing Tallado’s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 22, 2007
Resolution, which dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Proclamation of
Typoco.
On April 30, 2008, the COMELEC First Division promulgated the assailed Resolution in SPC No. 07-312 granting the petition and annulling the proclamation of Typoco while ordering the proclamation of Tallado as the winner.
On May 8, 2008, Typoco filed a motion for reconsideration contending that he was denied due process, followed by an Urgent Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Supplemental Argument in support of his motion for reconsideration and to set the case for hearing.
On February 16, 2009, the COMELEC en banc conducted a hearing regarding Typoco’s Omnibus Motion, as well as his motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC en banc then directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
On February 24, 2009, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution affirming the findings of the COMELEC First Division denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
Aggrieved, petitioner Typoco filed the instant petition on February 26, 2009.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission en banc RESOLVED to, as it hereby RESOLVES to, DENY the prayer of Private Respondent Jesus Typoco for admission of exhibits “1” to “8-G” for the specific purposes mentioned in the Memorandum.
Consequently, relative to our February 24, 2009 Resolution, and in order to expedite proceedings x x x speedily and judiciously, the Commission en banc accordingly names and appoints the following members of the New Municipal Board of Canvassers (NMBOC) for Labo, Camarines Norte: x x x which must hereafter convene at COMELEC session hall in Intramuros, Manila within three (3) days from receipt of this Order, re-tabulate the votes for the position of Governor of Camarines Norte, prepare a new SVOP and MCOC for the municipality of Labo with the corrections, and thereafter submit the same to the New Provincial Board of Canvassers (NPBOC) of Camarines Norte.
The following are likewise named and appointed to the New Provincial Board of Canvassers of Camarines Norte and performed duties as follows: x x x The same NPBOC shall convene at COMELEC session hall in Intramuros, Manila, within three (3) days from receipt of this Order, prepare a new Statement of Votes per Municipality (SVOM) and Provincial Canvass of Votes (PCOC) as corrected, and thereafter proclaim Edgardo Tallado as the duly elected governor of the province of Camarines Norte in May 14, 2007 elections.
Further, the
Commission en banc hereby endorses
this matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for proper
investigation, the results of which would be material to any further action
that may be taken against any such responsible parties who may be found liable
for any of the fraudulent acts alleged by the Private Respondent Typoco. For
this same purpose, the NBI is hereby directed to coordinate with the COMELEC
Law Department and Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal to expedite this investigation.
SO ORDERED.[2] (Emphasis supplied.)
Upon endorsement of the said Order from
COMELEC, the NBI conducted an investigation of the two sets of SOVPs submitted
by both parties. The NBI was able to examine four (4) copies of the SOVPs: the
first copy coming from the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of
Camarines Norte; the second, from the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible
Voting, Camarines Norte Chapter; the third (blue carbon copy), from the Election
Records and Statistics Department (ERSD); and the fourth, from the MBOC for
Labo.
On May 22, 2009, the NBI released a Progress
Report[3]
with the following findings:
After the investigation conducted so far, the undersigned Agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) assisted by other investigators, hereby state their findings, thus:
That the First Copy (black copy/original copy) of the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) Nos. 0006482, 0006483, 0006484, 0006485, 0006486, 0006487, 0006488 and 0006489 for Local Positions from Labo, Camarines Norte during the May 14, 2007 Elections which were turned over by the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Camarines Norte, Provincial Capitol, Daet, Camarines Norte represented by Atty. MAICO JULIA to the NBI for examination are SPURIOUS.
That the Second Copy (red carbonized impression) of the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) Nos. 0006482, 0006483. 0006484, 0006485, 0006486, 0006487, 0006488 and 0006489 for Local Positions from Labo, Camarines Norte during the May 14, 2007 Elections which were turned over by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting – NAMFREL, Camarines Norte Chapter, Daet, Camarines Norte represented by Fr. NORBERTO EYULI to the NBI for examination are GENUINE.
That the Third Copy (blue carbonized impression) of the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) Nos. 0006482, 0006483. 0006484, 0006485, 0006486, 0006487, 0006488 and 0006489 for Local Positions from Labo, Camarines Norte during the May 14, 2007 Elections which were turned over by the Election Records & Statistics Division, Comelec, Intramuros, Manila represented by Atty. JUANA S. VALEZA to the NBI for examination are SPURIOUS.
That the Fourth Copy (green carbonized impression) of the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) Nos. 0006482, 0006483. 0006484, 0006485, 0006486, 0006487, 0006488 and 0006489 for Local Positions from Labo, Camarines Norte during the May 14, 2007 Elections which were turned over by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) for Labo, Camarines Norte represented by Mr. VIRGILIO VERAS to the NBI for examination are GENUINE.[4] (Emphasis supplied.)
After a careful examination of the facts and law applicable
to the case, I submit that the petition should be granted.
Existence of Forum-Shopping
At the outset, it should be pointed out that COMELEC erroneously
entertained the Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors filed by Tallado,
since such petition already constituted deliberate and willful forum shopping.
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides that “the Rules of Court in the
Accordingly, the certification
against forum shopping is required under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. —
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or
other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply
with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of
the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
In a complaint or other pleading
initiating an action in court, the plaintiff or principal party shall certify
as to three undertakings: (1) that he has not commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or claim, he should make a
complete statement of the present status of said action or claim; and (3) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action has been filed or is
pending in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court where his complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with these requirements
shall be cause for dismissal of the case without prejudice or with prejudice
but only upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification
or the non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein may subject the
party to indirect contempt of court. If the party’s or his counsel’s acts
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be a ground
for summary dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is
whether the elements of litis pendentia
are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another. Thus, there is
forum shopping when the following elements are present: (1) identity of parties,
or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions; (2)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata
in the action under consideration. These requisites are also constitutive of
the requisites of auter action
pendant or lis pendens.[6]
In the present case, the records reveal that not only did
Tallado fail to declare in the certification against forum shopping in his
Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors the existence of his Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of his
Petition for Annulment of Proclamation of Typoco (SPC No. 07-243) then pending
before the COMELEC,[7] but
he also engaged in willful and deliberate forum shopping.
It would be apropos to review the
factual milieu of the case at this juncture. The first cases, docketed as SPC
Nos. 07-78, 07-79, and 07-80, filed by Tallado were objections to the inclusion
of the COCs from the Municipalities of Paracale, Jose Panganiban, and Labo on
the ground that they were falsified, tampered, and manufactured. Thereafter, he
filed a second case––a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation of Typoco. Still
unsatisfied, he filed the Petition for Correction of Manifest Error, his third
case, saying that the proclamation of Typoco is void, since it was based on
void COCs from the municipalities aforementioned. In effect, each of these
three cases is anchored on the same ground––void COCs.
Applying the test to determine the
existence of forum shopping to the facts of the case, it is easily decipherable
that forum shopping indeed exists. First,
there is identity of parties. Tallado is the petitioner in all three (3) cases
against Typoco as respondent. Second,
the relief prayed for is founded on the same facts, i.e., void COCs for the
Municipalities of Labo, Jose Panganiban, and/or Paracale. And third, the resolution of the COMELEC in
SPC Nos. 07-78, 07-79, and 07-80 regarding the authenticity of the COCs is a
decision on the merits which amounted to res
judicata. Thus, Tallado could no longer question Typoco’s proclamation
based on the same COCs in the subsequent Petitions for Annulment of Proclamation
and Correction of Manifest Error.
Such fact of deliberate and willful
forum shopping should have prompted COMELEC to dismiss outright the Petition
for Correction of Manifest Error.
Existence
of Grave Abuse of Discretion
The ponencia finds
that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in the instant case
ratiocinating that the appreciation of election documents involves a question
of fact that is best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized
agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. Further,
it says that the findings of fact of such agency, when supported by substantial
evidence, are final and cannot be reviewed by courts of justice. While such is
the general rule, the principle admits of certain exceptions. In Life
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, this Court enumerated the
exceptions, to wit:
It is a settled rule
that in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of review, the Court is not a
trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the
evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case
considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on
the Court. However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule, to
wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions
of both the appellant and the appellee; x x x (10) when the findings of fact
are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record x x x.[8]
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, there are two conflicting
sets of SOVPs, and by deciding the petition of Tallado solely
on the basis of the ERSD copy of the SOVP, such act by the COMELEC constituted
grave abuse of discretion.
First, there were glaring discrepancies
between the two (2) sets of SOVP submitted by the parties. On the one hand, petitioner Typoco avers that he obtained his
copy of the SOVP from the Office of the Election Officers in the municipalities
of Labo, while private respondent Tallado claims that he secured his copy of
the SOVP from the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor (OPES),
allegedly as certified by the latter.
Tallado alleges that based on his copy of the
SOVP, his total number of votes in the
But Typoco contends in his petition that the election documents used by respondent COMELEC in issuing the questioned
resolutions, which nullified the 2,543 vote-lead of Typoco, and in declaring
Tallado as the winner, are fake and spurious. He further asserts that the
copies provided by Tallado are also fake and spurious.
Typoco counters that the correct total numbers
of votes are those found in the Municipal COC, which shows that Tallado
received only 11,490 votes, while Typoco garnered 12,285 votes. Typoco further
argues that these figures are supported by the SOVP (MBOC copy), which he
obtained from the Offices of the Election Officer of Labo.
In such a scenario, the COMELEC should not have
decided based on the ERSD copies of the SOVP alone. It departed from settled
jurisprudence when it did not make use of the election returns and simply
relied on the SOVP copy of the ERSD. As the ponencia
stated, “[T]he original petition filed before the COMELEC, one for correction
of manifest errors, is a pre-proclamation controversy which, ordinarily, does not involve the
opening of ballot boxes, examination and appreciation of ballots and/or
election returns.” In order, however, to
determine the true and genuine results of the elections, this Court has
constantly ruled that the best evidence is the election returns themselves, and
not the certificate of votes or SOVPs.
In Garay
v. COMELEC,[9]
the Court held that “[a] certificate of votes does not constitute sufficient
evidence of the true and genuine results of the election; only election returns
are, pursuant to Sections 231, 233-236, and 238 of B.P. Blg. 881.”
Again in De
Guzman v. COMELEC,[10]
the Court stated that “in an election contest where the correctness of the
number of votes is involved, the best and most conclusive evidence are the
ballots themselves; where the ballots can not be produced or are not available,
the election returns would be the best evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, the ponencia pounds on the fact that this Court can only look at
records and materials brought to the COMELEC’s attention and consideration by
the parties. But it neglects to take into account the long standing principle
that procedural rules are but tools to accomplish the ends of justice, and it
is always in the power of the Court to suspend its own rules whenever the
purposes of justice require.[11]
Similarly, it would be wise to remember that election contests involve public
interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to
stand in the way if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the
true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. In
election cases this Court has an imperative duty to ascertain, by all means
within its command, who are the real candidates voted by the electorate.[12]
Thus, in the higher interest of substantial
justice, this Court decided to use the election returns in the precinct subject
of the petition to finally determine the actual votes cast in favor of the
contending parties. Such action has been upheld by the Court in Mastura v. COMELEC.[13]
In Mastura,
two (2) congressional candidates were vying for the first district of
Maguindanao during the May 8, 1995 elections. One of the candidates, Didagen P.
Dilangalen, objected to the inclusion of the COC of the
Although such a task could have very well been
delegated to the COMELEC, time constraints strongly argued against a remand and
compelled this Court to review the election returns themselves.
Accordingly, by Resolution on July 28, 2009,
the Court directed the COMELEC to present for examination the COMELEC copy of all
the 163 election returns of Labo, Camarines Norte under the custody of the
ERSD. As a measure then to discern the
will of the electorate, the Court took it upon itself to make a verification.
In compliance with the said resolution, the COMELEC submitted copies of E.R. Nos.
3000501 to 3000663 on August 11, 2009. Upon inspection, the election returns
were found to be regular.
Subsequently, on September 29, 2009, the Court
issued another resolution requiring the parties to submit their comments on the
results of the election returns.
Petitioner Typoco confirmed the genuineness and due execution of the
election returns in his comment. He further stated that the results also
confirmed the findings of the NBI that the SOVPs used by COMELEC in annulling
his proclamation were not genuine.
On the other hand, respondent Tallado raises
the argument that the review of the election returns is not within the power of
the Court. He argues that reviewing the said election returns would transgress
the principle that the Court is not a trier of facts. Furthermore, he contends
that the findings of fact of the COMELEC are final and non-reviewable. Lastly,
he states that any review of “precursor documents” is anathema to the summary
nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
Had the majority only looked at the evidence
before the Court, the returns would have carried the day for Typoco:
|
Election Return No. |
Precinct No. |
GOVERNOR |
|
|
Tallado, Edgardo A. |
Typoco, Jesus Jr. O. |
||
|
3000501 |
1A |
92 |
43 |
|
3000502 |
2A |
104 |
39 |
|
3000503 |
3A |
100 |
25 |
|
3000504 |
4A & 5A |
129 |
33 |
|
3000505 |
6A |
110 |
18 |
|
3000506 |
7A |
98 |
23 |
|
3000507 |
8A |
90 |
40 |
|
3000508 |
9A |
76 |
46 |
|
3000509 |
10A & 11A |
104 |
89 |
|
3000510 |
12A |
50 |
94 |
|
3000511 |
13A |
66 |
75 |
|
3000512 |
14A |
48 |
61 |
|
3000513 |
15A & 16A |
136 |
86 |
|
3000514 |
17A |
56 |
39 |
|
3000515 |
18A |
79 |
56 |
|
3000516 |
19A |
73 |
43 |
|
3000517 |
20A |
67 |
47 |
|
3000518 |
21A |
71 |
68 |
|
3000519 |
22A & 23A |
86 |
75 |
|
3000520 |
24A |
92 |
53 |
|
3000521 |
25A |
56 |
29 |
|
3000522 |
26A & 27A |
101 |
42 |
|
3000523 |
28A & 29A |
90 |
64 |
|
3000524 |
30A |
100 |
40 |
|
3000525 |
31A |
100 |
46 |
|
3000526 |
32A |
85 |
40 |
|
3000527 |
33A |
86 |
59 |
|
3000528 |
34A |
60 |
73 |
|
3000529 |
35A |
63 |
64 |
|
3000530 |
35B & 36A |
95 |
105 |
|
3000531 |
37A & 38A |
43 |
97 |
|
3000532 |
39A & 40A |
53 |
107 |
|
3000533 |
41A & 42B |
117 |
67 |
|
3000534 |
43A |
27 |
127 |
|
3000535 |
44A & 44B |
31 |
143 |
|
3000536 |
45A & 46A |
23 |
166 |
|
3000537 |
47A & 48A |
129 |
85 |
|
3000538 |
49A & 50A |
81 |
139 |
|
3000539 |
51A |
86 |
63 |
|
3000540 |
52A |
100 |
45 |
|
3000541 |
53A |
47 |
82 |
|
3000542 |
54A & 55A |
51 |
69 |
|
3000543 |
56A & 57A |
117 |
56 |
|
3000544 |
58A & 59A |
58 |
118 |
|
3000545 |
60A |
53 |
71 |
|
3000546 |
61A |
42 |
53 |
|
3000547 |
62A & 63A |
74 |
113 |
|
3000548 |
64A |
68 |
77 |
|
3000549 |
65A |
41 |
55 |
|
3000550 |
66A & B |
78 |
81 |
|
3000551 |
67A |
80 |
54 |
|
3000552 |
68A |
67 |
80 |
|
3000553 |
69A & B |
100 |
87 |
|
3000554 |
70A |
97 |
41 |
|
3000555 |
71A & 72A |
69 |
69 |
|
3000556 |
73A & 74A |
82 |
91 |
|
3000557 |
75A & B |
44 |
104 |
|
3000558 |
76A & 77A |
67 |
104 |
|
3000559 |
78A & 79A |
77 |
113 |
|
3000560 |
80A |
78 |
70 |
|
3000561 |
81A & 82A |
107 |
110 |
|
3000562 |
83A |
53 |
95 |
|
3000563 |
84 |
39 |
78 |
|
3000564 |
85A |
77 |
66 |
|
3000565 |
86A |
50 |
39 |
|
3000566 |
87A |
45 |
92 |
|
3000567 |
88A |
26 |
71 |
|
3000568 |
89A & B |
73 |
88 |
|
3000569 |
90A & 91A |
82 |
132 |
|
3000570 |
92A & 93A |
115 |
43 |
|
3000571 |
94A |
10 |
80 |
|
3000572 |
95A & 96A |
78 |
73 |
|
3000573 |
97A |
92 |
43 |
|
3000574 |
98A & 99A |
98 |
72 |
|
3000575 |
100A |
40 |
75 |
|
3000576 |
101A & 102A |
60 |
69 |
|
3000577 |
103A & 104A |
61 |
91 |
|
3000578 |
105A |
53 |
76 |
|
3000579 |
106A & 107A |
76 |
74 |
|
3000580 |
108A & B |
73 |
55 |
|
3000581 |
109A & 110A |
91 |
56 |
|
3000582 |
111A |
87 |
52 |
|
3000583 |
112A & 113A |
101 |
58 |
|
3000584 |
114A & 115A |
147 |
31 |
|
3000585 |
116A & 117A |
82 |
72 |
|
3000586 |
118A & 119A |
76 |
78 |
|
3000587 |
120A & 121A |
55 |
125 |
|
3000588 |
122A |
69 |
85 |
|
3000589 |
123A |
73 |
66 |
|
3000590 |
123B & 124A |
80 |
41 |
|
3000591 |
125A & B |
84 |
82 |
|
3000592 |
126A & B |
74 |
95 |
|
3000593 |
127A |
89 |
61 |
|
3000594 |
128A |
61 |
21 |
|
3000595 |
129A & 130A |
84 |
92 |
|
3000596 |
131A |
35 |
110 |
|
3000597 |
132A |
48 |
101 |
|
3000598 |
133A & B |
52 |
118 |
|
3000599 |
134A & 135A |
65 |
111 |
|
3000600 |
136A & B |
85 |
88 |
|
3000601 |
137A |
82 |
62 |
|
3000602 |
138A & 139A |
107 |
83 |
|
3000603 |
140A |
47 |
103 |
|
3000604 |
141A & 142A |
63 |
105 |
|
3000605 |
143A & 144A |
86 |
120 |
|
3000606 |
145A & B |
90 |
51 |
|
3000607 |
146A |
12 |
84 |
|
3000608 |
147A & 148A |
46 |
120 |
|
3000609 |
149A |
62 |
78 |
|
3000610 |
150A |
30 |
64 |
|
3000611 |
151A |
39 |
105 |
|
3000612 |
152A |
20 |
50 |
|
3000613 |
153A & 154A |
71 |
86 |
|
3000614 |
155A & 156A |
67 |
83 |
|
3000615 |
157A |
76 |
70 |
|
3000616 |
158A & 159A |
98 |
77 |
|
3000617 |
160A |
68 |
72 |
|
3000618 |
161A & 162A |
65 |
89 |
|
3000619 |
163A & B |
76 |
72 |
|
3000620 |
164A |
66 |
63 |
|
3000621 |
165A |
38 |
65 |
|
3000622 |
166A |
64 |
61 |
|
3000623 |
167A |
49 |
44 |
|
3000624 |
168A |
71 |
62 |
|
3000625 |
169A |
40 |
52 |
|
3000626 |
170A |
64 |
66 |
|
3000627 |
171A |
61 |
58 |
|
3000628 |
172A |
86 |
56 |
|
3000629 |
173A & 174A |
60 |
109 |
|
3000630 |
175A & 176A |
89 |
91 |
|
3000631 |
177A |
71 |
60 |
|
3000632 |
178A |
34 |
31 |
|
3000633 |
179A & 180A |
58 |
122 |
|
3000634 |
181A |
70 |
87 |
|
3000635 |
182A |
58 |
96 |
|
3000636 |
183A |
39 |
77 |
|
3000637 |
184A |
29 |
75 |
|
3000638 |
185A |
65 |
93 |
|
3000639 |
186A |
27 |
60 |
|
3000640 |
187A |
20 |
125 |
|
3000641 |
188A & B |
24 |
163 |
|
3000642 |
189A |
64 |
79 |
|
3000643 |
190A |
52 |
84 |
|
3000644 |
191A & 192A |
38 |
158 |
|
3000645 |
193A & 194A |
77 |
87 |
|
3000646 |
195A & 196A |
101 |
79 |
|
3000647 |
197A |
77 |
65 |
|
3000648 |
198A & 199A |
100 |
50 |
|
3000649 |
200A & 201A |
78 |
101 |
|
3000650 |
202A & 203A |
98 |
87 |
|
3000651 |
204A |
30 |
39 |
|
3000652 |
205A & 206A |
90 |
78 |
|
3000653 |
207A & B |
75 |
77 |
|
3000654 |
208A |
60 |
59 |
|
3000655 |
209A |
51 |
58 |
|
3000656 |
210A & 211A |
105 |
91 |
|
3000657 |
212A |
88 |
54 |
|
3000658 |
213A |
80 |
42 |
|
3000659 |
214A |
77 |
72 |
|
3000660 |
215A |
51 |
75 |
|
3000661 |
216A |
54 |
37 |
|
3000662 |
217A & 218A |
102 |
83 |
|
3000663 |
219A & 220A |
65 |
133 |
|
|
|
4678 |
5857 |
From the table above, it is very clear that the
election returns mirror the SOVPs submitted by Typoco, and not the SOVPs
submitted by Tallado. As such, Typoco’s copies of the SOVPs obtained from the
Municipal Election Officer of Labo, Camarines Norte reflect the true will of
the electorate in the said municipality.
Second, the COMELEC failed to consider the
annexes attached to the Answer of Typoco in SPC No. 07-312, namely: (1) the COC
of votes for the Municipality of Labo filed with the ERSD; (2) the respective
affidavits of Provincial Election Supervisor (PES) Atty. Said Ali Maganduga and
MBOC Chairperson Rosendo Vales; and (3) certified true copies of the genuine
SOVPs for the Municipality of Labo. These documents should have been admitted,
as these are relevant and material to the determination of the genuineness of
the SOVP copy of the ERSD and that of the Labo Municipal Election Officer. If admitted,
these documents tend to show that the SOVP copy of the ERSD is spurious and cannot
be the sole basis for the resolution of the petition. The February 24, 2009
COMELEC en banc Resolution affirming
the findings of the COMELEC First Division relied on the SOVP copy deposited
with the ERSD on the ground that said document enjoys the presumption of regularity
until proved otherwise. The point is that the disputable presumption has been
successfully overturned by the SOVP copy of the Labo Municipal Election
Officer. Moreover, the COMELEC should have taken cognizance of the affidavit of
PES Atty. Said Ali Maganduga, who attested that the Form 20-A-2 used for the
SOVP copy of the ERSD did not conform to the genuine forms printed and
distributed by the COMELEC for use in the May 14, 2007 elections, and that the
questioned ERSD SOVP was duly certified and issued by an unauthorized employee.
While Tallado claims his copy of the
SOVP came from the OPES which allegedly certified the copy, Atty. Maganduga
denies having certified such document and even goes so far as to declare that
Tallado’s SOVP is fake and manufactured. In his affidavit, Atty. Maganduga
states:
11. The latest petition is clearly unfounded, suffers incurable defects, and lacking the element of Good Faith. It is susceptible to outright dismissal for the following reasons, to wit:
11.1 The machine copies of Statement of Votes by Precincts being kept by the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor and duly certified as such to be the true copies of the Original Statement of Votes by Precincts from the Municipalities of Labo and Jose Panganiban, and sets forth in the Petition for Correction of Manifest Error, are not reflective of a genuine or authentic copies of Statement of Votes by Precincts, after having been compared with the Statement of Votes by Precincts, being kept by the Office of the Election Officer of both Municipalities of Labo and Jose Panganiban;
11.2 The entries of votes made in the Spurious or fake Statement of Votes by Precincts being kept by the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor were clearly tampered, falsified, and obviously bloated in favor of Mr. E. Tallado, the herein petitioner;
11.3 The papers used (Form 20-A-2) did not conform to the genuine Statement of Votes by Precincts printed and distributed by the Commission of Elections to different cities and municipalities all over the Philippines in connection with the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections;
11.4 The original or genuine copies of the Statement of Votes by Precincts being kept inside the ballot box were all missing and fake or spurious Statement of Votes by Precincts were deliberately mixed with other genuine documents;
11.5 The substitute spurious or fake Statement of Votes by Precincts were duly certified and issued by unauthorized employee of the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor thereby making the same appear as genuine or authentic documents.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)
COMELEC likewise arbitrarily failed to consider the affidavit of Labo
MBOC Chairperson Rosendo Vales, who attested that the SOVP copy of the ERSD was
tampered and fabricated, thus:
6. As all members of the Tabulating Committee for the Local Position had lately reviewed/recomputed all entries in the SVOP and the CCV copies for the MBOC Labo, Camarines Norte on October 8, 2007, all entries in the SVOP and the CCV copies for the MBOC Labo, Camarines Norte, and compared the findings to the attachments of the petition, [w]e staunchly conclude and assert:
1. That the petitioner’s [Tallado] claim of alleged error commited by the committee/board is an act of dancing with his own shadow.
2. That the Statement of Voter per Precincts attached by the petitioner [Tallado] to his petition had been cunningly TAMPERED and FABRICATED purposely to attack and destroy the veracity of the Certificate of Canvass of Votes of the municipality of Labo and the province of Camarines Norte eventually, like in his early multifaceted self-serving attempts and complaints; and
3. Further,
petitioner [Tallado] by criminal intent and purpose, had to the extent forged
and/or had caused the forging of the signatures of the members and staff of the
board in order to give semblance to his attached SVOP as faithful reproduction
of the original.[15] (Emphasis supplied.)
Included also in the documents
submitted by Vales before the COMELEC was a machine copy of the Summary Statement
of Votes with serial number 0991195,[16] showing
that Tallado garnered 11,490 votes, while Typoco got 12,285 votes. These
figures match the documents submitted by Typoco and the election returns.
Notwithstanding the
compelling nature of the pieces of evidence Typoco adduced and the facts they
tended to prove or were deducible therefrom, COMELEC simply ignored or
considered them without provable value as to be worthy of evaluation. Those
pieces of evidence by themselves appear to be compelling as to arouse, at the
minimum, reasonable suspicion that the respective copies of the SOVP Tallado
presented and in the possession of the ERSD were both spurious and/or tampered.
Unfortunately, COMELEC still opted to rely on the results reflected in the ERSD
copy of the SOVP. A thorough investigation of conflicting SOVPs and a
comprehensive inquiry into the precursor documents of the SOVPs, more
particularly the election returns in the poll body’s custody, would have been
the logical approach to take. In fine, COMELEC looked at what Pecson v. Commission on Elections[17]
referred to as the “wrong material considerations” as basis to annul the
proclamation of Typoco as governor-elect. Pecson,
while not on all fours with the present case, teaches that the use by the court
or adjudicating body of wrong considerations in arriving at a decision
constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[18]
Of similar tenor albeit dealing with an entirely different subject, was what
the Court said in Almeida v. Court of Appeals,
thus: “[A] court abuses its discretion when [in granting or denying injunctive
relief], it x x x fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant
to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers
clearly irrelevant or improper factors x x x or misapplies its factual or legal
conclusions.”[19]
Considering that the
determinative issue in this case revolves around the genuineness of the SOVP
copies, it behooves the COMELEC, in line with its duty to ascertain the true
will of the electorate––the voting will of the people of Labo, in this
instance––to have asked government experts to determine which of the
conflicting SOVPs was valid before deciding the Tallado petition. Or at the
very least, it should have, given the uncertainties prevailing on the ground,
remanded the case to the provincial election officer, with an instruction to
look into the relevant election documents to determine who the real winner was.
The Court has certainly taken stock of the COMELEC’s order to
the NBI to investigate the issue of the genuineness of the SOVP copy of the
ERSD. But it cannot be overemphasized that the COMELEC took this course of
action only after denying Typoco’s motion for reconsideration. In net effect,
COMELEC merely went through the motion of ordering an investigation as to the
authenticity of critical documents, but without intending to use the results of
the probe to assist it arrive at a judicious, precise conclusion.
As it were, the results of
the examination conducted by experts from the Questioned Documents Division of
the NBI buttressed the finding that the SOVPs turned over by the MBOC of Labo were
genuine, while the SOVPs yielded by the ERSD of the COMELEC were spurious. The
NBI progress report states in part:
That the Fourth Copy (green
carbonized impression) of the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) Nos.
0006482, 0006483, 0006484, 0006485, 0006486, 0006487, 0006488 and 0006489 for
Local Positions from Labo, Camarines Norte during the May 14, 2007 Elections
which were turned over by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) for Labo,
Camarines Norte represented by Mr. VIRGILIO VERAS to the NBI for examination
are GENUINE.[20]
The NBI Report, while not necessarily binding on the COMELEC or the
Court, elaborated on the fact that the Labo MBOC SOVPs jibed with the SOVPs
submitted by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting-NAMFREL,
Camarines Norte Chapter; these SOVPs were also found to be genuine. On the
other hand, the SOVPs turned over by the Election Records and Statistics
Division of COMELEC were found to be spurious.
Furthermore, the testimonies[21]
of Labo MBOC Vice-Chairperson Roberto Villaflores, Tabulator Roberto Ramirez,
Tabulator Vivencio Maigue, and Chief Assessor Igmedio Estrella gathered by the
NBI also confirmed the fake and spurious character of the SOVPs obtained from
the ERSD, as well as the SOVP turned over by the OPES.
In all then, COMELEC was confronted with enough related substantial evidence,
the combined effect of which points to the obvious fact that the SOVPs Tallado
adduced were spurious, if not tampered documents. Sadly, the poll body, without
so much of an explanation, refused to look at these pieces of evidence, the
relevant considerations in this case, in arriving at its ruling. And with the
path it chose to take, COMELEC veritably latched its final determination as to
who won the 2007 gubernatorial race in Camarines Norte on spurious election
documents. To borrow from Almeida, a
court grossly abuses its discretion when, for its case disposition, it relies
on clearly erroneous factual anchors and/or considers irrelevant factors. The
spurious SOVP copy of the ERSD is doubtless an “irrelevant factor” adverted to,
a clearly wrong quantity to predicate a ruling on. The COMELEC’s reliance
thereon as basis for its assailed resolutions cannot but be tagged as a
whimsical and capricious exercise of discretion.
Upon the foregoing considerations, I cannot,
with due respect, plausibly sustain the ruling of the COMELEC in annulling the
proclamation of Typoco and proclaiming Tallado as the winning gubernatorial
candidate based on the SOVPs from the ERSD.
I declare that, indeed, petitioner Typoco is the duly elected Governor
of Camarines Norte. Accordingly, the proclamation made by the PBOC on May 29,
2007 ought to stand.
In this electoral contest, we are called upon
to protect the sovereign will of the people of Camarines Norte and not to
stifle or frustrate it. Thus, the Court must employ all means bestowed upon it to
safeguard the rule of the majority. If this means going through the motion of
mathematically adding the votes, should the situation so demands, so be it. The
will of the electorate must be heeded.
Therefore, I vote to grant the petition.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Exhibit “1” – Xerox copy of the upper portion of page 1 of the purported FAKE SOVP; Exhibit “2” – Xerox copy of the upper portion of a genuine SOVP for the municipality of Labo; Exhibit “3” – sheet of paper attached and stapled thrice to the Summary Statement of Votes for the Municipality of Labo with the note “PAGE 1 SOVP (FAKE); Exhibit “4” to “4-G” – Eight (8) sheets of SOVPs of Labo filed with the Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD); Exhibit “5” – Certificate of Canvass of Votes for the Municipality of Labo filed with the ERSD; Exhibits “6” and “7” – the respective affidavits of Provincial Election Supervisor Atty. Said Ali Maganduga and MBOC Chair Rosendo Vales; Exhibits “7” to “7-I” – ten (10) representative samples of the election returns, copy of the dominant majority party; and Exhibits “8” to “8-G” – certified true copy of page 1 of the genuine SOVPs for the Municipality of Labo.
[5] Rule 41, Part IX (1993).
[6] Rural Bank of the
[7] COMELEC records, Volume I, p. 11.
[11] Adams v.
[12] Tatlong-Hari v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86645, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 849; citing Juliano v. Court of Appeals, No. L-27477, July 28, 1967, 20 SCRA 808.
[13] G.R. No. 124521, January 29, 1998, 285 SCRA 493.
[14] COMELEC records, pp. 97-98.
[15]
[16]
[17] G.R. No. 182865, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 634.
[18]
[19] Almeida, supra note 18, at 695; citing 42 Am. Jur. pp. 576-577.
[21] Mr. Roberto Villaflores (Vice-Chairperson, MBOC, Labo) testified, among others, that “the original copies colored black turned over by the OPES, Camarines Norte and the carbon copy colored blue turned over by the ERSD, Comelec, Manila are both spurious.” NBI Progress Report, p. 7; id. at 449.
Mr. Roberto A. Ramirez (Tabulator) testified, among others, that the SOVPs emanating from the ERSD and OPES “are fake.” NBI Progress Report, pp. 7-8; id. at 449-450.
Mr. Igmedio Estrella (Chief
Assessor), who signed the eight sets of SOVPs of the
Mr. Vivencio Maigue (Tabulator) also testified that his handwriting on the said SOVPs from the ERSD “are not his handwriting.” NBI Progress Report, p. 9; id. at 451.