You are on page 1of 6

Election Law Case Digest

SULIGUIN vs. COMELEC

FACTS:
MargaritoSuliguin was one of the candidates for Sangguniang
Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna during 10 May 2004 elections.
Around 6pm, same date: Municipal Board of Canvassers
convened to canvass the votes for all candidates. Suliguin received
6,605 votes while EcelsonSumague received 6,647. However in
Statement of Votes covering Precincts 1A-19A, Sumague appears to
have received 644 votes only when he actually received 844.
MBOC failed to notice discrepancy &Suliguin was proclaimed as 8 th
SB member.
Sumague requested for recomputation of votes, pointing out
that
he
officially
garnered
6,647
votes.
MBOC
summongSumague&Suliguin to a conference. MBOC discovered
that it had failed to credit Sumague his 200 votes & that he should
have been proclaimed instead of Suliguin.
26 May 04: MBOC filed before COMELEC a Petition to Correct
Entries in SOV for Councilor.
In meantime, 9 Jun: Suliguin took his oath.
21 July: COMELEC 1stDiv granted MBOCs petition & nullified the
proclamation of Suliguin, ordered proclamation of Sumague.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in granting petition of MBOC to nullify
Suliguins proclamation because petition should have been filed not
later than 5 days following date of proclamation
HELD:
Negative. In an election case, the Comelec is mandated to
ascertain by all means within its command who the real candidate
elected by the electorate is. The Court frowns upon any
interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way
not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election
but also the correct ascertainment of the results.
Simple mathematical procedure of adding the total number of
votes garnered by Sumague as appearing in SOVs would readily
reveal the result that he has 42 votes more than Suliguin. Such
result would, in effect, dislodge Suliguin from said post & entitle
Sumague to occupy 8th seat of SB of Nagcarlan, Laguna. Suliguin
himself never disputed the discrepancy in the total number of
votes garnered by Sumague, and instead questioned the
personality of the MBOC to file the petition and insisted that such
petition was not filed on time.
Sec. 3&4 of Rule 1 of Comelec ROP provide that such rules may
be liberally construed in the interest of justice. Comelec has the
discretion to liberally construe its rules & at the same time,
suspend the rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
Disputes in the outcome of elections involve public interest; as
such, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed
to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the
true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials.
Laws governing such disputes must be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may
not be defeated by mere technical objections.
What is involved in the present petition is the correction of a
manifest error in reflecting the actual total number of votes for a
particular candidate. A manifest clerical error is "one that is visible
to the eye or obvious to the understanding and is apparent from
the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not
include an error which may, by evidence dehorns the record be
shown to have been committed."
MBOC is merely doing its function that is mandated by law to
canvass votes in the election returns submitted to it in due form,
adding or compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown in
the face of such returns and eventually proclaim the winning
candidates.
A subsequent annulment of the proclamation of the respondent
does not constitute a clear violation of his right. In the first place,
there is no valid proclamation to speak of. He was not elected by a
majority or plurality of voters. His alleged right was based on an
erroneous proclamation. By any mathematical formulation, the
respondent cannot be construed to have obtained such plurality of
votes; otherwise, it would be sheer absurdity to proclaim a
repudiated candidate as the choice of the voters. "Where a
proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation
at all and the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot
deprive the COMELEC of the power to make such declaration a
nullity."

Technicalities of the legal rules


enunciated in the election laws should not frustrate the
determination of the popular will.
Lastly, correction sought by Sumague& MBOC is correction of
manifest mistakes in mathematical addition.It does not involve the
opening of ballot boxes; neither does it involve the examination
and/or appreciation of ballots. This only calls for a mere clerical act
of reflecting the true and correct votes received by the candidates
by the MBCs involved.
Records indicate that Suliguins assumption of office was
effected by a clerical error or simple mathematical mistake in the
addition of votes and not through the legitimate will of the
electorate. Thus, his proclamation was flawed right from the very
beginning. Having been based on a faulty tabulation, there can be
no valid proclamation to speak of insofar as Suliguinis concerned.
PACANAN vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Constancio Pacanan Jr. & Francisco Langi Sr. were candidates for
mayor in Motiong, Samar during 14 May 07 elections.
After canvassing, MBOC proclaimed Pacanan as duly elected
mayor with 3,069 votes against Langis 3,066 votes.
Langi filed with RTC contesting results of elections in 10 of 49
precincts & alleging acts of violence & intimidation & other election
irregularities in appreciation of votes by MBC.
7 Jan 08: RTC declared Langi as winner.
10 Jan: Pacanan filed notice of appeal & paid P3k appeal fee.
Also appealed RTC decision dated 7 Jan. Out of P3k appeal fee
required by Sec. 3, Rule 40 of CRP, Pacanan only paid P1k.
17 Mar 08: COMELEC 1stDiv dismissed appeal due to failure to
pay correct appeal fee. It is a ground for dismissal. Filed Motion for
Reconsideration.
21 Jan 09: COMELEC En Banc denied, declaring appeal was not
perfected on time for non-payment of complete amount of appeal
fee & for late payment.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that correct
appeal fee was not paid on time
HELD:
Affirmative. Sec. 3&4, Rule 40 of Comelec rules require the
payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases, the
amended amount of which was set at P3,200. Hence, COMELEC
may dismiss Pacanans appeal for failure to pay appeal fee.
When Pacanans appeal was perfected on 10 Jan 08, within 5
days from promulgation, his non-payment or insufficient payment
of the appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division should not have
resulted in the outright dismissal of his appeal.
When Pacanan filed his Notice of Appeal & paid appeal fee of
P3,015.00 to RTC on 10 Jan 08, his appeal was deemed perfected.
However, ComelecReso #8486 also provides that if the appellant
had already paid the amount of P1k before the trial court that
rendered the decision & his appeal was given due course by the
court, said appellant is required to pay Comelec appeal fee of
P3,200 to the Comelecs Cash Division through the Electoral
Contests Adjudication Department or by postal money order
payable to the Comelec, within a period of 15 days from the time of
the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court. However, if
no payment is made within the prescribed period, the appeal shall
be dismissed
Applying the mandated liberal construction of election
laws,Comelec should have initially directed the petitioner to pay
the correct appeal fee with the Comelec Cash Division and should
not have dismissed outright Pacanans appeal. This would have
been more in consonance with the intent of the said resolution
which sought to clarify the rules on compliance with the required
appeal fees.
Moreover, the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a
liberal construction. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting
the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of
ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination and disposition of every action and proceeding
brought before the Comelec.An election contest, unlike an ordinary
action, is imbued with public interest since it involves not only the
adjudication of the private interests of rival candidates but also the
paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the

Election Law Case Digest

real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge the
prerogatives of the office within their gift.
TAGUIAM vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
OnasTaguiam& Anthony Tuddao were candidates for position of
SangguniangPanglungsod of Tuguegarao during 2007 elections.
19 May 07: Taguiam was proclaimed by City BOC as 12 th
ranking & winning candidate for said position with 10,981 votes
while Tuddao obtained 10,971 votes.
25 May: Tuddao filed with COMELEC a petition for correction of
manifest errors in Election Returns & SOVs for 27 clustered
precincts & annulment of proclamation of affected winning
candidate. Alleged that he was credited with less votes in several
SOV by Precincts.
CBOC of Tuguegarao denied Tuddaos allegations & maintained
that Taguiam garnered more votes. COMELEC 2ndDiv issued
resolution, stating that CBOC is directed to reconvene & correct
errors in SOVs. Also held that belated filing of Tuddaos petition
cannot deter its authority to ascertain the true will of the electorate
and thereafter affirm such will.
Thereafter, COMELEC concluded that 9 votes should be added
to the no. of votes garnered by Tuddao while 24 should be
deducted from Taguiams. hence, Tudao gained 10,980 while
Taguiam, 10,957. Hence, Tuddao was winning candidate for 12 th
position.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance
of Tuddaos petition for correction of manifest errors in the ERs &
SOVs despite its late filing
HELD:
Negative. Records show that Taguiam was declared the 12th
winning candidate based on SOVPs containing mathematical &
clerical errors. The total number of votes in the SOVPs of the
identified precincts are markedly different from the votes tabulated
in their respective ERs, i.e., Taguiam was given additional votes
while Tuddaosvotes were reduced, which altered the outcome of
the election.
It is significant to note that Taguiam did not assail the factual
findings of the COMELEC of manifest error in the tabulation of votes
but only raised issues on the foregoing technicalities.
No grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in
annulling the proclamation ofTaguiam. Said proclamation is flawed
from the beginning because it did not reflect the true and
legitimate will of the electorate. Having been based on a faulty
tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of.
Reiterated liberal construction of Comelec ROP.

FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION (Scope of Suffrage)


1. Elections
a. Definition; How exercised
CARLOS vs. ANGELES
FACTS:
Jose Emmanuel Carlos & Antonio Serapio were candidates for
position of mayor of Valenzuela, MM during 11 May 98 elections.
21 May 98: MBOC proclaimed Carlos as elected mayor for
gaining 102,688 votes. Serapio obtained 77,270.
1 Jun: Serapio filed election protest.
Municipal Treasurer, who has custody of the ballot boxes,
collected the ballot boxes & delivered them to RTC. Pre-trial was
concluded & parties agreed to creation of 7 revision committees
12 May: Carlos filed motion including prayer for authority to
photocopy all official copies of revision reports in custody of TC. TC
denied.
Final tally showed that Serapio gained 66,602 votes while
Carlos gained 83,609. However TC set aside final tally of valid
votes because of its finding of significant badges of fraud keys
turned over by City Treasurer did not fit padlocks of ballot boxes, 7
ballot boxes did not contain any ballot & 2 did not contain election
returns, schools experienced brownouts causing delay, some

watchers of Serapio were not in


their posts during counting.
TC attributed these badges of fraud to Carlos who has control
over election paraphernalia & basic services in community. TC set
aside Carlos proclamation & declared Serapio as mayor.
ISSUE: WON TC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring Serapio as mayor
HELD:
Affirmative. (1) Mere inability of keys to fit into padlocks
attached to ballot boxes does not affect integrity of the ballots. TC
easily forced open the padlocks & found valid votes therein. (2) It is
SOP of COMELEC to provide extra empty ballot boxes for use of BEI
or BOC. The empty ballot boxes found could be the reserve ballot
boxes that were not used by BEI/BOC. No proof or claim of missing
ballots or ERs. (3) Brownouts had caused only sight delay in
canvassing because election officials availed themselves of
candles, flashlights & emergency lights. No report of cheating or
tampering. (4) Absence of watchers for Serapio cannot be taken
against Carlos since it is the candidates own look-out to protect his
interest during counting.
Definition: Election means the choice or selection of candidates
to public office by popular vote through the use of the ballot, and
the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the
electorate.It is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression
of the sovereign power of the people. Specifically, the term
election, in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the
conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of
the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes. The
winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of
valid votes cast in the election. In case of protest, a revision or
recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election
protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or
plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the
candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified,
the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the
second placer,can not be declared elected. In other words, a
defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.
Construction:Election contests involve public interest, and
technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to
stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true
will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. Laws
governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end
that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not
be defeated by mere technical objections.
b. Essence of Elections; Basis
SUNGA vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Manuel Sunga was one of candidate for position of Mayor in
Iguig, Cagayan in 8 May 95 elections. Ferdinand Trinidad,
incumbent mayor, was a candidate for re-election.
22 Apr 95: Sunga filed complaint for disqualification against
Trinidad, accusing him of using 3 local govt vehicles in his
campaign & also for alleged threats, intimidation, terrorism &
coercion.
Election results showed that Trinidad garnered highest number
of votes while Sunga trailed second.
10 May: Sunga moved for suspension of proclamation.
Nothwithstanding this, Trinidad was proclaimed elected mayor,
prompting Sunga to file another motion to suspend effects of
proclamation.
28 June 95: COMELEC Law Dept submitted report
recommending that Trinidad be charged in court for vote-buying,
threats, intimidation, terrorism & use of govt-owned vehicle. Also
recommended recall & revocation of Trinidads proclamation.
COMELEC En Banc approved findings of Law Department &
directed filing of informations against Trinidad. However, COMELEC
2ndDiv dismissed petition for disqualification because the case was
filed before election but was still pending after election, case was
filed after election but before proclamation of winner, case was
filed after election & after proclamation of winner.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when
it dismissed disqualification case against Trinidad
HELD:

Election Law Case Digest

Affirmative. This case originally came to the attention of


COMELEC on 26 Apr 95 in form of letter from Sunga accusing
Trinidad of utilizing government properties in his campaign and
praying for the latters immediate disqualification. Another letter
dated 7 May 95 and addressed to the COMELEC Regional Director
of Region II reiterated Sungasprayer while alleging that Trinidad
&his men committed acts of terrorism and violated the gun ban.
Finally on 11 May 95, an Amended Petition was filed with the Clerk
of Court of COMELEC containing substantially the same allegations
as the previous letters but supported by affidavits and other
documentary evidence.
That the Amended Petition was filed only on 11 May 95 or after
the elections is of no consequence. It was merely a reiteration of
the charges filed by Sunga against Trinidad on 26 Apr 95 and 7
May 95 or before the elections.Consequently, the Amended
Petition retroacted to such earlier dates.
We discern nothing COMELEC Reso #2050 declaring, ordering
or directing the dismissal of a disqualification case filed before the
election but which remained unresolved after the election. What
the Reso mandates in such a case is for COMELEC to refer the
complaint to its Law Department for investigation to determine
whether the acts complained of have in fact been committed by
the candidate sought to be disqualified.
The legislative intent is that COMELEC should continue the trial
and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion, i.e., until
judgment is rendered thereon. The word shall signifies that this
requirement of the law is mandatory, operating to impose a
positive duty which must be enforced.
The fact that Trinidad was already proclaimed and had assumed
the position of mayor did not divest COMELEC of authority and
jurisdiction to continue the hearing and eventually decide the
disqualification case.
An election offense has criminal as well as electoral aspects. Its
criminal aspect involves the ascertainment of the guilt or
innocence of the accused candidate. Like in any other criminal
case, it usually entails a full-blown hearing and the quantum of
proof required to secure a conviction is beyond reasonable doubt.
Its electoral aspect, on the other hand, is a determination of
whether the offender should be disqualified from office. This is
done through an administrative proceeding which is summary in
character and requires only a clear preponderance of evidence.
However, Sungas contention that he is entitled to be
proclaimed as the duly elected Mayorin the event that Trinidad is
disqualified finds no support in law and jurisprudence. The fact that
the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later
disqualified for the office to which he was elected does not entitle
the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a
disqualified person may not be valid to install the winner into office
or maintain him there.While Sunga may have garnered the second
highest number of votes, the fact remains that he was not the
choice of the people of Iguig, Cagayan.
Election is the process of complete ascertainment of the
expression of the popular will. Its ultimate purpose is to give effect
to the will of the electorate by giving them direct participation in
choosing the men and women who will run their government.
MITMUG vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Sultan MohamadMitmug&DatuGambaiDagalangit were among
the candidates for mayoralty position of Lumba-Bayabao during 11
May 92 election. There were 67 precincts in the municipality.
However, voter turnout was rather low, particularly in 49
precincts where average voter turnout was 22.26% (only 2,330 out
of 9,830 registered voters cast votes). 5 precincts did not conduct
actual voting at all.
COMELEC ordered holding of special election on 30 May in the 5
precincts. 30 Jun, another special election was held for 6 th precinct.
Mitmug filed petition seeking annulment of special election
conducted on 30 May, alleging various irregularities such as
alteration, tampering & substitution of ballots. COMELEC
considered petition moot since votes were already counted.
Thereafter, new BEI was formed to conduct special election for
25 July 92. Mitmug impugned creation of this Board. Still, the
Board convened & began canvassing of votes.
31 Jul: Dagalangit was proclaimed as elected mayor.
3 Aug: Mitmug instituted proceedings, seeking declaration of
failure of election in 49 precincts. Also prayed for issuance of TRO

to enjoin Dagalangit from assuming


office. Dismissed.
10 Aug: Mitmug filed election protest.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying motuproprio and
without due notice and hearing the petitions seeking to declare a
failure of election in some or all of the precincts in Lumba-Bayabao
HELD:
Negative. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, within 24 hrs
from the filing of a verified petition to declare a failure to elect,
notices to all interested parties indicating therein the date of
hearing should be served through the fastest means available.
Based on the foregoing, the clear intent of the law is that a petition
of this nature must be acted upon with dispatch only after hearing
thereon shall have been conducted. Since COMELEC denied the
other petitions which sought to include 43 more precincts in a
special election without conducting any hearing, it would appear
then that there indeed might have been grave abuse of discretion
in denying the petitions.The hearing of the case will also be
summary in nature.
Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to
declare a failure of election, 2 conditions must concur: first, no
voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed
by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless
results in failure to elect; and, second, the votes not cast would
affect the result of the election.
It is indubitable that the votes not cast will definitely affect the
outcome of the election. But, the first requisite is missing, i.e., that
no actual voting took place, or even if there is, the results thereon
will be tantamount to a failure to elect. Since actual voting and
election by the registered voters in the questioned precincts have
taken place, the results thereof cannot be disregarded and
excluded. There was no basis for the petitions since the facts
alleged therein did not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant the
relief sought.
The question of whether there have been terrorism and other
irregularities is better ventilated in an election contest. These
irregularities may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of
election and to disenfranchise the electorate through the misdeeds
of a relative few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with
the resultant disenfranchisement of innocent voters as losers will
always cry fraud and terrorism.
There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the will
of the majority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained. But, if
it can be determined, it must be accorded respect. After all, there is
no provision in our election laws which requires that a majority of
registered voters must cast their votes. All the law requires is that
a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes,
regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less
than 25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts cast their
votes, the same must still be respected. There is prima facie
showing that Dagalangit was elected through a plurality of valid
votes of a valid constituency.
RULLODA vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
15 Jul 02: Romeo Rulloda&RemegioPlacidowere contending
candidates for Brgy. Chairman of Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan.
22 Jun: Romeo suffered heart attack & passed away.
25 Jun: His widow, Petronila Betty Rulloda wrote a letter to
COMELEC, seeking permission to run as candidate for Brgy.
Chairman in lieu of her late husband. This was supported by
appeal-petition containing several signatures of people purporting
to be members of the electorate of Brgy. Sto Tomas.
14 Jul: Election Officer Ludivico Asuncion issued directive to
Chairman & Members of Brgy. BOC that in case the names Betty
or Petronila or surname Rulloda is written on the ballot, read
the same as it is written but add the words Not Counted.
Based on canvass of votes, PetronilaRulloda garnered 516 votes
while Placido garnered 290 votes. Despite this, BOC proclaimed
Placido as Brgy. Chairman.
After elections, Petronila learned that COMELEC issued Reso
#5217 on 13 Jul stating that her COC was denied due course.
Another Reso #4801, Sec. 9 states: There shall be no substitution
of candidates for barangay and sangguniangkabataan officials.

Election Law Case Digest

Petronila filed instant petition, seeking to annul Sec. 9 of Reso


#4801 &Reso #5217 insofar as they prohibited her from running as
substitute candidate in lieu of her husband. Also to nullify
proclamation of Placido& proclaim her instead.
Placido argued that brgy election is non-partisan & substitution
of candidates is not allowed. Also that Petronila did not file COC.
ISSUE: WON Placidos proclamation should be annulled
HELD:
Affirmative. No dispute that Petronila garnered 516 votes while
Placido got only 290 votes. Placido did not deny this. An election
means the choice or selection of candidates to public office by
popular vote through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials
which are determined through the will of the electorate. An election
is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people. The winner is the candidate who
has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the
election.
Placidos interpretation of a brgy election ignores the purpose of
election laws which is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the
will of the voters. It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and
unmistakable mandate of the people. Political laws must be so
construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
expressed through the ballot.
The absence of specific provision governing substitution of
candidates in barangay elections can not be inferred as a
prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive construction
cannot be read into the law where the same is not written. Indeed,
there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates where
no political parties are involved than when political considerations
or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by
law.
Argument that no COC was filed: it must be recalled that
Petronila sent letter-request to COMELEC to be allowed to run as
Brgy Chairman in lieu of her late husband. This was treated as COC.
It was PetronilaRullodawho obtained the plurality of votes in the
contested election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in
election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true
will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the
choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical
objections.
c.

Construction/Limitations;
Comelec Rules of Procedure

Section

3,

Sec. 3. Construction. - These rules shall be liberally


construed in order to promote the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and to
achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and
disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the
Commission.
DUREMDES vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
18
Jan
88:
Ramon
Duremdes,
CiprianoPenaflorida&RufinoPalabrica ran for office of Vice-Governor
of Iloilo.
During canvass of votes, Penaflorida objected verbally to 110
ERs from various precincts, which he followed up with written
objections. Board overruled because they were not timely filed or
that the formal defects did not affect genuineness of the returns.
Ordered inclusion.
29 Jan: Penaflorida&Lakas filed with COMELEC an Appeal by
Way of Petition for Review from aforesaid rulings of the Board
pleading & for Penafloridas proclamation as Vice-Governor.
30 Jan: Penaflorida filed also with COMELEC a Petition seeking
annulment of ERs & suspension of proclamation of any candidate.
31 Jan: Board proclaimed Duremdes as Vice-Governor,
garnering 157,361 votes. Made the proclamation upon Duremdes
Manifestation & Motion that the contested returns will not
adversely affect the uncontested results. Subsequently, 2 Feb:
Duremdes took oath.
2 Feb: Duremdes filed Intervention with Motion to Dismiss,
seeking denial of Penafloridas Petition for Annulment.

15 Dec: Chairman of Board


openly admitted existence of discrepancies between entries of
votes in SOVs & votes reflected in questioned ERs.
12 Jan 89: COMELEC En Banc declared as null & void the
proclamation of Ramon Duremdes.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared as null
& void the proclamation of Duremdes
HELD:
Negative. SOVs is a tabulation per precinct of the votes
garnered by the candidates as reflected in the ERs. The
discrepancies existing between entries in SOVs & those reflected in
ERs were openly admitted by Chairman. Also admitted that
Penaflorida assails correctness of the SOVs while Duremdes
maintains correctness but avers possibility of tampering of ERs.
Duremdes' proclamation must be deemed to have been null
and void. It was made on 31 Jan 88 after PENAFLORIDA had filed
with the COMELEC on 29 Jan 88 an "Appeal by Way of a Petition for
Review". The COMELEC had not resolved either Petition at the time
the proclamation was made. Pursuant to Sec 245 & 238 of OEC,
therefore, the Board of Canvassers should not have proclaimed any
candidate without waiting for the authorization by the COMELEC.
Any proclamation thus made is void ab initio.
Duremdes proclamation was based on an incomplete canvass.
All the votes cast in an election must be considered because to
disregard returns is in effect to disenfranchise the voters. A
canvass can not be reflective of the true vote of the electorate
unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.
Over and above all else, the determination of the true will of the
electorate should be the paramount consideration.
BENITO vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Ottomama
Benito
&HadjiMuradKismanSampianoOgcawere
candidates for mayor in Balabagan, Lanao Sur in 11 May 92
elections.
1 May: COMELEC Deputy Mikunug filed petition for
disqualification against Ogca, alleging that at around 5pm of 28
Apr, while inside billiard hall, Ogca asked him to work for his
reelection and when Mikunug refused, Ogca stuck him on the head
with billiard cue.
6 May: COMELEC referred disqualification petition to Law Dept&
10 June, Regional Election Director issued resolution stating that
there was prima facie case against Ogca. Nothing more was heard
of the petition for disqualification.
20 May: Ogca was killed in an ambush while returning home
from residence. Benito, probably not aware of his death, filed
motion to suspend proclamation of Ogca as elected mayor of
Balabagan, contending that there was strong evidence of guilt
against him in the disqualification case.
11 Jun: COMELEC denied the same stating that Ogca was dead
hence his proclamation as winner was essential to pave way for
succession by Vice-Mayor.
Meanwhile, MBOC ruled that it shall continue counting all the
votes cast for Ogca but it shall not include them in the COCs &
proclamation of winning candidates in case he won since moot.
30 Jun 92: MBOC proclaimed Benito as elected mayor.
2 Jul: Benito took his oath.
6 Jul: COMELEC issued resolution, declaring proclamation of
Benito an absolute nullity. COC & proclamation was set aside.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it annulled
Benitos proclamation
HELD:
Negative. Proclamation of Benito as mayor was not valid. It
appears that during the 11 May 92 election, Ogca obtained a total
of 3,699 votes as against Benito's 2,644. Thereupon, it was the
duty of the MBOC to proclaim as winner the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes. However, instead of
performing what was incumbent upon it, that is, to proclaim Ogca
as the winner but with the information that he died, to give way to
legal succession to office, went on to proclaim Benito, the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes as

Election Law Case Digest

winner, believing that the death of Ogca rendered his victory and
proclamation moot and academic.
In every election, the people's choice is the paramount
consideration and their expressed will must, at all times, be given
effect. When the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate
by giving him the highest number of votes cast in the election for
that office, no one can be declared elected in his place.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes dies, or is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for
the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be
declared the winner of the elective office. For to allow the defeated
and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his
rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate
without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance
and meaning of democracy and the people's right to elect officials
of their choice.
Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.
Benito argues that the votes for deceased Ogca should not
have been counted based on Sec. 6 of RA 6640. This provision,
however, applies only to candidates who have been declared by
finally judgment to be disqualified. In the present case, there is no
final judgment declaring the deceased Ogca disqualified, hence,
the provision does not cover him.
BINCE vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
Alfonso Bince&EmilianoMicuwere among the candidates in 11
May 92 elections for seat in SangguiniangPanlalawigan of
Pangasinan allotted to 6thDist, comprising 10 municipalities.
During canvassing of COCs for 10 municipaities, Micu objected
to inclusion of COC for San Quintin on ground that it contained false
statements. COCs for remaining 9 municipalities were included.
However, PBC ruled against objection of Micu.
Micu appealed to COMELEC re said ruling. COMELEC en banc
promulgated resolution, stating that the actual no. of votes
obtained by Bince is 1,055 while that of Micu is 1,535.
21 days after canvass for 9 muni was completed, Micu with MBC
of Tayug& San Manuel filed with PBC petitions for correction of
SOVs earlier prepared for alleged manifest errors committed in
computation thereof.
18 Jun: PBC credited in favor of Bince and Micu that votes for
each as indicated in COMELEC resolution. Based on COCs, Bince
had 27,370 votes while Micu had 27,369 votes. Bince was not
proclaimed as winner because of absence of authority from
COMELEC.
Bince filed formal motion for such authority.
29 Jun: COMELEC en banc promulgated supplemental order,
directing PBC to reconvene, continue with provincial canvass &
proclaim winning candidates.
25 Jun: Bince appealed the above ruling allowing correction
alleging that PBC had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
21 Jul: PBC proclaimed Bince as elected member of SP. Micu
filed urgent motion for contempt & to annul proclamation of Bince.
COMELEC resolved & annulled proclamation of Bince, directing PBC
to reconvene & proclaim winning candidate.
Bince filed special civil action contening that it was
promulgated without prior notice & hearing.
9 Feb 93: Court en banc granted, ruling that Bince has been
proclaimed & this proclamation enjoys presumption of regularity &
validity, that he cannot be deprived of his office without due
process.
15 Jul: COMELEC 1stDiv promulgated resolution, stating that
Bince is entitled to sit as member of SP. Micu filed Motion for
Reconsideration. COMELEC en banc granted Micus motion &
annulled Binces proclamation.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it annulled Binces
proclamation
HELD:
Negative. No error was committed by COMELEC when it
resolved the "pending incidents" of the case pursuant to the
decision of SC in the aforesaid case of Bincev. COMELEC on 9 Feb
93. In Bince, we nullified the proclamation of Micu because the
same was done without the requisite due notice and hearing,

thereby depriving the Bince of his


right to due process. In so doing, however, we did not affirm nor
confirm the proclamation of Bince, hence, our directive to
COMELEC to resolve the pending incidents of the case so as to
ascertain the true and lawful winner of the said elections. In effect,
petitioner's proclamation only enjoyed the presumption of
regularity and validity of an official act. It was not categorically
declared valid.
Neither can COMELEC be faulted for subsequently annulling the
proclamation of Bince on account of a mathematical error in
addition committed by MBCs in the computation of the votes
received by both Micu&Bince.
The petitions to correct manifest errors were filed on time, that
is, before the Bince's proclamation on 21 Jul 92.Assuming for the
sake of argument that the petition was filed out of time, this
incident alone will not thwart the proper determination and
resolution of the instant case on substantial grounds. Adherence to
a technicality that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably void
proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's
will cannot be countenanced.
Undoubtedly therefore, the only issue that remains unresolved
is the allowance of the correction of what are purely mathematical
and/or mechanical errors in the addition of the votes received by
both candidates. It does not involve the opening of ballot boxes;
neither does it involve the examination and/or appreciation of
ballots. The correction sought by Micu and MBCs of Tayug and San
Manuel is correction of manifest mistakes in mathematical addition.
Certainly, this only calls for a mere clerical act of reflecting the true
and correct votes received by the candidates by the MBCs involved.
In this case, the manifest errors sought to be corrected involve the
proper and diligent addition of the votes in the municipalities of
Tayug and San Manuel, Pangasinan.
Consequently, by margin of 72 votes, Micu won.
PUNZALAN vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
DaniloManalastas, Ferdinand Menese& Ernesto Punzalan were
among 4 candidates for mayor of Mexico, Pampanga during 8 May
95 elections.
24 May: MBOC proclaimed Meneses as elected mayor (10,301
votes while Manalastas, 9,317 votes &Punzalan, 8,612 votes)
30 May: Manalastas filed election protest, challenging results of
elections in 47 precincts.
2 Jun: Punzalan filed his own election protest, questioning
reulsts of elections in 157 precincts.
RTC rendered judgment, finding that massive fraud, illegal
electoral practices & serious anomalies marred the elections.
Examined the contested ballots & handwritings appearing thereon.
Came up with declaration that Punzalan was winner for gaining
7,719 votes against Manalastas 7,686. Declared Punzalan as
mayor, ordered Meneses to vacate position.
Meneses filed notice of appeal. Manalastas did not appeal.
1 Oct 96: Punzalan filed motion for execution pending appeal
with RTC. Granted. Meneses filed petition for certiorari &
prohibition.
11 Oct: COMELEC issued TRO enjoining RTC from enforcing its
order. Meneses filed with COMELEC motion for contempt against
Punzalan, alleging that he was holding office of mayor in violation
of TRO issued by COMELEC.
Blah blah
8 Dec 97: COMELEC promulgated resolution, affirming
proclamation of Meneses by MBC as mayor. Punzalan filed motion
for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when
it declared as valid the ballots credited to Meneses which did not
bear the signature of the BEI chairman at the back thereof
HELD:
Negative. While Sec 24 of RA 7166, "An Act Providing For
Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral
Reforms," requires the BEI chairman to affix his signature at the
back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the
same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to
said BEI chairman. Nowhere in said provision does it state that the
votes contained therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule
that the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the
board
to
comply
with
their
mandated
administrative

Election Law Case Digest

responsibility,i.e., signing, authenticating and thumbmarking of


ballots, should not penalize the voter with disenfranchisement,
thereby frustrating the will of the people.
Similarly, Sec 211 of BP 881, known as OEC, provides that in
the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be
presumed to be valid unless there is a clear and good reason to
justify its rejection. Certainly, the inefficiency of an election officer
in failing to affix his signature at the back of the ballot does not
constitute as a good and clear reason to justify the rejection of a
ballot.
The appreciation of the 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.
COMELEC need not conduct an adversarial proceeding or a
hearing to determine the authenticity of ballots or the handwriting
found thereon. Neither does it need to solicit the help of
handwriting experts in examining or comparing the handwriting. In
fact, even evidence aliunde is not necessary to enable the
Commission to determine the authenticity of the ballots and the
genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as an examination of
the ballots themselves is already sufficient.
BAUTISTA vs. CASTRO
FACTS:
Sergio Bautista & Roberto Miguel were candidates of as Brgy
Captain. After canvass, Bautista was proclaimed winner by BBOC
on 17 May 82 with plurality of 2 votes.
25 May: Miguel filed protest on the ground of fraud and illegal
acts or practices allegedly committed by Bautista. It appears that
results of the election in all 4 voting centers in Brgy. Teachers
Village were contested. Revision & recounting of ballots were
conducted, resulting in a tie.
RTC rendered decision, declaring Miguel to have the same
number of votes as Bautista. From this, Miguel filed an appeal.
29 Jul: judgment was rendered on the appeal, declared Miguel
as Brgy. Captain & setting aside as null & void the proclamation of
Bautista.
Bautista filed petition for review. Considering that erm of office
has already expired on 7 Jun 88, petition has become moot &
academic.
ISSUE: WON a ballot which does not contain signature of the poll
chairman be considered valid ballot
HELD:
Negative. The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the
Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as required by
law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal.
This requirement is mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.
Respondent court ruled that the presence of an arrow with the
words "and party," was meant for no other purpose than to identify
the voter. We agree. It cannot be said that these writings were
accidental. As a general rule, a voter must write on the ballot only
the names of candidates voted for the offices appearing thereon.
Certain exceptions, however, are provided in Sec. 149 of the
Revised Election Code.For example, prefixes such as "Sr.," "Mr.",
and the like and suffixes such as "hijo", "Jr.", etc. will not invalidate
the ballot; nicknames or appellation of affection and friendship will
not invalidate the ballot, if accompanied by the name or surname

of the candidate, and above all, if


they were not used as a means to identify the voter. Even under a
liberal view, the words written on the ballots under consideration
cannot be considered as falling within the exception to the rule.
Consequently, they are irrelevant expressions that nullified the
ballots.
LIBANAN vs. HRET
FACTS:
MarcelinoLibanan& Jose Ramirez were among candidates for
congressional seat of Eastern Samar in May 95 elections.
13 May: after canvass, PBOC proclaimed Ramirez to have been
elected as Representatie of the district with 41,523 votes compared
to Libanans 40,869 votes.
Libanan seasonably filed election protest before HRET, alleging
that the election was marred by electoral irregularities perpetrated
by Ramirez. Also maintained that the ERs and/or ballots in certain
precincts were tampered with, substituted, or systematically
marked in favor of Ramirez. On the other hand, Ramirez denied.
20 Feb 96: revision of ballots in the protested precincts
commenced. Noted that during revision, 6 contested precincts
were found to have been merged into 3 precincts.
HRET explained: no spurious ballot was found in this case. For a
ballot to be rejected for being spurious, the ballot must not have
any of the following authenticating marks: a) the COMELEC
watermark; b) the signatures or initial of the BEI Chairman at the
back of the ballot; and c) red and blue fibers. In the present case,
all the ballots examined by the Tribunal had COMELEC watermarks.
HRET ruled in favor of Ramirez. Libanan moved for
reconsideration, arguing that absence of the BEI Chairman's
signature at the back of the ballots could not but indicate that the
ballots were not those issued to the voters during the elections.
However, Ramirez still remained to be winner with lead of 89 votes.
HRET ruled that fraud is not presumed & omission of signature of
BEI Chairman is not fatal to validity of ballots.
ISSUE: WON HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling
that the absence of signature of Chairman of BEI in ballots did not
render ballots spurious
HELD:
Negative. There is really nothing in Sec 24, RA 7166 to the
effect that a ballot, which is not so authenticated shall thereby be
deemed spurious. The law merely renders the BEI Chairman
accountable for such failure. The courts may not, in the guise of
interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and embrace
situations neither provided nor intended by the lawmakers.
In every case before delivering an official ballot to the voter, the
chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors shall, in the presence
of the voter, affix his signature at the back thereof. Any ballot
which is not so authenticated shall be deemed spurious. Failure to
so authenticate shall constitute an election offense.
The cardinal objective in the appreciation of the ballots is to
discover and give effect to the intention of the voter. That intention
would be nullified by the strict interpretation of the said section as
suggested by the petitioner for it would result in the invalidation of
the ballot even if duly accomplished by the voter, and simply
because of an omission not imputable to him but to the election
officials. The citizen cannot be deprived of his constitutional right of
suffrage on the specious ground that other persons were negligent
in performing their own duty, which in the case at bar was purely
ministerial and technical, by no means mandatory but a mere
antecedent measure intended to authenticate the ballot.

You might also like