Examination in Election Law
CASE NO.1. ALFREDO GUIEB,
petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS M. FONTANILLA in his capacity as the Presiding
Judge of the RTC, Branch 42, Dagupan City, and MANUEL ASUNCION, respondents. G.R. No. 118118 August 14, 1995
The petitioner and the private respondent were
candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Nilombot, Sta.
Barbara, Pangasinan, in the barangay election of 9 May 1994. After the canvass
of votes in the said barangay, the former was proclaimed as the winning candidate.
The latter then seasonably filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.
On 27 May 1994,
the MTC, per Judge Lilia C. Español, rendered a decision confirming the
proclamation of the petitioner and dismissing the protest of the private
respondent.
The private
respondent appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan
City. The case was assigned to Branch 42 thereof.
In its decision
2 of 31 August 1994, the RTC, per respondent Judge Luis M. Fontanilla, reversed
the decision of the MTC, annulled the proclamation of the petitioner, and
declared the private respondent as the winning candidate with a plurality of
four votes over the petitioner.
After the
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied on 25
November 1994, the private respondent immediately filed a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution.
QUESTION: On the basis of the facts above stated,
who should be the rightful winner of the election?
CASE NO.2. RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and SEVERINO
LAJARA were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995
elections. After obtaining a majority of some 24,000 votes Lajara was
proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa
filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Declare Failure
of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because
of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes,
preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying,
unregistered voters voting, and delay in the delivery of election documents and
paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.
Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names of the registered voters did
not appear in the list of voters in their precincts; (b) more than one-half of
the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with strangers voting in
their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received; (d)
control data of the election returns was not filed up in some precincts; (e)
ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured,
i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was delay in
the delivery of election returns. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the
petition on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a
declaration of failure of election. (Ref. RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. G.R. No. 120318 December
5, 1997).
QUESTION: 1. Based on the allegations of Canicosa, would
you agree that there was a failure of elections? Why? Discuss the propriety of
the grounds alleged by him.
CASE NO. 3. During the May 1992 elections, petitioner
Norbi H. Edding and Respondent Pablo S. Bernardo were among the candidates for
the office of the municipal mayor of Sibuco Zamboanga del Norte.
After the canvassing of the election returns, Bernardo was
declared winner over Edding by 212 votes. Unconvinced and alleging massive
election fraud, Edding filed an election protest on June 9, 1992 with the
Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte docketed as Election
Case No. SE-10.
Upon termination of the protest
proceedings and recounting of the ballots, the RTC rendered judgment on July 2,
1993 proclaiming Edding as the winner of the election for the mayoralty seat of
Sibuco, Zamboanga del Norte, and declaring as null and void the election of
respondent Bernardo.
On July 8, 1993, Bernardo filed a
Notice of Appeal while Edding moved for the immediate execution of the July 2,
1993 decision. Bernardo opposed Edding's
motion, claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction to order execution pending
appeal, and invoked Section 17 of Ruler 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
which allows execution only if the judgment has become final.
On July 12, 1993, the RTC
Approved Bernardo's Notice of Appeal. On the next day however, July 13, 1993,
the RTC granted Edding's Motion for Immediate Execution, and ordered the
records of the case to be forwarded to the COMELEC. Thereafter, Edding replaced Bernardo, and
assumed office on the July 15, 1993.
On July 16, 1993, Bernardo filed
with the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Preliminary
Injunction and for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as SPR
No. 5-93 seeking to enjoin the Order of the RTC granting execution pending
appeal. The COMELEC gave due course to
the petition, and issued a temporary restraining order on July 19, 1993.
QUESTION: Is the RTC Judge correct in issuingthe writ of
execution pending appeal? Explain.
CASE NO. 4. During the May 8, 1995 elections, Borja and
private respondent Jose T. Capco vied for the position of Mayor of the
Municipality of Pateros, which was won by Capco by a margin of 6,330 votes.
Capco was consequently proclaimed and has since been serving as Mayor of
Pateros.
Alleging lack of notice of the
date and time of canvass, fraud, violence terrorism and analogous causes, such
as disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying voters, and unqualified
members of the Board of Election Inspectors, Borja filed before the COMELEC a
petition to declare a failure of election and nullify the canvass and
proclamation made by the Pateros Board of Canvassers.
The
COMELEC en banc dismissed his petition.
Aggrieved by said resolution,
petitioner elevated the matter to Supreme Court, arguing the same matters while
claiming that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
questioned resolution of May 25, 1995. He avers that the COMELEC en banc does
not have the power to hear and decide the merits of the petition he filed below
because under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, all election cases,
including pre-proclamation controversies, "shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall be
decided by the Commission en banc."
QUESTION:
Is the contention of the petitioner tenable? Is the procedure adopted proper?
On the above facts, who should be the rightful mayor? (Ref. BENJAMIN U. BORJA, JR.
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. G.R. No. 120140 August 21, 1996).
CASE NO. 5. For your resolution is a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 which seeks to annul and set aside the resolution dated May 7, 2001 of
the Commission on Elections as well as the resolution dated May 12, 2001
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
This petition
originated from a case filed by private respondent on March 21, 2001 for the
disqualification of petitioner Nestor Magno as mayoralty candidate of San
Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that
petitioner was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of
direct bribery penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. It appears that on July 25, 1995,
petitioner was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 3 months and 11
days of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year 8 months and 21 days of prision
correccional as maximum, for each of the four counts of direct bribery. Thereafter, petitioner applied for probation
and was discharged on March 5, 1998 upon order of the Regional Trial Court of
Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
On May 7, 2001,
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered a decision granting the petition
of private respondent and declaring that petitioner was disqualified from
running for the position of mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections. In ruling against petitioner, the COMELEC
cited Section 12 of the BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code which provides as
follows: In ruling against petitioner, the COMELEC cited Section 12 of the BP
881 or the Omnibus Election Code which provides as follows:
Sec. 12. Disqualifications.
- Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or for a crime involving moral
turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office,
unless he has been given plenary pardon, or granted amnesty.
The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided
shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said
insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period
of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he
again becomes disqualified.
The above provision explicitly lifts the
disqualification to run for an elective office of a person convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude after five (5) years from the service of
sentence. According to the COMELEC,
inasmuch as petitioner was considered to have completed the service of his
sentence on March 5, 1998, his five-year disqualification will end only on March
5, 2003.
On May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC in its resolution dated
May 12, 2001.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner argues that direct bribery is not a crime
involving moral turpitude. Likewise, he
cites Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991, which he claims is the law applicable to the case at bar, not BP 881 or
the Omnibus Election Code as claimed by the COMELEC. Said provision reads:
Section 40.
Disqualifications. - The following
persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final
judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving
sentence.
x x x x
Petitioner insists that he had already served his
sentence as of March 5, 1998 when he was discharged from probation. Such being the case, the two-year
disqualification period imposed by Section 40 of the Local Government Code
expired on March 5, 2000. Thus,
petitioner was qualified to run in the 2001 elections.
Meanwhile, Sonia Lorenzo was proclaimed by the
COMELEC as the duly elected mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Thus, on June 19, 2001, petitioner filed a
supplemental petition which this Court merely noted in its resolution dated
June 26, 2001. In his supplemental
petition, petitioner assailed the proclamation of Sonia Lorenzo on the ground
that the propriety of his disqualification was still under review by this
Court. Petitioner likewise asked this
Court to declare him as the duly elected municipal mayor instead of Sonia
Lorenzo.
The main issue
is whether or not petitioner was disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001
elections. In resolving this, two
sub-issues need to be threshed out, namely: (1) whether the crime of direct
bribery involves moral turpitude and (2) whether it is the Omnibus Election
Code or the Local Government Code that should apply in this situation.
QUESTIONS: (1) Is direct bribery
a crime involving moral turpitude?
(2) Which
should be made to apply in the case at bar, the Omnibus Election Code or the
Local Government Code?
(3) On the basis of the facts given
above, can you rule as to who should be the rightful mayor of San Isidro? In
other words, is Nestor Magno qualified to run as mayor in the first place?
CASE NO. 6. These cases were
consolidated because they have the same objective; the disqualification under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito
Miguel for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he
was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988, on the ground that he
is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the United States of
America, not of Bolinao.
G.R. No. 84508
is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated January 13, 1988
of the COMELEC First Division, dismissing the three (3') petitions of Anecito
Cascante (SPC No. 87-551), Cederico Catabay (SPC No. 87- 595) and Josefino C.
Celeste (SPC No. 87-604), for the disqualification of Merito C. Miguel filed prior to
the local elections on January 18, 1988.
G.R. No. 88831,
Mateo Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, et al., is a petition for review of the
decision dated June 21, 1989, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531
dismissing the petition for quo warranto filed by Mateo Caasi, a rival
candidate for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, also to
disqualify Merito Miguel on account of his being a green card holder.
In his answer to
both petitions, Miguel admitted that he holds a green card issued to him by the
US Immigration Service, but he denied that he is a permanent resident of the
United States. He allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in order
that he may freely enter the United States for his periodic medical examination
and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of
Bolinao, Pangasinan, that he voted in all previous elections, including the
plebiscite on February 2,1987 for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
and the congressional elections on May 18,1987.
After hearing
the consolidated petitions before it, the COMELEC with the exception of
Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr., dismissed the petitions on the ground that:
The possession
of a green card by the respondent (Miguel) does not sufficiently establish that
he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines. On the contrary, inspite
(sic) of his green card, Respondent has sufficiently indicated his intention to
continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in successive
elections in said municipality. As the respondent meets the basic requirements
of citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local officials (sic)
as provided for in Section 42 of the Local Government Code, there is no legal
obstacle to his
candidacy for mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. (ref. MATEO CAASI vs. THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 88831November 8, 1990)
QUESTION: Is the ruling of the
COMELEC correct? Discuss.
CASE NO. 7..In a pending
election protest, the protestant died. Would you dismiss the election protest?
Is the widow of the protestant qualified to substitute him and continue the
case? Cite at least two cases to support your answer.
CASE NO. 8. On April 1988, a plebiscite was held for
the conversion of Taguig, from a municipality into a city. Without completing
the canvass of 64 other election returns, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers
delared that the “NO” votes won and that the people of Taguig rejected the
conversion.
The
COMELEC was ordered by the COMELEC en banc to reconvence and complete the
canvass. The Board did and in due time issued an Order proclaiming that the
negative votes prevailed in the plebiscite conducted.
Forthwith,
petitioners filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the results of the
plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of the ballots cast therein.
They alleged that fraud and irregularities attended the casting and counting of
votes. The case was docketed as an election protest and raffled to the COMELEC
2nd Division.
Private
respondents Cayetano intervened and moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC.He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be
the subject of an election protest. He averred that the jurisdiction to hear a
complaint involving a plebiscite is lodged with the Regional Trial Court.
The
COMELEC 2nd division gave due course to the petition, and treated
the petition as akin to an election protest. IT then ordered the Taguig ballot
boxes to be brought to its Manila Office and created revision committees to
revise and recount the plebiscite ballots.
In
a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc held that the COMELEC cannot
use its power to enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as
this power is purely administrative or executive and not quasi-judicial in
nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition to annul Taguig
plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC under Sec. 19 (6) of BP 129, which
provides that the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.(ref..Buac v. COMELEC, Jan. 26, 2004, G.R.No. 155855).
QUESTION: With respect to
annulment of plebiscite results, which body has jurisdiction, is it the COMELEC
or the Regional Trial Court? Explain.
CASE NO. 9. It appears that
while the Quezon City Board of Canvassers was canvassing the election returns
but before the winning candidates were proclaimed, petitioner commenced suit
before the COMELEC by filing a petition seeking to suspend the canvassing of
votes and/or proclamation in Quezon City and to declare a failure of elections.
In support of
his allegation of massive and orchestrated fraud, petitioner cited specific
instances which are summarized and set forth below:
1. The Board of Canvassers announced that election returns
with no inner seal would be included in the canvass;
2. Board of Election Inspectors
brought home copies of election returns meant for the City Board of Canvassers;
3. Petitioner, through counsel,
raised written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election returns
which were either tampered with, altered or falsified, or otherwise not
authentic;
4. According to the minutes of
the City Board of Canvassers, there were precincts with missing election
returns;
5. Several election returns with
no data on the number of votes cast for vice mayoralty position;
6. Highly suspicious persons
sneaking in some election returns and documents into the canvassing area;
7. Concerned citizen found minutes of the counting, keys,
locks and metal seal in the COMELEC area for disposal as trash;
8. Board of Election Inspectors
have volunteered information that they placed the copy of the election returns
meant for the City Board of Canvassers in the ballot boxes deposited with the
City Treasurer allegedly due to fatigue and lack of sleep;
9. Ballot boxes were never in the
custody of the COMELEC and neither the parties nor their watchers were allowed
to enter the restricted area where these boxes passed through on the way to the
basement of the City Hall where they were supposedly kept; and
10. In the election in Barangay New Era, there was a clear
patters of voting which would show that the election returns were manufactured
and that no actual voting by duly qualified voters took place therein.
While the
petition was pending before the COMELEC, the City Board of Canvassers
proclaimed the winners of the elections in Quezon City, including the winning
candidate for the post of vice mayor. On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated
its challenged resolution dismissing the petition before it.
Hence this petition.
Alleging that
COMELEC overstepped the limits of reasonable exercise of discretion in
dismissing SPC No. 98-134, petitioner argues in the main that the electoral
body failed to afford him basic due process, that is, the right to a hearing
and presentation of evidence before ruling on his petition. He then proceeded
to argue that the election returns themselves, as well as the minutes of the
canvassing committee of the City Board of Canvassers were, by themselves,
sufficient evidence to support the petition.
QUESTION:1) Rule on the
contention of the petitioner: whether he was deprived of due process.
2)Are his grounds valid to justify a
failure of electoion?
3) In your opinion, is the remedy availed
by him proper? If not proper, what is the corrct remedy under the premises?
(ref. JOSEPH
PETER S. SISON, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.1999 Mar
3En BancG.R. No. 134096)
CASE NO.10.On February
2, 1999, the COMELEC en banc appointed petitioner as "Acting Director
IV" of the EID. On February 15,
2000, then Chairperson Harriet O. Demetriou renewed the appointment of
petitioner as Director IV of EID in a "Temporary" capacity. On February 15, 2001, Commissioner Rufino
S.B. Javier renewed again the appointment of petitioner to the same position in
a "Temporary" capacity.
On March 22,
2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as
COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a
term of seven years and all expiring on February 2, 2008. Benipayo took his oath of office and assumed the position of
COMELEC Chairman. Borra and Tuason
likewise took their oaths of office and assumed their positions as COMELEC
Commissioners. The Office of the President
submitted to the Commission on Appointments on May 22, 2001 the ad interim
appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason for confirmation. However, the
Commission on Appointments did not act on said appointments.
On June 1, 2001, President Arroyo renewed the ad
interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason to the same positions and
for the same term of seven years, expiring on February 2, 2008. They took their
oaths of office for a second time. The
Office of the President transmitted on June 5, 2001 their appointments to the
Commission on Appointments for confirmation.
Congress adjourned before the Commission on
Appointments could act on their appointments.
Thus, on June 8, 2001, President Macapagal Arroyo renewed again the ad
interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason to the same positions. The
Office of the President submitted their appointments for confirmation to the
Commission on Appointments. They took their oaths of office anew.
In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman, Benipayo issued
a Memorandum dated April 11, 2001addressed to petitioner as Director IV of the
EID and to Cinco as Director III also of the EID, designating Cinco
Officer-in-Charge of the EID and reassigning petitioner to the Law
Department. COMELEC EID Commissioner-in-Charge
Mehol K. Sadain objected to petitioner’s reassignment in a Memorandum dated
April 14, 2001 addressed to the COMELEC en banc. Specifically, Commissioner
Sadain questioned Benipayo’s failure to consult the Commissioner-in-Charge of
the EID in the reassignment of petitioner.
On April 16, 2001, petitioner requested Benipayo to
reconsider her relief as Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law
Department. Petitioner cited Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 7
dated April 10, 2001, reminding heads of government offices that "transfer
and detail of employees are prohibited during the election period beginning
January 2 until June 13, 2001." Benipayo denied her request for
reconsideration on April 18, 2001, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 dated
November 6, 2000, which states in part:
"NOW,
THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections by virtue of the powers conferred upon
it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws, as
an exception to the foregoing prohibitions, has RESOLVED, as it is hereby
RESOLVED, to appoint, hire new employees or fill new positions and transfer or
reassign its personnel, when necessary in the effective performance of its
mandated functions during the prohibited period, provided that the changes in
the assignment of its field personnel within the thirty-day period before
election day shall be effected after due notice and hearing."
Petitioner appealed the denial of her request for
reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc in a Memorandum dated April 23, 2001.
Petitioner also filed an administrative and criminal complaint with the Law
Department against Benipayo, alleging that her reassignment violated Section
261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC Resolution No. 3258, Civil
Service Memorandum Circular No. 07, s. 001, and other pertinent administrative
and civil service laws, rules and regulations.
During the pendency of her complaint before the Law
Department, petitioner filed the instant petition questioning the appointment
and the right to remain in office of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as Chairman
and Commissioners of the COMELEC, respectively. Petitioner claims that the ad interim
appointments of Benipayo, Borra and
Tuason violate the constitutional provisions on the independence of the
COMELEC, as well as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and
reappointments of its Chairman and members.
Petitioner also assails as illegal her removal as Director IV of the EID
and her reassignment to the Law Department.
Simultaneously, petitioner challenges the designation of Cinco as
Officer-in-Charge of the EID.
Petitioner, moreover, questions the legality of the disbursements made
by COMELEC Finance Services Department Officer-in-Charge Gideon C. De Guzman to
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason by way of salaries and other emoluments.
In the meantime, on September 6, 2001, President
Macapagal Arroyo renewed once again the ad interim appointments of Benipayo as
COMELEC Chairman and Borra and Tuason as Commissioners, respectively, for a
term of seven years expiring on February 2, 2008. They all took their oaths of
office anew.
QUESTIONS: Resolve the following issues:
The issues for resolution of
this Court are as follows:
1. Whether or not the instant petition satisfies all
the requirements before this Court may exercise its power of judicial review in
constitutional cases;
2. Whether or not the assumption of office by
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued
by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by Section 1
(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution;
3. Assuming that the first ad interim appointments and
the first assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are legal, whether
or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent assumption
of office to the same positions violate the prohibition on reappointment under
Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution;
4. Whether or not Benipayo’s removal of petitioner
from her position as Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law Department
is illegal and without authority, having been done without the approval of the
COMELEC as a collegial body;
5. Whether or not the Officer-in-Charge of the
COMELEC’s Finance Services Department, in continuing to make disbursements in
favor of Benipayo, Borra, Tuason and Cinco, is acting in excess of
jurisdiction.
(reference: MA. J. ANGELINA G. MATIBAG, petitioner,
vs. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR.,
VELMA J. CINCO, and GIDEON C. DE GUZMAN in his capacity as Officer-In-Charge,
Finance Services Department of the Commission on Elections, respondents., G.R.
No. 149036, 2002 April 2, En Banc)
Case No. 11: On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of
candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative District
of the Province of Sarangani indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate
that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for one
(1) year and two (2) months immediately preceding the election.
On 30 March 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra.
Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito, Jr., Rosario Samson and Dionisio
P. Lim, Sr., filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy, which was docketed as SPA No. 98-022 and assigned to
the Second Division of the COMELEC. Private respondents alleged that DOMINO,
contrary to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident,
much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where he seeks
election. To substantiate their allegations, private respondents presented the
following evidence:
1. Annex "A" the
Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the position of Congressman of the
Lone District of the Province of Sarangani filed with the Office of the Provincial
Election Supervisor of Sarangani on March 25, 1998, where in item 4 thereof he
wrote his date of birth as December 5, 1953; in item 9, he claims he have
resided in the constituency where he seeks election for one (1) year and two
(2) months; and, in item 10, that he is registered voter of Precinct No. 14A-1,
Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani;
2. Annex "B"
Voter's Registration Record with SN 31326504 dated June 22, 1997
indicating respondent's registration at Precinct No. 4400-A, Old Balara, Quezon
City;
x x x
7. Annex "G"
Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the position of Congressman
in the 3rd District of Quezon City for the 1995 elections filed with the Office
of the Regional Election Director, National Capital Region, on March 17, 1995,
where, in item 4 thereof, he wrote his birth date as December 22, 1953; in item
8 thereof his "residence in the constituency where I seek to be elected
immediately preceding the election" as 3 years and 5 months; and, in item
9, that he is a registered voter of Precinct No. 182, Barangay Balara, Quezon
City;
8. Annex "H" a
copy of the APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION RECORDS DUE TO CHANGE OF
RESIDENCE of respondent dated August 30, 1997 addressed to and received by
Election Officer Mantil Alim, Alabel, Sarangani, on September 22, 1997, stating
among others, that "[T]he undersigned's previous residence is at 24
Bonifacio Street, Ayala Heights, Quezon City, III District, Quezon City;
wherein he is a registered voter" and "that for business and residence
purposes, the undersigned has transferred and conducts his business and reside
at Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Province of Sarangani prior to this
application;"
9. Annex "I"
Copy of the SWORN APPLICATION FOR OF CANCELLATION OF THE VOTER'S [TRANSFER
OF] PREVIOUS REGISTRATION of respondent subscribed and sworn to on 22 October
1997 before Election Officer Mantil Allim at Alabel, Sarangani.
For his defense, DOMINO
maintains that he had complied with the one-year residence requirement and that
he has been residing in Sarangani since January 1997. In support of the said
contention, DOMINO presented before the COMELEC the following exhibits, to wit:
1. Annex "1" Copy
of the Contract of Lease between Nora Dacaldacal as Lessor and Administrator of
the properties of deceased spouses Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal and
respondent as Lessee executed on January 15, 1997, subscribed and sworn to
before Notary Public Johnny P. Landero;
2. Annex "2" Copy
of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Deed of sale executed
by and between the heirs of deceased spouses Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal,
namely: Maria Lourdes, Jupiter and Beberlie and the respondent on November 4,
1997, subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Jose A. Alegario;
3. Annex "3" True
Carbon Xerox copy of the Decision dated January 19, 1998, of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Metro Manila, Branch 35, Quezon City, in Election Case NO. 725
captioned as "In the Matter of the Petition for the Exclusion from the
List of voters of Precinct No. 4400-A Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City, Spouses
Juan and Zorayda Domino, Petitioners, -versus- Elmer M. Kayanan, Election
Officer, Quezon City, District III, and the Board of Election Inspectors of
Precinct No. 4400-A, Old Balara, Quezon City, Respondents." The
dispositive portion of which reads:
1. Declaring the registration of petitioners as voters of Precinct
No. 4400-A, Barangay Old Balara, in District III Quezon City as completely
erroneous as petitioners were no longer residents of Quezon City but of Alabel,
Sarangani where they have been residing since December 1996;
2. Declaring this erroneous registration of petitioners in Quezon
City as done in good faith due to an honest mistake caused by circumstances
beyond their control and without any fault of petitioners;
3. Approving the transfer of registration of voters of petitioners from
Precint No. 4400-A of Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City to Precinct No. 14A1 of
Barangay Poblacion of Alabel, Sarangani; and Ordering the respondents to immediately
transfer and forward all the election/voter's registration records of the
petitioners in Quezon City to the Election Officer, the Election Registration
Board and other Comelec Offices of Alabel, Sarangani where the petitioners are
obviously qualified to excercise their respective rights of suffrage.
4. Annex "4" Copy
of the Application for Transfer of Registration Records due to Change of
Residence addressed to Mantil Alim, COMELEC Registrar, Alabel, Sarangani, dated
August 30, 1997.
5. Annex "5" Certified True Copy of the Notice of Approval
of Application, the roster of applications for registration approved by the
Election Registration Board on October 20, 1997, showing the spouses Juan and
Zorayda Bailon Domino listed as numbers 111 and 112 both under Precinct No.
14A1, the last two names in the slate indicated as transferees without VRR
numbers and their application dated August 30, 1997 and September 30, 1997,
respectively.
6. Annex "6" same
as Annex "5"
7. Annex "6-a" Copy
of the Sworn Application for Cancellation of Voter's Previous Registration
(Annex "I", Petition);
8. Annex "7" Copy
of claim card in the name of respondent showing his VRR No. 31326504 dated
October 20, 1997 as a registered voter of Precinct No. 14A1, Barangay
Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani;
9. Annex "7-a"
Certification dated April 16, 1998, issued by Atty. Elmer M. Kayanan,
Election Officer IV, District III, Quezon City, which reads:
This is to certify that the
spouses JUAN and ZORAYDA DOMINO are no longer registered voters of District
III, Quezon City. Their registration records (VRR) were transferred and are now
in the possession of the Election Officer of Alabel, Sarangani.
This certification is being
issued upon the request of Mr. JUAN DOMINO.
10. Annex "8" Affidavit
of Nora Dacaldacal and Maria Lourdes Dacaldacal stating the circumstances and
incidents detailing their alleged acquaintance with respondent.
11. Annexes "8-a", "8-b", "8-c" and
"8-d" Copies of the uniform
affidavits of witness Myrna Dalaguit, Hilario Fuentes, Coraminda Lomibao and
Elena V. Piodos subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Bonifacio F.
Doria, Jr., on April 18, 1998, embodying their alleged personal knowledge of
respondent's residency in Alabel, Sarangani;
On 11 May 1998, the day of
the election, the COMELEC issued Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046,
ordering that the votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the
proclamation if winning, considering that the Resolution disqualifying him as
candidate had not yet become final and executory.
The result of the election,
per Statement of Votes certified by the Chairman of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers, shows that DOMINO garnered the highest number of votes over his
opponents for the position of Congressman of the Province of Sarangani.
On 15 May 1998, DOMINO filed
a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 6 May 1998, which was
denied by the COMELEC en banc in its decision dated 29 May 1998. Hence, the
present Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction alleging, in the main, that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it ruled that he
did not meet the one-year residence requirement.
On 15 September 1998, Lucille L.
Chiongbian-Solon, (hereafter INTERVENOR), the candidate receiving the second
highest number of votes, was allowed by the Court to Intervene. INTERVENOR in
her Motion for Leave to Intervene and in her Comment in Intervention is asking the Court to uphold the disqualification
of petitioner Juan Domino and to proclaim her as the duly elected
representative of Sarangani in the 11 May 1998 elections.
Before us DOMINO raised the
following issues for resolution, to wit:
1.Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and not of Quezon City is
final, conclusive and binding upon the whole world, including the Commission on
Elections.
2.Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in
the subject congressional district for at leastone (1) year immediately
preceding the May 11, 1998 elections; and
3.Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction
over the petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner.
4.Whether, just in case, DOMINO is ousted, whether
theintervenor CHIONGBIAN, would be proclaimed as winner of the election?
RESOLVE THE ISSUES ABOVE RAISED BY DOMINO.
CASE
NO.12This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeks to set aside the resolutions issued by the COMELEC First Division
dated May 21, 1998 and by the COMELEC En Banc dated August 11, 1998 in SPA
98-190 entitled, In the matter of the Petition to Disqualify Mayoralty
Candidate Romeo Lonzanida of San Antonio, Zambales, Eufemio Muli, petitioner,
vs. Romeo Lonzanida, respondent. The assailed resolutions declared herein
petitioner Romeo Lonzanida disqualified to run for Mayor in the municipality of
San Antonio, Zambales in the May 1998 elections and that all votes cast in his
favor shall not be counted and if he has been proclaimed winner the said
proclamation is declared null and void.
Petitioner Romeo Lonzanida was
duly elected and served two consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections
Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and was again proclaimed
winner. He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation
in 1995 was however contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an
election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Zambales, which in a
decision dated January 9, 1997 declared a failure of elections. The court
ruled:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this court hereby renders
judgment declaring the results of the election for the office of the mayor in
San Antonio, Zambales last May 8, 1995 as null and void on the ground that
there was a failure of election.
Accordingly, the office of the mayor of the
Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales is hereby declared vacant.
Both parties appealed to the
COMELEC. On November 13, 1997 the COMELEC resolved the election protest filed
by Alvez and after a revision and re-appreciation of the contested ballots
declared Alvez the duly elected mayor of San Antonio, Zambales by plurality of
votes cast in his favor totaling P1,720 votes as against 1,488 votes for
Lonzanida. On February 27, 1998 the COMELEC issued a writ of execution ordering
Lonzanida to vacate the post, which he obeyed, and Alvez assumed office for the
remainder of the term.
In the May 11, 1998 elections
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of San Antonio. On
April 21, 1998 his opponent Eufemio Muli timely filed a petition to disqualify
Lonzanida from running for mayor of San Antonio in the 1998 elections on the
ground that he had served three consecutive terms in the same post. On May 13,
1998, petitioner Lonzanida was proclaimed winner. On May 21, 1998 the First
Division of the COMELEC issued the questioned resolution granting the petition
for disqualification upon a finding that Lonzanida had served three consecutive
terms as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and he is therefore disqualified to run
for the same post for the fourth time. The COMELEC found that Lonzanida's
assumption of office by virtue of his proclamation in May 1995, although he was
later unseated before the expiration of the term, should be counted as service
for one full term in computing the three term limit under the Constitution and
the Local Government Code. The finding of the COMELEC First Division was
affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution dated August 11, 1998.(reference:
LONZANIDA vs. Comelec. G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999)
QUESTION: Is the COMELEC ruling
correct? Reason out.
CASE
NO. 13.
(p.515)
As a general rule, the filing of
the election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent
filing of a pre-proclamation controversy, or amount to the abadonment of one
earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and
pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation.
1.What is
the reason for this general rule?
2.What
are the exceptions to the general rule above cited.
CASE
NO. 14. In the January 30, 1980 local elections, herein petitioner
Guillermo Robes was elected mayor in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan by a majority
vote of 5,063 over private respondent Reynaldo Villano. The rest of the
petitioners were also elected-Cresencio Garcia as Vice-Mayor and the others as
members of the Sangguniang Bayan-and duly proclaimed as such by the Municipal Board
of Canvassers on February 1, 1980.
On February 23, 1980 or twenty-two days after the proclamation of
the petitioners herein-private respondents filed with COMELEC a petition for
"Nullification of Election, Canvass, and/or Suspension or Holding in Abeyance
of Proclamation." Cited as grounds for their petition, private respondents
herein alleged, inter alia, the commission of terrorism, massive and rampant
fraud such as registration of flying voters, vote-buying, vote-padding,
allowing flying voters to vote through scheme and design in connivance with
several members of the Citizens Election Committees.
On March 12, 1980, petitioners
herein filed their joint answer traversing the petition and maintaining that
their proclamation was legal, valid and in accordance with the provisions of
the 1978 Election Code.
On March 21, 1980, herein
petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss.
In its resolution dated April 22,
1980, respondent COMELEC denied herein petitioners' motion to dismiss and set
the petition filed by herein private respondents for hearing on the merits. (
reference: ROBES, vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-63130 June 28, 1983)
QUESTION: 1. IS THE ORDER OF THE COMELEC CORRECT? EXPLAIN.
CASE
NO. 15. Petitioner Emiliano R. Caruncho III was the candidate of the
Liberal Party for the congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig City at
the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections. The other candidates were: Arnulfo G.
Acedera, Jr. (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP); Marcelino P. Arias (Nacionalista Party);
Roberto C. Bassig (Independent); Esmeraldo T. Batacan (PDR-LM Coalition); Henry
P. Lanot (LAMMP); Francisco C. Rivera, Jr. (PRP/PDR); Elpidio G. Tuason
(Independent), and Raoul V. Victorino (Liberal Party/LAMMP).
At 9:00 o'clock in the morning of
May 12, 1998, respondent Pasig City Board of Canvassers composed of Atty.
Casiano Atuel, Jr. as Chairman, Atty. Grace S. Belvis as Vice-Chairman, and Dr.
Florentina Lizano as Member, started to canvass the election returns. The
canvass was proceeding smoothly when the Board received intelligence reports
that one of the candidates for the congressional race, retired General Arnulfo
Acedera, and his supporters, might disrupt and stop the canvassing.
At exactly 6:00 o'clock in the
evening of May 14, 1998, General Acedera and his supporters stormed the
Caruncho Stadium in San Nicolas, Pasig City, where the canvassing of election
returns was being conducted. They allegedly forced themselves into the
canvassing area, breaking a glass door in the process. As pandemonium broke
loose, the police fired warning shots causing those present in the canvassing
venue, including the members of the Board and canvassing units, to scamper for
safety. The canvassing personnel exited through the backdoors bringing with
them the Election Returns they were canvassing and tallying as well as the
Statement of Votes that they were accomplishing. They entrusted these documents
to the City Treasurer's Office and the Pasig Employment Service Office (PESO).
Election documents and paraphernalia were scattered all over the place when the
intruders left.
The following day, May 15, 1998,
the sub-canvassing units recovered the twenty-two (22) Election Returns and the
Statement of Votes from the Treasurer's Office and the PESO. However, page 2 of
each of the 22 election returns, which contained the names of candidates for
congressmen, had been detached and could not be found. An investigation was
conducted to pinpoint liability for the loss but it yielded negative result.
Hence, the Board secured proper authority from the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), 1 through Election Director for the National Capital Region Atty.
Teresita Suarez, for the reconstitution of the missing page by making use of
the other copies of the election returns, particularly the provincial copy or
the copy in the ballot boxes placed therein by the Board of Election
Inspectors.
At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the
Board, satisfied that it had finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns
from as many clustered precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot as the winner in
the congressional race for the lone district of Pasig. 2 The votes obtained by
the leading three candidates were: Henry P. Lanot 60,914 votes; Emiliano R. "Boy"
Caruncho III 42,942 votes, and Arnulfo
Acedera 36,139 votes. The winner, Lanot,
led his closest rival, Caruncho, by 17,971 votes.
However, on May 21, 1998,
petitioner Caruncho filed a "Motion to Nullify Proclamation on the Basis
of Incomplete Returns" with the
COMELEC. He alleged that the Board had proceeded with the proclamation of Henry
Lanot as the winning congressional candidate even though one hundred
forty-seven (147) election returns involving about 30,000 votes, were still not
canvassed. He prayed that the COMELEC en banc declare the proclamation null and
void and that the Board of Canvassers be directed to convene and reopen the
ballot boxes to recount the votes of the candidates for the House of
Representatives and thereupon proclaim the winner.
On June 8, 1998, the Second
Division of the COMELEC issued an Order requiring respondent Pasig City Board
of Canvassers to comment on the amended motion to nullify Lanot's proclamation.
In his comment filed on June 23, 1998, respondent Atty. Casiano G. Atuel, Jr.
admitted the disruption and stoppage of the canvass of election returns on May
11, 1998 but asserted that there were only twenty-two (22) election returns,
not 147 as claimed by Caruncho, that were missing but these were eventually
recovered. The Board stated in part:
. . . . Contrary to the insinuation of Atty. Irene
D. Jurado, only 22 Election Returns were reported missing. On the following
day, May 15, 1998, the sub-canvassing units have recovered the 22 missing
Election Returns and the Statement of Votes from the Treasurer's Office and
from the Pasig Employment Service Office (PESO). There are no missing election
returns.
That to the surprise of the
Board and of the 22 canvassing units, they found out that Page 2 of the 22
Election Returns they recovered were detached and missing. We wish to inform
the Commission that Page 2 of the Local Election Returns contained the name of
candidates for Congressman. We conducted investigation on who did the
detachment of Page 2 of the 22 Election Returns. However, nobody from the
Treasurer's Office nor from the PESO admitted that they committed such election
offense.
X
x x x
The facts
as established show that all the legal steps necessary to carry out the
reconstitution of the missing page 2 of the twenty-two (22) election returns
have been followed. Proper authorization for the reconstitution of that page
was secured from the COMELEC. The reconstitution was based on the provincial
copy of the election returns that was retrieved from the sealed ballot boxes
The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election
returns have been received by it terminated the canvass and proclaim the
candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns. The facts
further show that the 22 alleged misisng election returns represented only
4,400 votes. (Ref.
CARUNCHO III vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 135996,September 30, 1999).
QUESTIONS: 1.Caruncho contends that an incomplete canvass
of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true
vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.
He concludes that the proclamation of Lanot was erroneous. Rule on the
contention.
2.Lanot
claims that his proclamation is valid as the canvass was valid. Is he correct?
3.Are
the facts abovecited qualify for a pre-proclamation controversy or an election
protest? Explain.
4.Premises
considered, who should be the rightful mayor? Explain.
CASE
NO. 16.Rules on the appreciation of the ballot for the following
candidates:
For
Governor: Roy Josue, Jose Roy and Francisco Lopes
For
Mayor: Anna Curtis, Rosa Samson, and Cora Tan
1.In the
ballot, the word Roy was written on the space for mayor. For whom should the
vote be counted?
2. In the
ballot, on the space for mayor the word Kortes was written. On
the space for vice-mayor, the word ANN was written. How would you
appreciate the ballot?
3.On the
ballot, the voter used a red pen, writing Jose Roy as governor
but used a blue ballpen and wrote Rosa for mayor. Appreciate.
4.On the
ballot, the voter wrote JOSE JOSUE in the space for governor.
5.On the
space for governor, the word Roy was written but crossed and
another word Jose was written.
CASE
NO. 17. In his decision, Judge Reyes made a finding that Alejandro
shot Victor inside Precinct No. 2
located at the elementary school building in Santo Tomas, Isabela, during the
barangay elections on March 28, 1989. It is also found that Alejandro was the
one who surrendered the gun two days after the shooting incident. To the
mind of the judge, the surrender of the weapon was an implied admission that it
was Alejandro who used the gun in
shooting Victor. Inspite of all these findings, Judge Reyes acquitted Alejandro
of illegally carrying a deadly weapon inside a precinct on the theory that the
gun was not seized from him while he was the precinct. According to Judge
Reyes:
. . . With respect to the other
accused Alejandro Angoluan, although there is evidence to prove that he shot
the complainant Victor Mappala, the gun which he allegedly used was surrendered
by him two (2) days after the incident and he was not apprehended in possession
of the gun within 100 meters radius of the precinct. This Court believes that
he should not be prosecuted (sic) in violation of Article 22, Section 261,
Subsection (p) of the Omnibus Election Code.
(reference: A.M. No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 MAPPALA vs. NUÑEZ)
QUESTION: Is Judge Reyes correct in acquitting the accused
Alejandor Angoluan? Explain your answer.
CASE
NO. 18.
After the local elections of January 18, 1980, Ananias Hibo defeated candidate
of the Nacionalista Party for the office of mayor of the Municipality of
Casiguran, Sorsogon filed with the COMELEC a complaint charging petitioner
Rogelio de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar of Casiguran, with violation of the
1978 Election Code. Copy of the complaint was sent to the Ministry of Justice
which endorsed the same to the Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for investigation.
Noting that petitioner was being charged in relation to his office, Asst.
Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin Tarog in their capacity as deputized
Tanodbayan prosecutors, conducted an investigation. Thereafter Fiscal Genova
issued a resolution finding the existence of a prima facie case against
petitioner for violation of section 89 1 and sub-sections [x] 2 and [mm] 3 of Section
178 of the Election Code of 1978. After approval thereof by the Tanodbayan, the
following information, dated January 27, 1982, was filed before the
Sandiganbayan:
That on or about January 30, 1980
and sometime thereafter to February 6, 1980, in the Municipality of Casiguran
Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused while discharging the Office of the
Election Registrar in the Municipality of Casiguran, Province of Sorsogon, taking
advantage and abusing his official position, did there and there wilfully
unlawfully and feloniously by reason of his being a registrar knowingly
registered persons in order to vote on January 30, 1980 being an election day
and at the same time issuing Identification cards during election day, thereby
violating the provision of the Election Code of 1978 and at the same time
tampering with the election reports by mag it appear that 10,727 persons were
the total number of registered voters for the election of January 30, 1980,
when in truth and in fact the actual total number of voters as - sported on
January 27, 1980 by the accused was only 10,532 but then changed to 10,727,
thereby violating the provisions of Section '89' and Section.'178' under
Article XVI specifically sub- section 'X' and sub-section 'MM' which is a
violation of the Election Code of 1978 to the erosion of public faith and
confidence.
The case, docketed as SB Criminal Case No. 5054, was
raffled to the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information,
contending that neither the Tanodbayan nor the Sandiganbayan has the authority
to investigate, prosecute and try the offense
xxx xxx xxx
[x] Any election registrar or
any person acting in his behalf who issues or causes the issuance of a voter's
certificate of registration or cancels or causes the cancellation thereof the
violation of the provisions of this Code.
xxx xxx xxx
[mm] Any person who, without
authority, acts as, or assumes r performs any -function of a member of the
election committee, or the board of canvassers, or deputy of representative of
the Commission.
charged in the information, the same being an election
offense over which the power to investigate, prosecute and try is lodged by law
in the COMELEC and the Court of First Instance. In its opposition, the
prosecution maintained the Tanodbayan's exclusive authority to investigate and
prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office, and consequently, the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction to try and
decide the charges against petitioner.
(ref:
G.R. No. L-61998,February 22, 1983 DE JESUS vs. PEOPLE)
QUESTION: The question of law posed for determination in
this petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Sandiganbayan
may be propounded thus: Which of these entities have the power to investigate,
prosecute and try election offenses committed by a public officer in relation
to his office the Commission on Elections and the Court of First Instance [now
the regional trial court] or the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan?
CASE
NO. 19. The records disclose that petitioner Manuel V. Olondriz, Jr.
and private respondent Marites G. Fragata were among the contenders for the
mayoralty of Juban, Sorsogon in the May 11, 1998 elections.
During the canvass of the votes
cast for the candidate in said municipality, Bernabe A. Hufana, a watcher for
private respondent, noted "a discrepancy between the words and figures in
the number of votes for petitioner in the election return from Precinct No.
22-A. On the face of said return, the votes cast for petitioner was sixty-six
(66) written in figures and fifty-six (56) written in words. When the same was
brought to the attention of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), the MBC
decided to credit the petitioner with the sixty-six (66) votes written in
figures. As a consequence thereof, petitioner garnered a total of 4,500 votes
while private respondent got total of 4,498 votes, with only a margin of 2
votes. Private respondent's objection, through her watcher, was ignored by the
MBC.
After the canvass of the votes,
private respondent filed with the MBC a petition to suspend the proclamation on
the ground that a discrepancy appears on the election return from Precinct No.
22-A. The MBC denied the petition ratiocinating that the tally of the votes for
petitioner appearing on the election return showed that the latter received a
total of sixty-six (66) votes.
On May 16, 1998, private respondent filed a notice of
appeal with the MBC stating that she was appealing the ruling to the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC). On the same date, the MBC denied the notice of appeal
and then issued a "Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the
Winning Candidates for the Municipal Offices" wherein it proclaimed
petitioner as the winner in the elections.
On May 20, 1998, private
respondent filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the certificate of
canvass and the proclamation of herein petitioner. The case was docketed as SPC
No. 98-099.
On May 27, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC issued
a resolution, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the proclamation of private respondent Manuel Olondriz, Jr., as the
duly elected mayor of Juban, Sorsogon is DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
Consequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Juban, Sorsogon is hereby ORDERED to RECONVENE, OPEN the ballot box in Precinct
No. 22-A, following strictly section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and include
the tally thereof to the result of all the election returns previously
canvassed; PREPARE a new Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning
Candidates [C.E. Form No. 25] and, thereafter PROCLAIM the winning candidate
for mayor.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner moved to reconsideration the said resolution.
During the pendency of said motion for reconsideration,
the MBC reconvened pursuant to the COMELEC Second Division's resolution. The
ballot box from Precinct No. 22-A was opened and the election return kept
therein was examined but no recount of the votes was conducted despite vigorous
motions from private respondent's counsel. The MBC found that:
. . . The election return was examined by the Board,
together with the legal counsels and watcher of both parties and it did not
show any sign of tampering. This election return showed that Candidate Manuel
Olondriz obtained 56 votes, written both in words figure. They also verified
that the taras as counted for the first 100 votes was 29 but the written figure
was blurred. On the next line the taras counted was 37 and the figure was also
blurred. So the Board decided that by adding 29 taras and 37 taras, Candidate
Olondriz got 66 votes and this was reflected in the election returns. . . .
Consequently, on June 3, 1998,
the MBC proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Juban, Sorsogon.
Petitioner took his oath of office on June 29, 1998.
On August 28, 1998, the COMELEC
en banc issued an order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The
order reads:
It appearing that no new issues
were raised by private respondent in his Motion for Reconsideration, this
Commission [EN BANC] RESOLVED, as It hereby RESOLVES to DENY this instant
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Second
Division dated 27 May 1998 ANNULLING the pre-mature (sic) proclamation of
private respondent Manuel Olondriz, Jr. as the duly elected mayor of Juban,
Sorsogon, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Juban,
Sorsogon is hereby DIRECTED to:
a. RECONVENE
after due notices are sent to the affected parties/candidates;
b. SUMMON the
members of the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. 22-A who will after
following strictly the guidelines/procedures laid down in Section 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code, REOPEN the ballot box in the concerned precinct, RECOUNT
(PHYSICAL COUNT ONLY) the ballots with votes for private respondent Manuel
Olondriz only and CORRECT the entries for Mayor in the election returns (copy
for the Municipal Broad of Canvassers), if necessary;
c. INCLUDE the
result thereof to the Statement of Votes by Precinct, PREPARE a new Certificate
of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning Candidates {C.E. Form No. 25] and,
thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning candidate for Mayor of Juban, Sorsogon.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this present petition for
certiorari.
The only issue that merits our
consideration is whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the opening of the ballot box and the recount of the
votes cast therein.
(reference:
OLONDRIZ, JR. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135084 August 25, 1999)
QUESTION: Based on the facts above stated is the order of
recount made by the COMELEC corect? Explain your answer.
CASE NO. 20. FELIPE L. LAODENIO, petitioner,
and ROGELIO LONGCOP, respondent, were candidates for the position of Mayor of
Mapanas, Northern Samar, during the 8 May 1995 elections. On 15 May 1995
Longcop was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
On 20 May 1995 Laodenio filed a petition with respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul the proclamation of Longcop and to
declare illegal the constitution of the Municipal Board of Canvassers as well
as its proceedings. He alleged in his petition that
During the canvass, respondent
board of canvassers adjourned repeatedly starting May 9, 1995, after the poll
clerk of precinct no. 7-A testified
before the Board that the election returns for the said precinct was tampered
with and falsified to increase the total votes cast in favor of respondent
Longcop from 88 to 188.
On 10 May 1995, the Board resumed
its canvass but it adjourned again at past 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon as it
has (sic) not yet decided on what to do
with the election returns for precinct (sic) nos. 7-A and 5-A. When it
adjourned on May 10, 1995 it announced that it will (sic) only resume canvass
on 12 May 1995 at the capital town of Catarman, Northern Samar. The Board
however reconvened on 12 May 1995 in Mapanas and proceeded with the canvass.
The respondent board thereafter adjourned and surreptitiously reconvened on 15
May 1995, with a new chairman who was allegedly appointed by the Provincial
Election Supervisor.
When the election returns from Precinct (sic) Nos. 5-A and
7-A were (sic) about to be canvassed, petitioner manifested his oral objections
thereto and likewise submitted his written objection on the same day, 12 May
1995.
The respondent board however did not give the petitioner
opportunity of file an appeal (from?) its decision to proceed with the canvass
of the election returns from precinct (sic) nos. 7-A and 5-A.
The respondent board of canvassers was informed by Elie
Acquiat (poll clerk) that the election returns from precinct no. 7-A was
tampered, and the votes for the respondent Longcop was increased from 88 to
188. Similarly, the BEI Chairman of Precinct 5-A Arnulfo Nueva and the third
member Dolor Rowena informed the board of canvassers that the election returns
from precinct 5-A was tampered by increasing the votes for the respondent
Longcop from 117 to 173. With the testimony of those witnesses, the board
should have proceeded in accordance with Section 235 of the Omnibus Election
Code but the board disregarded the clear mandate of the law and closed its eyes
to the overwhelming evidence of falsification and lent its hand to the
consummation by canvassing the falsified election returns. 1
On 25 May 1995 petitioner filed an election protest before
the Regional Trial Court.
On 28 August 1995 respondent COMELEC dismissed the
petition of Laodenio for lack of merit. 2 It was of the view that the
adjournments were justified and were not improperly prolonged as claimed by
petitioner; he was in fact deemed to have acquiesced to the new composition of
the Municipal Board of Canvassers when he actively participated in the
proceedings therein; there was no showing that he manifested on time his intent
to appeal the rulings of the Board, neither was there any proof that he
appealed therefrom; and, on the authority of Padilla v. Commission on Elections
3 the pre-proclamation controversy was no longer viable since Longcop had
already been proclaimed and had assumed office. On 23 October 1995 the motion
for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner raises these issues:
(1) The direct filing of a petition with COMELEC to contest the illegal conduct
of the Board of Canvassers is allowed under Rule 27, Sec. 4, of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure; and, (2) The pre-proclamation controversy was not rendered
moot and academic by the filing of an ordinary election protest.
(Reference:
G.R. No. 122391 August 7, 1997 LAODENIO
vs. COMELEC)
QUESTION: RULE ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER.
END OF THE
EXAMINATION
END OF THE
EXAMINATION.Please pay 13.50 pesos to your treasurer for xerox fees.
No comments:
Post a Comment