Punzalan v.

Comelec
G.R. No. 126669, April 27 1998

DOCTRINE:
Laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may
not be defeated by technical infirmities.
FACTS:
Two losing mayoralty candidates (Punzalan and Manalastas) in Pampanga filed separate
election protests before the trial court challenging the results of the elections alleging massive
fraud and illegal electoral practices against the declared winner (Meneses). The trial court
found that there was massive fraud and upon examination of the contested ballots declared
Punzalan as the winner. Meneses elevated the case to the COMELEC with the latter annulling
the trial courts decision and affirming the proclamation of Meneses. Punzalan appealed to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring as
valid the ballots credited to Meneses which did not bear the signature of the BEI
Chairman?
2. Whether or not the trial courts finding on the authenticity of the handwritings on
the ballots must prevail over the findings of the COMELEC?
HELD:
1. No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
BP Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) provides that in 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.
Here, the failure of the election officer (BEI Chairman) to affix his signature at the
back of the ballot does not constitute as a reason or justification to reject the said
ballot. While the law, 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, failure to affix the same does not invalidate the
ballot.
2. No. The trial courts finding must give way to the findings of the COMELEC.
The COMELEC is a 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.
Here, the appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a
question of fact which is best left to the determination of the COMELEC.