Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DE VENECIA
G.R. No. 150605, Dec. 10, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioner Codilla was a candidate for Representative of the 4 th legislative district of
Leyte against private respondent Ma. Victoria Locsin in the May 14, 2001 elections.
A disqualification case was filed against petitioner for indirect solicitation of votes in
violation of Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. However, the case was not acted upon until the
day of the elections. Petitioner was voted for and garnered the highest number of
votes while private respondent Locsin obtained the second highest number of votes.
Respondent Locsin moved for suspension of the petitioners proclamation which was
granted by the Comelec 2nd division by reason of the seriousness of the
allegations. On Jun. 14, 2001, the Comelec 2 nd division issued a resolution
disqualifying the petitioner and declaring the votes casted for him stray, and
ordered the immediate proclamation of private respondent Locsin. The following
day, Locsin was proclaimed; she took her oath of office on Jun. 18, 2001 and
assumed office on Jn. 30, 2001.
Petitioner seasonably filed with the Comelec en banc a motion for reconsideration
from the resolution suspending his proclamation ordering his disqualification. The
Comelec en banc reversed the decision and annulled the proclamation of
Respondent Locsin. Respondent Locsin contended that the COMELEC lost its
jurisdiction when she was proclaimed and that it is now the HRET which has the
jurisdiction being the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, return and
qualifications of its members.
ISSUE:
Whether the proclamation of respondent Locsin divested the Comelec en banc of
jurisdiction to review its validity.
RULING:
The validity of the respondents proclamation was a core issue in the motion for
reconsideration seasonably filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner timely filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of the 2 nd division of Comelec suspending his
proclamation and disqualifying him, the Comelec en banc was not divested of its
jurisdiction to review the validity of the said order of the 2 nd division. The order was
yet unenforceable as it has not attained finality; the timely filing of the motion for
reconsideration suspends its execution. It cannot, thus, be used as the basis for the
assumption in office of the respondent as the duly elected representative of the 4 th
legislative district of leyte.
To stress again, at the time of the proclamation of respondent Locsin, the
validity of the Resolution of the Comelec 2nd division was seasonably challenged by
the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration. The issue was still within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec en banc to resolve. Hence, the HRET cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter.
FACTS:
Petitioner Guiao was one of the candidates for assemblyman in the province of
Pampanga in the May 14, 1984 elections. After canvassing of the votes, he garnered
5th place and private respondent Canlas in the 4 th place. Petitioner submitted to the
Board of Canvassers his written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election
returns from approximately 31 various voting centers of different municipalities on
the grounds of incomplete, duress, intimidation, threats, coercion, and falsified
returns. When his objection was heard, petitioner was unable to substantiate his
allegations and instead ask the Board of Canvassers to issue a subpoena to
members of the Citizens Election Committee to testify in view of his objections to
the election returns to which the Board denied. Notwithstanding his written
objection, the candidates who landed in the 1 st to 4th places (including Canlas) were
proclaimed.
Thus, on May 18, 1984, petitioner filed with the Comelec an urgent petition to
nullify the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers, and on May 22, 1984 a petition
for annulment of the proclamation of respondent Canlas contending that the
proclamation was premature considering that he objected to the inclusion of some
of the returns. The case was dismissed by the Comelec division and was appealed
by petitioner to the Comelec en banc but was denied and it upheld the validity of
the proclamation of respondent Canlas.
ISSUE:
Does petitioner still has the remedy before the Comelec after the winning
candidates have been proclaimed?
RULING:
NO. The petition to annul the proclamation and to nullify the proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers has now become moot. Petitioner had already filed with the
Comelec a verified petition, dated May 18, 1984, assailing the action taken by the
Board in refusing to issue the subpoenas for members of the Citizens Election
Committee to testify in view of his objections to the elections returns. Another
petition was later filed by him with the Comelec on May 22, 1984, to annul the
proclamation of respondent Canlas. These two petitions are no less in the nature of
an appeal from the Boards dismissal of his written objections and were already duly
resolved by the Comelec. Under the law, the Comelec shall be sole judge and shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. To set aside the
proclamation and allow the petitioner to appeal again to the COMELEC on the
dismissal of his written objections and on the proclamation of respondent Canlas as
the winning candidate would be but an exercise of redundancy. The petitioners
remedy is to file an election protest.
made for the position of Congressman; and that LDP watchers were utilized to fill up
election returns. The Board of Canvassers ruled for the inclusion of said return, and
private respondent filed on the same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling.
On May 19, 2001, the BOC proclaimed the winning candidates, including petitioner
Lee. Private respondent thus filed on May 23, 2001, before the Comelec 2 nd division
a petition assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the
questioned return and the annulment of the petitioners proclamation. The petition
was granted and it ordered the constitution of new set of BOC and directed to
prepare a new Statement of Votes for the position of mayor of Sorsogon City
excluding the questioned return. Motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Lee
was denied by the Comelec en banc.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to go beyond or behind election
returns and investigate election irregularities in pre-proclamation controversy.
RULING:
The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction, therefore, is that as long as the returns
appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the BOC cannot look
beyond or behind them to verify the allegations of irregularities in the casting or the
counting of the votes. Corollarily, technical examination of voting paraphernalia
involving analysis and comparison of voters signatures and thumbprints thereon is
prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be expeditiously
resolved without evidence of aliunde and examination of voluminous documents
which take up much time and cause delay in defeat of the public policy underlying
the summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
The foregoing doctrine presupposes that the returns appear to be authentic and
duly accomplished on their face. Where, as in the case at bar, there is a prima
facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in
the questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus
not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the questioned
election return.
Whether or not the death of the protestant in an election contest warrants the
dismissal of the case.
RULING:
No. The death of the protestant in an election contest does not automatically
warrants the dismissal of his case because an election contest is imbued with public
interest and should be pursued to its final conclusions to determine the bona fide
winner.
P5,000.00 cash deposit on June 26, 1998 and attached the corresponding receipt to
the motion for reconsideration they filed with the HRET on the same day.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was, however, denied, in view of Rule 32 of
the 1998 HRET Rules which required a P5,000.00 cash deposit in addition to filing
fees for quo warranto cases.
ISSUE:
May a petition for quo warranto before the HRET be summarily dismissed for failure
to pay cash deposit, notwithstanding that petitioner rectified payment thereof?
RULING:
Yes. The petition for quo warranto attacks the ineligibility of Cong. Angping to hold
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, not being a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines. This is a serious charge, which, if true, renders him disqualified
from such office. In view of the delicate nature and importance of this charge, the
observance of the HRET Rules of Procedure must be taken seriously if they are to
attain their objective, i.e., the speedy and orderly determination of the true will of
the electorate. Correlatively, party litigants appearing before the HRET or, to be
more precise, their lawyers, are duty bound to know and are expected to properly
comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the Tribunal without being
formally ordered to do so. They cannot righteously impute abuse of discretion to the
Tribunal if by reason of the non-observance of those requirements it decides to
dismiss their petition. Imperative justice requires the proper observance of
technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper and swift dispensation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not ballot images are secondary evidence as against the official ballot.
RULING:
The images of the abllots are elecgtronic documents that are regarded as the
equivalents of the original official ballots theselves. In Vinzons-chato v. HRET, the
Court held that the picture images of theabloots, as scanned and recorded by the
PCOS, are likewise official ballots that faithfully caputure in electronic form the
votes cast by the voter, as defined by Sec. 2(3) of RA 9369. As such, the printouts
thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters
and, thus may be used for purpose of revision of votes in an electoral protest.
That the two documents the official ballot and its picture image are
considered original documents simply means that both of them are given equal
probative weight. In short, when either is presented as evidence, one is not
considered as weightier than the other.
But this juridical entity does not authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the
Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture
images of the ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the
parties. Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the
printouts of their picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for
their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or
best evidence of the voters will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are
to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their
integrity has been compromised.