Held:

MATALAM vs. COMELEC Case Digest

MATALAM vs. COMELEC 1. No. The Omnibus Election Code defines a pre-proclamation controversy as “any
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which
271 SCRA 733 may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of
political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter
Facts: Petitioner Matalarn and Private Respondent Candao were both candidates for raised under Sections233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation,
Governor of the Province of Maguindanao in the May 1995 elections. During the transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.” The issues
canvass of the election returns in the municipalities of Datu Piang and Maganoy, raised by the petitioner are not among those enumerated under Sec. 243 of the
Petitioner challenged before the respective Municipal Boards of Canvassers the Omnibus Election Code. The enumeration therein is restrictive and exclusive.
authenticity of the election returns in said towns. The Provincial Board of Canvassers Petitioner did not claim and failed to characterize the returns as incomplete, contain
rejected the pleas of the petitioner, thus a petition for exclusion of the results of the material defects, appear to be tampered with falsified, or contain discrepancies.
said municipalities were filed before the COMELEC.
2. No. The COMELEC is not required to go beyond election returns which are on
During the pendency of the action, respondent was proclaimed duly elected governor. their face regular and authentic. The proper remedy available to the petitioner in this
The same proclamation was nullified by the second division of the COMELEC and case is election protest. Pre-proclamation controversies are to be resolved in a
thereafter reinstated the proclamation. summary proceedings and should not subject the returns to meticulous technical
examinations.Technical examination is not proper in a pre-proclamation controversy.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner and for technical examination of
signatures and thumbmarks of registered voters. The same was denied, hence a
petition for certiorari. Petitioner further claims that the returns in one municipality ABDULLAH T. MACABAGO, petitioner,
were falsified and spurious as there was actually no election conducted in that place vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JAMAEL M.
and in some precints, the number of votes exceeded the number of voters.
SALACOP, respondents.
Issues: DOCTRINE:
1. Whether or not the questioned election returns be the proper subjects of a pre- Pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited to challenges directed
proclamation controversy? against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before said Board relating to
2. Whether or not the COMELEC may go beyond the face of election returns in a pre- particular election returns to which private respondent should have made specific
proclamation case? verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing. The proceedings are summary in
nature; thus, the reception of evidence aliunde,e.g.,the original copies of the VRRs, is
proscribed. In fine, in pre-proclamation proceedings, the COMELEC is not to look
beyond or behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic
returns. Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the
resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of

1
election returns which appear to be prima facie regular, on their face, are anathema to VRRs of the questioned precincts for technical examination. Petitioner filed with the
a pre proclamation controversy. Such issues should be posed and resolved in aregular Court a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
election protest. In his petition with the COMELEC, private respondent alleged that Procedure, as amended, praying for the reversal of the February 11, 2002order of the
fraud and irregularities allegedly perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals who COMELEC En Banc
substituted for the registered voters and voted for the latter in the subject precincts, in
conspiracy with the Board of Election Inspectors, or abetted by the members thereof, ISSUE
attended the electoral process in the subject precincts. The fraud and the irregularities (a) whether petitioner's recourse to this Court under Rule 65 of the 1997Rules of
catalogued by private respondent required the reception of evidence aliunde. As Civil Procedure, as amended, is in order;
stated earlier, such grounds are not proper bases for a pre-proclamation controversy (b) whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse
but are appropriate for a regular election contest within the original jurisdiction of the of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in taking
Regional Trial Court. cognizance of the petition of private respondent and in issuing the assailed
Order |||
FACTS
Petitioner Sabdullah T. Macabago was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of HELD. The Supreme Court upheld petitioner's contention and granted the petition.
Canvassers as the winning candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor of
Saguiran, Lanao del Sur in the May 2001 elections. Private respondent Jamael M. RATIO
Salacop, the losing candidate, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections According to the Court, the grounds alleged by private respondent are
(COMELEC) against petitioner and the proclaimed Vice-Mayor and Municipal not proper bases for a pre-proclamation controversy but are appropriate for aregular
Councilors, as well as the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, to annul election contest within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. The Court
the elections and the proclamation of candidates in the Municipality of Saguiaran, stressed that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges directed against
Lanao del Sur. the Board of Canvassers and are summary in nature; thus, the reception of evidence
Private respondent alleged that there was a massive substitution of voters, aliunde e.g., the original copies of the Voter's Registration Records, is proscribed.
rampant and pervasive irregularities in voting procedures in Precincts Nos.19, 20, 28 In his petition with the COMELEC, private respondent alleged that fraud and
and 29, and a failure of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) to comply with irregularities allegedly perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals who substituted
Sections 28 and 29 of Comelec Resolution No. 3743 and Section193 of the Omnibus for the registered voters and voted for the latter in the subject precincts, in conspiracy
Election Code, thus rendering the election process in those precincts a sham and a with the Board of Election Inspectors, or abetted by the members thereof, attended
mockery and the proclamation of the winning candidates a nullity. the electoral process in the subject precincts.
Petitioner denied the truth of the material allegations in the petition and The fraud and the irregularities catalogued by private respondent required the
averred that it raised a pre-proclamation controversy. He further alleged that the reception of evidence aliunde and would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to
grounds relied upon by private respondent would be proper in an election protest but pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima facie regular and
not in a pre-proclamation controversy. The COMELEC En Banc took cognizance of authentic. Said issues, according to the court, are anathema to a pre-
the petition and issued an order directing the Election Officer of Saguiran, Lanao del proclamation controversy and should be posed and resolved in a regularelection
Sur, to bring to and produce before the COMELEC Office in Manila the original contest. The assailed order was set aside by the Court without prejudice to the filing

2
of a regular election protest, the period for the filing of which is deemed suspended proclamation as void. Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking the annulment and
by the filing of the petition before the Commission on Elections which gave rise to reversal of the Comelec order.
the present petition
ISSUES:
DISPOSITIVE PORTION 1. whether the COMELEC has the power to take cognizance of SPC No. 98-143 and
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed order is
SPC No. 98- 206
SET ASIDE. The petition of herein private respondent with the public respondent is
DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest, the period SPC No. 98-143 an "Urgent Appeal from the Decision of the Legislative District
for the filing of which is deemed suspended by the filing of the petition before the Board of Canvassers for Malabon and Navotas with Prayer for the Nullification of
Commission on Elections which gave rise to the petition at bar. the Proclamation of Federico S. Sandoval as Congressman."
SPC No. 98-206. The petition sought the annulment of petitioner's proclamation as
congressman.
SANDOVAL vs. COMELEC Case Digest 2. whether the COMELEC's order to set aside petitioner's proclamation was valid.
FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL vs. COMMISSION ON RULING:
ELECTIONS On the first issue, we uphold the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the
[G.R. No.133842. January 26, 2000] petitions filed by private respondent. The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over
all pre-proclamation controversies. As an exception, however, to the general rule,
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent herein were candidates for the Section 15 of Republic Act (RA) 7166 prohibits candidates in the presidential, vice-
congressional seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative district during the elections presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation
held on May 11, 1998. After canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, the cases. It states: "Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation cases Not Allowed in Elections for
district board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the duly elected congressman. The President, Vice-President, Senator, and Members of the House of Representatives. —
petitioner took his oath of office on the same day. Private respondent filed with the For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of
Comelec a petition, which sought the annulment of petitioner's proclamation. He the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters
alleged that there was a verbal order from the Comelec Chairman to suspend the relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election
canvass and proclamation of the winning candidate, but the district board of returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not
canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation despite the said verbal order. preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon
He also alleged that there was non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate
which would result in an incomplete canvass of the election returns. The Comelec en of canvass or election returns before it." The prohibition aims to avoid delay in the
banc issued an order setting aside the proclamation of petitioner and ruled the proclamation of the winner in the election, which delay might result in a vacuum in
these sensitive posts. The law, nonetheless, provides an exception to the exception.
The second sentence of Section 15 allows the filing of petitions for correction of

3
manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns even in elections for employee it has deputized for violation or disregard of its directive, order or decision.
president, vice-president and members of the House of Representatives for the simple In addition, the Commission also has direct control and supervision over all personnel
reason that the correction of manifest error will not prolong the process of canvassing involved in the conduct of election. However, the resolution of the adverse claims of
nor delay the proclamation of the winner in the election. This rule is consistent with private respondent and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in the
and complements the authority of the COMELEC under the Constitution to "enforce questioned certificate of canvass requires the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, behooves the Commission to hear both parties to determine the veracity of their
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" and its power to "decide, except those allegations and to decide whether the alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the
involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections." resolution of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial
power. It has been said that where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is
We now go to the second issue. Although the COMELEC is clothed with
of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a
jurisdiction over the subject matter and issue of SPC No. 98-143 and SPC No. 98-
judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-
206, we find the exercise of its jurisdiction tainted with illegality. We hold that its
judicial. The COMELEC therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the
order to set aside the proclamation of petitioner is invalid for having been rendered
requirements of procedural due process in resolving the petitions filed by private
without due process of law. Procedural due process demands prior notice and hearing.
respondent. The COMELEC order dated June 2, 1998 in SPC No. 98-143 and SPC
The facts show that COMELEC set aside the proclamation of petitioner without the
No. 98-206 is ANNULLED.
benefit of prior notice and hearing and it rendered the questioned order based solely
on private respondent's allegations.
Public respondent submits that procedural due process need not be observed
in this case because it was merely exercising its administrative power to review, VELAYO V. COMELEC
revise and reverse the actions of the board of canvassers. 327 SCRA 713
We cannot accept public respondent's argument. FACTS: The Comelec issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Velayo as
mayor. Velayo claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnished
Taking cognizance of private respondent's petitions for annulment of
any notice of the pre-proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to
petitioner's proclamation, COMELEC was not merely performing an administrative
end. All that petitioner received from the Comelec was its en banc resolution
function. The administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to
annulling his proclamation.
determine the number and location of polling places, appoint election officials and
inspectors, conduct registration of voters, deputize law enforcement agencies and HELD: Velayo is a real party-in-interest since he was the proclaimed mayor. His
government instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible non-inclusion as respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the Comelec
elections, register political parties, organizations or coalitions, accredit citizens' arms which resulted to the cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of due
of the Commission, prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President the process.
removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action upon any officer or

4
 ISSUE WON FRAUD WAS COMMITED IN THE ELECTION
HELD : The same ratio decidendi applies to the situation in the precincts herein
CASE DIGEST : LAGUMBAY VS COMELEC mentioned. These returns were obviously false or fabricated — prima facie. Let us
G.R. NO. L-25444 JANUARY 31, 1966 take for example, precinct No. 3 of Andong, Lanao del Sur. There were 648
WENCESLAO RANCAP LAGUMBAY, PETITIONER, registered voters. According to such return all the eight candidates of the Liberal
VS. Party got 648 each,3 and the eight Nacionalista candidates got exactly zero. We hold
such return to be evidently fraudulent or false because of the inherent improbability
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND CESAR of such a result — against statistical probabilities — specially because at least one
CLIMACO, RESPONDENTS. vote should have been received by the Nacionalista candidates, i.e., the vote of the
Nacionalista inspector. It is, of course, "possible" that such inspector did not like his
party's senatorial line-up; but it is not probable that he disliked all of such candidates,
and it is not likely that he favored all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party.
FACTS : This petition prays for revision of an order of the Commission on Elections Therefore, most probably, he was made to sign an obviously false return, or else he
declining to reject the returns of certain precincts of some municipalities in betrayed his party, in which case, the election therein — if any — was no more than a
Mindanao. The Constitution provides for review by this Court of the rulings of the barefaced fraud and a brazen contempt of the popular polls.
said Commission. Of course we agree that frauds in the holding of the election should be
The matter being urgent, and having reached the conclusion that the returns of certain handled — and finally settled — by the corresponding courts or electoral tribunals.
questioned precincts were "obviously manufactured" within the meaning of pertinent That is the general rule, where testimonial or documentary evidence, is necessary; but
jurisprudence, particularly Mitchell v. Stevens,1 we issued on December 24, 1965, a where the fraud is so palpable from the return itself (res ipsa loquitur — the thing
short resolution upholding the Commission's power and duty to reject the returns of speaks for itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value.
about fifty precincts. It appearing therein that — contrary to all statistical At any rate, fraud or no fraud, the verdict in these fifty precincts may
probabilities — in the first set, in each precinct the number of registered voters ultimately be ascertained before the Senate Electoral Tribunal.4 All we hold now, is
equalled the number of ballots and the number of votes reportedly cast and tallied for that the returns show "prima facie" that they do not reflect true and valid reports of
each and every candidate of the Liberal Party, the party in power; whereas, all the regular voting. The contrary may be shown by candidate Climaco — in the
candidates of the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero; and in the second set, — again corresponding election protest.
contrary to all statistical probabilities — all the reported votes were for candidates of
the Liberal Party, all of whom were credited with exactly the same number of votes in The well-known delay in the adjudication of election protests often gave the
each precinct, ranging from 240 in one precinct to 650 in another precinct; whereas, successful contestant a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of
all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party were given exactly zero in all said office is about to expire, or has expired. And so the notion has spread among
precincts. candidates for public office that the "important thing" is the proclamation; and to win

5
it, they or their partisans have tolerated or abetted the tampering or the "manufacture" DIMAPORO V. MITRA/ COMELEC
of election returns just to get the proclamation, and then let the victimized candidate
to file the protest, and spend his money to work for an empty triumph. 202 SCRA 779 / G.R. NO. 96859
OCTOBER 15, 1991
It is generally admitted that the practice has prevailed in all previous elections.
Never was the point pressed upon us in a more clear-cut manner. And without, in any
FACTS:
way, modifying our stand as outlined in the Nacionalista Party vs. Commission
decision, we feel the mores of the day require application — even extension — of the
Petitioner Mohamad Ali Dimaporo was elected Representative for the Second
principle in the Mitchell decision, which is realistic and common sensical even as it
Legislative District of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections. On 15
strikes a blow at such pernicious "grab - the - proclamation - prolong - the - protest"
January 1990, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a Certificate of Candidacy for the
slogan of some candidates or parties.
position of Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in
It is strongly urged that the results reported in these returns are quite the immediately following elections. Upon being informed of this development by the
"possible", bearing in mind the religious or political control of some leaders in the COMELEC, respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives
localities affected. We say, possible, not probable. It is possible to win the excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives
sweepstakes ten times; but not probable. Anyway, judges are not disposed to believe pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code which states:
that such "control" has proved so powerful as to convert the electors into mere sheep Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the
or robots voting as ordered. Their reason and conscience refuse to believe that 100% one which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for President and Vice-
of the voters in such precincts abjectly yet lawfully surrendered their precious President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
freedom to choose the senators of this Republic. certificate of candidacy.
Indeed, social scientists might wonder whether courts could, consistently with Having lost in the autonomous region elections, petitioner, in a letter addressed to
morality and public policy,5 render judgment acknowledging such "control" or respondent Speaker, expressed his intention "to resume performing my duties and
validating such "controlled votes" as candidate Climaco chose to call them. functions as elected Member of Congress. He maintains that he did not thereby lose
his seat as congressman because Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is not
operative under the present Constitution, being contrary thereto, and therefore not
applicable to the present members of Congress.

In support of his contention, petitioner points out that the term of office of members
of the House of Representatives, as well as the grounds by which the incumbency of
said members may be shortened, are provided for in the Constitution. Section 2,
Article XVIII thereof provides that "the Senators, Members of the House of

6
Representatives and the local officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve Article XI (1987) on "Accountability of Public Officers" states that:
until noon of June 30, 1992," while Section 7, Article VI states: "The Members of the
House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
their election. He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is repugnant to these constitutional provisions
in that it provides for the shortening of a congressman's term of office on a ground Under this commentary on accountability of public officers, the elective public
not provided for in the Constitution. officers must serve their principal, the people, not their own personal ambition.
Moreover, he claims that he cannot be said to have forfeited his seat as it is only when Petitioner failed to discern that rather than cut short the term of office of elective
a congressman holds another office or employment that forfeiture is decreed. Filing a public officials, this statutory provision (Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881)
certificate of candidacy is not equivalent to holding another office or employment. seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging
them from running for another public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by
ISSUE: making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy, they cannot go back to their
former position. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that all public officials
1. IS SECTION 67, ARTICLE IX, OF B.P. BLG. 881 OPERATIVE UNDER THE must serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle with the mandate which they
PRESENT CONSTITUTION? have received from their constituents.

2. COULD THE RESPONDENT SPEAKER AND/OR THE RESPONDENT Under the questioned provision, when an elective official covered thereby files a
SECRETARY, 'BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACT', EXCLUDE THE PETITIONER certificate of candidacy for another office, an overt, concrete act of voluntary
FROM THE ROLLS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THEREBY renunciation of the elective office presently being held, he is deemed to have
PREVENTING HIM FROM EXERCISING HIS FUNCTIONS AS voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term. Forfeiture (is) automatic and
CONGRESSMAN, AND DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES permanently effective upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another
AS SUCH? office. Only the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the certificate is filed,
the seat is forever forfeited and nothing save a new election or appointment can
HELD: restore the ousted official. The law does not make the forfeiture dependent upon
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. future contingencies, unforeseen and unforeseeable.

1. The officials running for office other than the ones they are holding will be That the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is not mentioned in
considered resigned not because of abuse of facilities of power or the use of office the Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the tenure of office of members of
facilities but primarily because under our Constitution, we have this …chapter on Congress, does not preclude its application to present members of Congress. Section
accountability of public officers (both in the 1973 and 1987 constitution). Section 1 of 2 of Article XI provides that "(t)he President, the Vice-President, the Members of the

7
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment … All other public NOTES:
officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment. Such constitutional expression clearly recognizes that the four (4) - In theorizing that the provision under consideration cuts short the term of office of a
grounds found in Article VI of the Constitution by which the tenure of a Member of Congress, petitioner seems to confuse "term" with "tenure" of office: The
Congressman may be shortened are not exclusive. The expression in the constitution term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not be extended or shortened by the
of the circumstances which shall bring about a vacancy does not preclude the legislature (22 R.C.L.), but the period during which an officer actually holds the
legislature from prescribing other grounds office (tenure) may be affected by circumstances within or beyond the power of said
officer. Tenure may be shorter than the term or it may not exist at all. These situations
Additionally, this Court has enunciated the presumption in favor of constitutionality will not change the duration of the term of office (see Topacio Nueno vs. Angeles, 76
of legislative enactment. To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear Phil 12).
and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative
implication. A doubt, even if well-founded, does not suffice. - 4 grounds found in Article VI of the Constitution by which the tenure of a
2. As administrative officers, both the Speaker and House Secretary-General perform Congressman may be shortened:
ministerial functions; It was their duty to remove petitioner's name from the Roll
considering the unequivocal tenor of Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881. When the a) Section 13, Article VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other office or
COMELEC communicated to the House of Representatives that petitioner had filed employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
his certificate of candidacy for regional governor of Muslim Mindanao, respondents including government-owned or controlled corporations or subsidiaries;
had no choice but to abide by the clear and unmistakable legal effect of Section 67, b) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly behavior;
Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881. These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the c) Section 17: Disqualification as determined by resolution of the Electoral Tribunal
ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is in an election contest; and,
obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers d) Section 7, par. 2: Voluntary renunciation of office.
were to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared
unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are
creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.

In conclusion, We reiterate the basic concept that a public office is a public trust. It is
created for the interest and benefit of the people. As such, the holder thereof is subject
to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of
any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office.

8
 MUÑOS VS COMELEC
OCAMPO VS COMELEC
432 SCRA 145, JUNE 15 2004 (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW –
DISQUALIFICATION)

FACTS: In the case at bar, private respondent, a duly elected congressman, was
declared disqualified 22 months after the May 14, 2001 elections. Petitioner avers
that, having garnered the second highest number of votes, the same should be
declared the winner in the said elections.

ISSUE: Whether or not a second placer in congressional elections can be proclaimed

the duly elected Congressman.

HELD: No, it is settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of a

candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate
who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner. The
latter could not be proclaimed winner as he could not be considered the first among
the qualified candidates.

Note: Voters are not afforded the opportunity of electing a ‘substitute congressman’
in the eventuality that their first choice dies, resigns, is disqualified, or in any other
way leaves the post vacant. There can only be one representative for that particular
legislative district. There are no runners-up or second placers. Thus, when the
person vested with the mandate of the majority is disqualified from holding the post
he was elected to, the only recourse to ascertain the new choice of the electorate is to
hold another election.

9
 During the canvassing at the Dulag Municipal Hall, Sao sought to have the contested
FULL TEXT FOR SAO JR VS COMELEC ERs excluded on the following grounds: massive fraud, illegal proceedings, and
tampered/falsified and obviously manufactured returns. He alleged that timely oral objections
were made, and the written Petition for Exclusion was filed with the Municipal Board of
This case, with records spanning nearly 2,000 pages, revolves around the simple Canvassers (MBOC)[4] on May 15, 2007 at 6:50 p.m.[5] together with affidavits prepared by
question of what issues may be properly alleged in a pre-proclamation controversy. Petitioner his brother, Tancredo A. Sao, and a certain Peter C. Alicando.[6] Upon the filing of
has valiantly and passionately argued his case and invoked every available ground to suspend the Petition for Exclusion, canvass of the contested ERs was deferred.
and annul a proclamation validly made. Unfortunately, argument is not evidence; advocacy is
not legitimacy. The mere invocation of the grounds of a pre-proclamation controversy, Sao further alleged that in the morning of May 16, 2007, Lydia Camposano
without more, will not justify the exclusion of election returns which appear regular and (Camposano), Election Officer for Dulag, and Chairperson of the MBOC, was overheard
authentic on their face. calling a certain sir over the telephone to ask for a ruling. The telephone conversation was
video recorded by Wilfredo O. Lazar (Lazar), who executed an affidavit attesting to said
This Petition for Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the occurrence.[7] Sao, through counsel, then verbally moved for the inhibition of Camposano as
Rules of Court, assails the Resolution[1] dated October 3, 2007 of the Commission on MBOC Chairman on the ground of bias and for prejudgment of the election results.
Elections (COMELEC) First Division in SPC Case No. 07-191, as well as the Camposano allegedly acknowledged that she was talking to her superior, Atty. Jose Nick
COMELEC En Bancs Resolution[2] dated February 12, 2008. Medros, Director III of Region VIII and Chairman of the Leyte Provincial Board of
Canvassers, but declined to inhibit herself until she was ordered to do so by her
Petitioner Themistocles A. Sao (Sao) was the official candidate of Lakas Christian superiors. The canvassing continued.
Muslim Democrats (LAKAS-CMD) for Municipal Mayor of At around 9:00 p.m. of May 16, 2007, Sao filed his written Petition for
the Municipality of Dulag, Leyte during the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local Inhibition together with the affidavit of Lazar, reiterating his request for the inhibition of the
elections.[3] Private respondent Manuel Sia Que (Que) ran for the same position under the MBOC Chair.[8] At midnight of May 16, 2007, Camposano inhibited herself and declared the
auspices of the Liberal Party. canvassing temporarily adjourned.
Petitioners Factual Allegations At around 5:00 p.m. of May 17, 2007, Sao received a copy of the COMELEC
Regional Offices Memorandum designating Ferdinand Serrano (Serrano) as the Acting
Sao alleged that after the casting and counting of votes, at about midnight of May 14, Election Officer and MBOC Chairperson.[9] Canvassing resumed at about 6:00 p.m. of May
2007, a man was seen carrying a ballot box that was not locked; he then inserted certain 17, 2007, during which Serrano verbally ruled that the contested ERs would be
documents in said ballot box, took the aluminum seal, sealed the box, and then turned it over opened. Serrano promised that this ruling would be put in writing within 24 hours. Thereafter,
to the Reception Group. The election returns (ERs) allegedly affected by this anomalous petitioner, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal at 5:00 a.m. of May 18, 2007[10] covering
activity were ER Nos. 5301624, 5301603, 5301633, 5301602, and 5301668 (the contested the contested ERs.
ERs) for Precinct Nos. 49-A, 31-A, 58-A, 30-A, and 90-A, respectively (the questioned
precincts). Finally, Sao claimed that instead of suspending the canvass as required by law and
the canvassing rules, Serrano proceeded to hastily open and canvass the contested

10
ERs. Despite the filing of petitioners Notice of Appeal, and the fact that the exclusion of the the submission of Ques comment. On May 16, 2007 at 10:49 a.m., Que submitted his
contested ERs would materially affect the results of the election,[11] the MBOC neither made written Opposition.[18]
a written ruling nor elevated the appeal to the COMELEC together with the MBOCs report At around 9:17 p.m. of May 16, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for Inhibition of
and records of the case. Instead, the MBOC proclaimed Que as Municipal Mayor. Camposano.[19] Subsequently, at 12:30 a.m. of May 17, 2007, Camposano manifested that
she would inhibit herself as MBOC Chairperson.[20] At 1:12 a.m. of May 17, 2007,
Private Respondents Factual Allegations canvassing was temporarily adjourned to await the appointment of a new MBOC
Chairperson.[21]
On the other hand, Que alleged that in the early morning of May 15, 2007, the Canvassing resumed at 5:55 p.m. of May 17, 2007, when the MBOC was reconvened with
MBOC of Dulag, Leyte, convened and started to canvass the ERs.[12] At around 3:46 Serrano as Acting Chairperson[22] at which time, 25 precincts were not yet canvassed. Serrano
a.m. of May 15, 2007, the ER from Precinct No. 30-A was temporarily set aside because of explained that he was required by law to finish the canvass, and that the BEIs assigned to the
lack of data on the number of registered voters, voters who actually voted, and excess and various questioned precincts would be summoned. He also stated that these allegations cant
rejected ballots. At the time that this ER was opened, no objection to its inclusion was be determined if we wont open the election returns x x x the BOC will ascertain if the
made.[13] election return has been tampered [with]. We will see if statistical data of ballots are filled out
and [ask] the BEI to correct the statistical data about the ballots which were not correct.[23]
At around 6:15 a.m. of May 15, 2007, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) from At 3:00 a.m. of May 18, 2007, all ERs for the municipality had been canvassed and
Precinct No. 30-A appeared before the MBOC to complete the data. This time counsel for the canvassing was ordered terminated.[30]
Sao complained that the LAKAS-CMD copy had imprints but BEI Chairperson Ruel
Congzon explained that the imprints were due to the carbonized duplicate forms, and that the COMELEC Proceedings
copies given to the various political parties were borrowed by the watchers so they could
copy the election results. Not finding the explanation satisfactory, counsel for petitioner On May 28, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation and/or
moved for the exclusion of said ER because of material defects in the return. Camposano Proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Dulag, Leyte, before the COMELEC,
ruled that the ER from Precinct No. 30-A would be set aside until the submission of which was docketed as SPC Case No. 07-191 and raffled to the First Division.[31] This
petitioners written objection.[14] petition was amended on July 12, 2007 by impleading Que as a necessary party.[32] In the
meantime, Que assumed his position on June 30, 2007.
Meanwhile, at around 5:20 a.m. of May 15, 2007, petitioners counsel verbally moved In his petition, Sao argued that the MBOC violated Section 20, Republic Act (RA)
for the exclusion of the ERs from Precinct Nos. 31-A, 49-A, and 58-A on the ground that the No. 7166[33] and Section 39 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7859.[34] Petitioner also sought to
ballot boxes were opened. The ERs were set aside and the members of the BEI from said exclude the contested ERs from the canvass, on the ground that these were tampered with or
precincts were summoned to appear before the MBOC.[15] At around 6:30 p.m. of May 15, obviously manufactured. Finally, he also sought that he be declared and proclaimed, after the
2007, counsel for petitioner likewise orally objected to the inclusion of the ER from Precinct exclusion of the contested ERs, as the winning candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor
No. 90-A on the ground that it had been tampered with and contained many of that municipality.
erasures.[16] At 6:50 p.m. of May 15, 2007, petitioners counsel submitted a written Petition Que filed his Answer to the petition on July 26, 2007.[35] The MBOC, through Serrano, filed
for Exclusion of the five contested ERs.[17] Canvass of the contested ERs was deferred until a separate Consolidated Answer dated July 25, 2007.[36] After hearing the case on August 1
and 13, 2007, the COMELEC First Division directed the parties to submit their respective

11
memoranda.[37] Thereafter, the COMELEC issued its Resolution dated October 3, affidavits of his two (2) supporters, who attested that they saw open ballot
2007 upholding the proclamation of Que:[38] boxes from Precinct Nos. 49A, 31A, and 58A. A painstaking examination of
the records, however, shows that petitioner miserably failed to substantiate
x x x A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or his allegations that the election returns were obviously manufactured,
affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by tampered with, that massive fraud attended the preparation thereof, and that
any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political the proceedings of the board were illegal.
parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter
raised under Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code There is an avalanche of jurisprudence which states that to justify the
in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation exclusion of election returns, the allegations that the election returns were
of election returns. On the other hand, Section 243 of the Omnibus Election obviously manufactured must be evident from the face of the said
Code enumerates the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation documents. In the case at point, however, a meticulous examination of the
controversy, viz: contested election returns copies for the Commission, as well as the copy for
the dominant majority party indubitably showed that there is neither a
1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; compelling nor cogent reason to warrant their exclusion.
2. The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in In the same vein, petitioner failed not only to adduce evidence but [also[ to
the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections prove his allegation of massive fraud or illegality of the proceedings of the
233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code; board. A contrario, the MBoC had done nothing [amiss.Rather it tolerated]
3. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, maximum x x x liberal interpretation of election laws in favor of the
or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and petitioner for, despite the clear absence of an issue cognizable as a pre-
4. When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling proclamation controversy and non-compliance with the rule on submission
places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing on petitions or objections before it, the board both under the chairmanship of
of the aggrieved candidate. Camposano and Serrano [allowed] the petitioner x x x to submit his
petition. [It also addressed] the issues/concerns raised, as shown in the
It is likewise settled that the above enumeration of the grounds that [many] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Board. The Board is correct in not giving
be properly raised in a pre-proclamation controversy is restrictive and credence to petitioners petition for exclusion [of the questioned returns] as it
exclusive. has been shown that there are no valid grounds raised thereon which falls
within the ambit of Section 234 of the Election Code.
In the case at bar, as borne out by the records, petitioner anchors his petition Petitioner moved for reconsideration[39] but the motion was denied by the
for the exclusion of the election returns from Precinct Nos. 49A, 31A, 58A, COMELEC En Banc on February 12, 2008.[40] Hence, this petition.
31A, and 90A on the following grounds: that the election returns were (1)
obviously manufactured; (2) tampered or falsified; [3]that there was massive The Parties Arguments
fraud; and [4] illegal proceedings. In support thereto, petitioner attached the

12
 Petitioner insists that all five contested ERs were written by only one person, and of irregularity that are not apparent on the face of ERs that appear otherwise authentic and
these ERs were surreptitiously presented before the MBOC. Thus, he argues that the issues duly accomplished.[44]
raised before the MBOC, namely, that the contested ERs were tampered with and/or falsified,
obviously manufactured, and subject of massive fraud, are pre-proclamation controversies as Consistent with the summary character and limited scope of a pre-proclamation
defined in Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code and fall within the contemplation of controversy, Section 20 of RA 7166 lays down the procedure to be followed when ERs are
Section 243(b) of said Code. As such, the contested ERs should have been excluded from the contested before the BOC.[45] Compliance with this procedure is mandatory, so as to permit
canvass.Consequently, the MBOCs proclamation of Que violated Section 39 of the BOC to resolve the objections as quickly as possible. Thus, we held in Siquian, Jr. v.
Commonwealth Act No. 7859 and Section 20 of RA 7166. Commission on Elections[46] that:

On the other hand, Que argues that the allegations raised by petitioner on the Compliance with the period set for objections on exclusion and inclusion of
contested ERs are not proper in a pre-proclamation controversy; that petitioner failed to election returns is mandatory. Otherwise, to allow objections after the
substantiate his claim that the contested ERs were obviously manufactured, tampered with, or canvassing would be to open the floodgates to schemes designed to delay the
falsified; and that petitioner failed to follow the strict and mandatory procedure under Section proclamation and frustrate the electorates will by some candidates who feel that
20 of RA 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. 8969 for manifesting an appeal. the only way to fight for a lost cause is to delay the proclamation of the winner.
Our Ruling It should be noted that proceedings before the Board of Canvassers is summary
in nature which is why the law grants the parties a short period to
The petition is without merit. submit objections and the Board a short period to rule on matters brought to
them. x x x[47]
A pre-proclamation controversy, as defined in Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 881, Section 20 of RA 7166 and Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution 2962 provide that
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, is: any candidate may contest the inclusion of an ER by making an oral objection at the time the
questioned return is submitted for canvass; the objecting party shall also submit his objections
any question pertaining to or affecting the proceeding of the board of in writing simultaneously with the oral objections. The BOC shall consider the written
canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered objections and opposition, if any, and summarily rule on the petition for exclusion. Any party
political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with adversely affected by such ruling must immediately inform the BOC if he intends to appeal
the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 such ruling.
in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appearance
of the election returns.[41] After the BOC rules on the contested returns and canvasses all the uncontested
returns, it shall suspend the canvass. Any party adversely affected by the ruling has 48 hours
Procedural Matters to file a Notice of Appeal; the appeal shall be filed within five days. Upon receipt of the notice
of appeal, the BOC will make its report to the COMELEC, and elevate the records and
It is settled that a pre-proclamation controversy is summary in character;[42] indeed, it is the evidence.
policy of the law that pre-proclamation controversies be promptly decided, so as not to delay Moreover, pursuant to Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code, in cases where the
canvass and proclamation.[43] The Board of Canvassers (BOC) will not look into allegations ERs appear to have been tampered with, altered or falsified, the COMELEC shall examine

13
the other copies of the questioned returns and, if the other copies are likewise tampered with, Petitioner anchors his claim of falsification and tampering on the
altered, falsified, or otherwise spurious, after having given notice to all candidates and allegation that the genuine ERs were replaced with manufactured returns, as
satisfied itself that the integrity of the ballot box and of the ballots therein have been duly
evidenced by the purported similarity in handwriting of the contested
preserved, shall order a recount of the votes cast, prepare a new return which shall be used by
the BOC as basis for the canvass, and direct the proclamation of the winner accordingly. ERs. Essentially, petitioner argues that the contested ERs cannot be trusted
Based on the records of this case, we find that petitioner failed to timely make his because all five of the contested ERs were prepared by one person; thus, no
objections to the contested ERs. copy of the return can be trusted and there must be a recount of the ballots. He
claims that
However, only one written petition for exclusion was filed for the five contested
ERs at 6:50 p.m. of May 15, 2007.[53] Of course the law does not intend that election lawyers
the copies of the questioned election returns for both the
submit their written objections at exactly the same second as their oral manifestation;
however, a lapse of over 12 hours, long after the ERs have been presented for canvass, is dominant majority party as well as submitted to COMELEC and
simply inexplicable and unacceptable. that of the dominant minority party, are duplicate copies of the
original which are equally tainted with irregularity.
It is also irregular that counsel for petitioner lumped all the objections into one Unfortunately, petitioner has failed to substantiate these
petition for exclusion. We recognize that this is commonplace among election practitioners, allegations. On this, the COMELEC En Banc ruled:
intended for the convenience of the advocate. However, in cases like these, where each
x x x First, We cannot give due credence to the affidavits of Mr.
ground for exclusion is separate and distinct, merging written objections leads to unnecessary
chaos in proceedings before the MBOC, and is here - as a disservice to the clients. Peter Alicando and Mr. Tancredo Sao considering the infirm
No evidence that the election returns were nature of affidavits. Second, affiant Sao is the brother of herein
falsified or tampered with. petitioner and his affidavit may most likely be considered as self-
serving.
While we are willing to overlook the procedural lapses committed by the petitioner his
manifestation and subsequent Notice of Appeal do not serve to overturn the assailed
In Salafranca v. Philamlife (Pamplona) Village
Resolutions. We find that the MBOC did not err in proclaiming the private respondent, since
the unsubstantiated issues raised by the petitioner were not proper for a pre-proclamation Homeowners Association, Inc., the Supreme Court held:
controversy. As we explained, claims that contested ERs are obviously manufactured or
falsified must be evident from the face of the said documents themselves.[54] But counsel for It is settled that no undue importance should be
petitioner herself admitted that on their face, the ERs were okey. Contrary to petitioners given to a sworn statement of affidavit as piece of
passionate remonstrations, there is absolutely no indication that the contested ERs were evidence because, being taken ex parte, an affidavit
falsified or tampered with. As such, there was no valid ground to delay the proclamation. is almost always incomplete and inaccurate.

14
 Nevertheless, the crux of the affidavits above-mentioned First, LAKAS-CMD was the dominant majority party in 2007.[57] As
pertains to the alleged opening of a ballot box by a man who such, its watchers would have been given a copy of the ERs in the questioned
placed several documents therein. While a picture was attached precincts by the BEI itself. It was never claimed that LAKAS-CMD never
to show a person purportedly placing something inside a ballot received its copy of the ERs. It seems rather incredulous, therefore, that ALL
box, it is not safe to assume that some irregularity indeed took the ERs from the questioned precincts were allegedly surreptitiously replaced.
place. What is worth noting is the fact that while petitioner Second, official watchers from the camps of both LAKAS-CMD and
claims massive fraud and tampering, the pieces of evidence only petitioner had the opportunity to take down the tally of votes and obtain a
show a single ballot box being opened by an unknown person Certificate of Votes from the BEI.Despite this, there has been no allegation that
that is for one (1) precinct alone and definitely not for five (5) the votes recorded in favor of petitioner were not the true votes cast in the
precincts as claimed by the petitioner. This notwithstanding, it is election.
submitted that the ground relied upon may best be addressed in a Third, the members of the BEI from the questioned precincts
protest case. themselves affirmed that they prepared the contested ERs.
Fourth, petitioner never deigned to present any proof on his claim of
xxxx similarity in handwriting no expert opinions, no testimony, no technical
examination. Unfortunately, it is not at all evident from the returns that these
Finally, an examination of the contested election returns were manufactured or fabricated. Unlike a pre-proclamation controversy, the
will show that the same appear to be regular and devoid of any annulment proceedings before the COMELEC were not summary in
signs of tampering or that the same were manufactured. The character;[58] petitioner had every opportunity to ventilate his case and
allegation that the same were written by one hand does not hold substantiate his allegations before the Commission below. This
water. x x x[55] (citations omitted) notwithstanding, petitioner failed to present any evidence sufficient to
overcome the presumption that the contested ERs were valid.
Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court is
bound to rely on the findings and conclusions of the COMELEC - the WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for
authority tasked by the Constitution to administer and enforce election laws.[56] lack of merit. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections First Division
dated October 3, 2007 in SPC Case No. 07-191 dismissing petitioners Petition
At any rate, even if we take a second look at the facts, petitioner has still for Annulment of Proclamation and/or Proceedings of the Municipal Board of
not proven that the ERs were spurious, falsified, or manufactured. Consider the Canvassers of Dulag, Leyte, and the Resolution of the Commission on
following: Elections En Banc dated February 12, 2008 denying petitioners motion for
reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
15
 1302A 1303A 1304A 1305A 1306A 1307A 1307B

FULL TEXT FOR REGIO VS COMELEC Co, Ronnie C. 76 113 48 99 336

Regio, Jaime C. 171 151 73 83 478
The Case
On November 4, 2010, Co filed an election protest before the MeTC. He
This petition for certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65,
claimed, among other things, that the Board of Election Tellers (BET)
seeks to nullify and set aside the Resolution dated December 7, 2012 of
did not follow COMELEC Resolution No. 9030, as it: (1) did not permit
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC_ EN Banc in EAC (BRGY-
his supporters to vote; (2) allowed "flying voters" to cast votes; and (3)
SK) No. 161-2011. The assailed Resolution reversed and set aside the
ignored the rules on appreciation of ballots, resulting in misreading,
Resolution of the COMELEC First Division dated August 23, 2011,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots. Additionally, he alleged that
which, in turn, affirmed the May 4, 2011 Decision in Election Case No.
Regio committed vote-buying, and engaged in distribution of sample
02480-EC of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 4 in Manila.
ballots inside the polling centers during the day of the elections.2
The Facts
Of the seven clustered precincts (CPs) initially protested, Co would later
Petitioner Jaime C. Regio (Regio) and private respondent Ronnie C. Co exclude CP Nos. 1304A and 1305A from the protest. During the
(Co), among other candidates, ran in the October 25, 2010 barangay preliminary conference, the trial court allowed the revision of ballots.
elections in Barangay 296, Zone 28, District III of the City of Manila for The revision of ballots occurred on January 13-14, 2011.3 Per the report
the position of punong barangay. Immediately following the counting and of the revision committee, the number of votes obtained by both
canvassing of the votes from seven clustered precincts in the adverted candidates in the contested precincts, as shown below, indicated a
barangay, Regio, who garnered four hundred seventy-eight (478) votes, substantial recovery on the part of Co:
as against the three hundred thirty-six (336) votes obtained by Co, was
1âwphi1
proclaimed winner for the contested post of punong barangay. The
detailed tally of the votes per precinct, as reflected in the Statement of Candidate Clustered Precinct Number Total
Votes, is as follows:1 1âwphi1 1302A 1303A 1304A 1305A 1306A 1307A 1307B

Candidate Clustered Precinct Number Total Co, Ronnie C. 160 -- 63 98 321

Regio, Jaime C. 86 -- 62 84 232

16
During his turn to present evidence, Co limited his offer to the revision According to the trial court, before it can accord credence to the results of
committee report, showing that he garnered the highest number of votes. the revision, it should first be ascertained that the ballots found in the box
Regio, on the other hand, denied that the elections were tainted with during the revision are the same ballots deposited by the voters. In fine,
irregularities. He claimed that the results of the revision are products of the court "should first be convinced that the ballots counted during the
post-elections operations, as the ballots were tampered with, switched, revision have not been tampered with before it can declare the ballots a)
and altered drastically to change the results of the elections. He presented as superior evidence of how the electorate voted, and b) as sufficient
as witnesses the following: poll watchers Evangeline Garcia, Cezar evidence to set aside the election returns. For the ballots to be considered
Regio, and Ruben Merilles, who all testified that there were no instances the best evidence of how the voters voted, their integrity should be
of electoral fraud, irregularities, and anomalies during the day of the satisfactorily established."6 Invoking Rosal v. COMELEC,7 the trial court
elections. Presented too were volunteers Love Agpaoa and Romy Que, ruled that Co failed to sufficiently show that the integrity of the contested
who belied allegations of miscounting, misreading, and misappreciation ballots had been preserved. It then cited the presumption that election
of the ballots during the counting, and Dominador Dela Cruz, returns are genuine, and that the data and information supplied by the
Chairperson of the BET for CP Nos. 1302A/1303A, as well as Erlina board of election inspectors are true and correct.8
Hernandez, Chairperson of the BET for CP No. 1306A, who both
testified that they followed the rules and regulations in conducting the The trial court said:
elections in Barangay 296, and that each ballot was correctly tabulated.4
A closer scrutiny of the premise made by the protestant will reveal that
The results of the revision notwithstanding, the trial court, in its Decision he is trying to prove the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of
of May 4, 2011, dismissed Co’s protest and declared Regio as the duly- ballots by introducing as evidence the marked difference of the results of
elected punong barangay of Barangay 296. It disposed of the case, as the revision and of the results in the election returns. This premise is too
follows: presumptuous. The marked difference cannot be used to prove the
misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots because the
WHEREFORE, the proclamation of protestee Jaime C. Regio as the duly misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots is precisely what
elected "Punong Barangay" or "Barangay Chairman" of Barangay 296, the protestant needs to prove to justify the marked difference in the
District III, Manila by the Barangay Board of Canvassers is affirmed by results. Prudence dictates that the protestant should first explain where
this court. The election protest filed by the protestant Ronnie C. Co is this huge discrepancy is coming from before using it as evidence. In
dismissed for lack of merit.5 other words, the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots
should be proven by other independent evidence. Without any evidence,

17
the allegation of misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots 4.) In declaring that the votes obtained by the parties in Precinct
remains a mere allegation without any probative value.9 Nos. 1302A/1303A and 1306A as reflected in their respective
Election Returns are [the] true and actual results of the elections;
Traversing the allegations of post-elections tampering, the trial court
rejected Co’s allegation that the ballot boxes were properly locked and 5.) In giving weight to the incredulous and conflicting testimonies
sealed. In fact, the trial court said, the envelope containing the ballots for of the obviously biased witnesses of the protestee-appellee;
CP Nos. 1302A/1303A was glued on both sides, prompting protestee’s
revisor to comment that the envelope appears to be re-pasted and 6.) In refusing to lend credence to the testimony of the expert
tampered. In CP No. 1306A, the report stated that the ballots were not witness from the Commission on Elections that the ballots
placed in a sealed envelope.10Corollarily, the trial court stated the obtained from Precinct Nos. 1302A/1303A and 1306A are genuine
observation that Regio has presented credible witnesses to prove that ballots; and
there were no irregularities or anomalies during the casting and counting
of votes. Aggrieved, Co filed an appeal before the COMELEC, arguing 7.) In refusing to appreciate the contested and revised ballots for
that the trial court erred: Precinct Nos. 1302A/1303A and 1306A and the appreciation of the
contested ballots found in Precinct No. 1307A/1307B.11
1.) In disregarding the result of the physical count of the revised
ballots found in Precinct Nos. 1302A/1303A and 1306A; In a Resolution dated August 23, 2011, the COMELEC First
Division12 dismissed the appeal, noting, as the MeTC did, that Co failed
2.) In declaring that the protestant appellant was not able to to show that the integrity of the ballots in question was in fact preserved.
sufficiently show that the integrity of the contested ballots in Echoing the trial court, the COMELEC First Division ruled that the
Precinct Nos. 1302A/1303A and 1306A was preserved; absence of any report or record of tampering of the ballot boxes does not
preclude the possibility of ballot tampering.13
3.) In declaring that protestant-appellant was not able to overcome
the presumption of regularity of the election, counting, and It also affirmed the rejection of Co’s reliance on the revision committee
canvassing proceedings in the protested precincts of Barangay 296, report as proof that no post-election tampering occurred. The COMELEC
Manila; First Division observed:

We note that protestant-appellant did not offer any evidence to prove his
claims of misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of the ballots; he

18
posits that the variance between the election results according to the another, the electoral malfeasance or misfeasance allegedly committed by
election documents and the revision of the ballots is in itself enough to the BET. In dismissing the arguments of Co for his failure to present
prove his allegations of misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of evidence, the COMELEC commented, "[I]t appears that protestant-
the ballots by the Board of Election Tellers. Protestant-appellant begs the appellant [Co] rested on laurels after seeing the result of the physical
question instead of laying support to his claims. x x x x Since it could not count of the revised ballots and the conclusion of the Technical
divine the will of the electorate from the ballots, the trial court had no Examination. In fine, protestant-appellant proverbially lost the war for
other recourse other than to rely on the available election documents. want of a nail."15
And, We cannot fault the trial court for doing so when there was no
question as to the election documents’ authenticity and validity. The fallo of the COMELEC First Division Resolution reads:
Protestant-appellant harps that the election documents are "mere by-
products of the electoral fraud committed to benefit (protestee-appellee) WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (First Division)
including but not limited to misreading, miscounting, and RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to DENY the protestant’s Appeal
misappreciation of ballots by the Chairpersons of the Board of Election for LACK OF MERIT. The Decision dated 04 May 2011 by
Tellers in order to increase the votes of the Protestee-Appellee and Metropolitan Trial Court – Branch 04 City of Manila is hereby
decrease the votes that should have been properly credited to Protestant- AFFIRMED.16
Appellant Co."
(emphasis in the original) Co then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In its assailed December 7,
2012 Resolution, the COMELEC En Banc17reconsidered the August 23,
As previously mentioned, protestant-appellant’s assertion is specious x x 2011 Resolution of the First Division, and accordingly declared Co as the
x. The records of the case is bereft of any evidence supporting protestant- duly elected punong barangay. Vital to the En Banc’s disposition is its
appellant’s claims of electoral fraud and, thus, We concur with the trial finding that the ballots subjected to revision were genuine. The En Banc
court stating, "(w)ithout any evidence, the allegation of misreading, found:
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots remains a mere allegation
without probative value."14 x x x [W]e find merit in appellant’s motion for reconsideration. For,
protestant [Co] has sufficiently established that no untoward incident had
The COMELEC First Division noted that Co could have, but did not, attended the preservation of the ballots after the termination of the
presented testimonies of witnesses to substantiate his claims of electoral proceedings of the Board of Election Tellers or from the time the custody
fraud, albeit he attached affidavits of various witnesses in his protest. The of the ballot boxes is transferred from the BET to the City Treasurer and
affidavits, the COMELEC First Division said, asserted, in one form or finally to the trial court. Protestee who cried post-election fraud is duty-

19
bound to establish that the genuine ballots found inside the boxes were of the COMELEC giving precedence to the results of the revision over
compromised and tampered at any time during that period and before the the official canvassing results.
revision. However, no such proof has been adduced by protestee except
the discrepancy between the figures in the ERs and the physical count on The Issues
revision. But then, said discrepancy could have been caused by errors in
the transposition of the numbers from the ballots to the ERs during the I. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED
canvassing and not due to tampering. As earlier intimated, the GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
discrepancy could be attributed to ER manipulation during the EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT PRIVATE
canvassing and not because of the tampering of the ballots which were RESPONDENT CO HAD SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE
already found by an expert and independent body to be genuine and BURDEN OF PROVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BALLOTS
authentic.18 SUBJECTED TO REVISION. II. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT
COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
The fallo of the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution reads: AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
REVERSING THE RULING OF THE COMELEC FIRST DIVISION,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED as it TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONER REGIO IS THE DULY-
hereby RESOLVES to reconsider its Resolution dated August 23, 2011 ELECTED PUNONG BARANGAY.
and proclaim protestant-appellant as the duly elected Punong Barangay
of Barangay 296, District III, Manila.19 The Court’s Ruling

Thus, the present recourse, on the argument that the COMELEC En Banc At the outset, it must be noted that the protest case is dismissible for
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of being moot and academic. A case becomes moot when there is no more
jurisdiction when it arbitrarily set aside the Decision of the MeTC and the actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served
Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, in the choice between the in passing upon the merits. Generally, courts will not determine a moot
revision results in the protested precincts and the official vote count question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.20
recorded in the election returns. Petitioner further argues that the
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it demanded from In Malaluan v. COMELEC,21 this Court settled the matter on when an
protestee direct proof of actual tampering of ballots to justify election protest case becomes moot and academic:
consideration of the use of the election returns in determining the
winning candidate in the elections. In fine, petitioner questions the ruling

20
When the appeal from a decision in an election case has already become that the grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC En Banc,
moot, the case being an election protest involving the office of mayor the specifically in ignoring the rules on evidence, merits consideration. Still
term of which had expired, the appeal is dismissible on that ground, in line with the Court’s decision in Malaluan22 to the effect that the Court
unless the rendering of a decision on the merits would be of practical can decide on the merits a moot protest if there is practical value in so
value. (emphasis added) doing, We find that the nullification of the COMELEC En Banc’s
Resolution is in order, due to its gross contravention of established rules
In the case now before the Court, the position involved is that of a on evidence in election protest cases. We shall discuss the issues jointly,
punong barangay. The governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No. related as they are to the finding of the COMELEC En Banc giving
(RA) 9164, as amended by RA 9340. Sec. 4 of the law states: primacy to the results of the revision proceedings over the results of the
canvassing as reflected in the election returns.
Sec. 4. Assumption of Office. - The term of office of the barangay and
sangguniang kabataan officials elected under this Act shall commence on The doctrine in Rosal v. COMELEC23 and considering the results of the
August 15, 2002, next following their elections. The term of office of the revision vis-à-vis the results reflected in the official canvassing In Rosal,
barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials elected in the October 2007 this Court summarized the standards to be observed in an election contest
election and subsequent elections shall commence at noon of November predicated on the theory that the election returns do not accurately reflect
30 next following their election. (emphasis added) the will of the voters due to alleged irregularities in the appreciation and
counting of ballots. These guiding standards are:
The court takes judicial notice of the holding of barangay elections last
October 28, 2013. Following the elections, the new set of barangay (1) The ballots cannot be used to overturn the official count as
officials already assumed office as of noon of November 30, 2013. It reflected in the election returns unless it is first shown
goes without saying, then, that the term of office of those who were affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a care
elected during the October 2010 barangay elections also expired by noon which precludes the opportunity of tampering and suspicion of
on November 30, 2013. In fine, with the election of a new punong change, abstraction or substitution;
barangay during the October 28, 2013 elections, the issue of who the
rightful winner of the 2010 barangay elections has already been rendered (2) The burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been
moot and academic. Notwithstanding the mootness of the case, We find preserved in such a manner is on the protestant;
the need to decide the petition on its merits, in view of the finding of the
COMELEC En Banc that protestant Co should have been declared the (3) Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law,
winner for the post of punong barangay for the term 2010-2013. We find proof must be made of such substantial compliance with the

21
 requirements of that mode as would provide assurance that the happens in the event of discrepancy between the revision results and the
ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations election returns is that the burden of proof shifts to the protestee to
from the precise mode of achieving that end; provide evidence of actual tampering of the ballots, or at least a
likelihood of tampering. It is only when the court or the COMELEC is
(4) It is only when the protestant has shown substantial compliance fully satisfied that the ballots have been well preserved, and that there
with the provisions of law on the preservation of ballots that the had been no tampering of the ballots, that it will accord credibility to the
burden of proving actual tampering or likelihood thereof shifts to results of the revision. In Varias v. COMELEC, the Court said:
the protestee; and
The Rosal ruling, to be sure, does not involve issues merely related to the
(5) Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court of COMELEC appreciation or calibration of evidence; its critical ruling is on the
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it adopt propriety of relying on the revision of ballot results instead of the election
the result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in the returns in the proclamation of a winning candidate. In deciding this issue,
election returns. In the same case, the Court referred to various what it notably established was a critical guide in arriving at its
provisions in the Omnibus Election Code providing for the safe- conclusion – the need to determine whether the court or the COMELEC
keeping and preservation of the ballots, more specifically Secs. looked at the correct considerations in making its ruling.24 This Court had
160, 217, 219, and 220 of the Code. long stated that "[u]pholding the sovereignty of the people is what
democracy is all about. When the sovereignty of the people expressed
Rosal was promulgated precisely to honor the presumption of regularity thru the ballot is at stake, it is not enough for this Court to make a
in the performance of official functions. Following Rosal, it is presumed statement but it should do everything to have that sovereignty obeyed by
that the BET and Board of Canvassers had faithfully performed the all. Well done is always better than well said."25
solemn duty reposed unto them during the day of the elections. Thus,
primacy is given to the official results of the canvassing, even in cases This is really what the Rosal doctrine is all about. The Rosal doctrine
where there is a discrepancy between such results and the results of the ensures that in election protest cases, the supreme mandate of the people
revision proceedings. It is only when the protestant has successfully is ultimately determined. In laying down the rules in appreciating the
discharged the burden of proving that the re-counted ballots are the very conflicting results of the canvassing and the results of a revision later
same ones counted during the revision proceedings, will the court or the made, the Court has no other intention but to determine the will of the
Commission, as the case may be, even consider the revision results. Even electorate. The Rosal doctrine is also supplemented by A.M. No. 07-4-
then, the results of the revision will not automatically be given more 15-SC,26 establishing the following disputable presumptions:
weight over the official canvassing results or the election returns. What

22
SEC. 6. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are did not present any testimonial evidence to prove that the election
considered as facts, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence: paraphernalia inside the protested ballot boxes had been preserved. He
(a) On the election procedure: (1) The election of candidates was held on mainly relied on the report of the revision committee. There was no
the date and time set and in the polling place determined by the independent, direct or indirect, evidence to prove the preservation of the
Commission on Elections; (2) The Boards of Election Inspectors were ballots and other election paraphernalia. This leads Us to no other
duly constituted and organized; (3) Political parties and candidates were conclusion but that respondent Co failed to discharge his burden under
duly represented by pollwatchers; (4) Pollwatchers were able to perform the Rosal doctrine. With no independent evidence to speak of, respondent
their functions; and (5) The Minutes of Voting and Counting contains all Co cannot simply rely on the report of the revision committee, and from
the incidents that transpired before the Board of Election Inspectors. (b) there conclude that the report itself is proof of the preservation of the
On election paraphernalia: (1) Ballots and election returns that bear the ballots. What he needs to provide is evidence independent of the revision
security markings and features prescribed by the Commission on proceedings. Without any such evidence, the Court or the COMELEC, as
Elections are genuine; (2) The data and information supplied by the the case may be, will be constrained to honor the presumption established
members of the Boards of Election Inspectors in the accountable forms in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, that the data and information supplied by the
are true and correct; and (3) The allocation, packing and distribution of members of the Boards of Election Inspectors in the accountable forms
election documents or paraphernalia were properly and timely done. (c) are true and correct.
On appreciation of ballots: (1) A ballot with appropriate security
markings is valid; (2) The ballot reflects the intent of the voter; (3) The Respondent Co admits having, under the Rosal doctrine, the burden of
ballot is properly accomplished; (4) A voter personally prepared one proving the preservation of the ballots, and corollarily, that their integrity
ballot, except in the case of assistors; and (5) The exercise of one’s right have not been compromised before the revision proceedings. He,
to vote was voluntary and free. however, argues that he had successfully discharged that burden. And
how? First, he pointed out that from the moment the various BETs
Private respondent Co has not proved that the integrity of the ballots has placed the counted official ballots inside the ballot boxes until they were
been preserved Applying Rosal, viewed in conjunction with A.M. No. transported for canvassing, and until they were transmitted to the
07-4-15-SC, this Court rules that the COMELEC En Banc committed Election Officer/City Treasurer of Manila for storage and custody, no
grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent had irregularities or ballot-box snatching were reported; neither was there any
successfully discharged the burden of proving that the ballots counted news or record of ballot box tampering in the protested precincts. Second,
during the revision proceedings are the same ballots cast and counted no untoward incident or irregularity which may taint or affect the
during the day of the elections. That is the essence of the second integrity of the ballot boxes was ever reported when they were
paragraph in the Rosal doctrine. It is well to note that the respondent Co transported to the storage area of the trial court. Third, the storage place
23
of the ballot boxes was at all times tightly secured, properly protected, all was presented by respondent Co during the proceedings in the trial
and well safeguarded. Fourth, all the protested ballot boxes were court. The Court reminds respondent Co that the trial court’s
properly locked and sealed. Fifth, the petitioner never questioned or consideration of the case is confined to whatever evidence is presented
raised any issue on the preservation of the integrity of the protested ballot before it. This is amply stated in Rule 13, Sec. 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-
boxes. And sixth, the Technical Examination Report signed by the SC:
COMELEC representative confirmed the genuineness, authenticity, and
integrity of all the ballots found during the revision.27 Sec. 2. Offer of evidence. – The court shall consider no evidence that has
not been formally offered.1âwphi1 Offer of evidence shall be done orally
We hold, however, that the foregoing statements do not, by themselves, on the last day of hearing allowed for each party after the presentation of
constitute sufficient evidence that the ballots have been preserved. the last witness. The opposing party shall be required to immediately
Respondent Co cannot simply rely on the alleged absence of evidence of interpose objections thereto. The court shall rule on the offer of evidence
reports of untoward incidents, and from there immediately conclude that in open court. However, the court may, at its discretion, allow the party
the ballots have been preserved. What he should have presented are to make an offer of evidence in writing, which shall be submitted within
concrete pieces of evidence, independent of the revision proceedings that three days. If the court rejects any evidence offered, the party may make
will tend to show that the ballots counted during the revision proceedings a tender of excluded evidence.
were the very same ones counted by the BETs during the elections, and
the very same ones cast by the public. He cannot evade his duty by Unfortunately for respondent Co, the witnesses whose affidavits he
simply relying on the absence of reports of untoward incidents that attached to his Protest were never presented during trial. While he again
happened to the ballot boxes. At best, this reliance on the condition of the raised the tenor of these affidavits in his Comment filed before Us, those
ballot boxes themselves is speculative; at worst, it is self-serving. cannot be considered anymore due to his failure to present them before
Without presenting to the court any evidence outside of the proceedings, the trial court. Respondent cannot simplistically insist on the
respondent Co as protestant may simply claim that the ballot boxes consideration of said affidavits, the trial court not having been given the
themselves are the proof that they were properly preserved. This goes opportunity to observe their testimonies, and petitioner not having been
contrary to the doctrine in Rosal. accorded the opportunity to cross-examine them. The fact that respondent
attached the affidavits in his Protest does not mean that the trial court is
The respective custodians of the ballot boxes, from the time they were bound to consider them, precisely because they have not been formally
used in the elections until they were delivered to the court, were not, to offered before the court. The attachments to the Protest will not be
stress, presented in court. They could have testified as to the security considered unless formally offered. The Court notes that respondent Co
afforded the ballot boxes while in their custody. Moreover, no witness at has offered no explanation whatsoever why he failed to present his

24
witnesses. Nevertheless, he would have this Court consider as evidence integrity of the ballots. We rule, on the contrary, that there is utter lack of
their purported testimonies. This would be incongruously unfair to evidence to that effect. Trillanes v. Pimentel
petitioner, who endeavored to prove his case by presenting evidence 21. G.R. No. 211140
before the trial court. Neither can respondent Co disclaim responsibility LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO, Petitioner,
on the argument that the petitioner never raised as an issue the vs.
preservation of the ballot boxes. Inherent in all election protest cases is HON. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL
the duty of the protestant to provide evidence of such preservation. The MARILYN1 B. BARUA-YAP AND REGINA ONGSIAKO
failure of the protestee to raise that as an issue will not ipso facto mean REYES, Respondents.
that protestant need not present evidence to that effect. Moreover, the
Technical Examination Report, is not, without more, evidence of
Facts: On October 10, 2012, one Joseph Socorro Tan (Tan), a
preservation. The Report merely states that the ballots are genuine. What
registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos,
the protestant should endeavor to prove, however, in presenting evidence
of preservation, is not that the ballots themselves are genuine or official, Marinduque, filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a
but that they are the very same ones cast by the electorate. The Report petition4 to deny due course or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
cannot possibly determine that. While it may be that the ballots of Reyes as candidate for the position of Representative of the Lone
themselves are official ballots, there is still a dearth of evidence on District of the Province of Marinduque. In his petition, Tan alleged that
whether or not they were the same official ballots cast by the public Reyes made several material misrepresentations in her COC, i.e.,
during the elections. The Report, therefore, cannot be considered as "(i) that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque; (ii) that she
evidence of the preservation, as required by Rosal. The fact of is a natural-born Filipino citizen; (iii) that she is not a permanent
preservation is not, as respondent Co claims, "incontrovertible." In fact, resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign country; (iv) that her date of
there is total absence of evidence to that effect. The incontrovertible fact birth is July 3, 1964; (v) that her civil status is single; and finally (vi) that
is that private respondent, during the proceedings before the trial court, she is eligible for the office she seeks to be elected to
did not present any independent evidence to prove his claim. Without any
independent evidence, the trial court, the COMELEC, as well as this COMELEC has cancelled Reyes CoC acting upon the petition of
Court, is constrained to affirm as a fact the disputable presumption that Tan, for alleged misrepresentations in Reyes CoC. While the motion for
the ballots were properly counted during the counting and canvassing of reconsideration field by Reyes was pending, the election was held and
votes. In sum, We find that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion Reyes was proclaimed as winner by the Provincial Board
in ruling that private respondent had discharged the burden of proving the of Canvassers. Velasco filed an Election Protest in the HRET claiming

25
that he is the COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality on its cancellation Issue #2 W/N HRET have the jurisdiction over Reyes?
of Reyes CoC. Despite it, Speaker Belmonte administered the oath of
Held: NO. The jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the
office to Reyes . Reyes challenged COMELEC action and the Supreme
candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives.
Court upheld that there was no grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC.
Reyes is not a bona fide member of the House of Representatives for
AA filed for an immediate execution of COMELEC’s previous resolution
lack of a valid proclamation. When she took her oath of office before
and to declare Velmonte as winner. COMELEC declared the
respondent Speaker Belmonte in open session, Reyes had no valid COC
proclamation of Reyes as null and void. Velmonte filed a petition for the
nor a valid proclamation. In view of the foregoing, Reyes has absolutely
Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Speaker DD to proclaim
no legalbasis to serve as a Member of the House of Representatives,
him as winner, despite notice given to him by COMELEC.
and therefore, she has no legalpersonality to be recognized as a party-
(note: gi apil na nako tanang issue kay basi mangutana pud sya ana) respondent at a proceeding before the HRET.
Issue #1 W/N Reyes was considered a Member of the House of Issue #3
Representative? Whether or not the petition for Mandamus is correctly filed by Velasco?
Held: No. She is not yet considered a Member of the House of RULING:Yes, petition for Manadamus is correctly filed by Velasco.
Representatives. This Court explained that to be considered a Member The difference between a ministerial and discretionary act has long bee
of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the n established. Apurely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or
following requisites: (i ) a valid proclamation, (ii ) a proper oath, and (iii ) tribunal performs in a given stateo f f a ct s , i n a pr es cr i b ed m a nn
assumption of office. A valid proclamation is the first essential element e r , i n o b ed i e n ce t o t he ma n da t e o f a l e g a l a u t ho r i ty , witho
before a candidate can be considered a Member of the House of ut regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety
Representatives over which the Tribunal could assume jurisdiction. Such or improprietyof the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public o
element is obviously absent in the present cases as Regina BB' fficer and gives him the right todecide how or when the duty shall
proclamation was nullified by the COMELEC, which nullification was be performed, such duty is discretionary and notministerial. T
upheld by the Supreme Court. There was no basis for the proclamation he duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires nei
of BB. Without the proclamation, the petitioner's oath of office is therthe exercise of official discretion or judgment.
likewise baseless, and without a precedent oath of office, there can be
22. G.R. No. 104654 June 6, 1994
no valid and effective assumption of office."

26
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. moment. COMELEC had issued en banc resolution which was dismissed
HON. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL because there was a late filing of the said resolution, meanwhile petition
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, MANILA and JUAN G. for mandamus under Rule 65 of Sec 5(2) Article VIII of the constitution,
FRIVALDO, respondents. regarded the revise or modification on appeal or certiorari in GR No.
105735 and was filed with prayer for temporary restraining order. There
Facts: Juan G. Frivaldo had earned majority of the votes as public
was a failure to reacquire due to time that lapse and the failure to publicize
servant ( Governor) in Sorsogon. There was a conspicuous doubt
the naturalization of the respondent in the official gazette in order to
whether the respondent Frivaldo acquired Filipino citizenship before he
become a Filipino citizen again. The Revised Naturalization law is a
ran as governor in the said city. Respondent judge Dela Rosa set the
procedural law that must be followed.
petition for hearing and directed the publication of order in official
gazette for 3 consecutive weeks and last said publication which would Issue: W/N Frivaldo disqualified from continuing to serve as governor of
be 6 months before its hearing, it was held months after the respondent the Province of Sorsogon.
Frivaldo filed a petition for Naturalization.
Held: Yes. The supreme court ruled that Private respondent is declared
There was a motion to set hearing ahead of schedule it was granted by
NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from
the court and manifested the public office running intention for filing
continuing to serve as governor of the Province of Sorsogon. He is
certificate candidacy. The respondent brought all his requirements and 6
ordered to vacate his office and to surrender the same to the Vice-
days later respondent judge assailed his decision in RTC allowing
Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision becomes final
respondent Frivaldo to reacquire Filipino citizenship by virtue of his
and executory. The proceedings of the trial court was marred by the
rights and privileges of being a natural born Filipino citizen; However,
following irregularities:
Quiterio alleged that there was jurisdictional defect about granting
(1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of
naturalization process.
hearing, without a publication of the order advancing the date of
hearing, and the petition itself;
Several days after the proclamation of the court, Election was done and
(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last publication of
Frivaldo was declared winner in the casting of votes. Republic petitioner
the petition;
filed the petition with COMELEC to annul proclamation of private
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the
respondents winning state they allege that respondent Frivaldo didn’t
finality of the judgment; and
reacquire his citizenship and had pending political status as of the
27
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the two-year Ruling:We find no merit in the instant Petition.Under Section 80 of the
waiting period. Omnibus Election Code

23. G.R. No. 181613 November 25, 2009 It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate,
ROSALINDA A. PENERA, Petitioner, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election
vs. campaign or partisan... political activity except during the campaign
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR T. ANDANAR, Respondents. period. If the commission of the prohibited act of premature
campaigning is duly proven, the consequence of the violation is clearly
spelled out in Section 68 which reads:
Facts: Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were
mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica Andanar filed a Petition for Any candidate who violated any of Sections 80 shall be disqualified from
Disqualification against Penera for unlawfully engaging in election continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the
campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the commencement office.
of the campaign period. Andanar claimed that before the start of the In the case at bar, it had been sufficiently established not just by
authorized campaign period Penera and her partymates went around Andanar's evidence, but also those of Penera herself, that Penera and
the different barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies her partymates participated in a motorcade which passed through the
and requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the elections. different barangays of Sta. Monica, waived their hands to the public,
Penera admitted that a motorcade did take place, she explained that it and threw candies to the onlookers.
was simply in accordance with the usual practice in nearby cities and Additionally, the Joint Affidavit gave an even more straightforward
provinces, where the filing of certificates of candidacy (COCs) was account of the events, thus:... after actual registration with the
preceded by a motorcade the COMELEC disqualified Penera from COMELEC the motorcade proceeded to three (3) barangays out of the
continuing as a mayoralty candidate for engaging in premature 11 barangays while supporters were throwing sweet candies to the
campaigning crowd there was merriment and marching music
Issues: Whether or not [Penera] has engaged in an election campaign or For violating Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, proscribing
partisan political activity outside the campaign period. election campaign or partisan political activity outside the campaign

28
period, Penera must be disqualified from holding the office of Mayor of 24, 2004, thus, it was dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated June
Sta. Monica. 24, 2004.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the respondent which
was granted by the trial court in because it found that the election
protest was actually filed on time. Since the last day to file the protest
fell on May 23, 2004 which was a Sunday, thus, under Section 1, Rule 22
of the Rules of Court, the time should not run until the next working day
24. G.R. No. 169865
which was May 24, 2004. Section 5, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court gives
VIRGINIO VILLAMOR vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AMYTIS* DE
the courts inherent power to amend and control its processes and
DIOS-BATAO
orders to conform with law and justice.
Facts: On May 13, 2004, petitioner Virginio Villamor was proclaimed as Petitioner appealed the Order granting respondents motion for
mayor of Carmen, Cebu, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) in reconsideration to the COMELEC and was In the assailed Resolution
the elections held on May 10, 2004over his opponent, respondent dated April 11, 2005, the Second Division of the COMELEC dismissed the
Amytis De Dios-Batao. On May 17, 2004, respondent filed a petition to appeal for lack of merit. On August 5, 2005, the COMELEC En
annul the proclamation of petitioner alleging as grounds the illegal Banc denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
composition of the MBC and its proceedings. The case was docketed as petition.
SPC No. 04-083 and raffled to the COMELEC Second Division.
Subsequently, or on May 24, 2004, respondent filed an election Issue: (i)whether the trial court can act on a motion for reconsideration
protest with the Regional Trial Court of Danao City Petitioner filed in an election protest
his Answer to the Petition with Counter Protest . However, the trial court (ii) whether the trial court prematurely admitted
dismissed the election protest for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed respondents election protest pending a pre- proclamation
one-day late. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of controversy.
Procedure, an election protest should be filed within 10 days from the
date of proclamation of the results of the election. Since petitioner was Held: (i) under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code
[22]
proclaimed on May 13, 2004, respondent had until May 23, 2004 to file (OEC), the trial court cannot entertain a motion for reconsideration of
an election protest. However, respondent filed the same only on May its decision in an election contest affecting municipal officers filed by the
aggrieved party. However, the latter may appeal to the Intermediate

29
Appellate Court (now COMELEC) within five days after the receipt of a in the case itself and not in another proceeding. This procedure will
copy of the decision. Likewise, Section 19, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
of Procedure implementing the abovementioned Section 256 provides:
Moreover, not all actions seeking the annulment of proclamation
Sec. 19. Promulgation and Finality of Decision. The decision suspend the running of the period for filing an election protest or a
of the Court shall be promulgated on a date set by it of petition for quo warranto. For it is not the relief prayed for which
which due notice must be given the parties. It shall become distinguishes actions under 248[ from an election protest or quo
final five (5) days after its promulgation. No motion for warranto proceedings, but the grounds on which they are based.[
reconsideration shall be entertained. (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, respondents petition to annul the proclamation
Respondent received a copy of the Order dismissing the election protest rested mainly on the alleged illegal composition of the municipal board
for lack of jurisdiction on June 25, 2004. Thus, respondent had until June of canvassers and its proceedings which is an issue that may be properly
30, 2004 within which to file an appeal with the COMELEC but failed to raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. Under paragraph (b) of
do so. Instead, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which is a Section 5 of Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, if the petition
prohibited pleading. As such, it did not toll the running of the involves the illegal composition of the board of canvassers, it must be
prescriptive period. filed immediately when the board begins to act as such, or at the time of
the appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such is
(ii) As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of objected to if it comes after the canvassing of the board, or immediately
the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a at the point where the proceedings are or begin to be illegal.
regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto. The filing of an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the
subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the 25. G.R. No. 169413
abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the GABRIEL GARDUCE BASARTE vs COMMISSION ON
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the ELECTIONS (COMELEC), BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SILVINO LOBOS,
validity of his proclamation The reason is that once the competent NORTHERN SAMAR, and NOEL JARITO
tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition
for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided

30
Facts: Petitioner Basarte and private respondent Noel Jarito were Held: Yes. As long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly
candidates for Municipal Mayor of Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar in the accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond
May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Petitioner was or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the
the Lakas-CMD Party mayoralty candidate while private respondent was counting of the votes. This presupposes that the returns appear to be
the candidate of the Liberal Party (Raul Daza Wing). authentic and duly accomplished on their face. Such principle does not
apply where there is prima facie showing that the return is not genuine.
On May 29, 2004, the members of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers (MBC) canvassed the election returns from the various
26.MENDOZA V COMELEC (2010)
precincts of Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar. At around 5:30 p.m. of the
EN BANC
same day, petitioner Basarte, through his authorized representative
[ G.R. No. 191084, March 25, 2010 ]
Atty. Anselmo S. Alvaiz IV, registered his objection to the inclusion of
JOSELITO R. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Election Return No. 04101444 of Precinct No. 17A, Barangay Cagda-o on
AND ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, RESPONDENTS.
the grounds that the election return is obviously tampered and the
taras, words and figures contained therein for all local positions (Provl.
Facts
and Municipal) have been altered and the second page for the local
positions is missing. Petitioner submitted a formal offer of evidence. It
This case involves the election protest filed with the Commission on
was not opposed within the period provided under the COMELEC Rules
Elections against Joselito R. Mendoza (Mendoza), who was proclaimed
of Procedure (COMELEC Rules).
elected Governor of Bulacan in the 14 May 2007 elections. Mendoza
garnered 364,566 votes while private respondent Roberto M.
On June 1, 2004, the MBC of Silvino Lobos, Northern Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan) got 348,834 votes, giving Mendoza a
Samar denied petitioners petition to exclude the assailed election winning margin of 15,732 votes.
return. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the MBC and a
Petition with the COMELEC. However, it was dismissed. After the appreciation of the contested ballots, the COMELEC Second
Division deducted a total of 20,236 votes from Mendoza and 616 votes
Issue: WON the questioned ER is genuine and authentic for from Pagdanganan. As regards the claimed ballots, Mendoza was
canvass purposes awarded 587 ballots compared to Pagdanganan's 586 ballots. Thus, the
result of the revision proceedings showed that Pagdanganan obtained

31
342,295 votes, which is more than Mendoza's 337,974 votes. In its annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza as the duly
Resolution dated 1 December 2009 (Division Resolution), the COMELEC elected governor of Bulacan, declaring respondent Roberto M.
Second Division annulled the proclamation of Mendoza and proclaimed Pagdanganan as the duly elected governor, and ordering petitioner
Pagdanganan as the duly elected Governor of Bulacan with a winning Joselito R. Mendoza to cease and desist from performing the functions
margin of 4,321 votes. of the Governor of Bulacan and to vacate said office in favor of
respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan.
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division Resolution on 8 February
2010. On 4 March 2010, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order denying The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is underscored by the fact
Mendoza's Motion for Reconsideration and granting Pagdanganan's that the protest that petitioner Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007
Motion for Execution of the Division Resolution overstayed with the COMELEC until the present election year when the
end of the term of the contested office is at hand and there was hardly
Issue enough time for the re-hearing that was conducted only on 15 February
2010. As the hearing time at the division had run out, and the re-hearing
Whether or not, the COMELECgravely abuse its discretion when it failed time at the banc was fast running out, the unwanted result came about:
to credit petitioner's claims? incomplete appreciation of ballots; invalidation of ballots on general and
unspecific grounds; unrebutted presumption of validity of ballots.
Whether or not, the COMELEC en banc has the power to hear and
decide the case Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC,
sitting en banc, does not have the authority to decide election cases in
Ruling the first instance as this authority belongs to the divisions of the
COMELEC Specifically.
Indeed, the grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is patent in the
fact that despite the existence in its books of the clearly worded Section Sec.3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions,
6 of Rule 18, which incidentally has been acknowledged by this Court in and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
the recent case of Marcoleta v COMELEC,[5] itcompletely ignored and disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies.
disregarded its very own decree and proceeded with the questioned All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided
Resolution of 8 February 2010 and Order of 4 March 2010, in all,

32
that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Maliksi filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of
Commission En Banc. Imus, Cavite, , questioning the results of the elections in 209 clustered
precincts, the trial court declared Maliksi as the duly elected Municipal
Mayor of Imus, Cavite. The trial court ruled that Maliksi garnered 41,088
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned Resolution of votes as against Saquilayan’s 40,423 votes. Thus, based on the trial
the COMELEC promulgated on 8 February 2010 in EPC No. 2007-44 court’s recount, Maliksi won over Saquilayan by a margin of 665 votes.
entitled "Roberto M. Pagdanganan v. Joselito R. Mendoza," the Order aquilayan filed an appeal before the COMELEC which ruled in his favor
issued on 4 March 2010, and the consequent Writ of Execution dated 5 as it NULLIFY the pronouncement of the lower court that protestant-
March 2010 are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.The election protest of appellee EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI is the duly-elected Municipal Mayor of
respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan is hereby DISMISSE Imus, Cavite and HEREBY DECLARES HOMER T. SAQUILAYAN as the duly-
elected Municipal Mayor of the above-mentioned municipality.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration however it was denied
27. G.R. No. 203302 March 12, 2013 which denial resulted to his deprivation of due process.
MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI, Petitioner,
vs. Issue: whether Maliksi was deprived of due process when the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HOMER T. COMELEC First Division ordered on appeal the decryption, printing, and
SAQUILAYAN, Respondents examination of the ballot images in the CF cards;

Held: There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity

Facts: Emmanuel L. Maliksi (Maliksi) and Homer T. Saquilayan to be heard, either through oral arguments of pleadings. It is a settled
(Saquilayan) were both mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of rule that “opportunity to be heard” does not only mean oral arguments
Imus, Cavite during the 10 May 2010 Automated National and Local in court but also written arguments through pleading. Thus, the fact that
Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed a party was heard on his motion for reconsideration negates any
Saquilayan as the duly elected municipal mayor garnering a total of violation of the right to due process. The court has ruled that denial of
48,181 votes as against Maliksi’s 39,682 votes. Thus, based on the due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance to
MBC’s canvass, Saquilayan won over Maliksi by 8,499 votes. be heard on his motion for reconsideration.

33
 petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election cases as
authorized by law, and therefore, assumes jurisdiction of the instant
petition for certiorari which is hereby granted and that the Order of the
court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby declared null and void and the
28. EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, VS. Writ of Execution issued on August 4, 1994 is lifted.
ROSITA C. CUMBA AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 118861, April 27, 1995 ISSUE:
Whether Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over
In the synchronized elections of 11 May 1992, the petitioner and private petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in election cases
respondent Rosita Cumba were candidates for the position of Mayor in where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan Del Norte. The latter was
proclaimed the winning candidate, with a margin of only twenty-two RULING:
votes over the former. Unwilling to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an Yes.
election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte, We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697
which was assigned to Branch 2 thereof in Butuan City. providing as follows: “The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive
authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
On 29 June 1994, the trial court, per Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, found mandamus involving election cases” remains in full force and effect but
the petitioner to have won with a margin of six votes over the private only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of
respondent and rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner. the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the
COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
As a result, the private respondent then filed with the respondent prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the
trial court granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the Since the COMELEC, in discharging its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to
writ of execution. The petition was docketed as SPR No. 1-94. Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, acts as a court of justice performing judicial power
and said power includes the determination of whether or not there has
On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its resolution stating been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
that, the Commission has exclusive authority to hear and decide jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that the Comelec, by constitutional

34
mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in aid of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts
its appellate jurisdiction Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials . hereupon,
Cunanan filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Application of
Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Status Quo Ante
29. G.R. No. 182865. December 24, 2008. Order/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with Prayer for Immediate
ROMULO F. PECSON, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Raffle.|| The Second Division of the COMELEC issued on January 4,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and 2008 a 60-day TRO directing: (1) the RTC to cease and desist from
LYNDON A. CUNANAN, respondents. issuing or causing the issuance of a writ of execution or
Facts: Pecson and Cunanan were candidates for the mayoralty implementing the Special Order; and (2) Cunanan to continue
position in the Municipality of Magalang, Province of Pampanga in performing the functions of Mayor of Magalang.|Also nullified writ of
the May 2007 elections. On May 17, 2007, Cunanan was proclaimed execution on the ground that the RTC could no longer issue the writ
the winning candidate, garnering a total of 12,592 votes as against because it had lost jurisdiction over the case after transmittal of the
Pecson's 12,531, or a margin of 61 votes. Cunanan took his oath and records and the perfection of the appeals of both Cunanan and
assumed the position of Mayor of Magalang. Soon thereafter, Pecson Pecson (to be accurate, the lapse of Pecson's period to appeal).|||
filed an election protest with the RTC.
On November 23, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision in Issue: WON the RTC has the jurisdiction to grant a Special
Pecson's favor. The RTC ruled that Pecson received a total of 14,897 Order allowing execution pending appeal
votes as against Cunanan's 13,758 — a vote margin of 1,139. |||
Cunanan received a copy of the Decision on November 26, Held: Yes. The RTC is still in possession of the records and that
2007 and filed a Notice of Appeal the day after. The RTC issued on the period to appeal (of both contending parties) must have not lapsed
November 27, 2008 an Order noting the filing of the notice of appeal are important for jurisdictional purposes if the issue is the authority of
and the payment of appeal fee and directing the transmittal of the the RTC to grant a Special Order allowing execution pending
records of the case to the Electoral Contests Adjudication appeal; they are requisite elements for the exercise by the RTC of its
Department (ECAD) of the COMELEC. Pecson, on the other hand, residual jurisdiction to validly order an execution pending appeal, not
filed on November 28, 2007 an Urgent Motion for Immediate for the issuance of the writ itself. This is clearly evident from the cited
Execution Pending Appeal, claiming that Section 11, Rule 14 of provision of the Rules which does not require the issuance of the

35
implementing writ within the above limited jurisdictional period. The cancel Coquilla’s certificate of candidacy on the ground
RTC cannot legally issue the implementing writ within this limited period that his statement as to the two year residency in Oras
for two reasons: (1) the cited twenty-day waiting period under Section was a material representation as he only resided therein
11(b); and (2) the mandatory immediate transmittal of the records to for 6 months after his oath as a citizen.Before the
the ECAD of the COMELEC under Section 10 of the rules. COMELEC could render a decision, elections commenced
and Coquillo was proclaimed the winner.
30.COQUILLA vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914, September 17, 2002, 385 SCRA On July 19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and
607 ordered the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
but his motion was denied by the COMELEC en banc on
Facts: Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents January 30, 2002. Hence this petition.
in Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there
until 1965, when he was subsequently naturalized as a
U.S. citizen after joining the US Navy. In1998, he came to Issues:
the Philippines and took out a residence certificate,
although he continued making several trips to the United 1. Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide
States.Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under this case notwithstanding the proclamation of petitioner.
R.A. No. 8171 which was approved. On November 10, 2. Whether petitioner had been a resident of Oras,
2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. Eastern Samar at least one (1) year before the elections
held on May 14, 2001 as he represented in his certificate
On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a of candidacy
voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which was 3. Whether the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
approved in 2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his before the COMELEC enbanc did not suspend the running
certificate of candidacy stating that he had been a of the period for filing this petition for certiorari because
resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years. Incumbent the motion was pro forma.
mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election sought to

36
 and the votes cast for them shall not be counted. But
Held: those against whom no final judgment of disqualification
had been rendered may be voted for and proclaimed,
1. Yes. R.A. No. 6646 provides: unless, on motion of the complainant, the COMELEC
suspends their proclamation because the grounds for their
SECTION 6. Effect of Disqualification disqualification or cancellation of their certificates of
Case. Any candidate who has been declared by final candidacy are strong. Meanwhile, the proceedings for
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the disqualification of candidates or for the cancellation or
votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason denial of certificates of candidacy, which have been begun
a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an before the elections, should continue even after such
election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives elections and proclamation of the winners.
the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of
the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the 2. No. Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code (R.A
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency No. 7160) provides:
thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of
suchcandidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a
strong. (Emphasis added) citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the
barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of
SECTION 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
Certificate of Candidacy. — The procedure hereinabove panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he
provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one
cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election;
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. and able to read and write Filipino or any other local
language or dialect.
The rule then is that candidates who are disqualified by
final judgment before the election shall not be voted for

37
The term “residence” is to be understood not in its
common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or
“habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, 3. It is contended that petitioner’s motion for
that is, “the place where a party actually or constructively reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc did not
has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he suspend the running of the period for filing this petition
may be found at any given time, eventually intends to because the motion was pro forma.
return and remain (animus manendi).” A domicile of
origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the
the place where the child’s parents reside and continues issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court
until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new does not make a motion pro forma; otherwise, the
domicile (domicile of choice). movant’s remedy would not be a reconsideration of
the decision but a new trial or some other remedy.
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in
Oras by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. In the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held
Navy in 1965. From then on and until November 10, to be pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it
2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was a second motion for reconsideration,[or (2) it did not
was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines comply with the rule that the motion must specify the
save as our immigration laws may have allowed him to findings andconclusions alleged to be contrary to law or
stay as a visitor or as a resident alien. not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to
substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely
In Caasi v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled alleged that the decisionin question was contrary to law,
that immigration to the United States by virtue of a or (5) the adverse party was not given noticethereof.
“greencard,” which entitles one to reside permanently in
that country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the The 16-page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner
Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in in the COMELEC en bancsuffers from none of the
a foreign country result in an abandonment of domicile in foregoing defects, and it was error for the COMELEC
the Philippines. enbanc to rule that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

38
was pro forma because the allegations raised therein are 4 years later, petitioner, who has remained in detention, threw his hat in
a mere “rehash” of his earlier pleadings or did not raise the political arena and won a seat in the Senate with a 6-year term
“new matters.” Hence, the filing of the motion suspended commencing at noon on June 30, 2007.
the running of the 30-day period to file the petition in this Petitioner filed with the RTC, Makati City, Branch 148, an "Omnibus
case, which, as earlier shown, was done within the Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and
reglementary period provided by law. Related Requests".
The trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes

ANTONIO TRILLANES IV v. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general
SR. (D)
G.R. No. 179817 June 27, 2008 HELD:

FACTS: No, it is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pre-
trial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security; and while pre-
July 27, 2003, a group of more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by trial detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement,
junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of
the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the public.
the resignation of the President and key national officials.
On the same day, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed
Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring a state of under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in
rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense.
Petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged, along with his comrades, He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him,
with coup d’etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on
before the RTC of Makati. recognizance.

39
Presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of After the preliminary investigation, the COMELEC en banc adopted a
civil and political rights. resolution ordering that information/s for the crime of electoral sabotage
be filed against GMA, et al. while that the charges against Jose Miguel
Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him
a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of the creation of
aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel and of Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the
special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction Supreme Court.
system. ISSUE:
Whether or not Joint Order No. 001-2011 violates the equal protection
clause?
JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DOJ Ruling:
G.R. No. 199082 Petitioners claim that the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-
September 18, 2012 Finding Team is in violation of the equal protection clause of the
FACTS: Constitution because its sole purpose is the investigation and prosecution
of certain persons and incidents. They insist that the Joint Panel was
The Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and constituting created to target only the Arroyo Administration as well as public
a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 officials linked to the Arroyo Administration.
National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases composed of While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to
officials from the DOJ and the Comelec. In its initial report, th Fact- preliminary investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to
Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, GMA as there were public officers who were investigated upon in
2007 senatorial in the provinces of North and South Cotabato and connection with their acts in the performance of their official duties.
Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team Private individuals were also subjected to the investigation by the Joint
recommended that herein petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), Committee. The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor
or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression
et al. to be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage.
based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among

40
men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all Mayor Jejomar C. Binay in connection with the January 18, 1988 local
persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike elections, and its minute resolution of August 15, 1990[4] denying due
both as to course to petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
The backdrop of this case on record reveals the following antecedent
facts:
1. On January 11, 1988, prior to the January 18, 1988 local elections,
petitioner and Bernadette Agcorpa, a registered voter of Makati, filed
with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against then candidate
for mayor Jejomar C. Binay on the ground that respondent Binay used
[ GR No. 94521, Oct 28, 1991 ] P9.9 million of municipal funds to enhance his candidacy and his entire
ticket under the Lakas ng Bansa.
OLIVER O. LOZANO v. COMMISSIONER HAYDEE B. 2. The disqualification case was assigned to the Second Division of the
YORAC OF COMELEC + COMELEC composed of Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac, as presiding
officer, and Commissioners Andres R. Flores and Magdara B.
Dimaampao, as members.
Facts: 3. The Second Division, through its Presiding Commissioner, referred
the case to the Law Department of respondent commission for
preliminary investigation of the criminal aspect. On February 4, 1988,
Petitioner Oliver O. Lozano filed these two special civil actions for Binay filed his counter-affidavit with said department.
certiorari, namely: G.R. No. 94521 which seeks the review of the
undated order[1] of respondent Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac denying 4. On June 21, 1988, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the
the motion for her voluntary inhibition and/or disqualification in SPC No. inhibition and/or disqualification of Commissioners Yorac and
88-040, entitled "Oliver O. Lozano, et al. vs. Mayor Jejomar C. Binay"; Africa. This was the first of several motions for inhibition filed by
and G.R. No. 94626 which prays for a reversal of the en banc petitioner before respondent commission. Petitioner also prayed that the
resolution[2] promulgated by respondent Commission on Elections disqualification petition be referred for consideration en
(COMELEC) on August 7, 1990[3] dismissing the disqualification banc. Commissioner Yorac denied the motion for inhibition. On August
petition and criminal complaint for vote buying against respondent 10, 1988, the COMELEC en banc denied the prayer that the case be

41
heard en banc, ruling that "no substantial reason exists why this case "PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Law Department (Investigation and
should be taken en banc; and considering finally that the case is set for Prosecution Division) RECOMMENDS as follows:
hearing by the Second Division."
1. To file the necessary information against Mayor Jejomar Binay
5. On October 26, 1988, petitioner Lozano himself filed a second before the proper Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region for
motion to disqualify Commissioner Yorac because she postponed motu violation of Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code, the
proprio a hearing set on the ground that she will study the issue of prosecution thereof to be handled by the Special Prosecution Committee;
jurisdiction. Said motion was denied.
2. To dismiss the charge against Mayor Jejomar Binay for threats and
6. On November 3, 1988, the COMELEC en banc promulgated intimidation under Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code for lack
Resolution No. 2050 which provides that petitions for disqualification of evidence; and
filed prior to the January 18, 1988 local elections based on Section 68 of
3. To dismiss the charge against Conchitina Bernardo for insufficiency
the Omnibus Election Code but not resolved before the elections shall be
of evidence."
referred for preliminary investigation to the Law Department which shall
submit its report to the Commission en banc. Pursuant to said resolution, 9. On July 2, 1990, petitioner filed a motion praying that the
the Second Division on even date referred back the disqualification case disqualification case be resolved jointly with the investigation report of
against respondent Binay to the Law Department "before taking any the Law Department.
action thereon."
10. On July 9, 1990, petitioner filed a third motion for the voluntary
7. On November 8, 1988, petitioner filed another motion praying that inhibition and/or disqualification of Commissioner Yorac for having
the disqualification case be heard and decided en banc invoking therein issued a previous memorandum addressed to the chairman and members
COMELEC Resolution No. 2050. Instead of issuing a formal resolution, of respondent commission expressing her opinion that Binay should first
respondent COMELEC authorized then Chairman Hilario G. Davide, Jr. be convicted by the regular courts of the offense of vote buying before he
(now a member of this Court) to reply to petitioner's counsel. could be disqualified. The full text of said memorandum[6] reads:
8. On May 23, 1990, the Law Department submitted its investigation "I submit for the Commission's consideration the matter of the procedural
report[5] recommending that criminal charges be filed against respondent problems in the above case.
Binay for violation of Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code, as
"The chronology of events, so far as this case is concerned, is as follows:
follows:

42
1. SPC No. 88-040 for the disqualification of Jejomar Binay, then 5. On the same date, conformable with Resolution No. 88-2050, the
candidate for Mayor of Makati was filed on January 11, 1988. It was Second Division referred SPC No. 88-040 to the Law Department.
assigned to the Second Division.
6. In the course of the investigation by the Law Department, the case
2. On July 29, 1988, petitioners filed a motion to set the case for became entangled with procedural difficulties the resolution of which has
hearing alleging that the Commission on Audit (COA) had officially been sought in the Second Division.
confirmed the allegations of the complainants.
"My own personal thinking on the matter is that since the preliminary
3. Hearings were actually conducted on August 11, September 12, investigation is the determination of criminal liability, with the
October 12 and October 19, 1988. administrative consequence of removal imposable only as long term
sanction, i.e., after final criminal conviction, the matter of procedure in
4. On November 3, 1988, the Commission en banc adopted Resolution
the preliminary investigation is one that should be addressed to the
No. 88-2050, which, inter alia provides that:
commission en banc rather than to either of its divisions."
1. x x x
11. In On August 2, 1990, petitioner received a notice setting the
In case such complaint was not resolved before the election, the promulgation of judgment en banc for August 6, 1990. Petitioner on
commission may motu proprio, or on motion of any of the parties, refer August 3, 1990 filed an objection to the promulgation of judgment en
the complaint to the Law Department of the Commission as an banc, allegedly because there was no showing that the case was referred
instrument of the latter in the exercise of its exclusive power to conduct a to the commission en banc upon unanimous vote of all the members of
preliminary investigation of all cases involving criminal infractions of the the Second Division.
election laws. Such recourse may be availed of irrespective of whether
12. In its aforestated August 7, 1990 resolution which is herein assailed,
the respondent has been elected or has lost in the election;
the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition for disqualification and
xxx the criminal complaint for vote buying against respondent Binay. During
the promulgation of judgment, petitioner asked that the same be
3. The Law Department shall terminate the preliminary investigation
suspended until after the resolution of the legal issues raised involving
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the referral and shall submit its
constitutional and jurisdictional questions. Commissioner Yorac was
study, report and recommendation to the Commission en banc within five
likewise requested by petitioner to decide the motion for her
(5) days from the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. If it makes
inhibition. In her undated order subject of the petition in G.R. No.
a prima facie finding of guilt, it shall submit with such study the
94521, as stated in limine, Commissioner Yorac denied the motion for
information for filing with the appropriate court.
her inhibition, stating that:
43
"During the deliberations on this case, I seriously considered inhibiting 3. Respondent commission committed a grave abuse of discretion
myself from despite participating and voting despite the flimsy basis amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not finding Binay guilty of vote-
which was cited for it. But I became convinced, from the information buying, contrary to the evidence presented by petitioner.[7]
that was coming in, that the motion was really part of a numbers game,
In G.R. No. 94521, this Court issued on August 16, 1990 a temporary
being played out on the basis of information emanating from the
restraining order[8] ordering respondent Commissioner Yorac to cease
Commission itself as to the developments in the deliberation and the
and desist from participating in the deliberation and resolution of the
voting. Reliable information also shows that approaches have been made
motion for reconsideration dated August 9, 1990 filed in SPC No. 88-
to influence the voting.
040, entitled "Oliver O. Lozano, et al. vs. Jejomar C. Binay." The order
"It is for this reason that I do not inhibit myself from the voting in this was served in the office of Commissioner Yorac on August 17, 1990 at
case consistent with my reading of the law and the evidence." 11:25 A.M.[9] It appears, however, that the motion for reconsideration
was denied by respondent commission en banc in a resolution dated
13. The aforesaid resolution of August 7, 1990 dismissed the petition for
August 15, 1990, copy of which was served on petitioner on August 17,
disqualification for lack of merit. The motion for reconsideration filed by
1990 at 12:35 P.M. Consequently, the issue on the inhibition and
herein petitioner was denied in a resolution dated August 15, 1990, on the
disqualification of Commissioner Yorac has been rendered moot and
ground that "pursuant to Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of
academic.
Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling of the
Commission is one of the prohibited pleadings, and therefore not allowed Granting arguendo that the petition for inhibition of Commissioner Yorac
under the Rules." has not been mooted by the resolution en banc dismissing the main case
for disqualification, petitioner's postulation that she should have inhibited
Succinctly condensed, the petition filed against respondents COMELEC
herself from hearing the main case, for allegedly having prejudged the
and Binay raises the following issues:
case when she advanced the opinion that respondent Binay could only be
1. Contrary to the requirement under Section 2, Rule 3 of the disqualified after conviction by the regional trial court, is of exiguous
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, SPC NO. 88-040 was referred to the validity. In the first place, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
Commission en banc without the required unanimous vote of all the specifically Section 1, Rule 4 thereof, prohibits a member from, among
members of the Second Division. others, sitting in a case in which he has publicly expressed prejudgment
as may be shown by convincing proof. There is no showing that the
2. The minute resolution of August 15, 1990 is null and void for having
memorandum wherein Commissioner Yorac rendered her opinion was
been issued without prior notice to the parties and without fixing a date
ever made public either by publication or dissemination of the same to
for the promulgation thereof.
the public. Furthermore, the opinion of Commissioner Yorac was based
44
on prior cases for disqualification filed with the COMELEC wherein 1. Any complaint for the disqualification of a duly registered candidate
prior conviction of the respondent was considered a condition sine qua based upon any of the grounds specifically enumerated under Section 68
non for the filing of the disqualification case.[10] We accordingly find no of the Omnibus Election Code, filed directly with the Commission before
compelling reason to inhibit Commissioner Yorac from participating in an election in which the respondent is a candidate, shall be inquired into
the hearing and decision of the case. by the Commission for the purpose of determining whether the acts
complained of have in fact been committed. Where the inquiry by the
Similarly, we find the petition in G.R. No. 94626 devoid of
Commission results in a finding before election, that the respondent
merit. Petitioner first avers that under Section 2, Rule 3 of the
candidate did in fact commit the acts complained (of), the Commission
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a case pending in a division may be
shall order the disqualification of the respondent candidate from
referred to and decided by the Commission en banc only on a unanimous
continuing as such candidate.
vote of all the members of the division. It is contended that SPC No. 88-
040 which was pending before the COMELEC's Second Division was In case such complaint was not resolved before the election, the
referred to the Commission en banc without the required unanimous vote Commission may motu proprio, or on motion of any of the parties, refer
of all the division members, petitioner alleging that Commissioner the complaint to the Law Department of the Commission as the
Andres R. Flores voted for the referral of the petition for disqualification instrument of the latter in the exercise of its exclusive power to conduct a
to the division. It is, therefore, the submission of petitioner that the preliminary investigation of all cases involving criminal infractions of the
resolution of the Commission en banc dated August 17, 1990 is null and election laws. Such recourse may be availed of irrespective of whether
void for lack of jurisdiction and for being unconstitutional. the respondent has been elected or has lost in the election.
The argument of petitioner is not well taken. COMELEC Resolution No. 2. Any complaint for disqualification based on Section 68 of the
2050 issued by the commission en banc on November 3, 1988 is the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 6646
applicable law in this disqualification case. It provides: filed after the election against a candidate who has already been
proclaimed as winner shall be dismissed as a disqualification
xxx
case. However, the complaint shall be referred for preliminary
"RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves, to formulate the following rules investigation to the Law Department of the Commission.
governing the disposition of cases of disqualification filed by virtue of
Where a similar complaint is filed after election but before proclamation
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 6 of R.A.
of the respondent candidate, the complaint shall, nevertheless, be
6646 otherwise known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987:
dismissed as a disqualification case. However, the complaint shall be
referred for preliminary investigation to the Law Department. If, before

45
proclamation; the Law Department makes a prima facie finding of guilt these rules shall govern all cases pending at the time of effectivity
and the corresponding information has been filed with the appropriate thereof, except to the extent that in the opinion of the commission, or the
trial court, the complainant may file a petition for suspension of the court in appropriate cases, an application would not be feasible or would
proclamation of the respondent with the court before which the criminal work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply. We
case is pending and the said court may order the suspension of the believe that Resolution No. 2050 qualifies and should be considered as an
proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong. exception to the generally retroactive effect of said rules.
3. The Law Department shall terminate the preliminary investigation Secondly, prior to the issuance of Resolution No. 2050, petitioner had
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the referral and shall submit its filed several motions with the Second Division asking for the referral of
study, report and recommendation to the Commission en banc within five the disqualification case to the Commission en banc. After the
(5) days from the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. If it makes COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 2050, petitioner filed another
a prima facie finding of guilt, it shall submit with such study the motion for the referral of the case to the Commission en banc,
information for filing with the appropriate court.[11] specifically invoking Resolution No. 2050.[12] In the words of petitioner
in his said motion, under the aforesaid resolution, "once the petition for
xxx
disqualification is forwarded to the Law Department, the case is deemed
Contrary to petitioner's submission that said resolution has been repealed en banc because the report is submitted En Banc by the Law
by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which took effect on November Department." Petitioner having invoked the jurisdiction of the
15, 1988, there is nothing in the resolution which appears to be Commission en banc is now estopped from questioning the same after
inconsistent with the procedural rules issued by the COMELEC. obtaining an adverse judgment therefrom.
Firstly, Resolution No. 2050 was passed by reason of the variance in Thirdly, Commissioner Andres R. Flores, who opined that the
opinions of the members of respondent commission on matters of disqualification case should first be resolved by the Second Division, has
procedure in dealing with cases of disqualification filed pursuant to since then clarified his position after he was reminded that Resolution
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 6 of No. 2050, which he had admittedly "completely forgotten" had "laid
Republic Act No. 6646, or the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, and the down a definite policy on the disposition of disqualification cases
manner of disposing of the same had not been uniform. Hence, the contemplated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code."[13]
COMELEC decided to lay down a definite policy in the disposition of
Lastly, Resolution No. 2050 specifically mandates a definite policy and
these disqualification cases. With this purpose in mind, the Commission
procedure for disqualification cases. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure
en banc adopted Resolution No. 2050. The transitory provision under
speak of special actions, which include disqualification cases, in
Section 2, Rule 44 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that
46
general. Hence, as between a specific and a general rule, the former shall attached to the original petition were affirmed by the affiants during the
necessarily prevail. investigation conducted by the Law Department of this Commission. Of
the twenty (20) affidavits appended to the Memorandum of August 22,
Anent the propriety of the issuance of the resolution denying petitioner's
1988, only five (5) of the affiants were able to affirm their testimonies
motion for reconsideration, suffice it to say that the requirement of notice
before hearing officer Alioden Dalaig of the Law Department of this
in the promulgation of resolutions and decisions of the COMELEC
Commission x x x.
embodied in Section 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules does not apply in the case
at bar for the simple reason that a motion for reconsideration of an en xxx
banc ruling, resolution, order or decision is not allowed under Section 1,
"In his counter affidavit, respondent Jejomar C. Binay denied the
Rule 13 thereof.
allegations in the petition for disqualification and interposed the defense
Respondent COMELEC, in dismissing the petition for disqualification that:
and in holding that respondent Binay is not guilty of vote buying, ruled as
'The Christmas gift-giving is an annual project of the Municipal
follows:
Government of Makati ever since the time of Mayors Estrella and Yabut
xxx in the spirit of yuletide season wherein basic and essential items are
distributed to the less fortunate and indigent residents of Makati out of
"The commission concurs with the findings of the Law Department on
funds appropriated for the purpose duly budgeted and subject to audit by
enumeration nos. 2 and 3 but rejects exception to the recommendation for
the Commission on Audit and same were prepared sometime on October
prosecution of respondent Binay under no. 1 thereof, it appearing that
1987 long before I filed my certificate of candidacy and ceased to be the
there is a clear misappreciation of the evidence submitted considering the
Acting Mayor of Makati, x x x;
inconsistencies in the testimonies of material witnesses for the
petitioners, as well as the correct interpretation and application of the law 'The alleged ticket bearing my name, assuming its existence, indicates
cited as basis for the prosecution of respondent Binay. nothing of significance except that of a Christmas and New Year greeting
and is not suggestive of anything which may be considered or interpreted
xxx
to be political in nature such as indorsing my candidacy for that matter. x
"The seventeen (17) affidavits submitted by petitioners attached to their x x'
original petition for disqualification dated January 11, 1988, differ from
xxx
the twenty (20) affidavits attached to the memorandum of petitioners
filed with the Commission (Second Division) on August 22, 1988. The "It is undisputed that at the time the supposed 'gift-giving' transpired
records of the case do not show that these seventeen (17) affidavits between the periods of December 22-30, 1987, respondent Binay was no
47
longer Mayor of the Municipality of Makati having resigned from the "Respondent Binay's allegation that the gift giving was an annual project
position on December 2, 1987, to pursue his candidacy for re-election to of the Municipal Government of Makati was not denied nor disputed by
the same position. The OIC Mayor of Makati on the dates complained the petitioners who in fact made capital of the aforequoted findings of the
of, December 22-30, 1987, was OIC Mayor Sergio S. Santos who stated Commission on Audit in their charge against respondent Binay for
in his affidavit dated February 4, 1988, that he was Officer in Charge of alleged misuse of public funds. Also, petitioners in their latest pleading
Makati, Metro Manila, from December 2, 1987 to February 2, 1988, and filed with the Commission on July 2, 1990, entitled 'Motion To Resolve
that as such he implemented on December 18, 1987 the municipal The Disqualification Case Jointly With The Investigation Report of the
government's annual and traditional distribution of Christmas gifts. Law Department', instead of rebutting respondent Binay's allegation that
the Christmas gift giving is an annual project of the Municipal
"There is ample evidence to show that it was not respondent Binay who
Government of Makati ever since the time of Mayors Estrella and Yabut,
'gave' the plastic bags containing Christmas gifts to the witnesses who
merely stated that:
executed affidavits for the petitioners. The 'giver' was in fact the
Municipality of Makati. And this is evidenced by the following 'x x x Assuming arguendo that Mayor Estrella had practiced this gift-
documents attached to the records of this case: giving every Christmas, the fact is, that there had been no electoral
campaign on-going during such distribution and/or no election was
1. Certification dated January 11, 1988 issued by OIC Roberto A.
scheduled during Mayor Estrella's tenure.
Chang attached as Annex A to respondent Binay's counter affidavit dated
February 5, 1988. 'This is also true in the case of Mayor Yabut'.
2. COA Report dated January 11, 1988 attached as Annex 'R' to the "More, Petitioners' documentary evidence, among which are Exhibits 'A';
pleading denominated as Motion to Set Hearing filed by complainant 'A-1'; 'A-2'; 'A-20'; 'B'; 'B-1'; 'B-2'; 'B-25'; 'C-1'; 'C-2'; 'C-27'; 'D'; 'E' and
Oliver Lozano dated July 26, 1988, filed in connection with SPC No. 88- 'F', all show indubitably that the Christmas packages which were
040 for disqualification against respondent Binay; distributed between the periods of December 22-30, 1987, were ordered,
purchased and paid for by the Municipality of Makati and not by
"The findings of the COA Report itself (dated June 21, 1988) upon which
respondent Binay. There is more than prima facie proofs to show that
petitioners rely heavily in their disqualification case against respondent
those gift packages received by the witnesses for petitioners were
Binay, identify the 'giver' of the Christmas gifts as the Municipality of
intended as Christmas presents to Makati's indigents in December 1988.
Makati and not respondent Binay. x x x
"It would therefore appear from the evidence submitted by the petitioners
xxx
themselves that the giver, if any, of the Christmas gifts which were
received by the witnesses for the petitioners was in fact, the Municipality
48
of Makati and not respondent Jejomar C. Binay. The presence of xxx
respondent Binay, if at all true at the time the gifts were distributed by
We uphold the foregoing factual findings, as well as the conclusions
the Municipality of Makati to the recipients of the Christmas gifts, was
reached by respondent COMELEC, in dismissing the petition for the
incidental. It did not make respondent Binay as the 'giver' of those
disqualification of respondent Binay. No clear and convincing proof
Christmas gifts. Nor did the giving of such gifts by the Municipal
exists to show that respondent Binay was indeed engaged in vote
Government of Makati influence the recipients to vote for respondent
buying. The traditional gift giving of the Municipality of Makati during
Binay considering that the affiants themselves who testified for the
the Christmas season is not refuted. That it was implemented by
petitioners admitted and were aware that the gift packages came from the
respondent Binay as OIC Mayor of Makati at that time does not
Municipality of Makati and not from respondent Jejomar C. Binay.
sufficiently establish that respondent was trying to influence and induce
"The foregoing conclusion is confirmed by petitioners' witnesses in the his constituents to vote for him. This would be stretching the
persons of Lolita Azcarraga, Johnson Carillo, Rommel Capalungan, interpretation of the law too far. Petitioner deduces from this act of gift
Renato Leonardo, Manuel Allado, Edwin Pascua, Wilberto Torres, giving that respondent was buying the votes of the Makati residents. It
Apolonio De Jesus, Caridad Reposar, Artemus Runtal and Jose Ermino requires more than a mere tenuous deduction to prove the offense of vote
who, in their sworn statements, uniformly described the gift package as buying. There has to be concrete and direct evidence or, at least, strong
labelled with the words 'Pamaskong Handog ng Makati', a clear circumstantial evidence to support the charge that respondent was indeed
indication that the 'giver' of the Christmas gifts was indeed the engaged in vote buying. We are convinced that the evidence presented,
Municipality of Makati and not respondent Binay. as well as the facts obtaining in the case at bar, do not warrant such
finding.
"There is one aspect of this case which somehow lends credence to
respondent Binay's claim that the instant petition is a political Finally, we have consistently held that under the 1935 and 1973
harassment. It is noted by the commission that while the criminal Constitutions, and the same is true under the present one, this Court
indictment against respondent Binay is for alleged violation of Section cannot review the factual findings of the Commission on Elections absent
261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code, petitioners did not implead as a grave abuse of discretion and a showing of arbitrariness in its decision,
party respondents the affiants who received the Christmas packages order or resolution. Thus:
apparently in exchange for their votes. The law on 'vote buying' [Section
"The principal relief sought by petitioner is predicated on the certiorari
261(a) supra] also penalizes 'vote-buying' and 'vote-selling', then the
jurisdiction of this court as provided in Section 11, Article XII-C, 1973
present indictment should have been pursued against both respondent
Constitution. It is, as explained in Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections,
Binay and against the affiants, against the former for buying votes and
'not as broad as it used to be' under the old Constitution and it 'should be
against the latter for selling their votes."[14]
49
confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent function of being the 'sole judge' of contests 'relating to the election,
and substantial denial of due process.' Moreover, the legislative returns and qualifications' of members of the legislature was transferred
construction of the constitutional provision has narrowed down 'the scope 'in its totality' to the Electoral Commission by the 1935
and extent of the inquiry the Court is supposed to undertake to what is Constitution. That grant of power, to use the language of the late Justice
strictly the office of certiorari as distinguished from review.' And in Jose P. Laurel, 'was intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it
Lucman vs. Dimaporo, a case decided under the Constitution of 1935, had remained originally in the legislature . . . ' x x x
this Court, speaking through then Chief Justice Concepcion, ruled that
"x x x A review of the respondent Commission's factual
'this Court can not x x x review rulings or findings of fact of the
findings/conclusions made on the basis of the evidence evaluated is urged
Commission on Elections,' as there is 'no reason to believe that the
by the petitioner, 'if only to guard against or prevent any possible misuse
framers of our Constitution intended to place the [said] Commission -
or abuse of power.' To do so would mean 'digging into the merits and
created and explicitly made 'independent' by the Constitution itself - on a
unearthing errors of judgment' rendered on matters within the exclusive
lower level' than statutory administrative organs (whose factual findings
function of the Commission, which is proscribed by the Aratuc and other
are not 'disturbed by courts of justice, except when there is absolutely no
decisions of this Court. x x x"[15]
evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such
findings.'). Factual matters were deemed not proper for consideration in The charge against respondent Binay for alleged malversation of public
proceedings brought either 'as an original action for certiorari or as an funds should be threshed out and adjudicated in the appropriate
appeal by certiorari . . . [for] the main issue in . . . certiorari is one of proceeding and forum having jurisdiction over the same. Consequently,
jurisdiction - lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting it was properly dismissed by the Commission on Elections.
to excess of jurisdiction' while 'petitions for review on certiorari are
WHEREFORE, the questioned order of respondent Commissioner
limited to the consideration of questions of law.'
Haydee B. Yorac in G.R. No. 94521 and the challenged resolutions of
"The aforementioned rule was reiterated in the cases of Ticzon and respondent. Commission on Elections subject of the petition in G.R. No.
Bashier. Indeed, as early as the year 1938, applying Section 4, Article VI 94626 are hereby AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued
of the 1935 Constitution, this Court held that the Electoral Commission's in G.R. No. 94521 is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
'exclusive jurisdiction' being clear from the language of the provision,
SO ORDERED.
'judgment rendered . . . in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is
beyond judicial interference, except 'upon a clear showing of such
arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of
due process of law.' Originally lodged in the legislature, that exclusive

50
 Petitioner, who was a defeated candidate of the Liberal Party in the Third
District of Manila, on the strength of an indorsement by the Treasurer of
the said party in the district which was allegedly supported by 80% of the
ward leaders of the party of the same district as embodied in their
EN BANC resolution, was appointed on February 9, 1989 as member of the
Sangguniang Panglunsod (City Council) by the Secretary of Local
[ G.R. No. 87743, August 21, 1990 ] Government to fill the vacancy created by the late Councilor Saturnino
Herrera. On the same date, petitioner took his oath of office as such
ROBERT F. ONG, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA TERESITA councilor after which the Secretary of Local Government informed
HERRERA-MARTINEZ, THE CITY COUNCIL OF Mayor Gemiliano Lopez, Jr. and Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer
MANILA AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, Danilo Lacuna of the appointment of petitioner. Likewise, in his 1st
RESPONDENTS. Indorsement of March 13, 1989, the Undersecretary of Local
Government forwarded petitioner's appointment to Presiding Officer of
DECISION the City Council Danilo Lacuna.

PARAS, J.: In the regular session of the City Council held on March 9, 1989, said
Council, acting on the letter of the Secretary of Local Government dated
Petitioner Robert F. Ong assails the appointment and assumption of February 9, 1989 informing them of the four appointments including that
duties as Councilor in the City Council of Manila of respondent Ma. of petitioner, moved to exclude petitioner and the other appointees from
Teresita Herrera-Martinez, in place of deceased Councilor Saturnino the session hall. In the subsequent session of the Council on March 14,
Herrera who represented the Third District of Manila. 1989, petitioner and his co-appointees were formally excluded from the
It appears that Saturnino Herrera, who was the father of respondent session hall with sixteen (16) councilors voting for such exclusion and
Martinez, was one of the Liberal Party candidates duly elected as none against it, with the rest of the Council members abstaining.
Councilor for Manila's Third District in the local elections of January 18, The records show that respondent Martinez went through the legal
1988. He performed his duties as such councilor until his death on formalities or standard procedure prior to her appointment to the vacated
October 14, 1988, thus leaving the position open for the appointment of a position subject of this controversy.
qualified replacement from the same political party where the deceased
councilor belonged. Thus, on November 4, 1988, nine out of the eleven incumbent LP
Councilors in the City Council endorsed the appointment of respondent

51
per their resolution. This resolution was forwarded to the Office of the This petition now seeks to annul the appointment of respondent Martinez
Chairman of the Liberal Party, Manila Chapter. and to declare petitioner to be the holder of the position of Councilor in
place of deceased Saturnino Herrera.
On March 1, 1989, aforesaid Chairman, in turn, nominated respondent
for appointment per his letter - nomination to President Corazon Aquino Petitioner anchors his appeal on the following grounds:
thru the Secretary of Local Government. On March 8, 1989, Senate
1. The Secretary of the Department of Local Government, in appointing
President Jovito Salonga as National Head of the Liberal Party was
respondent Martinez on March 17, 1989, violated the election ban on
furnished with a copy of this letter - nomination.
appointments under Res. No. 2054 of the Comelec dated December 7,
On March 13, 1989, Congressman Leonardo Fuguso as President of the 1988 since her appointment was not cleared for exemption from the
LP Third District Chapter also nominated respondent to National election ban and, therefore, the same was made beyond and in excess of
President Salonga of the Party. President Salonga, in turn, nominated the Secretary's authority and by reason of which, the appointment is null
respondent to Secretary Luis Santos of the Department of Local and void.
Government pursuant to Section 50 of the Local Government Code.
2. Respondent Martinez is not a member of the Liberal Party and cannot
On March 17, 1989, Secretary Santos, acting for the President, issued an be appointed to the position of Councilor, a vacancy created by the death
appointment to respondent. of a member of said Party.
Then on March 21, 1989, the first session day after respondent's 3. Petitioner's appointment is valid, complete and beyond recall.
appointment, the City Council, by a vote of twenty-four members in
4. Petitioner is entitled to the position held by respondent.
favor with no member opposing, recognized her as member of said
Council. Respondent, on the other hand, argues:
Finally, the Presiding Officer of the City Council directed its Secretariat 1. Petitioner misled the Court in claiming that he has a right to the
to include the name of respondent in the payroll of the City Council. contested position. His appointment was indorsed only by the Treasurer
of the LP Chapter, 3rd District of Manila. The Treasurer's indorsement
Respondent thus assumed and performed her duties as Councilor for the
was not known nor authorized by the head of the LP in said district.
Third District of Manila until the restraining order of the Court issued on
Neither was the nomination brought to the attention of the Chairman of
April 20, 1989 was received by respondent.
the LP, Manila Chapter. The proper procedure was not observed by
petitioner. The unauthorized action of petitioner cannot be cured or
ratified by an alleged resolution of 80% of ward leaders and which

52
resolution was adopted long after the appointment of petitioner. Hence, The case for respondent appears meritorious. Respondent had gone
petitioner's appointment was void from the very beginning for lack of through the regular and standard nomination process which had been
authority of the Treasurer who nominated him. officially acknowledged by the Secretary of Local Government.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, respondent also contends that the former Sec. 50 of the Local Government Code specifically provides:
has not assumed office; neither has he exercised or performed the
"In case of permanent vacancy in the sangguniang panlalawigan,
functions of the position because he was prevented from doing so by the
sangguniang panglungsod, sangguniang bayan, or sangguniang barangay,
outright refusal of the City Council to recognize his appointment.
the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Minister of
2. Petitioner has no right to the position and for which reason, he lacks Local Government, shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy in
the legal personality to institute the present petition for quo warranto, the sangguniang panlalawigan and sangguniang panglunsod of highly
mandamus and prohibition. urbanized and component cities; the governor, in the case of sangguniang
bayan members; or the city or municipal mayor, in the case of
While petitioner claims that he took his oath on February 9, 1989 which
sangguniang barangay members. Except for the sangguniang barangay,
was a calculated move to avoid the election ban on appointments, he used
the appointee shall come from the political party of the sangguniang
a Residence Certificate issued on February 22, 1989 only. This means
member who caused the vacancy, and shall serve the unexpired term of
that he could not have taken his alleged oath before the issuance of the
the vacant office." (Underscoring supplied)
residence certificate.
3. The appointment of respondent possesses all the requisites of a valid Since deceased Councilor Saturnino Herrera who had caused the
appointment according to legal and regular procedures. She avers that her contested vacancy comes from the Liberal Party, it follows that his mode
of replacement should be governed by the standing rules of the
appointment was indorsed by nine out of eleven LP incumbent councilors
aforenamed Party.
and that her nomination was favorably indorsed by the Liberal Party
hierarchy from the Chairman of the Third District, thru the Chairman of Thus, We quote the pertinent sections of the 1967 Liberal Party Revised
the Manila Chapter up to the National President of the LP; and, that she Rules (1971 Reprint furnished by the Comelec):
was duly appointed on the basis of the series of nominations of the LP
"Rule 32. Approval of Resolution of District, Provincial, City or
hierarchy.
Municipal Government. Resolutions adopted by provincial, district, city
4. The appointment of respondent is not covered by the election ban or municipal committee shall not be final unless approved by the
contemplated under Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code. National Directorate, the Executive Committee, or the Party President."
(Under Chapter III on The Manila City Special Rules)

53
Thus, too, Section A (3) of Rule 10 of the Liberal Party Rules (on the the Liberal Party, under which the late Councilor Saturnino C. Herrera
Powers of the National Directorate) provides: was elected, has no nominee to the vacated position other than Ms. Maria
Teresita Herrera-Martinez. This is also to serve notice that no other
"3) To choose and proclaim official candidates of the Party for provincial
person is authorized to nominate any LP member to any vacancy in the
positions, and whenever necessary, convenient or proper, also for
City Council of Manila." (Underscoring supplied)
Municipal and City positions, in accordance with the requirements of
these Rules." Acting on the solid recommendation of the LP hierarchy, from the district
level up to the national level, the Secretary of Local Government
Conformably with the aforequoted provisions of the Liberal Party Rules,
correspondingly issued the letter-appointment to respondent Martinez,
all resolutions, which may include resolutions nominating replacements
the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
for deceased city councilors, should first be approved either by the
National Directorate, the Executive Committee or the Party President in "Upon the recommendation of the President of the Liberal Party and the
order that said resolutions could be considered final and valid. Chapter President of the Liberal Party, 3rd District of the City of Manila,
and pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, you are hereby appointed
Logically and by analogy, the National Directorate or in its stead, the
member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, City of Manila, Vice
Executive Committee or the Party President may choose and nominate
Councilor Saturnino Herrera." (Underscoring supplied)
the party's proposed appointee, from among its members, to the position
vacated by a deceased city councilor. Notably, respondent's appointment was accepted or recognized by the
Correspondingly, We quote hereunder the body of the letter - nomination City Council in its session of March 21, 1989. The minutes of said
session reveal that twenty-four (24) councilors voted to accept the
of the then LP National President Jovito R. Salonga explicitly
appointment of respondent and not a single member objected to or
manifesting the full support of the party hierarchy for herein respondent.
Thus - opposed the acceptance. Right then and there, the Presiding Officer
announced the acceptance of respondent's appointment and the Chair
"I hereby nominate in behalf of the Liberal Party of which I am the directed the Secretariat to include her name as a new member of the City
incumbent President Ms. Maria Teresita Herrera-Martinez, to take the Council.
place of Councilor Saturnino C. Herrera of the Liberal Party who passed
away on October 14, 1988. In the case of petitioner, however, a very different scenario took place.
The letter dated February 9, 1989 of Secretary Luis Santos informing
"Ms. Martinez is likewise the recommendee of the Liberal Party, Manila Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer Lacuna that he had appointed
Chapter headed by former Assemblyman Lito Atienza. She is also petitioner and three other appointees, carried a request that due
recommended by Congressman Leonardo Fuguso. Please be advised that recognition be accorded to them, particularly petitioner as member of the
54
Council. Petitioner and the other appointees, as per minutes of the Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code provides thus:
Council's session of March 9, 1989, were excluded from the session hall
"(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position,
by reason of the seconded motion of the Majority Floor Leader. In the
promotion, or giving salary increases. - During the period of forty-five
subsequent session of the Council on March 14, 1989, petitioner and his
days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election,
co-appointees were formally excluded from the session hall when sixteen
(1) any head, official or appointing officer of a government office,
(16) members of the Council voted in favor of their exclusion and no one
agency or instrumentality, whether national or local, including
against it. Significantly, such exclusion meant that the City Council
government-owned or controlled corporations, who appoints or hires any
refused to recognize their appointments.
new employees, whether provisional, temporary or casual, or creates and
As a conclusive confirmation of the non-recognition of petitioner's fills any new position, except upon prior authority of the Commission.
defective appointment, the Secretary of Local Government recalled the The Commission shall not grant the authority sought unless, it is satisfied
former's appointment in his letter of March 17, 1989. The letter thus that the position to be filled is essential to the proper functioning of the
reads: office or agency concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a
manner that may influence the election.
"Dear Mr. Ong:
"As an exception to the foregoing provisions, a new employee may be
"In connection with our letter of February 9, 1989, appointing you as
appointed in case of urgent need: Provided, however, That notice of the
Sangguniang Panglunsod member of the City of Manila as a consequence
appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days from the
of the death of Councilor Saturnino C. Herrera, please be informed that
date of the appointment. Any appointment or hiring in violation of this
we are recalling said appointment it appearing that you were not
provision shall be null and void."
recommended for the position by the appropriate leader of the Liberal
Party as mandated by the sub-section b(1), Rule XIX of the Rules and The aforequoted provision does not apply to both assailed appointments
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa because of the following reason:
Blg. 337)." (Underlining supplied)
The permanent vacancy for councilor exists and its filling up is governed
Both petitioner and respondent have invoked the election ban imposed by the Local Government Code while the appointment referred to in the
under Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code. The election ban election ban provision is covered by the Civil Service Law.
covered the period from February 11 to March 27, 1989 by reason of the
For having satisfied the formal requisites and procedure for appointment
Barangay election held on March 28, 1989. Both parties have capitalized
as Councilor, which is an official position outside the contemplation of
on the prohibitive provision for the purpose of having their respective
the election ban, respondent's appointment is declared valid.
appointments declared illegal or null and void.
55
The issue on the alleged discrepancy between the dates of petitioner's That on or about January 25, 1988, at Tanjay, Negros
oath and his residence certificate need not be tackled now because it will Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
not anymore affect the recalled appointment of petitioner. If ever, the Honorable Court, said accused DOMINADOR S.
matter casts a doubt on petitioner's credibility and honesty. REGALADO, JR., [as] OIC Mayor of the Municipality of
Tanjay, Negros Oriental, did then and there unlawfully,
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the temporary
feloniously and illegally TRANSFER one MRS. EDITHA P.
restraining order is correspondingly LIFTED.
BARBA, a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the
SO ORDERED. Office of the [M]ayor of Tanjay, from her permanent
assignment to a very remote Barangay of Sto. Nio during the
election period and without obtaining prior permission or
[G.R. No. 115962. February 15, 2000] clearance from the Commission on Elections, Manila.

DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT The evidence for the prosecution shows that on January 15, 1987,
OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant Editha Barba was appointed nursing attendant in the Rural
respondents. Spped Health Office of Tanjay, Negros Oriental by then Officer-In-Charge
Mayor Rodolfo Navarro.[3] Although she was detailed at, and received
DECISION her salary from, the Office of the Mayor, she reported for work at the
Puriculture Center, Poblacion, Tanjay. As Navarro decided to run for
MENDOZA, J.: mayor of Tanjay in the January 18, 1988 elections, petitioner Dominador
Regalado, Jr. was appointed substitute OIC-Mayor. His brother, Arturo S.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of the Court of Regalado, was also a mayoralty candidate.
Appeals affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38,
Negros Oriental, which found petitioner Dominador Regalado, Jr. guilty Petitioners brother won in the elections. Four days later, on January 22,
of violating 261(h) of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election 1988, petitioner, still sitting as OIC-Mayor, issued a memorandum to
Code), as amended.[2] Barba informing her that effective January 25, 1988, she would be
reassigned from Poblacion, Tanjay to Barangay Sto. Nio,[4] about 25
The Information against petitioner alleged: Josp-ped kilometers from Poblacion.[5] The transfer was made without the prior
approval of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Barba continued
to report at the Puriculture Center, Poblacion, Tanjay, however. Hence,

56
on February 18, 1988, petitioner issued another memorandum to Barba lower courts decision. He moved for a reconsideration, but his motion
directing her to explain, within 72 hours, why she refuses to comply with was likewise denied, hence this appeal.
the memorandum of January 22, 1988.[6]Spp-edjo
Petitioner alleges that
In response, Barba, on February 21, 1988, sent a letter to petitioner
protesting her transfer which she contended was illegal.[7] She then filed, I. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FAILED TO CONSIDER
on February 16, 1988, a complaint[8] against petitioner for violation of THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, and after preliminary RURAL HEALTH UNIT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
investigation, the Provincial Election Officer of Negros Oriental, Atty. TANJAY, NEGROS ORIENTAL, VIZ-A-VIZ, THE
Gerardo Lituanas, charged petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, LETTERS OF APPOINTMENT OF PRIVATE
Branch 38, Negros Oriental. RESPONDENT.

On September 27, 1991, the lower court rendered a decision, the II. THE MEMORANDUM DID NOT EFFECT A
dispositive portion of which states:[9] TRANSFER, BUT MERELY A "RE-ASSIGNMENT" OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 261, paragraph (h), of the Omnibus III. EXIGENCIES OF SERVICE WERE NOT
Election Code, the accused Dominador S. Regalado, Jr., is ACCOUNTED FOR.[11]
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for an indeterminate
period ranging from one (1) year minimum to three (3) years Petitioners contentions have no merit.
maximum without the benefit of probation and to suffer
disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the First. The two elements of the offense prescribed under 261(h) of the
right of suffrage. He is further sentenced to indemnify the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, are: (1) a public officer or
offended party, Editha P. Barba, as civil liability arising employee is transferred or detailed within the election period as fixed by
from the offense charged[,] in the sum of Five Hundred the COMELEC, and (2) the transfer or detail was effected without prior
(P500.00) Pesos . . . . for moral damages. Mi-so approval of the COMELEC in accordance with its implementing rules
and regulations.[12]Ne-xold
As petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied,[10] he elevated the
matter to the Court of Appeals, which, on February 3, 1994, affirmed the

57
The implementing rule involved is COMELEC Resolution No. 1937,[13] support of his contention, he relies upon the following portions of 24 of
which pertinently provides: P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Law):[15]Man-ikx

Section 1. Prohibited Acts. (c) Transfer a movement from one position to another which
is of equivalent rank, level, or salary without break of
.... service involving the issuance of an appointment.

Effective November 19, 1987 up to February 17, 1988, no ....

public official shall make or cause any transfer or detail
whatsoever of any officer or employee in the Civil Service, (g) Reassignment an employee may be reassigned from one
including public school teachers, except upon prior approval organizational unit to another in the same agency. Provided,
of the Commission. that such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank,
status, or salary.
Section 2. Request for authority of the Commission. - Any
request for . . . . approval to make or cause any transfer or Petitioner, however, ignores the rest of 24(c) which provides that:
detail must be submitted in writing to the Commission
stating all the necessary data and reason for the same which [A transfer] shall not be considered disciplinary when made
must satisfy the Commission that the position is essential to in the interest of the public service, in which case, the
the proper functioning of the office or agency concerned, employee concerned shall be informed of the reasons
and that the . . . . filling thereof shall not in any manner therefor. If the employee believes that there is no
influence the election. justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the
Commission.
Petitioner admits that he issued the January 22, 1988 memorandum
within the election period set in Resolution No. 1937 without the prior The transfer may be from one department or agency to
approval of the COMELEC. He contends, however, that he did not another or from one organizational unit to another in the
violate 261(h) because he merely effected a "re-assignment" and not a same department or agency: Provided, however, That any
"transfer" of personnel by moving Barba from one unit or place of movement from the non-career service to the career service
designation (Poblacion, Tanjay) to another (Sto. Nio, Tanjay) of the same shall not be considered a transfer. (Emphasis added) Manik-
office, namely, the Rural Health Office of Tanjay, Negros Oriental.[14] In s

58
Thus, contrary to petitioners claim, a transfer under 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 For strict compliance.(Emphasis added)
in fact includes personnel movement from one organizational unit to
another in the same department or agency. Second. Petitioner next contends that his order to transfer Barba to
Barangay Sto. Nio was prompted by the lack of health service personnel
Moreover, 261(h) of B.P. No. 881, as amended, provides that it is an therein and that this, in effect, constitutes sufficient justification for his
election offense for non-compliance with 261(h).[18]

Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or The contention has no merit.
detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil
service including public school teachers, within the election It may well be that Barangay Sto. Nio in January 1988 was in need of
period except upon prior approval of the Commission. health service personnel. Nonetheless, this fact will not excuse the failure
(Emphasis added) of petitioner to obtain prior approval from the COMELEC for the
movement of personnel in his office.
As the Solicitor General notes, "the word transfer or detail, as used
[above], is modified by the word whatever. This indicates that any Indeed, appointing authorities can transfer or detail personnel as the
movement of personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the exigencies of public service require.[19] However, during election period,
same office or agency, during the election is covered by the as such personnel movement could be used for electioneering or even to
prohibition."[16] harass subordinates who are of different political persuasion, 261(h) of
the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, prohibits the same unless
Finally, the memorandum itself issued by petitioner to Barba on January approved by the COMELEC.
22, 1988 stated that the latter was being "transferred," thus:[17]Man-ikan
Third. The award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to Barba must be
Effective Monday, January 25, 1988, your assignment as deleted. Under 264, par. 1 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended,
Nursing Attendant will be transferred from RHU I Tanjay the only imposable penalties for the commission of any of the election
Poblacion to Barangay Sto. Nio, this Municipality. offenses thereunder by an individual are Ol-dmiso

You are hereby directed to perform the duties and functions imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six
as such immediately in that area. years [which] shall not be subject to probation. In addition,

59
 the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification Probation plus disqualification to hold public office or deprivation of the
to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. right of suffrage.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED Motions for reconsiderations filed by the COMELEC have been denied.
with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is deleted. Petitioners then filed the instant petition.
Nc-m
In its Manifestation, the Office of the Solicitor General, it is “adopting”
SO ORDERED. the instant petition on the ground that the challenged orders of public
respondent “are clearly not in accordance with existing laws and
COMELEC v. Noynoy [G.R. No. 132365. July 9, 1998] jurisprudence.”

Public respondent avers that it is the duty of counsel for private

FACTS: respondents interested in sustaining the challenged orders to appear for
and defend him.
Pursuant to a minute resolution by the COMELEC on October 29, 1996,
nine informations for violation of Sec. 261(i) of the Omnibus Election In their Comment, private respondents maintain that R.A. No. 7691 has
Code were filed with Branch 23 of the RTC of Allen, Northern Samar. divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where the
imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment; moreover,
In an Order issued on August 25, 1997, public respondent, presiding R.A. 7691 expressly provides that all laws, decrees, and orders
judge of Branch 23, motu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be inconsistent with its provisions are deemed repealed or modified
withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law Department to file the cases accordingly. They then conclude that since the election offense in
with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court on the ground that under question is punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years, it is
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction cognizable by Municipal Trial Courts.
over the cases since the maximum imposable penalty in each of the cases
does not exceed six years of imprisonment.
ISSUE:
All the accused are uniformly charged for Violation of Sec. 261(i) of the
Omnibus Election Code, which carries a penalty of not less than one (1) Whether R.A. No. 7691 has divested Regional Trial Courts of
year but not more than six (6) years of imprisonment and not subject to jurisdiction over election offenses, which are punishable with
60
imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years.
As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or
RULING: by Congress. Outside the cases enumerated in Section 5(2) of Article
VIII of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power to define,
Under Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, Regional Trial Courts prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Congress may
have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action thus provide by law that a certain class of cases should be exclusively
or proceedings for violation of the Code except those relating to the heard and determined by one court. Such law would be a special law and
offense of failure to register or failure to vote. must be construed as an exception to the general law on jurisdiction of
courts, namely, the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and the Judiciary
In Morales v. Court of Appeals, the court held that by virtue of the Reorganization Act of 1980. R.A. No. 7691 can by no means be
exception provided for in the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. considered as a special law on jurisdiction; it is merely an amendatory
129, the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, law intended to amend specific sections of the Judiciary Reorganization
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not Act of 1980. Hence, R.A. No. 7691 does not have the effect of repealing
cover those criminal cases which by specific provisions of law fall within laws vesting upon Regional Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan exclusive
the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the original jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases therein specified. That
Sandiganbayan, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefor. Otherwise Congress never intended that R.A. No. 7691 should repeal such special
stated, even if those excepted cases are punishable by imprisonment of provisions is indubitably evident from the fact that it did not touch at all
not exceeding six (6) years (i.e., prision correccional, arresto mayor, or the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for the
arresto menor), jurisdiction thereon is retained by the Regional Trial exception.
Courts or the Sandiganbayan, as the case may be.
It is obvious that respondent judge did not read at all the opening
Among the examples cited in Morales as falling within the exception sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. It is thus an
provided for in the opening sentence of Section 32 are cases under (1) opportune time, as any, to remind him, as well as other judges, of his
Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129; (2) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, duty to be studious of the principles of law, to administer his office with
as amended; (3) the Decree on Intellectual Property; and (4) the due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, to be faithful to
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. the law, and to maintain professional competence.

Undoubtedly, pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, Instant petition is GRANTED
election offenses also fall within the exception.
61
 government, which authority, however, may be revoked or withdrawn at
anytime by the COMELEC in the proper exercise of its judgment.
Section 10 of the same Rule 34 gives the COMELEC the power to motu
proprio revise, modify and reverse the resolution of the Chief State
Prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors. Clearly, the Chief State
Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their respective
assistants have been given continuing authority, as deputies of the
Commission, to conduct a preliminary investigation of complaints
involving election offenses under the election laws and to prosecute the
DINO V. OLIVAREZ same. However, such authority may be revoked or withdrawn anytime by
the COMELEC either expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment, such
Jurisdiction; election cases. A public prosecutor exceeded the authority revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the
delegated to him by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to process to promote the common good or where it believes that the
prosecute election-related cases when he filed amended informations in successful prosecution of the case can be done by the COMELEC.
court against the respondent Pablo Olivares even after he had been Moreover, being mere deputies or agents of the COMELEC, provincial
directed by the Legal Department of the COMELEC to suspend the or city prosecutors deputized by it are expected to act in accord with and
implementation of his joint resolution (which found that the respondent not contrary to or in derogation of the resolutions, directives or orders of
should be indicted) but before his delegated authority had been revoked the COMELEC in relation to election cases where it had been deputized
by the COMELEC en banc. The Constitution, particularly Article IX, to investigate and prosecute by the COMELEC. As mere deputies,
Section 20, empowers the COMELEC to investigate and, when provincial and city prosecutors acting on behalf of the COMELEC must
appropriate, prosecute election cases. Furthermore, under Section 265 of proceed within the lawful scope of their delegated authority. (Bievenido
the OEC, the COMELEC, through its duly authorized legal officers, has Diño and Renato Comparativo vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447,
the exclusive power to conduct the preliminary investigation of all December 4, 2009.)
election offenses punishable under the OEC and to prosecute the same.
Under Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC may avail itself of the
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. Thus, Section 2,
Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the
continuing delegation of authority to other prosecuting arms of the

62
 "2nd JING-JING FAELNARS CUP," opened at the Guadalupe Sports
Complex and lasted up to April 30, 1997. This gave rise to a complaint
for electioneering filed against petitioner and Cecilio Gillamac by
Antonio Luy. The complaint alleged that the basketball tournament was
actually a campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign period which
officially started on May 1, 1997, in violation of the Omnibus Election
Code. Luy alleged that: (1) during the tournament, a streamer bearing
petitioners name was placed on the facade of the Guadalupe Sports
EUGENIO "JING-JING" FAELNAR, PETITIONER, VS. Complex; (2) petitioners name was repeatedly mentioned over the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON CODILLA, microphone during the games; (3) the tournament was widely published
IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC, in the local newspaper; and (4) a raffle sponsored by Cecilio Gillamac
was held with home appliances given away as prizes.
BRANCH 19, CEBU CITY, AND COMMISSION ON Petitioner denied participation in the tournament and claimed that its
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. major sponsor was Gillamac Marketing, Inc. He contended that the same
DECISION was purely a sporting event for the benefit of the youth. Manikx
The complaint was investigated by Atty. Edwin Cadungog, election
MENDOZA, J.: officer of Cebu City, who later recommended the dismissal of the charges
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order, dated July 29, 1999, against petitioner and Gillamac. On the other hand, the Law Department
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cebu City, denying petitioners of the COMELEC recommended the filing of a case against petitioner
motion to quash in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-49941[1] and 49942,[2] and Gillamac for violation of 80,[3] in relation to 262,[4] of the Omnibus
and the order, dated October 4, 1999, denying petitioners motion for Election Code, and 50 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2888, in relation to
reconsideration. 12 of Republic Act No. 6679.[5]
In its Resolution No. 97-3040, dated September 16, 1997, the
The facts are as follows: COMELEC en banc resolved to dismiss the case. However, on motion of
Antonio Luy, the COMELEC reconsidered its action and ordered the
On April 8, 1997, petitioner Eugenio Faelnar filed a certificate of filing of the necessary Informations against petitioner and Gillamac.
candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Accordingly, petitioner and Gillamac were formally charged in the
Guadalupe, Cebu City in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. The Regional Trial Court, Cebu City under two Informations in Criminal
following day, on April 9, 1997, a basketball tournament, dubbed the Cases Nos. CBU-49941 and CBU-49942.
63
Petitioner moved to quash the information or, in the alternative, for Resolution No. 98-2914 was promulgated by the COMELEC en banc on
reinvestigation of the case, contending that Resolution No. 97-3040, October 29, 1998. Petitioners remedy was to seek its annulment by way
which dismissed the complaint against him, was immediately executory of a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
and could no longer be reconsidered. Misox Rule 64, 2 provides:
Petitioners motion was denied by the trial court in an order dated July 29, SEC. 2. Mode of Review. A judgment or final order or resolution of the
1999. He moved for reconsideration, but his motion was likewise denied Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought
by the court in its order, dated October 4, 1999. Hence this petition. by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65,
Petitioner reiterates his argument in the trial court that COMELEC except as hereinafter provided.
Resolution No. 97-3040, which dismissed the complaint against him, can Sec. 3 of said Rule provides that such petition shall be filed within 30
no longer be reconsidered by the COMELEC. He contends that under the days from notice of the resolution sought to be reviewed. No such
Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC, the dismissal of the complaint was petition was ever filed. The present petition to set aside the orders of the
immediately final and executory. Additionally, he avers that Antonio trial court denying its motion to quash and motion for reconsideration
Luys Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 97-3040 is a was filed only on November 12, 1999, more than a year after Resolution
prohibited pleading under the Commissions Rules of Procedure. He avers No. 98-2194 was promulgated on October 29, 1998. Consequently, the
that since the resolution in question was immediately final and executory, resolution is now final and binding upon the parties. Maniks
it was no longer within the power of the COMELEC to reconsider. Even if said resolution is erroneous for being contrary to the provisions
Consequently, Resolution No. 98-2914, in directing the filing of charges of the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC, the same is not void. Since
in court, was "ultra-vires," and the Informations filed against him should it has become final and executory, it is already binding and effective.[8]
have been quashed.[6] Second. The above discussion should be enough to dispose of this
petition. However, we think there is an important question of law that
The petition is without merit. must not be left undecided, i.e., is the resolution of the COMELEC
dismissing the criminal complaint for violation of the election laws
First. While the instant petition challenges the trial courts orders denying immediately final and executory, as petitioner contends?
petitioners motion to quash the complaints in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU- The contention is untenable. In support of his claims, petitioner cites
49941 and 49942, the grounds relied upon by petitioner are directed at Rule 13, 1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC which
the validity of Resolution No. 98-2914 of the COMELEC. Thus, provides:
petitioner prays that said resolution be declared null and void.[7] SECTION 1. What pleadings are not allowed. - The following pleadings
This petition is nothing but an attempt to circumvent a final resolution of are not allowed:
the COMELEC. ....
64
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or Commission on said appeals shall be immediately executory and final.
decision; . . . . (Emphasis added)
The above quoted provision, however, is taken from the 1988 Even a cursory reading of the above rule, however, will show that it
COMELEC Rules of Procedure which has already been amended. The governs appeals from the action of the State Prosecutor or Provincial or
1993 Rules of Procedure, now provides: City Fiscal on the recommendation or resolution of investigating officers.
Rule 13. - Prohibited Pleadings. The present case does not involve such an appeal but a resolution of the
SECTION 1. What pleadings are not allowed. The following pleadings COMELEC itself in the exercise of its exclusive power to conduct
are not allowed: preliminary investigation of election offense cases.[9] Such distinction
.... can be easily explained.
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or In cases where the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Fiscal exercises
decision except in election offense cases; . . . (Emphasis added). the delegated power[10] to conduct preliminary investigation of election
Under the present rule, therefore, a motion for reconsideration of a ruling, offense cases, after the investigating officer submits his recommendation,
resolution or decision of the COMELEC en banc is allowed in cases said officers already resolve the issue of probable cause. From such
involving election offenses. resolution, appeal to the COMELEC lies. As the exercise by the
Here, there is no question that what is involved is a resolution of the Commission of its review powers would, at this point, already constitute
COMELEC en banc in an election offense. Hence, a motion for a second look on the issue of probable cause, the COMELECs ruling on
reconsideration of such resolution is allowed under the Rules of the appeal would be immediately final and executory. Oldmisox
Procedure of the COMELEC. On the other hand, if the preliminary investigation of a complaint for
Petitioner likewise invokes Rule 34, 10 of the COMELEC Rules of election offense is conducted by the COMELEC itself, its investigating
Procedure which provides that Manikanx officer prepares a report upon which the Commissions Law Department
SEC. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor, Provincial or makes its recommendation to the COMELEC en banc on whether there is
City Fiscal. Appeals from the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or probable cause to prosecute. It is thus the COMELEC en banc which
Provincial or City Fiscal on the recommendation or resolution of determines the existence of probable cause.[11] Consequently, an appeal
investigating officers may be made only to the Commission within ten to the Commission is unavailing. Under the present Rules of Procedure of
(10) days from receipt of the resolution of said officials, provided, the COMELEC, however, a motion for reconsideration of such resolution
however that this shall not divest the Commission of its power to motu is allowed. This effectively allows for a review of the original resolution,
proprio review, revise, modify or reverse the resolution of the chief state in the same manner that the COMELEC, on appeal or motu proprio, may
prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the review the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Fiscal.

65
Reliance by petitioner upon Rule 34, 10 of the COMELEC Rules of petitioner Kilosbayan a letter informing the former of “two serious
Procedure is thus without any basis. violations of election laws,” among them that the amount of P70 million
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED. was released by the Budget Department, shortly before the elections of
May 11, 1992, in favor of “PYHSDFI” a private entity, which had
reportedly engaged in dirty election tricks and practices in said elections
and requesting that these offenses and malpractices be investigated
promptly, thoroughly, impartially, without fear of favor.
KILOSBAYAN V. COMELEC
Issue: Based on recommendations by the Comelec Law Department, the
Facts: Special Provision No. 1 of the Countrywide Development Fund Commission en banc dismissed the letter-complaint for lack of evidence.
(CDF) under Republic Act No. 7180, allocates a specific amount of
government funds for infrastructure and other priority projects and Held: The constitutional and statutory mandate for the Comelec to
activities. In order to be valid, the use and release of said amount should investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election laws translates,
have the following mandatory requirements: (1) Approval by the in effect, to the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations in
President of the Philippines; (2) Release of the amount directly to the cases involving election offenses for the twin purpose of filing an
appropriate implementing agency; and (3) List of projects and activities. information in court and helping the Judge determine, in the course of
Respondent Cesar Sarino, the then DILG Secretary, requested for preliminary inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be
authority to negotiate, enter into, sign Memoranda of Agreements with issued. Although only a low quantum and quality of evidence is needed
accredited Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to utilize to support a finding of probable cause, the same cannot be justified
them to implement the projects of the CDF provided for under R.A. No. upon hearsay evidence that is never given any evidentiary or probative
7180. Respondent Franklin Drilon, the then Executive Secretary, granted value in this jurisdiction.
the abovementioned request of Secretary Sarino. Such an authority was
extended to all the Regional Directors of the DILG. Pursuant to the
above-described authority granted him, respondent Tiburcio Relucio, on
Petitioner need not prove actual tampering of the ballots Corollarily, the COMELEC
April 24, 1992, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with an En Banc had ruled that petitioner, as protestee, failed to adduce evidence that the
accredited NGO known as the “Philippine Youth Health and Sports ballots found inside the ballot boxes were compromised and tampered. This strikes us
Development Foundation, Inc.” (PYHSDFI). COMELEC received from as baseless and a clear departure from the teachings of Rosal.

66
The duty of the protestee in an election contest to provide evidence of actual
tampering or any likelihood arises only when the protestant has first successfully
discharge the burden or providing that the ballots have been secured to prevent
tampering or susceptibility of charge, abstraction or substitution. Such need to present
proof of tampering did not arise since protestant himself failed to provide evidence of
the integrity of the ballots.

A candidate for a public elective position ought to familiarize himself with election
laws, pertinent jurisprudence, and COMELEC resolutions, rules and regulations.
Alternatively, he should have an experienced and knowledgeable election lawyer to
guide him on the different aspects of election. Sans comment legal advice and
representation a victory in the elections may turn out to be a crushing defeat for the
candidate who actually got the nod of the electorate. Unfortunately for respondent Co,
he committed several miscues that eventually led to his debacle in the instant election
protest.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The

Resolution dated December 7, 2012 of the COMELEC En Banc in EAC (BRGY-SK)
No. 161-2011 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division dated August 23, 2011, affirming the Decision in Election
Case No. 02480-EC of the MeTC. Branch 4 in Manila is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

67