Political Law - Election Digested Cases

Delos Reyes v. COMELEC, 517 SCRA 137. Facts: Delos Reyes filed with the MeTC a Petition for Recount of votes in certain precincts, on the ground that several votes in his favor were read and counted for Vasquez and that the latter employed threat and intimidation against Delos Reyes watchers in order to perpetrate election irregularities. Vasquez denied these allegations. Revision proceedings were conducted by a committee composed of Delos Reyes and Vasquez as members and the MeTC Branch Clerk of Court as Chair. The Committee observed that two of the three ballot boxes coming from the disputed precincts had padlocks to which none of the three keys provided by the COMELEC District Office of Manila fit. However, other than this observation, the Committee found nothing more remarkable about the outward physical appearance of the ballot boxes and decided to forcibly open the same. Inside were election paraphernalia in good condition, with COMELEC paper seals still intact. A physical recount was conducted, thus resulting in 44 ballots for Delos Reyes being invalidated; 41 being apparently written by one person, and 3 by another. The COMELEC merely made a general declaration of their findings. Issue: WON the ballots should be invalidated Held: Undecided and case is remanded to the COMELEC. COMELECs' appreciation of the 44 contested ballots was deficient for it referred exclusively to said ballots without consulting the Minutes of Voting or the Computerized Voters List to verify the presence of assisted voters in the contested precincts. Thus, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in overturning the presumption of validity of the 44 ballots and in declaring them invalid based on an incomplete appreciation of said ballots. However, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the Court is barred from ruling on the validity of the 44 contested ballots and restoring them in favor of Delos Reyes. Judicious resolution of this issue will entail scrutiny of the ballots and the Minutes of the Voting, or if not available, the Computerized Voters List, over which the COMELEC has primary jurisdiction - a function the Court cannot pretend to exercise even for the lofty purpose of determining in the soonest possible time as to who between Delos Reyes and Vasquez was elected to the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay 414 during the July 15, 2002 Barangay Elections. The original records of the case are not before this Court. This matter should therefore be remanded to the COMELEC for expeditious and complete evaluation of the subject ballots and Minutes of the Voting or Computerized Voters List, in accordance with the procedure described above, having in mind that Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections[38] will be held on October 29, 2007. Cundangan v. COMELEC, 531 SCRA 542. Facts: Cundangan and Chua were candidates for Punong Barangay for Barangay Sumilang, Pasig City in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. After the canvass of votes, Cundangan was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay. Chua filed an election protest which impugned the results of the canvass in all the 19 precincts of said barangay. Cundangan claims COMELEC to be guilty of grave abuse of discretion as COMELEC invalidated 87 ballots for Cundangan for allegedly being written by one person, 19 ballots being written by two other persons, and 3 marked ballots, while it allowed the validity of 89 ballots for Chua that was allegedly written by one person, and 4 marked ballots. Issue: WON there was grave abuse of discretion in the part of COMELEC Held: No. It was held that the COMELEC En Banc did not abuse its discretion in invalidating all of the

aforesaid contested ballots. Where the factual findings of a division of the COMELEC, as affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc, are supported by substantial evidence, they are beyond the ken of review by the Court. In the present petition, the Court has more reason to respect the findings of the COMELEC En Banc with regard to the questioned ballots, considering that the same is consistent not only with the findings of the COMELEC First Division, but also those of the trial court. It must be stressed that the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. It is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Consequently, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by the Court Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 432 SCRA 144. Facts: Petitioner filed with the HRET an electoral protest against private respondent, impugning the election in 807 precincts in the 6th District of Manila on the following grounds: (1) misreading of votes garnered by petitioner; (2) falsification of election returns; (3) substitution of election returns; (4) use of marked, spurious, fake and stray ballots; and (5) presence of ballots written by one person or two persons. Petitioner prayed that a revision and appreciation of the ballots in the 807 contested precincts be conducted; and that, thereafter, he be proclaimed the duly elected Congressman of the 6th District of Manila. Petitioner filed a motion to implement Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, to somehow turn votes for private respondent as stray votes for having been declared as disqualified by the HRET almost two years after the election. Issue: WON such votes should be considered as stray votes Held: No. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code require a final judgment before the election for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be considered "stray." Hence, when a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during the election day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. The rationale behind the foregoing ruling is that in voting for a candidate who has not been disqualified by final judgment during the election day, the people voted for him bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the honest belief that the candidate was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of government. Ong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 144197 (13 December 2000). Facts: Petitioner William P. Ong and respondent Isagani B. Rizon were candidates for the position of mayor of the municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte during the May 11, 1998 local elections. On May 13, 1998, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed William P. Ong as the winner with a margin of fifty-one (51) votes. Certain votes were invalidated eventually leading to Rizon being proclaimed as winner. Petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc resolution, aside from being patently illegal, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the whole, the petition disputed the sixty one (61) invalidated ballots of petitioner and seven (7) ballots of respondent. COMELEC invalidated all 61 ballots for being marked and written by two persons.

Issue: WON such ballots should be invalidated Held: No. Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks, comma, dots, lines, or hyphens between the first name and surname of a candidate, or in other parts of the ballot, traces of the letter "T", "J", and other similar ones, the first letters or syllables of names which the voter does not continue, the use of two or more kinds of writing and unintentional or accidental flourishes, strokes or strains, shall not invalidate the ballot. The appearance of print and script writings in a single ballot does not necessarily imply that two persons wrote the ballot. The use of two or more kinds of writing cannot have the effect of invalidating the ballot unless it clearly appears that they had been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks. Further, appellations of affection and friendship (e.g. ‘Pare ko’) do not invalidate a ballot. Balingit v. COMELEC, 515 SCRA 404 Facts: Issue: Held: Laureano v. COMELEC, 526 SCRA 230. Facts: Issue: Held: