Elec Cases 1

7/25/2019 Elec Cases 1

1/24

1[G.R. No. 122250 & 122258. July 21, 1997]EDGARDO C. NOLASCO,petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,MNICI!AL "OARD O# CAN$ASSERS,ME%CAA%AN, "LACAN, '(EDARDO A. ALARILLA, respondents.

#LORENTINO !. "LANCO,petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS '( EDARDO

A. ALARILLA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

!NO,J.)

First, we rewind the facts. The election formayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan was held on May8, 1995. The principal protagonists werepetitioner Florentino P. Blanco and priaterespondent !duardo ". "larilla. Blanco receied#9,$5% otes, while "larilla got #%,&%8 otes.'1(!dgardo )olasco was elected *ice+Mayor with%$,#& otes.

-n May 9, 1995, "larilla led with the/-M!0!/ a petition to disualify Blanco. 2ealleged3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

. Based on intelligence reports that respondentwas maintaining his own priate army6 at hisaforesaid resident, P7nsp. onaldo -. 0ee of thePhilippine )ational Police assigned with thentelligence /ommand at /amp /rame, appliedfor and was granted search warrant no. 95+1$ :y

Branch %$ of the egional Trial /ourt of Manila on5 May 1995. " copy of the said search warrant isattached as "nne4 ;"; hereof.

5. n compliance with said search warrant no. 95+1$, an elite composite team of the P)Pntelligence /ommand, /riminal nestigation /al. %$

ounds of "mmo.

#. )C"M M1& /al. 5 MP with ounds of"mmo.

!. !dgardo -rteGa y "suncion +

1. Palti? /al. %8 e with si4 =@> ounds of "mmo.

F. Francisco 0i:ari y /alimag +

1. Palti? /al. %8 so that they couldenter the said room to seiGe the said rearm.

11. Ehile waiting for the issuance of the secondsearch warrant, respondent6s wife andrespondent6s :rother, Mariano Blanco, claiming to:e the campaign manager of respondent in the)ationalist People6s /oalition Party, as?ed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/122250.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/122250.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/122250.htm#_edn1


2/24

#permission to enter the loc?ed room so they couldwithdraw money in a ault inside the loc?ed roomto pay their watchers, and the teachers ofMeycauayan in the 8 May 1995 elections.

1#. For reasons not ?nown to petitioner, Mrs.Florentino Blanco and Mariano Blanco, wereallowed to withdraw ten =1&> large plastic :ags

from the ault.

1%. Ehen the said P)P composite team e4aminedthe ten =1&> :lac? plastic :ags, they found outthat each :ag contained ten =1&> shoe:o4es. !ach shoe :o4 when e4amined contained#&& pay enelopes, and each pay enelope whenopened contained the amount of P1,&&&.&&. Ehen uestioned, respondent6s:rother Mariano Blanco and respondent6s wife,admitted to the raiding team that the totalamount of money in the ten =1&> plastic :ags isP1&,&&&,&&&.&&.

1. The la:els found in the enelope shows thatthe money were intended as respondent6s :ri:emoney to the teachers of Meycauayan."ttachedas "nne4 ;/; is the coer of one of the shoe:o4es containing the inscription that it is intendedto the teachers of Brgy. 0awa, Meycauayan,Bulacan.

15. -n election day 8 May 1995, respondentperpetrated the most massie ote+:uyingactiity eer in the history of Meycauayanpolitics. "ttached as "nne4 ;; is the enelope

where this P1&,&&&,&&&.&& was placed in 1&&peso denominations totalling one thousand pesosper enelope with the inscription *-T!III T)-.6

This massie ote+:uying actiity was engineered:y the respondent through his organiGation calledMTB6 or M-*!M!)T F- T)- B0")/-*-0J)T!! Hying oters were caught indierent precincts of Meycauayan, Bulacan, whoadmitted after :eing caught and arrested thatthey were paid P#&&.&& to P%&&.&& :y respondentand his followers, to ote for other oters in theoter6s list.

1$. )ot satised, and with his oerHowing supplyof money, respondent used another scheme asfollows. espondent6s paid oter will identify histarget from the list of oter and will impersonatesaid oter in the list and falsify his signature.

"ttached as "nne4 ;C; hereof is the Minutes of*oting and /ounting of *otes in Precinct )o. #@,Brgy. /alario, Meycauayan, Bulacan."nne4 ;C+1;is the statement of one Ma. 0uisa de los eyes

/ruG stating that when she went to her precinctto ote, her name was already oted upon :yanother person. This entry was noted :y 0eticia T*illanco, Poll /hairmanN !stelita "rtaAo, + Pol/ler?N and )elson Kohn )ito + Poll Mem:er.

18. !arlier :efore the election, respondent usedhis tremendous money to get in the good gracesof the local /omelec egistrar, who was replaced:y this -Lce upon the petition of the people ofMeycauayan. "ttached as "nne4 ;2; hereof is anarticle in the % May 1995 issue of ":ante entitled1 M


3/24

%the !lection /ode. There are only 9$,&&&registered oters in Meycauayan ersusrespondent6s e4penses of at least P1&,&&&,&&&.&&as admitted a:oe. =!mphasis supplied>.

-n May 15, 1995, "larilla led a *ery Jrgent!4 Parte Motion to granted the motion after

nding that there was a ;pro:a:le commission ofelection oenses which are grounds fordisualication pursuant to the proisions ofsection @8 of the -mni:us !lection /ode =BP881>, and the eidence in support ofdisualication is strong.; t directed theMunicipal Board of /anassers ;to complete thecanassing of election returns of the municipalityof Meycauayan, :ut to suspend proclamation ofrespondent Florentino P. Blanco should he o:tainthe winning num:er of otes for the position ofMayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan until such timewhen the petitions for disualication against him

shall hae :een resoled.;-n May #5, 1995, Blanco led a Motion to 0ift

or heard the petition to disualifyBlanco. The parties thereafter su:mitted theirposition papers.'#(Blanco een replied to theposition paper of "larilla on Kune 9, 1995.

-n "ugust 15, 1995, the /-M!0!/ =Firstiision> disualied Blanco on the ground ofote+:uying, iG.3'%(

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

;E2!!F-!, premises considered, the/ommission =First iision> !


4/24

ote+:uying in gross and palpa:le iolation of theproisions of

-n the other hand, )olasco contends in hispetition for certiorari'@(that he should :e declaredas Mayor in iew of the disualication ofBlanco. 2e cites section of .". )o. $1@&otherwise ?nown as the 0ocal Coernment /odeof 1991 and our decision in 0a:o s. /-M!0!/.'$(

Ee shall rst resole the Blanco petition.

Blanco was not denied due process when the/-M!0!/ =First iision> suspended his

proclamation as mayor pending determination ofthe petition for disualication againsthim.


5/24

5for any reason a candidate is not declared :y nal

Audgment :efore an election to :e disualiedand he is oted for and receies the winningnum:er of otes in such election, the /ourt or/ommission shall continue with the trial andhearing of the action, inuiry or protest and, uponmotion of the complainant or any interenor, mayduring the pendency thereof order the suspensionof the proclamation of such candidate wheneerthe eidence of his guilt is strong.;

espite these laws and e4istingAurisprudence, Blanco contends that /-M!0!/must follow the procedure in esolution )o. #&5&as amended. Ee hold that /-M!0!/ cannotalways :e straitAac?eted :y this proceduralrule. The /-M!0!/ has e4plained that theresolution was passed to ta?e care of theproliferation of disualication cases at thattime. t deemed it wise to delegate its authorityto its 0aw epartment as partial solution to the

pro:lem. The May 8, 1995 elections, howeer, didnot result in a surfeit of disualication caseswhich the /-M!0!/ cannot handle. 2ence, itsdecision to resole the disualication case ofBlanco directly and without referring it to its 0awepartment is within its authority, a sounde4ercise of its discretion. The action of the/-M!0!/ is in accord with

;4 4 4

;espondent argues that the claim of ote+:uyinghas no factual :asis :ecause the aLdaits andsworn statements admitted as eidence againsthim are products of hearsayN inadmissi:le:ecause of the illegal searchesN they iolate theule of es nter "lios "cta and the oense ofote+:uying reuires consummation.

Ee are not impressed.

" studied reading of the aLdaits 'espondent6saLdait is unsigned( attached to the eply of theespondent to the Position Paper of the Petitioner'"nne4es 1, # and %( would reeal that they are inthe nature of general denials emanating fromindiiduals closely associated or related torespondent Blanco.

The same holds true with the aLdaits attachedto espondent6s Position Paper '"nne4es 1, #, %and (.


6/24

@'"nne4es ;!+#;, ;!+%;, ;!+;, ;!+5;, ;!+@;, ;!+$;,;!+8;, ;!+9; and ;!+1&;(.

-n the day of the elections, two indiiduals wereapprehended for attempting to ote forespondent when they allegedly are notregistered oters of Meycauayan. " criminalcomplaint for iolation of section #@1 '#( of BP

881 was led :y P7


7/24

$consideration for someone6s ote constitutes theoense of ote+:uying.

n the case at :ar, the acts of oering andpromising money in consideration for the otes ofsaid aLants is suLcient for a nding of thecommission of the oense of ote+:uying.;

These factual ndings were aLrmed :y the/-M!0!/ en :anc against the lone dissent of/ommissioner Maam:ong.

There is an attempt to discredit thesendings. mmediately o:ious in the eort is theresort to our technical rules of eidence. "gain,our ingrained Aurisprudence is that technical rulesof eidence should not :e rigorously applied inadministratie proceedings especially where thelaw calls for the proceeding to :e summary incharacter. More importantly, we cannot departfrom the settled norm of reiewing decisions ofthe /-M!0!/, i.e., that ;this /ourt cannot reiewthe factual ndings of the /-M!0!/ a:sent agrae a:use of discretion and a showing ofar:itrariness in its decision, order orresolution.;'1#(

Ee now come to the petition of )olasco thathe should :e declared as mayor in the eentBlanco is nally disualied.'1%(Ee sustain theplea.

=d> The successors as dened herein shall sereonly the une4pired terms of their predecessors.

For purposes of this /hapter, a permanen

acancy arises when an electie local oLcial llsa higher acant oLce, refuses to assume oLce,fails to ualify, dies, is remoed from oLceoluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanentlyincapacitated to discharge the functions of hisoLce.

For purposes of succession as proided in this/hapter, ran?ing in the sanggunian shall :edetermined on the :asis of the proportion ofotes o:tained :y each winning candidate to thetotal num:er of registered oters in eachdistri:ution the immediately preceding election.;

n the same ein, "rticle 8% of the ules andegulations mplementing, the 0ocal Coernment/ode of 1991 proides3

;4 4 4.

;"T. 8%. *acancies and Ehat constitutes permanentacancy + " permanent acancy arises when anelectie local oLcial lls a higher acant oLce,refuses to assume oLce, fails to ualify, dies, isremoed from oLce, oluntarily resigns, or isotherwise permanently incapacitated to dischargethe functions of his oLce.

=:> Permanent acancies in the oLces of thegoernor, ice goernor, mayor and ice mayor +

=1> f a permanent acancy occurs in the oLce ofthe goernor or mayor, the ice goernor or icemayor concerned shall ipso facto :ecome thegoernor or mayor. f a permanent acancyoccurs in the oLces of the goernor, icegoernor, mayor, or ice mayor, the highest

ran?ing sanggunian mem:er or, in case of hispermanent ina:ility, the second highest ran?ingsanggunian mem:er, shall ipso facto :ecome thegoernor, ice goernor, mayor or ice mayor, asthe case may :e.


8/24

8"larilla, cannot :e proclaimed winner in case thewinning candidate is disualied. Thus, wereiterated the rule in the fairly recent case ofeyes . /-M!0!/,'1( viz3

;4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

;Ee li?ewise nd no grae a:use of discretion onthe part of the /-M!0!/ in denying petitioner

Kulius -. Carcia6s petition to :e proclaimed mayorin iew of the disualication of enato J. eyes.

;That the candidate who o:tains the secondhighest num:er of otes may not :e proclaimedwinner in case the winning candidate isdisualied is now settled. The doctrinalinsta:ility caused :y see+sawing rulings has since:een remoed. n the latest ruling on theuestion, this /ourt said3

To simplistically assume that the second placer

would hae receied the other otes would :e tosu:stitute our Audgment for the mind of theoter. The second placer is Aust that, a secondplacer. 2e lost the elections. 2e was repudiated:y either a maAority or plurality of oters. 2ecould not :e considered the rst among ualiedcandidates :ecause in a eld which e4cludes thedisualied candidate, the conditions would haesu:stantially changed. Ee are not prepared toe4trapolate the results under the circumstances.

;Carcia6s plea that the otes cast for eyes :einalidated is without merit. The otes cast for

eyes are presumed to hae :een cast in the:elief that eyes was ualied and for thatreason can not :e treated as stray, oid, ormeaningless. The su:seuent nding that he isdisualied cannot retroact to the date of theelections so as to inalidate the otes cast forhim.;

/onseuently, respondent /-M!0!/committed grae a:use of discretion insofar as itfailed to follow the a:oe doctrine, a descendantof our ruling in 0a:o . /-M!0!/. '15(

" nal word. The dispute at :ar inoles morethan the mayoralty of the municipality ofMeycauyan, Bulacan. t concerns the right ofsurage which is the :edroc? of repu:licanism.


9/24

9G.R. No. L-8/ No34 18, 19/9

IRINEO MO%A,petitioner,s.

AGRI!INO GA. DEL #IERO,respondent.

Elpidio Quirino or petitioner.

Claro M. Recto or respondent.

LAREL,J.:

This is a petition for reiew :y certiorari of the

Audgment of the /ourt of "ppeals in the a:oe

entitled case declaring the respondent, "gripino

Ca. del Fierro, the candidate+elect for the oLce of

mayor of the municipality of Paracale, Proince of

/amarines )orte, with a maAority of three otes

oer his rial, rineo Moya. n the general

elections held on ecem:er 1, 19%$, the parties

herein were contending candidates for the

aforesaid oLce. "fter canass of the returns the

municipal council of Paracale, acting as :oard of

canassers, proclaimed the petitioner as the

elected mayor of said municipality with a maAority

of 1 otes. -n ecem:er #$, 19%$, the

respondent eld a motion of protest in the /ourt

of First nstance of /amarines )orte, the /ourt of

"ppeals, on Kuly 1%, 19%9 rendered the Audgment

herein:efore mentioned which is sought :y thepetitioner to :e reiewed and reersed upon the

errors alleged to hae :een committed :y the

/ourt of "ppeals3

1. n admitting and counting in faor of the

respondent, 8 :allots either inadertently

or contrary to the controlling decisions of

this 2onora:le /ourt.

#. n admitting and counting in faor of the

respondent, % :allots mar?ed ;. delFierro.;

%. n admitting and counting in faor of the

respondent, $ :allots mar?ed ;uno del

Firro.;

. n admitting and counting in faor of the

respondent, $# :allots mar?ed ;P. del

Fierro.;

Ta?ing up seriatim the alleged errors, we come to

the rst assignment inoling the eight =8> :allots

now to :e mentioned. =1> Eith reference to :allot

!4hi:it F+1$5 in precinct )o. #, alleged to hae

:een inadertently admitted in faor of the

respondent, such inadertence raises a uestion

of fact which could hae :een corrected :y the

/ourt of "ppeals and which could we are not in aposition to determine in this proceeding for

reiew :y certiorari. Jpon the other hand, if the

error attri:uted to the /ourt of "ppeals consisted

in haing admitted :allot !4hi:it F+1$5 in precinct

)o. # instead of the :allot :earing the same

num:er corresponding to precinct )o. 1, and this

latter :allot clearly appears admissi:le for the

respondent :ecause the name written on the

space for mayor is ;Primo del Fierro; or ;Pimo de

Fierro;, the error is technical and deseres :ut

scanty consideration. =#> Ballot !4hi:it F+#@ in

precinct )o. % was erroneously admitted for therespondent :y the /ourt of "ppeals, the name

written on the space for mayor :eing ;C.T

Drandes.; t is true that on the fourth line for the

councilor ;"lcalde Pinong del Fierro;3 appearsN :ut

the intention of the elector is rendered ague and

incapa:le of ascertaining and the :allot was

improperly counted for the respondent. "s to this

:allot, the contention of the petitioner is

sustained =%> Ballot !4hi:it F+$$ in precinct )o. #

should also hae :een reAected :y the /ourt of

"ppeals. The :allot :ears the distinguishing mar?;-. D.; placed after the name ;M. 0opis; written

on space for ice+mayor. The contention of the

petitioner in this respect is li?ewise sustained. =>

Ballot !4hi:it F+9 in precinct )o. # was properly

admitted for respondent. -n this :allot the

elector wrote within the space for mayor the

name of egino Cuinto, a candidate for the

proincial :oard and wrote the respondent6s

name immediately :elow the line for mayor :ut

immediately a:oe the name ;M. 0opeG; oted :y

him for ice+mayor. The intention of the elector to

ote for the respondent for the oLce of themayor is clear under the circumstances. =5> Ballot

F+1%1 in precinct )o. 1 was also properly counted

for the respondent. -n this :allot the elector

wrote the respondent6s name on the space for

ice+mayor, :ut, apparently realiGing his mista?e

he placed an arrow connecting the name of the

respondent to the word ;Mayor; ="lcalde> printed

on the left side of the :allot. The intention of the

elector to ote for the respondent for the oLce of

mayor is thus eident, in the a:sence of proof


10/24

1&showing that the :allot had :een tampered with.

=@> Ballot F+$ in precinct )o. 5 is admissi:le for

the respondent and the /ourt of "ppeals

committed no error in so adAudicating. "lthough

the name of the respondent is written on the rst

space for mem:er of the proincial :oard, said

name is followed in the ne4t line :y ;Bice;

/ulastico Palma, which latter name is followed inthe ne4t line :y word ;consehal; and the name of

a candidate for this position. The intention of the

elector to ote for the respondent for the oLce of

mayor :eing manifest, the o:Aection of the

petitioner to the admission of this :allot is

oerruled. =$> Ballot F+1 in precinct )o. # is alid

for the respondent. -n this :allot the /hristian

name of the respondent was written on the

second space for mem:er of the proincial :oard,

:ut his surname was written on the proper space

for mayor with no other accompanying name or

names. The intention of the elector :eingmanifest, the same should :e gien eect in

faor of the respondent. =8> Ballot F+ in precinct

)o. # wherein ;"gripino F. Carcia; appears written

on the proper space, is alid for the respondent.

n his certicate of candidacy the respondent

gae his name as ;"gripino Ca. del Fierro.; The

conclusion of the trial court, upheld :y the /ourt

of "ppeals, that the letter ;F; stands for ;Fierro;

and ;Carcia; for the contraction ;Ca.; is not

without Austication and, :y li:eral construction,

the :allot in uestion was properly admitted forthe respondent.

The second error assigned :y the petitioner refers

to three :allots, namely, !4hi:it F+119 in precinct

)o. 1 !4hi:it F+# in precinct )o. #, and !4hi:it F+

@ in precinct )o. . These three :allots appear to

:e among the $5 :allots found :y the /ourt of

"ppeals as accepta:le for the respondent on the

ground that the initial letter ;P; stands for ;Pino;

in ;Pino del Fierro; which is a name mentioned in

the certicate of candidacy of the respondent.

The petitioner contends that the initial ;; and

not ;P;. !en if we could reerse this nding, we

do not feel Austied in doing so after e4amining

the photostatic copies of these :allots attached to

the herein petition for certiorari. The second

assignment of error is accordingly oerruled.

Jpon the third assignment of error, the petitioner

uestions the correctness of the Audgment of the

/ourt of "ppeals in adAudicating to the

respondent the seen :allots wherein ;uno del

Fierro; was oted for the oLce of mayor. Ee are

of the opinion that the position ta?en :y the /ourt

of "ppeals is correct. There was no othe

candidate for the oLce of mayor with the name

of ;uno; or similar name and, as the

respondent was districtly identied :y his

surname on these :allots, the intention of the

oters in preparing the same was undou:tedly toote for the respondent of the oLce for which he

was a candidate.lawphi1.net

The fourth assignment of error deals with the $#

:allots wherein ;P. del Fierro; was oted for the

oLce of mayor, and it is the contention of the

petitioner that said :allots should not hae :een

counted :y the /ourt of "ppeals in faor of the

respondent. For the identical reason indicated

under the discussion of petitioner6s second

assignment of error, namely, that ;P; stands for

;Pino; in ;Pino del Fierro; which is a namementioned in the certicate of candidacy of the

respondent, we hold that there was no error in

the action of the /ourt of "ppeals in awarding the

said :allots to the respondent.

Eith the e4ception of :allot mar?ed as !4hi:it F+

#@ in precinct )o. % and :allot mar?ed as !4hi:it

F+$$ in precinct )o. #, we are inclined to accept

the rest of the disputed :allots for the responden

not only for the specic reasons already gien :ut

also and principally for the more fundamentareason now to :e stated. "s long as popular

goernment is an end to :e achieed and

safeguarded, surage, whateer may :e the

modality and form deised, must continue to :e

the manes :y which the great reseroir of power

must :e emptied into the receptacular agencies

wrought :y the people through their /onstitution

in the interest of good goernment and the

common weal. epu:licanism, in so far as it

implies the adoption of a representatie type of

goernment, necessarily points to the

enfranchised citiGen as a particle of popula

soereignty and as the ultimate source of the

esta:lished authority. 2e has a oice in his

Coernment and wheneer called upon to act in

Austia:le cases, to gie it eLcacy and not to

stiHe it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the

rule that :allots should :e read and appreciated,

if not with utmost, with reasona:le, li:erality

/ounsel for :oth parties hae called our attention

to the dierent and diergent rules laid down :y

this /ourt on the appreciation of :allots. t wil


11/24

11sere no good and useful purpose for us to

engage in the tas? of reconciliation or

harmoniGation of these rules, although this may

perhaps :e underta?en, as no two cases will :e

found to :e e4actly the same in factual or legal

enironment. t is suLcient to o:sere, howeer,

in this connection that whateer might hae :een

said in cases heretofore decided, no technical ruleor rules should :e permitted to defeat the

intention of the oter, if that intention is

discoera:le from the :allot itself, not from

eidencealiunde. This rule of interpretation goes

to the ery root of the system. ationally, also,

this must :e the Austication for the suggested

li:eraliGation of the rules on appreciation of

:allots which are now incorporated in section 1

of the !lection /ode =/ommonwealth "ct )o.

%5$>.

t results that, crediting the petitioner with thetwo :allots herein held to hae :een erroneously

admitted :y the /ourt of "ppeals for the

respondent, the latter still wins :y one ote. n

iew whereof it :ecomes unnecessary to consider

the counter+assignment of errors of the

respondent.

Eith the modication of the decision of the /ourt

of "ppeals, the petition for the writ of certiorari is

here:y dismissed, without pronouncement

regarding costs.

G.R. No. L//5-1 J'u4y 20, 1972

A"DLGA#AR !NGTAN, petitioner,s.

"ENJAMIN A""AAR, COMMISSION ONELECTIONS, '( T+E !RO$INCIAL "OARD O#CAN$ASSERS O# SL. respondents.

Jose . Dio!no and Manuel M. "onzales or

petitioner.

#alon$a% &rdo'ez% (ap% #icat and )ssociates or

respondent *en+a,in )-u-a!ar.

ea'o% "arcia and )postol or respondent

C&ME/EC% etc.

#ERNANDO,J.:p

The resolution of respondent /omelec1now

assailed in this petition for reiew, was

undou:tedly motiated :y the o:Aectie o

insuring free, orderly and honest elections in thedischarge of its constitutional function to enforce

and administer electoral laws.2t e4cluded from

the canass for the election of delegates for the

lone district of the proince of


12/24

1#in 0s,an v. Co,elec.-The other principaluestion raised is whether the recognition of such

prerogatie on the part of respondent

/ommission would contraene the constitutional

proision that it cannot pass on the right to ote.

The appropriate answer as will :e made clear is

li?ewise aderse to petitioner. 2ence, respondent

/ommission must :e sustained.

The case had its origin from a petition led on

ecem:er 1@, 19$&, :y respondent ":u:a?ar and

the other candidates,5superseding an earlier onedated ecem:er $, 19$& alleging that in the

towns of compel us with much greater

Austication to nd that the returns from


13/24

1%record3 one each in Precincts 8, #9 and #&+".

5,%&& thum:mar?s were found to :e not identical

with the corresponding thum:mar?s of the

registered oters in their registration records, /!

Form 1. @,199 thum:mar?s, howeer, could not

:e analyGed :ecause they were :lurred, smudged

or faint. -f these @,199 :lurred thum:prints from

5@ precincts, ,18$ from %1 precincts werereferred to the )B handwriting e4perts for

signature e4amination. The result of said

e4amination :y the )B of these ,18$ signatures

showed that only 1% were found to :e identical

with the signatures of the registered oters in

their registration record, /! Form 1, while #,89$

were those of persons other than the registered

oters. )o opinion could :e rendered on 1,#$$

signatures for lac? of suLcient :asis of

comparison.;9Further3 ;t appeared, therefore,that in the whole town of Tapul out of the 11,5$5

otes cast only 1% were denitely esta:lished ascast :y the registered oters. 8,19$ were

denitely esta:lished as cast :y su:stitute oters.

)o opinion could :e rendered with respect to

1,#$$ for lac? of suLcient :asis, #,&1# were not

e4amined anymore since these were in precincts

where the num:er of su:stitute oting had :een

found to constitute a ery high percentage. t has

:een also esta:lished that on !lection ay a:out

one hundred men armed with long arms were

seen going around from precinct to precinct in

Tapul driing away the oters and instructing theteachers+inspectors on how to prepare the

election returns. precincts of Tapul reported 1&&R

oting while the oer+all percentage of oting in

the whole municipality was 9.5R.; 10

Then came the recital as to Parang3 ;n Parang,

where there were 11,$@1 registered oters in @$

precincts, it was made to appear that 11,&8%

otes were cast. @@ oters who were not

registered in the precinct were a:le to ote

illegally without een using the names of the

registered oters therein. "n e4amination of the

thum:prints of those who oted appearing in /!

Form %9 or at the :ac? of /! Form 1 compared

with the corresponding thum:prints of the

registered oters appearing in their registration

record in /! Form 1 showed that only %9

thum:prints of the registered oters in his /!

Form 1, while ,@98 were dierent from those of

the registered oters. @,5%9 thum:mar?s could

not :e analyGed :ecause they were :lurred

smudged or faint. 2oweer, only #,@$ of these

@,5%9 smudged thum:prints were referred to the

)B for signature e4amination since the rest of

said :lurred thum:mar?s were in precincts where

a high percentage of non+identical thum:mar?swas already discoered. 1,5$% signatures were

found to :e :y persons other than the registered

oters and only 8% were found to :e identical with

those of the registered oters. )o opinion could

:e rendered with respect to 991 signatures for

lac? of suLcient :asis. n #& precincts it was

made to appear that all the registered oters had

oted. The oerall percentage for the whole town

of Parang was 9R. The eidence also showed

that in a num:er of precincts in Parang armed

men had entered the polling places and prepared

the :allots. The registered oters were not a:le toote.; 110astly, as to 0uu?3 ;n 0uu? where therewere 1%,1# registered oters, 1#,#@% otes were

cast. #81 persons who were not registered oters

in this precinct were a:le to ote illegally without

een using the names of the registered oters

The thum:prints of those who oted appearing in

their oting record either in /! Form 1 or in /!

Form %9 compared with the thum:prints of the

registered oters appearing in the oter6s

registration record in /! Form 1 showed that only

## of the thum:mar?s of those who oted wereidentical with the thum:mar?s of the registered

oters, while @, were found to :e dierent

from those of the registered oters. @,1%

thum:mar?s could not, howeer, :e analyGed

:ecause they were found to :e :lurred, smudged

or faint. 2oweer, the signatures of those who

oted in 1% precincts were e4amined :y the )B

and it was found that the said signatures were

written :y Aust a few persons as e4plained with

greater particularity in the earlier pages of this

resolution.; 12

n the light of the a:oe and nding no need to

determine how the election was in fact conducted

as to Pata, Pati?ul, ndanan, Panamao,


14/24

1such should :e e4cluded from the canass for the

election of delegates for the lone congressional

district of the proince of


15/24

15prerogatie. /learly, there was care and

circumspection to assure that the constitutional

o:Aectie of insuring that an election :e ;free,

orderly and honest; :e realiGed. f, under the

circumstances disclosed, a dierent conclusion

were arried at, then certainly there is a

frustration of such an ideal. Moreoer, this /ourt

has not displayed any reluctance in yielding theimprimatur of its approal to the action ta?en :y

respondent /ommission in the discharge of its

constitutional function of the enforcement of all

laws relatie to the conduct of elections. The long

line of decisions especially so since Cauton v.

Co,,ission on Elections, 1is not suscepti:le ofany other interpretation. -nly thus may there :e

an assurance that the canassing and

proclamation reHect with delity and accuracy

the true results of an election, in fact actually

held. Ee do so again. "s a matter of fact, such a

sympathetic approach to the results arried at inthe discharge of its functions started with the

leading case of #u,ulon$ v. Co,,ission on

Elections. 17"s was so well put :y Kustice, later/hief Kustice, ":ad


16/24

1@an election has :een held is a uestion of a

dierent type. t is properly within the

administratie Aurisdiction of respondent

/ommission. f, as is our decision, no such oting

did ta?e place, considering the massie

irregularities that attended it in the four towns,

then the e4clusion of the alleged returns is not

tainted :y inrmity. n that sense, the secondissue raised :y petitioner that in so acting the

respondent /ommission e4ceeded its

constitutional power :y encroaching on terrain

properly Audicial, the right to ote :eing inoled,

is li?ewise to :e resoled against him. "t any

rate, what was set forth :y Kustice K.B.0. eyes

in Diaz v. Co,,ission on

Elections 25would li?ewise dispose of such acontention aderse to petitioner. Thus3 ;t is

pleaded :y respondents that the reAection of the


17/24

1$The petitioner is Philip omualdeG, a natural :orn

citiGen of the Philippines, the son of the former

Coernor of 0eyte, BenAamin ;Do?oy; omualdeG,

and nephew of the then First 0ady melda Marcos.

in 0eyte where he oted. 2

Ehen the eentful days from the #1st to the #th

of Fe:ruary, 198@, came or were a:out to come

to a close, some relaties and associates of the

deposed President, fearing for their personal

safety, whether founded or not, ;Hed; thecountry. Petitioner omualdeG, for one, together

with his immediate family, left the Philippines and

sought ;asylum; in the Jnited led a petition with the Municipa

Trial /ourt of Tolosa, 0eyte, praying that

omualdeG :e e4cluded from the list of oters in

Precinct )o. 9 of Mal:og, Tolosa, 0eyte, under BP

881 and " $1@@.8"dincula alleged tha

omualdeG was a resident of Massachusetts

J.


18/24

182ence, the instant petition for

e4clusion of Philip C. omualdeG

from the list of oter of Precinct )o.

9, Mal:og, Tolosa, 0eyte is here:y

ordered !)! and petition

Jpon receipt of the aderse decision, "dincula

appealed the case to the respondent court.

-n &% "pril 199#, the respondent court rendered

the assailed decision, 12thus3

E2!!F-!, this /ourt nds

respondent Philip omualdeG

disualied to register as a oter

for the 199# elections and here:y

reerses the decision of the lower

court in toto.

The Municipal egistrar of the

/ommission on !lections of Tolosa,

0eyte, is here:y ordered to delete

and cancel the name of respondent

Philip C. omualdeG from the list of

ualied oters registered Fe:ruary

1, 199#, at Precinct 9, :arangay

Mal:og, Tolosa, 0eyte.


19/24

19The

"


20/24

#&RAMON !OSADAS, Mu':;:6l Ju(y, N O;;:('l, respondent.

ANTONIO,J:

espondent Municipal Kudge amon Posadas, ofTalisay )egros -ccidental, is charged in a eried

complaint :y

ignorance of the law, =:> partiality, and =c>

iolation of the !lection /ode of 19$1.

The !4ecutie Kudge, to whom this case was

referred for inestigation, report and

recommendation, found the charges of ignorance

of the law and partiality to :e without factual

:asis. 2e, howeer, found that respondent Kudge

has failed to comply with the reuirements of

days from the lingof the petition, it would seem that

respondent acted rather hastily in

resetting the inclusion cases led in

the afternoon of -cto:er 19, 19$1

for hearing immediately the

following morning or on -cto:er

#&, 19$1. This is especially true of

!lection /ases )os. 9% to 1$#

e4cept /ases )os. 1@# to 1$#

=!4hs. 8" to 8D inasmuch as Mrs


21/24

#1!fren admittedly informed

respondent of the ling of the

cases right the same morning of

-cto:er #&. 2ence it is not li?ely

that the arious mem:ers of the

Board of nspectors could hae

:een notied to appear and testify

that petitioners in fact appeared:efore their respectie precincts

and were denied registration for

lac? of forms. caution dictated that

this reuirement or this procedure

:e followed as this was one sure

way of dentifying the petitioners

and ascertaining whether in fact

they applied for and were refused

registration for lac? of forms. True,

inclusion and e4clusion cases are

summary in nature :ut the

procedure adopted :y respondentKudge proided no safeguard

whatsoeer against indiscriminate

inclusion. For he admitted that as

long as the petitioners were

present when he called the

inclusion cases for hearing and the

respondent !lection egistration

Board or the mem:ers of the Board

of nspectors of the precincts

concerned were not present he

considered the latter in default andsummarily granted the petition.

This could :e the only reason why

practically all the inclusion cases

resulted in the issuance of orders

directing the inclusion of the

petitioners now mar?ed as !4hs 6B6,

6B+l6 to 6B+56 and, as it turned out,

on appeal most of the petitions

were dismissed either for failure of

the petitioners to appear or, as in

/ases )os. 1%@+15%, :ecause the

/ourt found on the :asis of thetestimony of the /hairman of

Precinct )o, 1 of Talisay that he

een had a surplus of seenteen

=1$> application forms. 1

n e4tenuation the nestigating Kudge found also

that respondent, in his aforesaid actuations, did

so without improper motie :ut in good faith.

n our repu:lican system of goernment, the

e4ercise :y the people of their right of surage is

the e4pression of their soereign will. t is

therefore, a:solutely essential that the free and

oluntary use of this right :e eectiely protected

:y the law and :y goernmental authority. "s

stated in an earlier case3 2

The people in clothing a

citiGen with the electie franchise

for the purpose of securing a

consistent and perpetua

administration of the goernment

they ordain, charge him with the

performance of a duty in the nature

of a pu:lic trust, and in that respect

constitute him a representatie of

the whole people. This duty

reuires that the priilege thus

:estowed should :e e4ercise, note4clusiely for the :enet of the

citiGen or class of citiGens

professing it, :ut in good faith and

with an intelligent Geal for the

general :enet and welfare of the

state. =J. n the last analysis, therefore

the inclusion in or e4clusion from

the permanent electoral list of any

oter concerns not only the latter

in his indiidual capacity :ut thepu:lic in general.

n the light of the statutory purpose, the

seriousness of respondent6s failure to comply with

the reuirements of


22/24

##There is no uestion that as a conseuence of the

general amnesty all persons who iolated the

election law on the dates and occasions therein

mentioned are relieed of their criminal

lia:ility. /n the case at :ar, respondent is

relieed of any criminal lia:ility for his aforecited

infractionN howeer, in the pu:lic interest he

should :e admonished.

E2!!F-!, respondent is here:y admonished

that he should e4ercise greater care in the

o:serance of the proisions of e4isting laws in

the discharge of his Audicial duty, and warned that

any su:seuent misconduct shall :e dealt with

more seerely.

S##RAGE AS A DT%

G.R. No. L-72-/ Ju' 17, 19-0

CI!RIANO A"A?IL, ET AL.,petitionersappellees,s.

JSTICE O# T+E !EACE CORT O# "ACOLODNEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.,respondentsappellants.

5icente J. 6rancisco% Ra,on 7. #everino% )-undio

8. )rrieta and Res. ).#o-retodo or the appellants.E,ilio R. #everino% ),ado *. 9arre'o% 5icente Re,etio and Carlos 7ilado or the appellees.

n the year 19%$ the total num:er of registeredoters in the municipality of Talisay, )egros-ccidental, was %,@58. n 19%8 the electoracensus of the place, after the registration on


23/24

#%eidence was presented :y the petitioners insupport of their petition against those who, weredeclared in default, the Austice of the peace ofBacolod ordered their e4clusion from the list ofoters on the ground that it was the duty of thechallenged oters appear in court in order to :epersonally e4amined in accordance with section118 =f> of the !lection /ode, as one of thegrounds for their e4clusion from the list of oterswas that they could not prepare their :allotsthemseles, that is, that they could not read andwrite. The attorneys for the challenged otersreceied notice of the decision of the Austice ofthe peace of Bacolod on )oem:er #, 19%8, whenthe present petition for certiorariwas instituted inthe /ourt First nstance of )egros -ccidental :ythe petitioners in their own :ehalf and in :ehalf ofthe other challenged oters for the purpose ofhaing the Audgment of the Austice of the peace ofBacolod in the aforesaid e4clusion proceedingsset aside. "fter hearing, the 2onora:le Kudge, giing the parties eery opportunity topresent their respectie eidence. so that it maythereafter ma?e such corrections in the electoracensus of Talisay, )egros -ccidental, as may :eproper =section 9&, !lectoral /ode>, and to referto the


24/24

#

Elec Cases 1

Documents

Transcript of Elec Cases 1