CODILLA SR. VS.

DE VENECIA
G.R. No. 150605, Dec. 10, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioner Codilla was a candidate for Representative of the 4 th legislative district of
Leyte against private respondent Ma. Victoria Locsin in the May 14, 2001 elections.
A disqualification case was filed against petitioner for indirect solicitation of votes in
violation of Sec. 68(a) of the OEC. However, the case was not acted upon until the
day of the elections. Petitioner was voted for and garnered the highest number of
votes while private respondent Locsin obtained the second highest number of votes.
Respondent Locsin moved for suspension of the petitioners proclamation which was
granted by the Comelec 2nd division by reason of the seriousness of the
allegations. On Jun. 14, 2001, the Comelec 2 nd division issued a resolution
disqualifying the petitioner and declaring the votes casted for him stray, and
ordered the immediate proclamation of private respondent Locsin. The following
day, Locsin was proclaimed; she took her oath of office on Jun. 18, 2001 and
assumed office on Jn. 30, 2001.
Petitioner seasonably filed with the Comelec en banc a motion for reconsideration
from the resolution suspending his proclamation ordering his disqualification. The
Comelec en banc reversed the decision and annulled the proclamation of
Respondent Locsin. Respondent Locsin contended that the COMELEC lost its
jurisdiction when she was proclaimed and that it is now the HRET which has the
jurisdiction being the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, return and
qualifications of its members.
ISSUE:
Whether the proclamation of respondent Locsin divested the Comelec en banc of
jurisdiction to review its validity.
RULING:
The validity of the respondents proclamation was a core issue in the motion for
reconsideration seasonably filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner timely filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of the 2 nd division of Comelec suspending his
proclamation and disqualifying him, the Comelec en banc was not divested of its
jurisdiction to review the validity of the said order of the 2 nd division. The order was
yet unenforceable as it has not attained finality; the timely filing of the motion for
reconsideration suspends its execution. It cannot, thus, be used as the basis for the
assumption in office of the respondent as the duly elected representative of the 4 th
legislative district of leyte.
To stress again, at the time of the proclamation of respondent Locsin, the
validity of the Resolution of the Comelec 2nd division was seasonably challenged by
the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration. The issue was still within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec en banc to resolve. Hence, the HRET cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter.

GUIAO VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. L-68056, JUL. 5, 1985

FACTS:
Petitioner Guiao was one of the candidates for assemblyman in the province of
Pampanga in the May 14, 1984 elections. After canvassing of the votes, he garnered
5th place and private respondent Canlas in the 4 th place. Petitioner submitted to the
Board of Canvassers his written objections to the inclusion in the canvass of election
returns from approximately 31 various voting centers of different municipalities on
the grounds of incomplete, duress, intimidation, threats, coercion, and falsified
returns. When his objection was heard, petitioner was unable to substantiate his
allegations and instead ask the Board of Canvassers to issue a subpoena to
members of the Citizens Election Committee to testify in view of his objections to
the election returns to which the Board denied. Notwithstanding his written
objection, the candidates who landed in the 1 st to 4th places (including Canlas) were
proclaimed.
Thus, on May 18, 1984, petitioner filed with the Comelec an urgent petition to
nullify the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers, and on May 22, 1984 a petition
for annulment of the proclamation of respondent Canlas contending that the
proclamation was premature considering that he objected to the inclusion of some
of the returns. The case was dismissed by the Comelec division and was appealed
by petitioner to the Comelec en banc but was denied and it upheld the validity of
the proclamation of respondent Canlas.
ISSUE:
Does petitioner still has the remedy before the Comelec after the winning
candidates have been proclaimed?
RULING:
NO. The petition to annul the proclamation and to nullify the proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers has now become moot. Petitioner had already filed with the
Comelec a verified petition, dated May 18, 1984, assailing the action taken by the
Board in refusing to issue the subpoenas for members of the Citizens Election
Committee to testify in view of his objections to the elections returns. Another
petition was later filed by him with the Comelec on May 22, 1984, to annul the
proclamation of respondent Canlas. These two petitions are no less in the nature of
an appeal from the Boards dismissal of his written objections and were already duly
resolved by the Comelec. Under the law, the Comelec shall be sole judge and shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. To set aside the
proclamation and allow the petitioner to appeal again to the COMELEC on the
dismissal of his written objections and on the proclamation of respondent Canlas as
the winning candidate would be but an exercise of redundancy. The petitioners
remedy is to file an election protest.

LEE VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 157004, JUL. 4, 2003
FACTS:
Petitioner Lee and private respondent Dioneda were candidates for mayor of
Sorsogon City in the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvassing, Dioneda
objected to the inclusion of one of the returns on the grounds that no entries were

made for the position of Congressman; and that LDP watchers were utilized to fill up
election returns. The Board of Canvassers ruled for the inclusion of said return, and
private respondent filed on the same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling.
On May 19, 2001, the BOC proclaimed the winning candidates, including petitioner
Lee. Private respondent thus filed on May 23, 2001, before the Comelec 2 nd division
a petition assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the
questioned return and the annulment of the petitioners proclamation. The petition
was granted and it ordered the constitution of new set of BOC and directed to
prepare a new Statement of Votes for the position of mayor of Sorsogon City
excluding the questioned return. Motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Lee
was denied by the Comelec en banc.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to go beyond or behind election
returns and investigate election irregularities in pre-proclamation controversy.
RULING:
The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction, therefore, is that as long as the returns
appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the BOC cannot look
beyond or behind them to verify the allegations of irregularities in the casting or the
counting of the votes. Corollarily, technical examination of voting paraphernalia
involving analysis and comparison of voters signatures and thumbprints thereon is
prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be expeditiously
resolved without evidence of aliunde and examination of voluminous documents
which take up much time and cause delay in defeat of the public policy underlying
the summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
The foregoing doctrine presupposes that the returns appear to be authentic and
duly accomplished on their face. Where, as in the case at bar, there is a prima
facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in
the questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus
not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the questioned
election return.

LAGUMBAY VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. L-25444, JAN. 31, 1996
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a petition before the COMELEC to reject the returns for senators of
some precincts in Mindanao, alleging among others, that said returns is statistically
improbable. In said returns, it showed therein that in each precinct the number of
registered voters equalled the number of the ballots and the votes reportedly cast
and tallied for each and every candidate of the Liberal Party, while the candidates of
the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero.
However, the COMELEC issued an order denying to reject the 50 returns for
senators coming from some of the municipalities of Mindanao. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the questioned returns is statistically improbable.

RULING:
Yes. According to the Supreme Court, where there exists uniformity of tallies in
favour of candidates belonging to one party, and the systematic blanking out of
opposing candidates, the election returns are, therefore, obviously manufactured.
The Court opined that the election result to said precincts as reported, was utterly
improbable and clearly incredible. For it is not likely, in the ordinary course of
things, that all the electors of one precinct would, as one man, vote for all the eight
candidates of the Liberal Party, without giving a single vote to one of the eight
candidates of the Nacionalista Party. Such extraordinary coincidence was quite
impossible to believe, knowing that the Nacionalista Party had and has a nationwide
organization, with branches in every province, and was, in previous years, the party
in power in these islands.

CASTRAMAYOR VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 120426, NOV. 23, 1995
FACTS:
Petitioner was a candidate for a seat in the eight-member Sangguniang Bayan of
the municipality of Calinog, Iloilo in the elections held on May 8, 1995. After the
votes had been cast, the Municipal Board of Canvassers began to canvass the ERs
from the different precincts in the municipality. When the canvassing was finished,
winners were proclaimed including Castramayor who landed in the eight place.
However, when the Chairman of the canvassing board rechecked the totals in the
Statement of Votes the following day, it was discovered that Castramayor was not
the number eight winner but it was certain Nilda C. Democrito who garnered 62
more votes than Castramayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC losses jurisdiction to annul the proclamation of
Castramayor.
RULING:
As a general rule, the Comelec losses its jurisdiction after proclamation. However,
like any other rules, it admits exception. The Comelec losses jurisdiction only if the
proclamation is valid, but if the proclamation is based on erroneous tabulation, the
proclamation is void and thus no proclamation at all to speak of. Hence, the
Comelec may annul its proclamation.

OCAMPO VS. HRET AND CRESPO

G.R. No. 158466, JUN. 15, 2004
FACTS:

Petitioner Ocampo and private respondent Crespo were candidates for

Representative of the 6th District of Manila in the May 14, 2001 elections.
Respondent Crespo was proclaimed the duly elected representative in the district,
and petitioner filed an election protest before the House of Representative Electoral
Tribunal (HRET). On Mar. 6, 2003, the HRET issued resolutions declaring private
respondent ineligible for the office of Representative of 6 th District of Manila for
lack of residence in the district and ordering him to vacate his office.
On Mar. 12, 2003, petitioner filed a motion to declare him as the duly elected
Congressman who garnered the highest number of votes among the remaining
qualified candidates.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Ocampo, the second placer, be proclaimed as the winner.
RULING:
No. Jurisprudence has long established the doctrine that a second placer cannot be
proclaimed the first among the remaining qualified candidates. The fact the
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be
disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not
necessarily give the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes
the right to be declared the winner of the elective office.
It is of no moment that there is only a margin of 768 votes between protestant and
protestee. Whether the margin is ten or ten thousand, it still remains that protestant
did not receive the mandate of the majority during the elections. Thus, to proclaim
him as the duly elected representative in the stead of protestee would be anathema
to the most basic precepts of republicanism and democracy as enshrined within our
Constitution. In effect, we would be advocating as massive disenfranchisement of
the majority of the voters of the 6th district of Manila.

JAVIER VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. L-68379-81, SEP. 22, 1986
FACTS:
Petitioner Javier and private respondent Pacificador were candidates in Antique for
the Batasang Pambansa in the May 14, 1984 elections. On May 13, or the night
before the election day, the supporters of petitioner Javier were allegedly ambushed
and killed by the men of private respondent. There were seven suspects, including
private respondent. After election day, private respondent appeared to be winner.
Petitioner went to the COMELEC to question the canvass of the election returns,
however, his complaint was dismissed and private respondent was proclaimed.
Petitioner then went to the Supreme Court, but while his case was still being
considered by the Court, on Feb. 11, 1986, petitioner was gunned down in cold
blood and in broad day light. The solicitor general moved to dismiss the petition on
the ground that as a result of supervening events it has become moot and
academic.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the death of the protestant in an election contest warrants the
dismissal of the case.
RULING:
No. The death of the protestant in an election contest does not automatically
warrants the dismissal of his case because an election contest is imbued with public
interest and should be pursued to its final conclusions to determine the bona fide
winner.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. RAMOS

P.E.T. Case No. 001, FEB. 13, 1996
FACTS:
Petitioner Defensor-Santiago and private respondent Ramos were candidates for
president in the May 11, 1992 elections. In said elections, respondent was declared
the duly elected president and thereby assumed office. However, petitioner filed an
election contest grounded on irregularities during the election day. While her case
was still pending, petitioner run for senator and won a seat in the subsequent
midterm elections in 1995 and had assumed office.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners assumption of office as senator warrants the dismissal
of her case in the PET.
RULING:
Yes, a defeated candidate for president who filed an election protest and ran for
senator should be deemed to have abandoned the protest.

GARCIA ET. AL. VS. HRET

G.R. No. 134792, AUG. 12, 1999
FACTS:
On May 29, 1998, within the prescribed ten day period from respondent Harry
Angpings proclamation as duly elected representative for the 3 rd District of Manila,
petitioners, all duly registered voters in the district, filed a petition for quo warranto
before the HRET against respondent. Petitioner questioned the eligibility of Cong.
Angpin to hold office in the House of Representatives, claiming that the latter was
declared ineligible to assume or hold office as member of the house of
Representatives and for the candidate and for the candidate who received the
highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates to be proclaimed the
winner.
Upon filing of the their petition, petitioners duly paid the required P5,000.00 filing
fee. On June 10, 1998, however, the HRET issued a resolution dismissing the
petition for quo warranto for failure to pay the P5,000.00 cash deposit required by
its Rules. After receiving a copy of the aforesaid resolution, petitioners paid the

P5,000.00 cash deposit on June 26, 1998 and attached the corresponding receipt to
the motion for reconsideration they filed with the HRET on the same day.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was, however, denied, in view of Rule 32 of
the 1998 HRET Rules which required a P5,000.00 cash deposit in addition to filing
fees for quo warranto cases.
ISSUE:
May a petition for quo warranto before the HRET be summarily dismissed for failure
to pay cash deposit, notwithstanding that petitioner rectified payment thereof?

RULING:
Yes. The petition for quo warranto attacks the ineligibility of Cong. Angping to hold
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, not being a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines. This is a serious charge, which, if true, renders him disqualified
from such office. In view of the delicate nature and importance of this charge, the
observance of the HRET Rules of Procedure must be taken seriously if they are to
attain their objective, i.e., the speedy and orderly determination of the true will of
the electorate. Correlatively, party litigants appearing before the HRET or, to be
more precise, their lawyers, are duty bound to know and are expected to properly
comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the Tribunal without being
formally ordered to do so. They cannot righteously impute abuse of discretion to the
Tribunal if by reason of the non-observance of those requirements it decides to
dismiss their petition. Imperative justice requires the proper observance of
technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper and swift dispensation.

MALIKSI VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 203302, APR. 11, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner Maliksi and private respondent Homer Saquilayan were candidates for
mayor in Imus, Cavite in the May 2010 automated elections. Private respondent was
declared by the board of canvassers as the winner. Petitioner who garnered the
second highest number of votes, filed with the RTC an election protest grounded on
the alleged irregularities. The RTC held a revision of the votes, and based on the
results of the revision declared petitioner as the duly elected mayor and ordered
private respondent to vacate the office. In the meanwhile, the RTC granted Maliksis
motion for execution pending appeal, and he was installed as Mayor.
On appeal, the Comelec 1st division, without giving notice to the parties, decided to
recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the C
cards. After the recount, the Comelec 1st division nullified the decision of the RTC
and declared respondent Saquilayan as the duly elected Mayor. Maliksi file a motion
for reconsideration, alleging that he had been denied his right to due process
because he had not been notified of the decryption proceedings. He argued that the
resort to the printouts of the ballot images, which were secondary evidence, had
been unwarranted because there was no proof that the integrity of the paper ballot
had not been preserved. The Comelec en banc denied his motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not ballot images are secondary evidence as against the official ballot.
RULING:
The images of the abllots are elecgtronic documents that are regarded as the
equivalents of the original official ballots theselves. In Vinzons-chato v. HRET, the
Court held that the picture images of theabloots, as scanned and recorded by the
PCOS, are likewise official ballots that faithfully caputure in electronic form the
votes cast by the voter, as defined by Sec. 2(3) of RA 9369. As such, the printouts
thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters
and, thus may be used for purpose of revision of votes in an electoral protest.
That the two documents the official ballot and its picture image are
considered original documents simply means that both of them are given equal
probative weight. In short, when either is presented as evidence, one is not
considered as weightier than the other.
But this juridical entity does not authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the
Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture
images of the ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the
parties. Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the
printouts of their picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for
their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or
best evidence of the voters will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are
to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their
integrity has been compromised.