Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Regio v.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 204828 : December 3, 2013

JAIME C. REGIO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS


and RONNIE C. CO,Respondents.

VELASCO, JR.,J.:
FACTS:

Petitioner Regio and private respondent Co, among other


candidates, ran in the October 25, 2010 barangay elections in
District III of the City of Manila for the position of punong barangay.
Immediately following the counting and canvassing of the votes,
from 7 clustered precincts in the adverted barangay, Regio, who
garnered highest votes was proclaimed winner for the contested
post.

On November 4, 2010, Co filed an election protest before the MeTC.


He claimed, among other things, that the Board of Election Tellers
(BET) did not follow COMELEC Resolution No. 9030, as it ignored the
rules on appreciation of ballots, resulting in misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots.

Of the seven clustered precincts (CPs) initially protested, Co would


later exclude CP Nos. 1304A and 1305A from the protest. During the
preliminary conference, the trial court allowed the revision of
ballots. During his turn to present evidence, Co limited his offer to
the revision committee report, showing that he garnered the highest
number of votes. Regio, on the other hand, denied that the elections
were tainted with irregularities. He claimed that the results of the
revision are products of post-elections operations, as the ballots
were tampered with, switched, and altered drastically to change the
results of the elections.

The trial court dismissed Cos protest and declared Regio as the duly-
elected punong barangay.

According to the trial court, before it can accord credence to the


results of the revision, it should first be ascertained that the ballots
found in the box during the revision are the same ballots deposited
by the voters. In fine, the court "should first be convinced that the
ballots counted during the revision have not been tampered with
before it can declare the ballots a) as superior evidence of how the
electorate voted, and b) as sufficient evidence to set aside the
election returns. For the ballots to be considered the best evidence
of how the voters voted, their integrity should be satisfactorily
established."Invoking Rosal v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 168253 &
172741, March 16, 2007the trial court ruled that Co failed to
sufficiently show that the integrity of the contested ballots had been
preserved. It then cited the presumption that election returns are
genuine, and that the data and information supplied by the board of
election inspectors are true and correct.

The trial court said that the misreading, miscounting, and


misappreciation of ballots should be proven by other independent
evidence. Without any evidence, the allegation of misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots remains a mere
allegation without any probative value.

Aggrieved, Co filed an appeal before the COMELEC,

The COMELEC First Divisiondismissed the appeal, noting, as the


MeTC did, that Co failed to show that the integrity of the ballots in
question was in fact preserved.

Co then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The COMELEC En Banc


reconsidered the Resolution of the First Division, and accordingly
declared Co as the duly elected punong barangay.

Thus, the present recourse, on the argument that the COMELEC En


Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it arbitrarily set aside the Decision of the
MeTC and the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division. Petitioner
further argues that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when
it demanded from protestee direct proof of actual tampering of
ballots to justify consideration of the use of the election returns in
determining the winning candidate in the elections. In fine,
petitioner questions the ruling of the COMELEC giving precedence to
the results of the revision over the official canvassing results.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC En Banc committed grave


abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
ruling that Co had successfully discharged the burden of proving the
integrity of the ballots subjected to revision.

HELD: The decision of the COMELEC Division is reinstated.

POLITICAL LAW moot and academic

At the outset, it must be noted that the protest case is dismissible


for being moot and academic. A case becomes moot when there is
no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful
purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Generally, courts
will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical
relief can be granted. Baldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176135, June 16,
2009
In Malaluan v. COMELEC, 324 Phil. 676, (1996),this Court settled the
matter on when an election protest case becomes moot and
academic: When the appeal from a decision in an election case has
already become moot, the case being an election protest involving
the office of mayor the term of which had expired, the appeal is
dismissible on that ground, unless the rendering of a decision on the
merits would be of practical value.

In the case at bar, the position involved is that of a punong


barangay. The governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No. (RA)
9164, as amended by RA 9340. Sec. 4 of the law states that xxx the
term of office of the barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials
elected in the October 2007 election and subsequent elections shall
commence at noon of November 30 next following their election.

In fine, with the election of a new punong barangay during the


October 28, 2013 elections, the issue of who the rightful winner of
the 2010 barangay elections has already been rendered moot and
academic.

COMELEC En Banc, committed grave abuse of discretion by the


specifically ignoring the rules on evidence, merits consideration. Still
in line with the Courts decision in Malaluanto the effect that the
Court can decide on the merits a moot protest if there is practical
value in so doing, We find that the nullification of the COMELEC En
Bancs Resolution is in order, due to its gross contravention of
established rules on evidence in election protest cases.

POLITICAL LAW election protest

The doctrine in Rosal v. COMELEC and considering the results of the


revision vis-vis the results reflected in the official canvassing In
Rosal, this Court summarized the standards to be observed in an
election contest predicated on the theory that the election returns
do not accurately reflect the will of the voters due to alleged
irregularities in the appreciation and counting of ballots.

The Rosal ruling does not involve issues merely related to the
appreciation or calibration of evidence; its critical ruling is on the
propriety of relying on the revision of ballot results instead of the
election returns in the proclamation of a winning candidate.

The Rosal doctrine ensures that in election protest cases, the


supreme mandate of the people is ultimately determined. In laying
down the rules in appreciating the conflicting results of the
canvassing and the results of a revision later made, the Court has
no other intention but to determine the will of the electorate. The
Rosal doctrine is also supplemented by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC
establishing the following disputable presumptions.

Private respondent Co has not proved that the integrity of the


ballots has been preserved applying Rosal, viewed in conjunction
with A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, this Court rules that the COMELEC En
Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private
respondent had successfully discharged the burden of proving that
the ballots counted during the revision proceedings are the same
ballots cast and counted during the day of the elections.

What the protestant should endeavor to prove, however, in


presenting evidence of preservation, is not that the ballots
themselves are genuine or official, but that they are the very same
ones cast by the electorate. The Report, therefore, cannot be
considered as evidence of the preservation, as required by Rosal.

The fact of preservation is not, as respondent Co claims,


"incontrovertible." In fact, there is total absence of evidence to that
effect. The incontrovertible fact is that private respondent, during
the proceedings before the trial court, did not present any
independent evidence to prove his claim. Without any independent
evidence, the trial court, the COMELEC, as well as this Court, is
constrained to affirm as a fact the disputable presumption that the
ballots were properly counted during the counting and canvassing of
votes.

In sum, We find that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in


ruling that private respondent had discharged the burden of proving
the integrity of the ballots.

Petitioner need not prove actual tampering of the ballots Corollarily,


the COMELEC En Banc had ruled that petitioner, as protestee, failed
to adduce evidence that the ballots found inside the ballot boxes
were compromised and tampered. This strikes us as baseless and a
clear departure from the teachings of Rosal.

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.