Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

FACTS:

Emiliano Micu filed a complaint against COMELEC and the Provincial Board of
Canvassers (PBC) alleging that the he should be proclaimed as the lawful winner of
the May 11, 1992 elections, as against Alfonso Bince, as a member of the
Sangunian Panlalawigan of the Province of Pangasinan on the grounds that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers made an error in the addition of the Statement of
Votes (SOVs) and Certificates of Canvass (COCs). If the corrections were to be
considered, Micu will win by 72 votes, on the other hand, if these corrections will not
be considered, Bince will win by one (1) vote.
As a result, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution ordering the PBC to reconvene
and complete the Certificates of Votes, as corrected in the affected municipalities
and to proclaim the winning candidate of the provincial Board, 6 th district of
Pangasinan, on the basis of the completed and corrected COCs. The PBC, however,
proclaimed Bince as the winner, despite the COMELEC resolution.
The COMELEC consequently resolved to seek explanation from the PBC on they
should not be cited for contempt for disobeying its orders; to annul the proclamation
of Bince; and to direct the PBC to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidate for
the said Provincial Board, on the basis of the completed and corrected COCs.
The petitioner now raises the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of its discretion in
annulling his proclamation and in directing t he Provincial Board of Canvassers of Pangasinan
to order the Municipal Boards of Canvassers of Tayug and San Manuel to make the necessary
corrections in the SOVs and COCs in said municipalities and to proclaim the winner in the sixth legislative
district of Pangasinan.

ISSUE:

W/n the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it annulled Binces proclamation and ordered
the MBC to make the necessary corrections in the SOVs and COCs of the aforementioned legislative
district.

RULING:

NO. At the outset, it is worthy to observe that no error was committed by respondent COMELEC when it
resolved the "pending incidents" of the instant case pursuant to the decision of this Court in the aforesaid
case of Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC on February 9, 1993 Petitioner's contention that his proclamation has
long been affirmed and confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid case is baseless.

Neither can the COMELEC be faulted for subsequently annulling the proclamation of petitioner Bince on
account of a mathematical error in addition committed by respondent MBCs in the computation of the
votes received by both petitioner and private respondent. The petitions to correct manifest errors were
filed on time, that is, before the petitioner's proclamation on July 21, 1992.

Furthermore, the Court has held that Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular will

Undoubtedly therefore, the only issue that remains unresolved is the allowance of the correction of what
are purely mathematical and/or mechanical errors in the addition of the votes received by both
candidates. In Tayug, the total votes received by petitioner Bince was erroneously recorded as 2,486
when it should only have been 2,415. Petitioner Bince, in effect, was credited by 71 votes more.

In San Manuel, petitioner Bince received 2,179 votes but was credited with 6 votes more, hence, the SOV
reflected the total number of votes as 2,185. On the other hand, the same SOV indicated that private
respondent Micu garnered 2,892 votes but he actually received only 2,888, hence was credited in excess
of 4 votes.

Consequently, by margin of 72 votes, private respondent indisputably won the challenged seat in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the sixth district of Pangasinan. Petitioner's proclamation and assumption
into public office was therefore flawed from the beginning, the same having been based on a faulty
tabulation. Hence, respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the
illegal proclamation.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi