Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
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.
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
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.
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.