December 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 144197. December 13, 2000.]
WILLIAM P. ONG, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ISAGANI B. RIZON, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Petitioner William P. Ong and respondent Isagani B. Rizon were candidates for the position of mayor of the municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte during the May 11, 1998 local elections. On May 13, 1998, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed William P. Ong as the winner with a margin of fifty-one (51) votes, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WILLIAM P. ONG 4,472 votes
ISAGANI B. RIZON 4,421 votes
On May 22, 1998, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Lanao del Norte an election protest 4 contesting petitioner’s votes in five (5) clustered precincts. 5 Only the ballot boxes for two (2) precincts, namely: Precincts 8A and 28A/28A1 were opened since respondent waived the revision of the ballots in the other precincts.
On March 25, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision annulling forty-five (45) votes for petitioner while invalidating two (2) votes for Respondent. Petitioner’s lead was reduced to eight (8) votes over that of respondent, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WILLIAM P. ONG 4,427 votes
ISAGANI B. RIZON 4,419 votes 6
In time, respondent appealed the trial court’s decision to the Comelec. 7 On February 1, 2000, the Comelec, Second Division 8 , promulgated a resolution declaring that the trial court committed serious reversible errors in its appreciation of the contested ballots and invalidated sixty-three (63) votes for petitioner and eight (8) votes for Respondent. The final result of its examination of the ballots showed that respondent led by a margin of four (4) votes, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WILLIAM P. ONG 4,409 votes
ISAGANI B. RIZON 4,413 votes 9
On February 7, 2000, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the above resolution. 10
On August 15, 2000, the Comelec en banc 11 promulgated a resolution affirming the Second Division’s resolution but reduced by one (1) vote the lead of respondent over petitioner. The final result showed that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WILLIAM P. ONG 4,411 votes
ISAGANI B. RIZON 4,414 votes 12
Hence, this petition. 13
Petitioner contends that the Comelec en banc resolution, aside from being patently illegal, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the whole, the petition disputed the sixty one (61) invalidated ballots of petitioner and seven (7) ballots of Respondent.
A thorough evaluation and visual examination of the contested ballots reveal the following findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In Exhibits "A", "C", "N" and "OO" of Precinct 8A, slot No. 1 for senators contained the name "NIKKI" and all the other spaces for senators were left blank. The name "NIKKI" was written in print and the rest were written in script.
In the same manner, in Exhibit "C" and "II", the name "NORMAN" was written on slot No. 1 for senators. In Exhibit "UU" of Precinct 28A/28A1 contained the name "SINA" was written on the slot No. 1 for senators. In Exhibit "B", the vote for Ong was in bold letters while the rest were written in different strokes.
Comelec invalidated all the above described ballots for being marked and written by two persons.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
We find that Comelec grievously erred ousting itself of jurisdiction for grave abuse of discretion in invalidating the ballots, including the votes for Ong.
The law is clear:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"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." 14
The rule is in favor of the validity of the ballot, not otherwise. The term "unless" imports an exception rather than the general rule. This was enunciated in Tajanlangit v. Cazenas, 15 where we ruled that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . The use of two kinds of writing appearing in this ballot is a good example of the exception provided for in paragraph 18, section 149 of the Revised Election Code, which provides that unless it should clearly appear that it has been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification mark, the use of two or more kinds of writing shall be considered innocent and shall not invalidate the ballot." (Emphasis ours)
The printed name "NIKKI" does not show any intention on the part of the voters to identify or distinguish themselves. Therefore, the ballots are not considered marked. The name "NIKKI" only showed that it was the voters’ intention to emphasize and stress their adulation for a senator with the name "NIKKI", rather than to identify themselves. The votes are stray for the senatorial candidates but will not invalidate the entire ballot.
In the same manner, the appearance of print and script writings in a single ballot does not necessarily imply that two persons wrote the ballot. The strokes of print and script handwriting would naturally differ but would not automatically mean that two persons prepared the same. A visual examination of the ballots belies the claim that these ballots were prepared by two persons. In the absence of any deliberate intention to put an identification mark, the ballots must not be rejected. We held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Ballot Exhibit N. — This ballot was rejected by the Court of Appeals as marked because the names of the candidates from the second space for members of the provincial board down to the 7th place for councilors were written in capital letters while those of other candidates were written in small letters, the court concluding that the use of two forms of writing can only mean an intent to identify the voter. We disagree with this conclusion. Under Section 149, paragraph 18, of the Revised Election Code, 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 mark. Here such intent does not appear. The case in point in Hilao v. Bernardo, G.R. No. L-7704, December 14, 1954, wherein it was held that the use of ordinary and printed forms of writing in a ballot is but a mere variation which does not invalidate the ballot. This ballot should, therefore, be counted for Ferrer." 16
In Exhibits "B", "P", "Z", "JJ" and "KK" of Precinct 8A, "Big J" was written before the names of senatorial candidates Legarda, Cayetano, Barbers and before the name of William Ong in the space for mayor.
In Exhibits "M", "R", "T", "X", "AA" and "EE" of Precinct 8A, letters "FPJ" were written.
In Exhibits "JJJ" and "SSS" of Precinct 28A/28A1, the letters "RJ" were written on the first slot for senators.
In Exhibit "TTT" of Precinct 28A/28A1, the word "SENATORS" was written on the first slot for senators.
In Exhibit "WWWW" of Precinct 28A/28A1, the name "KRIS" was written on the senatorial slot.
The above ballots must be appreciated in favor of Ong. There is no showing that the words/letters/names written therein have been intentionally placed to identify the voters. Notice that these markings are appellations or nicknames of famous showbiz personalities who might have been mistaken as candidates. At most, these may be considered as stray votes for the position where they were written, as provided in Sec. 211 (19), Omnibus Election Code, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"19. Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot."cralaw virtua1aw library
The primordial principle in the appreciation of the ballots is to respect, not to frustrate the will of the electorate.
With regard to Exhibits "D" to "L", "O", "Q", "S", "Y", "U", "V", "W", "BB", "CC", "DD", "GG", "HH", "II", "LL", "MM" and "NN" of Precinct 8A and Exhibits "A", "E" to "I", "L", "N", "O", "EEEE", "P", "Z", "DD", "KK", "LL", "QQ", "VV", "YY", "AAA", "BBB", "EEE", "HHH", "III", "KKK", "LLL", "QQQ", "WWW", "BBBB", "DDDD", "GGGG", "HHHH", "KKKK", "MMMM", "NNNN", "RRRR" and "UUUU" of Precinct 28A/28A1 the ballots have no defect and are hereby declared valid. A close examination of the ballots reveals that the ballots are clean and valid in favor of candidate Ong.
Findings of the Comelec in Exhibits "FF" of Precinct 8A and Exhibits "D", "GG", "HH", "IIII", "J", "XXX", "K", "U", "FFF", "M", "W", "AA", "AAAA", "CC", "MM", "RR", "NNN", "EE", "TT", "FF" "JJ", "SSSS", "NN", "SS", "ZZ", "PPPP", "CCC", "DDD", "PPP", "UUU", "CCCC", "XXXX, "YYYY", "QQQQ" and "VVVV" of Precinct 28A/28A1 are correct and the ballots are invalidated for being marked.
There are in the above ballots distinct initials and words such as "DLR", "DOLLIN", DOLLINS", "GINA", "EVA", "SOSANG TORIS", "SABANG BULAC", "CORY", "GREECE", "GRACES", "LOS", "LUZ", "BONG", "ELIN", "ROSE", "ALONG RARO", "BONOO", "ALONG", "PONBI", "ROVEN GATA", "NORMAN", "RIC", "VIA", "AMEN", "NANIG", "SABAS", "MIMIG" and "LOLOY TORRES" written on spaces for different positions. These writings can only be construed as an intention to mark and identify the ballots since these words were repeatedly written and in other instances, two or three of these words were written on a single ballot. 17 These words are impertinent, irrelevant, unnecessary and clearly show the voter’s purpose to identify the ballots or voters. As held in Gadon v. Gadon 18 , the unexplained presence of prominent letters and words written with remarkably good hand marked the ballots and must be considered invalid.
Comelec also correctly ruled that Exhibits "Q", "GGG", "OO", "PP" and "WW" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 are valid votes for Ong. "LIM", "APEC" and "DAYO" are names of candidates which were written on spaces where they should not be written as they were not candidates for said position. For instance, "APEC" is a party list candidate but was written on the space intended for senatorial candidates. As such, the same shall be considered as stray vote but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
Section 211 (19) of the Omnibus Election Code provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"19. Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot." (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the finding of the Comelec that these ballots are valid for Ong is affirmed.
In the same manner, Exhibits "R", "S", "T", "V" and "X" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 were correctly held to be valid votes for Ong under the Neighborhood Rule since the space for mayor remained unaccomplished or not filled up.
However, the Court is constrained to reverse the Comelec finding that Exhibits "Y" and "XX" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 were valid for Ong. Considering that there was no candidate for senator with the name "PACETE" or "PACITE", such writings served to identify the ballots. The ballots are, therefore, invalid for Ong.
In Exhibit "BB" of Precinct 28A, 28A1, the term "None that I know" written on the space for party list does not render the ballot marked. The term simply implies that the voter did not know any candidate or did not wish to vote for any candidate to the position. Thus, the Comelec correctly ruled that the ballot is valid for Ong.
Exhibits "MMM" and "OOOO" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 wherein the words "ANG TINGOG NG BARANGAY" and "PARE KO", respectively, were written, are valid. The phrases were mere appellations of affection and friendship that do not invalidate the whole ballot.
Exhibit "OOO" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 where the names of the candidates for councilors were repeated in the first four lines for Senators do not render the ballot marked. The Comelec was correct in upholding the validity of the ballot since it was obviously shown by the penmanship that the voter was unlettered and that there was no intention to identify the ballot.
Under the rule of IDEM SONANS, Exhibits "RRR", "TTTT" and "VVV" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 may not be invalidated. "LORNA" and "RECADO" sound similar to the names of senatorial candidates such as Loren Legarda and Ricardo Gloria. 19
The erasures in Exhibits "YYY" and "JJJ" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 would not invalidate the ballot absent any showing that another person wrote the name of Ong after the erasure was made. In fact, the rules on appreciation of ballots provide that:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
"When in a space in the ballot there appears a name of candidate that is erased and another clearly written, the vote is valid for the latter." 20
Incorrect spelling of a candidate’s name does not invalidate the ballot. The Comelec was not correct when it ruled that Exhibit "ZZZ" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 was invalid considering that the voter "appeared to be literate." Even the most literate person is bound to commit a mistake in spelling.
Exhibit "FFFF" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 where "X-MEN" was written on the space for party-list representative would not invalidate the whole ballot. The word "X-MEN" invalidates the vote for the party list representative but the ballot itself is valid. Hence, the vote for Ong on the ballot must be credited in his favor.
The Comelec found no defect in Exhibits "1" to "11", "13" to "19", "21", "22", "23", "25", "26", "27", "29" and "31" to "37" of Precinct 8A and Exhibits "1", "2", "4" to "11", "13" to "26", "28" to "31" and "33" to "40" of Precinct 28A, 28A1. A careful examination of the ballots confirms the finding that they have no defects. Therefore, the finding is hereby affirmed and the ballots are declared valid for Rizon.
Contrary to the finding that Exhibits "12", "24" and "28" of Precinct 8A were marked with the appearance of the letters "D", "L", "R", a physical examination of the same belies the finding. The same do not contain the letters "D", "L", "R" and are without defect and should be adjudicated in favor of Rizon.
The same is true with Exhibit "20" of Precinct 8A. There is no sticker "VFP" pasted on the ballot. The same should be credited in favor of candidate Rizon.
Exhibit "30" of Precinct 8A, where the name "LITO" in big bold letters occupies all the spaces for councilor should be invalidated inasmuch as there is evident intent to mark the ballot.
"Exhibit "3" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 where "TIRBOG" is written on the space for governor is not a marked ballot. Absent any showing that the word/name "TIRBOG" meant to identify the ballot or the voter, the ballot remains valid. The same can be said for Exhibits "27" and "32" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 where numbers were written after the names of some candidates and the word "CRIS" appears on the first slot for senators, respectively. The voter obviously did not have the intention to mark the ballot. These ballots should be counted in favor of candidate Rizon.
Exhibit "12" of Precinct 28A, 28A1 with initial "DLR" on it is invalid. The initial "DLR" serves no other purpose than to mark the ballot as it is unnecessary, impertinent and irrelevant. This is different from Exhibits "12", "24" and "28" of P-8A.
Hereunder is a summary of the findings.
Prec. SUMMARY OF
8A FINDINGS ONG
1. Exhibits "A", "C", "N" and "OO" (4 ballots)
Writings partly in script and in print do not
invalidate the ballot. Printed name "NIKKI"
was used to emphasize the voters’ adulation
for a senator with that name. VALID FOR
ONG 4
2. Exhibits "B", "P", "Z", "JJ" and "KK" (5 ballots)
"Big "J" appearing before the names of senatorial
candidates Legarda, Cayetano and Barbers and
before the name of Ong does not invalidate the
ballot. It was not used to identify the voter. VALID
FOR ONG 5
3. Exhibits "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J",
"K" and "L" (9 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (9) *
4. Exhibits "M", "R", "T", "X", "AA" and
"EE" (6 ballots)
Ballots which contain the three letters
F.P.J. are not marked ballots. VALID
FOR ONG 6
5. Exhibits "O" and "Q"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (2) *
6. Exhibits "S" and "Y"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
Defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (2) *
7. Exhibits "U", "V", "W", "BB", "CC" and
"DD"
(6 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (6) *
8. Exhibit "FF"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot was
defective and thus invalid for Ong is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-1) *
9. Exhibit "GG", "HH", "II", "LL", "MM"
And "NN"
(6 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (6) *
Prec. SUMMARY OF
28A FINDINGS ONG
28A-1
1. Exhibit "A"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (1) *
2. Exhibit "B"
(1 ballot)
The ballot is not a marked ballot and not
written by two persons. VALID FOR
ONG 1
3. Exhibits "C" and "II"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots were
marked ballots and written by two
persons is affirmed. INVALID FOR
ONG (-2) *
4. Exhibits "D", "GG", "HH" and "IIII"
(4 ballots)
Words "DOLLIN" and "DOLLINS"
written on the first senatorial slot are
irrelevant, unnecessary and impertinent
words meant to identify the voters.
Comelec finding that the same were
invalid for Ong is affirmed. INVALID
FOR ONG (-4)
5. Exhibits "E", "F", "G", "H" and "I"
(5 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Ong is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (5) *
6. Exhibits "J" and "XXX"
(2 ballots)
The word "GINA" written on the
senatorial slot is unnecessary, irrelevant
and impertinent. Comelec finding is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-2) *
7. Exhibits "K", "U" and "FF"
(3 ballots)
The words "EVA." "SOSANG TORIS"
and "SABANG BULAC" served to
identify the voter. Comelec finding that
the ballots were marked is affirmed.
INVALID FOR ONG (-3) *
8. Exhibits "L", "N", "O" and "EEEE"
(4 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defects and thus valid for Ong is
affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (4) *
9. Exhibits "M" and "W"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have
defects and thus invalid for Ong is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-2) *
10. Exhibit "P"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG. (1) *
11. Exhibits "Q" and "GGG"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the word "LIM"
written on the senatorial slot should be
treated merely as a stray vote is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (2) *
12. Exhibits "R", "S", "T", "V" and "X"
(5 ballots)
Applying the Neighborhood Rule,
Comelec finding that the ballots were
without defects is affirmed. VALID FOR
ONG (5) *
13. Exhibits "Y" and "XX"
(2 ballots)
The words "PACITE" and "PACETE"
written on the first senatorial slot are
markings that invalidated the ballot.
Comelec finding is reversed. INVALID
FOR ONG -2 �
14. Exhibit "Z"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
15. Exhibits "AA" and "AAAA"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots were
defective is affirmed. INVALID FOR
ONG (-2) *
16. Exhibit "BB"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the words "None
that I know" on the space for party list
did not mark the ballot is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (1) *
17. Exhibits "CC", "MM", "RR" and "NNN"
(4 ballots)
The words "LOS" and "LUZ" written on
different slots marked the ballots.
Comelec finding that the ballots were
marked is affirmed. INVALID FOR
ONG (-4) *
18. Exhibit "DD"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
19. Exhibits "EE" and "TT"
(2 ballots)
The name "BONG" written on the no. 1
space for senators served to identify the
voters. Comelec finding that the ballots
were marked is affirmed. INVALID
FOR ONG (-2) *
20. Exhibit "FF"
(1 ballot)
The words "ELIN" and two names of
vice-presidential candidates written on
the senatorial slots marked the ballots.
Comelec finding that the ballots were
marked is affirmed. INVALID FOR
ONG (-2) *
21. Exhibits "KK’ and "LL"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
22. Exhibits "JJ" and "SSSS"
(2 ballots)
The name "ROSE" on the first line
intended for senators marked the ballots.
Comelec finding is affirmed. INVALID
FOR ONG (-2) *
24. Exhibit "NN"
(1 ballot)
The names of non-candidates written on
the ballot marked the ballot. Comelec
finding is affirmed. INVALID FOR
ONG (-1) *
25. Exhibits "OO" and "PP"
(2 ballots)
The word "APEC" is a stray vote but
does not invalidate the vote for Ong.
Comelec finding is affirmed. VALID
FOR ONG (2) *
26. Exhibit "QQ"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
27. Exhibit "SS"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot is
defective because of the name
"NORMAN" which was written twice on
the same slot is affirmed. INVALID
FOR ONG (-1) *
28. Exhibit "UU"
(1 ballot)
The ballot is not marked and not written
by two persons. VALID FOR ONG 1
29. Exhibit "VV"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
30. Exhibit "WW"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the name "DAYO"
is a stray vote is affirmed. VALID FOR
ONG (1) *
31. Exhibit "YY"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
32. Exhibits "ZZ" and "PPPP"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the name "RIC"
written after the name William Ong and
after the name of candidate Ruben Gayta
marked the ballot is affirmed. INVALID
FOR ONG (-2) *
33. Exhibits "AAA" AND "BBB"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
34. Exhibits "CCC", "DDD" and "PPP"
(3 ballots)
The word or name "VIA" is irrelevant,
unnecessary and impertinent. Comelec
finding that the ballots were marked is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-3) *
35. Exhibits "EEE", "HHH" and "III"
(3 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (3) *
36. Exhibits "JJJ" and "SSS"
(2 ballots)
The letters "RJ" on the first slot for
senators did not render the ballots as
marked ballots. Comelec finding is
affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
37. Exhibits "KKK" and "LLL"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots are not
defective is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
38. Exhibit "MMM"
(1 ballot)
The statement "ANG TINGOG NG
BARANGAY" written below the name of
Ong is merely an appellation of affection.
Comelec findings is affirmed. VALID
FOR ONG (1) *
39. Exhibit "OOO"
(1 ballot)
The repetition of the name of a candidate
for councilor in the first four lines for
senators does not invalidate the ballot.
Comelec findings is affirmed. VALID
FOR ONG (1) *
40. Exhibit "QQQ"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
41. Exhibits "RRR" and "TTTT"
(2 ballots)
Under the rule of IDEM SONANS, the
name "LORNA" written on the senatorial
slot does not invalidate the ballots.
Comelec finding is affirmed. VALID
FOR ONG (2) *
42. Exhibit "TTT"
(1 ballot)
The word "SENATORS" written on the
first slot of senator does not mark the
ballot. VALID FOR ONG (1)
43. Exhibit "UUU"
(1 ballot)
The words or names "NOEL", "ALONG
RARO", "ENCARNACION JUP",
"NARDO HOYOHOY" AND "LANE
LARGO" are impertinent, unnecessary
and irrelevant. Comelec finding is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-1) *
44. Exhibit "VVV"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that "RECADO" under
the rule IDEM SONANS does not
invalidate the vote is affirmed. VALID
FOR ONG (1) *
45. Exhibit "WWW"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
46. Exhibit "YYY"
(1 ballot)
There is no clear evidence that another
person wrote the name of Ong. Erasures
do not invalidate the ballot. VALID FOR
ONG 1
47. Exhibit "ZZZ"
(1 ballot)
The name "VECINTE" was merely a
wrong spelling which does not invalidate
the ballot. VALID FOR ONG 1
48. Exhibit "BBBB"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
49. Exhibits "CCCC", "XXXX" and
"YYYY" (3 ballots)
The writing "AMEN" on the first slot for
senators is impertinent, irrelevant and
unnecessary. Comelec finding is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-3) *
50. Exhibit "DDDD"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
51. Exhibit "FFFF"
(1 ballot)
"X-MEN" written on the space for party
list representative does not invalidate the
ballot. VALID FOR ONG 1
52. Exhibits "GGGG" and "HHHH"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
53. Exhibit "JJJJ"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that erasures must not be
taken as identification is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (1) *
54. Exhibit "KKKK"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (1) *
55. Exhibit "LLLL"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the ballot was
written by two persons is affirmed.
INVALID FOR ONG (-1) *
56. Exhibits "MMMM" and "NNNN"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
57. Exhibit "OOOO"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the words "PARE
KO" are words of appellation is affirmed.
VALID FOR ONG (1) *
58. Exhibit "QQQQ"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the words or names
"NANIG", "SABAS" and "MIMIG"
which are non-candidates marked the
ballot is affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-1) *
59. Exhibits "RRRR" and "UUUU"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect is affirmed. VALID FOR ONG (2) *
60. Exhibit" VVVV"
(1 ballot)
Comelec finding that the names
"ALONG" and "LOLOY TORRES" who
were non-candidates marked the ballot is
affirmed. INVALID FOR ONG (-1) *
61. Exhibit "WWWW"
(1 ballot)
The name "KRIS" in the senatorial does
not mark the ballot. VALID FOR ONG 1
Number of votes to be credited to ONG = 22
Number of votes to be deducted from ONG = 2
Prec. SUMMARY OF
8A FINDINGS RIZON
1. Exhibits "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7",
"8", "9", "10" and "11"
(11 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Rizon is
affirmed. VALID FOR RIZON (11) *
2. Exhibits "12", "24" and "28"
(3 ballots)
The ballots do not contain the letters
DLR. VALID FOR RIZON 3
3. Exhibits "13", "14", "15’, "16", "17",
"18" and "19"
(7 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Rizon is
affirmed. VALID FOR RIZON (7) *
4. Exhibit "20"
(1 ballot)
There is no marking on the ballot.
VALID FOR RIZON 1
5. Exhibits "21", "22", "23", "25", "26",
"27", "29", "31", "32", "33", "34", "35",
"36" and "37"
(14 ballots)
Comelec findings that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid is affirmed. VALID
FOR RIZON (14) *
6. Exhibit "30"
(1 ballot)
The name "LITO" written in big bold
letters occupying all the spaces for
councilor marked the ballot. INVALID
FOR RIZON -1
Prec. 28A SUMMARY OF
28A-1 FINDINGS RIZON
1. Exhibits "1" and "2"
(2 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid is affirmed. VALID
FOR RIZON (2) *
2. Exhibit "3"
(1 ballot)
The ballot has no marking. VALID FOR
RIZON -1
3. Exhibits "4" to "11"
(8 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid is affirmed. VALID
FOR RIZON (11) *
4. Exhibit "12"
(1 ballot)
The ballot contains initials "DLR."cralaw virtua1aw library
Comelec finding that the ballot has no
defect is reversed. INVALID FOR
RIZON -1
5. Exhibit "12" to "26"
(15 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
Defect is affirmed. VALID FOR RIZON (14)*
6. Exhibit "27"
(1 ballot)
There are no markings found in the ballot.
VALID FOR RIZON 1
7. Exhibits "28" to "31"
(4 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Rizon is affirmed.
VALID FOR RIZON (4)*
8. Exhibit "32"
(1 ballot)
There are no markings in the ballot. No
name "Cris" appearing on the ballot.
VALID FOR RIZON 1
9. Exhibits "33" to "40"
(8 ballots)
Comelec finding that the ballots have no
defect and thus valid for Rizon is
affirmed. VALID FOR RIZON (8)*
Number of votes to be credited to RIZON = 7
Number of votes to be deducted from RIZON = 2
From a total of 4,411 votes of Ong per Comelec findings, a total of another twenty (20) shall be added 21 as per above findings which gives him a total of 4,431 votes.
From a total of 4,414 votes of Rizon per Comelec findings, a total of five (5) votes shall be added 22 as per above findings which gives him a total of 4,419.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Consequently, candidate William P. Ong won by a margin of twelve (12) votes.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Resolution dated August 15, 2000 of the Commission on Elections en banc declaring respondent Isagani B. Rizon as the winner in the May 11, 1998 elections.
In lieu thereof, Court hereby PROCLAIMS petitioner William P. Ong as the duly elected mayor of the municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections, with a margin of twelve (12) votes.chanrob1es virtua1 law library
The status quo order issued on August 29, 2000, is made permanent.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
2. In Election Case No. 07-431.
3. Petition, Annex "J", Rollo, pp. 165-208.
4. Docketed as Election Case No. 07-431.
5. Precincts 8A (Poblacion), 28A/28A1 (Brgy. Pangi), 32A/32A1/33A1 (Brgy. Raw-an Point), 14A/15A (Brgy. Dacu), 20A/20A1 (Brgy. Libertad) and 40A (Brgy. Salong).
6. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 42-58.
7. Docketed as EAC No. A-12-99.
8. Composed of Presiding Commissioner Julio P. Desamito, as ponente, Commissioners Japal M. Guiani and Luzviminda G. Tancangco, members.
9. Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 59-74.
10. Petition, Annex "E", Rollo, pp. 75-97.
11. Composed of Chairman Harriet O. Demetriou, as ponente, Commissioners Julio F. Desamito, Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, Luzviminda G. Tancangco, Ralph C. Lantion, Rufino S. Javier and Mehol K Sadain.
12. Petition, Annex "J", Rollo, pp. 165-208.
13. Petition filed on August 17, 2000, Rollo, pp. 3-35.
14. Sec. 211 (22), Art. XVIII, Omnibus Election Code.
15. 115 Phil. 568 [1962].
16. Ferrer v. de Alban, 101 Phil 1018, 1020-1021 [1957].
17. Delgado v. Tiu, 105 Phil. 835, 839 [1959].
18. 9 Phil. 652 [1908].
19. Section 211 (7), Omnibus Election Code.
20. Section 211 (9), Ibid.
* Votes will no longer be included or excluded, as the case may be, in the final computation since the same were already considered in the Comelec total.
� To be deducted from the total votes in the Comelec findings.
21. Twenty two (22) valid ballots less two (2) invalid ballots.
22. Seven (7) valid ballots less two (2) invalid ballots.
