March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181690 : March 24, 2009] EDGAR RAMONES LARA V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL :
[G.R. No. 181690 : March 24, 2009]
EDGAR RAMONES LARA V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 24, 2009
G.R. No. 181690 (Edgar Ramones Lara v. Commission on Elections, et al). - Petitioner Edgar Ramones Lara (petitioner) and private respondent Alvaro T. Antonio (respondent) were candidates for governor of the Province of Cagayan during the 14 May 2007 national and local elections.
During the canvass proceedings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Cagayan (PBOC), petitioner filed a petition for the exclusion of the Certificate of Canvass (COC) for the Municipality of Tuao, citing all the grounds for exclusion mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code. The PBOC denied the petition. It found the Tuao COC authentic and duly accomplished on its face and accordingly accorded it prima facie validity and regularity.
In the same proceedings, respondent filed a petition seeking the exclusion of the COC for the Municipality of Lal-lo and assailing the -composition, conduct and result of the canvassing in the said municipality. After petitioner filed his opposition, the PBOC granted respondent's petition by ordering the exclusion of the Lal-lo COC.
Petitioner appealed the two rulings of the PBOC to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner contended that the PBOC erred (a) in including the Tuao COC without correcting the discrepancy in the computation of the total votes garnered by him and respondent based on the actual results recorded in the election returns, and (b) in excluding the Lal-lo COC since respondent, according to petitioner, failed to raise any objection to the election returns of Lal-lo during the municipal canvass proceedings.
In its Resolution of 29 June 2007, the Second Division of the COMELEC affirmed the PBOC's inclusion of the Tuao COC on the ground that petitioner had failed to identify the particular precincts where the alleged discrepancies existed and to adduce the required evidence to substantiate his allegation that there was a need to exclude the Tuao COC. The poll body's Second Division however did not sustain the PBOC's ruling to exclude the Lal-lo COC, pointing out that the PBOC had discovered manifest errors in the process of canvassing the Lal-lo COC and Summary of Votes (SOV), but did not make the necessary corrections in the entries in the Lal-lo SOV. Citing Sec. 7 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure that manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of certificates of canvass may be corrected by the board motu proprio, the COMELEC Second Division ordered the PBOC to reconvene, correct the erroneous entries in the Lal-lo SOV and COC, include the entries as corrected in the canvass, and proclaim the winning candidate.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Division's resolution. The COMELEC en banc, on 30 January 2008, denied the motion for lack of merit. It noted that in his original petition before the PBOC, petitioner merely prayed for the exclusion of the Tuao COC. There was no allegation of manifest error and prayer for correction of such manifest errors in the election returns. The allegation of manifest errors was in fact raised only in petitioner's appeal of the PBOC's decision to the COMELEC Second Division. Aside from having been raised belatedly, the allegation was made without identifying the errors to be corrected. The bane reiterated that the alleged discrepancies were not manifest in character absent identification of which particular entries in the SOV did not match the figures in the election returns. Petitioner merely presented the Tuao COC and election returns without any reference to the particular precincts or election returns that were the subject of erroneous entries in the Tuao, SOV. Since the alleged discrepancies in the Tuao COC were not manifest errors, they could not be remedied by the procedure under COMELEC rules.
The poll body noted that in stark contrast to petitioner's incurable blunder in his challenge of the Tuao COC, respondent specifically identified each and every precinct and figure in the election returns that was transposed into an erroneous entry in the Lal-lo SOV. It was thus proper for the COMELEC Second Division to order the correction of manifest errors in the Lal-lo canvass and deny the same remedy for the Tuao canvass, according to the COMELEC en banc.
Consequently, the PBOC reconvened on 9 July 2007 and proclaimed private respondent as the winning candidate, with a margin of 662 votes.
Thereafter, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari to nullify, reverse or set aside the resolutions of the COMELEC. Petitioner alleges that the following acts of the COMELEC show that it committed grave abuse of discretion: (a) the COMELEC regarded petitioner's appeal as one that was not for the correction of manifest error in the Tuao COC despite its own finding that it merely involved a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes garnered by petitioner and respondent as reflected in the Tuao election returns; (b) the COMELEC ruled that a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns was not a manifest error; (c) the COMELEC ruled that the needed correction in the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns entailed a re-canvassing of all the election returns, but on the contrary it actually entailed a mere mechanical addition of all the results reflected in the election returns from the 125 Tuao precincts; (d) the COMELEC did not order the correction of the Tuao COC due to petitioner's failure to specifically identify the discrepancies between the election returns and the SOV entry, but what was sought to be corrected was merely the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns; and (e) the COMELEC corrected the Lal-lo SOV despite respondent's failure to observe Sec. 20 of Republic Act No. 7166, and denied the correction of the Tuao COC despite Lara's compliance with all the rules. The COMELEC should not have treated the Tuao and Lal-lo SOVs and COCs differently.[1]
It is noteworthy that in the instant petition, petitioner challenges the issuances of the COMELEC only as regards the Tuao COC, and not the Lal-lo COC.
Respondent, on the other hand, avers that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the COMELEC's part when it allowed the corrections in the Lal-lo SOV and COC, but denied the corrections sought in the Tuao COC. Respondent had specifically pointed out the errors which needed to be corrected in the Lal-lo SOV and also presented authentic copies of election returns. Petitioner did not disprove respondent's allegations nor did he present any evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity in the preparation of the Tuao COC. Petitioner now, by mere verbal exhortation, wants a mathematical addition of all the votes in Tuao without specifying where the alleged corrections should be made in the SOV or COC. Petitioner thus failed to submit any competent evidence that would clearly show manifest errors in the Tuao COC.[2]
The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General which filed a comment on the former's behalf, stands firm in its decision. It rejects petitioner's claim that the COMELEC Second Division and en banc admitted that there was a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes of Tuao. Such a statement merely set forth petitioner's claim or the issue he raised in his appeal and petition and did not refer to the COMELEC's findings. Public respondent stresses that petitioner failed to specify the errors that were supposed to be manifest and should therefore be corrected. While he did present the Tuao election returns and COC, he did not identify the specific election returns whose figures differed from the particular entries in the SOV. Thus, he failed to prove that manifest errors had existed in the canvass. Public respondent cannot be required to conduct a tedious re-examination of the election returns for the alleged discrepancies to surface, especially where the canvass proceedings have long been terminated.[3]
The petition should be dismissed.
Pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges directed against the board of canvassers and proceedings before said board, relating to particular election returns to which petitioner should have made specific verbal objections, which were to be subsequently reduced to writing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. As a rule in a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns, which are on their face regular and authentic.[4]
Essentially, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the ruling of the PBOC that petitioner's evidence did not prove that there were manifest errors in the SOV/COC/election returns that should be corrected and thus failed to overcome the presumption that the election documents (SOV/COC/election returns) were regular on their face. This was primarily because petitioner had failed to allege the specific defects or irregularities in the SOV/COC/election returns that ought to be corrected. However, petitioner maintains that there is no need to identify specific discrepancies between the election returns and SOV entries, as the COMELEC ruled, because what he questioned was merely the erroneous addition of the results as reflected in all the Tuao election returns. Such an error could only be made manifest if a mathematical computation of all the votes is undertaken on the basis of the election returns from all 125 Tuao precincts, he adds.
A manifest error is defined as "one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have committed." To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.[5]
From the records, it is apparent that the error alleged by petitioner does not appear on the face of the Tuao COC that he had sought to exclude from canvass. It is likewise evident that his claim that the error is in the computation or addition of the votes in the Tuao election documents was unspecified and unproven. It should be noted that the allegation of manifest error in the computation of votes was raised only in his appeal before the COMELEC Second Division and was never alleged or raised before the PBOC where he sought only the exclusion of the Tuao COC and not its correction. Petitioner also failed to submit any evidence that would overcome the prima facie validity and regularity of the Tuao COC. Thus, there was no manifest error to speak of Consequently, there was no basis to exclude the Tuao COC from canvass, since they appeared to be regular and authentic on their face. The identification of specific erroneous entries in the election documents would have helped to overturn this presumption, especially when backed by evidence such as copies of the erroneous entries and the authentic returns.
Petitioner alleges that he submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. However, as the COMELEC found, petitioner merely presented the copies of the election returns, SOV and COC of Tuao without however identifying the erroneous entries in said election documents that needed to be corrected. His evidence did not substantiate his claim. The COMELEC en banc correctly affirmed the COMELEC Second Division's decision to deny the exclusion of the Tuao COC from the canvass of votes.
Petitioner relies on COMELEC Resolution No. 7859,[6] in particular Section 35 thereof which enumerates instances of manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing. The fifth paragraph thereof includes a mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate as a manifest error. However, in the absence of any identification of the alleged specific erroneous entries in the Tuao election documents that would demonstrate the error in the addition of votes, the allegation of manifest error remains a mere allegation unsupported by any evidence. A mere allegation cannot overturn the presumption of regularity and authenticity of the Tuao COC.
In the present petition, apparently oblivious of the fact that he opted not to challenge the COMELEC issuances on the Lal-lo COC, petitioner still alleges that there was a selective or biased approach by the COMELEC in the disposition of the petitions for correction of the Tuao and Lal-lo SOVs and COCs. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC should not have treated the Tuao and Lal-lo COCs differently, considering that he complied with all the prescribed procedures in the submission of evidence to support his claim, while respondent failed to submit the necessary copies of election documents as required by the COMELEC Second Division. We find that no such selective or biased approach was employed. The COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC en banc maintained the same approach in the resolution of the cases; that is, they required both parties to specify the erroneous entries in the election documents and substantiate the alleged errors with evidence. Unfortunately for petitioner, the PBOC, COMELEC Second Division and COMELEC en banc all ruled that respondent was able to substantiate his allegations, while petitioner failed to do so. The findings and conclusions of the COMELEC en banc prevail, and the petition must fail.
All told, the petition is clearly unsuccessful in presenting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC.
Moreover, the findings of the poll body on which its conclusions are based are essentially factual. It is settled that any factual challenge has no place in a Rule 65 petition, more so if it involves a ruling of a constitutional body such as the COMELEC.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED.
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio Morales and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., on official business. Chico-Nazario, J., on official leave.
G.R. No. 181690 (Edgar Ramones Lara v. Commission on Elections, et al). - Petitioner Edgar Ramones Lara (petitioner) and private respondent Alvaro T. Antonio (respondent) were candidates for governor of the Province of Cagayan during the 14 May 2007 national and local elections.
During the canvass proceedings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Cagayan (PBOC), petitioner filed a petition for the exclusion of the Certificate of Canvass (COC) for the Municipality of Tuao, citing all the grounds for exclusion mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code. The PBOC denied the petition. It found the Tuao COC authentic and duly accomplished on its face and accordingly accorded it prima facie validity and regularity.
In the same proceedings, respondent filed a petition seeking the exclusion of the COC for the Municipality of Lal-lo and assailing the -composition, conduct and result of the canvassing in the said municipality. After petitioner filed his opposition, the PBOC granted respondent's petition by ordering the exclusion of the Lal-lo COC.
Petitioner appealed the two rulings of the PBOC to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner contended that the PBOC erred (a) in including the Tuao COC without correcting the discrepancy in the computation of the total votes garnered by him and respondent based on the actual results recorded in the election returns, and (b) in excluding the Lal-lo COC since respondent, according to petitioner, failed to raise any objection to the election returns of Lal-lo during the municipal canvass proceedings.
In its Resolution of 29 June 2007, the Second Division of the COMELEC affirmed the PBOC's inclusion of the Tuao COC on the ground that petitioner had failed to identify the particular precincts where the alleged discrepancies existed and to adduce the required evidence to substantiate his allegation that there was a need to exclude the Tuao COC. The poll body's Second Division however did not sustain the PBOC's ruling to exclude the Lal-lo COC, pointing out that the PBOC had discovered manifest errors in the process of canvassing the Lal-lo COC and Summary of Votes (SOV), but did not make the necessary corrections in the entries in the Lal-lo SOV. Citing Sec. 7 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure that manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of certificates of canvass may be corrected by the board motu proprio, the COMELEC Second Division ordered the PBOC to reconvene, correct the erroneous entries in the Lal-lo SOV and COC, include the entries as corrected in the canvass, and proclaim the winning candidate.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Division's resolution. The COMELEC en banc, on 30 January 2008, denied the motion for lack of merit. It noted that in his original petition before the PBOC, petitioner merely prayed for the exclusion of the Tuao COC. There was no allegation of manifest error and prayer for correction of such manifest errors in the election returns. The allegation of manifest errors was in fact raised only in petitioner's appeal of the PBOC's decision to the COMELEC Second Division. Aside from having been raised belatedly, the allegation was made without identifying the errors to be corrected. The bane reiterated that the alleged discrepancies were not manifest in character absent identification of which particular entries in the SOV did not match the figures in the election returns. Petitioner merely presented the Tuao COC and election returns without any reference to the particular precincts or election returns that were the subject of erroneous entries in the Tuao, SOV. Since the alleged discrepancies in the Tuao COC were not manifest errors, they could not be remedied by the procedure under COMELEC rules.
The poll body noted that in stark contrast to petitioner's incurable blunder in his challenge of the Tuao COC, respondent specifically identified each and every precinct and figure in the election returns that was transposed into an erroneous entry in the Lal-lo SOV. It was thus proper for the COMELEC Second Division to order the correction of manifest errors in the Lal-lo canvass and deny the same remedy for the Tuao canvass, according to the COMELEC en banc.
Consequently, the PBOC reconvened on 9 July 2007 and proclaimed private respondent as the winning candidate, with a margin of 662 votes.
Thereafter, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari to nullify, reverse or set aside the resolutions of the COMELEC. Petitioner alleges that the following acts of the COMELEC show that it committed grave abuse of discretion: (a) the COMELEC regarded petitioner's appeal as one that was not for the correction of manifest error in the Tuao COC despite its own finding that it merely involved a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes garnered by petitioner and respondent as reflected in the Tuao election returns; (b) the COMELEC ruled that a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns was not a manifest error; (c) the COMELEC ruled that the needed correction in the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns entailed a re-canvassing of all the election returns, but on the contrary it actually entailed a mere mechanical addition of all the results reflected in the election returns from the 125 Tuao precincts; (d) the COMELEC did not order the correction of the Tuao COC due to petitioner's failure to specifically identify the discrepancies between the election returns and the SOV entry, but what was sought to be corrected was merely the computation of the total votes as reflected in the election returns; and (e) the COMELEC corrected the Lal-lo SOV despite respondent's failure to observe Sec. 20 of Republic Act No. 7166, and denied the correction of the Tuao COC despite Lara's compliance with all the rules. The COMELEC should not have treated the Tuao and Lal-lo SOVs and COCs differently.[1]
It is noteworthy that in the instant petition, petitioner challenges the issuances of the COMELEC only as regards the Tuao COC, and not the Lal-lo COC.
Respondent, on the other hand, avers that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the COMELEC's part when it allowed the corrections in the Lal-lo SOV and COC, but denied the corrections sought in the Tuao COC. Respondent had specifically pointed out the errors which needed to be corrected in the Lal-lo SOV and also presented authentic copies of election returns. Petitioner did not disprove respondent's allegations nor did he present any evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity in the preparation of the Tuao COC. Petitioner now, by mere verbal exhortation, wants a mathematical addition of all the votes in Tuao without specifying where the alleged corrections should be made in the SOV or COC. Petitioner thus failed to submit any competent evidence that would clearly show manifest errors in the Tuao COC.[2]
The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General which filed a comment on the former's behalf, stands firm in its decision. It rejects petitioner's claim that the COMELEC Second Division and en banc admitted that there was a discrepancy in the computation of the total votes of Tuao. Such a statement merely set forth petitioner's claim or the issue he raised in his appeal and petition and did not refer to the COMELEC's findings. Public respondent stresses that petitioner failed to specify the errors that were supposed to be manifest and should therefore be corrected. While he did present the Tuao election returns and COC, he did not identify the specific election returns whose figures differed from the particular entries in the SOV. Thus, he failed to prove that manifest errors had existed in the canvass. Public respondent cannot be required to conduct a tedious re-examination of the election returns for the alleged discrepancies to surface, especially where the canvass proceedings have long been terminated.[3]
The petition should be dismissed.
Pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges directed against the board of canvassers and proceedings before said board, relating to particular election returns to which petitioner should have made specific verbal objections, which were to be subsequently reduced to writing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face. As a rule in a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns, which are on their face regular and authentic.[4]
Essentially, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the ruling of the PBOC that petitioner's evidence did not prove that there were manifest errors in the SOV/COC/election returns that should be corrected and thus failed to overcome the presumption that the election documents (SOV/COC/election returns) were regular on their face. This was primarily because petitioner had failed to allege the specific defects or irregularities in the SOV/COC/election returns that ought to be corrected. However, petitioner maintains that there is no need to identify specific discrepancies between the election returns and SOV entries, as the COMELEC ruled, because what he questioned was merely the erroneous addition of the results as reflected in all the Tuao election returns. Such an error could only be made manifest if a mathematical computation of all the votes is undertaken on the basis of the election returns from all 125 Tuao precincts, he adds.
A manifest error is defined as "one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have committed." To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.[5]
From the records, it is apparent that the error alleged by petitioner does not appear on the face of the Tuao COC that he had sought to exclude from canvass. It is likewise evident that his claim that the error is in the computation or addition of the votes in the Tuao election documents was unspecified and unproven. It should be noted that the allegation of manifest error in the computation of votes was raised only in his appeal before the COMELEC Second Division and was never alleged or raised before the PBOC where he sought only the exclusion of the Tuao COC and not its correction. Petitioner also failed to submit any evidence that would overcome the prima facie validity and regularity of the Tuao COC. Thus, there was no manifest error to speak of Consequently, there was no basis to exclude the Tuao COC from canvass, since they appeared to be regular and authentic on their face. The identification of specific erroneous entries in the election documents would have helped to overturn this presumption, especially when backed by evidence such as copies of the erroneous entries and the authentic returns.
Petitioner alleges that he submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. However, as the COMELEC found, petitioner merely presented the copies of the election returns, SOV and COC of Tuao without however identifying the erroneous entries in said election documents that needed to be corrected. His evidence did not substantiate his claim. The COMELEC en banc correctly affirmed the COMELEC Second Division's decision to deny the exclusion of the Tuao COC from the canvass of votes.
Petitioner relies on COMELEC Resolution No. 7859,[6] in particular Section 35 thereof which enumerates instances of manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing. The fifth paragraph thereof includes a mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate as a manifest error. However, in the absence of any identification of the alleged specific erroneous entries in the Tuao election documents that would demonstrate the error in the addition of votes, the allegation of manifest error remains a mere allegation unsupported by any evidence. A mere allegation cannot overturn the presumption of regularity and authenticity of the Tuao COC.
In the present petition, apparently oblivious of the fact that he opted not to challenge the COMELEC issuances on the Lal-lo COC, petitioner still alleges that there was a selective or biased approach by the COMELEC in the disposition of the petitions for correction of the Tuao and Lal-lo SOVs and COCs. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC should not have treated the Tuao and Lal-lo COCs differently, considering that he complied with all the prescribed procedures in the submission of evidence to support his claim, while respondent failed to submit the necessary copies of election documents as required by the COMELEC Second Division. We find that no such selective or biased approach was employed. The COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC en banc maintained the same approach in the resolution of the cases; that is, they required both parties to specify the erroneous entries in the election documents and substantiate the alleged errors with evidence. Unfortunately for petitioner, the PBOC, COMELEC Second Division and COMELEC en banc all ruled that respondent was able to substantiate his allegations, while petitioner failed to do so. The findings and conclusions of the COMELEC en banc prevail, and the petition must fail.
All told, the petition is clearly unsuccessful in presenting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC.
Moreover, the findings of the poll body on which its conclusions are based are essentially factual. It is settled that any factual challenge has no place in a Rule 65 petition, more so if it involves a ruling of a constitutional body such as the COMELEC.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED.
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio Morales and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., on official business. Chico-Nazario, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 23-24.
[2] Private Respondent's Comment, rollo, pp. 259-275.
[3] Public Respondent's Comment, rollo, pp. 290-303.
[4] Lucman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166229, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 299.
[5] O'Hara v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 148941-42, 12 March 2002, 379 SCRA 247, 259, citing Trinidad v. Commission on Elections, 320 SCRA 836, 843 (1999) and Chavez v. Comelec, 211 SCRA 315 (1992).
[6] General Instructions for the Municipal/City/Provincial and District Board of Canvassers in Connection with the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections. Promulgated 17 April 2007.
[7] Cundangan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174392. 28 August 2007, 531 SCRA 542; Laurena, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174499, 29 June 2007, 526 SCRA 230; Juan v, Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166639, 24 April 2007, 522 SCRA 119.
