ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 136966. June 8, 1999]
JAMES S. MIGUEL vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 8, 1999.
G.R. No. 136966 (James S. Miguel vs. Commission on Elections and Eladio M. Lapuz.)
Petitioner James Miguel and private respondent Eladio M. Lapuz were among the candidates for the office of Municipal Mayor in the Municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija during the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections. Petitioner received 9,951 votes and won over the private respondent who garnered 8,911 votes. Petitioner was thus proclaimed the winning candidate.
Thereafter, private respondent seasonably filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 23 an election protest against the petitioner contesting the election in all 105 precincts of Rizal, on grounds of fraud and irregularities consisting of, among others, (a) rampant switching of ballot boxes and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake ballots; (b) irregularities in voting and counting of votes and preparation of election return; (c) misappreciation of the ballots by the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors; (d) misreading and mistallying of ballots or votes; (e) massive vote buying and, (f) fraud, threat and coercion. The case was docketed as Election Protest No. 3121-AF.
Petitioner filed his Answer/Comment to Petition With Counterclaim.
The trial court issued an order, ordering the transfer of ballot boxes from the Treasurer's Office of Rizal, Nueva Ecija to Cabanatuan City, to be deposited within the court's premises; the constitution of Board of Revision; the deposit of the requisite sum for the revision of ballots and the commencement, presentation and reception of evidence of parties. 1 [Order dated June 9, 1998, Annex "G", Rollo, p. 68.]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said Order. Private respondent filed his Comment/Opposition thereto, to which petitioner filed a Rejoinder.
On July 7, 1998, the RTC of Cabanatuan City issued an Order2 [Annex "B", Petition, Rollo, pp. 43-44.] granting petitioner's motion for reconsideration and ordered that a preliminary hearing to determine the validity of the allegations in the Protest be set on July 21, 1998 for the private respondent to adduce evidence that would show sampling of instances or occasions that would negate prima facie the Narrative Report of the Acting Election Registrar of Rizal, Nueva Ecija.
Private respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 7, 1998.
On August 11, 1998 the trial court denied private respondent's motion for reconsideration.
On September 11, 1998, private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order docketed as SPR No. 36-98 before the Commission on Elections.
Petitioner filed his comment thereto.
On December 17, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated a Resolution the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of herein respondent Judge, the two (2) orders dated July 7, 1998 and August 11, 1998 are hereby SET ASIDE.
"Respondent Judge is hereby DIRECTED to immediately order the transfer of all the ballot boxes comprising the entire 105 precincts of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Rizal, Nueva Ecija or wherever they may have been deposited, to the trial court for safekeeping and revision of ballots.
"SO ORDERED." 3 [COMELEC Resolution, Annex "A", Petition, Rollo, pp. 35-41.]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated December 17, 1998.
On January 14, 1999, the COMELEC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the present recourse.
Petitioner assigns three (3) errors allegedly committed by the COMELEC but which all boil down to the question of whether the COMELEC erred in ordering the immediate opening of ballot boxes and recounting of the ballots instead of requiring first the private respondent to present evidence of his allegations of fraud and irregularities before opening the ballot boxes if the allegations are proved.
The Court finds the petition to be without merit.
The protest of private respondent Lapuz attributed fraud and irregularities in the election of petitioner as mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija. The case at bar is on all fours with that of Crispino vs. Panganiban,4 [219 SCRA 621.] where this Court held:
"When there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of the ballots therein deposited."
"x x x Obviously the simplest, the most expeditious and the best means to determine the truth or falsity of this allegation is to open the ballot box and examine its contents. To require parol or other evidence on said alleged irregularity before opening said box, would have merely given the protestee ample opportunity to delay the settlement of the controversy, through lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses for the protestant and the presentation of testimonial evidence for the protestee to the contrary."
The COMELEC was therefore correct in declaring that the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the two (2) orders that required the presentation of evidence before the ballot boxes are opened. This would defeat the constitutionally and statutory mandated duty of the court to dispose of election cases expeditiously.
An election protest involves public interest. It should be concluded as speedily as possible to the end that any doubt as to the true expression of the will of the electorate may be dissipated without delay and that the public faith, confidence and cooperation, so essential to the processes of government, may not be undermined.5 [Ortega vs. De Guzman, 19 SCRA 391.]
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Resolutions dated December 17, 1998 and January 14, 1999 of the respondent COMELEC are AFFIRMED. Puno, J., is abroad on official business. Panganiban, J., is on leave.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
