Garay v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election for vice-mayor in the Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon, during the May 8, 1995 elections. Following the initial canvass, petitioner Gerry B. Garay held a narrow lead of twenty votes over respondent Jaime Gata, Jr. However, the results from precinct 30-A of Barangay Culasi were excluded because the ballot box and election returns were forcibly taken by armed men, constituting a failure of elections in that precinct. Procedural History: Respondent Gata, seeking to be declared the winner, presented a certificate of votes and a tally board from precinct 30-A to the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), claiming he won by 28 votes if these were included. The MBC did not proclaim a winner. Subsequently, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), upon recommendation, conducted a special election in precinct 30-A on June 7, 1995, in which both Garay and Gata participated, and Garay was proclaimed the winner. Meanwhile, Gata's appeal to the COMELEC regarding the MBC's ruling was pending. The COMELEC First Division initially denied Gata's appeal. However, the COMELEC En Banc later reversed this decision, annulled the special election, and directed the MBC to include the votes from the tally board and certificate of votes in the canvass, thereby declaring Gata the winner. The Petition: Petitioner Gerry B. Garay filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC En Banc's resolution dated August 7, 1995. He argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing its own First Division, annulling the special election that had already taken place and in which both parties participated, and by relying on the tally board and certificate of votes to declare Gata the winner. The petition contends that the special election was validly conducted and that the COMELEC En Banc lacked the jurisdiction to set aside a final and executed decision and to declare Gata the winner based on questionable documents after a special election had already determined the will of the electorate.
Issue(s)
Did the Commission on Elections commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing its own First Division and annulling the special election? Did the Commission on Elections commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the use of the Tally Board and the Certificate of Votes in the new canvass?
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The challenged COMELEC En Banc resolution of August 7, 1995, is SET ASIDE. The COMELEC is directed to deny respondent Gata's Motion for Reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in reversing its First Division and annulling the special election: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion. The Court noted that the COMELEC had already decided to hold a special election, which involved notice and hearing, and both parties actively participated. This participation rendered Gata's appeal from the MBC ruling moot and placed him in estoppel from relying again on his certificate of votes and tally board. The COMELEC En Banc's reversal of its First Division and its decision to annul the special election were considered a more serious error. The Court emphasized that the special election was not a failed election; voting took place, and the election did not result in a failure to elect. The popular will expressed in the special election should prevail over dubious election documents from a previous failed election. The COMELEC En Banc's decision to annul the special election, which had already been conducted and proclaimed, was an act beyond its jurisdiction, as it sought to revoke a final and executed decision. The Court found the COMELEC's plea that it was convinced by the tally board and certificate of votes unpersuasive, as these documents were already in its possession before it decided to call the special election. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in allowing the use of the Tally Board and Certificate of Votes in the new canvass: The Court ruled that neither a certificate of votes nor a tally board is a valid basis for canvass. Pursuant to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6646, a certificate of votes is admissible only as evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification, or other anomalies in the election returns, when duly authenticated. It does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine results of the election, for which only election returns are valid. Similarly, a tally board is not sufficient evidence of the real results of the election. The Court found the tally board in this case highly suspect and unreliable because it appeared only when Gata attached it to his appeal, and its appearance was not convincingly explained. Furthermore, Section 217 of B.P. Blg. 881 requires the tally board to be placed inside the ballot box. Since the ballot box and its contents, including election returns and the tally board, were forcibly taken and never recovered, the tally board must have also been lost. The COMELEC's decision to hold the special election indicated its prior lack of conviction in the authenticity and sufficiency of Gata's documents.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) gravely abused its discretion when it annulled a special election it had previously called and conducted due to a failure of election, and subsequently declared a winner based on a tally board and certificate of votes from the original election, especially when both candidates actively participated in the special election, rendering the appeal moot and placing the private respondent in estoppel.