Velasco v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ranilo A. Velasco and respondent Benigno C. Layesa, Jr. were candidates for Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San Pablo City in the July 15, 2002 barangay elections. Following the initial canvass, petitioner was proclaimed the winner with 390 votes, while respondent received 375 votes. Respondent filed an election protest, alleging erroneous exclusion of votes cast in his favor, and sought the revision of 26 ballots from four precincts. Petitioner, in turn, counterclaimed for the revision of ballots from another precinct. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Pablo City, after revising the contested ballots, declared a tie between petitioner and respondent, with each receiving 390 votes. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), arguing that the trial court erred in crediting respondent with 15 additional votes. The COMELEC Second Division affirmed the trial court's ruling, applying the "neighborhood rule" in its appreciation of certain ballots. Both parties sought reconsideration. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motions for reconsideration, upholding the Second Division's findings on the disputed ballots. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the COMELEC's resolutions through a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The core of the petition focuses on three specific ballots (Exhibits "9," "10," and "13"), arguing that the votes cast for respondent in these ballots are stray and should not have been credited to him under the "neighborhood rule." Petitioner contends that the placement of respondent's name on these ballots does not clearly indicate an intent to vote for him as Punong Barangay, and that such placements fall outside the established exceptions for counting misplaced votes. The petition asks the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC's resolutions and to declare petitioner as the duly elected Punong Barangay.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC correctly credited respondent with the votes cast in Exhibits "9," "10," and "13." Whether the votes cast in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray ballots. Whether the vote cast in Exhibit "10" is a valid vote for the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. The vote cast for respondent in Exhibit "10" is valid, while those in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray. Consequently, petitioner Ranilo A. Velasco is proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appreciation of ballots with misplaced votes and Exhibits "9" and "13": The Court reiterated the rule under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code, which states that a vote for a person who did not file a certificate of candidacy or for an office for which they did not present themselves shall be considered a stray vote, though it shall not invalidate the whole ballot. This rule is intended to avoid confusion and protect the secrecy of the ballot, ensuring voters write names in the proper places. However, exceptions exist for general misplacements, single or double misplacements with clear indications of intent, or misplacements near the designated space or the title of the office. The Court emphasized that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters' will, but this liberality ends where it subverts the legislature's intent. The Court held that the votes for the respondent in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray and cannot be counted in his favor. In Exhibit "9," the respondent's name was written on the uppermost portion of the ballot beside the seal of the Republic of the Philippines. In Exhibit "13," the name was written in the upper portion above the instructions to the voter. In both ballots, the space for Punong Barangay was left unfilled, and names of other individuals were properly placed in the Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad lines. The Court reasoned that the respondent's name was not found on or near any of the lines corresponding to the offices of Punong Barangay or Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad. Furthermore, these instances did not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 211(19), as the names were written far from the designated spaces, and the proper placement of other candidates' names indicated the voters knew where to write. The Court concluded that these misplaced votes were stray, leaving the ballots valid but the votes for respondent invalid. On Exhibits "9" and "13" being stray ballots: The Court held that the votes for the respondent in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray and cannot be counted in his favor. In Exhibit "9," the respondent's name was written on the uppermost portion of the ballot beside the seal of the Republic of the Philippines. In Exhibit "13," the name was written in the upper portion above the instructions to the voter. In both ballots, the space for Punong Barangay was left unfilled, and names of other individuals were properly placed in the Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad lines. The Court reasoned that the respondent's name was not found on or near any of the lines corresponding to the offices of Punong Barangay or Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad. Furthermore, these instances did not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 211(19), as the names were written far from the designated spaces, and the proper placement of other candidates' names indicated the voters knew where to write. The Court concluded that these misplaced votes were stray, leaving the ballots valid but the votes for respondent invalid. On Exhibit "10": The Court affirmed the COMELEC's decision to credit the vote in Exhibit "10" to the respondent. In this ballot, the respondent's name was written twice, once above the instructions to the voter and once in the first line for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad, both followed by the word "Charman." The Court found that the voter's intent to vote for the respondent as Punong Barangay (Barangay Chairman) was clear due to the repetition of the name and the addition of "Charman," which is an abbreviation for Chairman. This fell under the exception for a single misplaced name followed by the title of the contested office, making the vote valid.
Main Doctrine
Votes cast for a candidate in an office for which they did not present themselves are considered stray, unless the voter's intent is clearly ascertainable through exceptions like the 'neighborhood rule' or specific indications on the ballot, which must be applied with liberality but not to the extent of subverting legislative intent.