Perman v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Laisan T. Perman and private respondent Lino Landong Iddong were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Tipo-Tipo Proper, Basilan. Private respondent was proclaimed the winner by 67 votes. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an election protest. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) invalidated 83 ballots for private respondent, declaring petitioner the winner by 13 votes. Private respondent appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC First Division validated the previously invalidated ballots, reinstating private respondent's victory by 67 votes. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En banc. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC En banc in its appreciation of contested ballots, specifically 65 ballots for private respondent and 2 for petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its appreciation of the contested ballots. Whether 65 ballots for private respondent should be invalidated for having been written on/tampered with by two persons after being deposited in the ballot box. Whether 2 ballots for petitioner, invalidated by the COMELEC En banc for being marked, should have been credited to him.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit and is hereby DISMISSED. The COMELEC En banc's Resolutions dated 23 February 2005 and 31 July 2006 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC’s appreciation of ballots and grave abuse of discretion: The Court emphasized that findings of fact of the COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable. In this case, the COMELEC En banc's appreciation of the contested ballots, based on a thorough examination and application of election laws and jurisprudence, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC correctly applied the rules regarding marked ballots and the presumption of tampering. On the 65 ballots for private respondent: The Court affirmed the COMELEC En banc's finding that these ballots were tampered with after they were deposited in the ballot box. The COMELEC En banc meticulously examined the ballots and found that the insertions were made by one person, using a different color of pen to ensure the insertions were noticeable, and that these insertions were redundant. This evidence overcame the presumption juris tantum that a ballot found with the handwriting of two or more persons suffered this defect before it was cast, as established in Trajano v. Inciso. The COMELEC's appreciation of these ballots, finding them tampered with after casting, was not grave abuse of discretion. On the 2 ballots for petitioner: The Court upheld the COMELEC En banc's decision to invalidate these ballots. The ballots contained encircled numbers "16" and "15" in the voter's handwriting after the petitioner's name. Such marks, being superfluous and placed immediately after the candidate's name, were considered distinguishing marks intended to identify the ballot, thus rendering them void under the rules of ballot appreciation. The Court reiterated that a ballot should only be discarded as marked if its character as such is unmistakable, and the marks on these two ballots met this criterion.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in validating ballots that were initially invalidated by the trial court, provided that the COMELEC's findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the ballots were tampered with after being deposited in the ballot box, or that any marks on the ballots were not intended by the voter to identify them. Findings of fact of the COMELEC are generally final and non-reviewable.