Salazar v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner David K. Salazar and private respondent Miguela M. Doloriel were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur, in the July 15, 2002 elections. Private respondent was initially proclaimed the winner with 1,399 votes against petitioner's 1,374 votes. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bislig City, which, after ballot revision, declared petitioner the winner. Upon appeal, the COMELEC First Division reversed this decision, proclaiming private respondent as the duly elected Punong Barangay. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc, which affirmed the First Division's resolution with a modification regarding the vote count, maintaining private respondent as the winner. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC resolutions. He argued that both the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by validating ballots for private respondent that were allegedly not supported by evidence or law. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the MTCC decision and validating ballots in favor of Miguela M. Doloriel. Whether the COMELEC (en banc) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for reconsideration and affirming the First Division's resolution.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc dated October 16, 2006 in EAC No. 02-2004 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC (First Division): The Supreme Court held that for grave abuse of discretion to arise, the lower court or tribunal must have violated or contravened the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. In this case, the resolutions of the COMELEC were based on the evidence on record, and the ballots were appreciated in accordance with existing jurisprudence and the applicable provisions under Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846, the Rules and Regulations on the Conduct of the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections. The Court found no violation of law or jurisprudence in the COMELEC's appreciation of ballots, including the specific rules cited regarding similar sounding names, erased names, use of prefixes/suffixes, nicknames, writing instruments, excess votes, stray votes, and marks on the ballot. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally binding on the Supreme Court. Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC (en banc): The Supreme Court agreed with the COMELEC en banc's modification regarding the final tally of votes, specifically in invalidating six ballots for protestee-appellant Doloriel because four were marked and the rest were written by two distinct persons. This modification did not alter the fundamental conclusion that private respondent Doloriel was the duly elected Punong Barangay. The Court found no reason to disturb the COMELEC's ruling as it was in consonance with law and jurisprudence. The Court emphasized that its role in a petition for certiorari is limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion, and it is not tasked to re-examine the evidence presented in the election protest.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) finding that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of ballots and determination of the winning candidate in an election protest, as its findings were supported by evidence on record and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.