Doromal v. Biron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rose Marie D. Doromal and private respondent Hernan G. Biron were vice mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo in the May 14, 2007 elections. During the canvassing of votes, Biron orally objected to the inclusion of 25 election returns, alleging missing 'taras' in Copy 4 (dominant majority party's copy) of 21 returns and discrepancies between the number of votes in 4 returns and their respective certificates of votes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) deferred canvassing and later denied Biron's petitions for exclusion, finding no tampering and that the MBC's copy was complete and duly signed. Procedural History: Aggrieved by the MBC's denial, Biron appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), docketed as SPC No. 07-147. The COMELEC Second Division, voting 2-1, partially granted Biron's appeal on September 12, 2007, ordering the exclusion of 11 election returns due to alleged tampering or falsification (8 for missing 'taras', 3 for discrepancies with certificates of votes, and reliance on poll watchers' affidavits). Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented, arguing that missing 'taras' were not conclusive proof of tampering and that affidavits were self-serving. Following this, the MBC reconvened on September 24, 2007, canvassed the remaining 14 returns, and proclaimed Biron as the winning candidate with a margin of 178 votes. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division's ruling on February 1, 2008, with Commissioner Sarmiento maintaining his dissent. The Petition: Petitioner Doromal filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul and set aside the COMELEC En Banc's February 1, 2008 Resolution. Doromal alleged that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by: (1) failing to compare the contested returns with other authentic copies as required by Section 235 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC); (2) using defective certificates of votes that did not comply with Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6646 to exclude three returns; (3) giving credence to self-serving affidavits of private respondent's poll watchers; and (4) ordering the outright exclusion of the subject returns instead of following the procedures for correction of manifest errors or recount under Sections 235 and 236 of the OEC, thereby disenfranchising voters.
Issue(s)
The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to compare the contested returns with the other authentic copies thereof before ruling that there was tampering or falsification of the said returns. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it used the certificate of votes to exclude the three contested election returns considering that it cannot go beyond the face of the returns in establishing that there was tampering or falsification and considering further that said certificates did not comply with Section 17 of RA 6646. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it gave credence to the self-serving affidavits of private respondent's poll watchers. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the exclusion of the subject returns because, in case of falsification or tampering, the procedure under Sections 235 and 236 of the OEC should have been followed in order not to disenfranchise the voters.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC En Banc's February 1, 2008 Resolution is NULLIFIED. The COMELEC is ORDERED to raffle SPC No. 07-147 to one of its divisions, which is directed to resolve the same with deliberate dispatch by: (1) Including the election returns from Precinct Nos. 90A/90B, 7A/7B, and 208A in the canvassing of votes for the position of vice mayor of the Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo; (2) Proceeding in accordance with Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, as outlined in this Decision, with respect to the canvassing of the election returns from Precinct Nos. 107A, 114A, 6A/6B, 55A, 67A/67B, 116A/116B, 130A, and 42A/43A for the position of vice mayor of the Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo; and (3) Proclaiming the winning candidate for the position of vice mayor of the Municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo in the May 14, 2007 elections after the canvassing of the aforementioned election returns.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by failing to properly compare the contested returns with other authentic copies. While the COMELEC claimed to have done so, the Court's own examination of Copy 4 and Copy 5 of the subject returns revealed only minor discrepancies, such as one or two missing 'taras'. The Court noted that in some instances, a missing 'tara' in Copy 4 was not present in Copy 5, suggesting misalignment of carbon copies rather than deliberate tampering. This lack of thorough and proper comparison, coupled with the absence of clear and convincing proof of tampering, led the Court to conclude that the COMELEC's finding of falsification was baseless and a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the validity of election returns must be upheld in the absence of clearly convincing evidence to the contrary, and outright nullification should be approached with extreme caution, as reiterated in Aratuc v. Commission on Elections. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in admitting and relying on defective certificates of votes to exclude three election returns. The certificates from Precinct Nos. 90A/90B, 7A/7B, and 208A failed to comply with Section 16 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6646, lacking thumbmarks of Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) members, total number of voters, and time of issuance. Specifically for Precinct 208A, the certificate was prepared by a poll watcher, not the BEI, raising doubts about its accuracy. Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to comply with Section 17 of RA 6646, which requires authentication of the certificate by at least two BEI members before it can be admitted as evidence of tampering. The Court, citing Patoray v. Commission on Elections and Recabo, Jr. v. Commission of Elections, stressed that strict compliance with these statutory requirements is essential for the admissibility of certificates of votes, as they operate as an exception to the general rule limiting inquiry to the face of the election return in pre-proclamation controversies. The admission of these defective certificates led to the disenfranchisement of 467 voters, materially affecting the election outcome. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by placing undue reliance on the affidavits of private respondent's poll watchers. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling, as seen in Casimiro v. Commission on Elections, that affidavits of this nature are self-serving and should not be given weight for purposes of setting aside the validity of election returns. The contents of these affidavits were found to be grossly inadequate to establish tampering, merely suggesting that watchers failed to assert their rights or perform their duties under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The watchers admitted discovering the alleged missing 'taras' only later when Copy 4 was shown to them, indicating they did not detect anomalies during the actual tallying. Therefore, these affidavits could not serve as clear and convincing proof of fraud or tampering to justify the exclusion of the election returns. On Issue 4: The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by ordering the outright exclusion of the subject returns instead of following the procedures outlined in Sections 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The Court emphasized that in cases of discrepancies in authentic copies of election returns, Section 236 mandates a procedure where the COMELEC should first determine if the discrepancy affects the election results. If it does, the COMELEC must then ascertain the integrity of the ballot box and, if preserved, order a recount of the votes. Similarly, Section 235 provides for opening the ballot box as a measure of last resort when returns appear tampered or falsified. The Court, citing a line of cases including Patoray, Lee v. Commission on Elections, Balindong v. Commission on Elections, Dagloc v. Commission on Elections, and Cambe v. Commission on Elections, consistently ruled that outright exclusion disenfranchises voters and that the OEC provides specific mechanisms to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The COMELEC's failure to follow these clear legal provisions, resulting in the disenfranchisement of 1,127 voters, constituted a grossly abusive exercise of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterates that the appreciation of election returns requires strict adherence to legal provisions. Before a certificate of votes may be used to prove tampering, alteration, falsification, or any other anomaly in election returns, it must comply with Sections 16 and 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6646, including proper accomplishment and authentication. The exclusion of election returns due to alleged tampering must be approached with extreme caution and supported by clear and convincing evidence, not merely self-serving affidavits or minor discrepancies like missing 'taras'. In cases of discrepancies in authentic copies of an election return, the procedure in Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) must be followed, which involves determining if the difference affects election results, assessing ballot box integrity, and potentially recounting votes, rather than outright exclusion, to prevent voter disenfranchisement.