599 Phil. 729; 106 OG No. 4, 479 (January 25, 2010)
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The MTCC thereupon rendered judgment in favor of respondent, accordingly annulling and setting aside the proclamation of petitioner, declaring respondent as the lawful and duly elected Punong Barangay, directing petitioner to vacate the Office of the Punong Barangay and to relinquish said position to respondent, and ordering petitioner to pay the total amount of P6,350.00 representing the honoraria of the members of the Revision Committee and its support staff and other miscellaneous expenses.[3]
JOEL MONFORTE
[respondent] ALDO CORDIA
[petitioner]UNCONTESTED VOTES 591 440ADD: CONTESTED/OBJECTED But Credited Votes 18 174ADD: CLAIMED and ADMITTED VOTES 7 0TOTAL: 616 614
In the meantime, the MTCC issued on October 31, 2006 a writ of execution.[9] In view of petitioner's filing before this Court of an Extremely Urgent Motion Reiterating the Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order,[10] the MTCC recalled and set aside the Writ of Execution.[11] And, on respondent's Motion for Execution of Judgment,[12] the COMELEC declared its Resolution final and executory,[13] and entered its judgment.[14] On January 15, 2007, respondent took his oath of office.[15](I)
x x x in applying the neighborhood rule when it disregarded judicial precedents and credited as votes in favor of respondent, a candidate for punong barangay, the questioned ballots marked as Exhibits A, D, E, F, H, and K on the mere basis that his name was written on the first space or line intended for the position of kagawad(II)
x x x in applying the principle of idem sonans when it counted in favor of private respondent the vote "Mantete" appearing in the questioned ballot marked as Exhibit "A" and worse, written not on the line or space for punong barangay but kagawad.(III)
x x x when it ruled that the circle mark on the ballot marked as Exhibit C-17 xxx is but an ink smudge which is not a marking of the ballot.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
As used by this Court, this nomenclature, loosely based on a rule of the same name devised by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), refers to an exception to the rule on appreciation of misplaced votes under Section 211 (19) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) which provides:Nor does the Court find grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's not rejecting Exhibit "C-17"[22] as a marked ballot, there being no indication that the blot therein was deliberately placed to identify the voter. Thus, Section 211 (22) of the Omnibus Election Code states"Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot." (Emphasis supplied.)Section 211 (19) is meant to avoid confusion in the minds of the election officials as to the candidates actually voted for and to stave off any scheming design to identify the vote of the elector, thus defeating the secrecy of the ballot which is a cardinal feature of our election laws. Section 211 (19) also enforces Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that in preparing the ballot, each voter must "fill his ballot by writing in the proper place for each office the name of the individual candidate for whom he desires to vote."
Excerpted from Section 211 (19) are ballots with (1) a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for successive offices appearing in the ballot, (2) a single or double misplacement of names where such names were preceded or followed by the title of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the candidate's name a directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name was intended; and (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a) off-center from the designated space, (b) slightly underneath the line for the contested office, (c) immediately above the title for the contested office, or (d) in the space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate presented himself. In these instances, the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the candidates for the office for which they presented themselves because the voters' intention to so vote is clear from the face of the ballots. This is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters' will.[21] (Underscoring and italics supplied)
Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks, commas, dots, lines, or hyphens between the first name and surname of a candidate, or in other parts of the ballot, traces of the letter "T", "J", and other similar ones, the first letters or syllables of names which the voter does not continue, the use of two or more kinds of writing and unintentional or accidental flourishes, strokes, or strains, shall not invalidate the ballot. (Underscoring supplied)Petitioner argues, nevertheless, that the COMELEC did not examine the original ballot marked as Exhibit "C-17," for if it did, it could have seen that what appears thereon is not a mere ink smudge but a hole with "searing around it deliberately burned by a lighted cigarette."[23] Both parties admitted the authenticity of the copies of the ballots examined in the case, however.[24]