544 Phil. 335
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Precinct Nos. | Balingit | Yamat |
53-A | 64 | 16 |
54-A | 52 | 4 |
55-A | 87 | 13 |
56-A | 11 | 57 (97+1-41) |
57-A | 16 (17-1) | 48 (63+1-16) |
58-A | 19 | 34 (62+1-29) |
Total Votes | 249 | 172 |
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Macabebe-Masantol, Macabebe, Pampanga, in Election Case No. 02(01) declaring appellee Bartlome [sic] Balingit the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga, during the 2002 Barangay Elections is hereby REVERSED.The COMELEC Second Division validated 80 out of the 86 ballots previously invalidated by the MCTC and counted them in favor of Yamat, while the other six ballots remained invalid. The six ballots were as follows:
Let the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) implement this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Precinct No. | Exhibit Nos. |
56-A | B44 B45 B5 B7 |
58-A | 135 136 |
WHEREFORE in view of the foregoing, the Commission En Banc DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merits. The Resolution of the Second Division promulgated [on] April 11, 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED. The proclamation of PABLO YAMAT as Punong Barangay of Barangay Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga is UPHELD.Balingit filed before the Court a Petition for Certiorari on the following grounds:
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission EN BANC hereby ORDERS:Considering the proximity of the end of the term of the contested office in this case, this resolution is hereby declared immediately executory.
- Appellee BARTOLOME BALINGIT to VACATE the contested post which he assumed by virtue of the Order of the Second Division dated January 26, 2005 granting execution pending appeal, in favor of PABLO YAMAT and to CEASE and DESIST from performing the functions attached to said office.
- The Deputy Executive Director for operations of the Commission to furnish a copy thereof to the Office of the President of the Philippines, the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Office of the Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, Masantol, Pampanga.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. Such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[7]
- THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, WHEN IT LIMITED AND FOCUSED ONLY ITSELF FROM CONDUCTING AN ALLEGED "EXAMINATION OF BALLOTS" WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF COMMISSIONER MEHOL K. SADAIN'S DISSENTING OPINION, BUT DID NOT EXAMINE THE ENTIRE BALLOTS AND EVIDENCE SUBJECT OF BALINGIT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
- THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, WHEN IT MISLED THE PARTIES TO JUSTIFY THE IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF ITS ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS IN HOLDING THAT "PROXIMITY OF THE END OF TERM OF THE CONTESTED OFFICE IN THIS CASE" WHEN IN TRUTH, THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE BARANGAY OFFICIALS ELECTED ON JULY 15, 2002 HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO LAST MONDAY OF OCTOBER 2007 BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9340, APPROVED ON 22 SEPTEMBER 2005
- THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT PROMULGATED ITS ASSAILED 11 APRIL 2005 RESOLUTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE STRONG AND VALID OBJECTIONS OF BALINGIT ON THE CONTESTED BALLOTS, AS CORRECTLY RULED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THAT THOSE CONTESTED BALLOTS OF PABLO YAMAT WILL CLEARLY REVEAL THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL ARE GROUPS OF BALLOTS WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON (WBO) AND SINGLE BALLOTS WRITTEN BY TWO PERSONS (WBT).
- THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT PROMULGATED ITS ASSAILED 11 APRIL 2005 RESOLUTION IN SWEEPINGLY VALIDATING THE EIGHTY (80) CONTESTED BALLOTS OF YAMAT, WHICH THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY RULED AS GROUPS OF BALLOTS WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON (WBO), WHOSE FINDINGS/RULINGS THEREON DO NOT CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY EXPRESSED [sic] THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH THEY WERE BASED.[6]
Precinct No. | Exhibit No. | Commission's Finding/Ruling |
56A | B2, B8, B16 B39, B40, B41, B44, B45, B50, B51, B54, B55, B56, B57, B58, B61, B65, B66, B67, B68, B69, B70, B72, B74, B75, B80 and B83 | Contrary to the finding of the trial court, these ballots are valid. The differences in strokes, writing styles, dents, alignment of letters, color of ink used and the point of the pen are glaring. We found however Exhibit Nos. B44 and B45 as pair of ballots written by one person. The Minutes of Voting and Counting does not show that there was a physically disabled or illiterate voter assisted during the voting. We cannot therefore uphold the validity of these ballots. |
| B53, B73, B78, B79 and B81 | Valid ballots Strokes are different. |
| B3, B4, B5, B6 and B7 | Exhibit Nos. B3, B4 and B6 are valid ballots. However, Exhibit Nos. B5 and B7 are two (2) ballots that could hardly be considered valid. The similarities in strokes, handwriting, dents, color of the ink and pen point, and the spacing of letter are so obvious to the naked eye. |
| B21 and B22 | Valid ballots The dents and scratches, the alignment and the spacing of the letters are different. |
| B29 and B30 | Valid ballots The strokes, terminals and loops of the letters are strikingly different, specifically the way the letters Y, L, D and Z is written. |
57A | B86, B87, B88 B91, B113, B114 B115, B116, B117, B118, B119, B121, B122, B128 and B129 | Valid ballots Writing styles, strokes and dents of the letters are strikingly different. |
58A | B135, B136, B142, B143, B144, B153, B161, B162, B163, B164, B165, B166, B167, B168, B182, B186, B192 and B196 | Exhibit Nos. 135 and 136 are invalid ballots for their obvious similarities in handwriting, strokes or dents and scratches of letters. They are undoubtedly written by one person. No illiterate or physically disables voter had been assisted during the voting as manifested by the Minutes of Voting and Counting duly issued by the members of the Board of Election Tellers. The rest of the contested ballots are valid. |
| B137 and B138 | Valid ballots. These ballots were all written in script but the dissimilarities in the strokes, loops, connecting and spurs are evident. The handwriting of different people may appear to bear a marked resemblance to each other, although, on analysis of the structure of the master patterns can be shown to be quite distinctive and unlikely to be confused. |
| B139, B140 and B150 | Valid ballots See ruling in Exhibit Nos. 137 and 138 above. |
| B157 and B158 | Valid ballots The strokes, dents and spacing of letters are not similar. |
| B159 and B160 | Valid ballots We do not see any fluency and rhythm in the handwriting evidently showing that they were accomplished by only one person. |
Appellant | Appellee | |
Number of Votes Per Decision of the Trial Court | 172 | 249 |
Plus: Number of Votes Validated by the Commission | 80 | 0 |
Minus: Number of Votes Invalidated by the Commission | 69 | 0 |
Equals: Total Number of Votes Obtained from All Precincts | 252 | 249 |
The Commission En Banc could have conveniently upheld the dispositions of the Division and declared the same as appropriate finding of facts. However, considering that Presiding Commisioner Mehol K. Sadain dissented therefrom and manifested his different appreciation of the ballots, the Commission En Banc conducted its own examination of the ballots to arrive at a judicious determination.Based on its own physical assessment of the contested ballots, the COMELEC En Banc agreed with the Division's conclusions that the invalidity of Exhibits Nos. B-44, B-45, B-5, B-7, B-135, and B-136 should be sustained, while the other ballots shall remain valid.[11]
Hereunder are our findings:
Precinct No. 56A
The Commission En Banc AFFIRMS the rulings of the Second Division declaring as INVALID only the ballots marked as Exhs. B44 and B45, B5 and B7. The similarities in the handwritings in these ballots were glaringly similar that there is sufficient reason to believe that these two ballots were prepared by only one person.
The other ballots alleged as prepared in sets or groups by only one person must be considered VALID. The Division correctly cited in the Resolution Silverio v. Castro as the basis of its rulings. It is therein taught:In order to reach the conclusion that two writings are by the same hand there must be not only be present class characteristics but also individual characteristics or "dents and scratches" in sufficient quantity to exclude the theory of accidental coincidence; to reach the conclusion that writings are by different hands, we may find numerous likenesses in class characteristics but divergences in individual characteristics, or we may find divergences in both, but the divergence must be something more than mere superficial differences.Putting it simply, where the writings in said ballots were strikingly alike, these ballots must be ruled to be of single authorship and must be rejected.
"x x x the rule is simple - whatever features two specimen handwriting may have in common, they cannot be considered to be of common authorship if they display but a single dissimilarity in any feature which is fundamental to the structure of the handwriting and whose presence is not capable of reasonable explanation." (Silverio v. Castro, 19 SCRA 520)
The Second Division is right in its observation that the handwritings on the questioned ballots were glaringly different and no identical characteristics are impressive. Indeed, it could justifiably be concluded that the cited ballots were each prepared by the individual voters and not in sets or pairs by only one person.
Whatever perceived similarities in the handwritings were but pictorial effects and general resemblances which were insufficient to warrant a finding of single authorship.
Precinct No. 57A
We AFFIRM the Division's rulings that the ballots questioned as having been written in sets or pairs by one person are VALID because the strokes, dents, and slants were distinctly different and it could not be justifiably concluded that only one hand prepared the ballots.
Precinct No. 58A
We agree with the Division that only the ballots marked as Exh. Nos. B135 and B136 are INVALID because of the obvious similarities in the strokes, slants and dents of the handwriting on the ballots.
All the other ballots contested on the allegation that they were written in sets or pairs by only one person did not show remarkable similarities which could sufficiently warrant a finding that they were written by only one hand.
By the En Banc's own computation, the total number of votes to be credited to Appellant are as follows:
PABLO YAMAT Votes per physical count - - - - - - - - - - - - 255 Less: Votes Invalidated By the Division and En Banc - - - - - - - - - - 6 149 Add: Validated Claims +3 252
There being no issue as regards the disposition on the ballots of Balingit, The Commission En Banc left the findings of the Trial Court and the Second Division that Bartolome Balingit obtained a total of 249 votes, undisturbed.[10]