454 Phil. 452
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
One month after petitioner's proclamation or on June 18, 2001, respondent filed a petition[4] with the COMELEC against petitioner and the BOC for "correction of entries in [the] Statement of Votes . . . based on fraud and irregularities in [the] canvassing of votes."[5] The petition, which was docketed as SPC No. 01-311, alleged that the entries for four precincts in the Statement of Votes did not correspond to the election returns for the respective precincts, to wit:
Daisy Mamba 14,558 Edwin Yamoyam 12,424 Antonio Perez, Jr. 11,607 Orlando Ines 9,764 Raul Cruz 9,724 Francisco de Leon 9,390 Ricardo Parazo 8,781 Manuel Milla 8,052 Regina Balmores-Laxa 8,006 Pastora M. Cucuin 7,669[3]
[Manuel Milla and the Municipal Board of Canvassers], by confederating, aiding and helping one another violating Sections 223, 230 and 231 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. 881) and Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987[)], padded respondent Manuel Milla's votes by THREE HUNDRED FIFTY (350) VOTES by inserting the number "1" figure before the actual votes in three precincts and converting "1" into "6" in one precinct illustrated as follows:Attached to respondent's petition were photocopies of the election returns from precincts 71A,[9] 30A[10] and 21A2[11] and photocopies of certified true copies of the Statement of Votes.[12]
Precinct No. Actual votes (ER)[6] Padded votes (SOV)[7] 71A 32 132 30[A] 29 129 21A2 14 64 41A 31 131.[8]
. . . Milla, on the other hand, does not deny...the padding of his votes by three hundred fifty (350) votes; but instead moved for the dismissal of the petition on the petty ground of a technicality that the petition was filed beyond the five (5) day reglementary period for filing petitions of its sort.and denied the BOC's motion to reconvene, declared herein petitioner's proclamation null and void, and proclaimed respondent as the eighth winning candidate.x x x
Given the attendant evidence at hand, specifically the unexplained mismatched inscriptions in the entries for the questioned precincts in the Statement of Votes, we conclude that the padding of three hundred fifty (350) votes committed by respondent Board in order to favor respondent Milla is beyond the realm of an honest mistake. As to the correct number of votes, it is without question that what appears in the election returns is the actual number of votes garnered by private respondent.x x x
In addition, not a single item in the material averments of the Petition was specifically denied by either respondent, thus lending credence to the complete truthfulness of petitioner's account of the "dagdag-bawas" scheme which she has already proven by clear and convincing evidence.
As such, we cannot leave the "correction" of the "error" in canvassing to the same body [which] perpetrated such "error," as they so pray for in their answer.[22] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
The Commission on Election[s] has no jurisdiction to proclaim respondent as the eight[h] winning candidate for councilor and to declare petitioner's proclamation null and void.[23]Petitioner maintains that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over the petition as it was filed beyond the reglementary period. For, so petitioner contends, since the proclamation was made on May 18, 2001, the petition to correct the Statement of Votes should have been filed within 5 days thereafter conformably with Section 5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure[25] which reads:II
The resolution in question is not supported by the evidence.[24]
Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the Commission. - (a) The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with the Commission:
1) x x x
2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once, (2) two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there has been a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass, or (4) so-called returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, and such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made.
b) x x x
If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation and must implead all candidates who may be adversely affected thereby.
Sec. 16. Pre-Proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices. - Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial, city and municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof. All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of evidence thus far presented, the Commission determined that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. (Emphasis supplied)By petitioner's claim, there is no showing that respondent's petition falls under the exception in the above-quoted provision as "the petition has not been determined by the COMELEC to be meritorious" and "no order has been issued for the proceeding to continue."[34] The claim does not lie. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 4493 on June 29, 2001 declaring the termination of all pre-proclamation cases except those included in the list annexed thereto which list included SPC No. 01-311, respondent's petition before the COMELEC subject of the present petition.
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:Petitioner's above-claim does not likewise lie. By his admission, the petition filed by respondent before the COMELEC involves a pre-proclamation controversy, not an election contest and indeed it is not, for while the petition alleged fraud and statistical improbability, the remedy sought was merely for correction of erroneous entries in the Statement of Votes which were based on the election returns.
(1)...
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory and not appealable .
(3)... (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)it should have first been heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC,[37] and then by the En Banc if a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the division were filed.