G.R. No. 140651 . February 19, 2002.
ESTELITA G. HERRERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Estelita Herrera, along with spouses Bernardino and Flordelita Daquioag, were public school teachers who served as chairmen of their respective Boards of Election Inspectors during the May 11, 1992 elections in Baggao, Cagayan. On May 12, 1992, PPCRV coordinator Arnold Alonzo discovered that several ballot boxes from precincts in Mocag Elementary School were unaccounted for. Investigation led to the Daquioags’ house, where six ballot boxes, with incomplete padlocks, along with tally sheets and election returns, were found. The Daquioags explained they brought them home because it was late and they lacked knowledge that COMELEC permission was required. Subsequently, Alonzo’s team found the ballot box for Precinct No. 51 open in the sala of petitioner Herrera, who admitted taking it home to finish accomplishing required forms before deposit.
The prosecution presented Alonzo as its sole witness. After the prosecution rested, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied, finding a prima facie case. The defense then submitted the case for resolution without presenting evidence. The trial court convicted all accused for violating the Omnibus Election Code, sentencing them to imprisonment and disqualification from public office and suffrage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 217 and 261(z) of the Omnibus Election Code by taking ballot boxes and election documents to their private residences without COMELEC authority.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the clear statutory duty and the accused’s judicial admission of the act. Section 217 of the Omnibus Election Code mandates that immediately after counting, the Board of Election Inspectors must deliver the ballot box and all election documents directly to the city or municipal treasurer. The law allows no discretion to transfer these materials to any other location. The accused, as chairmen, admitted to removing the ballot boxes from the polling place and taking them to their private homes. This act per se constitutes a violation, as the law explicitly prescribes the sole destination for these custody items. Their reasons—lateness, ignorance of the procedure, or unfinished forms—are not valid justifications but confirm the unauthorized transfer.
Regarding proof, the defense’s submission of the case for resolution after the denial of their demurrer to evidence constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence and an admission of the truth of the prosecution’s evidence. The testimony of Alonzo, corroborated by the admissions of the accused themselves, sufficiently established all elements of the offense. The claim that the prosecution needed to prove the “negative averment” of lack of authority is misplaced. The accused’s possession of the boxes outside the designated official custody was a positive fact proven by the prosecution. It was incumbent upon the accused, if they had any authorization—which the law does not contemplate—to present evidence thereof, which they waived. Thus, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.