G.R. No. 126669, 127900, 128800, 132435 April 27, 1998
ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FERDINAND D. MENESES, respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

In the May 8, 1995 elections for mayor of Mexico, Pampanga, Ferdinand Meneses was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers with 10,301 votes against Danilo Manalastas (9,317) and Ernesto Punzalan (8,612). Both Manalastas and Punzalan filed separate election protests before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, which were consolidated. The protests alleged massive fraud and irregularities. After revision and hearing, the RTC, on September 23, 1996, declared Punzalan the duly elected mayor, finding massive fraud marred the elections. Meneses appealed to the COMELEC (EAC No. 48-96). Punzalan filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted on October 10, 1996. Meneses filed a petition for certiorari (SPR No. 47-96) before the COMELEC, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the RTC’s execution order. Punzalan challenged this TRO in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 126669). The COMELEC later issued a preliminary injunction. Meneses challenged subsequent COMELEC orders in G.R. No. 127900. On April 24, 1997, the COMELEC granted Meneses’s petition in SPR No. 47-96, setting aside the RTC’s execution order. Punzalan challenged this in G.R. No. 128800. Finally, on December 8, 1997, the COMELEC First Division promulgated a resolution in the main appeal (EAC No. 48-96) annulling the RTC decision and affirming Meneses’s proclamation (with a modified vote of 9,864). Punzalan challenged this final resolution in G.R. No. 132435. All petitions were consolidated.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its December 8, 1997 Resolution which reversed the RTC’s finding of massive fraud and declared Ferdinand Meneses the duly elected mayor.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and AFFIRMED the COMELEC Resolution dated December 8, 1997. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court held that the COMELEC correctly applied the rules on appreciation of ballots. The RTC invalidated a large number of ballots for Meneses based on four grounds: 1) lack of signature of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) Chairman; 2) variance between the BEI Chairman’s signature on the ballot and on COMELEC forms; 3) groups of ballots written by one hand/one ballot by two persons; and 4) marked ballots. The COMELEC, upon review, found the RTC’s invalidation improper.
1. On the lack of BEI Chairman’s signature (Sec. 24, Omnibus Election Code), the COMELEC correctly ruled that this defect does not invalidate the ballot unless it is shown that the lack of authentication affected the integrity of the ballot. The RTC failed to make such a finding.
2. On the variance of signatures, the COMELEC correctly held that expert testimony is required to prove forgery. The RTC’s visual comparison, without expert analysis, was insufficient to establish that the ballots were spurious.
3. On groups of ballots written by one hand, the COMELEC correctly required proof that the voters were incapable of writing. The RTC’s finding was based on mere similarity of handwriting, which is not enough to invalidate the ballots.
4. On marked ballots, the COMELEC’s determination was upheld as within its expertise.
The COMELEC’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable unless shown to be made with grave abuse of discretion. No such abuse was found. The COMELEC’s final tally was Meneses: 9,864 votes; Punzalan: 8,587 votes. Thus, Meneses was the rightful winner.