GR 157919; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157919 ; January 30, 2007
CELIA Q. NOMBREFIA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Celia Q. Nombrefia was the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors for a precinct in Baler, Aurora, during the May 1992 elections. Prosecution witnesses testified that during the counting of votes, Nombrefia took a bundle of ballots, placed them on her lap, and began flipping through and marking several ballots with a pen. Witness Nelia Laroza confronted her and observed her right hand moving as if writing “X” marks. When Nombrefia stood up, a blue pen fell. These “X” marks were found to have invalidated votes for specific candidates. Nombrefia denied the accusations, claiming she properly read each ballot aloud, consulted watchers on questionable ballots, and only made notes on an instruction booklet. She asserted that poll watchers surrounded her and that no protests were filed regarding any anomaly in her precinct.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the Information violated her right to be informed of the accusation by not specifying the exact subparagraphs of the Omnibus Election Code; (2) the propriety of Supreme Court review of the appellate court’s factual findings; and (3) whether the evidence, direct or circumstantial, proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the right to be informed was not violated. The real nature of the charge is determined by the factual recitals in the Information, not merely by its caption or the cited legal provision. The Information sufficiently alleged acts constituting the offense. On the second issue, the Court reiterated that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and binding, except in certain recognized exceptions not present here, such as a gross misapprehension of facts. The Court found no reason to deviate from the consistent factual conclusions of the lower courts.
Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Their positive testimonies, which the trial court found clear and convincing, established that Nombrefia unlawfully marked ballots to invalidate votes. The act of marking ballots to nullify votes constitutes a violation of the integrity of the official ballot under Section 261(z)(21) of the Omnibus Election Code. The defense of mere note-taking was rejected as inconsistent with the credible eyewitness accounts. The evidence, both direct from eyewitnesses and circumstantial from the physical ballots, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.