G.R. No. 168253 & G.R. No. 172741, March 16, 2007
MAYOR NOEL E. ROSAL, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MICHAEL VICTOR IMPERIAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Noel Rosal and private respondent Michael Imperial were candidates for mayor of Legazpi City in the 2004 elections. Rosal was proclaimed winner. Imperial filed an election protest. During revision, most ballot boxes were found with broken or missing seals. The revision report drastically reduced Rosal’s votes and increased Imperial’s, showing a new result where Imperial won. Rosal filed a motion for technical examination, alleging the revised ballots were spurious, having been stuffed into the boxes post-election. The COMELEC Second Division denied his motion and subsequent motion for subpoena to present BEI chairpersons as witnesses to prove ballot substitution. Rosal then filed an Ad Cautelam Offer of Evidence, including affidavits from 157 BEI chairpersons attesting to forgeries of their authenticating signatures on the ballots.
The Second Division, composed of only two members, proceeded to rule on the protest. It largely disregarded the evidence of ballot tampering, invalidated over 14,000 ballots for Rosal for being written by one or two persons, and declared Imperial the winner. Rosal filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 168253) challenging the denial of his right to present evidence. Meanwhile, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division’s ruling. Rosal filed a second petition (G.R. No. 172741) assailing this affirmance.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying Rosal his right to present testimonial and documentary evidence to prove ballot tampering, thereby violating due process; and (2) allowing a division composed of only two members to decide the election protest.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that Rosal was denied due process. His defense hinged on proving the ballots examined were not the genuine ones cast. The COMELEC’s summary denial of his motion to present witnesses and its refusal to formally receive his Ad Cautelam evidence foreclosed his right to substantiate this crucial claim. The affidavits of the BEI chairpersons, who were in the best position to identify their own signatures, constituted prima facie evidence of forgery and ballot switching that demanded evaluation. By depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the COMELEC acted arbitrarily.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that a two-member Division cannot validly decide an election protest. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure and relevant jurisprudence require a division to be composed of three members. A decision rendered by only two members is void for lack of a valid quorum. Consequently, the subsequent En Banc resolution affirming this void decision was itself a nullity. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulled the COMELEC resolutions, and remanded the case for a new decision by a properly constituted three-member Division, with a directive to receive and evaluate Rosal’s evidence.