GR 170522; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170522 ; November 20, 2006
CELSO LOPEZ OCATE, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANGELITO M. LOPEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Celso Lopez Ocate and respondent Angelito M. Lopez were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay 308, Manila, in the 2002 elections. The Board of Election Tellers proclaimed petitioner the winner by five votes. Respondent filed an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging irregularities in several clustered precincts. Petitioner contested the MeTC’s jurisdiction, arguing the protest was filed one day late due to a typhoon. The MeTC upheld its jurisdiction and ordered a recount. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, which was initially dismissed but later reinstated by the COMELEC En Banc. The Supreme Court, in a prior related petition (G.R. No. 160865), ultimately upheld the COMELEC’s finding that the protest was timely filed, emphasizing that technicalities should not frustrate the electorate’s will.
The MeTC proceeded with the revision and appreciation of ballots. It ruled on various objections, applying principles that marks like “X” or circles were innocent, variations in handwriting did not invalidate ballots, and the absence of a BEI chairman’s signature on ballots did not warrant their rejection. The MeTC’s recount resulted in respondent obtaining a plurality of three votes, leading to his proclamation. Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s decision and proclaiming respondent as the duly elected Punong Barangay.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is limited to resolving jurisdictional issues and requires a showing that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC’s factual conclusions, rendered within its competence, are entitled to great respect. The Court examined the records and found that the COMELEC Second Division did not merely adopt the MeTC’s findings but conducted its own meticulous reappreciation of the contested ballots. This independent review modified the initial tally but did not alter the ultimate result favoring respondent.
The Court upheld the COMELEC’s application of settled rules on ballot appreciation, consistent with the MeTC’s approach. These included the presumption of ballot validity, the treatment of innocent marks as signs of desistance, the resolution of handwriting doubts in favor of validity, and the principle that the BEI’s administrative lapse in not signing ballots does not disenfranchise the voter. Since petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of grave abuse—showing neither caprice, whim, nor patent disregard of established law—the COMELEC’s resolutions were sustained. The Court’s role is not to re-examine factual determinations but to ensure the absence of jurisdictional arbitrariness, which was not present here.