G.R. No. 174620, March 4, 2009
ALDO B. CORDIA, Petitioner, vs. JOEL G. MONFORTE AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aldo B. Cordia and respondent Joel G. Monforte were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay 16 (East Washington) in Legazpi City, Albay during the July 15, 2002 elections. After canvassing, petitioner was proclaimed the winner with 614 votes against respondent’s 609 votes. Respondent filed an Election Protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Legazpi City, alleging that the Board of Election Tellers failed to credit him with as many as ten votes due to a lack of familiarity with the rules on ballot appreciation. The MTCC ordered a recount, which yielded totals of 616 votes for respondent and 614 for petitioner. The MTCC then rendered judgment in favor of respondent, annulling petitioner’s proclamation, declaring respondent the duly elected Punong Barangay, ordering petitioner to vacate the office, and to pay honoraria and expenses. The COMELEC Second Division affirmed the MTCC Decision. The COMELEC En Banc, by a 5-1 vote, affirmed the Second Division’s decision. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari, alleging the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (I) applying the neighborhood rule to credit questioned ballots (Exhibits A, D, E, F, H, and K) for respondent where his name was written on the line for kagawad; (II) applying the principle of idem sonans to count the vote “Mantete” in Exhibit “A” for respondent, despite it being written on the line for kagawad; and (III) ruling that a circle mark on Exhibit C-17 was merely an ink smudge and not a ballot marking.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the contested ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the first issue, the Court found no grave abuse in the application of the “neighborhood rule,” an exception to the rule on misplaced votes under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code, which is applied to give effect to the voter’s clear intention when such intention is ascertainable from the face of the ballot. On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse in applying the idem sonans rule to credit the vote “Mantete” in Exhibit “A” for respondent, rejecting petitioner’s claim that it could refer to another candidate nicknamed “Pete” due to lack of proof that such nickname was registered. On the third issue, the Court found no grave abuse in the COMELEC’s determination that the mark on Exhibit C-17 was not a deliberate identifying mark, noting that Section 211(22) of the Omnibus Election Code states that unless clearly deliberate, accidental marks shall not invalidate the ballot, and there was no proof the mark was deliberately placed. The Court emphasized that the appreciation of contested ballots involves questions of fact best left to the COMELEC, and the object is to ascertain and carry into effect the voter’s intention if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.