G.R. No. 189078 March 30, 2010
MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE “Joy” D. PEÑANO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves an electoral contest between petitioner Virgilio P. Varias and respondent Jose “Joy” D. Peñano for the position of Mayor of Alfonso, Cavite in the May 14, 2007 elections. Varias was proclaimed winner. Peñano filed an election protest with the RTC, alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. The RTC conducted a revision of ballots, after which Peñano emerged with the most votes, a change attributed to significant tally changes in four precincts. Both parties moved for a technical examination of the ballots, which the RTC granted, ordering the NBI to conduct it. The NBI Report found: (1) 82 out of 216 ballots for Peñano were written by one person; (2) signatures of the BEI Chair on the dorsal side of ballots in several precincts were not written by the same person; and (3) 29 ballots from the four precincts appeared to have erasures of Varias’s name and superimposition of Peñano’s name, 19 of which were written by one person. The RTC decided in Peñano’s favor, relying on the revision results and finding the ballots were preserved. Varias appealed to the COMELEC, whose First Division affirmed the RTC, focusing on the integrity of the ballot boxes’ storage and noting precautionary orders and revision reports detailing the condition of the boxes and seals. Varias then filed a petition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC’s decision which relied on the revised ballot count to overturn the election returns, despite findings from a technical examination suggesting ballot tampering.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in its Decision of February 11, 2010, which is the subject of the Motion for Reconsideration addressed in this Resolution, had previously ruled that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the COMELEC failed to properly apply the standards set forth in Rosal v. Commission on Elections for using ballots to overturn election returns. These standards require the protestant to first affirmatively show the ballots have been preserved with care precluding tampering, through substantial compliance with the legal mode of preservation. The burden of proving integrity is on the protestant, and only upon such a showing does the burden shift to the protestee to prove actual tampering. The Court, in its Decision, concluded that the COMELEC disregarded the findings of the NBI technical examination, which indicated tampering (e.g., ballots written by one person, erasures, and superimpositions), and instead relied on the revision results and the physical condition of the ballot boxes at storage. The Court held that the COMELEC’s failure to consider this evidence of tampering and its failure to require Peñano to first discharge his burden of proving ballot integrity constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Peñano, which raises grounds contesting this finding, is addressed in this Resolution.