G.R. No. 203302 , April 11, 2013
MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HOMER T. SAQUILAYAN, Respondents.

FACTS

During the 2010 elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Homer T. Saquilayan as the winning Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Emmanuel L. Maliksi, who garnered the second-highest votes, filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, alleging irregularities in 209 clustered precincts. After a revision of votes, the RTC declared Maliksi the duly elected Mayor and ordered Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the functions of the office. The RTC granted Maliksi’s motion for execution pending appeal, and he was installed as Mayor. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division, without notice to the parties, decided to recount the ballots using printouts of ballot images from the CF cards. It issued orders dated March 28, 2012, and April 17, 2012, requiring Saquilayan to deposit and augment funds for the decryption and printing expenses. On August 15, 2012, the First Division issued a resolution nullifying the RTC’s decision and declaring Saquilayan the duly elected Mayor. Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he was denied due process due to lack of notice of the decryption proceedings and that the use of ballot images was unwarranted as there was no proof the paper ballots’ integrity was compromised. The COMELEC En Banc denied his motion on September 14, 2012. Maliksi filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. In a decision promulgated on March 12, 2013, the Court dismissed his petition by an 8-7 vote, holding no due process violation occurred as Maliksi received notices via the orders for cash deposits and could raise objections in his motion for reconsideration, and that the First Division did not abuse its discretion in using ballot images, which were considered original documents under the Rule on Electronic Evidence, especially given findings of ballot tampering from double-shading discovered during revision. Maliksi filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether Maliksi was denied due process when the COMELEC First Division conducted the decryption, printing, and examination of ballot images without prior notice to him.
2. Whether the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in dispensing with the physical ballots and resorting to digital ballot images for the recount.
3. Whether the Supreme Court’s March 12, 2013 Resolution is null and void due to the absence of Justice Jose Portugal Perez during deliberation and voting.

RULING

The Court GRANTED Maliksi’s Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and REVERSED the decision promulgated on March 12, 2013.
1. On due process: The Court held that Maliksi was denied due process. The COMELEC First Division failed to give due notice of the decryption and printing of ballot images. The orders directing Saquilayan to post cash deposits did not constitute sufficient notice as they did not inform Maliksi of the date, time, and venue of the decryption proceedings, depriving him of the opportunity to participate. The First Division should not have conducted the recount proceedings while exercising appellate jurisdiction, as no existing rule allowed it to conduct a recount in the first instance. Recount proceedings under COMELEC rules are for divisions exercising exclusive original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. The First Division’s deviation from standard procedures—which would typically involve remanding to the RTC for reconstitution of a Revision Committee—was arbitrary and not justified by its power to adopt procedures for speedy resolution, as such power must still be exercised with due process.
2. On the use of ballot images: The Court found the First Division’s resort to ballot images unwarranted. The printouts of ballot images are considered original documents under the Rule on Electronic Evidence, but their use is proper only when the paper ballots are unavailable or their integrity is compromised. Here, the First Division’s conclusion that the ballots and ballot boxes had been tampered with was based solely on the discovery of double-shading during revision, without a factual determination by the Revision Committee that the integrity of the ballots was not preserved. Saquilayan did not allege or prove tampering in the RTC and actively participated in the revision; the issue was belatedly raised on appeal. Thus, the First Division gravely abused its discretion in dispensing with the physical ballots.
3. On the validity of the March 12, 2013 Resolution: The Court did not sustain Maliksi’s claim that the Resolution was null and void due to Justice Perez’s absence. The Court noted that Justice Perez participated in the deliberations and voting for the April 11, 2013 Resolution (the subject of this digest), as reflected in his separate concurring opinion attached to the resolution. The issue pertained to the March 12, 2013 decision, which was being reconsidered and reversed.
Consequently, the Court annulled the recount proceedings conducted by the COMELEC First Division using the printouts of ballot images for violating Maliksi’s right to due process and constituting grave abuse of discretion.