G.R. No. 204828 ; December 3, 2013
JAIME C. REGIO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RONNIE C. CO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime C. Regio and private respondent Ronnie C. Co were candidates for Punong Barangay in Barangay 296, Manila, in the October 25, 2010 elections. After canvassing, Regio was proclaimed winner with 478 votes against Co’s 336 votes. Co filed an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging irregularities such as the disenfranchisement of his supporters, the allowance of “flying voters,” and misappreciation of ballots. During the proceedings, Co limited his protest to specific clustered precincts and presented as his sole evidence the report of the revision committee, which showed a reversal of the results in his favor.
Regio countered that the ballots had been tampered with post-election, presenting testimonial evidence from poll watchers and Board of Election Tellers (BET) chairpersons who attested to the orderly conduct of the elections and the correctness of the original count. The MeTC dismissed Co’s protest, upholding Regio’s proclamation. The court ruled that Co failed to establish the integrity of the ballots used in the revision, which is a prerequisite for considering them as superior evidence over the election returns. On appeal, the COMELEC First Division affirmed the MeTC. However, the COMELEC En Banc reversed, giving credence to the revision results and declaring Co the winner, prompting Regio to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the MeTC and the COMELEC First Division by relying solely on the revision committee report to overturn the election results without a prior finding on the integrity of the ballots.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullifying the COMELEC En Banc Resolution and reinstating the MeTC Decision. The Court emphasized the fundamental rule in election contests that for ballots to be considered as the best evidence of the voters’ will, their integrity must be first satisfactorily established. The revision committee report, by itself, is not conclusive. Citing Rosal v. COMELEC, the Court held that a party seeking a recount must preliminarily prove that the ballots have been preserved with a reasonable certainty of being the same ones cast by the voters and that they suffered no tampering.
Here, Co failed to discharge this burden. He offered no evidence to prove the integrity and due preservation of the ballots, relying solely on the numerical discrepancy shown in the revision report. The MeTC correctly noted physical indications of possible tampering, such as re-pasted envelopes and unsealed ballot containers. In contrast, Regio presented credible witnesses who affirmed the regularity of the election proceedings. The COMELEC En Banc, by disregarding the necessity of establishing ballot integrity and by overturning the factual findings of the MeTC which were affirmed by its First Division, acted capriciously and in grave abuse of discretion. The presumption of regularity in the preparation of the election returns stands absent clear proof of their inaccuracy or that the ballots are intact.