G.R. No. 227797, November 13, 2018
Ferdinand V. Sevilla, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Ranie B. Gupit, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ferdinand V. Sevilla and private respondent Ranie B. Gupit were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte, in the 2013 Barangay Elections. After canvassing, Sevilla was proclaimed the winner by a margin of one vote, receiving 466 votes against Gupit’s 465. Gupit filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), contesting the results in four clustered precincts. Following a revision and appreciation of the contested ballots, the MCTC annulled Sevilla’s proclamation and declared Gupit the duly elected Punong Barangay, finding Gupit had obtained 464 valid votes to Sevilla’s 463.
Sevilla appealed to the COMELEC, specifically challenging the MCTC’s appreciation of certain ballots. He contested the crediting of a ballot marked Exhibit “I” (with the name “Nanie G.”) in favor of Gupit and the non-crediting of ballots marked Exhibits “F,” “R-4,” and “II” in his favor. The COMELEC First Division, after its own appreciation, affirmed the MCTC’s decision. The COMELEC En Banc subsequently denied Sevilla’s motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the contested ballots, thereby warranting the reversal of its resolutions.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court emphasized that in a Rule 64 petition, it does not review the factual findings of the COMELEC, which is the constitutional body tasked with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving elective barangay officials. The Court’s review is limited to determining whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Court upheld the COMELEC’s application of the idem sonans rule to ballot Exhibit “I,” crediting “Nanie G.” for Gupit, as the name sounded similar to “Ranie” and the initial “G” corresponded to Gupit’s surname, consistent with the intent of the voter. For Exhibit “F,” the Court affirmed the COMELEC’s ruling that the vote was stray, as the name “ALE” was written in the proper space for Punong Barangay, while Sevilla’s nickname was written elsewhere, violating the neighborhood rule. Regarding Exhibit “R-4,” the Court sustained the finding that the ballot was written by two persons, rendering it invalid. The COMELEC’s detailed analysis of the handwriting characteristics demonstrated a reasonable basis for its conclusion. The Court found the COMELEC’s appreciation of the ballots to be grounded on established principles of election law and a diligent effort to ascertain voter intent. Its actions were neither capricious, arbitrary, nor despotic. Consequently, the resolutions of the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc were affirmed.