GR 261344; (January, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 261344 , January 24, 2023
FRANK ONG SIBUMA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALMA L. PANELO, AND STEFANIE ANN ERIGUEL CALONGCAGON, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Frank Ong Sibuma and Stefanie Ann Eriguel Calongcagon were candidates for Mayor of Agoo, La Union in the May 9, 2022 elections. Alma L. Panelo filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel Sibuma’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging material misrepresentation regarding his residency. Panelo claimed Sibuma falsely declared he would be a resident of Brgy. Sta. Barbara, Agoo, La Union for one year and three months before the election, while actually being a resident of Aringay, La Union. Panelo submitted barangay certifications stating Sibuma was not a resident of Sta. Barbara, a deed of sale and title showing the Sta. Barbara address belonged to another person, and a certification that no certificate of occupancy was issued for the property. Sibuma countered with his birth certificate showing he was born in Agoo, school records, utility bills, a tax declaration, and an Affidavit of Residency signed by 41 Sta. Barbara residents attesting he resided there from January 2021. Panelo later submitted affidavits from eight of those 41 residents recanting their statements. During the pendency of the petition, the elections proceeded, and Sibuma was proclaimed the winning mayor. On May 13, 2022, the COMELEC Second Division granted Panelo’s petition, canceling Sibuma’s CoC and declaring all votes for him as stray. The COMELEC found Sibuma failed to prove actual physical presence in Agoo, giving weight to the recanting affidavits and the barangay certifications, and noting discrepancies in his evidence. The COMELEC Clerk issued a Certificate of Finality on May 24, 2022, stating the resolution became final as no motion for reconsideration was filed within five days from May 16, 2022, the date of electronic service. Sibuma filed a motion for reconsideration on May 27, 2022, arguing his counsel received the resolution electronically on May 22 and physically on May 25. The COMELEC denied his motions and issued a Writ of Execution annulling his proclamation and proclaiming Eriguel in his stead. Sibuma filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Sibuma’s motion for reconsideration was filed out of time.
2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in canceling Sibuma’s Certificate of Candidacy for material misrepresentation regarding his residency.
RULING
1. No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC correctly ruled Sibuma’s motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Under COMELEC rules, a Division resolution becomes final and executory five days after receipt by the parties. Service was completed via email to his counsel’s official email address on May 16, 2022. The reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration thus expired on May 21, 2022. Sibuma’s filing on May 27, 2022 was late. The Court found no proof the email did not reach the addressee, and the subsequent physical receipt on May 25 did not alter the completeness of electronic service. The COMELEC’s issuance of the Certificate of Finality was proper.
2. No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence supporting the COMELEC’s finding that Sibuma committed material misrepresentation regarding his residency qualification. Residence for election purposes means domicile, requiring both physical presence and intention to reside there (animus manendi). The COMELEC’s conclusion that Sibuma failed to prove actual physical presence in Agoo for the required period was based on: the Affidavit of Residency being dubious as it contained identical statements from 41 affiants; the recantation affidavits from eight of those affiants detailing they were misled into signing; barangay certifications attesting he was not a resident; utility bills showing service only from February 2021, contradicting his claim of residence since January 2021; and his school records showing a different address. The COMELEC’s factual findings, supported by evidence, are generally binding and showed no grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed.