sanchez+vs+comelec

7/29/2019 Sanchez+vs+Comelec

1/3

Sanchez vs Comelec

153 scra 67

FACTS:

Candidate Augusto Sanchez filed his petition on 28 May 1987 praying

that respondent Comelec after due hearing, be directed to conduct a recountof the votes cast three months ago in the 11 May 1987 senatorial elections to

determine the true number of votes to be credited to him and prayed furtherfor a restraining order directing the Comelec to withhold the proclamation of

the last 4 winning candidates on the ground that the votes intended for himwere declared as stray votes because of the sameness of his surname withthat of disqualified candidate Gil Sanchez, whose name had not been crossedout from Comelec election forms.

ISSUE:

W/N the petition for recount is a pre-proclamation controversycongnizable by COMELEC (Omnibus Election Code).

HELD:

No. Sanchez anchors his petition for recount and/or reappreciation onSection 243, paragraph (b) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to

Section 234 thereof with regard to material defects in canvassed electionreturns. He contends that the canvassed returns discarding "Sanchez" votes

as stray were "incomplete" and therefore warrant a recount or reappreciationof the ballots under Section 234. A simple reading of the basic provisions of

the cited Section shows readily its inapplicability. By legal definition and bythe very instructions of the Comelec (Res. No. 1865, Sec. 6, promulgated onMarch 11, 1987), an election return is incomplete if there is "omission in theelection returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding

votes" (Sec. 234) or "in case the number of votes for a candidate has beenomitted." (Sec. 6, Res. No. 1865)

Here, the election returns are complete and indicate the name ofSanchez as well as the total number of votes that were counted and

appreciated as votes in his favor by the boards of inspectors. The fact thatsome votes written solely as "Sanchez" were declared stray votes because of

the inspectors' erroneous belief that Gil Sanchez had not been disqualified as

a candidate, involves an erroneous appreciation of the ballots. It isestablished by the law as well as jurisprudence that errors in the appreciationof ballots by the board of inspectors are proper subject for election protest

and not for recount or reappreciation of the ballots. The appreciation of theballots cast in the precincts is not a "proceeding of the board of canvassers"

for purposes of pre-proclamation proceedings under section 241, OmnibusElection Code, but of the boards of election inspectors who are called upon to

count and appreciate the votes in accordance with the rules of appreciation


2/3

provided in section 211, Omnibus Election Code. Otherwise stated, theappreciation of ballots is not part of the proceedings of the board of

canvassers. The function of ballots appreciation is performed by the boardsof election inspectors at the precinct level.

It does not present a proper issue for a summary pre-proclamationcontroversy. The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to issuesenumerated under sec 243 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). Theenumeration is restrictive and exclusive. In the absence of any clear showing

or proof that the election returns canvassed are incomplete or containmaterial defects(sec 234), appear to have been tampered with, falsified or

prepared under duress (sec 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the votescredited to any candidate, the difference of which affects the results of the

election(sec 236) which are the only instances where a pre-proclamationrecount may be resorted to, granted the preservation of the integrity of theballot box and its contents, Sanchez petition must fail. The complete electionreturns those authenticity is not in question is prima facie considered valid

for the purpose of canvassing and proclamation of the winning candidates.Otherwise, it will open floodgates to claims by the losing candidates and

delay the canvass and proclamation.

The allegation of invalidation of Sanchezs votes intended for him

bears no relation to the correctness and authenticity and correctness of theelection returns canvassed. Furthermore, Comelec has no power to look

beyond the face of the ballots once satisfied of their authenticity (Abes vsComelec).

Fermo vs Comelec

Gr 140179

Facts:

Manuel Laxina Sr. and Roque Fermo were candidates for PunongBarangay in Batasan QC in 1997. The canvassed results showed that Laxinagarnered the most number of votes and was proclaimed as duly elected tothe post.

Subsequently, Fermo filed an election protest before the MTC allegingmassive fraud on the conduct of elections. The court ruled in favor of Fermo

and declared him the true winner. On the same day of the proclamation ofthe decision, Laxina filed a Notice of Appeal before the COMELEC.

A few days after, Fermo moved for execution of the decision pendingappeal grounded on alleged good and special reason possibility of theterm of the contested position might have expired before the appeal hasbeen decided. MTC granted the execution but he COMELEC reversed.

ISSUE:


3/3

W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lackof or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the order of the MTC granting herein

petitioners motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that therewere no "good reasons" for the issuance therefore.

HELD

No. Execution of judgments pending appeal in election cases is

governed by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court . As a general rule,motion for execution pending appeal should be lodged in the appellate courtafter the trial court has lost its jurisdiction. However, discretionary executionmay be granted by the trial court upon good reasons to be stated in a special

order after due hearing. But a valid exercise of the discretion to allowexecution pending appeal requires that it should be based "upon good

reasons to be stated in a special order." The following constitute "goodreasons" and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant

execution pending appeal: (1.) public interest involved or will of the

electorate; (2.) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of thecontested office; and (3.) the length of time that the election contest hasbeen pending (emphasis supplied).[7] In Lauban vs. COMELEC[8], this Court

ruled that "shortness of the remaining term of office and posting a bond arenot good reasons for execution of a judgment pending appeal.

In the case at bar, the petitioner relies solely on one ground shortness of term. Moreover, RA 8254 which was proclaimed in 1998,

extended the term of office of local elective officials from 3 years to 5 years.Hence, even the contention of petitioner of shortness of term is untenable.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/140179.html#_ftn7%23_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/140179.html#_ftn8%23_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/140179.html#_ftn8%23_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/140179.html#_ftn7%23_ftn7

sanchez+vs+comelec

Documents