Title
Agujetas vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 106560
Decision Date
Aug 23, 1996
Former election officials convicted for failing to proclaim rightful winner, violating election laws, and causing damages to the aggrieved candidate.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 106560)

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
Petitioners Florezil Agujetas and Salvador Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for Davao Oriental, were charged with failing to proclaim Erlinda Irigo as the winning candidate for the 8th seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan during the January 18, 1988 elections. Instead, they proclaimed Pedro Pena, who received fewer votes than Irigo.

2. Election Results and Proclamation:
The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed the following winners:

  • For Governor: Leopoldo Lopez (59,309 votes) and Francisco Rabat (51,191 votes).
  • For Vice-Governor: Modesto Avellanosa (46,353 votes) and Josefina Sibala (54,083 votes).
  • For Provincial Board Members:
    1. Cirilo R. Valles (42,394 votes)
    2. Ma. Elena Palma Gil (41,557 votes)
    3. Antonio Alcantara (39,104 votes)
    4. Dr. Capistrano Roflo (37,301 votes)
    5. Orlando Rodriguez (34,914 votes)
    6. Alfredo Abayon (34,191 votes)
    7. Justina Yu (32,360 votes)
    8. Pedro Pena (30,679 votes).

Erlinda Irigo, who received 31,129 votes (450 more than Pena), was not proclaimed.

3. Protest and Subsequent Actions:

  • A verbal protest was lodged by Maribeth Irigo Batitang, Irigo’s daughter and representative, during the canvassing proceedings. However, the Board did not officially recognize the protest as it was not formally brought to their attention during the session.
  • On January 23, 1988, Irigo filed a written protest with the Board of Canvassers.
  • Francisco Rabat, a losing gubernatorial candidate, filed a complaint with the COMELEC against the Board members for violating the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) and the Electoral Reform Law of 1987 (RA 6646).

4. Trial Court Decision:
The Regional Trial Court found the petitioners guilty of violating Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code. They were sentenced to one year of imprisonment, disqualification from holding public office, and deprivation of the right to suffrage. They were also ordered to pay Erlinda Irigo P50,000 in actual damages, P15,000 in attorney’s fees, and P100,000 in moral damages.

5. Court of Appeals Decision:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but reduced the actual damages to P40,000 and deleted the award of moral damages.

Issue:

  1. Whether the petitioners’ failure to proclaim Erlinda Irigo, despite her higher number of votes, constitutes an election offense under Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code.
  2. Whether the verbal protest made by Irigo’s representative to the Tabulation Committee was sufficient to constitute a protest to the Board of Canvassers.
  3. Whether the Board of Canvassers became functus officio after the proclamation, rendering them unable to correct the error.
  4. Whether the award of damages to Erlinda Irigo, who was not a party to the case, was proper.
  5. Whether the crime under which the petitioners were convicted still exists, given the subsequent enactment of RA 6646 and RA 7166, which amended the Omnibus Election Code.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners were found guilty of violating Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code for failing to proclaim the rightful winning candidate, Erlinda Irigo. The Court held that:

  1. The failure to proclaim the candidate with the highest number of votes constitutes an election offense, regardless of whether the error was due to an incorrect certificate of canvass or an erroneous proclamation.
  2. The verbal protest made by Irigo’s representative to the Tabulation Committee was sufficient to put the Board of Canvassers on notice, and their failure to act on it was inexcusable.
  3. The Board of Canvassers’ functus officio status after the proclamation does not absolve them of liability for the election offense committed.
  4. The award of damages to Erlinda Irigo was proper, as she was the offended party whose rights were violated by the erroneous proclamation.
  5. Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code was not repealed by RA 6646 or RA 7166, and the petitioners’ conviction under this provision remains valid.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.