Case Digest (G.R. No. 107847)
Facts:
This case involves Irma C. Alfonso as the petitioner against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the City Board of Canvassers of Manila, and Alberto A. Domingo as the respondents. The events unfolded during the May 11, 1992 elections, where Pedro Alfonso, a candidate for councilor in the First District of Manila, passed away just before the elections. At approximately 2:45 A.M. on election day, Irma Alfonso, his daughter, filed her certificate of candidacy to substitute for her deceased father. After the canvassing of votes, the City Board of Canvassers announced the results, which included votes for both Pedro and Irma Alfonso, leading to confusion regarding the actual votes cast. The Board added the votes for Pedro Alfonso to those of Irma, placing her in the fourth position. This action was contested by Alberto A. Domingo, who filed a petition on May 29, 1992, arguing that the votes for Pedro should be considered stray votes, thereby allowing him to claim the sixth posi...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 107847)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- In the May 11, 1992 elections, Pedro Alfonso ran for councilor in the First District of Manila, which was entitled to elect six councilors.
- On the eve of the elections, Pedro Alfonso died. His daughter, Irma Alfonso (petitioner), filed her certificate of candidacy as a substitute for her deceased father at about 2:45 A.M. on May 11, 1992.
Election Results
- After the canvassing of the election returns, the results for councilors in the First District of Manila were announced as follows:
- Nieva, Ernesto - 60,101
- Gonzales, Gonzalo - 44,744
- Lopez, Honorio - 35,803
- Alfonso, Pedro - 34,648
- Cailian, Avelino - 32,462
- Ocampo, Roberto - 31,264
- Domingo, Alberto - 28,715
- The City Board of Canvassers added the votes of Pedro Alfonso to those of Irma Alfonso, placing her in the fourth slot.
Private Respondent's Challenge
- Alberto Domingo (private respondent) questioned the inclusion of Pedro Alfonso's votes in Irma Alfonso's tally, arguing that the votes for Pedro Alfonso should be declared stray votes. He filed a petition on May 29, 1992, seeking to be proclaimed as the sixth winner.
COMELEC's Initial Ruling
- On June 3, 1992, the COMELEC ruled:
- All votes cast for Pedro Alfonso were declared stray votes.
- Only votes cast with the name "Alfonso" or "Irma Alfonso" would be credited to Irma Alfonso.
- The City Board of Canvassers was directed to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidates.
Petitioner's First Challenge
- Irma Alfonso challenged the COMELEC's resolution in G.R. No. 105577, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on June 16, 1992, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
Clarification by COMELEC
- On November 4, 1992, the COMELEC clarified its June 3, 1992 resolution, reiterating that:
- Votes for Pedro Alfonso were stray votes.
- Only votes for "Alfonso" or "Irma Alfonso" would be credited to Irma Alfonso.
- The City Board of Canvassers was directed to reconvene and proclaim the sixth councilor without opening ballot boxes.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
- Irma Alfonso filed a motion for partial reconsideration, invoking Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code and requesting that all votes for Pedro Alfonso be credited to her. The COMELEC denied her motion on November 23, 1992.
Final Canvassing Results
- The City Board of Canvassers reconvened and obtained the following results:
- Irma Alfonso - 7,588
- Pedro Alfonso - 23,644
- Alberto Domingo - 25,825
- The Board denied Irma Alfonso's motion to exclude 740 election returns and proclaimed Alberto Domingo as the sixth councilor on December 14, 1992.
Petitioner's Appeal
- Irma Alfonso filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC but did not pursue it due to a temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on December 10, 1992.
Issue:
- Whether petitioner may still question the COMELEC's ruling that the votes cast for Pedro Alfonso should be considered stray votes.
- Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for a recount of the ballots.
- Whether the issues raised are ripe for judicial determination.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)