Facts:

In the case of Bartolome Balingit v. Commission on Elections and Pablo Yamat (G.R. NO. 170300, February 09, 2007), Pablo Yamat was proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay of Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga, following the barangay elections held on July 28, 2002, where he garnered 257 votes against 250 votes for his opponent, Bartolome Balingit. Following the election, Balingit contested the results, alleging discrepancies and fraud in the counting of the votes and the preparation of the election returns. He submitted his election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe-Masantol. Upon revision of the ballots, it was determined that Balingit maintained 250 votes, while Yamat had 255 votes.

On September 24, 2003, the MCTC ruled in favor of Balingit, declaring him the duly elected punong barangay based on its tabulation of votes which included a total of 86 ballots deemed invaliding Yamat's votes. Yamat subsequently appealed to the Commission on Electio

...

Facts:

Background of the Election

• Pablo Yamat was declared the elected Punong Barangay of Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga in the July 28, 2002 barangay elections with an initial count of 257 votes, while his opponent Bartolome Balingit obtained 250 votes.
• Balingit filed an election protest alleging fraud in the counting and preparation of election returns.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Decision

• Upon revising the ballots, the MCTC computed the votes as 250 for Balingit and 172 for Yamat.
• The MCTC declared Balingit the duly elected Punong Barangay, based on a tally that involved:

- Invalidating 86 ballots in certain precincts (56-A, 57-A, and 58-A). - Crediting three additional votes to Yamat while discrediting one vote against Balingit.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Proceedings

• Yamat appealed the MCTC decision, prompting COMELEC’s intervention.
• Balingit filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, which was granted by the COMELEC Second Division.
• On April 11, 2005, the COMELEC Second Division reversed the MCTC decision by validating 80 out of the 86 disputed ballots.

- This resulted in a revised vote tally: Yamat with 252 votes and Balingit with 249 votes. - The COMELEC En Banc upheld the election results, reaffirming Yamat’s proclamation and ordering Balingit to vacate the post.

Examination and Findings on the Contested Ballots

• Both the MCTC and COMELEC physically examined the ballots from Precinct Nos. 56-A, 57-A, and 58-A.
• The COMELEC Second Division found that:

- Certain ballots (e.g., Exhibits B44, B45, B5, B7, B135, and B136) exhibited clear similarities (handwriting, strokes, dents) suggestive of single authorship and were therefore ruled invalid. - Other ballots, despite alleged similarities, displayed sufficient individual differences in handwriting features to be deemed valid. - It affirmed the validity of ballots not marked by clear-cut similarities. - It re-computed the vote totals, confirming Yamat’s total as 252 votes and Balingit’s as 249 votes.

Allegations of Abuse of Discretion and Immediate Execution

• Balingit alleged grave abuse of discretion on several counts, including:

- The COMELEC’s selective examination favoring a subset of ballots rather than a comprehensive review. - The “sweeping” validation of the 80 ballots without sufficiently addressing his detailed objections. - Misapplication of the “proximity of the end of term” justification for immediate execution of the resolutions, especially given that Republic Act No. 9340 had extended the term until October 2007.

Issue:

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by:

• Limiting its examination to only a portion of the contested ballots instead of a complete and thorough examination of all evidence presented in Balingit’s Motion for Reconsideration.
• “Sweepingly” validating 80 of the 86 ballots without adequately addressing the objections concerning the possibility of grouped ballots written by the same person.
• Whether the COMELEC justified the immediate execution of its Resolution on the basis of the “proximity of the end of term” when, in truth, the term had been extended by R.A. No. 9340.
• Whether the factual findings and appreciation of ballot evidence by the COMELEC, as a specialized election agency vested with exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, should be accorded deference by the Court in light of the allegations of abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)