Case Digest (G.R. No. 158466)
Facts:
Pablo V. Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Mario B. Crespo a.k.a. Mark Jimenez, G.R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by petitioner Pablo V. Ocampo alleging grave abuse of discretion by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in HRET Case No. 01‑024, and seeking review of the HRET Resolutions dated March 27, 2003 and June 2, 2003.
In the May 14, 2001 elections, the Manila City Board of Canvassers proclaimed private respondent Mario B. Crespo (Mark Jimenez) the duly elected Congressman for the Sixth District of Manila on May 23, 2001 with 32,097 votes against petitioner’s 31,329 votes (a margin of 768). On May 31, 2001, petitioner filed with the HRET an electoral protest (docketed HRET Case No. 01‑024) challenging results in 807 precincts on grounds including misreading of votes, falsification and substitution of election returns, use of spurious ballots, and ballots written by a single person, and prayed for revision of ballots and proclamation of petitioner as winner.
Private respondent filed an answer with counter‑protest on June 18, 2001, denying allegations of massive vote‑buying and opposing ballot revision. After a July 12, 2001 preliminary conference, the HRET limited the issues to (1) whether massive vote‑buying was committed by Crespo and (2) whether petitioner could be proclaimed the duly elected Representative. Meanwhile, in separate HRET cases (01‑020 and 01‑023) decided on March 6, 2003, the HRET declared Crespo ineligible for lack of residence and ordered him to vacate the office; motions for reconsideration were denied.
On March 12, 2003 petitioner moved for implementation of Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646, arguing that Crespo’s later disqualification meant his votes should not be counted and that petitioner, being second placer, should be declared elected. Crespo opposed the motion, arguing the disqualification was rendered long after the May 14, 2001 elections and the HRET resolutions were not yet final. On March 27, 2003 the HRET found Crespo guilty of vote‑buying and disqualified him, but held that a second placer cannot be proclaimed the first among remaining qualified candidates and denied petitioner’s motion to implement Section 6; it therefore declined to rule on the recount and revision of ballots. Petitioner’s motion for reco...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the votes cast for private respondent Mario B. Crespo should be disregarded under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 so that petitioner may be proclaimed the winner.
- Whether petitioner, as the second placer in the May 14, 2001 congressional elections, can be proclaimed the duly elected Representative of the Sixth District of Manila aft...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)