G.R. No. 227797 - Sevilla vs. Commission on Elections

Case Digest (G.R. No. 227797)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Overview of the Election and Contest

Petitioner Ferdinand V. Sevilla and private respondent Ranie B. Gupit were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte during the 2013 Barangay Elections.
The initial canvass of votes declared petitioner the winner with 466 votes against private respondent’s 465 votes, a margin of only one vote.

The Election Protest and Recount Proceedings

Private respondent filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), challenging the results in four clustered precincts:

Precinct No. 4 (7A-8A)
Precinct No. 5 (8B-10A)
Precinct No. 6 (9A)
Precinct No. 7 (11A and 11B)

A revision of the contested ballots led the MCTC, on April 30, 2014, to annul petitioner’s proclamation by finding:

Petitioner obtained 463 valid votes.
Private respondent secured 464 valid votes.

Based on the revised vote count, the MCTC declared Ranie B. Gupit as the duly elected Punong Barangay.

Appeals and Subsequent COMELEC Resolutions

Petitioner appealed the MCTC decision to the Electoral Contest Adjudication Department of the COMELEC on June 10, 2014.

The appeal centered on the appreciation of four contested ballots, particularly those marked as Exhibits “I,” “F,” “R-4,” and “II.”
Petitioner questioned:

Crediting of the ballot marked Exhibit “I” in favor of private respondent based on the Idem Sonans Rule.

ii. Disallowance of ballots (Exhibits “F” and, by implication, “R-4”) that, he argued, should have been counted in his favor under the Neighborhood and Intent Rules.

On September 17, 2015, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution:

Denied petitioner’s appeal.
Affirmed the MCTC decision after its own careful appreciation of the contested ballots.

Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration on October 5, 2015, alleging insufficient evidence, erroneous appreciation of ballots, and a failure to clearly state the basis for the resolution.
On October 13, 2016, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution:

Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Affirmed the decision of the COMELEC First Division.

The Petition for Certiorari

Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.
The petition challenged:

The COMELEC En Banc’s rulings on the contested ballots.
The alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC.

Issues:

Whether the COMELEC, by:

Crediting the ballot marked Exhibit “I” in favor of private respondent based on the Idem Sonans Rule, committed grave abuse of discretion given the existence of another candidate (Nanie Ballaga as Barangay Kagawad) whose nickname also “Nanie” could give rise to confusion.
Declaring the ballot marked Exhibit “F” as stray (despite petitioner’s claim that his nickname “EBOY” was written above the position for Punong Barangay, which under the Neighborhood and Intent Rules should have validated the vote for him) acted arbitrarily.
Invalidating the ballot marked Exhibit “R-4” for being written by two different persons, thereby allegedly disregarding the “two kinds of writings” and intent rules.

Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in a related case (SPR (BRGY) No. 70-2014) affected or should affect the resolution in the present case.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 227797) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 227797) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 227797)
Concise

Case Digest (G.R. No. 227797)
Standard Advanced