G.R. No. 189272 - People vs. Chi Chan Liu

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189272)

Factual Background

The petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of South Ubian on October 5, 2012. Ten days later, respondent Mustapha J. Omar filed a petition to deny due course or cancel that CoC, docketed SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F), alleging false representation of residence. The petitioner sought judicial inclusion in the permanent voters list of Barangay Bintawlan before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on November 30, 2012; the MCTC granted inclusion on January 31, 2013. The COMELEC First Division on that day dismissed Omar’s initial petition for lack of substantial evidence.

Judicial Determinations on Voter Inclusion

On appeal the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Bongao, reversed the MCTC and ordered deletion of Hayudini’s name from the permanent voters list on March 8, 2013. That RTC judgment became final and executory under Section 138 of the Omnibus Election Code after the petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied and a subsequent certiorari was dismissed for forum shopping.

Subsequent Petition and COMELEC Action

Relying on the final RTC judgment as a supervening event, Omar filed a new petition to cancel Hayudini’s CoC on March 26, 2013, docketed SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F). The COMELEC Second Division, by resolution dated June 20, 2013, granted that petition and cancelled Hayudini’s certificate of candidacy and directed constitution of a Special Board of Canvassers to proclaim the lawful winner.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution and Proclamation

The COMELEC En Banc denied Hayudini’s motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2013 and affirmed the June 20, 2013 decision. The En Banc declared petitioner’s proclamation null and void, applied the doctrine in Aratea v. COMELEC, and proclaimed Salma A. Omar as duly elected Mayor of South Ubian because the cancelled CoC could not give rise to a valid candidacy or valid votes.

Nature of the Petition to the Supreme Court

The petitioner invoked Rule 65 and alleged that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by: admitting and granting a belated petition despite procedural noncompliance with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 23, COMELEC Rules of Procedure as amended; revisiting and modifying a purportedly final COMELEC First Division resolution; cancelling the CoC; and declaring his proclamation void and proclaiming the second placer.

Standard for Review and Grave Abuse Allegation

The Court reiterated that a Rule 65 petition is available only where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists and where grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved. It defined grave abuse of discretion as a patent and gross arbitrary exercise of power and observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such abuse by the COMELEC.

Timeliness and Service Deficiencies and COMELEC’s Liberal Construction

The petitioner correctly noted that Omar’s second petition was filed well beyond the twenty-five day period set in Section 2, Rule 23 and that proof of personal service under Section 4, Rule 23 was lacking. The Court nonetheless sustained the COMELEC’s liberal treatment of procedural defects, citing the settled principle that election statutes and COMELEC rules are to be construed liberally to protect the electorate’s choice and to secure speedy disposition of election disputes, and that COMELEC may relax its rules in the interest of justice.

Supervening Event Doctrine and Effect of Final RTC Decision

The Court treated the RTC March 8, 2013 decision ordering deletion from the voters list as a valid supervening event because it became final and executory under Section 138 of the Omnibus Election Code and because its finality postdated the COMELEC First Division resolution. The Court held that had the RTC ruling existed earlier, the COMELEC First Division could have taken judicial notice and reached a different result, and that the RTC decision supplied the necessary ground to cancel the CoC.

Material Misrepresentation in the Certificate of Candidacy

The Court analyzed Section 74 and Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and concluded that a CoC requires a sworn statement of eligibility and that a false statement as to material qualifications, including voter registration and residence, constitutes a material misrepresentation. The record showed that the petitioner had been rejected by the Election Registration Board and thus was not a registered voter when he certified eligibility in his CoC; the Court treated that misrepresentation as ground for cancellation.

Effect of Cancellation of a CoC on Votes and Proclamation

The Court explained that cancellation of a CoC renders the candidate’s certificate void ab initio and that votes cast for an ineligible candidate are considered stray votes. The Court observed that COMELEC’s jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel a CoC continued after election and after proclamation, except for congressional and senatorial contests where jurisdiction shifts to the electoral tribunals. Applying these principles and Aratea v. COMELEC, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s nullification of petitioner’s proclamation and the proclamation of the second placer.

Disposition by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. It affirmed the COMELEC Resolutions dated June 20, 2013 and July 10, 2013 and ordered no pronouncement as to costs.

Separate Concurring and Dissenting Views of Justice Leonardo-De Castro

Justice Leonardo-De Castro concurred in the result but dissented from the ponencia’s broad statement that cancellation of a CoC before or after election is immaterial to the validity of votes. He argued for a temporal distinction under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 6646, urging protection of the sanctity of the ballot and limiting retroactive nullification of votes except where the disqualifying fact was final before th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189272)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Mayor Gamal S. Hayudini filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court seeking annulment of COMELEC Resolutions dated June 20, 2013 and July 10, 2013.
Commission on Elections issued the challenged resolutions cancelling Hayudini's Certificate of Candidacy and declaring his proclamation null and void.
Mustapha J. Omar filed petitions to deny due course or cancel Hayudini's Certificate of Candidacy that precipitated the COMELEC actions.
The petition to the Court alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the COMELEC.

Key Facts

Hayudini filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of South Ubian on October 5, 2012.
Omar initially filed SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F) on October 15, 2012 to cancel Hayudini's CoC for alleged false residence representation.
The Election Registration Board denied Hayudini's registration and he filed a Petition for Inclusion before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on November 30, 2012, which the MCTC granted on January 31, 2013.
The COMELEC First Division dismissed Omar's first petition on January 31, 2013 for lack of substantial evidence.
The Regional Trial Court reversed the MCTC on March 8, 2013 and ordered deletion of Hayudini's name from Barangay Bintawlan's voters list, a decision that became final and executory.
Omar filed a new petition to cancel the CoC on March 26, 2013, docketed SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F), after the RTC decision.
Hayudini won the May 13, 2013 mayoralty election, was proclaimed, and took his oath.
The COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution on June 20, 2013 cancelling Hayudini's CoC, and the COMELEC En Banc denied reconsideration on July 10, 2013 and proclaimed Salma A. Omar as duly-elected mayor.

Procedural History

The MCTC granted Hayudini's inclusion petition on January 31, 2013.
The COMELEC First Division dismissed Omar's SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F) on January 31, 2013.
The RTC reversed the MCTC on March 8, 2013 and its judgment became final and executory under Sec. 138, Omnibus Election Code.
Omar filed SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F) on March 26, 2013 and the COMELEC Second Division granted it on June 20, 2013.
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed on July 10, 2013 and the present Rule 65 petition followed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by giving due course to Omar's belatedly filed petition in SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F).
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by revisiting and modifying its earlier First Division resolution in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).
Whether cancellation of Hayudini's CoC rendered his proclamation void and justified proclamation of the second placer.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Hayudini argued that Omar's second petition was filed beyond the periods prescribed in Rule 23, COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 9523, specifically violating Sections 2 and 4 on filing period and service.
Hayudini contended that the COMELEC First Division's January 31, 2013 dismissal was final and the Second Division lacked jurisdiction to revisit that resolution.
Hayudini asserted that the COMELEC committed grave abuse by nullifying his proclamation absent a petition to annul the proclamation.

Respondents’ Position

COMELEC treated the RTC March 8, 2013 decision deleting Hayudini from the voters list as a valid supervening event that rendered the earlier COMELEC ruling inequitable.
COMELEC held that the final RTC decision established that Hayudini was not a registered voter and therefore had made a false material representation in his CoC under Section 74 and that Section 78 provided ground for cancellation.
COMELEC invoked liberal construct