G.R. No. 113107 - Lucero vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113107)

Background and Election Dispute

Wilmar P. Lucero and Jose L. Ong, Jr. were two of five candidates vying for the congressional seat of Northern Samar’s Second Legislative District in the May 1992 elections. Initial canvassing by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) gave Ong a narrow lead of 204 votes, excluding the votes from three precincts in Silvino Lobos—Precinct No. 7 (illegible returns), Precinct No. 13 (ballot boxes snatched, no election held), and Precinct No. 16 (missing election returns). Lucero petitioned COMELEC to suspend Ong’s proclamation, correct certain canvass errors, order a special election in Precinct No. 13, and conduct recounts in the disputed precincts, invoking provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and RA 7166.

COMELEC's Initial Actions and Court Intervention

COMELEC ordered the PBC to suspend proclamation and suspend further canvassing pending resolution of disputes. Lucero filed motions for recounts and special boards of election inspectors (SBEI) were constituted, particularly for Precinct Nos. 7 and 16. Ong sought judicial relief questioning COMELEC’s orders, leading to a temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court against implementation of COMELEC’s June 1992 orders. In its December 1992 ruling, the Court nullified COMELEC’s orders for recount in some precincts, discarded disputed recount results, and directed the PBC to proceed and proclaim the winner based on authentic returns.

Modified Supreme Court Judgment and COMELEC Proceedings

In April 1993, upon motions for reconsideration, the Court modified its ruling affirming a special election for Precinct 13 and recount for Precinct 16 while annulling the order affecting Precinct 7 and the correction of the Las Navas Certificate of Canvass except for the manifest error correction. COMELEC’s First Division conducted hearings but failed to resolve the case due to lack of quorum concurrence, elevating it to the en banc commission.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution of January 1994

The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution to:

Include certain votes from Precincts Nos. 7 and 16 in the canvass based on special boards’ determinations, including alternative totals for Lucero;
Call a special election for Precinct No. 13 if after canvass it is necessary;
After the special election, decide the recount dispute of Precinct No. 7, resolving discrepancies affecting the overall election results.

Issues on Appeal

Lucero challenges the unconditional inclusion of Precinct No. 7’s disputed election returns and the impact of including these returns prior to the special election in Precinct No. 13. Ong questions COMELEC’s authority to correct the manifest error in the Las Navas certificate without appeal and the validity of calling a special election nearly two years post-election.

Supreme Court Analysis — Issue 1: Inclusion and Recount of Precinct No. 7 Votes

The Court held that COMELEC’s resolution on Precinct No. 7 was unclear and logically inconsistent. While COMELEC authorized the inclusion of election returns called the "COMELEC Copy," it simultaneously cast serious doubt on their authenticity due to the absence of vote counting at the polling place and other irregularities. The evidence showed that the election returns were prepared at the municipal office rather than the precinct, and the purported counting was denied by key election officials. Since no valid counting occurred, no legitimate election returns exist for Precinct No. 7, rendering recount provisions inapplicable. The Court ruled that votes from Precinct No. 7 should not be included in the canvass without a proper count, which must precede any decision regarding a special election in Precinct No. 13. Because the special election depends on whether election failure in Precinct No. 13 affects the overall result, the inclusion of Precinct No. 7 votes is a necessary precursor.

Supreme Court Analysis — Issue 2: Correction of Certificate of Canvass of Las Navas

The Court affirmed COMELEC’s authority to correct the manifest error under Section 15 of RA 7166, referencing the final judgment in the earlier consolidated case (G.R. No. 105717) which declared correction permissible even after pre-proclamation issues. Since there was no motion for reconsideration filed, this issue was res judicata, barring re-litigation.

Supreme Court Analysis — Issue 3: Authority to Call a Special Election in Precinct No. 13 after Delay

Under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, a special election is mandated if an election fails in a precinct and such failure affects the total election result. Both parties conceded failure in Precinct No. 13 due to ballot-box snatching. The critical inquiry was whether the delay (nearly two years after) invalidated COMELEC’s authority to call the special election. The Court determined that the delay was primarily caused by litigative maneuvers, not circumstances beyond control, thus the remedy should not be denied to the electorate who remained unrepresented. The Court also distinguished this situation from constitutional and statutory provisions limiting special elections when vacancies occur close to regular elections, as those pertain to permanent vacancies and involve broader constituencies. Here, the election was never validly completed with no proclamation; hence a special election limited to one precinct was justified and necessary to prevent disenfranchisement.

Final Directives and Outcome

The Supreme Court:

Dismissed Ong’s petition for lack of merit.
Directed COMELEC to reconvene the Special Boards of Canvassers and Election Inspectors to conduct a valid counting of the ballots in Precinct No. 7 within five days from notice.
Ordered the retabulation of votes for Silvino Lobos including corrected Las Navas votes and recount-certified votes f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 113107)

Background and Procedural Posture

The case involves consolidated petitions arising as sequels to G.R. No. 105717 decided on April 22, 1993, concerning the election for the Second Legislative District of Northern Samar in the May 11, 1992 synchronized national and local elections.
Petitioners Wilmar P. Lucero and Jose L. Ong, Jr. were two of five candidates vying for the congressional seat representing the district.
The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) initially credited Ong with 24,272 votes and Lucero with 24,068 votes, a margin of 204 votes favoring Ong.
Several precinct results (Precinct No. 7, 13, and 16 of Silvino Lobos) were not canvassed due to illegible returns, ballot box snatching and absence of election, and missing returns, respectively.
Lucero filed with COMELEC SPA No. 92-282 to suspend Ong’s proclamation, correct canvass certificates, order a special election in Precinct No. 13, and order recounts in Precinct Nos. 7 and 16.
Judicial attempts to resolve the disputes included a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, with the Supreme Court ordering COMELEC to cease implementing its respective orders on June 25, 1992.
Upon motions for reconsideration, the Court modified its decision on April 22, 1993, partially annulling and affirming COMELEC's orders.
SPA No. 92-282 was raffled to COMELEC First Division, then elevated to the COMELEC en banc due to lack of concurrence.
COMELEC en banc issued a resolution on January 7, 1994, directing inclusion of votes from disputed precincts, ordering a special election in Precinct No. 13 if necessary, and directing further canvassing actions.
Both Lucero and Ong filed separate certiorari petitions challenging COMELEC’s resolution.

Facts Concerning the Election Returns and Precinct Votes

Precinct No. 7 of Silvino Lobos: Election returns were allegedly prepared at the municipal building rather than at the polling place; no actual counting of votes occurred at the precinct.
The authenticity of the election returns (“Comelec Copy”) for Precinct No. 7 was seriously doubted by COMELEC due to conflicting affidavits and lack of evidence of proper vote counting.
Precinct No. 13 experienced ballot box snatching and thus no election was held.
Precinct No. 16 had missing election returns but votes were later recounted by a Special Board of Election Inspectors.
The Municipality of Las Navas had a manifest error in its certificate of canvass; COMELEC ordered correction based on testimony and prior judicial rulings.

Core Issues Presented

Whether the votes in Precinct No. 7 must first be counted prior to determining the necessity of a special election in Precinct No. 13.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the correction of the manifest error in the Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Las Navas.
Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in calling for a special election in Precinct No. 13 after nearly two years from the election date.

Issue One: Counting of Precinct No. 7 Votes Prior to Special Election in Precinct No. 13

COMELEC’s resolution was internally inconsistent; it directed inclusion of questionable Precinct No. 7 votes in canvass while also ordering a recount only if necessary after the special election in Precinct No. 13.
Actual vote counting in Precinct No. 7 was never conducted; election returns were fabricated as no counting occurred at the polling place.
Testimony from precinct officials admit