Title
Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 203302
Decision Date
Mar 12, 2013
Mayoral election protest in Imus, Cavite: Maliksi contested Saquilayan's win. RTC favored Maliksi, but COMELEC reversed. SC ruled COMELEC’s recount violated due process, remanded for proper recount.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203302)

Antecedent Facts

• The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Saquilayan with 48,181 votes over Maliksi’s 39,682.
• Maliksi filed Election Protest No. 009-10 before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, challenging results in 209 clustered precincts.
• The RTC (Branch 22) conducted a manual revision and, in its 15 November 2011 decision, found Maliksi had 41,088 votes to Saquilayan’s 40,423, declaring Maliksi the duly elected mayor by 665 votes.

Trial Court Decision and Execution Pending Appeal

• RTC declared Saquilayan’s proclamation annulled and ordered him to cease exercising mayoral functions.
• Maliksi’s motion for execution pending appeal was granted on 28 November 2011.
• Saquilayan separately petitioned the COMELEC for certiorari (SPR (AE) No. 106-2011) to enjoin execution pending appeal; a First Division order of 20 December 2011 was not implemented due to dissenting votes.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC First Division

• On appeal (EAC (AE) No. A-22-2011), the First Division inspected ballot boxes, found alleged tampering, and ordered decryption, printing, and examination of digital ballot images stored in Compact Flash (CF) cards.
• The First Division applied six guidelines in appraising contested ballots: marked ballots, multi-shaded ballots, ambiguous votes, spurious ballots, over-votes, and rejected ballots.
• After recounting digital images in appealed precincts, it computed:
– Maliksi: 10,922 votes (appealed precincts) + 29,170 (non-appealed) = 40,092
– Saquilayan: 12,613 votes (appealed) + 35,908 (non-appealed) = 48,521
– Saquilayan led by 8,429 votes
• By Resolution of 15 August 2012, the First Division nullified the RTC decision and declared Saquilayan duly elected. The Law Department was directed to investigate alleged ballot-box tampering and Maliksi’s photocopying of an official ballot.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution

• Maliksi moved for reconsideration and voluntary inhibition of Commissioners Sarmiento, Velasco, and Lim.
• On 14 September 2012, the En Banc denied reconsideration and affirmed the First Division resolution.
• It upheld the use of digital ballot images under Section 1 and 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC) and R.A. 9369, finding them equivalent to original ballots.
• It noted an unprecedented 8,387 double-shaded ballots in Maliksi’s pilot precincts, concluding these were deliberately tampered.
• The En Banc ruled there was no denial of due process since Maliksi never objected to the decryption order and was afforded opportunities to be heard.
• The En Banc refused Maliksi’s inhibition motion for lack of basis.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether Maliksi was deprived of due process by the First Division’s decryption and examination of digital ballot images on appeal without notice.
  2. Whether digital ballot images constitute mere secondary evidence, usable only if original ballots are unavailable or compromised.
  3. Whether allegations of ballot and ballot-box tampering were belatedly raised.
  4. Whether there were grounds for inhibiting Commissioners Sarmiento and Velasco.

Supreme Court Majority Ruling (Carpio, J.)

• Petition for certiorari is dismissed; En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
• Due Process
– Maliksi was aware of and participated in trial-court and COMELEC proceedings regarding printing of digital ballot images.
– He received orders of 28 March 2012 and 17 April 2012, with personal service on his counsel, and filed motions and objections.
– Due process satisfied by opportunity to be heard in pleadings and motions for reconsideration.
• Evidentiary Value of Digital Images
– Under A.M. 01-7-01-SC Rules on Electronic Evidence and R.A. 9369, digital images and printouts are original-equivalent, not secondary evidence.
– Encryption, secure storage, and restricted decryption ensure integrity.
• Ballot-Box Tampering
– Issue was raised before the RTC in June 2010, and COMELEC found double-shading evidence of tampering.
– First Division acted under its powers (Section 6(f), Rule 2 of COMELEC Rules).
• Inhibition of Commissioners
– En Banc resolution appropriately addressed and denied the motion; concurrence by signatories obviates separate explanations.
• Decision is immediately executory; temporary restraining order lifted.











...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.