Title
Sevilla vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 227797
Decision Date
Nov 13, 2018
A one-vote margin in a barangay election led to a protest, with contested ballots scrutinized under election rules. COMELEC upheld the revision, affirming no grave abuse of discretion; Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227797)

Facts of the Case

During the 2013 Barangay Elections, Sevilla was initially proclaimed the winner with 466 votes, while Gupit received 465 votes, resulting in a narrow one-vote margin. Following the declaration, Gupit filed an election protest questioning the results in four clustered precincts. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) annulled Sevilla's proclamation on April 30, 2014, declaring Gupit the duly elected Punong Barangay after determining that Gupit obtained 464 valid votes to Sevilla's 463.

Ruling of the MCTC

The MCTC's ruling identified specific ballots and their validity. It overturned the initial election result based on its appreciation of the ballots, applying relevant election law principles, notably the rules for ballot appreciation held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code).

Proceedings Before COMELEC First Division

Sevilla appealed the MCTC's decision to the COMELEC First Division, which affirmed the MCTC ruling on September 17, 2015. The First Division's resolution involved a detailed evaluation of the contested ballots, including those marked as Exhibits “I”, “F”, “R-4”, and “II”, ultimately deciding that Exhibit “I” was a valid vote for Gupit, while Exhibits “F” and “R-4” were invalid for Sevilla.

Motion for Reconsideration

Following the COMELEC First Division's ruling, Sevilla filed a motion for reconsideration on October 5, 2015, contesting the grounds of the decision and how the ballots were appreciated. The COMELEC En Banc ruled against the motion on October 13, 2016, affirming its previous resolution.

Legal Issues Presented

The issues presented in the subsequent petition to the Supreme Court included allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in validating Exhibit “I” as a vote for Gupit while declaring Exhibits “F” and “R-4” as invalid. Sevilla asserted that the appreciation of these ballots disregarded established legal principles.

Court's Ruling on Appreciation of Ballots

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the COMELEC has significant authority to determine the validity of ballots, which is highly regarded as a constitutional function designed to reflect the electorate's intent. The Court underscored the burden on the petitioner to establish that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion regarding its evaluation.

Examination of Specific Ballots

The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s decisions

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.