SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 142038. September 18, 2000.
ROLANDO E. COLUMBRES, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HILARIO DE
GUZMAN, JR., respondents.
Election Law; Commission on Elections; Pleadings and
Practice; Any question on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
an assailed decision, order or ruling of a COMELEC Division is also
a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc; The COMELEC en banc gravely abused its
discretion in declaring that the COMELEC DivisionÊs findings on
the contested ballots are findings of facts „that may not be the subject
of a motion for reconsideration.‰·To determine the winning
candidate, the application of election law and jurisprudence in
appreciating the contested ballots, is essential. Any question on the
appreciation of the ballots would directly affect the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the
_______________
*EN BANC.
609
VOL. 340, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 609
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
declared winner. As the Solicitor General submits in his comment
on the petition, any question on the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the assailed decision, order or ruling of a COMELEC
Division is also a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC en banc. Moreover, the opposing conclusions
of the trial court and the COMELEC Second Division should have
prompted the COMELEC en banc to undertake an independent
appreciation of the contested ballots to see for itself which of the
conflicting rulings is valid and should be upheld. Be that as it may,
it is our considered opinion, and we rule, that the COMELEC en
banc gravely abused its discretion in declaring that the COMELEC
DivisionÊs findings on the contested ballots are findings of facts
„that may not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.‰
Same; Same; Ballots; Presumptions; There is no such
presumption in law that the markings found on the ballots have
been made by third persons, absent concrete evidence showing that
they were placed by the voters themselves.·On the second issue,
petitioner argues that the findings, both by the trial court as well as
the COMELECÊs Second Division, are similar·that said 120 ballots
(Exhs „R,‰ „R-1‰ and series) indeed, had markings but the trial
court and the COMELEC Second Division differed in their
conclusion. The trial court nullified the ballots (supposedly in favor
of herein private respondent) for being admittedly marked. On the
other hand, the Second Division declared the ballots valid because
the marks were allegedly placed by third person/s, purposely to
invalidate the ballots. Petitioner alleges that respondent
COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in presuming that
the markings found on the ballots have been made by third persons,
absent concrete evidence showing that they were placed by the
voters themselves. Petitioner is correct that there is no such
presumption in law. Instead, the legal presumption is that the
sanctity of the ballot has been protected and preserved.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the ballot shows distinct and
marked dissimilarities in the writing of the names of some
candidates from the rest, the ballot is void for having been written by
two hands, and a ballot appearing to have been written by two
persons is presumed to have been cast „as is‰ during the voting, a
presumption which can only be overcome by showing that the ballot
was tampered with after it was deposited in the ballot box.·Where
the ballot, however, shows distinct and marked dissimilarities in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 2 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
the writing of the names of some candidates from the rest, the
ballot is void for having been written by two hands. A ballot
appearing to have been written by two persons is presumed to have
been cast „as is‰ during the voting, and this presumption can only
be overcome by showing that the ballot was tampered with after it
was deposited in the
610
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
ballot box. If the COMELEC Second Division found markings in the
contested 111 ballots that were placed by persons other than the
voters themselves, then it should not have validated them. To rule
the way it did, would require a showing that the integrity of ballots
has not been violated. Otherwise, the presumption that they were
placed „as is‰ in the ballot box stands.
Same; Same; Same; There is truly a need to actually examine
the questioned ballots in order to ascertain the real nature of the
alleged markings thereon·one has to see the writings to be able to
determine whether they were written by different persons, and
whether they were intended to identify the ballot.·In view of the
foregoing circumstances, it appears that the COMELEC en banc
was remiss in its duties to properly resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration before it. It should have given a close scrutiny of
the questioned ballots and determined for itself their validity, i.e.,
whether they were marked ballots or not. There is truly a need to
actually examine the questioned ballots in order to ascertain the
real nature of the alleged markings thereon. One has to see the
writings to be able to determine whether they were written by
different persons, and whether they were intended to identify the
ballot.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin &
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 3 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
Martinez Law Offices for petitioner.
Pabalate, Marquinez, Sano, Sibayan and Associates
Collaborating Counsel for petitioner.
Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for private
respondent H.G. De Guzman, Jr.
BUENA, J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks the nullification of the
COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated January 25, 2000
which affirmed the Resolution of the Second Division
setting aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Dagupan City, Branch 40 in Election Case No. D-31-98
annulling the election and proclamation of private
respondent Hilado de Guzman, Jr. as Mayor of San Jacinto,
Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections.
611
VOL. 340, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 611
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
Petitioner Rolando Columbres and private respondent
Hilario de Guzman, Jr. were candidates for the position of
Mayor of San Jac-into, Pangasinan during the May 11,
1998 elections. After canvassing, the Municipal Board of
Canvassers proclaimed private respondent with 4,248 votes
as against petitionerÊs 4,104 votes. Subsequently, petitioner
filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court
docketed as Election Case No. D-31-98. Petitioner contested
42 precincts and prayed for the revision of ballots in the
said precincts.
On December 7, 1998, the trial court rendered its
decision, declaring petitioner as the duly elected mayor of
San Jacinto, Pan-gasinan with 4,037 votes against 3,302
votes of private respondent. Private respondent appealed
the decision to the respondent COMELEC. The case was
docketed as COMELEC EAC No. A-20-98 and raffled to the
COMELEC Second Division.
On October 5, 1999, the Second Division promulgated its
Resolution reversing and setting aside the decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court and, instead, affirmed
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 4 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
the election and proclamation of private respondent.
Private respondent was declared to have won by sixty-nine
(69) votes.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the ruling of the COMELEC Second Division, validating
120 marked ballots in favor of private respondent, despite
absence of evidence, to prove that the marks have been
placed on the ballots by third persons other than the voters
themselves. Petitioner likewise moved for a reconsideration
of the decision with respect to the 111 ballots found by the
trial court to have been written by two persons, but not so
ruled upon by the Second Division, again in favor of private
respondent. Lastly, petitioner claimed that the Second
Division erred in totally disregarding his other objections
and therefore urged the COMELEC EN BANC to review
the findings of the Second Division.
On January 25, 2000, the respondent COMELEC En
Banc issued its Resolution denying petitionerÊs motion for
reconsideration and affirming the ruling of the Second
Division.
In resolving petitionerÊs Motion for Reconsideration, the
respondent COMELEC En Banc, in the herein assailed
Resolution, said:
612
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
„x x x Protestant-appellee alleges that there were 124 ballots which
were written by two (2) persons, and as such they should all be
annulled. Instead, the Commission (Second Division) annulled only
13 ballots while validating 111 ballots in favor of protestee-
appellant Hilario de Guzman, Jr. Movant contends that the 13
ballots commonly invalidated by both the COMELEC (Second
Division) and the trial court as having been written by two persons
were no different from the 111 ballots validated by the Commission
(Second Division) but invalidated by the trial court.
„x x x xxx xxx
„x x x The finding by the Commission (Second Division) that the
111 questioned ballots were written by the same person is a finding
of fact that may not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 5 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
Movant prot-estant-appellee is not challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence in this instance but the appreciation thereof by the
1
Commission (Second Divi-sion).‰
„x x x Movant protestant-appellee (also) contends that there were
120 ballots erroneously validated by the Commission (Second
Division) which were admittedly marked. He argues that whenever
ballots contain markings very obvious and visible on their faces, the
presumption is that the said markings on the ballots were placed
thereat by the voter them-selves·thus nullifying the said ballots.
Stated otherwise, protestant-appellee argues that the purported
markings on the questioned ballots are presumed to have been
placed there by the voters themselves and, unless proven otherwise,
nullifies the ballots.
„We disagree. The movant is relying on an erroneous and
misleading presumption. The rule is that no ballot should be
discarded as marked unless its character as such is unmistakable.
The distinction should always be between marks that were
apparently, carelessly, or innocently made, which do not invalidate
the ballot, and marks purposely placed thereon by the voter with a
view to possible future identification of the ballot, which invalidate
it. (Cacho vs. Abad, 62 Phil. 564). The marks which shall be
considered sufficient to invalidate the ballot are those which the
voter himself deliberately placed on his ballot for the purpose of
identifying it thereafter (Valenzuela vs. Carlos, 42 Phil. 428). In
other words, a mark placed on the ballot by a person other than the
voter him-
_________________
1 COMELEC Resolution dated January 25, 2000, pp. 4-5, Rollo, pp. 45-46.
613
VOL. 340, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 613
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
self does not invalidate the ballot as marked. (Tajanlangit vs.
2
Cazenas, 5 SCRA 567)‰
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner raises two issues:
1. Whether or not, the findings of fact of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 6 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
COMELEC Division, especially so in matters of
appreciation of ballots, is absolute and cannot be
the subject of a Motion for Reconsideration before
the COMELEC En Banc; and
2. Whether or not, in appreciation of ballots, when a
ballot is found to be marked, absent any evidence
aliunde, there is the presumption that the
markings were placed by a third person, and
therefore, should not invalidate the ballot.
On the first issue, indeed, the COMELEC erred when it
declared that
„x x x it is emphatic that the grounds of motion for reconsideration
should consist of insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision,
order or ruling, or that the said decision, order or ruling is contrary
to law. Nowhere in the provision can finding of fact be the subject of
motion for reconsideration. The finding by the Commission (Second
Division) that the 111 questioned ballots were written by the same
person is a finding of fact that may not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration. Movant prot-estant-appellee is not challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence in this instance but the appreciation
3
thereof by the Commission (Second Divi-sion).‰
Section 1, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
reads:
„Section 1. Grounds of Motion for Reconsideration.·A motion for
reconsideration may be filed on the grounds that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or that the said
decision, order or ruling is contrary to law.‰
______________
2COMELEC Resolution dated January 25, 2000, pp. 3-4, Rollo, pp. 44-
45.
3 COMELEC Resolution dated January 25, 2000, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 45-
46.
614
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 7 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
Commissioner Dy-Liaco, in her Dissenting Opinion,
correctlyopined, and we quote:
„I dissent in part from the majority conclusion that finding of facts
on the one hundred eleven (111) questioned ballots cannot be the
subject of a motion for reconsideration considering that the movant
protes-tant/appellee Âis not challenging the sufficiency of evidence in
this instance but the appreciation thereof by the Commission
(Second Division).Ê Protes-tant/Appellee in his discussion of his
motion for reconsideration (p. 205 of the records of the case/p. 24 of
the MR pleading) imploring the Commission En Banc to review, re-
examine and re-inspect the 111 ballots where the Trial Court and
the Division disagreed and make its own final findings and
determination, in effect disputes the ruling of the Second Division
implying that the appreciation is contrary to law. Rule 19, Sec. 1 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure enumerates the grounds that
may be raised in motions for reconsideration and one of which is
that the decision, order or ruling is contrary to law. Insufficiency of
evidence to justify the decision, order, or ruling is not the only
ground for the filing of motions for reconsideration. x x x
„When protestant/appellee argued that the appreciation of the
Division is erroneous, there is the implication that such finding or
ruling is contrary to law and thus, may be a proper subject of a
motion for recon-sideration.‰
To determine the winning candidate, the application of
election law and jurisprudence in appreciating the
contested ballots, is essential. Any question on the
appreciation of the ballots would directly affect the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the declared winner.
As the Solicitor General submits in his comment on the
petition, any question on the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the assailed decision, order or ruling of a
COMELEC Division is also a proper subject of a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.
Moreover, the opposing conclusions of the trial court and
the COMELEC Second Division should have prompted the
COMELEC en banc to undertake an independent
appreciation of the contested ballots to see for itself which
of the conflicting rulings is valid and should be upheld.
Be that as it may, it is our considered opinion, and we
rule, that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 8 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
discretion in declaring
615
VOL. 340, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 615
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
that the COMELEC DivisionÊs findings on the contested
ballots are findings of facts „that may not be the subject of
a motion for recon-sideration.‰
On the second issue, petitioner argues that the findings,
both by the trial court as well as the COMELECÊs Second
Division, are similar·that said 120 ballots (Exhs. „R,‰ „R-
1‰ and series) indeed, had markings but the trial court and
the COMELEC Second Division differed in their
conclusion. The trial court nullified the ballots (supposedly
in favor of herein private respondent) for being admittedly
marked. On the other hand, the Second Division declared
the ballots valid because the marks were allegedly placed
by third person/s, purposely to invalidate the ballots.
Petitioner alleges that respondent COMELEC en banc
gravely abused its discretion in presuming that the
markings found on the ballots have been made by third
persons, absent concrete evidence showing that they were
placed by the voters themselves.
Petitioner is correct that there is no such presumption in
law. Instead, the legal presumption is that the sanctity of
the ballot has been protected and preserved. Where the
ballot, however, shows distinct and marked dissimilarities
in the writing of the names of some candidates from the
rest, the
4
ballot is void for having been written by two
hands. A ballot appearing to have been written by two
persons is presumed to have been cast „as is‰ during the
voting, and this presumption can only be overcome by
showing that the ballot was 5
tampered with after it was
deposited in the ballot box.
If the COMELEC Second Division found markings in the
contested 111 ballots that were placed by persons other
than the voters themselves, then it should not have
validated them. To rule the way it did, would require a
showing that the integrity of ballots has not been violated.
Otherwise, the presumption that they were placed „as is‰ in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 9 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
the ballot box stands.
______________
4 Rule 23, Sec. 211, OEC; Protacio vs. De Leon, 9 SCRA 472 [1963],
Tajanlangit vs. Cazeñas, 5 SCRA 567 [1962].
5 Ruben E. Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election Code, 1992
ed., p. 243, citing Gutierrez vs. Reyes, February 28, 1959.
616
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Columbres vs. Commission on Elections
In his Comment, the Solicitor General raised the following
significant questions: „In the absence of showing that the
ballot boxes were violated and that somebody else had
access to the ballots, how was the COMELEC able to
conclude that indeed said marks were placed by persons
other than the voters?‰ Indeed, the poll body is mum on
how third persons were able to access the questioned
ballots. Furthermore, the COMELEC Second Division
neither made a categorical finding as to whether the
different markings on the ballots were deliberately placed
so as to sufficiently identify them or not. Yet, the
COMELEC en banc simplistically concluded that there was
„nothing left for x x x [it] but to affirm the VALIDITY of the
questioned 120 ballots in favor of protestee-appellant
Hilario de Guzman, Jr.‰
In view of the foregoing circumstances, it appears that
the COMELEC en banc was remiss in its duties to properly
resolve the Motion for Reconsideration before it. It should
have given a close scrutiny of the questioned ballots and
determined for itself their validity, i.e., whether they were
marked ballots or not. There is truly a need to actually
examine the questioned ballots in order to ascertain the
real nature of the alleged markings thereon. One has to see
the writings to be able to determine whether they were
written by different persons, and whether they were
intended to identify the ballot.
WHEREFORE, the case is hereby remanded to the
COMELEC en banc for it to physically re-examine the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 10 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 340 23/08/2019, 9*45 PM
contested ballots and ascertain their validity. It is further
directed to resolve this case within thirty (30) days from
receipt of this decision in view of the proximity of the next
elections.
This decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima,
Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., On leave.
Case remanded to Comelec En banc.
617
VOL. 340, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 617
People vs. Ladjaalam
Notes.·It is the decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC en banc that may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari. (Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court of
Oriental Mindoro, Branch XXXIX, 244 SCRA 41 [1995])
When the COMELEC en banc reviews and evaluates a
partyÊs petition, the same is tantamount to a fair „hearing‰
of his case. (Borja, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 260
SCRA 604 [1996])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbeb123d157c86621003600fb002c009e/p/ATX945/?username=Guest Page 11 of 11
