Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Second Division
Intramuros, Manila
DAUD N. DALID, SPR Brgy. Case No. 24 - 2014
Petitioner;
- versus - for
HON. UD!E ANNABELLE P. PIAN!, CERTIORARI AND
Public Respondent, INUNCTION
"#$% Urge&$ Prayer 'or
Iss(a&)e o' a Res$ra#&#&g
- and - Or*er a&*+ or Pre,#-#&ary
I&.(&)$#o& a&*+ or S$a$(s
/(o A&$e Or*er
NORUDIN A. PENDATUN,
Private Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x
M E M O R A N D U M
0OR PETITIONER
PETITIONER DAUD N. DALID, through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable ommission, most respectfull! states,
"H#" ---
PRE0ATOR1 STATEMENT
In granting or denying injunctive relief, a court abuses
its discretion when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and
make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relies
on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers clearly
irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to
one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or
misapplies its factual or legal conclusions. [Almeida v. Court
of Appeals, 4! "hil #4! $%&&'(), cited in Varias v.
COMELEC *En Banc, +.,. -o. .!&/, 0ebruary .., %&.&)
NATURE O0 THE PETITION a&*
STATEMENT O0 THE CASE
$% "his Pe$#$#o& is filed to correct and reverse the SPECIAL
ORDER 'or $%e Iss(a&)e o' a 2r#$ o' E3e)($#o& o'
(*g-e&$ Pe&*#&g A44ea,
1
dated Mar)% 11, 2014 of the
.
Annex A of "etition dated 1arch ./, %&.4.
Ho&ora5,e (*ge A&&a5e,,e P. P#a&g &hereinafter also called
Honorable Public Respondent' in E,e)$#o& Case No. 06-2017
8S9P:, entitled Norudin K. Pendatun (Protestant) versus
Daud N. Dalid (Protestee)(
)% E,e)$#o& Case No. 06-2017, entitled NORUDIN A.
PENDATUN (Protestant) versus DAUD N. DALID
(Protestee) for *+*"I,- PR,"*S" .as filed under the
R(,es o' Pro)e*(re #& E,e)$#o& Co&$es$s 5e'ore $%e Co(r$s
I&;o,;#&g E,e)$#;e M(&#)#4a, a&* Bara&gay O''#)#a,s 8A.M.
No. 06-4-1< SC:(
/% "he Honorable Public Respondent decided the case in favor of
Private Respondent in its appealed Or*er
2
dated March /,
)0$1% ,n the other hand, the Honorable Public Respondent
also issued the assailed SPECIAL ORDER 'or $%e Iss(a&)e o'
a 2r#$ o' E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea,
7
and directed the
issuance of the corresponding 2rit of *xecution after the lapse
of t.ent! &)0' da!s, hence, this Instant Petition(
1% "here is no plain and speed! remed! under the ordinar! course
of la., except this Petition(
STATEMENT O0 0ACTS
3% Herein Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' .as proclaimed
.inner in the said elections on ,ctober )4, )0$/ b! the
5aranga! 5oard of anvassers of 5aranga! "onggol, 6en%
S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao, .herein he .on b! a .ide
margin of se;e&$y-&#&e 86=: ;o$es as against Private
Respondent herein &Protestant in the lo.er court', as
evidenced b! his Cer$#'#)a$e o' Ca&;ass a&* Pro),a-a$#o&
4
(
#. #n *lection Protest case .as filed b! Protestant &herein Private
Respondent' relative to the said 5aranga! *lections on
-ovember 8, )0$/, alleging, primaril! that In those three
precincts Fifty Nine (59) unofficial ballots were dropped on the ballot
boxes, ixty Ei!ht ("#) official ballots for the $rotestant were
excluded fro% the countin!&
'
' and that herein Private
Respondent pra!ed that after notice and hearin!, and (udicial
recount of ballots, (ud!%ent be rendered settin! aside the
procla%ation of protestee )atu &sic' N* )alid &herein Petitioner' by
the Baran!ay Board of +an,assers of Baran!ay -on!!ol, .en* */*
$endatun, 0a!uindanao&9 &underscoring ours', per cop! of
Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$>s 8as Pro$es$a&$ $%ere#&: E,e)$#o&
Pro$es$
?
(
%
upra* Annex I.
2
upra* Annex A.
4
upra* Annex B.
'
upra* Annex C. Pararap! " of the 3lection "rotest.
#
upra*
%
8% Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' belied the allegations of
Private Respondent in his A&s"er dated -ovember $3, )0$/,
and even asserted that it .as, as a matter of fact, the Private
Respondent herein, .ho caused to insert the :unofficial9 ballots
into the 5allot 5ox of one of the contested precincts, C,(s$ere*
Pre)#&)$ Nos. 61A+ 61B@
4% Petitioner additionall! asserted in his A&s"er
6
dated -ovember
$3, )0$/, among others, that ---
a% During the election, Petitioner;s .atchers assigned in
C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B noticed that the 55*"
hairman did not sign his name at the bac< of the ,fficial
5allots .henever he issued the same to the voters, and
also he tore the ,fficial 5allots in such a .a! that the
serial numbers .ere torn from the ,fficial 5allots%
Petitioner;s .atchers complained to the 55*" hairman,
but he brushed them aside and did not mind them(
b% Petitioner;s .atchers .ere forced to complain to *lection
,fficer Ra('*e& Ma&ge,e&, .ho later confronted the
55*" hairman, .ho merel! said that he :forgot9 to sign
the bac< of ,fficial 5allots and to exclude the serial
numbers .hen tearing the ,fficial 5allots(
c% (It would be worth mentioning at this point that S.K.
Pendatuan, Maguindanao was considered a CM!"!C
#hot spot$ and that personnel %rom the Philippine &ational
Police (P&P' were assigned to serve as Poll Cler(s and
)hird Members during the *aranga+ !lections, as
teachers were a%raid to serve as **!) members'(
d% During the counting and appreciation of ballots, .hich
.as done at the Municipal Hall of S%7% Pendatun,
Maguindanao, since the said Municipal Hall .as po.ered
onl! b! a generator, there .as a sudden complete po.er
failure at around 8 to 4 pm of ,ctober )4, )0$/(
e% 2hen the lights .ent off, the 55*" chairman sat on top of
the 5allot 5ox, but he deliberatel! left a portion of the
5allot box open% Suddenl!, Protestant;s &Private
Respondent herein' supporters came to.ards the 5allot
box and put some papers therein% # .atcher from
another rival candidate sa. the act of Protestant;s
supporters and shouted :Nahulugan ng alota (The!
inserted allots") &in Maguindanaon'=9 *ver!bod! .as
alerted and immediatel! the supporters scampered a.a!%
Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' .atchers demanded to
/
upra* Annex #.
2
suspend the counting until the *lection ,fficer, Ra('*e&
Ma&ge,e&, .as summoned(
f% Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' .atchers immediatel!
called upon EO Ra('*e& Ma&ge,e&, .ho .ent at once to
the canvassing area and confronted the 55*"% "he!
confirmed that there .ere unidentified persons .ho
inserted several :unofficial ballots9 inside the 5allot box
.hen the lights .ent off(
g% *, Mangelen as<ed the P-P 55*" if the! .ould
recogni>e the inserted :unofficial ballots9, and the!
ans.ered :?es9, since the :unofficial ballots9 .ere folded
together in one piece and it .as eas! to identif! them
from the rest of the ballots(
h% *, Mangelen directed the P-P 55*" to dra. the
inserted :unofficial ballots9, .hich the! could easil!
identif! and to separate the inserted :unofficial ballots9,
but the! managed to pull out onl! about @/ ballots, and
put them in a separate folder &to be put inside the 5allot
box later' and to be excluded from counting% Ho.ever,
not all of the inserted :unofficial ballots9 .ere ta<en out%
&#t this point, since there .as a commotion, ever!one,
even from other precincts, .as alread! s.arming around
the 55*" and the *lection ,fficer, curiousl! observing
the turn-out of the discussion'(
i% 2hen the 55*" dre. out the inserted :unofficial ballots9
totaling s#3$y-$%ree 8?7: 5a,,o$s from the 5allot 5ox of
lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5, Protestee;s &herein
Petitioner' .atchers noticed that the entries in the
inserted :unofficial ballots9 .ere .ritten b! onl! one
person and the name .ritten therein .as that of
Protestant &Private Respondent herein' Nor(*#& A.
Pe&*a$(& and three &/' of his <aga.ads (
B% "he counting .as recommenced after removing the
inserted :unofficial ballots9, and that .hen the 55*"
finished .ith the counting, Protestee;s &Petitioner herein'
.atchers again noticed that there .ere still inserted
ballots that .ere included in the counting and .ere not
separated as directed b! the *lection ,fficer(
<% "his is because the total voters .ho actuall! voted in
lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5 .as onl! 2=7 ;o$ers,
but .hen the 55*" hairman totaled the ballots he
counted, the total .as 777 ;o$es or an excess of 'or$y
840: ;o$es. Said 55*" chairman hence .rote the
number of voters of /// votes in the *lection Returns(
4
l% Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' .atchers again complained
to *, Raufden Mangelen about the excess of 10 votes in
lustered Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B, and assailed the same
as among those previousl! inserted b! Protestant;s
&Private Respondent herein' supporters% Ho.ever, *,
Mangelen said that even if the 10 votes .ere included
&presumabl! bearing Private Respondent;s name',
Protestee &Petitioner herein' .ould still lead the overall
tall! in the three &/' clustered precincts b! 6= ;o$es%
Hence, *, Mangelen said that the canvassing
proceedings must be finished and that the .inning
candidate must be proclaimed(
m% In the end, even if there .ere about fort! &10' inserted
and spurious ballots bearing the name of Protestant
&Private Respondent herein' and counted in his favor, still
it .as Protestee &Petitioner herein' .ho .on and .as
proclaimed as dul!-elected Punong 5aranga! of "unggol,
S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao(
n% EO Ra('*e& Ma&ge,e& prepared his Narra$#;e Re4or$
A
detailing the said incident, among others, involving the
insertion of ballots in lustered Precinct -o% 08$#A 08$5(
C% It .ould be Duite preposterous if it .ould be Petitioner
&Protestee in the lo.er court' herein .ho .ould cause to
:insert9 genuine ballots bearing the name of his opponent,
Private Respondent herein% "his .ould either simpl! be
suicidal or .ould border the lines of insanit!% In other .ords,
$%a$ Pe$#$#o&er "o(,* &o$ %a;e a&y -o$#;e $o #&ser$ 5a,,o$s
5ear#&g %#s o44o&e&$>s 8Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$ %ere#&: &a-e
#&s#*e $%e Ba,,o$ Bo3, es4e)#a,,y #' %e 8Pe$#$#o&er: #s ,ea*#&g
$%e )o(&$#&g, s%o(,* 5e o($ o' $%e B(es$#o&(
$0% "he *lection Protest .as then set for Preliminar!
onference and the parties herein .ere directed b! the
Honorable Public Respondent to submit their respective
Preliminar! onference 5riefs(
$$% During the Preliminar! onference, the Honorable Public
Respondent noted that Petitioner;s &Protestee in the lo.er
court' counsel did not include in his Preliminar! onference
5rief, the :procedure to be follo.ed9 in case the election protest
or counter-protest see<s the examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns, .hich is reDuired under R(,e =,
Se). 4 8A: of A.M. No. 06-4-1< SC &hereinafter :the Rules of
Procedure9'% "he Honorable Public Respondent then directed
Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' to file his Eustification
on the same da!(

Annex $% 1otion to 4dmit 4dditional 3vidences with 5upplement to the 6rgent

"rayer for the Issuance of 7,8 and9 or "reliminary Injunction and9 or tatus 1uo 2nte
8rder dated 1arch %4, %&.4
'
.%.Petitioner submitted his Ma&#'es$a$#o& a&* (s$#'#)a$#o&
explaining, primaril!, that he does not see< the examination,
verification or re-tabulation of election returns in the contested
precincts, and that R(,e =, Se). 4 8A: of the Rules of Procedure
must be read in conBunction .ith R(,e =, Se). 1 8A: thereof
.here it merel! presents a circumstance or situation .herein in
the event that the election protest or counter-protest .ould see<
the examination, verification or re-tabulation of election returns,
the part! see<ing such relief shall recommend the procedure to
be follo.ed &emphasis supplied'% In addition, Petitioner
believed that the insertion of the phrase :in case9 b! the Framers
of the Rules presents a circumstance that is subBect to a
condition --- that if such condition does not exist, then the said
provision is not applicable to the said part!, as in the case of
Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court'% Finall!, Petitioner
asserted that the sovereign .ill of the electorate must prevail
over a technicalit! since the! uneDuivocall! elected into office
herein Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court'(
.2. Ho.ever, citing the Supreme ourt ruling in Ca&rera v.
COMELEC *+.,. -o. .%&4, 8ctober #, %&&), the Honorable
Public Respondent ruled to declare Petitioner herein &Protestee
in the lo.er court' as in default and proceeded to direct that a
revision committee be created to perform the revision and
tabulation of ballots, and that onl! the revisors of the Protestant
&Private Respondent herein' ma! participate% "here .as no
more presentation of evidence and the Honorable Public
Respondent proceeded to render Budgment based on the
results of the revision or examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns in accordance .ith R(,e 4, Se). 4
8 ): of the Rules of Procedure, per Or*er
=
dated -ovember )4,
)0$/ of the Honorable Public Respondent(
.4. SubseDuentl!, the Revisors conducted the revision proceedings
and rendered their Re;#s#o& Re4or$ .herein the! confirmed
that there .ere sixt!-three &@/' :official9 ballots found inside the
5allot 5ox of C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B, :which was not
included in the en,elope but this was inside the Ballot Box* 2s
counted3 tabulated in witness of protestant representati,e, Ethel
.race 2urelio with protestee obser,er 0r* Es%ail $unsian!, the
nu%ber of ballots we counted is sixty4three ("5) and this was counted
under the na%e of Norudin $endatun &Private Respondent herein'
only
.&
', per Re;#s#o& Re4or$s 'or C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$s No.
61A+ 61B, 62A+ 62B a&* 67A
11
@
.'.,n March /, )0$1, the Honorable Public Respondent rendered
its #ppealed Or*er
12
&Decision' .herein it noted that
!
Annex E. "etition dated 1arch ./, %&.4.
.&
Pae ' of the ,evision ,eport for "recinct -o. /.49 /.:, Annex (.
..
Annexes (% )% *. "etition dated 1arch ./, %&.4
.%
upra* Annex I.
#
alle!ations of parties indicated that there were ballots dropped or
stuffed into the ballot boxes durin! the countin! when a brown out
occurred and despite of the fact that there were ballots drawn, still
the parties are uncertain whether the drawn ballots corresponded to
the nu%ber of ballots ille!ally dropped*
.2
'* #fter several
mathematical computations, the Honorable Public Respondent
observed that this fact supports the alle!ations of protestant
&Private Respondent herein' that his ,otes were excluded fro% the
countin!* -his also explains why there are excess and %issin! ballots
as disco,ered based on %athe%atical ,erification of data
.4
'6
.#."hen the Honorable Public Respondent concluded that the
data reflected in the election returns cannot be used to !au!e the true
results of the elections in -on!!ol, .en* */* $endatun,
0a!uindanao* -he ano%alies bein! perpetrated durin! the countin!,
it is presu%ed that the ballots are still credible e,idence than the
election returns
.'
6'
./."he Honorable Public Respondent further concluded that
$rotestant &Private Respondent herein' clai%ed that all the 75"
ballots under his na%e %ust be credited in his fa,or and the ballots in
the na%e of $rotestee &Petitioner herein' be in,alidated for bein!
written by one person* -hus, there is a need to sub(ect the ballots to
appreciation pursuant to the rules on appreciation of ballots
.#
6'
.. "he Honorable Public Respondent further stated that clearly,
the ano%alies as stated were all done durin! the countin! of ,otes
and not after the elections* It is but lo!ical that the ballots shall be
exa%ined and appreciated to deter%ine which ballots are authentic
and for who% shall the ballots be credited* It has been held that the
ballots are the best e,idence of the will of the electorate
78
'6
$C% Hence, the Honorable Public Respondent made a fresh
appreciation of ballots based on the claims and obBections of
Protestant;s &Private Respondent herein' revisor(
)0% #fter the fresh appreciation of ballots for the three &/'
protested precincts, the ne. tabulation of votes sho.ed that
Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' onl! had a total of 12=
valid votes, .hile Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er
court' received a total of 1<1 valid votes, or a lead of onl!
$"e&$y-$"o 822: ;o$es% "he Honorable Public Respondent
then declared Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er
court' as the dul!-elected Punong 5aranga! of 5rg!% "onggol,
S7P, Maguindanao(
.2
Pae +' of the 4ppealed 8rder dated 1arch 2, %&.4.
.4
upra* Pae +,.
.'
upra*
.#
upra* Pae +-.
./
upra* Pae ./.
/
%.. ,n March 3, )0$1, Petitioner filed a No$#)e o' A44ea,
1A
and
perfected the same after pa!ing the reDuired appeal fees(
%%. ,n March @, )0$1, Private Respondent filed a Mo$#o& 'or
E3e)($#o& o' (*g-e&$ Pe&*#&g A44ea,
1=
(
)/% ,n March $0, )0$1, Petitioner filed his O44os#$#o& $o $%e
Mo$#o& 'or E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea,
20
citing that Protestant
&Private Respondent herein' did not present superior
circumstances demanding urgenc! that .ould out.eigh the
inBur! or damage should Petitioner herein .ould be able to
secure a reversal on appeal, and that the .inning b! Protestant
&Private Respondent herein' .as not manifest in the decision of
the Honorable Public Respondent(
%4. "he parties .ere heard in the hearing called on March $$,
)0$1, and on the same da!, the Honorable Public Respondent
issued the assailed 8S4e)#a,: Or*er
21
granting the execution
pending appeal(
)3% Since Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' has alread!
filed and perfected his No$#)e o' A44ea, on March @, )0$1, the
ler< of ourt of the 1
th
Municipal ircuit "rial ourt of
Pagalungan-Datu Paglas-S%7% Pendatun-5uluan, Maguindanao
is alread! set to transmit the entire records of *lection ase
-o% 08-)0$/ to the Honorable ommission on *lections,
Intramuros, Manila, thereb! divesting the Honorable Municipal
"rial ourt of an! Burisdiction to entertain an! Motion for
Reconsideration from the Protestee &herein Petitioner', thus, b!
.a! of exception to the 6eneral Rule, this Instant Petition .as
filed .ithout an! Motion for Reconsideration filed .ith the
Honorable Municipal "rial ourt(
%#."his Instant Petition .ith Pra!er for the Issuance of a
"emporar! Restraining ,rder andA or Preliminar! InBunction
andA or tatus 1uo 2nte 9rder is being filed before the Honorable
ommission on *lections in aid of its #ppellate Eurisdiction as
provided for under Se). 12, R(,e 4 of the R(,es o' Pro)e*(re
#& E,e)$#o& Co&$es$s 5e'ore $%e Co(r$s I&;o,;#&g E,e)$#;e
M(&#)#4a, a&* Bara&gay O''#)#a,s 8A.M. No. 06-4-1< SC:(
THE !ROUNDS
)8% Private Respondent raised the follo.ing groundsG
.
Annexes 0% Annexs 01+ t!rou! 01". "etition dated 1arch ./, %&.4.
.!
upra* Annex 2.
%&
upra* Annex L.
%.
Annex A.

#% 2%e$%er or &o$ $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ a)$e*

"#$% gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& #& gra&$#&g $%e E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g
A44ea, o' #$s A44ea,e* De)#s#o& *a$e* Mar)% 10, 2014 #&
$%e E,e)$#o& Case No. 06-2017@
5% 2%e$%er or &o$ $%e Ho&ora5,e Co--#ss#o& o& E,e)$#o&s
a)B(#re* .(r#s*#)$#o& o;er $%e Pe$#$#o&er>s A44ea, a&*
$%e I&s$a&$ Pe$#$#o& 'or Cer$#orar# #& A#* o' #$s A44e,,a$e
(r#s*#)$#o& #& E,e)$#o& Pro$es$ Case No. 06-2017, a&*
$%e #&s$a&$ Pe$#$#o& 'or Cer$#orar#, )o&s#*er#&g $%e 'a#,(re
o' Pe$#$#o&er $o 4ay $%e reB(#re* *o)Ce$ 'ees as reB(#re*
(&*er Se)$#o& 7 a&* 4, R(,e 40 o' $%e COMELEC R(,es,
as a-e&*e*.
PETITIONER>S MAIN AR!UMENTS
)4% In ans.er to !ro(&* A, Petitioner posits, "H#" -- "#$%
a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ #ss(e* $%e Assa#,e* Or*er 'or
E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea, *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e
e3e)($#o& "as &o$ .(s$#'#e* as $%e ;#)$ory 5y Pr#;a$e
Res4o&*e&$ "as NOT -a&#'es$ #& $%e A44ea,e* De)#s#o&
'or $%e reaso& $%a$ $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ ---
I - Failed to consider the entries in the omputeri>ed
Hoters; +ist &H+' relative to the existence or inexistence
of illiterateA disabled voters .ho ma! have availed of
assisted voting, and instead relied mainl! on the :blan<9
and unaccomplished entries of the Minutes of Hoting and
ounting of Hotes(
II - ommitted a 6rave *rror .hen it miscalculated the
total ballots issued to the clustered precincts, totaling C30
ballots in all, using its o.n calculations, .ithout ta<ing into
consideration the entries of COMELEC C.E. 0or- No.
14, .hich indicated the actual total ballots issued to the
said precincts and their corresponding serial numbers,
.hich .as onl! 6<1 5a,,o$s@
III - ommitted a 6rave *rror .hen it included and
validated the @/ :inserted9 ballots that .ere alread!
invalidated b! the 55*" in Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5 during
the counting( and despite the fact that the validation of the
said @/ ballots .ould alread! exceed the number of
actual voters &)C/ voters' and even the total registered
voters &/3@ voters' in the said contested precinct(
IH - ommitted a 6rave *rror .hen it included and
validated the @/ :inserted9 ballots that .ere alread!
!
invalidated b! the 55*" in Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5 during
the counting, despite the fact the integrit! of the ballots
.ere alread! violated, and the fresh appreciation of
ballots .as not .arranted under the circumstances as this
.as not pleaded b! Private Respondent, .ho merel!
pra!ed for a :Budicial recount of ballots9, and despite the
fact that there .as no evidence presented that .ould
overturn the validit! of ballots filled-up using assisted
voting(
H - ommitted a 6rave *rror .hen it declared Petitioner
as in default for alleged failure to :propose the procedure
to be follo.ed9 during the Preliminar! onference even
though the same is not fatal(
)C% In ans.er to !ro(&* B, Petitioner posits, "H#" -- .ith all
due respect, Petitioner has perfected his #ppeal and that he
paid #++ the reDuired #ppeal Fees as prescribed under the
,M*+* Rules, as amended(
PETITIONER>S DETAILED DISCUSSION
ON !ROUND AD
I E 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ #ss(e* $%e Assa#,e* Or*er 'or
E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea, *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e e3e)($#o&
"as &o$ .(s$#'#e* as $%e ;#)$ory 5y Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$ "as NOT
-a&#'es$ #& $%e A44ea,e* De)#s#o& 'or $%e reaso& $%a$ P(5,#)
Res4o&*e&$ ,#-#$e* #$s 'o)(s o& $%e s(44ose* ,a)C o' e&$r#es #&
$%e 4or$#o& #&*#)a$#&g Ass#s$e* Fo$#&g #& $%e M#&($es o' Fo$#&g
a&* Co(&$#&g a&* $%a$ $%ere "as &o -e&$#o& o' "%e$%er or &o$
$%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ a,so $ooC #&$o )o&s#*era$#o&
$%e e&$r#es o' $%e Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL: re,a$#;e $o $%e
e3#s$e&)e o' #,,#$era$e or *#sa5,e* ;o$ers, #' a&y, "%o )as$ $%e#r
;o$es $%ro(g% ass#s$ors #& $%e )o&$es$e* 4re)#&)$s@
2&. 2hen the Honorable Public Respondent issued its #ssailed
8S4e)#a,: Or*er 'or E3e)($#o& o' (*g-e&$ Pe&*#&g
A44ea,
))
, it stated that the decision sou!ht to be executed pendin!
appeal spea:s for itself* -he decision of this +ourt sou!ht to be
executed confor%s to the prescribed %andatory for% of a decision in
ection ; of <ule 7= of 2*0* No* >84=4754+&In the said decision,
the defeat of the protestee )aud N* )alid or the ,ictory of the
protestant Norudin 2* $endatun has been clearly established&
;5
'
%%
Annex A.
%2
upra* Paes , and -.
.&
/$% 2hile it ma! be true that the said appealed Decision of
the Honorable Public Respondent conformed to the prescribed
mandator! form under the Rules of Procedure, ho.ever, .ith
all due respect, the victor! of Protestant &Private Respondent
herein' .as -," manifest in the appealed Decision as the
Honorable Public Respondent limited its focus in the supposed
lac< of entries in the portion indicating Hoting b! #ssistors in the
Minutes of Hoting and ounting of Hotes of the contested
precincts(
/)% 2ith all due respect, there .as no mention in the said
appealed Decision of .hether or not the Honorable Public
Respondent also too< into consideration the entries in the
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL: relative to the existence of
illiterate andA or disabled voters .ho ma! have cast their votes
in the said contested precincts(
22.In deciding that the ballots for Petitioner herein cannot be
credited in his favor, the Honorable Public Respondent ruled
that :it is ob,iously ?ritten By 9ne person as seen in the scratches,
dents, loops, stro:es and slants* -he %inutes of ,otin! and countin!
do not indicate that illiterates and3 or persons with disabilities ,oted
throu!h assistors*' It then cited the Supreme ourt;s ruling in
Balinit v. COMELEC *+.,. -o. ./&2&&, 0ebruary !, %&&/) in
declaring that the said ballots must be ruled to be of single
authorship and must be reBected(
24.#s a matter of fact, all its ruling on the invalidation of ballots
credited in favor of Petitioner herein bore the same notation and
the same citation made in Balinit v. COMELEC3
/3% Infortunatel!, the M#&($es o' Fo$#&g a&* Co(&$#&g for
the contested precincts cannot be relied upon as these .ere
mostl! left blan< b! the 5aranga! 5oard of *lection "ellers
&55*"', .ith even basic information as serial numbers of
ballots or the time .hen the election started and ended left
unaccomplished(
/@% *xpectedl!, the portion for :Hoting b! IlliterateA Person
.ith Disabilit! &P2D'9, .here the assistors .ere to declare
under oath, to print and sign their names therein, .ere all left
blan< and not accomplished, per copies of the M#&($es o'
Fo$#&g a&* Co(&$#&g 'or Pre)#&)$s No. 61A+ 61B, 62A+ 62B
a&* 67A
24
@
/8% Hence, the M#&($es o' Fo$#&g a&* Co(&$#&g, as the!
.ere substantiall! left unaccomplished, could not be relied
upon and could not be a valid basis to determine .hether or not
the ballots bearing the same hand.ritings .ere filled-up b!
assistors% In short, the Minutes of Hoting and ounting .ere
%4
upra* Annexes M% M1+% M1'.
..
not reliable source of information to determine the existence or
non-existence of illiterate voters or persons .ith disabilities .ho
ma! have voted in these contested precincts(
2. Ipon the other hand, the Honorable ourt .as not left .ith
other options for it can readil! reDuest for copies of the
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL: from the Provincial *lection
Supervisor of Maguindanao or the *lection ,fficer of the
Municipalit! of 6en% S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao% #s a matter
of fact, Petitioner herein .as able to obtain such copies of the
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL:
2<
(
/C% In the said Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL:, the fact
that a voter is illiterate or disabled is indicated beside their
respective name and address as either HII or HDI% #s a matter
of fact, comparing the H+ .ith the E,e)$#o& Day
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL:
2?
, .hich .ere the copies
attached b! Private Respondent herein in his *lection Protest
and are also hereto adopted in this Instant Petition, it .ould
clearl! sho. that there .ere as follo.sG
Ta5,e 1D I,,#$era$e+ D#sa5,e* Fo$ers "%o A)$(a,,y
Fo$e* #& Co-4ar#so& "#$% $%e N(-5er o' Reg#s$ere* I,,#$era$e+
D#sa5,e* Fo$ers, $%e To$a, N(-5er o' Reg#s$ere* Fo$ers, a&* $%e
To$a, N(-5er o' Fo$ers "%o A)$(a,,y Fo$e*
C,(s$ere*
Pre)#&)$ No.
To$a, No. o'
Reg#s$ere*
Fo$ers
&per both the
H+ and
*DH+'
Fo$ers
"%o
a)$(a,,y
;o$e* &per
*DH+'
No. o'
Reg#s$ere*
I,,#$era$e+
D#sa5,e*
Fo$ers
&per H+'
I,,#$era$e+
D#sa5,e*
Fo$ers "%o
a)$(a,,y
;o$e*
&per *DH+'
61A+ 61B
/3@ )C/
)8
$04 4@
62A+ 62B
)C$ )$1
)4
30 /4
67A
$01 44 /$ )3
To$a,
6<1 <=< 1A= 14=
10% Hence, if the Honorable Public Respondent onl! too< into
consideration the entries on the Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$
8CFL:, .hich .as readil! available upon reDuest, and not relied
mainl! on the blan< entries in the Minutes of Hoting and
ounting, then it .ould be able to determine that there .ere a
total of 1A= registered illiterate andA or disabled voters in the
contested precincts, and that, comparing the said H+ .ith the
E,e)$#o& Day Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL:, .hich .as
%'
upra* Annexes 4% 41+% 41'% 415 and 41/.
%#
upra* Annexes O% O1+ and O1'
%/
7here were discrepancies in the figure based in 3;<=> and that reported in the
3lection ,eturn and the 5tatement of =otes by "recinct where the voters who actually
voted was listed as 555.
%
7here were discrepancies in the figure based in 3;<=> and that reported in the
3lection ,eturn and the 5tatement of =otes by "recinct where the voters who actually
voted was listed as '"6.
.%
readil! attached to the Private Respondent;s *lection Protest as
one of his annexes and exhibits, then it .ould be able to
reasonabl! ascertain that there a total of roughl! o&e %(&*re*
'or$y-&#&e 814=: registered illiterate andA or disabled voters .ho
actuall! voted in the protested precincts during the 5aranga!
*lections in 5rg!% "onggol, 6en% S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao(
1$% 5ased from the said computation, the fact that there .ere
14= #,,#$era$e+ *#sa5,e* ;o$ers .ho actuall! voted in these
contested precincts .ould alread! support the premise that the
o&e %(&*re* e,e;e& 8111: ;o$es that .ere invalidated b! the
Honorable Public Respondent during the revision proceedings
from the votes previousl! credited to Petitioner herein
&Protestee in the lo.er court' on the ground that the same .ere
:.ritten b! one person9, could ver! .ell be resulting from a
validl!-obtained assisted voting, as can be readil! verified from
both the Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL: and E,e)$#o& Day
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL:@
1)% "hat the Honorable Public Respondent could readil!
obtain the said omputeri>ed Hoters; +ist &H+' from either the
Provincial *lection Supervisor of Maguindanao or the *lection
,fficer of 6en% S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao cannot be
undermined since it even reDuested for the :securit! mar<ings9
from the Honorable ommission on *lections &,M*+*' in
Intramuros, Manila, and that it did not commence the ph!sical
examination of ballots until it has received the said :securit!
mar<ings9 from ,M*+*-Manila(
1/% Ho.ever, .ith all due respect, the Honorable Public
Respondent did not consider other avenues, notabl! the entries
in the omputeri>ed Hoters; +ist &H+' in order to be properl!
apprised of the existence of illiterate andA or disabled voters in
the contested precincts% Hence, .ith all due respect, the
ph!sical examination on the ballots conducted b! the
Honorable Public Respondent on the basis onl! of the lac< of
entries in the Minutes of Hoting and ounting .as incomplete(
11% It also follo.s that it being unclear in the #ppealed
Decision .hether the Honorable Public Respondent exhausted
all measures to determine the existence or inexistence of
illiterate andA or disabled voters .ho availed of assisted voting,
and that in the event that the said ballots could not have been
invalidated should the Honorable Public Respondent
considered the entries in the Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$
8CFL:, then it follo.s that the victor! of the Protestant &Private
Respondent herein' and the defeat of the Petitioner herein
&Protestee in the lo.er court' are unclear and not manifest in
the said Decision(
.2
4'.In the more recent ruling in Leonor Dangan-Corral v. COMELEC
[En Banc, G.R. No. 190156, Feb. 12, 2010], the Supreme ourt
declared, thus ---
A valid exercise of discretion to allow execution
pending appeal requires that it must be manifest in the decision
sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the
victory of the protestant have been clearly established. The
Rules of Procedure in Election Contests now embody this
doctrine, which the Comelec has in the past given value to and
used in resolving cases before it, and which has formed part of
our jurisprudence.
xxxxxxxxx
In the present case, the victory of the protestant and the
defeat of the protestee were not clearly established in the
Decision because of the RTCs failure to conform to the
prescribed form of the Decision. Because of said infirmity,
there is no certainty, it not being mentioned in the Decision, on
whether the ballots of those who voted through assistors were
also invalidated or not, in conjunction with the lack of a
specific number of ballots invalidated for being written by one
person. The ballots of those who voted through assistors, if
any, could validly be written by one person. It being unclear
from the Decision whether these ballots, if any, were
invalidated, it follows that the victory of the protestant and
defeat of the protestee are unclear and not manifest therein.
Consequently, to allow the execution of such a grossly
infirm RTC Decision in disregard of established jurisprudence
and clear and straightforward rules is arbitrary and whimsical
and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
4#. #lso, in the eparate +oncurrin! 9pinion of Mr% Eustice #ntonio "%
arpio in another more recent ruling in Mendo7a v. COMELEC
*En Banc, +.,. -o. .!.&4, 1arch %', %&.&), the good Mr% Eustice
arpio declared, thus ---
I vote to grant the petition solely on the ground of
the incomplete appreciation of the contested ballots, and
not on the ground that the decision of the COMELEC
Second Division was abandoned, resulting in the dismissal
of the election protest, when the COMELEC En Banc
failed to reach a majority decision. (emphasis ours'
The fundamental reason for granting the petition
is the incomplete appreciation of the contested ballots.
Section 211 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (BP 881),
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the
Philippines, states that [i]n the reading and appreciation of
.4
ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless
there is a clear and good reason to justify its rejection. It is
therefore imperative that extreme caution be exercised
before any ballot is invalidated, and in the appreciation of
ballots, doubts should be resolved in favor of their validity.
For after all, the primary objective in the appreciation of
ballots is to discover and give effect to the intention of the
voter and, thus, preserve the sanctity of the electoral
process. (emphasis supplied'
4/.In another recent ruling in #elos 8e9es v. COMELEC *En Banc,
+.,. -8. ./&&/&, 0eb. %, %&&/
%!
), the Supreme ourt li<e.ise
declared, thus ----
Indeed, even if it is patent on the face of the ballots
that these were written by only one person, that fact alone
cannot invalidate said ballots for it may very well be that,
under the system of assisted voting, the latter was duly
authorized to act as an assistor and prepare all said ballots.
To hinder disenfranchisement of assisted voters, it is
imperative that, in the evaluation of ballots contested on
the ground of having been prepared by one person, the
COMELEC first verify from the Minutes of Voting or
the Computerized Voters List for the presence of
assisted voters in the contested precinct and take this
fact into account when it evaluates ballots bearing
similar handwritings. Omission of this verification
process will render its reading and appreciation of the
ballots incomplete.
In the present case, COMELECs appreciation of
the 44 contested ballots was deficient for it referred
exclusively to said ballots without consulting the Minutes
of Voting or the Computerized Voters List to verify the
presence of assisted voters in the contested precincts.
Thus, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in overturning the presumption of validity of the
44 ballots and in declaring them invalid based on an
incomplete appreciation of said ballots. &emphasis ours'
14% onseDuentl!, .ith all due respect, to allo. the execution
of such grossl! infirm #ppealed Decision b! the Honorable
Public Respondent in disregard of firml! established
Burisprudence and clear and straightfor.ard rules is arbitrar!
and .himsical and constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lac< or excess of Burisdiction(
%!
,eiterated in the eparate +oncurrin! 9pinion of 1r. ?ustice 4ntonio 7. <arpio in
Mendo7a v. COMELEC% supra6 Citing #e )u7man v. Commission on Ele:tions, +.,.
-o. .'!/.2, 1arch 2., %&&4, 4%# 5<,4 #!, /&/@/&A ;orres v. *ouse of
8epresentatives Ele:toral ;ri&unal, 4&4 "hil. .%' $%&&.(
.'
II E 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ #ss(e* $%e Assa#,e* Or*er 'or
E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea, *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e e3e)($#o&
"as &o$ .(s$#'#e* as $%e ;#)$ory 5y Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$ "as NOT
-a&#'es$ #& $%e A44ea,e* De)#s#o& 'or $%e reaso& $%a$ P(5,#)
Res4o&*e&$, #& 4ro-(,ga$#&g #$s A44ea,e* De)#s#o&, r(,e* $%a$
$%ere "ere a,,ege*,y 4<0 o''#)#a, 5a,,o$s 8or = 4a*s: #ss(e* #&
Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B@ 7<0 o''#)#a, 5a,,o$s 8or 6 4a*s: #ss(e* #&
Pre)#&)$ No. 62A+ 62B@ a&* 1<0 o''#)#a, 5a,,o$s 8or 7 4a*s: #ss(e*
#& Pre)#&)$ No. 67A@ "%e& $%ese '#g(res "ere e&$#re,y *#''ere&$
a&* )o&$rary $o $%a$ s$a$e* #& COMELEC C.E. 0or- No. 14 o& '#,e
"#$% $%e M(&#)#4a, Treas(rer>s O''#)e o' !e&. S.9. Pe&*a$(&,
Mag(#&*a&ao a&* $%e E,e)$#o& O''#)er $%erea$@
1C% In promulgating its #ppealed Decision, the Honorable
Public Respondent ruled that there .ere allegedl! &#&e 8=:
4a*s
/0
of 30 ballots each pad or a total of 4<0
/$
official ballots
that .ere issued b! the ,M*+* for contested C,(s$ere*
Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B( that there .ere allegedl! se;e& 86:
4a*s
/)
of 30 ballots each pad or a total of 7<0
//
official ballots
issued for contested C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 62A+ 62B( and
that there .ere allegedl! $%ree 87: 4a*s
/1
of 30 ballots each
pad or a total of 1<0
/3
official ballots that .ere issued for
contested Pre)#&)$ No. 67A(
'&. omparing the revision results .ith that of the *lection Returns
for lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5, the Honorable Public
Respondent could have readil! observed that there appeared to
be glaring discrepancies in the number of ,fficial 5allots inside
the 5allot 5ox as compared to that reported in the *lection
Return. No$a5,y, $%ere "as a s(**e& #&)rease o' O''#)#a,
Ba,,o$s 'or C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B, a&* -ore
s4e)#'#)a,,y, #$ "as )o&'ro&$e* 5y $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%ere "ere
O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s 8$o$a,#&g A<
/@
#& a,,:, "%#)% )o(,* &o$ 5e
$ra)e* 'ro- e#$%er $%e (44er s$(5s or $%e ,o"er s$(5s@
'.. It .ould be recalled that Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court'
and Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er court' both
asserted that there .ere official ballots, .hich .ere dropped or
inserted inside the 5allot 5ox for lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A
2&
Paes +/ and +"% 4ppealed ;ecision, Annex I
2.
upra*
2%
upra* Pae .5.
22
upra*
24
upra* Pae -,.
2'
upra*
2#
<omputed at 5,- minus '65, which was the number of voters who actually voted for
"recinct -os. /.49 /.:. 7he 5,- figure was obtained by adding 5+" ballots which were
drawn from the :allot :oB by the revisors as stated in their ,evision ,eport $please see
Annex (% pae '< and the .5 ballots, which "rotestant $"ublic ,espondent herein(
claimed that were eBcluded by the ::37, and which was also confirmed by the revisors.
.#
8$5% #s a matter of fact, even the Honorable Public
Respondent also ac<no.ledged in her #ppealed Decision that
both the parties herein alleged that there .ere ballots dropped
or stuffed into the ballot boxes during the counting .hen a
bro.n out occurred
/8
(
'%. "he Honorable Public Respondent further noted that durin! the
actual re,ision, the re,isors found "5 ballots folded to!ether which
were not placed in the en,elope where the ,alid ballots were put
to!ether* -he "5 ballots were in the na%e of $rotestant Norudin
$endatun &Private Respondent herein'
/4
9% "he Honorable Public
Respondent then concluded that this fact supports the
alle!ations of protestant that his ,otes were excluded fro% the
countin!* -his also explains why there are excess and %issin! ballots
as disco,ered based on %athe%atical ,erification of data
/C
69
3/% Hence, in order to .(s$#'y that the @/ ballots that .ere
found inside the 5allot 5ox of lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5
that .ere earlier excluded b! the 55*", be included again
among the genuine and valid ballots, the Honorable Public
Respondent .rongl! concluded that the supposed total number
of ballots issued to lustered Precint -o% 8$#A 8$5, .ere &#&e
8=: 4a*s or 4<0 5a,,o$s, as derived from its o.n computations,
although the same .as not verified from the records existing at
the Municipal "reasurer;s ,ffice or the *lection ,fficer of 6en%
S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao(
'4.Since it .as no. confronted b! a sudden increase in the
number of official ballots, .hich could not be traced from the
serial numbers of either the upper stubs or the lo.er stubs,
either used or unused, the Honorable Public Respondent
.rongl! declared that fro% the fore!oin! serial nu%bers, it can be
said that there were 9 pads released to precinct 8723 87B@ N
>>7;=>7 to >>7;8>>&
=>
' and forth.ith proceeded to ma<e
mathematical computations in order to arrive at certain number
of figures, such as the :pieces of ballots that should be found in
the 5allot 5ox9 or the number of :missing ballots9 or :excess
ballots9, etc%(
33% #t the outset, and loo<ing at the serial numbers as
mentioned b! the Honorable Public Respondent, if one .ould
reall! compute the number of ,fficial 5allots covered b! SN
0012401 $o 0012600, the result .ould be $%ree %(&*re* 8700:
O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s o&,y, .hich is derived b! deducting S-
00$)10$ from S- 00$)800 and adding $% "his is contrar! to
the earlier computation of the Honorable Public Respondent
.hen it said that there .ere :C pads9 or 130 ballots released to
Precinct -o% 8$#A 8)5 .ith S- 00$)10$ to 00$)800% #t this
2/
upra* Pae +'% +.% +, and .5.
2
upra* Pae +,.
2!
upra*
4&
upra* Pae +/.
./
point, the Honorable Public Respondent alread! committed a
serious mathematical error, and its succeeding :computations9,
no matter ho. exhaustive the! ma! seem, .ere also erroneous
as the! .ere premised on a .rong number of ballots
supposedl! released to the said contested precinct, .hich is
:1309 ballots% 2ith all due respect, perhaps even the
Honorable Public Respondent .as confused .ith the seemingl!
:irreconcilable9 computations that confronted it resulting from
the increase in the number of :unaccountable9 ballots, .hich
.ere dra.n from the 5allot 5ox(
'#. Hence, based from the said .rongl! premised computations of
the total number of ,fficial 5allots issued for Precinct -o% 8$#A
8$5, the Honorable Public Respondent proceeded to conduct a
ph!sical examination of all $%ree %(&*re* se;e&$y-e#g%$ 876A:
5a,,o$s &computed as /$3
1$
ballots as dra.n from the 5allot
5ox plus @/ ballots that .ere also seen inside the 5allot 5ox
but .hich .ere earlier excluded b! the 55*" during the
counting', and from there, deducted several valid and official
ballots earlier credited to Petitioner herein &as Protestee in the
lo.er court' on the premise that the same .as :.ritten b! one
person9(
38% "he same .as also true for C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$s No.
62A+ 62B and 67A, .herein the Honorable Public Respondent
li<e.ise erred in computing for the total number of ,fficial
5allots supposedl! received b! these precincts% Infortunatel!,
after re-tabulation of ballots, the Honorable Public Respondent
declared that Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er court'
.as the .inner in the baranga! elections(
34% Ho.ever, .ith all due respect, aside from the fact that the
derivation of supposed 130 :issued9 ballots for lustered
Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5( supposed /30 :issued9 ballots for
lustered Precinct -o% 8)#A 8)5( and supposed $30 :issued9
ballots for Precinct -o% 8/# resulted from an erroneous
mathematical computation b! the Honorable Public
Respondent, the same .as also entirel! different and contrar!
to that stated in COMELEC C.E. 0or- No. 14 or $%e
Cer$#'#)a$e o' Re)e#4$ o' O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s, O$%er 0or-s a&*
S(44,#es 5y $%e Boar* o' E,e)$#o& Te,,ers
42
on file .ith the
Municipal "reasurer;s ,ffice of 6en% S%7% Pendatun,
Maguindanao and the *lection ,fficer thereat, .hich .ere
accomplished b! the Municipal "reasurer;s ,ffice thereof on
-ovember )4, )0$/, the election da! itself(
4.
Pae ', ,evision ,eport for "recinct -o. /.49 /.:, Annex (A although if compared
to the entries under -otal No* of Aoters who 2ctually Aoted' as stated in the Ele:tion
8eturn for "recinct -o. /.49 /.:, and the =tatement of Votes per Pre:in:t, wherein it
was stated that the number of voters who actually voted was stated, albeit erroneously, as
555, there would seem to be an eBcess of . ballots.
4%
Annexes P% P1+ and P1'% "etition dated 1arch ./, %&.4.
.
3C% In the said COMELEC C.E. 0or- No. 14, it is ver! clear
that the follo.ing .ere the a)$(a, &(-5er o' O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s
"#$% $%e#r )orres4o&*#&g Ser#a, N(-5ers that .ere released
to the three &/' contested precincts, thus ---
Ta5,e 2D N(-5er o' Ba,,o$s A)$(a,,y Re,ease*
To $%e C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$s o' Brgy. To&ggo,, S9P, Mag(#&*a&ao
A&* $%e )orres4o&*#&g Ser#a, N(-5ers o' Ba,,o$s 4er
C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ 5ase* o& COMELEC C.E. 0or- No. 14
C,(s$ere*
Pre)#&)$ No.
No. o' O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s
A)$(a,,y Re,ease* o&
E,e)$#o& Day
Ser#a, N(-5ers o'
Ba,,o$s Re,ease* o&
E,e)$#o& Day
8$#A 8$5 /3@ 00$)/3@ 00$)8$$
8)#A 8)5 )C$ 00$)8$) 00$/00)
8/# $01 00$/00/ 00$/$0@
"otal 6<1
@0% -ote that the total number of ,fficial 5allots actuall!
released .as 6<1 Ba,,o$s, .hich clearl! corresponds to the
"otal -umber of Registered Hoters as per appearing in the
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL: and the E,e)$#o& Day
Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL: and also indicated in
Ta5,e 1 above% Hence, there .as no room for excess ,fficial
5allots as their corresponding serial numbers .ere clearl!
indicated(
@$% -ote further that .hen .e deduct the starting serial
number from the ending serial number, as in the case of
lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5, .hereG S- 00$)8$$ minus
00$)/3@, then add $ to the difference, the ans.er .ould be
7<?, .hich .ould correspond to the total number of registered
voters in the said clustered precinct% "he same also holds for
Precinct 8)#A 8)5, .hereG S- 00$/00) minus 00$)8$) plus $,
the ans.er is 2=1( and finall! for Precinct -o% 8/#, .here S-
00$/$0@ minus 00$/00/ plus $, the ans.er is 104. In short,
there can be no mista<ing that the total number of valid ballots
issued, .ith their corresponding serial numbers, correspond
e3a)$,y to the total number of registered voters of the said
clustered precincts(
@)% In contrast, the Honorable Public Respondent, in
promulgating its #ppealed Decision, based on its erroneous
computations, declared that there .ere supposedl! a total of
=<0 HO''#)#a,I Ba,,o$s released to the three &/' clustered
precincts &computed as 130 plus /30 plus $30 ballots'% 2%a$
$%e&, "as $%e 5as#s o' $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ #&
)o-#&g (4 "#$% =<0 Ho''#)#a,I 5a,,o$s s(44ose*,y re,ease*
$o $%e sa#* 4re)#&)$sJ Infortunatel!, there .as &o&e@ for
aside from the fact that the C30 figures resulted from an
.!
erroneous computation of a .rong premise, the same could not
also be independentl! verified from an! ,M*+* source(
@/% In addition, for C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 62A+ 62B, the
Honorable Public Respondent also declared that eleven &$$'
used upper stubs and lo.er stubs bearing SN 0012601 $o
0012611
47
.ere allegedl! :missing9% Ho.ever, a cursor!
verification of ,M*+* %*% Form -o% $1 or the ertificate of
Receipt of ,fficial 5allots .ould clearl! sho. that these eleven
&$$' supposedl! :missing9 ballots .ere actuall! issued and
released to C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B% -ote that the
ending serial number for said precinct .as SN 0012611
44
,
.hich corresponds to the ending serial number of the
supposedl! :missing9 stub in Precinct -o% 8)#A 8)5(
#4. #lso, the Honorable Public Respondent declared that t.o &)'
official ballots bearing SN 0017001 $o 0017002
4<
.ere found
among those .ith used upper stubs and used lo.er stubs,
.hile fort!-eight &14' pieces, bearing SN 0017007 $o 00170<0,
.ere also supposedl! :missing9% Ho.ever, another cursor!
verification at ,M*+* %*% Form -o% $1 or the ertificate of
Receipt of ,fficial 5allots .ould clearl! sho. that these fort!-
eight &14' supposedl! :missing9 ballots .ere actuall! issued
and released to Pre)#&)$ No. 67A% -ote that the starting serial
number for said precinct .as SN 0017007
4?
, .hich corresponds
to the starting serial number of the supposedl! :missing9 stub in
Precinct -o% 8)#A 8)5(
@3% #s a matter of fact, further verif!ing the same from the
records of the #ppealed Decision .ould clearl! sho. that the
Honorable Public Respondent actuall! :found9 the supposedl!
missing 14 used upper and lo.er stubs as among those in
Pre)#&)$ No. 67A% -ote that the Honorable Public Respondent
declared that, among the used upper stubs found in Precinct
-o% 8/#, .ere those bearing SN 0017000 $o 00170<0
46


&although again, it erroneousl! stated that the upper stub
bearing S- 00$/000 to 00$/00) .ere again :missing9, but
these ) stubs .ere among those validl! issued to lustered
Precinct -o% 8)#A 8)5'% -ote also that the Honorable Public
Respondent found that there .ere fifteen &$3' torn unused
ballots bearing SN 001707< $o 00170<0% Hence, .ith all due
respect, the said fort!-eight &14' pieces, bearing SN 0017007 $o
00170<0 .ere not actuall! missing in lustered Precinct -o%
8)#A 8)5, since the same .ere validl! issued to Pre)#&)$ No.
67A, as can be clearl! verified from ,M*+* %*% Form -o%
$1 and also reading from the #ppealed Decision itself(
42
Annex I% Appealed #e:ision. Pae .+.
44
;a&le '.
4'
upra* Annex I% Appealed #e:ision. Pae .+.
4#
;a&le '.
4/
upra* Annex I% Appealed #e:ision. Pae -,.
%&
@@% Indeed, if onl! the Honorable Public Respondent verified
its computations from the ertificate of Receipt of ,fficial
5allots &,M*+* %*% Form -o% $1', it .ould not have made
several erroneous computations and assumptions of the
supposedl! actual number of ,fficial 5allots issued to the
contested precincts(
@8% Ho.ever, the said #ppealed Decision .as bereft of an!
mention that the Honorable Public Respondent resorted to a
verification of the ,fficial 5allots actuall! released to the
contested clustered Precincts b! the Municipal "reasurer;s
,ffice of 6en% S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao% It .ould onl!
sho. that the Honorable Public Respondent did not consider
other competent sources of information in order to verif! the
correct number of 5allots released to the contested precincts(
#.ertainl!, in general, if the Honorable Public Respondent .ould
have based its ph!sical examination of ballots for the three &/'
contested precincts on C30 supposedl! issued ballots, then it
.ould necessaril! include in its erroneous computations, the @/
inserted and excess ballots bearing the name of Private
Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er court', and in the end,
.ould have un.ittingl! and un<no.ingl! committed padding of
votes (da!da!4bawas' in the local parlance' in favor of Private
Respondent, to the preBudice of Petitioner herein(
@C% onseDuentl!, .ith all due respect, to allo. the execution
of such grossl! infirm #ppealed Decision b! the Honorable
Public Respondent based on an erroneous computation of
ballots and in disregard of the actual number of ,fficial 5allots
actuall! released to the contested lustered Precincts is
arbitrar! and .himsical, and constitutes grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lac< or excess of Burisdiction(
III E 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ #ss(e* $%e Assa#,e* Or*er 'or
E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea, *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e e3e)($#o&
"as &o$ .(s$#'#e* as $%e ;#)$ory 5y Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$ "as NOT
-a&#'es$ #& $%e A44ea,e* De)#s#o& 'or $%e reaso& $%a$ P(5,#)
Res4o&*e&$, #& 4ro-(,ga$#&g #$s A44ea,e* De)#s#o&, )o(&$e* $%e
s#3$y-$%ree 8?7: *ro44e* a&* #&;a,#* 5a,,o$s as a-o&g $%e
ge&(#&e 5a,,o$s #& Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B, a&* %e&)e, #$ ;a,#*a$e*
$%ose 5a,,o$s $%a$ "ere ear,#er *e),are* #&;a,#* a&* e3),(*e* 5y
$%e BBET "#$% $%e C&o",e*ge a&* )o&se&$ o' $%e E,e)$#o&
O''#)er. As a res(,$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ #-4(g&e*
$%e ;a,#*#$y o' $%e e,e)$#o& re$(r& as 4re4are* 5y $%e BBET a&*
re-$a5(,a$e* $%e sa#* e,e)$#o& re$(r& $aC#&g #&$o )o&s#*era$#o&
$%e s#3$y-$%ree 8?7: #&;a,#* 5a,,o$s, e;e& $%o(g% $%e $o$a, res(,$s
$%ereo' "o(,* a,rea*y e3)ee* $%e &(-5er o' reg#s$ere* ;o$ers
%.
a&* $%e &(-5er o' ;o$ers "%o a)$(a,,y ;o$e* #& Pre)#&)$ No.
61A+ 61B@
80% Petitioner herein most respectfull! repleads b! reference
all his previous assertions as the! are relevant and applicable(
/..#s previousl! argued, since the Honorable Public Respondent
based its ph!sical examination of ballots for lustered Precinct
-o% 8$#A 8$5 on the 130 supposedl! issued ballots, then it
.ould have necessaril! included in its erroneous computations,
the sixt!-three &@/' inserted and excess ballots bearing the
name of Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er court',
and in the end, it .as not Bust a case of non-appreciation of
votes, but a literal increase or padding of votes (da!da!4
bawas' in the local parlance' in favor of Private Respondent, to
the preBudice of Petitioner herein(
8)% It must be recalled that the Honorable Public Respondent
rightl! observed that there .ere $"o %(&*re* &#&e$y-$%ree
82=7: 4#e)es (se* ,o"er s$(5s
4A
found and counted .ith their
corresponding serial numbers% Ipon cursor! verification, these
figures actuall! correspond to the total number of voters .ho
actuall! voted per the individual signatures and thumbprints of
voters as appearing in the E,e)$#o& Day Co-4($er#Ge*
Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL:
4=
.herein it can be seen that there .ere
2=7 a)$(a, s#g&a$(res a&* $%(-54r#&$s o' ;o$ers, and .hich
.ere actuall! the same set of documents adopted from
Protestant;s &Private Respondent herein' o.n evidence and
attached to his E,e)$#o& Pro$es$
30
(
8/% Perforce, #' $%ere "ere o&,y 2=7 ;o$ers "%o a)$(a,,y
;o$e* #& C,(s$ere* Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B, %o" *#* $%e
Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$ )o-e (4 "#$% o$%er '#g(res,
&o$a5,y 7?A or 76A ;o$es
<1
J
81% "he 76A ;o$es .ere derived using the follo.ing
computations, to .itG
$% Hotes for Protestant per Revision $3@
#ddG Hotes for Protestee per Revision - $1/
Hotes for ,ther candidates per revision - @0
3)
Hotes .ith no Punong 5aranga! - $C
"otal Hotes counted 76A 5a,,o$s
JJJJJJJJ
4
upra* Pae +6.
4!
Annex O.
'&
Annex C.
'.
Annex I% pae +.% computation no. 4A although the Conorable "ublic ,espondent
again miscalculated the total votes at only 5.- votes because it erroneously computed the
votes for other candidates at only '& votes, when the 3lection ,eturns showed that it
was #., while the ,evision ,esults totaled #& $"age %, Annex ((.
'%
upra*
%%
)he said computation can be veri%ied as %ollows,
)% 5allots found inside the 5allot 5ox
during Revision of Precincts 8$#A 8$5 - /$3
3/
#ddG 5allots that .ere dropped into
"he ballot box during the
ounting and claimed b!
Protestant, .hich .as also found
During Revision - @/
31

"otal 5allots found 76A 5a,,o$s
JJJJJJJJJJ
-sing the derivative %igures o% ./0 ballots,
the %ollowing were the actual #e1cess$
ballots discovered inside the *allot
*o1 during Revision proceedings,
/% "otal 5allots found inside the 5allot 5ox
verified from the number of votes received b!
all candidates &computations $ and ) above' - /84
+essG -umber of Hoters .ho actuall! voted - )C/
33

-et :*xcess9 5allots A< 5a,,o$s
Found inside the 5allot 5ox JJJJJJJJJJ
/'. Put differentl!, .hen the revisors opened the 5allot 5ox in
lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5, the! .ere confronted b! the
fact that there .ere e#g%$y-'#;e 8A<: e3)ess 5a,,o$s, .hose
upper and lo.er stubs could not be traced to the serial
numbers% "hat there .ere :excess
3@
9 ballots .ere also li<e.ise
confirmed b! the Honorable Public Respondent(
8@% Perhaps this .ould tend to support the earlier claim b!
Petitioner herein &Protestee in the lo.er court' that, even after
the @/ ballots .ere alread! excluded b! the 55*" during the
counting, there .ere still Kinvalid; ballots that .ere not
completel! excluded as the tall! in the *lection Return &///
voters' did not correspond to the actual number of voters &)C/
voters' and that Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' .atchers had to
again complain to EO Ra('*e& Ma&ge,e& to also exclude the
excess ballots, to .hich the latter refused, sa!ing that Protestee
&Petitioner herein' had more than enough votes to .in the
'2
Annex (% 8evision 8eport% page %.
'4
upra* Pae +5% in relation to the ,evision ,eport $Annex (, page %(
''
Annex I* Pae +6 $used lower stubs( in relation to the individual signatures and
thumbprints appearing on E#CVL $Annex O<% which, when totaled, would result to
'65 voters with signatures and thumbprints.
'#
upra* Pae +/ in relation to Pae +.% wherein the Conorable "ublic ,espondent
declared that there were '& ballots drawn from the ballot boB, and that there were %.
eBcess ballots per no. 4 computation $although the correct figure must be 5+ eBcess
ballots as already eBplained in footnote 22 above. Cence, per the Conorable "ublic
,espondentDs computations, there were -+ eBcess ballots either drawn from the ballot
boB or resulting from its computation, as corrected.
%2
election despite the presence of the Kexcess; ballots that .ere
earlier dropped during the bro.nout, but .hich .ere not
completel! excluded from the counting(
88% 5ut it still does not ans.er the Duestion as to ho. did the
Honorable Public Respondent Bustifi! the presence of /84
ballots inside the 5allot 5ox during revisionL 5! declaring,
albeit erroneousl!, that the total ballots issued to lustered
Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5 .ere 4<0 5a,,o$s or &#&e 8=: 4a*s(
84% Ho.ever, .ith all due respect, even if the Honorable
Public Respondent .ould base its computation to either 76A or
7?A
38
, still it could not reconcile these figures .ith either the
"otal -umber of Registered Hoters at $%ree %(&*re* '#'$y-s#3
87<?: , the number of .hich exactl! corresponds to the total
entries in both the Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8CFL:
<A
, the
E,e)$#o& Day Co-4($er#Ge* Fo$ers> L#s$ 8EDCFL:
<=
as .ell
as COMELEC C.E. 0or- No. 14
?0
as to the exact number of
,fficial 5allots issued to said clustered precinct, .ith their
corresponding serial numbers(
8C% T%a$ $%ere "ere $%ree 87: *#''ere&$ COMELEC
*o)(-e&$s a$$es$#&g $o $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%ere "ere o&,y $%ree
%(&*re* '#'$y-s#3 87<?: $o$a, reg#s$ere* ;o$ers 'or C,(s$ere*
Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B a&* o&,y $%ree %(&*re* '#'$y-s#3 87<?:
O''#)#a, Ba,,o$s #ss(e* $%ere#&, "#$% $%e#r )orres4o&*#&g
ser#a, &(-5ers, s%o(,* &o$ .(s$ 5e $o$a,,y (&*er-#&e* a&*
s%o(,* &o$ %a;e go&e (&&o$#)e* 5y $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#)
Res4o&*e&$@
40% Hence, .hen the Honorable Public Respondent
conducted a ph!sical examination of a total of 76A 5a,,o$s
found in lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5 during revision, it
un.ittingl! and un<no.ingl! included in its examination, not
onl! s#3$y-$%ree 8?7:, na!, but e#g%$y-'#;e 8A<: genuine but
other.ise excess and invalid ballots all bearing the name of
Private Respondent herein, to the damage and preBudice of
Petitioner herein since, .hen the said 43 excess ballots .ere
included, $%e $o$a, 5a,,o$s 4%ys#)a,,y e3a-#&e* 5y $%e
Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$, "%#)% "as 76A 5a,,o$s, 'ar
e3)ee*e* $%e &(-5er o' ;o$ers "%o a)$(a,,y ;o$e* 82=7
;o$ers: a&* e;e& $%e $o$a, &(-5er o' reg#s$ere* ;o$ers 87<?
;o$ers: #& $%e sa#* ),(s$ere* 4re)#&)$. 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$,
$%#s #s &o$ .(s$ s$a$#s$#)a, #-4ro5a5#,#$y, 5($ a
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILIT1@
4$% Perforce, .ith all due respect, this is not Bust a case for
non-appreciation or mis-appreciation of ballots on the part of
'/
upra* Pae +..
'
Annex 4.
'!
Annex O.
#&
Annex P% in relation to ;a&le ' above.
%4
Protestant &Private Respondent herein' but a case of 43
additional ballots literall! appearing out of no.here, resulting in
a drastic increase of votes in favor of Private Respondent, to
the preBudice of Petitioner herein(
4)% onseDuentl!, .ith all due respect, to allo. the execution
of such grossl! infirm #ppealed Decision b! the Honorable
Public Respondent based on an erroneous computation of
ballots, .hich resulted in the inclusion of the other.ise excess
ballots in the ph!sical examination of ballots in the contested
precinct and in disregard of the actual number of ,fficial 5allots
actuall! released to the contested lustered Precincts is
arbitrar! and .himsical, and constitutes grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lac< or excess of Burisdiction(
IF - 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ #ss(e* $%e Assa#,e* Or*er 'or
E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g A44ea, *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e e3e)($#o&
"as &o$ .(s$#'#e* as $%e ;#)$ory 5y Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$ "as NOT
-a&#'es$ #& $%e A44ea,e* De)#s#o& 'or $%e reaso& $%a$ P(5,#)
Res4o&*e&$ )o&*()$e* a 'res% a44re)#a$#o& o' 5a,,o$s #& $%e
)o&$es$e* 4re)#&)$s *es4#$e $%e 'a)$ $%a$ #$ ear,#er )o&'#r-e* $%a$
#&;a,#* 5a,,o$s "ere *ro44e* #&$o $%e Ba,,o$ Bo3 o' Pre)#&)$ No.
61A+ 61B, "%#)% "o(,* ,ea* $o a )o&),(s#o& $%a$ $%e #&$egr#$y o'
$%e 5a,,o$s "ere a,rea*y ;#o,a$e*@ a&* e;e& $%o(g% $%e 'res%
a44re)#a$#o& o' 5a,,o$s "ere &o$ "arra&$e* (&*er $%e
)#r)(-s$a&)es as #$ "as &o$ 4raye* 'or 5y Pr#;a$e Res4o&*e&$,
a&* $%a$ &o e;#*e&)e "as 4rese&$e* $o o;er$(r& $%e 4res(-4$#o&
$%a$ $%ere "ere 5a,,o$s '#,,e*-(4 (s#&g ass#s$e* ;o$#&g@
4/% Petitioner herein most respectfull! repleads b! reference
all his previous assertions as the! are relevant and applicable(
4.In rendering its #ppealed Decision, the Honorable Public
Respondent noted that alle!ations of parties indicated that there
were ballots dropped or stuffed into the ballot boxes durin! the
countin! when a brown out occurred and despite of the fact that there
were ballots drawn, still the parties are uncertain whether the drawn
ballots corresponded to the nu%ber of ballots ille!ally dropped*
#.
'*
#fter several mathematical computations, the Honorable Public
Respondent observed that this fact supports the alle!ations of
protestant &Private Respondent herein' that his ,otes were
excluded fro% the countin!* -his also explains why there are excess
and %issin! ballots as disco,ered based on %athe%atical ,erification
of data
#%
'6
#.
Annex I% Pae +'.
#%
upra* Pae +,.
%'
'."hen the Honorable Public Respondent proceeded that the
data reflected in the election returns cannot be used to !au!e the true
results of the elections in -on!!ol, .en* */* $endatun,
0a!uindanao* -he ano%alies bein! perpetrated durin! the countin!,
it is presu%ed that the ballots are still credible e,idence than the
election returns
#2
*'M$rotestant &Private Respondent herein'
clai%ed that all the 75" ballots under his na%e %ust be credited in
his fa,or and the ballots in the na%e of $rotestee &Petitioner herein'
be in,alidated for bein! written by one person* -hus, there is a need
to sub(ect the ballots to appreciation pursuant to the rules on
appreciation of ballots
#4
*'&+learly, the ano%alies as stated were
all done durin! the countin! of ,otes and not after the elections* It is
but lo!ical that the ballots shall be exa%ined and appreciated to
deter%ine which ballots are authentic and for who% shall the ballots
be credited* It has been held that the ballots are the best e,idence of
the will of the electorate
"5
'6
4@% Hence, the Honorable Public Respondent made a fresh
appreciation of ballots based on the claims and obBections of
Protestant;s &Private Respondent herein' revisor(
48% #fter the fresh appreciation of ballots for the three &/'
protested precincts, the ne. tabulation of votes sho.ed that
Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' onl! had a total of 12=
valid votes, .hile Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er
court' received a total of 1<1 valid votes, or a lead of onl!
$"e&$y-$"o 822: ;o$es% "he Honorable Public Respondent
then declared Private Respondent &Protestant in the lo.er
court' as the dul!-elected Punong 5aranga! of 5rg!% "onggol,
S7P, Maguindanao(
44% Ho.ever, .ith all due respect, the fresh appreciation of
ballots .as not .arranted as this .as not among the reliefs
sought for b! Private Respondent herein, .ho merel! pra!ed
for a :Budicial recount of ballots9, presumabl! to include in the
revision proceedings, the @/ ballots that .ere earlier excluded
b! the 55*" in lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5(
4C% In addition, that the fresh appreciation of ballots .as not
.arranted can also be found in R(,e 4, Se). 4 8) : of the Rules
of Procedure, .hich the Honorable Public Respondent invo<ed
.hen it proceeded to conduct the revision of ballots after
declaring Petitioner herein as in default for failure to compl!
.ith R(,e =, Se). 4 8A: of the said Rules% R(,e 4, Se). 4 8) : of
the Rules provides, thus ---
$< ( Effe:t of (ailure to Ans>er 1 ? Cowever, in
the case of election protests involving ballot revision or
eBamination, verification or re@tabulation of the election
#2
upra*
#4
upra* Pae +-.
#'
upra* Pae ./.
%#
returns, the court shall order such revision of ballots or
eBamination, verification or re@tabulation of election
returns. 7he court shall proceed to render judgment based
on the results of the revision or eBamination, verification
or re@tabulation of election returns. ;uring the revision or
eBamination, verification or re@tabulation of election
returns, only the revisors of the protestant may participate.
7he protestee or duly authoriEed representative has the
right to be present and observe the proceedings without the
right to object and make claims to ballots and election
returns.
C0% Ipon the other hand, R(,e =, Se). ? of the said Rules
also provides, thus ---
=EC. .. Effe:t of failure to appear.@ F 7he
failure of the protestee or counsel to appear at the
preliminary conference shall have the same effect as
provided in 5ection 4$c(, ,ule 4 of these ,ules, that is, the
court may allow the protestant to present evidence eB parte
and render judgment based on the evidence presented.
!..Hence, .hen R(,e 4, Se). 4 8) : is invo<ed in conBunction .ith
R(,e =, Se). ? of the said Rules of Procedure, it can be inferred
that .hile Protestant &herein Private Respondent' ma! be
allo.ed to ma<e claims to his ballots and to obBect to
Petitioner;s &Protestee in the lo.er court' ballots on the ground
that the ballots credited to the latter .ere either :mar<ed9, or
:fa<e9 or :spurious9 or :stra!9 ballot as can be readil! seen on
the face of the ballots during the revision proceedings,
ho.ever, Protestant does not have the right to obBect on the
ground that Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' ballots :bore the
same hand.riting9, unless Protestant &Private Respondent
herein' .ould present evidence ex parte and Bustif! as to ho. it
came about that Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' ballots bore the
same hand.riting(
!%.In other .ords, said claim b! Protestant &Private Respondent
herein' of :same hand.riting9 on Protestee;s &Petitioner herein'
ballots should have been first alleged in his *lection Protest%
Secondl!, Protestant &Private Respondent' should have been
allo.ed b! the Honorable Public Respondent to present
evidence, albeit ex parte, in order to prove his allegations and to
overturn the disputable presumption that :a ,oter personally
prepared one ballot, except in the case of assistors' as clearl!
stated in R(,e 17, Se). ? 8) :84: of the Rules of Procedure(
C/% Since Protestant &Private Respondent herein' did not
present evidence on the existence of the :same hand.ritings9
in Protestee;s &Petitioner herein' ballots, as the same .as also
not alleged in his *lection Protest &but onl! a :Budicial recount of
ballots9', therefore, the disputable presumption still stands and
%/
.as not overturned, in that the said ballots, even if it appears
that the! bore the same hand.riting, could not be unilaterall!
invalidated, other.ise, the same .ould contradict the
disputable presumption that the said ballot or ballots .ere
.ritten b! assistor or assistors as clearl! provided for in R(,e
17, Se). ? 8) :84: of the same Rules(
C1% In addition, .hen the Honorable Public Respondent .as
confronted .ith the fact that there .ere :excess9 ballots, .hich
.ere earlier dropped and inserted in lustered Precinct -o%
8$#A 8$5, a matter, .hich the Honorable Public Respondent
readil! admitted% "hus, .ith the proliferation of :excess9
genuine ballots inside the 5allot 5ox, the Honorable Public
Respondent could not have reasonabl! determined if these
ballots that .ere found during the revision proceedings .ere
the same ballots that .ere cast b! the voters and counted b!
the 55*" in the elections(
!'. It must be emphasi>ed that the Honorable Public Respondent
repeatedl! mentioned that the ballots .ere the :best evidence9
of the .ill of the electorate
@@
% Ho.ever, .ith all due respect, in
determining the ballots to be :best evidence9, the Honorable
Public Respondent should have reasonabl! ascertained that
the ballots found during revision .ere the ver! same ballots
cast b! voters and counted b! the 55*"(
C@% T%e 'a)$ $%a$ $%e Ba,,o$ Bo3es eas#,y o4e&e* *(r#&g
$%e re;#s#o& 4ro)ee*#&gs (s#&g $%e Ceys 4ro;#*e* 5y $%e
BBET *#* &o$ )a$egor#)a,,y -ea& $%a$ $%e #&$egr#$y o' $%e
5a,,o$ 5o3es a&* $%a$ o' $%e 5a,,o$s "ere &o$ ;#o,a$e*% Ipon
the other hand, .hen both Petitioner and Private Respondent
asserted &and the Honorable Public Respondent li<e.ise
ac<no.ledged' that there several ballots that .ere dropped or
inserted or stuffed inside the 5allot 5ox of the contested
precincts, or at least, as it .as readil! observed in lustered
Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5, it .ould onl! mean that the common
allegation alone alread! cast doubt as to the integrit! of the
ballots found inside the 5allot 5ox of lustered Precinct -o%
8$#A 8$5(
C8% -ot onl! that, the totalit! of the circumstances &$' the
common allegation that there .ere several ballots that dropped
or inserted inside the 5allot 5ox during the bro.nout( &)' the
substantial variance bet.een the actual ballots &/84 ballots in
all' found inside the 5allot 5ox during revision as compared to
a% the number of ballots actuall! issued to the said precinct,
.hich coincided .ith the total registered voters
&numbering onl! /3@ ballots and /3@ registered voters'(
##
upra*
%
b% the number of used lo.er stubs &)C/ stubs' and unused
torn ballots &3/ ballots'(
c% the number of voters as appearing in the *lection Return
&/// voters'(
--- all point to the obvious fact that the 5allot 5ox for
Pre)#&)$ No. 61A+ 61B had been violated, and the ballots
contained therein, .ere alread! tampered(
C4% 2ith all due respect, based on the foregoing
discrepancies, the Duestion of .hether the ballots during the
revision proceedings could be relied on as the same ones cast
and counted during the elections could not obviousl! be settled
b! a ph!sical examination of the ballots themselves% learl!,
the determination of .hich of the said ballots .ere authentic or
spurious or .hich ballot should be credited to .hom N a detail
of utmost importance N could not possibl! have been
determined b! that means(
CC% #s there .as no mention in the #ppealed Decision of the
fact that the Honorable Public Respondent .as reasonabl!
satisfied that the ballots found in the 5allot 5ox .ere the same
ballots cast b! the voters and counted b! the 55*", there .as
no legal nor factual basis to resort to a ph!sical examination of
ballots found inside the 5allot 5ox, and more so, in determining
.hether the said ballot .as :genuine9 simpl! b! declaring that it
.as not :.ritten b! one person9(
$00% In addition, as reasonable suspicion exists that the
integrit! of the 5allot 5ox in lustered Precinct -o% 8$#A 8$5
had been violated and that the ballots therein .ere tampered
due to an insertion of several invalid ballots, the Honorable
Public Respondent should not have relied on the ballots
themselves, but on the results as reflected in the *lection
Returns, as the same appeared to have maintained its integrit!(
.&.. In the recent ruling in Varias v. COMELEC *En Banc, +.,.
-o. .!&/, 0ebruary .., %&.&
#/
), the Supreme ourt li<e.ise
declared, thus ----
4s reasonable suspicion eBists that the integrity of
the ballot boBes had been violated and that tampering of
ballots had occurred, =arias asserts that the <813>3<
#/
,eiterating the earlier ruling in 8osal v. COMELEC [+.,. -o. .#%'2, 1arch .#,
%&&/)A Citing Pe:son v. Commission on Ele:tions, +.,. -o. .%#', ;ecember %4,
%&&, also citing Almeida v. Court of Appeals, 4! "hil #4! $%&&'(, where the 5upreme
<ourt ruled that in !rantin! or denyin! in(uncti,e relief, a court abuses its discretion
when it lac:s (urisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to
its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findin!s, considers clearly
irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to one factor, relies on
erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplies its factual or legal conclusions.
%!
should not have relied on the ballots but on the results
reflected in the election returns. 7hus, the <813>3<
gravely abused its discretion when it acted contrary to the
mandate of <osal and relied on the results of the revision
of the ballot boBes.
Ge agree with =ariasD contentions, as our own
consideration of the issues raised shows that the
<813>3< indeed failed to follow <osal. 5pecifically,
we hold that =arias successfully discharged the burden of
proving the likelihood of ballot tampering by presenting
competent and reliable evidence H facts and circumstances
that are simply too obvious to ignore or gloss over. 7he
<813>3< sadly looked at the wrong considerations,
thereby acting in a manner not contemplated by law. Its
actions clearly fit the grave abuse of discretion
definition cited above.
<osal, we preliminarily note, does not, as it should
not, always require dire:t proof of tamperingA even if the
protestant has shown compliance with legal requirements
for the preservation of ballots, the burden of evidence that
shifts to the prostestee is not confined to proof of actual
ta%perin!, but extends to its likelihood. 7his cannot but
be a reasonable rule, since ballot tampering and ballot
substitution are not acts done openly and without
precaution for stealthA they are done clandestinely, and to
require direct proof of actual tampering almost amounts to
a requirement to do the impossible. ;irect proof of actual
tampering is therefore not the only acceptable evidence
that negates the reliability of the ballots subjected to
revisionA other relevant considerations should be taken into
account, most especially those resulting from the
eBamination of physical evidence. :y adopting the direct
proof approach in the present case, t!e COMELEC did
not looA at all t!e relevant :onsiderations in rulin on
t!e :ase. &emphasis supplied'
.&%. In another recent ruling in Eriuel v. COMELEC *En Banc,
+.,. -o. .!&'%#, 0eb. %#, %&.&
#
), the Supreme ourt li<e.ise
declared, thus ----
In Rosal, we painstakingly explained the importance
of ascertaining the integrity of the ballots before
conducting a revision. There, we said:
The purpose of an election protest is to
ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected
by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful
choice of the electorate. Such a proceeding is
usually instituted on the theory that the election
#
4lso reiterating the earlier ruling in 8osal v. COMELEC, supra*
2&
returns, which are deemed prima facie to be true
reports of how the electorate voted on election day
and which serve as the basis for proclaiming the
winning candidate, do not accurately reflect the true
will of the voters due to alleged irregularities that
attended the counting of ballots. In a protest
prosecuted on such a theory, the protestant
ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected in
the election returns be set aside in favor of a
revision and recount of the ballots, the results of
which should be made to prevail over those
reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that
in an election contest where what is involved is the
number of votes of each candidate, the best and
most conclusive evidence are the ballots
themselves.
It should never be forgotten, though, that the
superior status of the ballots as evidence of how the
electorate voted presupposes that these were the very
same ballots actually cast and counted in the elections.
Thus, it has been held that before the ballots found in a
[ballot] box can be used to set aside the returns, the court
(or the Comelec as the case may be) must be sure that it
has before it the same ballots deposited by the voters.
The Rosal doctrine finds equal, if not more,
importance in the instant case where the proceeding
adopted by the COMELEC involved not only a revision of
ballots, but a fresh appreciation thereof.
Thus, however exhaustive the COMELECs
findings may appear to be, the same is still rendered void
due to its lack of jurisdiction and its failure to ensure that
the integrity of the ballots has been preserved prior to
conducting a fresh appreciation thereof.
Under such circumstances, the question as to who
between the parties was duly elected mayor of Agoo, La
Union still cannot be settled without conducting proper
proceedings in the COMELEC. Therefore, we are left with
no other recourse but to set aside the assailed Resolution
for being both procedurally and substantively infirm.
&emphasis supplied'
$0/% onseDuentl!, .ith all due respect, to allo. the execution
of such grossl! infirm #ppealed Decision b! the Honorable
Public Respondent based on the fresh appreciation of ballots
.ithout due consideration as to the fact that the integrit! of the
5allot 5oxes and that of the ballots .ere alread! tainted and
compromised, the said execution pending appeal is arbitrar!
2.
and .himsical, and constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lac< or excess of Burisdiction(
F E 2#$% a,, *(e res4e)$, $%e Ho&ora5,e P(5,#) Res4o&*e&$
)o--#$$e* gra;e a5(se o' *#s)re$#o& a-o(&$#&g $o ,a)C or
e3)ess o' .(r#s*#)$#o& "%e& #$ %otu proprio *e),are* Pe$#$#o&er
8Pro$es$ee #& $%e ,o"er )o(r$: as #& *e'a(,$ 'or 'a#,(re $o )o-4,y
"#$% R(,e =, Se). 4 8A: o' $%e R(,es o' Pro)e*(re, s4e)#'#)a,,y 'or
$%e 'a#,(re $o re)o--e&* 'or $%e 4ro)e*(re $o 5e 'o,,o"e* #&
)ase $%e e,e)$#o& 4ro$es$ or )o(&$er-4ro$es$ seeCs $%e
e3a-#&a$#o&, ;er#'#)a$#o& or re-$a5(,a$#o& o' e,e)$#o& re$(r&s
"%e&, o& $%e )o&$rary, $%e 'a#,(re $o #&),(*e $%e sa-e #s &o$ 'a$a,
as r(,e* 5y $%e S(4re-e Co(r$ #& $%e -ore re)e&$ )ase o'
)ravides v. COMELEC *En Banc, +.,. -o. .!!422, -ovember .2, %&.%)@
$01% Petitioner herein most respectfull! repleads b! reference
all his previous assertions as the! are relevant and applicable(
.&'. "he Honorable Public Respondent %otu proprio declared
herein Petitioner &Protestee in the lo.er court' as in default for
failure to include in his Preliminar! onference 5rief, the
:procedure to be follo.ed9 in case the election protest or
counter-protest see<s the examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns, .hich is reDuired under R(,e =,
Se). 4 8A: of A.M. No. 06-4-1< SC &hereinafter :the Rules of
Procedure9'(
.&#. Despite the fact that Petitioner submitted his
Ma&#'es$a$#o& a&* (s$#'#)a$#o& explaining, primaril!, that he
does not see< the examination, verification or re-tabulation of
election returns in the contested precincts, and that R(,e =,
Se). 4 8A: of the Rules of Procedure must be read in
conBunction .ith R(,e =, Se). 1 8A: thereof .here it merel!
presents a circumstance or situation .herein in the event that
the election protest or counter-protest .ould see< the
examination, verification or re-tabulation of election returns, the
part! see<ing such relief shall recommend the procedure to be
follo.ed &emphasis ours', ho.ever, the Honorable Public
Respondent ruled to direct that a revision committee be created
to perform the revision and tabulation of ballots, and that onl!
the revisors of the Protestant &Private Respondent herein' ma!
participate, citing the Supreme ourt ruling in Ca&rera v.
COMELEC *+.,. -o. .%&4, 8ctober #, %&&)% "here .as no
more presentation of evidence and the Honorable Public
Respondent proceeded to render Budgment based on the
results of the revision or examination, verification or re-
tabulation of election returns in accordance .ith R(,e 4, Se). 4
8 ): of the Rules of Procedure(
.&/. -evertheless, .ith all due respect, the Supreme ourt
clarified its ruling in Ca&rera and relaxed the rules, ta<ing into
2%
consideration the paramount interest of determining the true .ill
of the electorate over a mere technicalit!, in a more recent
ruling in )ravides v. COMELEC *En Banc, +.,. -o. .!!422,
-ovember .2, %&.%), .herein the Supreme ourt ruled, thus ---
In finding for Borjal, the First Division held:
First, the assailed Order of the court a quo declared
the Preliminary Conference Brief of Borjal non-compliant
with Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. 07-4-15-SC in the
following manner:
x x x x
The court a quo, after stating the antecedent facts of
the case, the contentions of each party, and the pertinent
provisions of the rules, simply dismissed the election
protest without specifying which of the required contents
were lacking in Borjals Preliminary Conference Brief. It
would appear, based on the courts Order, that the said
brief did not at all contain the contents required in Section
4 of Rule 9. Examination thereof reveals, however that the
same has substantially complied with Section 4,Rule 9 of
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. In his Preliminary Conference
Brief, Borjal stated a summary of admitted facts and
proposed stipulation of facts; the issues to be tried or
resolved; documents to be presented; witnesses to be
presented; proposed number of revision committees; and a
statement of his conformity to discovery procedures or
referral to the commissioners to facilitate the speedy
disposition of the case.
Apparently, what Borjal failed to include are
statements of (1) a manifestation of withdrawal of certain
protested precincts, if such is the case; and (2) in case the
election protest or counter-protest seeks the examination,
verification, or re-tabulation of election returns, the
procedure to be followed. Nonetheless, these omissions do
not warrant the outright dismissal of the election
protest.As explained byBorjals counsel during the
preliminary conference, withdrawal of certain protested
precincts will be made either after or during the revision.
Moreover, Borjals failure to provide for the procedure to
be followed in case the election protest seeks the
examination, verification or re-tabulation of election
returns is not fatal.
A reading of the election protest shows that Borjals
allegations consist mainly of election irregularities and
frauds that resulted to an incorrect number of votes
pertaining to each candidate. Hence, Borjals prayer is for
22
the recount/revision of the ballots to determine the correct
number of votes cast in his favor.
Undoubtedly, Borjal does not seek the examination,
verification or re-tabulation of the election returns;
therefore, a statement for its procedure is not necessary in
the instant case.
xxxxxxxxx
It bears stressing that blind adherence to a
technicality, with the inevitable result of frustrating and
nullifying the constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage,
cannot be countenanced. Likewise, it has been held that
on more than one occasion, this Court has recognized the
emerging trend towards a liberal construction of
procedural rules to serve substantial justice. Courts have
the prerogative to relax rules of even the most mandatory
character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to
speedily end litigation and the parties right to due
process. While procedural rules are intended for the
expeditious disposition of election cases, this should not
impede this Commission from compliance with the
established principles of fairness and justice and
adjudication of cases not on technicality but on their
substantive merits.
xxxx.xxxx.xxxx
In Cabrera v. COMELEC, this Court upheld the
nullification by COMELEC of the RTC orders denying the
motion to dismiss election protest on the ground that
protestants preliminary conference brief did not contain
the following: (1) a manifestation of his having availed or
intention to avail of discovery procedures or referral to
commissioners; (2) a manifestation of withdrawal of
certain protested or counter-protested precincts, if such is
the case; and, (3) in the event the protest or counter-protest
seeks the examination, verification or re-tabulation of
election returns, the procedure to be followed.
xxxxxxxxx
We find no grave abuse of discretion in the proper
consideration by COMELEC of the attendant
circumstances warranting a more reasonable and liberal
application of the rules. Foremost of these is the fact that
Borjal was misled by the Notice of Preliminary
Conference issued by the MeTC which erroneously
applied the provision on pre-trial brief under the Rules of
Civil Procedure. The mistake committed by Borjals
counsel in complying with the courts directive should not
24
prejudice his cause, as no intent to unduly prolong the
resolution of the election protest can be gleaned from his
failure to include such manifestation of withdrawal of
certain protested precincts and of the procedure to be
followed in case the election protest seeks the
examination, verification, or re-tabulation of election
returns.
xxxxxxxxx
The paramount interest of determining the true will
of the electorate thus justified a relaxation of procedural
rules. Indeed, an election protest is imbued with public
interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties
which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative.
$04% Hence, .ith all due respect, the Honorable Public
Respondent should not have declared Petitioner herein as in
default but, instead, relaxed the rules, as his failure to
recommend the procedures to be follo.ed .as not fatal since
he does not see< the examination, verification or re-tabulation
of election returns in the contested precincts(
$0C% Had Petitioner herein not been declared as in default on a
mere technicalit!, his .inning the election could have been
sustained b! the Honorable Public Respondent(
$$0% onseDuentl!, .ith all due respect, to allo. the execution
of such grossl! infirm #ppealed Decision b! the Honorable
Public Respondent based on the fact that Petitioner .as
declared as in default .hen the more recent Supreme ourt
Burisprudence allo.ed for a liberal interpretation of the rules,
made the said execution pending appeal arbitrar! and
.himsical, and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lac< or excess of Burisdiction(
ON !ROUND BD
$$$% Petitioner herein paid all his reDuired doc<et fees .hen he
filed his No$#)e o' A44ea, on March @, )0$1, .ell .ithin the five
&3' da! period .ithin .hich to file said appeal(
$$)% In his Petition, herein Petitioner attached, &cop! furnished
the Honorable Public Respondent and Private Respondent', not
onl! his No$#)e o' A44ea,, but also pertinent copies of his
O''#)#a, Re)e#4$s, Pos$a, Mo&ey Or*ers a&*
A)C&o",e*ge-e&$ Re)e#4$ as A&&e3es HI, H-1I, H-2I, H-
7I, H-4I a&* H-<I@
2'
$$/% A&&e3 H-1I consists of an O''#)#a, Re)e#4$, bearing
Serial -o% $3/)0)0C dated March @, )0$1, issued b! M"
Pagalungan and signed b! *mbrie +% 5alansag, amounting to
P300%00 pesos, as :Mediation Fee9(
$$1% A&&e3 H-2I consists of $"o 82: O''#)#a, Re)e#4$s,
bearing Serial -os% 3@8)1// and 3@8)C31, both dated March @,
)0$1, issued b! M" Pagalungan and signed b! *mbrie +%
5alansag, amounting to P$40%00 pesos and P4)0%00 pesos,
respectivel!, as :#ppeal Fee9(
$$3% A&&e3 H-7I consists of certified true copies of $%ree 87:
Pos$a, Mo&ey Or*ers, bearing Serial -os% 5 08$000$1$0, 5
08$000$1$$ and 5 08$000$1$), all dated March @, )0$1,
issued b! Phil Post and certified b! *mbrie +% 5alansag, ,I-
ler< of ourt, M"-Pagalungan, pa!able to the :Cas%
D#;#s#o&, COMELEC, I&$ra-(ros, Ma&#,aI, amounting to
P$,000%00 each or for a total of T%ree $%o(sa&* 8P7,000.00:
4esos as :#ppeal Fee9 to the ommission on *lections as
reDuired under ,M*+* Rules, as amended(
$$@% A&&e3 H-4I consists of certified true copies of $"o 82:
Pos$a, Mo&ey Or*ers, bearing Serial -os% E 08300$$@0/ and
E 08300$$@01, both dated March @, )0$1, issued b! Phil Post
and certified b! *mbrie +% 5alansag, ,I-ler< of ourt, M"-
Pagalungan, pa!able to the :Cas% D#;#s#o&, COMELEC,
I&$ra-(ros, Ma&#,aI, amounting to P300%00 pesos and
P)30%00 pesos, respectivel!, or for a total of Se;e& %(&*re*
'#'$y 8P6<0.00: 4esos as :#ppeal Fee9 to the ommission on
*lections as reDuired under ,M*+* Rules, as amended(
$$8% A&&e3 H-<I consists of an A)C&o",e*g-e&$ Re)e#4$,
dated March @, )0$1, issued b! M" Pagalungan and signed
b! *mbrie +% 5alansag, amounting to P8,300%00 pesos, as
:Storage Fee9 for the three &/' 5allot 5oxes(
$$4% "he said fees .ere paid simultaneousl! upon filing of the
No$#)e o' A44ea,% In addition, the Pos$a, Mo&ey Or*ers,
totaling T%ree $%o(sa&*, se;e& %(&*re* '#'$y 8P7,6<0.00:
4esos, pa!able to the HCas% D#;#s#o&, COMELEC,
I&$ra-(ros, Ma&#,aI, .ere submitted to the ,I-ler< of
ourt, 1
th
Municipal "rial ourt, Province of Maguindanao, to be
sent to the Honorable ommission on *lections &,M*+*' all
together .ith the records of the *lection ase -o% 08- )0$/
&S7P'(
$$C% Hence, .ith all due respect, the said No$#)e o' A44ea,
.as perfected b! herein Petitioner &Protested in the lo.er court'
.ell .ithin the prescribed period as fixed b! the Rules(
2#
$)0% Perforce, this Honorable ommission has validl! acDuired
Burisdiction over the #ppeal, as .ell as the Instant Petition for
ertiorari and InBunction, in aid of its appellate Burisdiction(
P R A 1 E R
2HERE0ORE, premises considered, it is most respectfull!
pra!ed of this Honorable ommission that ---
$% #fter due notice and hearing or deliberations, an
ORDER be issued NULLI01IN! OR SETTIN!
ASIDE the S4e)#a, Or*er 'or E3e)($#o& Pe&*#&g
A44ea, dated March $$, )0$1(
%. #fter due notice and hearing or deliberations, an
ORDER be issued ma<ing the InBunction andA or
tatus 1uo 2nte ,rder PERMANENT.
,ther Bust and eDuitable reliefs are li<e.ise pra!ed for%

Respectfull! submitted, this A4r#, 70, 2014 in otabato it! &for
6en% S%7% Pendatun, Maguindanao', for Manila%
5!G
EREMIAH C. COMPLETANO, CPA
ounsel for Petitioner Daud -% Dalid
Roll of #ttorne!s -o% 140$@
P"R -o% 4//18$), 0$-0)-$1, ot% it!
I5P +ifetime Member -o% 0$08$8
M+* ert% -os% &III' 0000)0)( Sept% $4, )004(
&IH' 0000C$@( Dec% $1, )0$0
!O, BALLE/UE AND COMPLETANO LA2 O00ICES
$@@5 Puretan 5uilding, Sinsuat #venue, otabato it! C@00
gbcOla.P!ahoo%com A &0@1' 1)$ )$C4
REPUBLIC O0 THE PHILIPPINES Q
I"? ,F ,"#5#", Q S%S
A00IDAFIT O0 SERFICE B1 RE!ISTERED MAIL
2ITH EKPLANATION
I, MARILOU C. !ADAIN!AN, MPA, of legal age, Filipino, single, and .ith
address at -otre Dame Hillage, otabato it!, after having been s.orn to in
accordance .ith la., do hereb! depose and state, thatG
I am emplo!ed as Secretar! at the !o, Ba,,eB(e L Co-4,e$a&o La"
O''#)e% M! duties include the service and filing of pleadings% ,n March $8,
)0$1, I personall! served copies of the MEMORANDUM 0OR PETITIONER #&
SPR BR!1 Case No. 24-2014 entitled HDa(* N. Da,#* ;s. Ho&. A&&a5e,,e P.
P#a&g a&* Nor(*#& Pe&*a$(&I, on the other parties andA or their counsels, b!
depositing copies of the Pe$#$#o& in the otabato it! Post ,ffice, in sealed
2/
envelopes, plainl! addressed to such parties or their counsels at their offices .ith
postage full! prepaid, as evidenced b! the originals of Registr! Receipt -os%
hereto attached, and .ith instructions to the Postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten &$0' da!s if undelivered%
"he addresses indicated on the envelopes are the follo.ingG
HON. UD!E ANNABELLE P. PIAN! Reg#s$ry Re)e#4$ No. MMMMM
Presiding Eudge, 1
th
Municipal "rial ourt otabato it! Post ,ffice
,R6 ompound, otabato it! #pril /0, )0$1
ATT1. HAMLET M. PAHM Reg#s$ry Re)e#4$ No. MMMMM
ounsel for Private Respondent otabato it! Post ,ffice
Rue>on #venue, otabato otabato #pril /0, )0$1
I execute this #ffidavit pursuant to and in accordance .ith Sections / and
3 in relation to section $0 of Rule $/ of the $CC8 Revised Rules of ourt as proof
of service of the aforesaid Petition%
"hat pursuant to section $$ of Rule $/ of the $CC8 Rules of ivil
Procedures, mail service is resorted to in filing copies of this Memorandum to the
Honorable ommission on *lections and also in furnishing copies of the said
Memorandum to the public and private respondents in vie. of lac< of material
time and lac< of messengerial staff to effect personal service%
In .itness .hereof, I am executing this #ffidavit to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts this A4r#, 70, 2014 in otabato it!, Philippines%
MARILOU C. !ADAIN!AN, MPA
#ffiant
SUBSCRIBED AND S2ORN to before me this #pril /0, )0$1 in otabato
it!, b! the affiant, .ho is personall! <no.n to me%
Doc -o% OOOOO(
Page -o% OOOOO(
5oo< -o% OOOOO(
Series of )0$1%
RE/UEST 0OR SUBMISSION
T%e C,erC o' $%e Co--#ss#o&
ommission on *lections
Second Division
Intramuros, Manila
6 R * * " I - 6 S =
Please submit the foregoing Me-ora&*(- 'or $%e Pe$#$#o&er
for the consideration and approval of the Honorable ommission on
*lections, Second Division%
2
"han< !ou%
EREMIAH C. COMPLETANO, CPA
ounsel for Petitioner
Roll of #ttorne!s -o% 140$@
P"R -o% 4//18$), 0$-0)-$1, ot% it!
I5P +ifetime Member -o% 0$08$8
M+* ert% -os% &III' 0000)0)( Sept% $4, )004(
&IH' 0000C$@( Dec% $1, )0$0
!O, BALLE/UE AND COMPLETANO LA2 O00ICES
$@@5 Puretan 5uilding, Sinsuat #venue, otabato it! C@00
gbcOla.P!ahoo%com A &0@1' 1)$ )$C4
E34,a&a$#o&
Deliver! of service to this Honorable ommission, Private
Respondent;s ounsel and to Public Respondent b! Reg#s$ere* Ma#,
.as resorted to due to lac< of material time, and due to lac< of
messengerial staff of Petitioner;s counsel to underta<e deliver! b!
personal service%
EREMIAH C. COMPLETANO, CPA
2!