G.R. No. 58575. September 21, 1983
CESAR JARDIEL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND BENJAMIN AVES, RESPONDENTS.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
A Petition for Certiorari to annul the Resolution of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC), (Second Division), dated December 10, 1980 (P.P. Case No. 214), wherein it
resolved:
“x x x
“a) to annul
the results of the January 30, 1980
elections in the municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija; and
b) to order the holding of a special election
thereat for the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan, on a date to
be set by the Commission.”[1]
In the local elections of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, held on January 30, 1980, petitioner Cesar Jardiel, a Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidate
for Mayor seeking re-election, prevailed over private respondent Benjamin Aves,
a Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate, by a plurality
of 1,678 votes[2]
and was proÂclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on the same date.
The day after the elections, or on January 31, 1980, the COMELEC received a telegraphic
report from its Special Action Team, reading:
“HON. CHAIRMAN PEREZ
COMELEC
DUE TO RAMPANT
PARTICIPATION OF FLYING VOTERS CMA WIDESPREAD TERÂRORISM CMA TAMPERING OF
BALLOTS CMA UNJUSTIFIED/ILLEGAL STOPPING OF COUNTING OF VOTES AND TRANSFERRING
OF BALLOT BOXES IN PENARANDA CMA NUEVA ECIJA IN THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS CMA
STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF THE CANVASS OF THE RESULTS OF
ELECTIONS FOR MAYOR CMA VICE MAYOR AND COUNSILORS IN ALL THE VOTING CENTERS
THEREAT STOP IF CANVASS ALREADY COMPLETED CMA ANNUL THE RESULTS THEREOF END
COMSAT
9
CABANATUAN
CITY.”[3]
That same day, January
31, 1980, the COMELEC received an urgent letter-request from
private respondent asking that the canvassing of votes be annulled and the
proclamation of winning candidates be suspended for reasons of massive
terrorism and rampant irregularities.
The letter alleged that armed goons supporting the petitioner disrupted
the counting of votes and caused the transfer of the ballot boxes and the
canvassing of votes to the Municipal Hall where accredited NP watchers were
denied access, and that ballots were tampered with and blank unused ballots
were filled up in favor of KBL candidates.
The letter-request was docketed as P.P. Case No. 214, and petitioner was
ordered to submit an answer within ten (10) days from receipt.
On February 8, 1980,
without any answer having been filed, COMELEC issued another Resolution
suspending the effects of the proclamation if one had been made, and directing
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of said Municipality and Mayor Cesar Jardiel, KBL candidate for Mayor, to submit their answer.[4]
On February 11, 1980, petitioner filed a pleadÂing captioned
“Manifestation and Prayer by Way of Motion for Reconsideration”
assailing the Resolution of February 8, 1980 as violative
of due process as it was issued without hearing, and before he could file the
required Answer, and that private respondent never brought any complaint to the
PC soldiers assigned by the Provincial Election Officer to the municipality nor
had complained about election irregularities to the Municipal Board of
Canvassers duÂring the canvass and proclamation.
On February 22, 1980,
petitioner filed his Answer denying private respondent’s charges. Attached were supporting affidavits,
including certifications of the Election Registrar of Penaranda
that no complaint of irregularities had been received (Annexes “D”
and “D-1”, Petition) as well as of two PC solÂdiers assigned thereat
that there was no terrorism by policemen and armed goons during the election in
said municipality (Annex “E”, Petition).
On March 4, 1980,
private respondent filed a reply disputing the veracity of petitioner’s certifications,
and attached counter-affidavits in support of his allegations.
Also on March 4, 1980, COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing
petitioner and private respondent to file “simultaneous
manifestations” in respect of the affidavits, to be marked as their exhibits,”
so as to inform them of the affiants to be brought to Manila and cross-examined
during the hearing of the case” on the merits. Subsequently, a rejoinder by petitioner and a
surrejoinder by private respondent were also filed.
During the hearings, private respondent presented four witnesses,
who identified and affirmed the contents of their affidavits, and were
cross-examined by petitioner’s counsel.
On April 15, 1980,
COMELEC required private respondent to make a written offer of evidence and allowed
petitioner to file written objections thereto and a “motion to dismiss if
he so desires” and that “upon the filing of the motion to dismiss and
objection thereto, the said incident shall be deemed submitted for
resolution”.[5]
On April 21, 1980,
private respondent submitted a written offer of evidence, to which petitioner
interposed his objections.
On April 26, 1980,
petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for insufficiency of evidence to support
allegations of massive terrorism and rampant irregularities. Private respondent filed an opposition to
said motion, and on May 7, 1980,
petitioner was given time to file a reply after which the incident was to be
deemed submitted.
On July 22, 1980, the Ministry of Justice Election Task Force, deputized
by the COMELEC in Resolution No. 1449-A, dated February 14, 1980, to
investigate and prosecute persons found violating election offenses committed
in relation to the conduct of the January 30, 1980 elections, and before whom a
complaint had likewise been filed by private respondent, dismissed said
complaint for insufficiency of evidence (Annex “G”, Petition).[6]
On December 10, 1980,
COMELEC issued the questioned Resolution wherein it priorly
observed:
“A painstaking examination – demanded by the gravity of the
issues raised – of the records in this case resulted in the inescapable finding
that serious and widespread election venalities did occur
in the hapless community of Penaranda. Petitioner (now private respondent) submitted
as his evidence documents tending to establish said fact, but the one single
piece of evidence that sticks out prominently because it commends itself with
authority and credibility is the official telegraphed report to then Chairman
Perez from Comelec Special Action Team for
Region 9, ‘COMSAT 9’ for short, dated January 31, 1980, and marked as
petitioner’s Exhibit ‘G’ (Annex ‘E’ to the petitioner’s Answer and Opposition
to the Motion for Reconsideration).
Created by Commission Resolution No. 1430, which was proÂmulgated on January 7, 1980, COMSAT 9 was composed
of Atty. Benigno R. Lapitan,
Provincial Election Officer of Nueva Ecija; Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala
of JAGO; and Atty. Jose Balbuena, Assistant Chief,
Investigation and Prosecution Division, Law Department, this Commission. Significantly, it functioned and acted as
‘the deputy and implementing arm of the Commision‘
(Sec. 1, Resolution No. 1430) to be sent on orders of the Chairman of the
Commission to areas where the holding of free, orderly and honest elections is
placed in jeopardy due to terrorism, violence, frauds, vote-buying and other
analogous causes.’ (Sec. 3, Ibid). Its
assignment: Region 9, which included the
province of Nueva Ecija,
of which Penaranda, the present case milieu, is one
of the municipalities. In the course of
its assigned tasks, it came up with its above-mentioned January 31, 1980 report to this Commission.”
The COMELEC then concluded:
“x x x
Unhesitatingly, We declare the elections or the results thereof, should be
annulled. Considered in the light of the
pervasive and wanton disregard of Our election laws and processes, the election
results in said town do not reflect the true or popular will of the electorate
there. They justify no less than the
extreme sanction of their being nullified.
This Body is ever-conscious of the fundamental injunction that the
power to annul the elections should be exercised with extreme caution (Demetrio vs. Lopez, 50 Phil. 45) in order not to cause
unnecessary disenfranchisement, and in the Penaranda experience,
We did no less. But regretably,
the compelling circumstances dictated the nullification.”[7]
A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by
the COMELEC in a Resolution dated October
27, 1981.
Before us, petitioner prays for the reversal of the COMELEC
Resolutions, dated December 10, 1980 and October 27, 1981, contending that:
“1. COMELEC’s resolution on the merits of PP Case No. 214,
without first receiving his evidence, constitutes a denial of due process which
renders said resolution null and void.
2.
The primary basis of the challenged resolution,
a mere telegram from COMSAT 9, is hearsay.
3.
COMELEC is estopped by
the findings of a Ministry of Justice ‘Task Force’ which was deputized by
COMELEC to investigate and prosecute violations of the election laws during the
January 30, 1980 elections, to the effect that there was insufficient evidence
to prove charges of terrorism and irregularities during said election in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija.
4.
PP Case No. 214 is no longer viable because on January 31, 1980 petitioner was
proclaimed duly elected mayor, took his oath of office and assumed the duties
thereof.
5.
COMELEC has no power to order the holding of a
special elections in Penaranda.”
1. The alleged
denial of due process to petitioner on the ground that the COMELEC rendered its
decision without first resolving petitioner’s pending Motion to Dismiss and
without giving him the opportunity to present his evidence, is not well
taken. As the COMELEC had explained in
resolving petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision.
“Our failure to resolve first said Motion to Dismiss was
criticized by the respondent and viewed by him as a denial of due process. We disagree.
With substantial evidence from both parties on hand, upon which a decision
on its merits could be reached without sacrificing the fundamental precept of
due process, both in its substantial and its procedural aspects, this Body
elected to dispose of this case on the merits, rather than go to the circuitous
process of resolving independently the letter-motion to dismiss of the
respondent. The motion to dismiss was,
therefore, included in the disposition of the entire case, as it was mandated
by the circumstances. Resort to this
procedural short-cut was compelled by the circumstance that being a
pre-proclamation case, it had to be threshed out summarily, keeping in mind the
length of time that had lapsed after the date of the 1980 local elections. x x x“[8]
Moreover, petitioner had controverted
by means of sworn statements the allegations of private respondent of massive terrorism
and rampant irregularities in the counting of votes. The COMELEC had weighed the conflicting pleadings,
certifications and affidavits before it and concluded that the case was ripe
for resolution on the merits. It found
that “a painstaking examination — demanded by the gravity of the issues
raised — of the records in this case resulted in the inescapable finding that
serious and widespread election venalities did occur in the hapless community
of Penaranda.”
The procedural step taken by COMELEC finds support in the case of
Demetrio vs. Lopez, 50 Phil. 45 (1927), the pertinent
portion of which is quoted herein below:
“x x x In an election protest proceeding, however, which is a
summary one, and in which the periods are short and fatal, and trials rapid and
preferential as the peremptory nature of the litigation so requires, the motion
for dismissal at that stage of the proceeding must be considered as a demurrer
to the evidence presented by the protestant, with implied waiver by the protestee to present his evidence, whatever may be the
ruling, whether adverse or favorable, either in the first instance or on
appeal, the court of origin or appellate court having the power to definitely
decide the protest. If, in the prosecution
of election protests the ordinary practice were to be followed in regard to the
presentation of motions for dismissal or of demurrers to the evidence, in the
majority of cases, if not always, the law would be frustrated and the will of
the electorate defeated, to the great detriment of the underlying principles of
representative government, because, in case of revocation of a ruling
sustaining the motion of dismissal or the demurrer on appeal, the case would
have to be remanded to the court below for the continuation of the trial and
the introduction of evidence by the protestee, thus
causing the proceeding to continue during the term of the office in question,
with possible result that the defeated, and not the elected, candidate would be
discharging the office.
In election protests, therefore, the protestee
should not be permitted to present a motion for dismissal or a demurrer to the
evidence of the protestant, unless he waives the introduction of his own
evidence in case the ruling on his motion or demurrer is adverse to him, in
which case the court that tries the case must definitely decide it.”
2. Petitioner contends that
the challenged COMELEC Resolution relied solely on the telegram sent by the
COMELEC Special Action Team for Region 9 (supra) and that said telegram
“just found its way” in the record of PP Case No. 214 “without
its sender or author identified and made available on the witness stand for
searching confrontation and cross-examination”. The contention is not borne out by the
records. The telegram was actually a
report to the COMELEC addressed to its Chairman. It was official in character. It was marked as Exhibit “G” and
was formally offered in evidence together with other exhibits by private respondent,
to which petitioner filed his objections.
The members of COMSAT Team No. 9, namely, Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Atty. Benigno R. Lapitan, Provincial
Election Officer of Nueva Ecija,
and Atty. Jose Balbuena, Asst. Chief, Investigation
and Prosecution Division, Law Department, both of the COMELEC, were in the list
of witnesses submitted to COMELEC by private respondent in compliance with its
Order, from which petitioner could select whom to cross examine (Annex
“2”, Comment of private respondent).
However, in his request for cross-examination, petitioner chose not to
include them in his list of witnesses whom he desired to cross-examine (Annexes
“2” & “3”, Rollo).
The report of COMSAT No. 9 is deserving of serious consideration.[9]
The report is not hearsay because COMSAT 9 was the COMELEC Special Action
Team. It was “the deputy and
implementing arm of the Commission” (Resolution No. 1430) “to be sent
on orders of the Chairman of the Commission to areas where the holding of free,
orderly and’ honest elections is placed in jeopardy due to terrorism, violence,
frauds, vote-buying and other analogous causes.” It was given
“blanket authority” to:
“(1) /E/xercise for
the Commission the power to determine
if there are grounds for the postponement
or suspension of elections in any voting
center or political subdivision as provided
under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1978
Election Code; (Sec. 4, paragraph (1), Resolution No. 1430).
x x x x x x
(3) /A/ssess the
political situation and all other factors
that may affect the conduct of the
elections in their respective area of
assignment or jurisdiction, adopt measures to
ensure free, orderly and honest elections,
and render periodic reports thereon to
the Commission and the Comelec
Supervisory Panel concerned; ‘(Sec. 4, paragraph (3), Ibid),
and
x x x x x x
“(5) /R/ecommend to
the Commission the adoption of such measures
that are conducive to free, orderly and
honest elections in the area of assignment.‘
(Sec. 4, paragraph (5) Ibid)”[10]
(Emphasis ours).
COMSAT 9, therefore, maybe said to have
been an extension of the COMELEC itself.
In addition to the telegram to which the COMELEC gave “full faith
and credit” considering that “COMSAT 9 was Our special ‘deputy’ and
‘implementing arm’ in the critical area or areas which were expected to become
trouble spots in the last elections”[11],
the COMELEC also relied on other pleadings and docuÂments of record. Thus, it stated:
“x x x The record will disclose petitioner’s lack of candor and
honesty on his assertion, because from its mute pages, the followÂing facts are
undisputedly set out:
(1) that from February 11, 1980, when he filed
his Manifestation and Prayer by way of Motion for Reconsideration, to May 9,
1980, when he filed his Supplemental Rejoinder, petitioner had filed with this
Commission five (5) substantial pleadings dealing with his defense;
(2) that in all said five pleadings, he had
argued extensively his defense and the demeÂrits of his adversary’s cause;
(3) that prior to December 10, 1980, the date of the challenged resolution,
a total of 32 documents, most of them affidavits, were submitted to this
Commission as evidence and annexed to the aforesaid pleadings.
To emphasize the obvious, the foregoing were taken into acÂcount,
together with the petitioner’s exhibits, in the assessment of the evidence and
in arriving at the decision. x x x“[12]
3. Petitioner’s contention that the findings of the Ministry of
Justice Election Task Force (Annex “G”, Petition) dismissing the
complaint against petitioner for insufficiency of evidence is res judicata is
untenable. The Task Force was deputized
by the COMELEC to the end that violators throughout the Philippines
of laws relative to elections would be charged in Court and correspondingly
penalized. The charges filed before it
were for election offenses which are criminal in nature. It was not a body exercising judicial
functions. To the COMELEC belongs the
prerogative to enforce all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to see
to it that elections are free, honest and orderly. It cannot be “estopped”
by any finding or recommendation by any Task Force organized to assist it in
the performance of its functions.
4. Neither is there merit in petitioner’s contention that since he
has already been proclaimed, the present complaint is no longer viable. The case filed by private respondent is not
in reality a pre-proclamation case but one for annulment of election. Petitioner’s having been proclaimed, his
having taken his oath of office, and his having assumed the duties thereof,
present no impediment to the prosecution of this case to its conclusion.
5. The power of the COMELEC to order the holding of a special
election was upheld in Sanchez vs. COMELEC, 114 SCRA, 454 (1982) wherein
“we (upheld) the power and prerogative of the COMELEC to annul an election
where the will of the voters has been defeated, as well as to call for a
special election where widespread terrorism, whether before or after election,
has been proven resulting in a failure to elect, without need of recourse to
the President and the Batasang Pambansa
for the enactment of remedial legislation”.
WHEREFORE, the Writ of Certiorari is denied, and
the Resolutions, dated December 10, 1980 and October 27, 1981, of the
Commission on Elections annulling the elections held in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, and ordering the holding of a special election
thereat for the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan, are hereby
upheld.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, Plana, Escolin,
Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez,
Jr., JJ., concur.
De Castro, J., on sick leave.
[1]
p. 88, Rollo.
[2]
p. 25, ibid.
[3]
p. 85, ibid.
[4] p.
82, ibid.
[5]
p. 10, ibid.
[6]
p. 65, ibid.
[7]
p. 86, ibid.
[8]
p. 95, ibid.
[9]
Garcia vs. COMELEC, 105 SCRA 250, 280 (1981).
[10]
p. 85, Rollo.
[11]
COMELEC Resolution of December 10,
1980, p. 4.
[12]
p. 94, Rollo.