|
|
|
|
ALLEGATION
OF FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES General allegations of fraud and irregularities are sufficient to order the opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballots. When there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of ballots deposited therein. The rule in this
jurisdiction is clear and jurisprudence is even clearer. In a string of
categorical pronouncements, we have consistently ruled that when there is
an allegation in an election protest that would require the
perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial
duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and
the examination and counting of ballots deposited therein.20
[Crispino
vs. Panganiban, 219 SCRA 621 (1993) per Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr. (now Chief Justice) citing Pareja vs. Narvasa, 81 Phil. 22,
26-27 (1948)] (emphasis
ours)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Petitioner argues that
the general allegations of fraud and irregularities are not sufficient to
order the opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballots.19
[Ibid., p. 27.] The petition deserves no merit. The rule in this jurisdiction is clear and jurisprudence is even clearer. In a string of categorical pronouncements, we have consistently ruled that when there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of ballots deposited therein.20 [Crispino vs. Panganiban, 219 SCRA 621 (1993) per Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (now Chief Justice) citing Pareja vs. Narvasa, 81 Phil. 22, 26-27 (1948)] (emphasis ours) In Astorga vs. Fernandez,21 [19 SCRA 331, 335 (1967)] this Court inked the rationale behind the principle through the pen of Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion: "xxx Obviously, the simplest, the most expeditious and the best means to determine the truth or falsity of this allegation is to open the ballot box and examine its contents. To require parol or other evidence on said alleged irregularity before opening said box, would have merely given the protestee ample opportunity to delay the settlement of the controversy, through lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses for the protestant and the presentation of testimonial evidence for the protestee to the contrary. As held in Cecilio vs. Belmonte,22 [48 Phil. 243 (1925)] this ‘would be to sanction an easy way to defeat a protest.’" (emphasis ours) At this point, the provisions of Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) is in order: "Section 255. Judicial counting of votes in election protest.-Where allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the court the interests of justice so require, it shall immediately order the book of voters, ballot boxes and their keys, ballots and other documents used in the election be brought before it and that the ballots be examined and the votes recounted." Further, Section 6, Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads: "When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division, the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters, and other documents used in the election to be brought before the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots." While the abovementioned rule pertains to election protests falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Commission, the same procedure is prescribed for election contests which are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction23 [Section 12, Rule 35, COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] as well as election contests within the exclusive original jurisdiction of courts of limited jurisdiction.24 [Section 14, Rule 37, COMELEC rules of procedure; Crispino vs. Panganiban, 219 SCRA 621 (1993)] In the case before us, the serious allegations embodied in the election protest mandates and necessitates the opening of the subject ballot boxes to the end of resolving the issue of fraud and irregularities in the election. Precisely, the purpose of ordering the opening of the ballot boxes is to ascertain, with the least amount of protracted delay, the veracity of the allegations of fraud and anomalies in the conduct of the electoral exercise. Thus, a preliminary hearing set for the same purpose is a mere superfluity that negates the essence of affording premium to the prompt resolution of election cases and incidents relating thereto. Stated differently, the lower court clearly committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the conduct of a preliminary hearing to achieve the abovementioned purpose; the court a quo acted outside its province and overshot the limits of its jurisdiction. Evidently, the twin orders of the lower court, dated 07 July 1998 and 11 August 1998, were issued in clear violation of the Rules and existing case law on the matter. Moreover, petitioner's
heavy reliance on the Narrative Report of Acting Election Officer Lourdes
Barroga is misplaced. The law does not require prima facie showing other
than the allegations in the protest of fraud or irregularities in order to
authorize the opening of the ballot boxes. Applying this principle, the
stand taken by the lower court was extremely technical and highly
impractical, apart from tending to defeat one of the major objectives of
the law.25
[Hontiveros vs. Altavas, 24 Phil. 632 (1913)] For in this specie of controversies involving the determination of the true will of the electorate, time indeed is of paramount importance-second to none perhaps, except for the genuine will of the majority. To be sure, an election controversy which by its very nature touches upon the ascertainment of the people's choice, as gleaned from the medium of the ballot, should be resolved with utmost dispatch, precedence and regard to due process. To achieve this end,
courts and tribunals should then endeavor to adopt only such means
consistent with this general objective and be constantly reminded to
refrain from such a needless exercise "which has spawned the
protracted delay that the law and the principle underlying it precisely
intend to forestall."26
[Mogueis, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 136 SCRA 285, 289 (1985)] Justice
Buena, En Banc, Miguel v. COMELEC, En Banc and Lapuz, [G.R. No. 136966.
July 5, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
