|
|
|
Clearly, rectification of the error is called for, if We are to give life to the will of the electorate. Moreover, it is purely administrative and "It does not involve any opening of the ballot box, examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. As said error was discovered after proclamation, all that is required is to convene the board of canvassers to rectify the error it inadvertently committed in order that the true will of the voters will be effected." (Tatlonghari vs. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 849) XXX Third. Petitioner further contends that he
was denied procedural due process because the COMELEC issued its
resolution without notice and hearing. Indeed, it appears that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC did not comply with the
procedure that should have been followed in the instant case.
In Castromayor v. COMELEC,12 [250 SCRA 298 (1995).] the returns from a precinct were overlooked by the Municipal Board of Canvassers in computing the total number of votes obtained by the candidates for the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan, for which reason the COMELEC directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to make the necessary corrections. We held that, as the case involved a manifest error, although the COMELEC erred in annulling the proclamation of petitioner without notice and hearing, the expedient course of action was for the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to effect the necessary corrections on the certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidates on the basis thereof. Said Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure states: Correction of Errors in Tabulation or Tallying of Results by the Board of Canvassers. ¾ (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election returns, or certificates of canvass, during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns of one precinct or two or more copies of a certificate of canvass were tabulated more than once, (2) two copies of the election returns or certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying of the figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct, or (4) so-called election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, the board may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. (b) The order for correction must be made in writing and must be promulgated. (c) Any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties aggrieved by said order may appeal therefrom to the Commission within twenty-four (24) hours from the promulgation. (d) Once an appeal is made, the board of canvassers shall not proclaim the winning candidates, unless their votes are not affected by the appeal. (e) The appeal must implead as respondents the Board of Canvassers concerned and all parties who may be adversely affected thereby. (f) Upon receipt of the appeal, the Clerk of Court concerned shall forthwith issue summons, together with a copy of the appeal, to the respondents. (g) The Clerk of Court concerned shall immediately set the appeal for hearing. (h) The appeal shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc. This case likewise involves manifest errors.
Election Return No. 3700088 from Precinct Nos. 84-A/84-A-1 is claimed to
show 92 votes in favor of private respondent but indicate a total in words
and figures of only 82 votes. On the other hand, Election Return No.
3700023 allegedly shows 13 votes for petitioner but indicates in words and
figures 18 votes. These discrepancies can be easily resolved without
opening the ballot boxes and recounting the ballots. COMELEC Resolution
No. 2962 provides that "in case there exist discrepancies in the
votes of any candidate in taras/tally as against the votes obtained in
words/figures in the same returns/certificates, the votes in taras/tally
shall prevail." In the present case, although the COMELEC
annulled the proclamation of petitioner, it merely directed the Municipal
Board of Canvassers to "RECONVENE within five (5) days from receipt
hereof and effect the corrections in the total number of votes received by
the candidates in Precinct Nos. 84-A/84-A-1 (clustered) and Precinct No.
23-A and thereafter PROCLAIM the winning candidate/s for Municipal Kagawad
based on the corrected results." It was the Municipal Board of
Canvassers which the COMELEC ordered to actually effect the necessary
corrections, if any, in the said election returns and, on the basis
thereof, proclaim the winning candidate or candidates as member or members
of the Sangguniang Bayan. In accordance with our ruling in Castromayor,
the expedient action to take is to direct the Municipal Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with
Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to effect the necessary
corrections, if any, in the election returns and, on the basis thereof,
proclaim the winning candidate or candidates as member or members of the
Sangguniang Bayan.
En
Banc, Justice Mendoza, DIOSCORO
O. ANGELIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENTINO
R. TAN, respondents
[G.R. No. 135468. May 31, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
