Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Intramuros, Manila

SECOND DIVISION

APPELLEES BRIEF

NEIL PARONDA Protestant-Appellee

-versus-

PEDRO B. SALAZAR Protestee-Appellant

EAC (Brgy-SK) No. 212-2011

GUALBERTO C. MANLAGNIT
Counsel for the Protestant-Appellee Attorneys Roll No. 17869 PTR No. 8954051 April 15, 2010 IBP No. 846532 January 10, 2011 MCLE No. III-0017143, June 5, 2010 Diamond St., Filoville Subdivision, Naga City

September 19, 2011

THE SUBJECT INDEX

Timeliness of the Filing of Appellees Brief . 1 Counter-Statement of Facts 1. The Revision of Ballots was conducted in accordance with pertinent laws, rules, and jurisprudence 2. Judicial admission that some of the ballots are spurious is not a ground to declare a ballot as spurious 3. No evidence that some individuals tinkered with the result of the contested Elections 4. The disallowance of the technical examination was nobodys fault but the protestee-appellants 5. The Notice of Appeal of protestee-appellant PEDRO SALAZAR was not timely filed and not perfected . 1 . 1

. 2

. 2

. 3

. 3

6. Protestee-appellant failed to . 4 mention on his statement of facts that the Decision in question was submitted to the Clerk of Court on May 9, 2011 and that copies of which were sent to the parties counsel thereafter . 4 . 7

Counter- Arguments First Counter-Argument: The court a quo based its Decision on the result of the Revision Report and largely on pertinent laws, rules, and jurisprudence.

Second Counter-Argument: It was . 8 proven that the ballots revised were the very same ballots actually cast and counted in the elections Third Counter-Argument: Judicial . 10 admission does not make a ballot spurious and subject the same to rejection

Fourth Counter-Argument: the court . 12 a quo did not err in considering as valid votes the votes in the ballots intended for Balayan, Batangas Fifth Counter-Argument: Contrary to . 13 protestee-appellants argument, Protestant-appellee does not deserve to be stripped off of his seventy (70) votes by virtue of COMELEC Resolution No. 9030 and the fact that protestee-appellants witnesses do not have credibility Sixth Counter-Argument: Protestee- . 16 Appellants motion to present a technical expert deserved to be denied Seventh Counter-Argument: This . 18 appeal case must be dismissed for not being perfected and improperly filed . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22

Conclusion Prayer Verification Affidavit of Service

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Substantive and Procedural Laws A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC *Rule 10, Section 8 *Rule 11, Section 1 *Rule 13, Section 1(4) *Rule 13, Section 6 *Rule 14, Section 4 *Rule 14, Section 8 COMELEC Resolution No. 9030 *Section 48 *Section 48(a) *Section 48(g) *Section 48(j) *Section 48(m) Rules of Court *Rule 1, Section 4 Jurisprudence/Case Laws Asuncion vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 704 Calucag vs. Commission on Elections, 274 SCRA 405 Gutierrez vs. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 413 Laza vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 654 Libanan vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, GR No. 129783, 22 December 1997 . 17 . 16, 17 . 19 . 16 . 2, 10 . 9 3, 9, 16 . 16 . 8 4, 16, 18 3, 16, 18 . . . . .

9, 14 14 13, 14 14 13

. 10

Manlinas vs. Commission on . 11 Elections, GR No. 146943, 4 October 2002 Quintanilla vs. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 397 Tabanda vs. Court of Appeals and Rosal, GR No. 168253 Legal Principles/Maxims Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Falsus in uno, falso in omnibus . 11, 12 . 15 . 17 . 9, 10