POWER TO HEAR AND
RESOLVE CASES IN
DIVISION AND IN EN
BANC
COLUMBRES V COMELEC
G.R. 142038
MR in COMELEC for:
1. Insufficiency of
evidence to justify ruling,
order or decision.
2. Ruling, order, or
decision is contrary to
law.
All courts were remiss of
their duties. REMAND
FACTS:
HOW THE ISSUE STARTED
Petitioner Rolando Columbres and private respondent
Hilario Guzman, Jr. were candidates for position of Mayor
of San Jacinto, Pangasinan during the 1998 elections. After
canvassing, the Municipal Board of Cavassers proclaimed
private respondent to have won with 4,248 votes against
petitioner’s 4,104 votes.
Petitioner then filed an election protest with the RTC and
contested 42 precints and prayed for the revision of
ballots.
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
124 ballots were written only by 2 persons and should be
annulled.
RULING OF THE RTC
RTC granted petition and declared petitioner as the duly
elected Mayor.
Private respondent appealed the decision with the
COMELEC 2nd division.
RULING OF COMELEC 2nd DIVISION
Reversed and set aside RTC decision and affirmed election
of private respondent.
Petitioner now then filed a MR, but the division affirmed
its previous decision. Feeling that the division totally
disregarded his objections, he urged the COMELEC En
Banc to review the findings of the 2nd Division.
RULING OF COMELEC EN BANC
MR is denied. Only 13 ballots out of the 124 were
invalidated. The finding of the 2nd division regarding the
validity of the questioned ballots is a finding of fact that
may not be subject of a motion for reconsideration.
Movant protestant-appellee is not challenging the
ISSUES:
WON the findings of fact of the COMELEC Division, especially
so in matters of appreciation of ballots, is absolute and cannot
be subject of a Motion for Reconsideration before the
COMELEC En Banc –NO
RATIO:
Section 1, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure states
that “A motion for reconsideration may be filed on the grounds
that the (1) evidence is insufficient to justify the decision,
order or ruling; or (2) that the said decision, order or ruling is
contrary to law.”
En Banc was wrong when it resolved that since the petitioner
is merely assailing the appreciation of the Division means that
the issue is not proper for a Motion for Reconsideration.
Commissioner Dy-Liaco was right in her dissent that “when a
protestant/appellee argued that the appreciation of the division
is erroneous, there is the implication that such finding or ruling
is contrary to law and thus, may be a proper subject of a motion
for reconsideration.” Thus even though it does not fall under
insufficiency of evidence, the case at bar would fall to those
falling under decisions contrary to law.
Moreover, the opposing conclusions of the trial court and the
COMELEC Second Division should have prompted the
COMELEC en banc to undertake an independent appreciation
of the contested ballots to see for itself which of the conflicting
rulings is valid and should be upheld.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Whether or not, the trial court is correct in holding that in the
presence of a marking, there would be a presumption that the
markings were made by third persons, absent concrete
evidence showing that they were placed by the voters
themselves and thus be invalidated-NO
RATIO:
sufficiency of the evidence in this instance but the There is no such presumption. Instead, the legal presumption
appreciation thereof by the 2nd division. is that the sanctity of the ballot has been protected and
preserved.

HOWEVER, where the ballot, shows distinct and marked

dissimilarities in the writing of the names of some candidates
from the rest, the ballot is void for having been written by two
hands. A ballot appearing to have been written by two persons
is presumed to have been cast "as is" during the voting, and
this presumption can only be overcome by showing that the
ballot was tampered with after it was deposited in the ballot
box.

In this case it was found out that both the trial court and the
2nd division erred. Trial court used the wrong presumption,
while the 2nd division validated the ballots even though it is
apparent that they were written by two hands. Even En banc
erred when it simplistically concluded that in the absence of
evidence that it was marked by third persons then there is
nothing left for them to do but to affirm the validity of the
questioned ballots.

It appears that the COMELEC En banc was remiss in its duties

to properly resolve the motion for Reconsideration before it. It
should have given a close scrutiny of the questioned ballots
and determine for itself their validity. Ie. Determine the real
nature of the alleged markings if those were made by different
persons and whether they were intended to identify the ballot.

CASE REMANDED TO COMELEC ENBANC FOR RE-

EXAMINATION OF THE BALLOTS AND THEIR VALIDITY.