Any vote in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot (Section 211 (19) of the Omnibus Election Code). This is the rule that Al tried to invoke in his case.
Al and Mon ran as candidates for Punong Barangay in the July 15, 2002 synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections. After the canvassing of votes, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Al as the winning candidate having obtained 614 votes against 609 obtained by Mon.
But Mon could not accept his defeat and filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC) alleging that the Election Teller failed to credit him with as many as ten votes for lack of familiarity with the Rules on Appreciation of Ballots. Thus after the MTCC ordered a recount, the results showed that Mon got 616 votes and Al got 614 votes. So the MTCC annulled and set aside Al’s proclamation and declared Mon as the lawful and duly elected Punong Barangay. On appeal, the Second Division of the COMELEC affirmed the MTCC decision particularly with respect to six ballots in which the name of Mon was written on the first space or line intended for the position of kagawad which were credited as votes in Mon’s favor, by applying the “neighborhood rule”.
Al questioned this COMELEC ruling. He contended that applying the “neighborhood rule” is contrary to judicial precedents and so the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it counted the six ballots as votes in Mon’s favor instead of considering them as stray votes. Was Al correct?
No. The object of the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. It involves a question of fact which is best left to the discretion of the COMELEC.
The “neighborhood rule” is loosely based on a rule of the same name devised by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which refers to an exception to the rule on appreciation of misplaced votes under said Section 211 (19). Excepted from said section are ballots with a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for successive offices appearing in the ballot like the six ballots in this case. In these instances the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the candidates for the office for which they presented themselves because the voters’ intention to so vote is clear from the face of the ballots. This is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to voter’s will (Cordia vs. Monforte et.al. G.R. 174620 March 4, 2009).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net