Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Kare vs COMELEC

G.R. No.157526-7/ April 28 2004/ Panganiban, J./LOCGOV-Disqualifications/JMQAquino SC: The period for perfecting an appeal is interrupted when a MR of Motion for New Trial is
NATURE Petition for Certiorari filed (Sec 6, Rule 122). Moll makes it appear that his filing of an MR should have stayed the
PETITIONERS (GR no 157526) Emiliana Kare; (GR 157527) Salvador K. Moll running of the period for filing an appeal. However, what he did file was a Motion to Quash
RESPONDENTS COMELEC the Information; and when it was denied, he filed an MR. Neither the Motion to Quash nor
his MR was directed at the judgment of conviction. Rather, they both attacked a matter
SUMMARY Moll and Ceriola were candidates for mayor. Kare was the elected Vice Mayor. extraneous to the judgment. Hence, they cannot affect the period of appeal granted by the
Ceriola had Moll disqualified and Comelec held the former to be the rightful winner of the ROC in relation to the conviction. Further, Moll admitted that no regular appeal was filed. He
elections after disqualifying the latter on the ground of final conviction of a crime with also filed the MTQ belatedly (filed it on day of promulgation instead of any time before
imprisonment of more than 1 year. Moll argues that the judgment wasn’t final yet since he entering a plea).
filed a MR. Court said that his MR didn’t suspend the period of appeal since it wasn’t directed
against the judgment of conviction. This being the case, he was disqualified properly. When Since no appeal of conviction was seasonably filed by Moll, judgment against him has
a mayoral candidate who gathered the highest number of votes is disqualified after the become final. COMELEC en banc correctly ruled that he was disqualified from running for
election’s held, a permanent vacancy is created, and the vice mayor succeeds to the mayor under Sec. 40 (a) LGC1. Moll was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 mos of arresto
position. mayor to 1 year and 9 mos of prison correccional, a penalty that clearly disqualified him from
running for any elective local position.
FACTS
 Moll and Ceriola were candidates for mayor of the Municipality of Malinao Albay (May Moll argues that the promulgation of judgment was not valid because it was done in his
14, 2001 Elections). Moll won and Ceriola was the 2nd placer (vote difference: 987). Kare absence.
was the elected vice mayor of the said election.
 May 17 2001: Ceriola filed a Petition to Confirm the Disqualification and/or Ineligibility of SC: As correctly contended by the OSG, Moll received a notice of his promulgation, in fact
Moll to Run for Any Elective Position on the ground that Moll had been sentenced to 6 his counsel was present on the day of his promulgation- to file a motion to quash. Because of
mos of arresto mayor to 1 year and 9 mos of prision correccional for Usurpation of his unexplained absence, promulgation of judgment can be validly made by recording the
Authority or Official functions (RPC 177) judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof to his last known address or
 Comelec 1st Div dismissed said petition thru counsel as per Sec 6, Rule 120 of ROC.
 On reconsideration, COMELEC En Banc issued Mar 19 2003 Resolution which affirmed
Moll’s disqualification (as recommended by the provincial election supervisor of Albay)
and proclaimed Ceriola as the mayor-elect. COMELEC ruled that: 2. If yes, who should become mayor? Ceriola or Kare? Kare.
o Moll had been disqualified from being a mayoral candidae in the 2001
local election and that his subsequent proclamation as mayor was void In allowing Ceriola to be proclaimed mayor-elect, the COMELEC applied Sec. 211(24) OEC2.
ab initio. He was thus disqualified from holding office It interpreted the phrase “disqualified by final judgment” to mean “disqualification by a final
o TC’s final judgment disqualified Moll from filing his certificate of judgment of conviction. SC has ruled in a long line of cases that the COMELEC cannot
candidacy and continued to disqualify him from holding office. proclaim as winner the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes should
Accordingly, votes case in his favor were stray or invalid votes, and the winning candidate be declared ineligible or disqualified. However, COMELEC asserts
Ceriola was adjudged the winner. that this case falls under the exception in Sunga vs. COMELEC. Court held therein that “in
 Before Ceriola’s actual proclamation, Kare filed a petition before the SC for a Status Quo
order, which was granted. 1 Sec. 40. Disqualifications – (a) Those sentenced by a final judgment for an
 GR 157526: Kare seeks the nullification of the Mar 19 resolution wrt Ceriola being held as offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year of more
winner. of imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence.
 GR 157527: Moll wants to annul the entire resolution. Cases were consolidated. 2 Sec. 211 Rules for the appreciation of ballots – In the reading and appreciation

of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is clear and
ISSUES & RATIO. good reason to justify its rejection. The board of inspectors shall observe the
1. Should Moll be disqualified from running/holding the position of mayor? YES following rules, bearing in mind that the object of the election so to obtain the
expression of the voter’s will:
Moll argues that he cannot be disqualified from running for mayor since his judgment of
xxx xxx xxx
conviction (the basis of his disqualification) has allegedly not attained finality. While he did
not appeal the said judgment (promulgated on May 11 1999) by filing a notice of appeal, he
24. any vote cast in favor of a candidate who has been disqualified by final
still filed an MR on May 28 1999 within the reglementary period. judgment shall be considered as stray and shall not be counted but it shall
not invalidate the ballot (emphasis and underline supplied)
the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the
matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was qualified, they
should not be treated as stray, void, or meaningless” (italics supplied). According to the
COMELEC, Sec. 211(24) OEC is a clear legislative policy contrary to the rule that the second
placer cannot be declared winner. Thus, votes cast in Cerilo’s favor are stray or invalid as per
Sec. 211(24) OEC and Moll thus obtained the highest number of valid votes.

SC: COMELEC misconstrued Sec. 211(24) by limiting it only to disqualification by


conviction in a final judgment. Read together with other provisions in the OEC3 , any vote
cast in favor of a candidate, whose disqualification has already been declared final regardless
of the ground therefor, shall be considered stray.

More importantly, the electorate were under the belief that Moll was qualified
when they voted for him as mayor on May 2001 because it was only on March 19 2003 that
the Comelec en banc resolved to disqualify Moll from running as a mayoral candidate. There
is no presumption that they agreed to the subsequent invalidation of their votes as stray
votes, in case of his disqualification. COMELEC’s finding that Moll was ineligible cannot
retroact to the date of the election and invalidate the votes.

Also, Moll was not notoriously known to the public as an ineligible candidate. Thus,
there is a presumption that the votes of those who voted for him were cast with a sincere
belief that he was a qualified candidate, and without any intention to misapply their
franchise. Their votes cannot be treated as stray, void or meaningless.

The Court pronounced that to allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to
take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise them
through no fault on their part, and to undermine the importance and the meaning of
democracy and the right of the people to elect officials of their choice.

Theoeretically, the second placer could just receive one vote. It would
then be absurd to proclaim the totally repudiated candidate as the voters choice.
In situations when the votes of the second placer is not numerically insignificant
and the equation changes because of the disqualification of an ineligible
candidate, voters’ preferences would be so volatile and unpredictable that the
results for qualified candidates would not be self-evident.

Sec. 44 of RA7169 on permanent vacancies in the offices of the governor, vice-governor,


mayor, and vice mayor would them apply. When Moll was adjudged to be disqualified, a
permanent vacancy was created for failure of the elected mayor to qualify. In such
eventuality, the duly elected vice mayor shall succeed as provided by Sec. 44

Decision: Moll’s petition denied. Kare’s petition granted.

3Sec. 72 Effects of disqualification cases and priority—xxx any candidate who


has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for,
and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. X x x

S-ar putea să vă placă și