Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10-Caruncho vs. COMELEC
10-Caruncho vs. COMELEC
_______________
* EN BANC.
694
695
VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 695
Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
696
paraphernalia were scattered all over the place when the intruders
left.
The following day, May 15, 1998, the sub-canvassing units
recovered the twenty-two (22) Election Returns and the Statement of
Votes from the Treasurer’s Office and the PESO. However, page 2 of
each of the 22 election returns, which contained the names of
candidates for congressmen, had been detached and could not be
found. An investigation was conducted to pinpoint liability for the
loss but it yielded negative result. Hence, the Board secured
1 proper
authority from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), through
Election Director for the National Capital Region Atty. Teresita
Suarez, for the reconstitution of the missing page by making use of
the other copies of the election returns, particularly the provincial
copy or the copy in the ballot boxes placed therein by the Board of
Election Inspectors.
At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the Board, satisfied that it had
finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns from as many
clustered precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot 2as the winner in the
congressional race for the lone district of Pasig. The votes obtained
by the leading three candidates were: Henry P. Lanot—60,914 votes;
Emiliano R. “Boy” Caruncho III—42,942 votes, and Arnulfo
Acedera—36,139 votes. The winner, Lanot, led his closest rival,
Caruncho, by 17,971 votes.
However, on May 21, 1998, petitioner Caruncho filed a “Motion
3
_______________
697
_______________
4 Ibid., p. 52.
698
699
That granting without admitting that there were missing Election Returns
which were uncanvassed, and if ordered canvass(ed), the more Lanot will
widen his lead because the trend was that Henry Lanot’s lead swollen (sic)
as more election returns were canvassed.
That for the first time, I am revealing this shocking fact to the
Commission on Elections that on two (2) occasions, an unidentified persons
(sic) talked to me at the unholy hours of the night 2 days while canvassing
was going on and offered me TWO MILLION (P2,000,000.00) PESOS in
cold cash just to proclaim ‘BOY’ as the elected Congressman. I declined the
offer and told the man that I am a straight man, I am on the level, I have a
family and I am about to retire. x x x.
That at 2:40 A.M. of May 17, 1998, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed
all the winning candidates for Local positions. As to the Congressman, the
following results are as follows:
HENRY LANOT — 60,914 votes
EMILIANO ‘BOY’ CARUNCHO — 42,942 votes
ARNULFO ACEDERA — 36,139 votes
The lead of Henry Lanot5 from Emiliano Caruncho was 17,971 votes.
x x x x x x x x x.”
6
On June 24,
7 1998, the COMELEC Second Division promulgated a
_______________
700
Commission and use the Comelec copy of the one hundred forty-
seven (147) election returns above-mentioned and CANVASS said
authentic copy of the election returns and include the results thereof
with the tally of all election returns previously canvassed and,
thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning candidate; and
3. Orders the Law Department of this Commission to investigate
candidate Arnulfo Acedera and if after the investigation, the
evidence so warrant, to file the necessary charges against him.
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
8 Record, p. 55.
9 Ibid., p. 58.
10 Ibid., p. 61.
11 Froilan M. Bacungan and Associates.
701
_______________
12 Record, p. 85.
13 Ibid., p. 97.
14 Ibid., p. 103.
15 Ibid., p. 112.
16 Ibid., p. 113.
17 Ibid., p. 122.
18 Ibid., p. 131.
19 Per COMELEC Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo, with Commissioners Julio F.
Desamito, Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, Japal M. Gui
702
“Thus, the board of canvassers did everything to have all election returns
accounted for, and finished canvassing all the election returns of 1,491
clustered precincts of Pasig City. On the basis of the canvass, the board
proclaimed the winning candidates for local positions. As to the winning
candidate for congressman, the results were as follows:
_______________
703
_______________
21 Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106271, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 782,
792-793.
22 Jagunap v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 53062 & 53345, April 24, 1981, 104 SCRA
204, 213.
23 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 254, 265; 277 SCRA 478, 486 (1997).
704
_______________
705
“Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. x x x.”
_______________
25 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
26 G.R. No. 134142, August 24, 1999, 313 SCRA 18.
706
‘The phrase “election, returns and qualifications” should be interpreted in its totality
as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. But if it is
necessary to specify, we can say that “election” referred to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting
and counting of the votes; “returns” to the canvass of the returns and the
proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the
board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and “qualifications”
to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of
candidacy.’
The word ‘sole’ in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code underscore the exclusivity of the
Tribunal’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.
Inasmuch as petitioner contests the proclamation of herein respondent
Teresa Aquino-Oreta as the 12th winning senatorial candidate, it is the
Senate Electoral Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the
complaint of petitioner. x x x.”
_______________
27 Pangilinan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105278, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA
36.
707
VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 707
Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
28
“SEC. 233. When the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed.—In
case its copy of the election returns is missing, the board of canvassers shall,
by messenger or otherwise, obtain such missing election returns from the
board of election inspectors concerned, or if said returns have been lost or
destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the Commission,
may use any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified
copy of said election returns issued by the Commission, and forthwith direct
its representative to investigate the case and immediately report the matter
to the Commission.
The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election
returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim
the candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns if the
missing election returns will not affect the results of the election.”
_______________
28 David-Chan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1140, 1148; 268 SCRA 677, 686
(1997).
708
_______________
709
——o0o——