Sibuma vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 261344. January 24, 2023 [Case Digest]

 

Sibuma vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 261344. January 24, 2023

En Banc,   INTING, J.

Facts:

            Sibuma and Eriguel vied for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Agoo, La Union in the National and Local Elections of May 9, 2022 (May 9, 2022 Elections). Petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for the position on October 7, 2021.

            Alma L. Panelo (Panelo) filed a Petition to Deny Due Course [to] or Cancel [a] Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (OEC) against Sibuma. Panelo averred that Sibuma committed a material misrepresentation when he stated in his CoC that "he will be a resident of Brgy. Sta. Barbara, Agoo, La Union for 1 year and 3 months on the day before the May 9, 2022 Elections" because "in truth and in fact he is a resident of Zone 2, Purok 9, San Eugenio, Aringay, La Union."

            To prove her claims, Panelo submitted in evidence two Certifications dated October 29, 2021 issued by Punong Barangay Erwina C. Eriguel (Punong Barangay Eriguel) of Brgy. Sta. Barbara, Agoo—the barangay where Sibuma allegedly resides. The Certifications stated that Sibuma is not a resident of Brgy. Sta. Barbara. Panelo also submitted a Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 025-2020001551, and applications for building permits and licences covering a certain property. Panelo asserted that these documents show that the address alleged by Sibuma in his CoC belongs to a different person, a certain Eric Ong Sibuma. Panelo further invoked a Certification issued by the Municipal Engineer of Agoo attesting that no certificate of occupancy had been issued over the said property.

            For his part, Sibuma alleged that he had established his residency in the Municipality of Agoo, Province of La Union since his birth. He contended that while he may have been absent thereat for some time, his intention to return (animus revertendi) has always been shown. In support thereof, he submitted in evidence the following documents: (a) Certificate of Live Birth showing that he was born in Agoo, La Union; (b) Secondary Student's Record from the Don Mariano Marcos State University of Agoo, as well as a Certification attesting that he completed his secondary education therein; (c) copies of his telephone bills and a Ledger Inquiry from the La Union Electric Company, all issued in his name, indicating Sta. Barbara, Agoo, La Union as his address.

            Panelo offered as supplementary evidence affidavits dated December 3 and 4, 2021 individually executed by eight of the 41 affiants in Sibuma's Affidavit of Residency. The affidavits provided that the eight affiants recanted their participation in Sibuma's Affidavit of Residency.

            During the pendency of Panelo's petition to deny due course to or cancel Sibuma's CoC, Sibuma's name remained on the ballots when the May 9, 2022 Elections ensued. On May 10, 2022, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Agoo, La Union issued a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of Winning Candidate for Municipal Mayor proclaiming Sibuma as the duly elected Mayor of the Municipality of Agoo, La Union. Sibuma garnered 21,364 votes against Eriguel's 16,603 votes.

            On May 13, 2022, the COMELEC Second Division issued the assailed Resolution granting Panelo's petition to deny clue course to or cancel Sibuma's CoC and ruled that Sibuma committed material misrepresentation in his CoC relating to his residency.

 

Issue:

            Whether the COMELEC Second Division gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the cancellation of Sibuma's CoC and the nullification of his proclamation as the duly elected Mayor of Agoo, La Union.

 

Held:

            Yes; while the foregoing provisions [Sec. 74 & 78] are silent on the element of deceit, the Court in Hayudini underscored that aside from the requirement of materiality, it is essential that a false representation under Section 78 be committed with a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible." In other words, the false material representation "must be made with a malicious intent to deceive the electorate as to the potential candidate's qualifications for public office."

            Here, there is no substantial evidence that Sibuma committed a deliberately false and deceptive representation of his residence qualifications in his CoC. In fact, a thorough reading of the assailed Resolution cancelling his CoC reveals the paucity of such finding of intent to deceive essential in a Section 78 petition.

            Ordinarily, the appreciation by the COMELEC of evidence before it is beyond the scrutiny of the Court, the former being an independent constitutional body of a level higher than statutory administrative bodies. However, upon showing that it issued findings not supported by evidence or are contrary to evidence, then it is deemed to have acted capriciously and whimsically. Resulting errors arising from grave abuse of discretion mutate from an error of judgment to one of jurisdiction; in which case, the Court is constitutionally duty-bound to step in and correct the grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC.

            In Mitra v. Commission on Elections, the Court, confronted with a similar issue on false representation on residence requirement in a CoC, set aside the cancellation of the CoC of petitioner therein for failure of the COMELEC "to critically consider whether [he] deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform or hide a fact that would otherwise render him ineligible for the position of Governor of Palawan." The Court underscored that without such finding, a cancellation of CoC cannot be sustained.

            Indeed, the lack of findings of intent on the part of Sibuma to deceive the electorate of the Municipality of Agoo, La Union taints the issuance of the assailed Resolution cancelling his CoC, as well as the Writ of Execution nullifying his proclamation, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

            Section 74 requires the inclusion in the CoC of a declaration that the facts stated therein are true to the best of the candidate's knowledge. Evidently, this declaration qualifies all of the information that Section 74 requires. In other words, the law does not demand from candidates perfect accuracy and absolute certainty in the information that they supply in a CoC, but only such facts which they believe to be true to the best of their knowledge. This means that a candidate who makes a representation which is subsequently found to be false, would still be compliant with Section 74 if he or she made such representation in good faith. What is material is that at the time that he or she made such declaration, he or she believed said information to be true to the best of his or her knowledge.

            The Court sees Sibuma's declaration of residency in his CoC as proceeding from his good faith and firm belief that he possesses the required residency for the position vied for—i.e., his domicile remains to be in Agoo, La Union, and that he is a bona fide resident thereof—as confirmed by his documents in support thereof.

            It is settled jurisprudence that a domicile of an individual is not lost by the mere fact that he or she has maintained residences in different places. In Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, the Court held: An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence.

            This may be the explanation why the registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence. It finds justification in the natural desire and longing of every person to return to his place of birth. This strong feeling of attachment to the place of one's birth must be overcome by positive proof of abandonment for another. [Faypon v. Quirino]

            Contrary to the conclusion of the COMELEC Second Division, the Court finds that Sibuma has more than sufficiently proven by substantial evidence not only his actual physical presence in Agoo, La Union for a period of one year prior to the May 9, 2022 Elections but also, more importantly, the intentions required by jurisprudence, i.e., "animus manendi" and "animus revertendi" to establish Agoo, La Union as his domicile or legal residence, that is, "the place from which [he] could or might depart, or be absent temporarily for a certain purpose and to which he always intended to return." First, Sibuma was born in Agoo, La Union and obtained his secondary education therein. Second, his evidence established his actual physical presence in Agoo, La Union and that he, together with his wife, owns a residential house and other real properties thereat. There being no positive proof that he abandoned his Agoo, La Union domicile for another, his domicile therein cannot be doubted.

            As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed in order that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.

            Under the situation, the COMELEC Second Division should have been guided by the jurisprudential directive that utmost efforts be exerted in resolving the case in a manner that would give effect to the will of the electorate. It should have accorded Sibuma "every possible protection, defense and refuge, in deference to the popular will." It should have heeded the majority's verdict by resolving all doubts in favor of Sibuma's residence qualification.