Pryde Henry Teves vs. COMELEC and Roel R. Degamo
G.R. Nos. 262622 / 262682 [February 14, 2023]
EN BANC [LOPEZ, J. J.]
Facts:
On October 7, 2021, Roel R. Degamo (Roel) filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Negros Oriental under the Nacionalista Party. The following day, Ruel filed his Certi4cate of Candidacy as an independent candidate for the same position. Teves filed his own Certificate of Candidacy to be part of the gubernatorial race.
Roel filed a Petition before the COMELEC seeking to declare Ruel as a nuisance candidate. Roel claimed that Ruel filed his Certificate of Candidacy for governor to confuse the choice and mind of the voters in Negros Oriental. Roel further claimed that Ruel is a Gaudia and not a Degamo and that he has no birth certificate as he was merely raised by his surrogate guardians, the spouses Jaime Degamo and Ima Gaudia Degamo (spouses Degamo). To prove his claim, Roel submitted the sworn affidavit of Ima Gaudia Degamo.
Roel also alleged that Ruel is devoid of means, influence, and machinery to launch a campaign for a position as high as governor since his income as an air conditioner mechanic will not be sufficient, and he has not held any elective or appointive position, not even as a barangay tanod. Roel asserted that Ruel was never called as a "Ruel" and it was only in his Certificate of Candidacy that he used such nickname.
Lastly, Roel claimed that his political rival kidnapped, pressured and bribed a relative of Ruel for the latter to file a Certificate of Candidacy. The affidavit of Rifeniel Degamo (Rifeniel) was submitted to prove the narration of his abduction and the attempt to entice him and his two brothers. Roel further claimed that Rifeniel's wife, Nanchie Degamo (Nanchie) was pressured and bribed to run for a congressional seat but later on withdrew her candidacy. Roel also offered the affidavit of Nanchie to this effect.
Ruel countered that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to run for a local elective office such as for the position of governor. Thus, there is no valid reason to cancel or deny due course his Certificate of Candidacy. Ruel claimed that to require him or anyone aspiring to run for a public office to have the "means, influence, and machinery" to wage a campaign is tantamount to imposing a property qualification that is not allowed by the Constitution or any law.
Ruel denied the allegation of Roel that he is not a degamo and that his nickname "Ruel" is merely a pretense. He asserted that his registered name is Ruel G. Degamo and has always bee11 known as Ruel.
COMELEC Second Division grant the petition and declared that Ruel Degamo a nuisance candidate. The COMELEC Second Division noted that Ruel is known as Ruel Gaudia and it is only recently that he bpted to use Ruel Gaudia Degamo. The presence of two "Degamos", one with a name "Roel" and another with the nickname "Ruel" will necessarily confuse the voters and render worthless a vote for a "Degamo" during the appreciation of votes. It also declared that Ruel failed to demonstrate his bona fide intention to run for public office in good faith and that no evidence was presented to show that Ruel is aware of the rigors of a campaign, and has abted or is acting in response to these rigors.
On May 9, 2022, the electorate of Negros Oriental voted for local and national positions without the final resolution on the issue of whether Ruel is a nuisance candidate. As a result, the riiame "Ruel Gaudia Degamo" remained on the official ballot as candidate for governor. The results of the election tally resulted in Teves receiving the highest number of votes. Roel and Ruel came in second and third respectively. The tally of the votes are as follows:
|
Candidate’s Name |
Votes Received |
|
Pryde Henry A. Teves |
301,319 |
|
Roel Ragay Degamo |
281,773 |
|
Ruel Gaudia Degamo |
49,953 |
Roel filed manifestation and motion asking the COMELEC En Banc to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration. Roel asserted this Court's ruling in the 2018 case of Santos v. Commission on Elections En Banc, et al., wherein the votes obtained by a nuisance candidate should be credited to a legitimate candidate with similar name, which crediting can be done even after the elections.
On June 20, 2022, Roel filed before this Court a Petition for Mandamus. He imputed that the COMELEC has the clear legal duty to resolve with dispatch the case for declaration of a nuisance candidate and the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy. Roel asserted that by its nature, a case for declaration of nuisance candidates was purposely designed to be summary and expeditious. He also highlighted that as per the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and pertinent COMELEC Resolutions, the nuisance proceedings may be resolved with finality within a period of 30-60 days.
On August 16, 2022, this Court granted the Petition for Mandamus filed by Roel. The Commission on Elections En Banc is ORDERED to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 21-085 (DC) within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.
On October 3, 2022, the Special Provincial Board of Canvassers convened and proclaimed Roel as the duly elected Governor of the Province of Negros Oriental. The following day, he took his oath of office before President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
Teves claimed in G.R. No. 262622 that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that Ruel is a nuisance candidate and the votes cast in his favor should be counted in favor of Roel instead. Teves also stated that because of the active and very specific campaign launched against Ruel, the votes cannot be deemed to have been confused about the identity of the two individuals especially since Roel is a well-known public figure in the province. He stressed that the number of voters in the present case are substantially more than the largest number of voters in favor of any nuisance candidate in jurisprudence.
Roel countered in his consolidated comment that the COMELEC En Banc did not violate Teves' right to due process. He explained that the exclusion of Teves as party respondent in the nuisance proceedings against Ruel is consistent with the rules and does not violate the principle of due process as the rules require that only those sought to be disqualified should be impleaded.
Issue:
Whether the COMELEC erred in declaring Ruel as a nuisance bandidate.
Held:
No; the Omnibus Election Code provides for grounds to seek the disqualification of candidates on varying grounds provided under Sections 68 and 261. Another means to seek the disqualification of a candidate is provided in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, which states: "Section. 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission on Elections may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate."
As can be gleaned from the provision of Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code there are two modes of assailing a nuisance candidacy. The first mode authorizes the COMELEC, on its own initiative, to declare a nuisance candidate provided it complies with the due process requirement. This Court in De Alban v. Commission on Elections, et al., discussed the power of the COMELEC to deny the candidacy of a nuisance candidate even without the intervention of a petitioner.
A careful reading of the above:-quoted provision would show that the COMELEC En Banc has already made a determination that "Ruel" Degamo was in bad faith in using such name because he was actually known to be "Grego" but suddenly wants to use '"Ruel" in the 2022 National and Local Elections. Moreso, he knows that he is a Gaudia but suddenly used Degamo for purposes of the 2022 National and Local Elections.
These are factual findings of a specialized agency, which this Court accords respect, and will not be reversed in the absence of any exceptional circumstance. To recapitulate, when Roel filed his Petition to declare Ruel as a nuisance candidate, he presented affidavits supporting his claim that Ruel is not a Degamo, and that he was merely forced to use the said name. The COMELEC gave more weight to the pieces of evidence submitted by Roel. Ultimately, the burden of evidence shifted to Ruel to prove otherwise. As the name of Roel and Ruel can only be separated by a vowel and in fact, pronounced in the same way, which causes confusion, this led the COMELEC En Banc to pronounce that "he has not persuaded us that using "Ruel Degamo" was not intended to confuse voters."
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the COMELEC En Banc, Ruel failed to controvert the fact that he is1legally a Gaudia. There is no showing that he submitted for scrutiny, his birth certificate, to prove his identity as a Degamo. To this Court's mind, this raises doubts as to why, of all pieces of evidence to prove his filiation, Ruel did not bother to present his own birth certificate. This document could easily be secured from the Local Civil Registry or the Philippine Statistics Authority. This would have been the best evidence to controvert the allegation of Roel that Ruel is not a Degamo. We find this omission on the part of Ruel as falling under Section (e) of Rule 131, which provides: "Section 3. Disputable presumptions - The following presentations are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (e) that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced."
In Blue Cross Health Care, Inc; v. Spouses Olivares, We discussed that the presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and, (d) the suppression is an exercise of a previ1lege.
We find that none of the exceptions is present. As to the first exception, it is obvious that Roel could not get hold of a copy of Ruel's birth certificate, as this is not allowed due to the innate privacy limitations in securing such personal document. Second, the suppression appears to be willful as there was no reason to withhold a readily available document for scrutiny. As discussed earlier, Ruel could have easily secured a copy of his birth certificate before the Local Civil Registry or the Philippine Statistics Authority. Third, the birth certificate is not merely corroborative or cumulative as it is the primary document to prove the identity of an individual. In the present case, such document would unequivocally prove that Ruel is a Degamo. Lastly, the evidence is clearly not a document covered by any obligation for it to remain privileged.
In a Petition for declaration of nuisance candidate, one factor that takes primary consideration is the seriousness to run for public office and not put the electoral process in disrepute. Here, as found by the COMELEC, Roel was able to establish that Ruel was in bad faith in suddenly using Ruel Degamo in the 2022 National and Local Elections. The burden of evidence was eventually shifted to Ruel to prove otherwise. He could have presented the best evidence to show that he was indeed serious in running for the position of governor, if this was the truth. However, he failed to do so.
In Bautista v. Commission on Elections, this Court disqualified Edwin "Efren" Bautista as a nuisance candidate for the mayoralty race in Navotas because his name was confusingly similar to Cipriano "Efren" Bautista. We similarly found that there was a confusion caused in the case involving candidates Edilito C. Martinez and Celestino A. Martinez III in Martinez v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Even with the automation of election system, this Court has held that such development will not eliminate confusion on the part of the voters. This was made apparent in the case of Santos, wherein we found that "Roxas Jenn-Rose," was strikingly similar with "Roxas Jenny."
In reversing the COMELEC, the Court ruled that even in the automated elections, the votes for the nuisance candidate should still be credited to the legitimate candidate. It held that the previous COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 - declaring that the vote cast for a nuisance candidate who had the same surname as the legitimate candidate, should be counted in favor of the latter - remains good law.
From the Certified List of Voters and the Official Ballot, it can be observed that there is as noticeable likeness to the name of candidates "Roel Degamo" and "Ruel Degamo". First, their names are only distinguishable by one vowel as the incumbent uses the letter "o" while the independent candidate uses the letter "u". Second the name "Roel" and the nickname "Ruel" have similar pronunciation. Likewise, the two candidates used Degamo as their surnames. Similar to the circumstances in Zapanta, the only way to distinguish "Roel" and "Ruel" is their number on the ballot and their political affiliations.
Anent the allegation of Teves las to the violation of his right to due process, it has already been discussed in Santos, that the status of a winning candidate in a petition for declaration of a nuisance candidate is merely that of an observer. This was reiterated in zapanta.
Ultimately, this Court upholds the counting of the votes of nuisance candidate Ruel G. Degamo in favor of Roel R. Degamo as it is in accord with our Jurisprudential pronouncements.
No comments:
Post a Comment