Archive for March, 2013


CASE 2013-0005: MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HOMER T. SAQUILA (G.R. NO. 203302, 12, MARCH 2013, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: WHEN IS THERE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS; PICTURE IMAGES OF THE BALLOTS AS OFFICIAL BALLOTS; BALLOT IMAGES NOT SECONDARY EVIDENCE  (BRIEF TITLE: MALIKSI VS. COMELEC ET AL.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Resolution promulgated on 14 September 2012 by the Commission on Elections En Bane which affirmed the 15 August 2012 Resolution of the Commission on Elections First Division declaring HOMER T. SAQUILA Y AN as the duly-elected Municipal Mayor of Imus, Cavite. We LIFT the temporary restraining order issued on 11 October 2012. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY considering that the remainder of Saquilayan’ s term of office is only less than five ( 5) months.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings.29 It is settled that “opportunity to be heard” does not only mean oral arguments in court but also written arguments through pleadings.30 Thus, the fact that a party was heard on his motion for reconsideration negates any violation of the right to due process.31 The Court has ruled that denial of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In the recent consolidated cases of Vinzons-Chato v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Panotes and Panotes v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Vinzons-Chato,33 the Court ruled that “the picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise ‘official ballots’ that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369.”34 The Court declared that the printouts of the ballot images in the CF cards “are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.” In short, both the ballot images in the CF cards and the printouts of such images have the same evidentiary value as the official physical ballots filled up by the voters.

XXXXXXXXX

In Vinzons-Chato and Panotes, the Court explained in ength:

Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369 defines “official ballot” where AES is utilized as the “paper ballot, whether printed or generated by the technologyapplied, that faithfully captures or represents the votes cast by a voter recorded or to be recorded in electronic form.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

The ballot images, which are digital, are electronically generated and written in the CF cards when the ballots are fed into the PCOS machine. The ballot images are the counterparts produced by electronic recording which accurately reproduce the original, and thus are the equivalent of the original. As pointed out by the COMELEC, “[t]he digital images of the physical ballots are electronically and instantaneously generated by the PCOS machines once the physical ballots are fed into and read by the machines.”37 Hence, the ballot images are not secondary evidence. The official physical ballots and the ballot images in the CF cards are both original documents. The ballot images in the CF cards have the same evidentiary weight as the official physical ballots.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2013-0005-MAR 2013 – MALIKSI

FORM 0026:       JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

 

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ______

MARIA CLARA MERCADO-RIZAL

                             Petitioner,

 

          – versus –                                      CIVIL CASE NO. ____________

                                                                     Declaration of Nullity of

                                                                     Marriage

FELIX P. RIZAL

                             Respondent.

x———————————————x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

 OF

 MARIA CLARA MERCADO-RIZAL

This Judicial Affidavit of Maria Clara Mercado-Rizal,  the Petitioner,  is executed to serve as her direct testimony in the instant case.

This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove:

A)                 All the allegations in the Petition including all annexes appended thereto and which were already marked as exhibits during the Pre-Trial of this case;

B)                 All other related matters, facts and circumstances relevant and material to this case.

This Judicial Affidavit was taken at the office of Atty. Josefino S. Enrile  at Unit 7827,  RCB Tower, 108 Legaspi St., Legaspi Village, Makati City.

Questions were propounded by Atty. Josefino S. Enrile  and these questions are numbered consecutively and each question is followed by the answer of the witness.

1.     Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

2.       Are you aware that you may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury if you will not tell the truth?

I am.

3.       Please state  your name, age address and occupation?

I am Maria Clara Rizal Mercado, 51 years old, married, and residing at 313 Santol Road, Makati City.

4.    Are you the same Maria Clara Rizal Mercado,  the Petitioner in this case?

Yes.

5.       Do you know the Respondent in this case, Mr. Felix P. Rizal?

Yes, he is my husband.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Affiant further sayeth naught.

 MARIA CLARA MERCADO-RIZAL

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at _______________, Affiant exhibiting to me her Passport bearing No. SS12345678 issued on 8/9/12 and expiring on 8/8/17.

Doc No. ________;

Page No. _______ ;

Book No. _______;

Series of ________.

ATTESTATION

I hereby state, under oath, that I faithfully recorded the questions I asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave and that neither I nor any other person present or assisting me has coached the witness regarding the latter’s statement.

                                                          ATTY. JOSEFINO S. ENRILE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at Makati City, Affiant exhibiting to me his driver’s license bearing No. N11-82-030573 expiring on 09/08/2013.

Doc No. ________;

Page No. _______ ;

Book No. _______;

Series of ________.

Copy Furnished:

Office of the City Public Prosecutor

Makati City