REV. FR. NARDO B. CAYAT, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (EN BANC), and THOMAS R.
PALILENG, SR., respondents.G.R. No. 163776. April 24, 2007.
ACTION: Petition for disqualification
GROUNDS: Misrepresentation in his COC and perjury; Cayat has
been convicted by final judgment for the crime of Forcible Acts of
Lasciviousness
FACTS:
Cayat and Palileng were the only candidates for the mayoralty
post in Buguias, Benguet in the May 10, 2004 local elections. Cayat filed his
certificate of candidacy on January 5,2004. On 26 January 2004, Palileng filed
a petition for disqualification against Cayat before the COMELEC Regional
Election Office alleging that Cayat is not eligible to run as Mayor having been
convicted by final judgment for the crime of Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness.
Palileng further alleged that Cayat made misrepresentations and committed acts
of perjury when he declared that he is eligible for the said office while in
truth and in fact, he was convicted in the abovementioned Criminal Complaint.
The COMELEC ruled that since Palilineg seeks to disqualify
Cayat for material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy, the
petition should have been a petition to deny due course or to cancel
certificate of candidacy which should have been filed within five (5) days from
the last day of filing certificates of candidacy. Obviously, a petition to deny
due course could no longer be filed at the time the petition was received.
However, it is important that the petition alleged the disqualification of the
respondent by reason of his conviction of a criminal offense, which is the main
reason why the petitioner filed this case. On this note, the applicable
provision of law is now Sec. 40(a) of R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
Government Code. The crime of Forcible Acts of Lacsiviousness to which Cayat
was convicted by final judgment is a crime involving moral turpitude hence, it
is recommended that Cayat be disqualified from running as Mayor of the Municipality
of Buguias, Benguet.
The COMELEC consequently cancelled Cayat’s certificate of
Candidacy.
Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC
En Banc on 16 April 2004. The COMELEC First Division dismissed Cayat’s motion
for reconsideration for failure to pay the required filing fee.
In the local elections held on 10 May 2004, Cayat’s name
remained on the COMELEC’s list of candidates. In the Certificate of Canvass of
Votes dated 12 May 2004, Cayat received 8,164 votes. Palileng, on the other
hand, received 5,292 votes. Cayat was thus proclaimed the duly elected Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet. Cayat took his oath of office on 17 May 2004.
Cayat received the COMELEC First Division’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration on May 13, 2004. On May 26, 2004, Cayat filed a
petition for certiorari before the SC.
Pending the resolution of the resolution of Cayat’s petition
before the SC, Paliling filed a petition for annulment of proclamation with a
prayer for the issuance of an injunctive relief against the MBOC of Buguias and
Cayat before the COMELEC Second Division. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed
Palileng’s petition pursuant to COMELEC Omnibus Resolution No. 7257. Resolution
No. 7257 enumerated the cases which survived from among those filed before the
Clerk of the COMELEC in the 10 May 2004 elections and which required proceedings
beyond 30 June 2004.
Pending Resolution of the aforementioned COMELEC case,
Paliling also filed a motion for execution of judgment for the cancellation of
Cayat’s certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC First Division granted the motion
for execution and disposed of the case.
Cayat filed an omnibus motion before the COMELEC First
Division praying for COMELEC to recall the order of execution and for the
suspension of further proceedings while the resolution of the case filed before
the SC is still pending.
Bayacsan, elected Vice-Mayor of Buguias, Benguet, filed his
petition-in-intervention before the SC. For his part, Bayacsan prayed that
proclamation be nullified and that he be declared as the rightful Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Palileng should be declared as Mayor of
Buguias, Benguet
RULING:
The COMELEC First Division’s Resolution cancelling Cayat’s certificate
of candidacy due to disqualification became final and executory on 17 April
2004 when Cayat failed to pay the prescribed filing fee. Thus, Palileng was the
only candidate for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in the 10 May 2004 elections.
Twenty–three days before election day, Cayat was already disqualified by final
judgment to run for Mayor in the 10 May 2004 elections. As the only candidate,
Palileng was not a second placer. On the contrary, Palileng was the sole and
only placer, second to none. The doctrine on the rejection of the second
placer, which triggers the rule on succession, does not apply in the present
case because Palileng is not a second-placer but the only placer.
Consequently, Palileng’s proclamation as Mayor of Buguias,
Benguet is beyond question.
There are specific requirements for the application of the
doctrine on the rejection of the second placer. The doctrine will apply in
Bayacsan’s favor, regardless of his intervention in the present case, if two
conditions concur: (1) the decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained
pending on election day, 10 May 2004, resulting in the presence of two
mayoralty candidates for Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the
decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final only after the elections.
In the present case, Cayat was disqualified by final
judgment 23 days before the 10 May 2004 elections. On election day, Cayat was
no longer legally a candidate for mayor. In short, Cayat’s candidacy for Mayor
of Buguias, Benguet was legally non-existent in the 10 May 2004 elections.
The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by
final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him
shall not be counted.
Cayat’s proclamation on 12 May 2004 is void because the
decision disqualifying Cayat had already become final on 17 April 2004. There
is no longer any need to ascertain whether there was actual knowledge by the
voters of Cayat’s disqualification when they cast their votes on election day
because the law mandates that Cayat’s votes “shall not be counted.” There is no
disenfranchisement of the 8,164 voters. Rather, the 8,164 voters are deemed by
law to have deliberately voted for a non-candidate, and thus their votes are stray
and “shall not be counted.”
To allow a candidate disqualified by final judgment 23 days
before the elections to be voted for and have his votes counted is a blatant
violation of a mandatory provision of the election law. It creates confusion in
the results of the elections and invites needless new litigations from a candidate
whose disqualification had long become final before the elections. The doctrine
on the rejection of the second place was never meant to apply to a situation
where a candidate’s disqualification had become final before the elections.
Comments
Post a Comment