Benwaren vs COMELEC

G.R. 169393
October 2, 2009

Facts: Benwaren and Crisologo were candidates for the May 2004 elections. MBC canvassed 14 out 16 election returns only because the election returns from Precincts 8A and 16A were contested before the COMELEC. Benwaren objected the inclusion of the returns from 16A on the ground that there were irregularities in its preparation. Crisologo filed a petition to exclude the returns from precinct 8A. The MBC withhold the proclamation it contended that the return from 16A would affect the result of the election. Benwaren filed a petition to reopen the ballot box from 16A for recount but the MBC proclaimed Crisologo as Mayor based on the results of the remaining uncontested returns despite the pending petition of Crisologo. Benwaren filed a petition to annul the proclamation and to declare illegal proceedings of the MBC. According to Benwaren MBC acted without authorization from COMELEC and the proclamation was based on an incomplete canvass. The election returns from Precinct 8A and 16A which would materially affect the results of the election were not counted.

Issues: W/N the proclamation of Crisologo is valid

Ruling: Valid. Under sec 20 (i) of RA 7166, “The Board of Canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the object brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.”

Petitioner Benwaren himself admitted that excluding the votes cast in the two contested precincts, he (Benwaren) had 807 votes, while Crisologo had 914 votes. If the votes in Precinct No. 8A as reflected on the contested return are added to their votes in the uncontested precincts, the result would be in favor of private respondent Crisologo who still emerges the winner by a margin of six (6) votes.

It bears noting that it was private respondent Crisologo and not petitioner, who contested the election return of Precinct No. 8A, so petitioner cannot claim to get more than what is reflected in the election return of that precinct. The propriety of including or excluding the said return, therefore, is thereby rendered moot and academic. Consequently, the proclamation of respondent Crisologo has to be sustained.