Maliksi vs. COMELEC

Ballot images, though accorded equal probative weight as official paper ballots, may be resorted to in election protests only after the proper Revision/Recount Committee determines that the integrity of the physical ballots has been compromised, and the decryption and printing of such images must be conducted with notice to and in the presence of the parties.

During the 2010 Elections, Saquilayan was proclaimed Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes, filed an election protest in the RTC alleging irregularities in 209 clustered precincts. After a revision of votes, the RTC declared Maliksi the winner and ordered Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the mayoral functions. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. While the appeal was pending, the RTC granted Maliksi's motion for execution pending appeal, leading to Maliksi's installation as Mayor.

• The Election Protest: Saquilayan was proclaimed winner for Mayor of Imus, Cavite in the 2010 Elections. Maliksi protested the results in 209 clustered precincts before the RTC.
• RTC Revision and Ruling: The RTC conducted a revision of votes and declared Maliksi the duly elected Mayor, directing Saquilayan to vacate. The RTC subsequently granted execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was installed as Mayor.
• COMELEC First Division Proceedings: On appeal, the COMELEC First Division, without notice to the parties, decided to recount the ballots using printouts of ballot images from the CF cards. It issued orders dated March 28, 2012, and April 17, 2012, directing Saquilayan to deposit funds for the decryption and printing expenses.
• COMELEC First Division Resolution: On August 15, 2012, the First Division nullified the RTC decision and declared Saquilayan the winner. It justified resorting to digital images by stating, upon inspection of the ballot boxes, that the integrity of the ballots had been compromised due to allegations of tampering.
• COMELEC En Banc Ruling: On September 14, 2012, the En Banc denied Maliksi's motion for reconsideration, explaining that an "unprecedented number of double-votes" exclusively affecting the Mayor position and Saquilayan's votes necessitated dispensing with the physical ballots.
• Initial Supreme Court Dismissal: On March 12, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed Maliksi's petition for certiorari, holding that the deposit orders served as notice and that the filing of a motion for reconsideration cured any procedural defect.

• Denial of Due Process: Maliksi argued that the COMELEC First Division violated his right to due process by conducting the decryption, printing, and examination of ballot images inconspicuously and motu proprio without notice to him, depriving him of the right to be present and participate.
• Insufficiency of Notice: The orders directing Saquilayan to post and augment cash deposits did not constitute sufficient notice because they failed to state the date, time, and venue of the decryption and printing proceedings.
• Best Evidence/Integrity of Ballots: Physical ballots remain the best evidence of the voters' will. Resort to digital images is permissible only if the official ballots are lost or their integrity is compromised, a determination that must be made by the Revision Committee during the revision proceedings, not by the COMELEC on appeal.
• Belated Allegation of Tampering: Saquilayan did not allege or prove tampering in the RTC and actively participated in the revision. The allegation of tampering was belatedly raised on appeal, and the First Division should have limited itself to the evidence on record.
• Invalidity of Prior Decision: The March 12, 2013 Decision was null and void for having been promulgated despite the absence of Justice Jose Portugal Perez during the deliberations and voting.

• Speedy Resolution: The COMELEC has the power to adopt procedures to ensure the speedy resolution of cases, justifying the deviation from regular procedure.
• Motion to Print Ballot Images: Under Section 3, Rule 16 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, parties may request the printing of ballot images if they deem it necessary, without requiring a prior finding of tampering. Saquilayan had moved for the printing, and Maliksi did not oppose it.
• Waiver and Estoppel: Maliksi was deemed to have waived his right to oppose the printing when he failed to file an opposition to Saquilayan's motion. The deposit orders were personally delivered to his counsel, negating any claim of ignorance.
• Opportunity to be Heard: The filing of a motion for reconsideration provided Maliksi with ample opportunity to be heard, curing any potential due process violation.
• Double-Shading as Proof of Tampering: The massive number of double-shaded ballots (8,387 ballots) exclusively affecting the Mayor position constituted clear proof of post-election tampering, justifying the use of digital images which accurately reflected the voters' original intent.

• Due Process in Recount Proceedings: Whether the COMELEC First Division denied Maliksi due process by conducting the decryption, printing, and examination of ballot images without prior notice to him.
• Resort to Digital Ballot Images: Whether the COMELEC First Division could dispense with the physical ballots and resort to their digital images without a prior determination by the Revision/Recount Committee that the integrity of the physical ballots had been compromised.
• Validity of the Prior Decision: Whether the Supreme Court's March 12, 2013 Decision was null and void due to the absence of Justice Perez during the deliberations.

• Due Process in Recount Proceedings: Due process was violated. The decryption, printing, and recount of ballots using digital images are adversarial proceedings that require notice to and participation of the parties. The orders directing Saquilayan to post cash deposits did not sufficiently notify Maliksi of the decryption proceedings because they lacked the date, time, and venue, and did not inform him that the ballots had been found to be tampered.
• Resort to Digital Ballot Images: The COMELEC First Division improperly resorted to digital images. Existing rules mandate that physical ballots are the primary evidence, and digital images may be used only after the Revision/Recount Committee determines that the physical ballots' integrity has been compromised. The First Division, acting on appeal, could not motu proprio make this finding without notice to the parties. The COMELEC's power to adopt speedy procedures cannot override the parties' fundamental right to be heard.
• Validity of the Prior Decision: The issue regarding Justice Perez's absence was rendered moot by the granting of the motion for reconsideration, which reversed the assailed decision. (Justice Carpio noted in his dissent that Perez's written vote was valid under the Internal Rules).

• Equal Probative Weight of Electronic and Paper Ballots — The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents regarded as equivalents of the original official ballots. Both are considered "original documents" with equal probative weight; one is not weightier than the other when presented as evidence.
• Conditional Primacy of Physical Ballots — Despite the equal probative weight of physical and digital ballots, the rules for the revision of ballots consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of the voters' will. Digital images may be resorted to only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised, as determined by the proper Revision/Recount Committee.
• Due Process in Adversarial Election Proceedings — The decryption, printing, and recount of ballots using digital images are adversarial aspects of election proceedings that require notice to the parties and an opportunity for them to be present and represented. The right to be heard upon adversarial issues cannot be sacrificed in the guise of speedily resolving an election protest.

• "Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of the voters’ will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised."
• "The parties’ right to be heard upon adversarial issues and matters is never to be waived or sacrificed, or to be treated so lightly because of the possibility of the substantial prejudice to be thereby caused to the parties, or to any of them."
• "The end does not justify the means. No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed."

• Vinzons-Chato v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 199149, January 22, 2013 — Followed. Cited for the ruling that picture images of the ballots are "official ballots" and their printouts are the functional equivalent of paper ballots, usable for revision in an electoral protest.
• Alliance of Barangay Concerns (ABC) Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 199050, August 28, 2012 — Clarified. While affirming the COMELEC's power to adopt procedures for speedy resolution, this power must be exercised only after giving the parties the opportunity to be heard on their opposing claims.
• Mendoza v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188308, October 15, 2009 — Distinguished. In Mendoza, the COMELEC's proceedings at the SET were internal deliberations (appreciation of ballots) that did not require notice. Here, the First Division's proceedings were adversarial (decryption, printing, and recount), mandating notice and participation.

• Section 6, Rule 15, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, as amended by Resolution No. 9164 — Governs the conduct of the recount in automated election protests. Applied to mandate that the Recount Committee must first determine that the integrity of the ballots has been violated before printing ballot images, and that such printing must occur in the presence of the parties.
• Section 6, Rule 10, 2010 Rules of Procedure for Municipal Election Contests — Governs conduct of revision in RTCs. Cited to show that the revision committee must determine that the integrity of the ballots and ballot box has not been preserved before instructing the printing of picture images.
• Section 3, Rule 16, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, as amended by Resolution No. 9164 — Allows parties to file a motion for the printing of ballot images if they deem it necessary. The majority interpreted this as requiring the agreement of both parties ("in case the parties deem it necessary"), while the dissent interpreted it as allowing a unilateral motion without a finding of tampering.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen.

Justice Perez wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing that over-voting, under COMELEC guidelines, results in a stray vote, and the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by disobeying its own rule and relying on unproven allegations of tampering.

• Carpio, J. — Argued that the finding of tampering was unnecessary because Section 3, Rule 16 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 allows any party to request the printing of ballot images if they deem it necessary, without requiring a prior finding of tampering. Saquilayan had moved for the printing, and Maliksi's failure to oppose constituted a waiver. The deposit orders served as sufficient notice. Furthermore, the massive double-shading of 8,387 ballots—where digital images showed only one shaded space while physical ballots showed two—constituted clear proof of post-election tampering, justifying the use of digital images to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The over-voting guideline does not apply to double-shading caused by tampering.