January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 183842 : January 13, 2009] MAYOR ABDULMOJIB MOTI MARIANO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN :
[G.R. No. 183842 : January 13, 2009]
MAYOR ABDULMOJIB MOTI MARIANO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DOMADO DISOMIMBA SULTAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 13, 2009
"G.R. No. 183842 (Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and Domado Disomimba Sultan). �This treats of a motion for reconsideration[1] of our Resolution[2] dismissing the petition for certiorari[3] filed by petitioner Abdulmojib Moti Mariano (Mariano) for failure to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in issuing the challenged resolutions.
Mariano and respondent Domado Disomimba Sultan (Disomimba) were both mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Buadiposo Buntong, Lanao del Sur. On 10 April 2007, Disomimba allegedly signed an affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy where it appeared that Disomimba was pulling out from the mayoralty race. Accting Election Officer Mamagcoday Colangcag (Colangcag) received and accepted the affidavit he transmitted it to the law department of the COMELEC on 13 April 2007.
On 18 April 2007, Disomimba executed an affidavit of denial which stated that he had never executed an affidavit of withdrawal and that he had no intention of quitting the mayoralty race. On 12 May 2007, he received a copy of a resolution[4] of the COMELEC which granted the withdrawal of Disomimba's certificate of candidacy. Disomimba then filed a Letter of Appeal and Reconsideration[5] of the resolution, seeking the reinstatement of his name in the list of mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong.
On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution[6] reinstating Disomimba in the list of candidates. Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[7] which was heard by the COMELEC en banc. On 11 September 2007, the COMELEC issued subponae to the parties, requiring their appearance before it. The poll body also issued a subpoena for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to testify on its findings regarding the questioned affidavit of withdrawal. The NBI sent Eliodoro M. Constantino (Constantino), Chief of the Questioned Document Division, as an expert witness. Disomimba submitted copies of his specimen signature. Mariano filed a motion[8] praying that an Arabic expert testify as to the alleged forgery.
On 06 August 2008, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution[9] in SPC No. 07-002/E.M. No. 07-059, affirming the COMELEC 2nd Division's resolution.
Mariano filed the instant petition[10] alleging that the COMELEC en banc had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the resolution in SPC No. 07-002/E.M.07-059. The Court in a resolution[11] dated 19 August 2008 dismissed the petition for failure of Mariano to show that grave abuse of discretion. On 16 September 2008, the COMELEC issued a writ of execution[12] implementing its two resolutions. On 9 October 2008, the Board of Canvassers issued the certificate of canvass of votes and proclaimed Disomimba as the duly-elected mayor of Buadiposo Buntong, having obtained the highest number of votes (4,078).[13]
Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[14] alleging that the failure of the COMLELEC to avail of the services of an Arabic expert from the Department of Foreign Affairs was equivalent to abuse of discretion. Hence, this Resolution.
Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[14] alleging that the failure of the COMELEC to avail of the services of an Arabic expert from the Department of Foreign Affairs was equivalent to abuse of discretion Hence, this Resolution.
The Rules of Court, which is applicable in a suppletory manner[15] in election cases specifically provides the procedure for the appreciation of the testimony of an expert witness.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
With regard to the qualification of an expert witness, McCormick[17] commented that:
Contrary to petitioner's basic stance, a handwriting expert does not have to be a linguist at the same time. To be credible, a handwriting expert need not be familiar with the language used in the document subject of his examination. The nature of his examination involves the study and comparison of strokes, the depth and pressure points of the alleged forgery, as compared to the specimen or original handwriting or signatures.
More tellingly, even under the Rules of Court, as laid down and oft-reiterated in jurisprudence, a court or tribunal is not required to call on an expert witness to ascertain whether a questioned handwriting or signature is genuine or spurious. Its bare comparison of the questioned handwriting with the specimen is sufficient.
At core, the petition challenges the issuances of the COMELEC which are anchored on its finding that the affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy imputed to Disomimba was forged. Such factual findings is binding on the Court.[19]
All the foregoing evince that no grave abuse of discretion can be rightfully attributed to the COMELEC.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be allowed."
"G.R. No. 183842 (Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and Domado Disomimba Sultan). �This treats of a motion for reconsideration[1] of our Resolution[2] dismissing the petition for certiorari[3] filed by petitioner Abdulmojib Moti Mariano (Mariano) for failure to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in issuing the challenged resolutions.
Mariano and respondent Domado Disomimba Sultan (Disomimba) were both mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Buadiposo Buntong, Lanao del Sur. On 10 April 2007, Disomimba allegedly signed an affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy where it appeared that Disomimba was pulling out from the mayoralty race. Accting Election Officer Mamagcoday Colangcag (Colangcag) received and accepted the affidavit he transmitted it to the law department of the COMELEC on 13 April 2007.
On 18 April 2007, Disomimba executed an affidavit of denial which stated that he had never executed an affidavit of withdrawal and that he had no intention of quitting the mayoralty race. On 12 May 2007, he received a copy of a resolution[4] of the COMELEC which granted the withdrawal of Disomimba's certificate of candidacy. Disomimba then filed a Letter of Appeal and Reconsideration[5] of the resolution, seeking the reinstatement of his name in the list of mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong.
On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution[6] reinstating Disomimba in the list of candidates. Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[7] which was heard by the COMELEC en banc. On 11 September 2007, the COMELEC issued subponae to the parties, requiring their appearance before it. The poll body also issued a subpoena for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to testify on its findings regarding the questioned affidavit of withdrawal. The NBI sent Eliodoro M. Constantino (Constantino), Chief of the Questioned Document Division, as an expert witness. Disomimba submitted copies of his specimen signature. Mariano filed a motion[8] praying that an Arabic expert testify as to the alleged forgery.
On 06 August 2008, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution[9] in SPC No. 07-002/E.M. No. 07-059, affirming the COMELEC 2nd Division's resolution.
Mariano filed the instant petition[10] alleging that the COMELEC en banc had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the resolution in SPC No. 07-002/E.M.07-059. The Court in a resolution[11] dated 19 August 2008 dismissed the petition for failure of Mariano to show that grave abuse of discretion. On 16 September 2008, the COMELEC issued a writ of execution[12] implementing its two resolutions. On 9 October 2008, the Board of Canvassers issued the certificate of canvass of votes and proclaimed Disomimba as the duly-elected mayor of Buadiposo Buntong, having obtained the highest number of votes (4,078).[13]
Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[14] alleging that the failure of the COMLELEC to avail of the services of an Arabic expert from the Department of Foreign Affairs was equivalent to abuse of discretion. Hence, this Resolution.
Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration[14] alleging that the failure of the COMELEC to avail of the services of an Arabic expert from the Department of Foreign Affairs was equivalent to abuse of discretion Hence, this Resolution.
The Rules of Court, which is applicable in a suppletory manner[15] in election cases specifically provides the procedure for the appreciation of the testimony of an expert witness.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 49�Opinion of expert witness.�The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.Also, Section 22, Rule 132 provides:
Sec. 22�How genuineness of handwriting is proved.�The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.The COMELEC, to enable it to properly determine the alleged forgery, issued a subpoena to the NBI which sent one of its handwriting experts, Constantino, to inspect and determine the authenticity that Disomimba's signature was forged.[16]
With regard to the qualification of an expert witness, McCormick[17] commented that:
the witness must have sufficient skill or knowledge related to the pertinent field or calling that his inference will probably aid the trier in the search for truth. The knowledge may be derived from reading alone in fields (education), from practice alone in other fields (experience), or as is more commonly the case from both x x x The question is not whether this witness is more qualified that other experts in the field; rather the issue is whether the witness is more competent to draw the inference that the lay jurors or judges x x x (Emphasis).In Amodia Vda. de Melencion v. Court of Appeals, [18] we held that:
Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them x x x A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.The Second Division of the COMELEC observed that the purported signature of Disomimba, appearing in the questioned affidavit of withdrawal, was different from the specimen signatures offered before the COMELEC. Both the COMELEC and the expert witness arrived at the same conclusion�the signature appearing in the affidavit of withdrawal was a forgery.
Contrary to petitioner's basic stance, a handwriting expert does not have to be a linguist at the same time. To be credible, a handwriting expert need not be familiar with the language used in the document subject of his examination. The nature of his examination involves the study and comparison of strokes, the depth and pressure points of the alleged forgery, as compared to the specimen or original handwriting or signatures.
More tellingly, even under the Rules of Court, as laid down and oft-reiterated in jurisprudence, a court or tribunal is not required to call on an expert witness to ascertain whether a questioned handwriting or signature is genuine or spurious. Its bare comparison of the questioned handwriting with the specimen is sufficient.
At core, the petition challenges the issuances of the COMELEC which are anchored on its finding that the affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy imputed to Disomimba was forged. Such factual findings is binding on the Court.[19]
All the foregoing evince that no grave abuse of discretion can be rightfully attributed to the COMELEC.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be allowed."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 186-195. Filed on 19 September 2008. Rollo, p.
[2] Id. at 180-A. Dated 16 September 2008. Id. p. 180-A.
[3] Id. at 7-46. Filed on 8 August 2008. Id. p. 7-44.
[4] Id. at 86-89. Resolution No. 07-0946.
[5] Id. at 90-92. Dated 12 May 2007.
[6] Id. at 47-52. Dated 12 June 2007 and penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer and concurred in by commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., 2nd Division of the COMELEC.
[7] Id. at 93-104. Dated 16 June 2007 Id p. 93-103.
[8] Id. at 105-111.
[9] id. at 53-81.
[10] Supra note 3.
[11] Id. at 130-A.
[12] Id. at 208-212.
[13] Id. at 217.
[14] Supra note 1.
[15] RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec. 4. In what cases applicable � These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a supplementory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
[16] See Rollo, p. 83.
[17] STRONG, JOHN. MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 5th ed. West Group. St. Paul, Minn 1999 �207, pp. 324-325.
[18] G.R. No. 148846, 25 September 2007, 534 62.
[19] Dagloc v. Commission on Elections, 463 Phil. 263, 288 (2008).
