RESOLUTION

This treats of the petition for exclusion of voters in the above-entitled

cases.
On February 1, 2019, the Liberal Party (Party), thru its representatives,
filed these petitions seeking the exclusion of the above-named respondents
from the Voter’s List infrom the precincts where they were registered. The
Party cites as sole ground the fact that respondents are not bona fide residents
of the barangay where they desire to vote in the forthcoming local and
national elections scheduled on May 13, 2019.
A copy of the Petition, Notices of Hearing and Subpoenas for the
Summary Hearing on February 12, 2019 were issued to all named respondents
with instructions to the courtcourt process server to serve the Subpoenas
personally and the Notices of Hearing posted in conspicuous places
( Barangay Hall and Waiting Shed). In addition, to aid the court in the
disposition of these cases, a random survey was exerted by the process server
to determine at first instance the presence or absence of the respondents in
their respective residences.
On February 12, 2019, the court conducted the Summary Hearing as
scheduled. Atty. Maricar R. Lucero formally entered her appearance as
counsel for the respondents while the Party was represented by Atty. Joseph
Dinoy as collaborating counsel of Atty. Maria Bernadette V. Sardillo.
As the cases were called , the court endeavored to determine the
presence or absence of the respondents and required them to show proof of
their identity as indicated below:

ELECTION CASE NO. 02-2019

ONOFRE PAULINO – PRESENT. He did not show any document for
Identification purposes but attached to the Position Paper is
a Certification issued by the Punong Barangay attesting that
he is a resident of Brgy. Basud, Sto. Nino, Samar dated Feb-
 ruary 1, 2019 marked Annex “A”; the Certificate of Live
Birth of one Alyana Asupre Paulino whose father is the
herein
Respondent marked “Annex 4” and “Talaan ng Kalusugan”
from the Department of Health showing that Evelyn Asupre,
mother of Alyana submitted for periodic check-ups from
February 2018 to November 2018 marked Annex “5”.

FRANCISCA DIMAPANOY- PRESENT. She presented an ID card

indicating Baguio City as her address; she is a
laundrywoman
and a resident of Brgy. Takut, Sto. Nino, Samar. Attached to
the Position Paper is a Certification issued by the Punong
Barangay of Brgy. Takut, Sto. Nino, Samar attesting the fact
that this respondent is a resident of said barangay marked
Annex “2”.
ELECTION CASE NO. 03-2019

VENUS OLESCO – ABSENT. Her mother appeared and informed

that respondent is in Manila working.Attached to the
Position Paper is her Voter Certification showing she applied
for transfer of registration on September 11, 2019 marked
Annex “4”.
ARLENE PAMAUS – ABSENT. Alleged mother-in-law appeared.
DAVID O. ZIMUDIO- ABSENT. Represented by alleged sister-in-law

ELECTION CASE NO. 04-2019

MARVIN C. MULLES – ABSENT. His common-law-wife presented
 the Elementary School Permanent Record of alleged son John
Har-
vey marked “Annex 5” showing that the latter was enrolled at
Sto. Nino Central School from School Year 2017-2018. Attached
likewise is a Certification issued from the school principal Jocelyn
P. Gil attesting that John Harvey is a student of Sto. Nino Central
School marked Annex “6”.
RANDY G. REGOMA – ABSENT. He was represented by his father
who informed that Randy is working in Manila. Attached to the
Position Paper is a Certification from the Punong Barangay stating
that Randy Regoma is a resident of Brgy. Basud, Sto. Nino, Samar
and is currently working in Manila marked “Annex 1”.
ELECTION CASE No. 05-2019
ESPEDITO R. MANAGUELOD- ABSENT. His sister-in-law, Leona
Aleganza Agarao informed that respondent is in Manila. Attached
To the Position Paper is a Certification attesting that he works in
Manila but goes home to Brgy. Basud, Sto. Nino, Samar during va-
Cation marked Annex “3”.
MARY JANE PORCADILLA – ABSENT. Her brother presented a
Voter’s ID and Birth Certificate of Mary Jane. Attached to the
Positio
Paper is a Certification stating that she is a resident of Brgy. Basud,
Sto. Nino, Samar marked Annex “2”.
JEMUEL H. LIERRAS – PRESENT. When the Subpoena was served
on
February 5, 2019, he was in the farm in Sto. Nino and learned
about
 this case from Nora Salvador, their Barangay Captain. Attached to
the Position Paper is a Certification stating that respondent lives in
Sto. Nin, Samar and has a residential house in Brgy. Basud marked
Annex “7”; a Certification from the Office of the Municipal Civil
Registrar that Clint John M. Nierras , son of Jemeul Nierras was
born
June 8, 2018 at the Rural Health Unit of Sto. Nino, Samar marked
Annex “7”.
ELECTION CASE NO. 06-2019
JEFFREY B. AVILA – PRESENT. He was born in Copang, Muntinlupa
but his grandmother is from Sto. Nino, Samar and stayed thereat
since July 14, 2018. Attached to the Position Paper is a Certificate
of Good Moral Character issued by the Punong Barangay of Brgy.
Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar attesting that this respondent has his postal
address at said barangay.
SHERILYN R. DABUCOL- ABSENT
ELECTION CASE NO. 07-2019
MARCIANA ALIPAR – ABSENT
EMERLITA E. CENTINO- PRESENT. She was not around when the
subpoena was served but her daughter-in-law informed her.
ELECTION CASE NO. 08-2019
ERIC A. MAHINAY – PRESENT. He is from Masbate but married to
Nicky Mahinay from Brgy. Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar. On February 5,
2019, he was in Calbayog City doing work as a house painter, thus,
his wife informed him about this case. Attached is a Barangay
Clearance issued by the Brgy. Captain of Brgy. Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar
 attesting that he has his postal address at said place and a
resident
thereat marked “Annex 1”; Residence Certificate showing his
place
of residence at Brgy. mactang, Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar marked
Annex
“4”.
ELECTION CASE NO. 09-2019
GENEVIVE PILAPIL - ABSENT
ELECTION CASE NO. 10-2019
MARICEL ANTONIO ACOSTA – ABSENT
ROSALIE D. AMORES – PRESENT. She admitted that she is from
Lucena City but lived with her husband in Brgy. Ilo, Sto. Nino,
Samar
since May 2015. Attached to the Position Paper is a Barangay
Clearance showing Brgy. ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar as her postal
address
marked Annex “1” and a Marriage Certificate showing she married
Edwin Amores marked Annex “6” and the Certificate of Live Birth
of the latter marked Annex “5” showing he was born in Sto. Nino,
Samar.

ELECTION CASE NO. 11-2019

AZIEL P. SINTOS – ABSENT. Her Aunt presented the Certificate of
Live Birth of respondent showing the latter was born in Sto. Nino,
Samar though presently residing in Manila with her husband
where
 the latter works. Attached to the Position Paper as Annexes “1”
and
“2”, respectively are the Certification issued by the Punong Bara
ngay attesting to the fact of residency of this respondent and a
Picture of her house thereat.
EMELY TADUYO- PRESENT. Her husband is from Sto. Nino but
they reside in Calbayog City and registered for the forthcoming
elections in the former.
ELECTION CASE NO 12-2019
ROQUE L. BELLO- PRESENT. He is from Daram, Samar but is living
with Anna Rose P. Pacherto who is from Sevilla since more than a
year ago. They arrived in Sevilla on September 14, 2018.
Attached
to the Position Paper is a Certificate of Residency marked Annex
“9”
issued by the Office of the Punong Barangay of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto.
Nino, Samar.
JOSE A. BENAVENTE JR. – ABSENT. He was represented by his
Sister-in-law, Lucila Pepito who informed that respondent is work-
ing in Manila. Attached to the Position Paper is a Certificate of
Residency stating that he is a bona fide resident of Brgy. Sevilla,
Sto. Nino, Samar marked as Annex “13”
ROSEMARIE P. COBO- PRESENT. She is married to one from Brgy.
Sevilla and had been residing therein for almost a year.
GLYZA M. COCO- PRESENT. She resided in Brgy. Sevilla since
2017.
Attached to the Position Paper is a Certificate of Residency
marked
Annex “H” attesting that she is a resident of Brgy. Sevilla.
 MIGUEL R. PRUDENCIADO, SR. – PRESENT. He is from Daram,
Samar but his wife is from Brgy. Sevilla. He has a house in said
Place and had been residing thereat since 2017.
IRENE N. SABLAN- PRESENT. She resides in Catbalogan, Samar be-
cause her husband works there but she stays with her mother-in-
law in Brgy. Sevilla.
MICHAEL M. APONDAR- PRESENT. He resides in Brgy. Sevilla
because he works as a fisherman under Boboy Gallares with
whom
he stays. Attached to the Position Paper is a

Certificate of Residency marked Annex “17” stating that he is a

Bona fide resident of Brgy. Sevilla of said Municipality.
JAY Y. DONCERAS- PRESENT. He is married to one from Brgy.
Sevilla
and has a house therein where his family lives though he was born
in Lapinig, Northern Samar. Attached to the Position Paper is a
Certificate of Residency marked Annex “19” stating that he is a
Bona fide resident of Brgy. Sevilla issued by the Office of the Pu-
nong Barangay of said place.
SEBECA A. MANOZO- ABSENT. Attached to the Position Paper is a
 Certificate of Residency as Annex “15” stating that she is a bona
fide
Resident of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto. Nino, Samar from the Office of the
Punong Barangay.
ELECTION CASE NO. 13-2019
JAMEL P. AGARAO – ABSENT. He was represented by his Aunt, sis-
ter of Jamel’s father. Jamel is studying in Manila and she finances
his studies by sending money for school expenses. He stays with
his parents in Manila. Attached to the Position Paper marked as
Annex “5” is a Certificate of Residency stating that he is a bona
fide
resident of Brgy. Sevilla and a Residence Certificate marked Annex
“10” indicating his address of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto. Nino, Samar.
RONILITO N. DELAN – PRESENT. He was born in Leyte but his
mother is from Brgy. Sevilla and they resided therein since 2017.
Attached to the Position Paper is a Healthy Buntis Record marked
Annex “4” showing that he is the son of Nenita Delan who submit-
ed for periodic check-ups at the Rural Health Unit of Brgy. Sevilla,
since 2017 until August 2018.

NENITA D. FLORES – PRESENT. She is a 4Ps beneficiary in Brgy.

Aguit-itan, Calbayog City and is now residing in Leyte. Ronilito is
her son. Attached to the Position Paper is a Certificate of
Residency
from the Office of the Punong Barangay of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto. Nino,
Samar stating that she is a bona fide resident of said place marked
Annex “7” and Residence Certificate marked Annex “8” showing
 that she is a resident of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto. Nino, Samar.
JOSEPH AGARAO – ABSENT. He was represented by his brother
who informed that respondent is the father of Jamel Agarao.
Though Joseph stays in Manila, he returns home to Brgy. Sevilla
and stays in their ancestral house. If there is no income from the
sea, Joseph goes to Manila to sell dried fish. Attached to the
Position Paper is a Certificate of Residency marked Annex “6”
stating that he is a resident of Brgy. Sevilla, Sto. Nino, Samar and
a Residence
Certificate marked Annex “9” indicating his residence as Brgy.
Sevilla, Sto. Nino, Samar.

After the conclusion of the summary hearing, the lawyers of both

parties jointly moved that these cases being summary in nature, they
will submit Position Papers instead of proceeding to trial in order to
expedite the proceedings .

I S S U E

There is only one issue for this court to resolve, thus: “Whether
or
not the respondents fully met the residency requirement for
them
to register and cast their votes in the forthcoming May 13, 2019
local and national elections.”

To support its contention that respondents are not bona fide

residents of the barangay where they propose to vote, the petitioner
attached affidavits of witnesses in their Petition alleging said fact. On
the side of the respondents they exhibited Community Tax Certificates,
Identification Cards, Birth Certificates, pictures and other documents
showing the eligibility of respondents to be included in the Voter’s List.
 Section 9 of the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 (R.A. 8189)
provides:
“Who may Register. All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age,
and
who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year,
and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6)
months immediately preceding the election, may register as
voter.”

The bone of contention of the Petitioner is that respondents lack

the minimum residency of six (6) months immediately preceding the
election in the barangay where they propose to as mandated by law.
The respondents believe otherwise.

It is a settled rule that the burden of proof lies on the Petitioner to

prove the facts alleged in the Petition. Along that line, Petitioner has the
duty of presenting evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
its claim (or defense) by the amount of proof required by law. To put it
succinctly, he who alleges a fact must prove the same.
In the Petition as well as in the Manifestation and Compliance
submitted by the Petitioner, the latter relied on the Affidavit of
Witnesses (Attached to the Petition) who declared that the
respondents lack the residency requirement of six (6) months in the
barangay where they registered as voters. The adverted Affidavits of
Witnesses, however, are couched in a general fashion and are
conclusory as they stated one particular conclusion – that respondents
are not bona fide residents of the barangays where they registered
without any supporting factual basis. Considering that these cases are
summary in nature, the Affidavits should have been more specific in
detailing why respondents are not bona fide residents by alleging
additional facts to support said assertion but this was not done.
 Upon the other hand, the respondents attached documentary
proofs (Community Tax Certificates, Birth Certificates, IDs, Pictures, to
name a few) to belie the above allegation.
At the summary hearing conducted on February 12, 2019, the
cases were called and the following respondents were present:
Election Case No. 02-2019 – Onofre T. Paulino
Francisca A. Dimapanoy
Election Case No. 05-2019 – Jemuel H. Lierras
Election Case No. 06-2019 – Jeffrey B. Avila
Election Case No. 07-2019 – Ermelita A. Centino
Election Case No. 08-2019 – Eric Mahinay
Election Case No. 10-2019 – Rosalie D. Amores
Election Case No. 11-2019 – Emely Taduyo
Election Case No. 12-2019 – Roque L. Bello
Rosemarie P. Cobo
Glyza M. Coco
Irene N. Sablan
Michael M. Apondar
Jay Y. Donceras
Election Case No. 13-2019 – Ronelito N. Delan
Nenita D. Flores
The personal appearance of the above-named respondents
proved that they are not fictitious and were present in the barangay
when the Subpoenas and Notices of Hearing were served on February 5,
2019. Albeit some did not receive the processes personally, they were
duly informed thereof through the Notices of Hearing posted in
conspicuous places, and hence, were able to attend the hearing.
During the hearing, the court took the occasion to determine the
eligibility of respondents through question and answer in the presence
of the parties who did not raise any objection thereto and in fact actively
participated in the process. This method was adopted by the court to
elicit more facts which will serve as one of the basis for its resolution of
the issue at hand. The result of said hearing is reflected in the preceding
paragraphs.
It is the duty of the Petitioner under the law to overcome the
disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of public
official duties. This remains unrebutted. The allegations in the Petition
were not supported by any sufficient and convincing evidence to throw
out said presumption. It must be stressed that bare and unsubstantiated
allegations do not constitute substantial evidence and have no probative
value. (LNS International Manpower and Services vs. Armando Padua,
Jr., G.R. No. 179792).
Petitioner failed to prove that the respondent Election
Registration Board gave undue preference or acted in evident bad faith
in approving the application for registration of the respondents and
including their names in the Voter’s List in the precincts where they are
presently registered.
The Affidavits annexed to the Petition, aside from being mere
machine copies are couched in a general fashion and are but conclusory
without any factual basis to stand on. Notably, even the names of
respondents were not mentioned therein. The allegations that
respondents are not residents of the barangay should have been
supported by facts and circumstances that would lead the court to
believe the truth thereof. It is in this respect that the court must reject
this particular piece of evidence.
Additionally, in a decision of the High Court, it held that when a
plaintiff’s case depends upon the establishment of a negative fact as in
this case and the means of proving the fact are equally within the
control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party
averring the negative fact. (Hector T. Hipe vs. Comelec, et al. G.R. No.
181528, October 2, 2009).
 In the case at bar, Petitioner asserted the negative fact, that is,
that respondents are not bona fide residents of the barangays where
they propose to vote, thus , the former has the burden of proof to show
that respondents do not possess the residency requirement under the
election law.
In this case, this presumption remained unbutted. Petitioner
failed to prove that the respondent Election Registration Board gave
undue preference or acted in evident bad faith in approving the
application for registration of the respondents and including their names
in the Voter’s List in the precincts where they are presently registered.
Additionally, in a decision of the High Court, it held that when a
plaintiff’s case depends upon the establishment of a negative fact as in
this case and the means of proving the fact are equally within the
control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party
averring the negative fact. In the case at bar, Petitioner asserted the
negative fact, that is, that respondents are not bona fide residents of the
barangays where they propose to vote, thus , the former has the burden
of proof to show such fact but the former failed to perform that onus.
(Hector T. Hipe vs. Comelec, et al. G.R. No. 181528, October 2, 2009).
Indisputably, there were a number of respondents who failed to
appear but sent their representatives during the hearing, to wit:
Election Case No. 03-2019- Venus S. Olesco.( “mother” informed
that Venus S. Olesco is in Manila).
David O. Zamudio – (represented by
his
“sister-in-law”)
Election Case No. 04-2019 – Marvin C. Mulles(“wife” presented
School records of their son named
John Harvey
Randy G. Regoma (“father” informed
 that Regoma is in Manila)
Election Case No. 05-2019 – Espedito R. Managuelod(“relative”
in-
formed that Managuelod is in Manila.
Mary Jane Porcadilla(“brother” presented
her Birth Certificate and Voter’s ID)
Election Case No. 11-2019 –Aziel P. Sintos (“Aunt”presented the
Live Birth of Sintos who is in Manila
Sintos is in Manila )
Election Case No. 12-2019 – Jose A. Benavente, Jr.(“Sister-in-law”
Lucela Pepito informed that Benavente
is in Manila)
Election Case No. 13-2019 – Jamel P. Agarao(“Aunt” informed
that
Agarao is the son of her brother and is
the one financing Agarao’s studies in
Manila)
Joseph P. Agarao(“sister” informed
that Agarao is her brother and is the
father of Jamel P. Agarao)
While the above-named respondents were absent and were
repre-
sented merely by purported relatives, the fact remains that the
Petitioner
failed to discharge its onus. It must be noted that the Petitioner has the
duty under the law to overcome the disputable presumption of
regularity in the performance of public functions. In this case, this
presumption remained unbutted. Petitioner failed to prove that the
respondent Election Registration Board gave undue preference or acted
in evident bad faith in approving the application for registration of the
respondents and including their names in the Voter’s List in the precincts
where they are presently registered.

To reiterate, plaintiff’s case depends upon the establishment of a

negative fact as in this case and the means of proving the fact are
equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is
upon the party averring the negative fact. In the case at bar, Petitioner
asserted the negative fact- that respondents are not bona fide residents
of the barangays where they propose to vote, thus , the former has the
burden of proof to show such fact but failed to do so.(Hector T. Hipe vs.
Comelec, et al. G.R. No. 181528, October 2, 2009). In fact, Petitioner
passed that burden upon the respondents.
With respect to respondents who failed to appear during the
summary hearing, it is true, that the “Non-appearance during the
hearing is only a prima facie evidence that the voter is fictitious, not that
he is a non-resident or below age or Illiterate.”(Felix Medenilla v.
Honorable Union C. Kayanan, G.R. Nos. L-28448-49, July 30, 1971).
However, the return of the Subpoena shows that the following
respondents were nowhere to be found when the Court Process Server
went to Brgy. to effect service, to wit:

The court considers the above-named respondents as fictitious for

their failure to show-up during the hearing. This is the only conclusion
the court can make due to their unexplained absence or for failing to
send a representative to explain why he/she could not appear in court.
If indeed said respondents are true, they have exerted efforts to prove
that they exist. The court thus, has a valid reason to remove their names
from the Voter’s List.