## FACTS:

The case involves petitioners Florezil Agujetas and Salvador Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Davao Oriental. They appealed the guilty verdict for failure to proclaim a winning elected candidate. The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed winners for Governor, Vice-Governor, and Provincial Board Members before a verbal protest was lodged. A written protest was filed the next day. A complaint was filed against the Board Members for violation of election laws. The trial court acquitted the Board Members of some charges but found them guilty for failure to proclaim the winning candidate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The petitioners appealed the decision.

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the accused after the Court of Appeals affirmed their conviction for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The petitioners argue that they should not be penalized as they complied with the law, and the erroneous certificate of canvass did not constitute a failure to make a proclamation. The Court agrees with the respondents, citing the second paragraph of Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code. The petition is found to be without merit.

The respondents were unable to explain their failure to comply with the requirement of proclaiming candidate Pedro T. Pena as one of the winners, which was based on the erroneous ranking by the tabulators. The statements of votes indicate Erlinda V. Irigo obtained more votes than Pena. The petitioners argued that the provision should be construed in a way that would uphold the purpose of holding credible elections. The court cited a previous case and emphasized the importance of observing all provisions of the election laws.

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioners committed an election offense under Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code by proclaiming a losing candidate instead of the candidate who actually obtained the eighth highest number of votes.

2. Whether the awarding of damages by the Court of Appeals to a person not a party to the original case was appropriate.

RULING

1. On the First Issue: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the petitioners did commit an election offense under Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code. The pertinent provision does indeed penalize the failure to proclaim the actual winners based on the correct tallies. The court emphasized that misunderstanding the particulars of the vote count or improperly tabulating the results due to errors, carelessness, or deliberate action would not exculpate the board members under the legal requirements to proclaim the rightful winners.

2. On the Second Issue: The court also upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals in awarding damages to the candidate who was not initially proclaimed the winner, despite her not being a party to the case at the initial stages. The court reasoned that any competent individual can file a complaint for a public crime, and the law (Omnibus Election Code) does not specify that complaints must be filed exclusively by those directly affected. Hence, the damages awarded to the unproclaimed winning candidate were deemed appropriate.

PRINCIPLES

1. Proper Proclamation Requirement: The boards of canvassers are legally obligated to proclaim as elected those candidates who received the highest number of votes, based on accurate and truthful certificates of canvass.

2. Election Offenses and Liability: Any mistakes in the proclamation of winners that lead to the incorrect candidate being declared elected can constitute an election offense, as this undermines the integrity and purpose of the electoral process.

3. Awarding of Damages in Election Offenses: Damages can be awarded to the candidate affected by the erroneous proclamation even if they were not a party-complainant at the onset of the case, provided that no waiver of rights to claim these damages was made.

4. Construction of Repeals in Law: Repeals by implication are not favored; there must be a clear, unequivocal conflict between the new law and the old for the older law to be considered repealed. The requirements under the law for election procedures have to be compellingly and clearly inconsistent for a deemed repeal.