Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Intramuros, Manila EN BANC LEIGHRICH JAMES ESTANISLAO, Petitioner versus SPA NO. 24-196 (DC) MARCELINO R. TEODORO, Responitent x AQUILINO “KOKO” PIMENTEL IIL, KATRINA MARI FAYE MARCO, ANGELU ESTANISLAO, AND MA. LUISA DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, Bersus. SPA NO. 24-224 (DC) MARCELINO “MARCY” TEODORO, Respondent x NOTICE 1. ATTY. MARIA BERNADETTE V. SARDILLO SARDILLO SARDILLO SALOM LAW OFFICE Counsel for Petitioner - SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Unit 802, Taipan Place, F. Ortigas Jr. Avenue Ortigas Center, Pasig City [email protected] beng, [email protected] ATTY. EMILIO L. MARANON II TROJILLO ANSALDO & MARANON LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioners - SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Unit 302 FSS Building I, 18 Scout Tuason cor. Scout Castor Sts Barangay Laging Handa, Quezon City [email protected] [email protected] emilio. [email protected] [email protected] katrina. marcol4@gmail. [email protected] [email protected] N omPage 2 of 2 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) NOTICE Fn Banc 3. ATTY, JULIE V. CHANG-LIM ATTY, MAGELIO S, ARBOLADURA Counsel for the Respondent Unit 716 Pacific Century Tower 1472-76 Quezon Avenue Barangay South triangle, Quezon City [email protected] [email protected] 4. The REGIONAL ELECTION DIRECTOR Commission on Elections - NCR 3F PI Bldg,, Col. Bonny Serrano Avenue, Barangay Greenhills, San Juan City redo_ [email protected] The CITY ELECTION OFFICER Commission on Elections - MARIKINA CITY neramarikinacity Ist@comelec. gov. ph [email protected] 6. The LAW DEPARTMENT This Commission [email protected] The POLITICAL FINANCE AND AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT This Commission pfaddcomelee.gov.ph 8. The EDUCATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT This Commission [email protected] ph GREETINGS: Attached is a copy of the RESOLUTION dated promulgated by the Commission (Fn Banc) in the above-entitled case Given this _, in the City of Manila, Philippines ATTY. GENE! JCATDULA Clerk of tdeC omission ¢Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Intramuros, Manila EN BANC LEIGHRICH JAMES ESTANISLAO, Petitioner, -versus- MARCELINO R. TEODORO, Respondent. ae AQUILINO “KOKO” PIMENTEL IIL, KATRINA MARI FAYE MARCO, ANGELU ESTANISLAO, AND MA. LUISA DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, -versus- MARCELINO “MARCY” TEODORO, Respondent. RESOLUTION The Case SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Promulgated:25 JUN 15 2 For resolution by the Commission (Fn Banc) is the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration! filed by MARCELINO “MARCY” R. TEODORO (“Respondent”) on 16 December 2024, secking to reverse the Resolution (“Assailed Resolution”) of the Commission "SPA No, 24-196 (DC) Records, at 238-383; SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records, at 321-327.Page 2 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane (First Division) dated 11 December 2024. The Assailed Resolution granted two (2) petitions to cancel and/or deny due course to Respondent's Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Member of the House of Representatives, 1st District of Marikina City, in the 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections (“2025 NLE”), based on allegations of material misrepresentation under Section 78? of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) in relation to Section 743 of the same code, and COMELEC Resolution No. 11046.4 The Facts On 5 October 2024, Respondent filed his COC? as the official candidate of the National Unity Party (NUP) for the position of Member of the House of Representatives in the Ist District of Marikina City for the upcoming 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections. Shortly thereafter, on 26 October 2024, Leighrich James Estanislao (“Petitioner Estanislao”), claiming to be a registered voter and resident of Brgy. Sto, Nino in Marikina City, filed via electronic mail a verified Petition to Cancel and/or Deny Due Course to Respondent's COC. On 29 October 2024, a second but similar Petition was filed by Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, Katrina Mari Faye Marco, Angelu Estanislao, and Ma. Luisa De Guzman - all residents of the Ist District of Marikina City. These Petitions were consolidated and jointly heard by the Commission (First Division). The factual allegations of all the parties are comprehensively discussed in the Assailed Resolution, thus: xxx 2 Sec. 78 Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy » Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of canctidacy. + Rules of Procedure on the Filing of: (1) petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy; (2) petition to declare a nuisance candidate; and (3) petition for disqualification in connection with the 2025 National and Local Elections including, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Mustim Mindanao Parliamentary Elections. * SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records, at 24; SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records, at 38 “SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records, at 2; SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records, at 2Page 3 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (OC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane ‘The Petitioners in the consolidated Petitions claimed that Respondent committed deliberate and material misrepresentation in his COC when: 1. He declared that he is a resident of the 1" District of Marikina City for one (1) year and one (1) month. Petitioner Estanislao claimed that Respondent is not a resident of the 1* District of Marikina City for one (1) year and one (1) month as he just recently transferred back therein few weeks prior to the start of the filing of COC on. 01 October 2024. Prior thereto, or on 28 February 2024, Respondent applied for the transfer of his registration records from the 1* District to the 2! District of Marikina City, claiming to be a resident of No. 91 Nova Scotia Street, Loyola Grand Villas, Barangay Tumana, Marikina City (“Brgy Tumana, 2» District, for brevity”). This application was approved on 17 April 2024” To confirm this new residence, Respondent changed the address as reflected in his Driver’s License sometime on December 2023 Further confirming, this new residence, Respondent used the address in Brgy. Tumana, 2! District on the Joint Counter- Affidavit dated 15 July 2024 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.’ In both submissions he swore under oath that his residential address is in Brgy. Tumana and not in Brgy. San Roque." All these, in preparation for his much talked about plans to be a candidate for member, House of Representatives in the 24 District of Marikina City.!! However, apparently realizing that the odds are stacked against him, Respondent decided to transfer back to Brgy San Roque, 1* District on 26 September 2024 or six (6) months thereafter, He claimed, this time, to be a purported resident of 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City (“ Brgy. San Roque, 1* District, for brevity”). His application was approved on 14 October 2024.!? ‘This flip-flopping transfer of registration of Respondent shows that he intends to exploit not only the law and rule but the 1987 Constitution. He flagrantly changed his residence in an attempt to qualify for a position that he is not qualified for under the 1987 constitution." * SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records, at 8. ¥id att id. at 13, Wold att "dat 13 2 hdat 8 and 13. Hat 1.Page 4 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane Collaborating, Petitioner Estanislao’s allegations, Petitioners Pimentel III et, al contended that Respondent is presently residing in 91 Nova Scotia St, Loyola Grand Villas, Barangay Tumana, 2 District, Marikina City, and has been residing therein since 28 January 2018. They claimed that this can be proven by the Application for Transfer of Registration Record which Respondent swore to and personally filed with the Office of the Election Officer (OEO) of the Commission in the 2 District, Marikina City last 28 February 2024. In the said Application, Respondent claimed that he already resided at that address for six (6) years and one (1) month or since 28 January 2018 and that he likewise undertook to remain a resident thereof until at least 12 May 2025. At the time of the application, Respondent was very open and public with his plans of running; for the House of Representatives in the 2e! District. The transfer of voter registration appears to be not only for the plain purpose of voting in the 2» District, but also to enable him to run there. In other words, he was already establishing his residence qualification in the 2% District by putting it in public record that he has been residing therein since 2018, This act is not only an aflirmation of the transfer of his residence to Brgy. Tumana, 2“! District, but also of the abandonment of his former residence." Petitioner Pimentel III also mentioned that Respondent's transfer to the 2! District was a result of Respondent's proposal of alliance to him. However Respondent made a hurried decision to transfer his voter registration back to the 1* District, revealing, his lying character and lack of sincerity in his proposal.!5 On 26 September 2024, just a few months after his transfer to the 2m! District, Respondent surreptitiously applied to transfer his voter registration back to the 1 District and falsely claimed in his Application to Transfer that he has been residing at 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City for one (1) year and one (1) month at the time of filing or since 26 August 2023. This application was opposed and the oppositors pointed out before the ERB hearing that there is a period, specifically from 25 August 2023 to 28 February 2024, or for six (6) months where Respondent has misrepresented or lied under oath to be a permanent resident of two addresses at the same time. Respondent's defense therein was that he counted the one (1) year and one (1) month from 12 April “SPA No, 24-224 (DC) Records, at 15-17. Id. at 10,Page 5 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane 2024 to 12 May 2025 Elections, This is problematic, as counting his two declarations from the 12 May 2025 backwards would even show a wider overlap. In fact, it would appear that he claimed under oath to have been living in two separate addresses from 12 April 2024 to 12 May 2025.16 Respondent's claim in his COC as regards his transfer of residence to Brgy. San Roque, Ist District is false for the ff. reasons: 1, The date of his supposed transfer back to the 1 District is barely one (1) month and fifteen (15) days after the filing of his 28 February 2024 transfer of voter registration to the 2! District. He could not have uprooted his family home and relocated the entirety of his family life back to the Ist District in such a record time; 2. There was no substantial and verifiable overt acts to prove his intention to return and re-establish his residence there. He continues to live and return every night to his family home in Brgy. Tumana, 2"! District. He is likewise not seen physically residing, in Brgy. San Roque, 1*' District during the same period. To the contrary, in his Joint Counter- Affidavit executed last 15 July 2024 and Joint Position Paper dated (4 September 2024,2 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for the case of Sofromo Dulay vs. Marcelino R. Teodoro et, al (OMB- C-C-MAY-24-0040 and OMB-C-A-MAY-24-0048),, Respondent still declared Brgy Tumana as his residence. This overt act is an incontrovertible proof of his state of mind as regards his true residence, and on where his aninus revertendi and animus manendi really lie as of that date. These are jarring, proof that as of those dates, he is still a resident of, Brgy Tumana, 2» District both in his mind and on his public representations. As these overt acts took place after the cut-off of the required one (1) year period of residency, this would mean therefore that Respondent is not eligible, and that he committed deliberate material misrepresentation as regards his eligibility.” 2. Respondent deliberately misrepresented that he is a registered voter of the 1 District when his voter registration has yet to be approved by the Election lat 19-20, Md. at 21-23,Page 6 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane Registration Board (ERB) of District 1 at the time of the filing of his COC on 5 October 2024. Respondent checked the box in Item 15, corresponding to the statement “! will be a registered voler of” and thereafter typed “Sa Roque, Marikina, NCR”. This isa separate and independent case of misrepresentation given that at the time of the filing of his COC, his Application for Transfer of Registration Record to the 1 District has yet to be approved. Thus, he could not have known that he will be approved or at least assume such approval. The ERB Hearing only happened on 14 October 2024, and the actual approval of his transfer was not communicated to him until last 18 October 2024. There is a misrepresentation at the time of the filing of his COC on 5 October 2024 when he claimed under oath that he will become a registered voter when he is not yet in the position to truthfully answer the question. Even if his application was eventually approved, the same is still subject to the exclusion powers of the regular courts which means his transfer can_ still be rejected and his representation in his COC that he is a registered voter can still be rendered false." 3. He deliberately and falsely certified that he is eligible for the office he seeks to be elected to when he is, in truth and in fact, ineligible to the same office for lacking the minimum qualifications to become a member of the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. He knew at the time of the filing of his COC on 5, October 2024 that he does not possess the one-year residency requirement and has yet to be registered as a voter of the 1M District as required in Article VI Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.” His attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide the tact that he is ineligible could not bbe but deliberate. As this involves his own residence and status as a registered voter, he is in no position to deny or to not know where he actually resides or the length of his residence, and of the status of the transfer of his voter registration." In support of his allegations, Petitioner Estanislao submitted the following pieces of documentary evidence: 1) Respondent’ s COC and Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA);?' 2) Joint Wid, at25. 191d. at 26, 2d. at 27. ™ SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records, at 24-25,Page 7 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane Counter-Aifidavit of Respondent, Erlinda G. Gonzales, Nerissa C. San Miguel, and Jason R. Nepomuceno, with attachments; 3) Joint Position Paper of Respondent, Erlinda G. Gonzales, Nerissa C. San Miguel, and Jason R. Nepomuceno, with attachments On the other hand, Petitioners Pimentel III ct. al, submitted the following documents: 1) Respondent's COC and CONA## 2) Memorandum of Atty. Jubil S, Surmieda and Letter-Reply of DEDA Helen G. Aguila-Flores to Atty. Emilio L. Marafton III, on the denial of the request for a certified true copy of the voter registration records of Respondent 3) Challenge/Opposition to the Application for Transfer of Registration Record of Respondent; 4) Counter-Affidavit of Respondent with attachments” 5) ERB Resolution dated 18 October 2024: 6) Affidavits of Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, ® Katrina Mari Faye De Guzman Marco,’ Gino Arzues Magnaye Santos,*! Eduardo Ramon Perez Reyes, Mark Carlo DG. Sioson,"* and Angelu D. Estanislao;* 7) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Ma. Luisa R. De Guzman; 8) Joint Counter-Affidavit of Respondent, Erlinda G. Gonzales, Nerissa C. San Miguel, and Jason R. Nepomuceno with attachments; and 9) Joint Position Paper of Respondent, Erlinda G. Gonzales, Nerissa C. San Miguel, and Jason R. Nepomuceno.” Acting on the Petition, the Commission (First Division) issued Notices and Summonses’® on 18 November 2024, directing the Respondent to file a verified Answer cum Memorandum within a non- extendible period of five (5) days from receipt thereof, copy furnished the Petitioners and with proof of receipt, On even date, the said Notices and Summonses were served to the Respondent via email? 21d, at 26-37. 2d, at 98-51. UGPA No, 24-224 (DC) Records, at 38-39. 2 Id, at 40-44 % Id, at 45-55. 2 Hd. at 56-87, 281d, at 8893, % Id. at 04.96. 201d, at 97. ™ fd. at 98-100, 1d. at 101 89d. at 102-104. M4 Id, at 105-107, °9 fd, at 108-110, id, at 111-137, 37 Id, at 138-155, “SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records, at 55-57; SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records, at 159-162. ld, at $4; 158,Page 8 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane On 22 November 2024, Respondent filed separate verified Ansiver cum Memorandum, for the two Petitions. He countered that there is no material misrepresentation to speak of as he is an actual, factual, and bona fide resident of 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City. The defenses of Respondent in his two separate answers are consolidated below: 1. With the exception of Petitioner Pimentel IIL, the other Petitioners miserably failed to prove their legal capacity to institute the Petition, COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 mandates that only a registered voter and/or a duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties are allowed to file a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel a COC for any elective position. With the exception of Pimentel II] who is an incumbent Senator, the legal capacity of the other petitioners are questionable given their failure to attach their respective voter certifications.*! ‘Thus, as for Petitioner [stanislao, his Petition should be dismissed for lack of legal capacity. The lamentations of Petitioner Pimentel III regarding the supposed broken political alliance between them are irrelevant and immaterial to the present controversy of his residency and/or eligibility, hence, are not admissible in evidence; Also, the postulations of Petitioners Marco, Estanislao, and De Guzman, as well as their witnesses, Gino Santos, Eduard Reyes, and Mark Sioson are specious, misplaced and devoid of merit as they are not even residents of Mabini St,, Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City. The proximity of the respective residential addresses of the foregoing petitioners and witnesses to his domicile is quite substantial making it incredulous for them to claim personal knowledge of his presence or absence in his domicile at 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque. Hence, they are incompetent to testify on his residency 2. No material misrepresentation was committed when he swore under oath that he is eligible for the office he seeks to be elected to and for claiming to be a resident of 5 A. Mabini St., Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City for one © Id, at 58-99; 163-201. The Answer for SPA No. 24-196 (DC) was incorrectly placed in records for SPA No. 24-224 (DC), and vice versa 1d. at 99; and at 165, “=SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records at 166. SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records at 67. Wd, at 68.69, theat? Page 9 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane (1) year and one (1) month up to the day before the 2025 NLE. He honestly stated the period of his domicile in 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque to be one (1) year and one (1) month up to the day betore the 12 May 2025 NLE.® Moreover, there are overwhelming evidence to show his legal residence in the said address, to wit: Statement of Account from Sky Cable Corporation; Manila Water Invoices: Tax Identification Card; Sworn Affidavits of his witnesses; Photographs showings his actual, factual and bona fide residence therein; Service Record; Voter's Certification; Voting Record; Application for Transfer of Registration Record; 10. ERB Resolution; 11. Certificate of Candidacy; and 12. Sinumpaang Salaysay of Witnesses, veeps NE The three (3) requisites to acquire a new domicile are present: i) he actually resides and is physically present in Brgy. San Roque since April 2024; ii) he has the intention to remain therein as shown by his actual, factual and bona fide residence thereat and the filing of a COC for Member, House of Representatives for the Is District of Marikina City; and iii) he has the clear intention to abandon the old domicile as shown by the filing of an Application for Transfer of Registration Record as well as the fact that he has not been residing in 91 Nova Scotia Street, Brgy. Tumana since April 2024. His purpose to remain in or at his domicile of choice in the 1* District of Marikina City is therefore for an indefinite period of time.” On the other hand, the Petitioners offers no evidence to refute his actual and physical presence in Brgy. San Roque, 1 District.* Petitioner Leighreich Estanislao relied only on the change of address in the driver's license to confirm his supposed new residence in the 2 District of Marikina, The address stated therein can pertain to a temporary residence as opposed to legal residence which is the residency required in election law. As for the alleged use of the address in Brgy. “© SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records at 74.77; SPA No, 24-24 (DC) Records at 178-180; © Id. at 78-79; 181, id, at 79; 182, Id. at 182.3. Pd, at 79; 183, Page 10 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc Tumana, 2 District in the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Joint Position Paper, it was his legal counsel that drafted these pleadings and who made use of this temporary residence in said pleadings. This is surely not indicative or his domicile given that there is no law or rule which mandates the use of one’s legal residence in a Counter- Affidavit or Position Paper. A deliberate intention to mislead, misinform and deceive the electorate cannot be deduced on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings.” Even if he may have been absent from his domicile of origin for some time, his intention to return to the Ist District starting April 2024 has been indubitably established by the following circumstances: i) he was bom and raised in the 1% District; ii) he studied and completed his primary and secondary education therein; iii) he became the First Representative of the 1* Congressional District of Marikina; iv) he paid bills and continues to pay the utilities of their ancestral home located at5 A. Mabini Street; v) he has an ID card bearing, the address at 5 A, Mabini Street; vi) his neighbors and acquaintances confirmed and attested that he is an actual resident of and is physically present at 5 A. Mabini Street; and vii) he is a registered voter of Brgy. San Roque, Marikina City as he in fact voted thereat during the 2023, BSKE and 2022 NLE. Besides the law does not require a person to be in his home twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, in order to fulfill the residency requirement5! All the foregoing, would show that the Petitions against him are without merit as there was no false material representation that would warrant the denial or the cancellation of his COC? No deliberate false material representation in the COC when he swore under oath that he will be a registered voter of Brgy. San Roque. ‘There was no false material representation when he checked the box found in item 15 of his COC that states “I will be « registered voter of’ Barangay San Roque, Marikina City, NCR since at the time of the execution of his COC, ication for Transfer of Voter Registration Records was still pending before the ERB, and as such he had every reason to expect that his application will be granted, believing as he does that he met all the requirements prescribed by law for such transfer. True 9d, at 84; 187-188, 1d. at 86; 189,501d. at 72. 4. He is not a stranger or newcomer! Page 11 of 96 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane enough, his application for transfer was approved by the 1* District ERB on 18 October 2024.5 While he may have a house in Brgy, Tumana, it is crystal clear that he resumed his domicile in 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque since April 2024. There is no legal prohibition on the transfer of residency and/or voter registration for as long, as the mandated period of legal residency is duly complied with. ‘The same is true with respect to the transfer of voter registration, he duly complied with the six (6) months residency requirement as mandated by RA No. 8189. the 1* District, hence, there is no basis for the denial or cancellation of his COC. In the case of Tornyno, Sr. et al. v. COMELEC,® the Supreme Court explained the intention of the Constitution in requiring candidates to have a minimum period of residence in the area in which they seek to be elected, is to prevent the possibility of a “stranger” or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter from seeking an elective office to serve that community. It is undeniable that his domicile of origin is at 5 A. Mabini Street, Brgy. San Roque, 1s District, Marikina City as he was born and raised there and even served for three (3) terms as a Member of the House of Representatives for the 1* District from 2007 to 2016. With all those years for which he has devoted himself to serving the constituents of the 1® District, Marikina City and the city as a whole, certainly makes him more than qualified to seek for another bid for the position of Member, House of Representatives of the said district for the 2025 NLE. Without a doubt, he is familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of the constituencies of the 1* District and the Marikertos in general 27 5. The matter of his qualification or lack thereof is not the issue of this case. Any issue as to his eligibility may be considered only if the same is based on grounds under Sections 12 and 68 OEC and which has to be determined by the Id, at 83-84; 186-187, S8G.R. No. 137329, 00 August 2000, 8 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records at 87. 7 id, at 88.Page 12 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane proper authority or through a petition for quo warranto that can be filed only after elections and not prior to the conduct thereol.38 In support of his defenses, Respondent submitted the following pieces of evidence: 1) His Birth Certificate: 2) Service Record; 3) Certificate of Marriage?! 4) Application for Transfer of Registration Record dated 26 September 2024;% 5) His Counter- Affidavit with attachments; 6) ERB Resolution; 7) Statement of Account from Sky Cable; 8) Manila Water invoices 9) Tax Identification Card issued on 03 March 19927 10) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Rita de Guzman Reyes,* Anthony S. Antonio, Arvin J Bataller,”° Francisco A. Manimtim, Jr,7! Tito V. Santos,”? Aran Chino R. Nepomuceno”; 11) Photographs of Respondent taken in the 1" District; 12) Voter's Certification;” 13) List of Regular Voter with Voting Records for the 2022 NLE and 2023 BSKE;?* 14) His COC for Member, House of Representatives,” 14) Sinumpaang,Salaysay of Lydia de Guzman,” Irma $, Nepomuceno,” Joselito Baingan,*? and Demetri Malajat Pascual." There being no other pleadings filed, this case is now submitted for resolution. Xxx In summary, Petitioners uniformly alleged that Respondent committed deliberate and material misrepresentations in his COC in violation of Section 78 of the OEC, particularly with regard to his Sd at 92. >*SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records at 101-102; SPA No, 24-224 (DC) Records, at 203-204. Ld, at 104; 206, 1 Td. at 106; 208, i, at 108; 210, 1d. at 110-141; 212-243, 8 fd. at 143-148; 245-250. © Hd at 150; 252, 6 Ud. at 152, 154, 156, and 158; 254, 256, 258, 260, © I at 160; 262. 8 Hd at 162; 264. © I. at 164; 267-268, 70 Md. at 167; 271; 70d. at 170; 274; 72d. at 173; 277, 7d, at 175; 280, 74 id. at 177-182; 283.288, 791d. at; 290. 76 Hd. at 186; 202-204, 77 Ld at 190; 206-207 78SPA No. 24-196 (DC) Records at 193-194. 7 Hd, at 196-197, 0 at 199-180, Yd, at 205-208,Page 13 0f 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc claim of residency in the 1st District and his eligibility for the office he was seeking. According to Petitioners, Respondent falsely stated in his COC that he had been a resident of the Ist District for one (1) year and one (1) month immediately preceding election day, when in fact he had only recently moved back to the Ist District from the 2nd District. Records showed that on 28 February 2024, Respondent had formally applied to transfer his voter registration to the 2nd District, specifically listing 91 Nova Scotia Street, Loyola Grand Villas, Barangay Tumana, Marikina City, as his address - where he admitted to have been residing since 28 January 2018. This application was approved on 17 April 2024, and prior to this, in December 2023, Respondent had already updated the address on his driver's license to reflect his new residence in Barangay Tumana. Moreover, ina Joint Counter-Affidavit® dated 15 July 2024 and a Joint Position Paper® dated 4 September 2024 submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent continued to declare under oath that his residential address was in the 2nd District. Petitioners contended that these actions established not only a physical transfer to the 2! district but also a legal and intentional abandonment of his prior domicile in the 1st District. In fact, Respondent was publicly associated with a potential candidacy for the congressional seat of the 2nd District. Petitioners further alleged that when Respondent realized that his chances in the 2nd District were slim, he made a strategic decision to transfer back to the Ist District. On 26 September 2024, Respondent applied to transfer his voter registration back to Brgy. San Roque, Ist District, this time listing his residence as 5 A. Mabini Street. He declared in his application that he had been residing there since 26 August 2023 ~ an assertion Petitioners challenged as untrue. © SupRA NOTE 36. ‘© Supra Note 37.Page 14 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc Petitioners argued that this would imply Respondent was simultaneously a resident of two different districts from 26 August 2023 to at least 12 May 2025, as he also attested under oath to be a resident of the 2nd District during the same period. The ERB approved his application on 14 October 2024, but only after the filing of his COC on 5 October 2024, thus rendering his sworn statement that he would be a registered voter of the Ist District speculative at the time of filing. Petitioners contended that Respondent's misrepresentation regarding his residency prevents him from meeting the constitutional requirement of one year residency in the district prior to the election date, as provided under Article VI, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. They also challenged his representation of being a registered voter of the Ist District, noting that his voter registration had not yet been approved at the time of filing. They argued that this amounted to a false certification of eligibility. Multiple affidavits from residents living near 5 A. Mabini Street attested to the fact that Respondent was not physically seen residing in the neighborhood. In contrast, his presence in the 2nd District remained continuous and publicly acknowledged through his documented transactions and sworn declarations. In his defense, Respondent maintained that he was a bona fide resident of 5 A. Mabini Street and had reacquired legal domicile therein since April 2024. He submitted documentary evidence including. utility bills, tax records, voter's certification, service records, affidavits of witnesses, and various photographs of his supposed activities in the Ist District. He claimed that his return to Brgy. San Roque was genuine, citing deep personal and historical ties to the area as it was his domicile of origin and the site of his prior public service. He dismissed the inconsistencies in his prior declarations as either legally inconsequential or clerical in nature, asserting that they did not amount to material misrepresentation under election law. The Commission (First Division) promulgated the Assuiled Resolution on 11 December 2024 and granted both Petitions to Cancel and/or Deny Due Course to Respondent's Certificate of Candidacy.Page 15 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane The Commission (First Division) found that Respondent committed deliberate and material misrepresentation with respect to his residency qualification. The Commission (First Division) concluded that Respondent failed to prove an actual change of domicile from the 2nd District back to the Ist District, as his actions continued to reflect physical and legal presence in the 2nd District even after April 2024, The Commission (First Division) highlighted Respondent's use of the 2nd District address in legal documents submitted under oath after the alleged date of transfer, the absence of reliable proof of physical presence in the Ist District, and the lack of immediate efforts to withdraw his earlier application for transfer to the 2nd District. The Commission (First Division) emphasized that to validly change domicile, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual change of physical residence, (2) a bona fide intention to abandon the old residence and establish a new one, and (3) overt acts demonstrating such intent. In the view of the Commission (First Division), Respondent failed to satisfy these requirements. While the Commission ruled that there was no material misrepresentation regarding his voter registration status (as he had qualified the statement in his COC with “/ will be a registered voter”), it nonetheless held that the false statement of one-year residency alone was sufficient to justify the cancellation of his candidacy. Accordingly, the Commission (First Division) ordered the cancellation of Respondent's COC for Member of the House of Representatives in the Ist District of Marikina City for the 2025 National and Local Elections. Within the period to file the same, Respondent filed the instant Consolidated Motions for Reconsideration, seeking the reversal of the Assailed Resolution. Respondent asserts that the Commission (First Division) gravely erred in its appreciation of both the factual circumstances and the applicable legal standards in concluding, that respondentPage 16 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane failed to meet the residency requirement, and thereby committed deliberate misrepresentation. At the outset, Respondent underscores the fundamental principle that in petitions for denial of due course to or cancellation of COC under Section 78 of the OEC, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the petitioners. In administrative proceedings such as these, it is a settled rule that the party who alleges bears the responsibility to substantiate the charge with substantial evidence - defined in jurisprudence as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Yet, in the present case, Petitioners relied predominantly, if not solely, on the sworn statements of a limited number of individuals whose residence is either along neighboring streets or in other areas entirely separate from Respondent's claimed domicile at 5 A. Mabini Street, Barangay San Roque. These individuals asserted, in general and uncorroborated terms, that they had not observed Respondent residing at the said address. Thus, Respondent claims that the Commission (Firs! Division), in ruling favorably on the petitions, gave weight to these unsubstantiated declarations despite their evident limitations in scope, proximity, and personal knowledge Respondent also claims that the statements relied upon by Petitioners’ witnesses are not only bare and conclusory, but also inherently speculative. He contents that since none of the said witnesses reside on A. Mabini Street itself, they lack the vantage point necessary to provide firsthand, consistent observation of the Respondent's daily activities or habitation. Respondent claims that the Revised Rules of Evidence are clear that a witness may only testify to matters of which he or she has personal knowledge derived from actual perception. In this light, their testimonies ~ that they had not seen Respondent living in the address in question - are not only insufficient but speculative, as it presumes omniscient awareness of a household they are neither adjacent to nor familiar with in any meaningful way. Respondent likewise claims that Petitioners failed to present any affirmative proof that Respondent continued to reside in the 2nd District of Marikina City, particularly Barangay Tumana. No documentary evidence such as utility bills, identificationPage 17 of 96 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane documents, mail, or recent photographs was submitted to establish such alleged continuous residence. Their entire theory was built on inference and presumption, unsupported by the degree of certainty that substantial evidence demands. This evidentiary deficiency should have been fatal to the Petitions. Respondent also recalls the affirmative, direct, and credible evidence he presented which he claims that not only rebutted Petitioners’ allegations but satisfied the legal requisites for re- establishing domicile in his place of origin. He submitted sworn affidavits from individuals who reside at or near 5 A. Mabini Street, or who have had regular interaction with him at the said address, These witnesses include household members, neighbors, barangay residents, and individuals engaged in business or social activities in the area. They attested, under oath, to Respondent's actual and physical presence at various times and on various dates beginning April 2024 - well beyond the one-year residency requirement. Accompanying, these affidavits were documentary exhibits that include photographs, utility bills, and identification documents which show 5 A. Mabini Street as Respondent's declared residence. Contrary to the finding of the Commission (First Division), Respondent respectfully submits that the photographs were neither undated nor lacking in context. Each was attached to an affidavit that clearly identified the date, location, and circumstances under which the photo was taken. These include images of Respondent within the property premises - at the backyard, in the kubo, and in common areas frequented by residents. Respondent alleges that the Commission (First Division) erred in concluding that these were insufficient merely because they were not taken inside the main structure of the residence. Respondent posits that there exists no jurisprudence or regulation requiring candidates to document their daily private activities inside their homes with photographs for purposes of proving domicile. Further, Respondent argues that there were inconsistencies in the treatment of evidence between the parties. While Petitioners were relieved of the burden to provide even a single photograph of Respondent at his alleged prior residence in the 2nd District, Respondent was effectively required to furnish invasive, continuous visual documentation of his living conditions in the IstPage 18 of 36 SPA No. 24196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane District. He asserts that such an uneven evidentiary standard undermines his due process rights and in effect shifts the burden of proof to him, contrary to established doctrine. Moreover, Respondent alleges that the Commission (First Division) itself acknowledged that Respondent Teodoro is not a stranger to the Ist District of Marikina City. It recognized that he was born in Barangay San Roque and even served as the inaugural congressional representative of the district in 2007. Respondent asserts that this acknowledgment is a crucial factual consideration that should have informed a more favorable presumption of his eligibility, especially when supported by acts manifesting a genuine intent to re-establish domicile at his family’s ancestral home. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings allowing a return to one’s domicile of origin for electoral purposes, provided that intent and physical presence are established - which, Respondent argues, he has done amply. Respondent cites the Supreme Court's ruling in Sibuma v. COMELEC,* asserting that petitioners in a Section 78 cancellation case must carry the burden to prove that the representation made by a respondent was false, material, and made with intent to mislead, The Supreme Court in Sibuma expressly warned against any interpretation or adjudicatory practice that shifts this burden to the respondent. In addition to the six original witnesses presented in his Verified Auswer, Respondent has also submitted the affidavits of twelve (12) additional individuals each attesting to his residence and daily presence at 5 A. Mabini Street, San Roque. These individuals include neighbors, barangay residents, and community leaders whose regular interaction with respondent lends further credence to the authenticity of his claim of re-established domicile. ‘Their declarations fill any alleged evidentiary gaps and affirm, beyond reasonable doubt, that respondent had the requisite one- year residency prior to election day. GR No. 261344, January 24, 2023 © SPA No, 24-196 (DC) Records at 284-307; SPA No. 24-224 (DC) Records, at 373-396.Page 19 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc Finally, Respondent maintains that the evidence he has submitted is not only adequate, but compelling, to demonstrate compliance with the constitutional and statutory qualifications for the office he seeks. What is at stake here, he respectfully notes, is not only his candidacy, but the broader right of the electorate of the Ist District of Marikina City to freely choose their representative from among qualified candidates. He emphasizes that this right must not be curtailed by a flawed evidentiary assessment or an unduly technical interpretation of the law. We now resolve. The Issue The primordial issue to be resolved boils down to whether or not the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration should be granted. The Ruling After a meticulous and exhaustive re-evaluation of the evidence on record and applicable jurisprudence, the Commission (En Banc) finds merit in the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration. The pivotal question in the instant case is whether Respondent deliberately and materially misrepresented his residence and the fact of his registration as voter in his COC, such that he should be disqualified under Section 78 of the OEC. A petition for the cancellation of and/or the denial of due course to a certificate of candidacy must pertain to matters falsely represented in a COC affecting a candidate's eligibility for public office.Page 20 of 96 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane A petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC under Section 78, in relation to Section 74,%° of the ORC concerns matters which relate to a candidate's qualification or eligibility to the office he seeks to be elected.*” Pertinently: Section 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; date of birth: residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge. Unless a candidate has officially changed his name through a court approved proceeding, a candidate shall use in a certificate of candidacy the name by which he has been baptized, or if has not been baptized in any church or religion, the name registered in the office of the local civil registrar or any other name allowed under the provisions of existing law or, in the case of a Muslim, his Hadji name after performing the prescribed religious pilgrimage: Provided, That when there are two ot more candidates for an office with the same name and surname, each candidate, upon being made aware or such fact, shall state his paternal and maternal surname, except the incumbent who may continue to use the name and surname stated in his certificate of candidacy when he was elected. He may also include one nickname or stage name by which he is generally or popularly known in the locality. Xxx Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking, to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 % Owevius ELecrion Cope, §§ 74 and 78, as amended. © Fernando Gonzalez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192856, 08 March 2011Page 21 of 36 SPA No, 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane hereof is false, The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election. Although the law does not expressly specify what constitutes material misrepresentation, an extensive jurisprudential discussion sheds light on this matter. In Villafuerte v. Commission on Elections,® the Supreme Court emphasized that for a petition to deny due course or cancel COC of one candidate to prosper, the candidate must have made a material misrepresentation involving his eligibility or qualification for the office to which he seeks election, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for elective office.” Moreover, the false representation under Section 78 of the OEC must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.” Otherwise stated, the false representation contemplated by Section 78 of the OEC pertains to a material fact, and not simply an innocuous mistake. The intent of the law can be gleaned “from a consideration of the consequences of any material falsity: a candidate who falsifies a material fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, he cannot serve; in both cases, he can be prosecuted for violation of the election laws.” In the words of the Supreme Court: In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person pursuant to Section 78. xx x XXX As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertains] to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidate- the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of . No, 206698, 25 February 2014; See also Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 155886, 16 August 1999, © fd.; Emphasis and underscoring supplied void. ® Ugidoracion v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179851, 18 April 2008. “Mitra v, Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191988, 02 July 2010.Page 22 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane candidacy. Although the law does not specify what would be considered as a "material representation,’ the court has interpreted this phrase in a line of decisions applying, Section 78 of [B.P. 881} Xxx ‘Therefore, it may be concluded that the material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 of the Code refer[s] to qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a false representation in [the] certificate of candidacy are grave - to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws. It could not have been the intention of the law to deprive a person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted for a public office upon just any innocuous mistake. XxN Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under Section 78 must consist of a ‘deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible." In other words, it must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one's qualifications for publie office, Jurisprudence is clear on this matter. The misrepresentation must pertain to a material fact before a COC can be denied or cancelled under Section 78 of the OEC. The guidelines are established from the aforementioned case: "ld, 4 Lhuz v. Commission on Elections, C (1) A misrepresentation in a COC is material when it refers to a qualification for elective office and affects the candidate's eligibility; (2)When a candidate commits a material misrepresentation, he or she may be proceeded against through a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC under Section 78, or through criminal prosecution under Section 262. for violation of Section 74; No, 172540, 07 June 2007.Page 23 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane (3) A misrepresentation of a non-material fact is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a COC under Section 78; and (4)The misrepresentation, aside from the requirement of materiality, must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. Clearly, the grounds relied upon in the instant Petitions squarely fall under the type of material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 of the OEC. Respondent's declaration in his COC that he is a resident of the Ist District of Marikina City for at least one year immediately preceding the election, and that he is a registered voter therein, pertains directly to the constitutional qualifications for membership in the House of Representatives, as enumerated in Article VI, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. No Material Misrepresentation as to Voter Registration; Respondent's Statement Was Accurate, Conditional, and Made in Good Faith First, We agree with the Commission (First Division) that Respondent did not commit material misrepresentation in declaring, in his COC that he would be a registered voter of Barangay San Roque, Ist District of Marikina City at the time of the May 2025 elections. It is not disputed that Respondent filed his COC on 5 October 2024, and that, at that time, his application for transfer of voter registration to the Ist District was still pending approval before the ERB. Crucially, in Item 15 of the COC, Respondent did not affirmatively declare that he was already a registered voter. Instead, he checked the option “I will be a registered voter of..." and listed his address in Barangay San Roque. This phrasing reflects a future- © See also Caballero t. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 209835, 22 September 2015 (citing, Villafuerte v. Commission om Elections, G.R. No, 206698, 25 February 2014, in tum citing, Salcedo ll, GR. No. 135886),Page 24 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane oriented, contingent status that is conditional upon the expected approval of his pending application. Interpreting Aquino v. COMELEC,® it is clear that a candidate may validly declare such a statement where the transfer is pending, but is expected to be approved. As long as the application is filed in good faith and there is no indication of deceit or bad faith, the statement that the candidate “will be” a registered voter at the time of the election does not amount to a material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the OEC. Furthermore, the ERB did in fact approve Respondent's transfer on 18 October 2024,” only 13 days after the filing of his COC and well before the final deadline for COC cancellation, or the election itself. This subsequent approval retroactively validates Respondent's declaration regarding the status of his voter registration and undermines any assertion that his statement was false, much less deliberate or fraudulent. As earlier explained, Villafuerte v. COMELEC* is clear that the misrepresentation contemplated under Section 78 must be both material and deliberately false, aimed at misleading the electorate or obscuring a disqualification. A mere anticipation of a pending application’s outcome, without more, cannot be equated with deceit. To hold otherwise would create an absurd and impracticable standard, penalizing good-faith candidates who accurately represent their status as of the time of filing, Indeed, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that emphasize the need to differentiate between a “false” statement and an “inaccurate” or “incomplete” one made in good faith. In Sibuma,® the Court ruled that the misrepresentation must refer to a fact that is both untrue and knowingly made with the intent to deceive. Here, Respondent's expectation that his application for voter transfer would be approved - based on legal compliance and longstanding %G.R. No, 120265, 18 September 1995. *” SPA No. 24-199 (DC) Records at 143-149; SPA No, 24-224 (DC) Records, at 245-250, % Supna Nore 88, SUPRA NOTE 8APage 25 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bene connections to the address listed - was not only reasonable but ultimately confirmed by the ERB‘s actual approval. Moreover, the residency qualification and voter registration are often treated in tandem for electoral purposes. While voter registration is an administrative process, residency is a constitutional qualification. The law permits a candidate to rely on an anticipated registration so long as it will be effective before election day. Thus, even if the voter registration was incomplete at the time of filing, what is legally material is that he be a registered voter on the day of the election, not necessarily at the time of filing the COC, Petitioners failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intent or dishonest motive on Respondent's part in filing, his COC while his application was pending. The record is bereft of any evidence that Respondent made his voter registration claim to hide a disqualification or to deceive. On the contrary, the transparency of the statement “I will be a registered voter” serves to demonstrate a clear recognition of the procedural status, not a denial of it. Accordingly, there can be no finding of material misrepresentation in this context. The requirement of materiality and deliberateness under Section 78 has not been met. Respondent's declaration was legally accurate, consistent with the timing and content of his voter registration application, and ultimately borne out by the official action of the ERB. No Material Misrepresentation as to Residence; Petitioners Failed to Discharge the Burden of Proof In petitions for cancellation or denial of due course to a COC under Section 78 of the OEC, the burden of proof lies squarely with the petitioners.’ As repeatedly emphasized by both the Supreme Court and this Commission, a COC is presumed valid and truthful ® Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRED, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013. See also Jatosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205003, June 18, 2013,Page 26 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane unless proven otherwise," A petitioner in a Section 78 petition must demonstrate that the candidate knowingly made a false representation concerning a material fact, i.e., a qualification for public office such as age, citizenship, residency, or voter registration. Verily, while a respondent who claims to have changed or reacquired domicile may bear the burden of evidence to substantiate that claim, it is still the petitioner's burden to prove the existence of material misrepresentation. Failure to discharge this burden is fatal to a Section 78 petition. In the present case, Petitioners allege that Respondent falsely claimed to have been a resident of the Ist District of Marikina City for at least one year prior to election day. They assert that he previously registered in the 2nd District, and therefore could not have lawfully reacquired domicile in the 1 District. However, this conclusion is based largely on declarations in forms and pleadings submitted before the Office of the Ombudsman, not on proof of actual continued residence in the 2nd District or lack of presence in the 1" District. Residence in Election Law Means Domicile: Not Easily Lost, Presumed to Continue In election law, residence is synonymous with domicile, and is defined as the place where a person has his true, fixed, and permanent home, and to which he intends to return when absent. As held in Domino v. COMELEC,"® and reaffirmed in Romualdez- Marcos v. COMELEC,™ a person can have multiple residences but only one legal domicile at any given time, and that domicile is presumed to continue unless a new one is established by clear, positive, and unequivocal proof. ‘The requisites for changing domicile are well-established: © Fermin x. COMI pra: Buenafe v. Commission on Elections, GR. Nos. 260874 & 260426, June 28, 2022. 10° In Manuel B. Japzon v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 180088, January 19,2009. GR. No. EMOL5, July 19, 1999. "1 GR No, 119976, September 18, 1995.Page 27 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc . Actual bodily presence in the new locality; b. An intention to remain there indefinitely (animus manendi); « An intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi). Inthe absence of any of these, the original domicile remains." Doubt That Any Genuine Change of Domicile Occurred Setting aside the fact that Respondent had previously declared residence in Barangay Tumana, 2nd District, such declarations - whether in voter registration forms, a driver's license, or pleadings ~ do not conclusively prove a change in domicile. The Commission (En Banc) actually finds serious doubt that Respondent ever truly and definitively abandoned his domicile of origin at 5 A. Mabini Street, Barangay San Roque, Ist District, Marikina City. The law presumes that a domicile, once established, continues, unless and until a new one is acquired by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This long-standing principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Poe v. COMELEC," where the Court examined then-presidential candidate Grace Poe- Llamanzares’s declarations regarding her length of residence and found them insufficient to establish legal domicile in the absence of corroborating proof. In that case, the Court did not treat her earlier declarations of a different length of stay in the Philippines as binding, stating in substance that a candidate's statement on residence may be disregarded when contradicted by actual evidence of conduct and presence. The Court emphasized that what matters is not what a candidate says about their residence, but what they do specifically, their physical presence, the intention to remain, and the abandonment of a previous domicile. or 'W Ld, See also Caballero v. Commission on Elections, G.R, No, 212398, January 20, 2015,Page 28 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane The Court in Poe cited Marcos v. COMELEC," where the Court explicitly held: “rit is the fact of the qualification, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution's qualification requirements. The statement in the certificate of candidacy becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.” Thus, the mere fact that Respondent listed the 2nd District address in past filings ~ such as a driver's license or a pleading — does not establish legal change of domicile, especially when the totality of evidence points to continued residence, connection, and activity in the Ist District. In fact, Respondent continued to maintain and pay utility accounts in his name at 5 A. Mabini Street; retain government- issued IDs reflecting that address; be publicly and physically present in Barangay San Roque, as attested by sworn affidavits from neighbors and barangay officials; possess and use the ancestral family home, and maintain community and electoral ties there. Alll these factors weigh heavily against the conclusion that Respondent ever successfully completely abandoned his domicile of origin. The record overwhelmingly shows that, notwithstanding isolated declarations listing a 2nd District address, Respondent maintained enduring and meaningful ties to his family home at 5 A. Mabini Street, Barangay San Roque. Itis not merely a matter of legal residence - it is his place of birth, the home where he grew up, completed his primary and secondary education, and later served as the first elected Representative of the Ist District of Marikina City for three consecutive terms. His familial, social, and political identity is intimately bound to Barangay San Roque. It is not a place to which he recently relocated; it is, and has always been, the anchor of his civic life and public service, The consistent and demonstrable maintenance of his wid,Page 29 of 36 SPA No, 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Bane connection to this place - through ownership and use of the residence, ongoing community presence, electoral participation, and testimonies from neighbors and officials - renders implausible the assertion that he ever truly severed his legal and factual relationship with the Ist District. Thus, given the totality of evidence, the Commission (Ent Bartc) is inclined to believe that Respondent's original domicile remained legally intact throughout. Respondent’s Own — Statement; Reacquisition of Domicile and the Burden of Evidence Nevertheless, proceeding from Respondent’s own admission that he had previously transferred his residence to the 2nd District and later reestablished residence in the Ist District, it became incumbent upon him to prove that he had validly reacquired his domicile of origin, this time as a new domicile of choice - specifically, at least one year prior to the May 2025 elections. To clarify, while the burden of proof in Section 78 petitions firmly lies with the petitioner to show deliberate material misrepresentation, it is a settled principle in jurisprudence that when a candidate admits a prior different domicile and claims a change or reacquisition, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent to prove the factual elements of such transfer.!% This principle is firmly grounded in Domino v. COMELE where the Supreme Court clarified that to prove a valid change or reacquisition of domicile, the respondent must establish: a. Actual bodily presence in the claimed domicile; 101 Snetlana P. Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 194813, February 26, 2013, citing Romualdes- Marcos v. COMELEC, supra; and Dumpit-Michelena v, Boado, GR. No. 163619-20, November 17, 2005, See also Domino v, COMELEG, supra: Norlaine Mitmug Limbona «. COMELEC, GR. No. 1810897, June 25, 2008, See iso Manuel B. Japzon v. COMELEC, C.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009, where the Supreme Court explained that, “[T}he burden falls upon Ty to prove that he established a new domicile of choice in General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, ‘a burden which he failed to discharge.” 1 Ud,Page 20 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc 'b. Intention to remain there permanently (animus manendi); c. Intention to abandon the former domicile (animus non revertendi). These three requirements, reiterated in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, Dumpit-Michelena v. Boado, and Jalosjos v. COMELEC, must be established by clear and positive proof. As jurisprudence dictates," a person’s original domicile is presumed to continue unless it is affirmatively shown that a new one has been established. Thus, by invoking a return to his former residence in the Ist District, Respondent properly assumed the burden of producing affirmative and convincing proof to support the reacquisition of that domicile. This doctrinal approach does not relieve Petitioners of the burden of proof under Section 78, but recognizes that a candidate making a claim of change or return bears the obligation to prove it by evidence consistent with jurisprudence. Requisites for Reacquisition of Domicile Are Satisfied In the present case, Respondent submitted substantial, credible, and corroborated evidence to demonstrate that he had validly reacquired his domicile of origin in Barangay San Roque, Ist District of Marikina City, well within the one-year period required by the Constitution prior to the May 2025 elections. His submissions are not only numerous and independently verifiable, but they also directly address and satisfy the tripartite legal requirements established by jurisprudence for establishing a change or reacquisition of domicile - (1) actual bodily presence, (2) animus manendi, and (3) animus non revertendi., To establish actual bodily presence, Respondent provided official documentation showing continued occupation of the Mabini residence. Most notably, the ERB Resolution dated 18 October 2024 approved the transfer of his voter registration to 5 A. Mabini Street - an address which he consistently and openly declared as his place of residence.!!! This ERB action was not isolated or unsupported. Accompanying it were utility bills, including from Sky Cable and Manila Water, covering the months of March through September 101d. +m Supra Nove 97,Page 31 of 96 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc 2024, all issued in Respondent's name and addressed to the Mabini property." These utilities are consistent markers of occupation and habitual residence. Respondent also submitted a TIN ID!!3 and other government-issued documents reflecting the same address.!"4 In addition, he presented photographs and community records" evidencing his participation in barangay activities held at or near the Mabini residence, all of which support the conclusion that Respondent was not only nominally present but actually, physically, and publicly residing at the location. Beyond mere presence, Respondent likewise established the animus manendi, or the intent to remain indefinitely in the Ist District. This was demonstrated through his reaffirmation of political ties to the district - particularly by his decision to file his COC for Representative of the Ist District, an act which clearly presupposes a deliberate choice to reestablish and solidify his connection to the locality. Further evidence includes his hosting, of community meetings and engagements at the Mabini address, reflective of his reintegration into the political and civic life of Barangay San Roque. Most persuasive, however, are the sworn affidavits executed by barangay officials and immediate neighbors, attesting under oath to Respondent's consistent, visible, and regular presence at his Mabini residence, as well as his active involvement in neighborhood affairs. These testimonies! confirm that Respondent was not merely using the address for compliance purposes, but was in fact living and actively rooted in the community. Finally, Respondent satisfied the requirement of animus non revertendi, or the intention to abandon his prior residence in the 2nd District. The evidence shows that after April 2024, there were no records of utility usage or tenancy at his former address. Respondent ceased claiming or occupying that property, and no updated voter registration or government correspondence tied to the 2nd District was presented by Petitioners. Critically, there were no credible witnesses from the 2nd District who could attest to Respondent's ongoing, residence or presence there during the relevant period. The lack of any indication that Respondent 12 SUPRA NOTES 65-66 29 SUPRA NOTE 67. "4 SupRA NOTE 75. 1s SUPRA NOTE 74. 26 Suga NOTE 68-73, 78-81, 85.Page 32 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bene maintained a concurrent residence or intended to return to the previous domicile in the 2” District of Marikina City strengthens the conclusion that the earlier domicile of choice was effectively and affirmatively abandoned in favor of a new one, which also happens to be his domicile of origin. Petitioners’ Evidentiary Failure and the Legal Sufficiency of Respondent's Reacquisition of Domicile Despite bearing the burden of proof under Section 78 of the OEC, Petitioners failed to overcome Respondent's substantial evidence, or to establish by any standard that a material misrepresentation had been committed. Their challenge rests primarily on documents and remote observations, none of which directly negate Respondent's reacquisition of domicile in the Ist District, nor prove that he was ineligible to run for office therein. Specifically, and at the risk of repetition, Petitioners’ case relied on: (1) Respondent's prior voter registration and address declarations in the 2nd District; (2) a driver's license reflecting, a 2nd District address; and (3) affidavits from individuals who do not reside on A. Mabini Street, and who could therefore offer no credible or consistent account of Respondent's actual presence or absence. Crucially, Petitioners failed to produce any evidence showing that Respondent continued to reside in the 2nd District after April 2024. There were no utility bills, tenancy documents, property records, or other indicators of actual physical presence in the 2nd District during the relevant period. In stark contrast, Respondent provided direct, credible, and corroborated evidence of his presence and reintegration into the Mabini residence in the 1st District. This included: (1) an ERB Resolution dated 18 October 2024, confirming the transfer of his voter registration; (2) utility records bearing his name and the Mabini address; (3) sworn affidavits from barangay officials, direct neighbors, and long-time community members attesting to his regular and visible presence; and (4) government documents and civic activity records tied directly to his use and occupation of the property. None of these were credibly rebuttedPage 33 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Banc As emphasized in Dano v. COMELEC,"” the testimony of witnesses with actual proximity to the residence in question carries greater probative weight than speculative assertions from those not personally acquainted with the daily affairs of the household. Petitioners failed to present any countervailing testimony of equal value, instead offering distant or generalized statements from individuals with no direct access to the premises. Thus, Petitioners’ case lacks both factual substance and legal sufficiency. They have failed to carry their burden of proving, that Respondent committed a deliberate and material misrepresentation concerning a qualification for public office Whether by operation of the legal presumption of continued domicile, or through his satisfaction of the requirements for valid reacquisition, Respondent has affirmatively demonstrated that he was a bona fide resident of the Ist District of Marikina City for at least one year prior to the 12 May 2025 elections. The evidence shows both physical presence and sincere intent, supported by objective records and credible witness testimony. Respondent's declaration of residence in his COC was therefore made in good faith, substantiated by verifiable records and affidavits, and fully compliant with the constitutional and statutory requirements for candidacy as Member, House of Representatives in the Ist District of Marikina City, Petitioners, therefore, failed to discharge their burden to prove that Respondent knowingly made a false material representation as to his residence. They have not presented substantial evidence to contradict Respondent's legal qualification or to invalidate the findings of fact affirming, his domicile in the Ist District. Changing residences to run for elective post is not proscribed No. 210200, September 13, 2016.Page 34 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No. 24-224 (DC) En Bane Petitioners contended that Respondent attempted to make himself visible in the 2™ District of Marikina, in preparation for his much talked about plans to be a candidate for member, House of Representatives therein. However, apparently realizing that the odds are stacked against him, Respondent decided to transfer back to Brgy. San Roque on 26 September 2024. The flip-flopping, transfer of registration of Respondent shows that he intends to exploit not only the law and rule but the 1987 Constitution. There is nothing wrong with Respondent's flip-flopping transfer of voter registration. In Aquino v. COMELEC,""® the Supreme Court did not find anything wrong in an individual changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as long, as he is able to prove with reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of residence for election law purposes for the period required by law. Respondent is not a stranger or newcomer in the 1* District, Marikina City ‘The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House of Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the election." The mischief which this provision - reproduced verbatim from the 1973 Constitution - seeks to prevent is the possibility of a “stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community.”'? It is undisputed that Respondent is not a stranger or newcomer in the 1% District, Marikina City as it isin fact his domicile of origin. The minimum requirement under our Constitution and election laws for the candidates’ residency in the political unit they seek to represent has never been intended to be an empty formalistic condition; it carries with it a very specific purpose: to prevent “stranger{s] or newcomer(s] unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community” from secking elective offices in that community. 14 Supea NOTE 86. + Remmaldez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, supra. >» Jalover et, al vs. Osmeha and COMELEC, G.R. No. 209286, 25 September 2014.Page 35 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Banc The requirement is rooted in the recognition that officials of districts or localities should not only be acquainted with the metes and bounds of their constituencies; more importantly, they should know their constituencies and the unique circumstances of their constituents - their needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters vital to their common welfare. Familiarity or the opportunity to be familiar with these circumstances can only come with residency in the constituency to be represented.!2! The mischief which the constitutional provision seeks to suppress is clearly absent in Respondent's case precisely because his domicile of origin is in fact the 1“ District of Marikina City. Being a previous representative of the 1* District for three (3) consecutive terms, Respondent is clearly a person who is aware and has knowledge of the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters vital to the common welfare of the constituents of the 1" District, Marikina City. All the foregoing considered, We find that Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving that Respondent committed material misrepresentation under Section 74 in relation to Section 78 of the OEC. Hence, We are constrained to grant this Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration and uphold Respondent's COC for the position of Member, House of Representatives, 1* District, Marikina City in the forthcoming, 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (En Banc) GRANTS the Consolidated Motions for Reconsideration. The Resolution dated 11 December 2024 promulgated by the Commission (First Division) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ‘The Order for the SUSPENSION OF THE PROCLAMATION of RESPONDENT MARCELINO "MARCY" R. TEODORO issued by the Commission (En Banc) on 12 May 2025 is HEREBY LIFTED. Finally, the Certificate of Candidacy of herein RESPONDENTAw MARIA NORINA Page 36 of 36 SPA No. 24-196 (DC) SPA No, 24-224 (DC) En Banc MARCELINO "MARCY" R. TEODORO for Member of the House of Representatives, Ist District, Marikina City in the 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections is hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. TOLD Aare 7 of GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA Aion 47 eC _ Cx a no post AIMEE P. FEROMNO Commissioner | 4 NELBONY. CELIS Commissioner Commissioner Compuissio) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the conclusions in the foregoing resolution were reached in consultation among, the members of the Commission (En Banc) before the case was assigned to tl ‘Of the opinion. GEOR! RWIN GARCIA we Chairman y