G.R. No. 125586 ; June 29, 2000
DR. TERESITA G. DOMALANTA and DR. AGRIPINA B. FRANCISCO, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Dr. Teresita Domalanta and Dr. Agripina Francisco were staff members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Isabela during the 1995 elections. Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. filed a complaint alleging the PBC violated Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 by crediting unauthorized additional votes to certain senatorial candidates. The complaint, initially against the PBC Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, was amended to include the petitioners and other staff. The COMELEC Law Department’s evaluation found discrepancies between the municipal Certificates of Canvass and the PBC’s Statement of Votes, showing substantial unauthorized additions to the votes of candidates Enrile, Mitra, and Honasan.
The petitioners, in their defense, filed a joint counter-affidavit categorically denying the charges. They asserted they merely performed clerical tasks as directed by the PBC Chairman and had no participation in the alleged falsification. Despite this, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 96-1616, which directed the filing of criminal informations against the PBC members and staff, including petitioners, and ordered their preventive suspension. Petitioners filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolution directing the filing of criminal informations and ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court clarified that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the COMELEC’s finding of probable cause—based on the prima facie evidence of discrepancies between election documents—was an exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and the COMELEC’s appreciation of the evidence submitted, including the counter-affidavits, falls within its discretionary authority.
The petitioners’ argument essentially questioned the COMELEC’s evaluation of facts and evidence, which constitutes an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. As long as a tribunal acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors in the exercise of its discretion are reviewable by appeal, not by certiorari. The Court found that the COMELEC acted within its legal mandate under the Omnibus Election Code. Therefore, its actions did not amount to a patent and gross evasion of a positive duty required by law. The petition, being an improper remedy to assail the finding of probable cause, was dismissed for lack of merit.