GR 133509; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133509 February 9, 2000
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LIGAYA SALAYON, ANTONIO LLORENTE, and REYNALDO SAN JUAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a senatorial candidate in the 1995 elections, filed a complaint with the COMELEC against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, Ligaya Salayon and Antonio Llorente, and the campaign manager of candidate Juan Ponce Enrile. The complaint alleged violations of election laws for manipulating the Statement of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC). Discrepancies were evident when comparing the original election returns, the CoC, and the SoVs. Specifically, Enrile’s votes increased by over 37,000 in the CoC and over 35,000 in the SoVs, while Pimentel’s votes decreased by thousands.
A critical finding was that in 101 precincts, the votes credited to Enrile in the SoVs (11,255) exceeded the total number of voters who actually voted in those precincts (9,031). The COMELEC, however, dismissed Pimentel’s complaint for lack of probable cause, attributing the discrepancies to “honest mistakes” or “clerical errors” due to the board’s fatigue. The COMELEC also noted the absence of a direct allegation that the private respondents personally falsified the documents.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) for lack of probable cause.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper determination of probable cause. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The Court found that the glaring numerical discrepancies, particularly the “impossible” scenario where Enrile’s votes in 101 precincts surpassed the actual number of voters, constituted prima facie evidence of deliberate padding and falsification.
The COMELEC’s dismissal, based on a presumption of good faith and “honest mistakes,” was arbitrary. The magnitude, pattern, and mathematical impossibility of the errors negated the possibility of mere clerical oversight. The law does not require that the complaint must specifically allege the private respondents personally penned the falsified entries. As members of the Board of Canvassers who certified the correctness of the SoVs and CoC under oath, Salayon and Llorente are presumed responsible for the entries therein. Their failure to correct the patent irregularities constituted gross negligence, at the very least, which could amount to conspiracy in the election offense. Thus, the COMELEC’s resolution was reversed, and it was ordered to file the corresponding criminal information.