G.R. No. 146943 October 4, 2002
SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, TEOFILO CORPUZ, ANACLETO TANGILAG and VICTOR DOMINGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sario Malinias, a candidate for governor of Mountain Province, together with Roy S. Pilando, a candidate for congressional representative, filed a complaint with the COMELEC’s Law Department after the May 11, 1998 elections. They alleged that on May 15, 1998, during the canvassing of election returns at the Provincial Capitol Building in Bontoc, private respondents—Congressman Victor Dominguez, PNP Provincial Director Teofilo Corpuz, and Bontoc Chief of Police Anacleto Tangilag—committed election offenses. Specifically, they claimed a police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan blocked their supporters from proceeding to the canvassing, and policemen prevented their supporters from entering the capitol grounds. They supported the complaint with “mass affidavits” from supporters alleging the canvassing was not made public, the area was padlocked, and people were threatened. In their Counter-Affidavit, Corpuz and Tangilag admitted setting up the checkpoint to enforce the COMELEC gun ban and posting policemen near the capitol due to information about potential disruption, noting a group affiliated with the complainants was rallying there. The COMELEC Law Department recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the complaint on June 10, 1999, finding insufficient evidence, noting Pilando was present and active during the canvass, the checkpoint was established per COMELEC Resolution No. 2968 before the campaign period, and the alleged radio message was unsubstantiated. Malinias’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 26, 2000.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for alleged violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646 and Sections 232 and 261(i) of B.P. Blg. 881.

RULING

The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion requires a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was not present. The COMELEC properly dismissed the complaint for insufficient evidence. First, regarding Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646 (right to be present during canvass), Malinias failed to substantiate that private respondents denied him this right; he did not show he was at the capitol or was prevented entry, and Pilando was present and participated actively. The claim that Pilando eluded police was unsupported by clear evidence and Pilando did not attest to it. Second, regarding Sections 232 and 261(i) of B.P. Blg. 881 (prohibition against making the canvass proceedings public and disorderly conduct), the COMELEC found the checkpoint was legally established under COMELEC Resolution No. 2968 to enforce the gun ban, existing before the campaign period, and the police presence was for security due to potential disruption, not to prevent attendance. The “mass affidavits” were deemed insufficient as they were uniform and unsubstantiated, and the minutes of the canvass showed the presence of various representatives without noted irregularities. The COMELEC’s factual findings are generally binding absent grave abuse, and here, its dismissal was based on evidence and within its prosecutorial discretion.