GR 116246; (April, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116246 . April 27, 1995. BENJAMIN R. ERNI, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCIS N. TOLENTINO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Benjamin R. Erni was proclaimed Mayor of Tagaytay City after the May 11, 1992 elections, defeating respondent Francis N. Tolentino. Tolentino filed an election protest, alleging massive irregularities including vote substitution and group-written ballots in 14 precincts. The COMELEC First Division ordered a revision of the contested ballots. After the revision, Erni filed an omnibus motion, alleging that the revised ballots in his favor had been substituted with spurious ones written by a single hand to support Tolentino’s “group-written” objection. He demanded an investigation and a technical examination.
The First Division summoned the revision committee, which examined the ballots and confirmed the authenticity of their markings. The Division itself found all ballot security features intact. It then proceeded to appreciate the ballots, invalidating 981 ballots for Erni for being group-written. After recount, Tolentino was declared the winner. Erni’s motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division’s resolution, thereby allegedly depriving Erni of due process, by denying his request for a technical examination of the ballots and relying on the presumption of regularity in the revision process despite his allegations of substitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and the requirement of substantial evidence to overcome it. Erni’s claim of ballot substitution was based on mere suspicion and conjecture, insufficient to rebut this presumption. The COMELEC en banc conducted its own investigation, verifying the integrity of the ballot boxes and the revision committee’s findings. The allegation that ballots were substituted after revision to fabricate the “group-written” pattern was speculative and unsupported by clear and convincing proof.
The Court held that the COMELEC did not violate due process. Erni was given full opportunity to present his case, including his objections and evidence. The denial of his request for a technical examination was not arbitrary; it was based on the COMELEC’s factual finding, after direct examination, that the ballots were authentic and the proceedings regular. Election contests require finality, and charges of internal syndicate fraud within the COMELEC demand the most convincing proof, which was absent. Thus, the COMELEC’s factual findings and appreciation of ballots, being supported by evidence, are binding and conclusive absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not established.