G.R. No. 121331 August 28, 1996
GERRY B. GARAY, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and JAIME GATA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

In the May 8, 1995 elections for Vice-Mayor of Matnog, Sorsogon, petitioner Gerry B. Garay led private respondent Jaime Gata, Jr. by twenty votes after the canvass of 73 precincts. The results from Precinct 30-A were excluded because armed men forcibly took the ballot box containing the official election returns and other documents. Gata, possessing a Certificate of Votes and a Tally Board from that precinct showing he won by 48 votes, sought his proclamation from the Municipal Board of Canvassers and, upon refusal, appealed to the COMELEC. While Gata’s appeal was pending, the COMELEC itself, acting on a recommendation citing a failure of election, conducted a special election in Precinct 30-A on June 7, 1995. Garay won this special election and was proclaimed Vice-Mayor.
Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated August 7, 1995, annulled the special election it had ordered. It directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and include in the canvass the votes reflected in the Tally Board and Certificate of Votes from Precinct 30-A, which it found to authentically reflect the electorate’s will. This resulted in Gata being declared the winner. Garay assailed this resolution before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling the results of the special election it had conducted and in declaring the winner based on a Tally Board and Certificate of Votes from the lost precinct?

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear and sequential. First, the COMELEC’s own factual basis for calling the special election was the forcible taking of the ballot box and election returns, constituting a failure of election under the law. This finding justified the extraordinary remedy of holding a new vote to ascertain the genuine will of the electorate. Second, the COMELEC En Banc’s subsequent conclusion—that the Tally Board and Certificate of Votes reliably showed the true results—directly contradicted its initial determination that a failure of election had occurred. These documents were in COMELEC’s possession before it ordered the special election; if they were deemed sufficient at that time, there would have been no legal basis to call the special election at all.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a special election, once validly called and conducted, supplants the original voting process for that precinct. The will of the electorate is conclusively determined by the ballots cast in that special election, not by documents from the failed original election. By nullifying the special election’s results and reverting to secondary evidence (the Tally Board and Certificate of Votes), the COMELEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously, disregarding its own prior factual finding and the legal effect of the special election it had sanctioned. This arbitrariness constitutes grave abuse of discretion warranting the grant of the petition for certiorari.