GR 122872; (September, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122872 , September 10, 1997
PENDATUN SALIH, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, OMARHASSIM ABDULMUNAP and FAWSI ALONZO, respondents.
FACTS
In the May 1995 elections for Mayor of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi, petitioner Pendatun Salih and private respondents Omarhassim Abdulmunap and Fawzi Alonzo were candidates. The Municipal Board of Canvassers ruled to include five contested election returns from Precincts 10, 10-A, 16, 21, and 21-A for canvassing, finding no sufficient proof to warrant their exclusion. No winner was proclaimed pending appeal to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division resolved the appeals, dismissing one for non-payment of docket fees. It ordered the inclusion of returns from Precincts 16, 21, and 21-A but excluded those from Precincts 10 and 10-A, finding the latter statistically improbable as they reflected votes exceeding the number of registered voters. Based on this, the Board proclaimed Salih as the winner.
Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc nullified Salih’s proclamation. It reversed the Second Division’s exclusion of the returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A, ordering the Board to reconvene, include these returns, and proclaim the winning candidate. Salih filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in including returns he alleged to be manufactured.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the inclusion of the election returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A in the canvass?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC en banc’s decision. The legal logic centers on the limited scope of a pre-proclamation controversy. The Court reiterated the prevailing doctrine that in such a controversy, the COMELEC and canvassing boards cannot look beyond or behind election returns that appear authentic and regular on their face. Their examination is confined to the facial validity of the returns. Allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes, such as statistical improbability or fraud, require the presentation of evidence aliunde (from outside the return itself), which is not permissible in summary pre-proclamation proceedings.
The proper remedy for challenging the validity of votes based on such alleged irregularities is a regular election protest, where the electoral tribunal can receive evidence and conduct a technical examination. Since the returns from Precincts 10 and 10-A were undisputedly prima facie regular on their face, the COMELEC en banc correctly limited its review to this facial examination and ordered their inclusion. The Second Division had erred by delving into the credibility of the returns based on extrinsic statistical analysis. Therefore, the COMELEC en banc acted within its jurisdiction and without grave abuse of discretion.