G.R. No. 123230 April 18, 1997
NORODIN M. MATALAM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ZACARIA A. CANDAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Norodin M. Matalam and private respondent Zacaria A. Candao were candidates for Governor of Maguindanao in the May 8, 1995 elections. During the canvass, Matalam challenged the authenticity of the election returns from the municipalities of Datu Piang and Maganoy before the Municipal and Provincial Boards of Canvassers (MBC and PBC). His objections were merely noted and subsequently rejected, leading to the inclusion of the contested returns. In these two municipalities, Matalam received only 3,641 votes compared to Candao’s 44,654 votes. Matalam contended that excluding these results would overcome Candao’s lead. He filed several petitions (SPC Nos. 95-029, 185, 279, 291) with the COMELEC to exclude the certificates of canvass from these towns. Despite the pendency of these petitions, the PBC proclaimed Candao as governor on June 30, 1995.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Matalam’s petitions and affirming the inclusion of the contested election returns from Datu Piang and Maganoy in the provincial canvass.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC Resolutions. The Court reiterated that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to summary proceedings, and boards of canvassers as well as the COMELEC, in resolving such disputes, must generally confine their examination to the face of the election returns. The returns are accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports. To justify exclusion, the evidence of spuriousness must be manifestly clear. Matalam failed to present such strong, clear, and convincing evidence. His allegations of fraud, fabrication, and the conduct of a “sham” election were not substantiated by evidence on record compelling enough to look beyond the facial regularity of the returns. Furthermore, the Court noted that Matalam did not sufficiently demonstrate that the exclusion of the votes from the two municipalities would materially affect the results, as he failed to provide a complete provincial canvass showing Candao’s lead would be overturned. The COMELEC’s denial of the motion for a technical examination of voter affidavits was proper, as such an examination would delve into the validity of the votes cast, which is a matter for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation summary proceeding. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in applying these settled doctrines.