G.R. No. 124521 January 29, 1998
MICHAEL O. MASTURA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (Second Division), THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MATANOG, MAGUINDANAO, THE NEW PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MAGUINDANAO and DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Michael O. Mastura and private respondent Didagen P. Dilangalen were candidates for Congress in the First District of Maguindanao during the 8 May 1995 elections. During canvassing, Dilangalen objected to the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass from Matanog, Maguindanao, alleging it was tampered with. The COMELEC Second Division ordered the production and examination of the election returns. Four ballot boxes were opened containing different copies: the MTC Judge copy, the Provincial Board of Canvassers copy, the COMELEC copy, and the Provincial Board of Canvassers copy of the municipal Certificate of Canvass. Upon comparing the MTC Judge copy and the COMELEC copy of the 57 election returns, the COMELEC found no inconsistencies between them but found that the Statement of Votes submitted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers was not reflective of the true votes. Consequently, on 29 February 1996, the COMELEC annulled the canvass, constituted new municipal and provincial boards of canvassers, and ordered a recanvass using the COMELEC copy of the election returns. Mastura filed several motions, including to examine other documents and to defer implementation, which were denied. The new boards proceeded with the recanvass, overruling Mastura’s objections to 50 election returns, and proclaimed Dilangalen as the winner. Mastura filed this petition challenging the COMELEC orders.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders dated 29 February 1996, 5 March 1996, 14 March 1996, and 20 March 1996, which annulled the original canvass, ordered a recanvass, and led to the proclamation of Dilangalen.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC. The Court held that it is settled jurisprudence that the COMELEC can suspend a canvass to inquire into discrepancies between copies of election returns and, upon finding falsification or tampering, can annul the illegal canvass and order a reconvening of boards to proclaim winners based on genuine returns. The COMELEC’s finding that the Certificate of Canvass was tampered with is a factual finding entitled to respect, absent any showing of abuse of discretion. The COMELEC exercises direct supervision and control over boards of canvassers and has broad powers to ascertain true election results. The Court also noted that all copies of election returns are original, and the COMELEC is not required to examine all seven copies; its use of the COMELEC and MTC Judge copies was within its discretion. Furthermore, Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 grants the COMELEC leeway to correct manifest errors. Lastly, the Court pointed out that Mastura should have sought recourse from the COMELEC en banc before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court. The assailed orders were affirmed.