G.R. No. 126394 April 24, 1998
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DOMINADOR MICO, DIONISIO CAOILI, OFELIA PASTOR, FLOR MERCADO, and MARVELYN RAMIRO, respondents.

FACTS

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), acting as the National Canvassing Board for the May 8, 1995 senatorial elections, discovered a discrepancy between the Provincial Certificate of Canvass for Ilocos Norte and its supporting Statement of Votes. The votes for senatorial candidates Juan Ponce Enrile, Franklin M. Drilon, and Ramon V. Mitra were significantly higher in the Provincial Certificate of Canvass than in the Statement of Votes. Petitioner Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., a senatorial candidate, filed a complaint with the COMELEC’s Law Department (E.O. Case No. 95-294) against the members and support staff of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Norte, charging them with violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) for allegedly tampering with and increasing the votes received by the said candidates. The COMELEC en banc, in Minute Resolution No. 96-1497 dated May 14, 1996, initially resolved to file criminal and administrative charges against the respondents. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed Minute Resolution No. 96-2333 dated August 13, 1996, dismissing the complaint for lack of sufficient evidence to establish probable cause and, in the administrative case, merely reprimanding the respondents. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, asserting that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier resolution without substantial justification.

ISSUE

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier resolution and dismissing the complaint against the private respondents for violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646 on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 96-2333, and reinstated Minute Resolution No. 96-1497. The Court held that the COMELEC’s finding of lack of probable cause was based on a misappreciation of the evidence and a misapplication of the law. The evidence on record, including the glaring numerical discrepancies in the votes and the admissions and explanations in the respondents’ counter-affidavits, clearly established probable cause to indict the respondents for an election offense. The COMELEC’s conclusion that the discrepancies were due to “honest error” or “mistake” was arbitrary and capricious, considering the magnitude and pattern of the increases. The Court emphasized that in a preliminary investigation, only probable cause needs to be established, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The COMELEC’s flip-flopping from a finding of probable cause to a dismissal, without new evidence or legal arguments, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.