G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1999
JESUS L. CHU, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF USON, MASBATE and SALVADORA O. SANCHEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus L. Chu and private respondent Salvadora O. Sanchez were candidates for municipal mayor of Uson, Masbate in the May 11, 1998 elections. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), petitioner objected to the inclusion of 74 election returns, alleging that Sanchez, with armed men, entered polling places during the centralized counting and intimidated the board of election inspectors, thereby vitiating the returns. Petitioner managed to file written objections for only 37 returns within the 24-hour statutory period, attributing his failure to file for the rest to the MBC’s initial refusal to provide the prescribed objection forms. The MBC rejected his objections, giving more weight to the BEI’s affidavits denying coercion.
Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. Its Second Division, on June 8, 1998, denied the appeal, finding the evidence—primarily affidavits from petitioner’s representatives—insubstantial and lacking specifics to prove the alleged intimidation. It directed the MBC to include the 37 returns and proclaim the winner. Upon COMELEC’s telegraphic order, the MBC proclaimed Sanchez on June 18, 1998, before the five-day period for petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the June 8 order had lapsed. Petitioner filed such a motion, which the COMELEC en banc denied on September 1, 1998.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the validity of Sanchez’s proclamation before the lapse of the period to file a motion for reconsideration; and (2) whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the inclusion of the 37 contested returns.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the first issue, the Court ruled the proclamation was valid. Under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, a COMELEC division’s decision becomes executory after a five-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration, unless restrained by the COMELEC en banc. The provision mandating the board not to proclaim unless authorized by the Commission after ruling on an appeal applies only when the appeal is pending. Here, the Second Division had already decided the appeal on June 8. The telegraphic directive to proclaim was a lawful implementation of that final order, not a premature authorization. The five-day period pertains to the filing of a motion for reconsideration, not to the execution of the division’s decision.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s factual finding that petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to exclude the returns. A board of canvassers performs a ministerial duty and cannot look beyond the face of election returns absent clear signs of falsity or invalidity. Charges of coercion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The COMELEC correctly found petitioner’s affidavits self-serving and inadequate to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the BEI. The Court emphasized that pre-proclamation controversies are summary in nature, and conclusions that returns are manufactured must be based on the most convincing proof, which was absent here. The COMELEC’s assessment of evidence was within its jurisdiction and deserved respect.