GR 136191; (November, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136191 November 29, 1999
JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) EN BANC, and JESUS EMMANUEL PIMENTEL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus Typoco, Jr. and private respondent Jesus Pimentel were candidates for Governor of Camarines Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections. Typoco filed a petition with the COMELEC for Annulment of Election or Election Results and/or Declaration of Failure of Elections, docketed as SPA No. 98-413. He alleged massive fraud, presenting a technical examination report indicating that 305 election returns, particularly entries for certain positions, appeared to have been prepared in groups by one person. The COMELEC’s own Voters Identification Division later confirmed that 278 COMELEC copies of election returns had entries written by one person in groups. Despite these findings, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed Typoco’s petition on October 12, 1998, ruling that the grounds did not justify a declaration of failure of elections and that an election protest was the proper remedy. Typoco then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to declare a failure of elections for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte despite evidence of irregularities in the preparation of election returns?
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the strict statutory conditions for declaring a failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The provision allows such a declaration only in three specific scenarios: (1) no voting took place on the date fixed due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or analogous causes; (2) voting was suspended before the legal closing time due to similar causes; or (3) after voting and during the preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass of returns, the election results in a failure to elect due to those causes. Crucially, the law requires that the incident must result in a “failure to elect,” meaning no candidate was lawfully elected.
The Court found none of these conditions present. An election was held, voting and counting proceeded, and a winner was proclaimed. The alleged fraud—uniform handwriting in election returns—pertained to anomalies in the preparation of returns after the votes were cast and counted. This did not prevent the holding of the election or suspend it, nor did it cause a total failure to elect. While fraud is a ground under the law, it must be of such a nature that it actually prevented or suspended the electoral process. The proper remedy for questioning the authenticity of returns and seeking a recount of votes is an election contest, not a petition to declare a failure of election. The COMELEC’s application of settled jurisprudence was correct and within its discretion.