GR 136282; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136282 & 137470 February 15, 2000
FRANCISCO D. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF STA. RITA, PAMPANGA and ARTHUR L. SALALILA, respondents. x—————————–x G.R. No. 137470 February 15, 2000 FRANCISCO D. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. ARTHUR L. SALALILA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco D. Ocampo and private respondent Arthur L. Salalila were candidates for Mayor of Sta. Rita, Pampanga in the May 11, 1998 elections. During the canvass, Ocampo moved to exclude the election returns from eight precincts in Barangay Basilia, alleging they were obviously manufactured and defective. The cited defects included a lack of data on registered voters and votes cast, discrepancies between votes cast and registered voters, excess ballots, and erasures on the returns. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) found the returns genuine and included them, proclaiming Salalila the winner.
Ocampo appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division, noting patent irregularities like missing data and erasures, granted the appeal, excluded the eight returns, suspended the proclamation, and ordered a new canvass. However, upon Salalila’s motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc reversed this decision. The En Banc ruled the grounds for exclusion were merely formal defects insufficient to establish that the returns were spurious or manufactured, and thus ordered the inclusion of the returns and upheld Salalila’s proclamation.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Second Division and ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvass.
RULING
No, the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that in a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC’s scope of review is limited. Their duty is ministerial, and they must generally accept election returns that appear regular on their face. The grounds raised by Ocampo—such as missing statistical data, discrepancies in voter counts, and erasures—are considered defects in form. These do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the returns themselves to warrant their outright exclusion from the canvass.
The legal logic is that for an election return to be excluded, there must be clear and convincing proof that it is “obviously manufactured” or false, not merely irregular or incomplete. The Court cited precedent stating that a conclusion to disregard a return must be approached with extreme caution. Since the returns in question were not shown to be tampered with or spurious on their face, the COMELEC En Banc correctly characterized the objections as formal and insufficient. Its decision to include the returns was a proper exercise of its jurisdiction, not a capricious or whimsical act amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed.