G.R. No. 136384 December 8, 1999
HADJI HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDULAJID ESTINO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hadji Hussein Mohammad and private respondent Abdulajid Estino were candidates for the Regional Legislative Assembly of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) representing Sulu’s Second District in the September 9, 1996 elections. Mohammad was proclaimed the third winning assemblyman with 31,031 votes against Estino’s 29,941, a margin of 1,090 votes. Estino filed an election protest before the COMELEC, alleging rampant voter substitution, miscounting by machine, and inclusion of marked ballots across numerous precincts in several municipalities. Mohammad filed an answer with a counter-protest questioning results in other precincts.
The COMELEC Second Division ordered a technical examination of voters’ signatures and thumbprints in the Voter’s Registration Records (VRR/CEF No. 1) and the Computerized Voters List (CVL/CEF No. 2) for the protested and counter-protested precincts. The examination revealed massive discrepancies. For the protested precincts, 7,951 voters had non-identical thumbprints between the two documents, and 4,043 voters in the CVL had identical thumbprints but used different names. Similar irregularities were found in the counter-protested areas. Based on these findings, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution on October 27, 1998, annulling Mohammad’s election and proclamation and directing him to vacate the seat in favor of Estino. Mohammad’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on December 8, 1998.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the COMELEC Resolutions clearly expressed the facts and law they were based on; (2) whether a technical examination of fingerprints was a proper method to resolve the election protest; and (3) whether the COMELEC committed an error in appreciating the examination results.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the COMELEC Resolutions. On the first issue, the Court ruled the Resolutions clearly stated their basis: the results of the technical examination of handwriting and fingerprints, which revealed significant irregularities indicating voter substitution. On the second issue, the Court affirmed the propriety of the technical examination method, citing precedents like Estaniel v. COMELEC and Pimping v. COMELEC, which established that election protests can be decided based on election documents without recourse to the physical ballots. The COMELEC’s procedure was a valid means to ascertain the truth of the allegations.
On the third issue, the Court found no merit in Mohammad’s claim that the COMELEC committed a “double deduction” error by possibly counting the same irregular voters twice from the report categories. The Court explained that the report’s Item B (comparing thumbprints between CEF-1 and CEF-2) and Item D (identifying identical thumbprints under different names within CEF-2) were distinct analyses. The possibility of overlap did not equate to a proven computational error. Absent a specific, substantiated showing of such double counting, the Court deferred to the COMELEC’s factual findings, which are supported by substantial evidence and thus final and non-reviewable. The COMELEC, possessing expertise in election law enforcement, is presumed to have acted regularly. No grave abuse of discretion was found in its issuance of the assailed Resolutions.