G.R. No. 139573 -75 March 7, 2000
JUNE GENEVIEVE R. SEBASTIAN and DARIO ROMANO, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF STO. TOMAS, DAVAO DEL NORTE, SALVADOR ROYO, and ERIC ESTELA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners June Genevieve Sebastian and Dario Romano were mayoralty and vice-mayoralty candidates, respectively, in Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte, during the May 11, 1998 elections. During the canvass, they sought the exclusion of 25 election returns from several barangays, alleging these were prepared under “extreme duress, threat, intimidation and political pressure and influence.” The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied their petition. Petitioners appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division initially ruled in their favor, ordering the exclusion of the returns. However, upon motion for reconsideration by private respondent Salvador Royo, the COMELEC en banc reversed the Second Division’s ruling and allowed the inclusion of the contested returns in the canvass.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the inclusion of the 25 election returns in the canvass despite allegations of coercion and intimidation in their preparation?

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s resolution. The petition stemmed from a pre-proclamation controversy, which is strictly limited by law to an examination of the election returns on their face. The Court has consistently held that the COMELEC, as a general rule, need not go beyond the face of the returns to investigate alleged irregularities in the casting or counting of votes. Petitioners admitted the returns appeared regular, genuine, and authentic on their face. Their claim was that external threats and coercion marred the preparation process. Such an inquiry, however, necessitates a full reception of evidence beyond the returns, which is not the function of a pre-proclamation proceeding. The proper remedy for allegations requiring examination of extrinsic evidence is a regular election protest. The Court found no exceptional circumstance, like those present in Antonio v. COMELEC, to justify a departure from this rule. The COMELEC had conducted hearings and found petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove duress, as BEI members and other witnesses attested to peaceful and orderly elections. Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its discretion in including the returns and awaiting a potential election protest for a more thorough examination.