GR 140884; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140884 . March 6, 2001.
GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SECOND DIVISION) and VICTORIO R. SUAYBAGUIO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gelacio P. Gementiza and private respondent Victorio R. Suaybaguio, Jr. were candidates for Vice-Governor of Davao del Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections. The provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Gementiza the winner. Suaybaguio filed an election protest with the COMELEC, alleging fraud and irregularities. After the revision of ballots, Suaybaguio waived the presentation of testimonial evidence and formally offered his documentary evidence, resting his case.
Gementiza then filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the protest had no leg to stand on and should be dismissed. The COMELEC Second Division denied the demurrer. It ruled that the true will of the electorate could be ascertained from the evidence already on record and, citing jurisprudence, held that by filing a demurrer, the protestee impliedly waives his right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied. The case was thus deemed submitted for resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying the demurrer to evidence and subsequently holding that the protestee waived his right to present evidence; and (2) refusing to elevate the motion for reconsideration of the interlocutory order to the COMELEC en banc.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s application of the rule on demurrer to evidence in election cases. The Court affirmed the doctrine established in Demetrio vs. Lopez and Jardiel vs. COMELEC, which provides that a protestee who files a demurrer to evidence after the protestant rests his case, and whose demurrer is denied, is deemed to have waived the presentation of his own evidence. This procedural rule is designed to prevent delay and expedite the disposition of election contests. The demurrer filed by Gementiza was a submission of the case for resolution on the basis of the evidence presented by the protestant; its denial meant the case would be decided on that evidence alone.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the order denying a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory, not a final decision or resolution. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, only motions for reconsideration of final decisions of a Division are required to be decided by the Commission en banc. Therefore, the COMELEC Second Division correctly denied the plea to elevate the motion for reconsideration. No grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed orders. The COMELEC was directed to resolve the election protest with dispatch.