GR 148540; (April, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148540. April 22, 2002.
MOHAMMAD ALI A. ABINAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MANGGAY GURO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mohammad Ali A. Abinal and private respondent Manggay Guro were candidates for mayor of Marantao, Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. On May 25, 2001, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition (SPA No. 01-327) to annul the election results in Precinct 26-A, citing: (1) illegal composition of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) as all members were allegedly related to private respondent within the prohibited civil degree; (2) illegal transfer of the polling place through force, coercion, and intimidation; and (3) filling up of unused ballots by flying voters and supporters of private respondent. Petitioner later amended the petition to include private respondent, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), and the BEI as respondents, and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent proclamation.
Simultaneously, petitioner asked the MBC to exclude certain election returns, including those from Precinct 26-A, from the canvass. The MBC denied his petition, prompting him to file an appeal (SPC No. 01-283) with the COMELEC on June 11, 2001, raising similar grounds. On June 30, 2001, the COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 01-327 for lack of merit, ruling that the grounds cited were not proper for a pre-proclamation case and that the evidence was unconvincing. In the same resolution, the COMELEC ordered the proclamation of private respondent as mayor, and he was proclaimed that same day. Also on June 30, 2001, the COMELEC issued Omnibus Resolution No. 4493, listing SPC No. 01-283 among the pre-proclamation cases that would remain active after June 30, 2001. Petitioner filed the present special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the proclamation was improper due to the pendency of his appeal, that his right to due process was violated, and that the COMELEC ignored evidence warranting annulment of the election results.
ISSUE
1. Whether the COMELEC’s order to proclaim private respondent was proper despite the pendency of petitioner’s appeal (SPC No. 01-283).
2. Whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated.
3. Whether the COMELEC ignored evidence necessitating the annulment of election results in Precinct 26-A.
RULING
1. On the propriety of the proclamation: The Supreme Court held that while the COMELEC properly dismissed SPA No. 01-327, it could not validly order the proclamation of private respondent while SPC No. 01-283 was still pending. Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 prohibits a board of canvassers from proclaiming any candidate unless authorized by the COMELEC after it has ruled on the objections brought on appeal by the losing party. Since SPC No. 01-283 was unresolved and listed as an active case, and there was no proof that the contested returns would not adversely affect the election results, the COMELEC’s order for proclamation contravened the law. However, the Court noted that the question of the proclamation’s validity was rendered moot and academic by the COMELEC’s subsequent dismissal of SPC No. 01-283 for lack of merit on November 26, 2001.
2. On the due process claim: The Court found petitioner’s claim that the COMELEC did not consider his evidence and relied solely on private respondent’s pleadings to be speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Court emphasized that doubts and suspicions cannot substitute for proof, and serious charges of malicious wrongdoing demand more than mere accusations.
3. On the ignored evidence claim: The Court declined to resolve this issue, stating that it involves an examination of the nature, admissibility, and sufficiency of evidence presented before the COMELEC, which is beyond the scope of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Such an action is limited to issues involving jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The COMELEC resolution dated June 30, 2001, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
