GR 149666; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149666; December 19, 2003
SANGCAD S. BAO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATTY. RAY SUMALIPAO, COL. FELIX CASTRO, JR., MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BUTIG, LANAO DEL SUR, DIMNATANG L. PANSAR, GORIGAO LANGCO, and RASMIA U. SALIC ROMATO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sangcad S. Bao, a candidate for re-election as mayor of Butig, Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections, filed a petition with the COMELEC to suspend canvassing and declare a failure of election. He alleged widespread irregularities, including bombings causing commotion, missing ballot boxes, forcible taking of election materials, voting by non-registrants, premature closure and illegal reopening of polls, and ballots being filled up by one person. An intervenor, candidate Gorigao Langco, adopted these allegations and added further claims of military partiality and illegal transfer of polling places. Despite a COMELEC order to hold proclamations in abeyance, two other candidates, Dimnatang Pansar and Rasmia Romato, were subsequently proclaimed winners.
The COMELEC En Banc conducted a hearing. Counsel for the petitioners moved that the case be deemed submitted for resolution based on the pleadings, waiving the presentation of further testimonial evidence. The COMELEC granted this motion, setting a period for the simultaneous submission of memoranda. The Commission ultimately dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election?
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a declaration of failure of election is an extreme remedy, allowed only under two conditions: first, no voting took place or the election was not held, and second, the voting was suspended before completion. The grounds must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The allegations of the petitioner and intervenor, while serious, remained general and unsubstantiated. They failed to present specific, credible evidence to demonstrate that the irregularities were of such a nature as to prevent a true expression of the popular will across the municipality.
Crucially, the petitioners themselves, through counsel, opted to have the case submitted for resolution based on the pleadings, effectively waiving their right to present further evidence to substantiate their claims. Having chosen this procedural course, they cannot later fault the COMELEC for ruling based on the insufficiency of the evidence they themselves presented. The COMELEC’s finding that the petitioners did not discharge their burden of proof is a factual determination accorded respect and finality in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse. The Court found no such abuse, as the COMELEC’s decision was based on the evidence before it and the applicable legal standards for declaring a failure of election.