GR 154442; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 154442-47 December 10, 2003
SALIPONGAN L. DAGLOC, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BAI SUSAN A. SAMAD and KENNEDY P. DILANGALEN, respondents.
FACTS
During the May 14, 2001 mayoralty elections in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, candidates Bai Susan Samad, Salipongan Dagloc, and Kennedy Dilangalen filed various objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns from numerous precincts before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC). The MBOC issued rulings on these objections, leading all parties to file separate appeals with the COMELEC. Subsequently, two conflicting proclamations occurred: the MBOC Chairman and Member-Secretary proclaimed Samad as the winner on June 7, 2001. The following day, the MBOC Vice-Chairman and the same Member-Secretary proclaimed Dagloc as the winner. Both proclamations were challenged before the COMELEC, which consolidated all related cases.
The COMELEC Second Division, after investigation, found that election returns from nine specific precincts were spurious, having been prepared under duress or in unauthorized private locations, and ordered their exclusion. On appeal, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed this resolution. Dagloc filed the instant petition, arguing the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the returns, which would alter the election results in his favor.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the exclusion of the contested election returns from the canvass.
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s factual findings and application of legal principles governing pre-proclamation controversies. The COMELEC correctly exercised its authority under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 and Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code to determine the authenticity and regularity of election returns in a summary proceeding. Its investigation revealed that the returns from the nine precincts were manufactured or prepared under coercive conditions, constituting grounds for their exclusion as “obviously manufactured” under the law.
The legal logic is clear: the COMELEC’s power to exclude returns is not limited to facial examination but extends to evidence of irregularities in their preparation. The Court emphasized that pre-proclamation controversies are summary in nature, and the COMELEC’s factual conclusions, supported by substantial evidence like sworn statements and reports from its own field personnel, are accorded respect and finality. Since the exclusion of the spurious returns was based on this evidence and not on caprice, the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the subsequent proclamation of Samad by the MBOC, based on the corrected canvass excluding the tainted returns, was valid.