G.R. No. 169413; May 9, 2007
GABRIEL GARDUCE BASARTE, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SILVINO LOBOS, NORTHERN SAMAR, and NOEL JARITO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gabriel Garduce Basarte and private respondent Noel Jarito were candidates for Municipal Mayor of Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar in the May 10, 2004 elections. During the canvass, Basarte objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. 04101444 from Precinct No. 17A, alleging it was tampered with and that its second page for local positions was missing. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) denied the petition, finding no erasures for the mayoralty position and crediting the testimony of the BEI Chairman that no second page existed when they received the returns. Basarte appealed to the COMELEC.
Before the COMELEC, Basarte submitted affidavits from watchers alleging the return was complete when signed and that the ballot box was improperly handled, being delivered to Jarito’s house. He also presented affidavits and voter lists to argue a 100% voter turnout was statistically improbable. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the appeal, upholding the MBC and applying the presumption of regularity in favor of the BEI’s actions. The COMELEC en banc affirmed, leading Basarte to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the inclusion of the contested election return.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic rests on the nature of pre-proclamation controversies and the limited scope of judicial review. In such controversies, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are tasked with examining election returns on their face for patent irregularities. The grounds for exclusion are strictly limited to defects apparent on the face of the returns themselves, such as alterations, tampering, or missing data. The Court emphasized that matters requiring the examination of extrinsic evidence, like the affidavits and voter lists presented by Basarte to prove tampering or statistical improbability, delve into the veracity of the votes cast, which is beyond the scope of a pre-proclamation controversy.
The COMELEC correctly found the return regular on its face for the mayoralty contest. The allegation of a missing page pertained to other local positions, not the mayoralty race being contested. Furthermore, the COMELEC’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of the BEI’s duties, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, was not arbitrary. The Court also noted Basarte’s procedural lapse in failing to timely and properly establish the materiality of the contested return to the election outcome before the COMELEC, attempting to do so only in his petition to the Supreme Court. Thus, the COMELEC’s resolutions were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, lacking any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment constituting grave abuse of discretion.