G.R. No. L-33692, L-33699, L-33728 February 24, 1972
SHEIK ACHMAD BASHIER, MACAPANTON ABBAS JR., and ANSARE SACAR BASMAN, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the canvass for the November 11, 1970 election of six Constitutional Convention delegates from Lanao del Sur. After a tentative tabulation, three candidates (Alonto, Guro, and Pangandaman) were proclaimed in advance as their leads were insurmountable. The remaining three winning slots were contested among several other candidates, with disputes centering on numerous election returns from several municipalities. Petitioners and other candidates objected to these returns on grounds they were prepared “at gunpoint” or were spurious due to “no elections” being held. The Comelec, to resolve these claims, ordered the submission of affidavits and directed the Fingerprint Identification Division and NBI to examine election records. However, critical Precinct Books of Voters and CE Forms for municipalities like Binidayan and Tubaran were reported as stolen or unavailable, severely hampering the investigation.
The Comelec, in its Resolution No. RR-913 dated June 14, 1971, proceeded to rule on the contested returns. It excluded returns from 18 precincts in Balabagan and 8 precincts in Balindong based on findings of statistical improbability and other irregularities. Conversely, it included the returns from 18 other precincts from various towns, rejecting objections that they were gunpoint returns due to a lack of conclusive supporting evidence. This resolution altered the ranking of the candidates vying for the last three positions, prompting the petitioners to seek review from the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in issuing its resolution, specifically in its factual determinations to include or exclude the contested election returns.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the Comelec resolution. The Court held that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its findings were based on a detailed evaluation of the evidence, including forensic reports on fingerprints and signatures, which were presented during hearings where parties were given the opportunity for cross-examination. The Court emphasized that the Comelec is the constitutional body tasked with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests relating to the election of Constitutional Convention delegates. Its factual findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and are generally binding on the Supreme Court.
The legal logic is rooted in the principle of non-interference with the Comelec’s factual conclusions. The Court reiterated that certiorari lies only for jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Comelec’s actions—such as crediting the forensic reports, weighing the affidavits, and deciding on the inclusion or exclusion of returns based on the available evidence despite the loss of some records—were tainted by such abuse. The Comelec’s resolution represented a reasoned attempt to ascertain the will of the electorate from the compromised evidence, and the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn its expert judgment on these purely factual matters. The decision was declared immediately executory.