G.R. No. L-67746 November 21, 1984
ESTEBAN D. DORUELO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TOMAS D. BAGA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Esteban Doruelo and private respondent Tomas Baga, Jr. were candidates for Batasan Pambansa in North Cotabato in the May 14, 1984 elections. After the canvass, Baga led Doruelo by 5,547 votes. Doruelo filed multiple pre-proclamation petitions before the Provincial Board of Canvassers, seeking to suspend proclamation, annul returns from Kabacan, and nullify the entire provincial canvass, alleging irregularities. The Board dismissed all petitions. Doruelo appealed to the COMELEC, consolidating his appeals into Pre-Proclamation Case No. 66-84. His petitions sought special elections in 22 voting centers, annulment of specific returns, and suspension of Baga’s proclamation.
The COMELEC First Division heard the case. After submission of memoranda, it issued a Minute Resolution on June 14, 1984, dismissing Doruelo’s pre-proclamation controversy and proclaiming Baga as the second winning candidate. The resolution noted that the total voters in the 22 centers sought for special election was 5,994, and it would be “purely conjectural” to assume Doruelo would win nearly all these votes to overcome Baga’s lead. It also found no prima facie evidence to warrant the reception of evidence aliunde (from outside the returns) to nullify the canvass. Doruelo filed this petition assailing the resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Doruelo’s pre-proclamation controversy and proclaiming Baga based on the canvass results.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of pre-proclamation controversies and the specific grounds raised. For the request to hold special elections due to failure of elections, the COMELEC correctly ruled that such remedy was unjustified. The mathematical improbability of Doruelo securing 100% or even 90% of the 5,994 votes in a special election to overcome a 5,547-vote deficit made the outcome speculative. Pre-proclamation remedies are summary proceedings; ordering a special election requires a clear showing that it would materially affect the results, which was absent.
Regarding the petitions to annul election returns from Kabacan and the entire province, the COMELEC found no prima facie evidence of irregularities warranting a deviation from the canvassed returns. Doruelo invoked the “statistical improbability” doctrine, but the Court, aligning with the COMELEC’s extended opinion, noted the returns showed votes distributed among various candidates from different parties, not the uniformity of tallies or systematic blanking of opponents required to apply that doctrine. Mere allegations of high turnout or high vote percentages are insufficient. Thus, the COMELEC acted within its discretion in relying on the face of the returns and dismissing the pre-proclamation challenges, without prejudice to Doruelo’s right to file an election protest.