ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 140317. July 25 2000]
BUBONG DOMATO vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 25 2000.
G.R. No. 140317 (Bubong Domato v. Commission on Elections, Municipal Board of Canvassers of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao Del Sur, and Elias Bayabao.)
Petitioner Bubong Domato, private respondent Elias Bayabao and Mahdi Abiden were candidates for mayor of Buadiposo Buntong, Lanao del Sur during the May 11, 1998 elections.
After obtaining a majority of three thousand one hundred fifty-two (3,152) votes, private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
On May 18, 1998, Abiden filed a petition docketed as SPC No. 98-045 before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). He alleged that:
2.1. On Election Day, May 11, 1998, in numerous precincts of the Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur, particularly Precincts Nos. 4A, 5A, 13A, 13A-1, 13A-2, 13A-3 15A, 22A, 22A-1, 24A, 24A-1, 25A 27A, 27A-1, 28A, 30A, 30A-1 and 33A, there was no actual voting by the duly registered voters of the said precincts;
2.2. In these above-mentioned precincts, during the entire voting hours armed followers of respondent rival candidates guarded the entrance to the polling places and threatened registered voters not to proceed inside the polling places, thus, the duly registered voters were unable to cast their votes;
2.3. In the said precincts the ballots were prepared and accomplished by the armed followers of the rival candidates, who cast the ballots in place of the registered voters, which can easily be verified by a comparison of the thumbmarks and signatures affixed in the voting records in the individual voter's registration records;
2.4. Not only were the ballots cast in the above-stated precincts prepared by armed men, but the ballots counted by the counting machines exceeded the number of registered voters, particularly Precincts Nos. 13A, 13A-1. 15A, 28A, 30A-1 and 33A, the percentage of voting was almost 95%; and
2.5. The ballots counted by the counting machines and the results now being canvassed by the respondent Board in all the abovementioned precincts do not reflect the true will of the duly registered voters since the ballots were accomplished, not by the voters, but by armed followers of the rival candidates and cannot be the basis of the votes that should be credited to the candidates. 1 Rollo, pp. 21-22 .
He prayed that the results of the election in the above-mentioned precincts be annulled and the pertinent election returns be excluded form the canvass. In the alternative, he prayed for the holding of a special election in case a failure of election is declared.
Two days later, or on May 20, 1998, petitioner filed before the COMELEC a petition docketed as SPC No. 98-104 alleging that:
2. That there was no Election Actually conducted at Precinct Nos. 13-A, 13A-1, 13A-2, 13A-3, Barangay Gata, Precinct No. 22-A, 22A-1, 22A-2; Barangay Sapot, precinct No. 9A, Barangay Catogonan, Precinct No. 3A, Barangay Bangon, all of Buadiposo Buntong last May 11, 1998 Local and National Election because all the Official Ballots were filled up by the Supporter of Candidate for mayor Eleas (sic) Bayabao with the consent and approval of the Board of Election Inspectors who tolerated the same to the Prejudice of the Actual Registered Voters in the above-stated Precincts as prove (sic) by the following facts:
A. Verification and identification by Expert (sic) shall show the Book of voters and the Official ballots were filled up by the Children of the Late Panantaon Mandoma, First cousin of said Mayoralty Candidate Elias Bayabao;
B. That after the counting of said Precincts it came out [that] all the other Candidate (sic) for Municipal Mayor got Zero while candidates (sic) Elias Bayabao got all the votes and had even exceed the registered voters;
C. That comparison of the handwriting and thumbmark of said supporter of Elias Bayabao shall show that they are the same with those appearing at the book of voters and Official Ballots actually casted (sic) as they had taken by force said ballots and filled up the same to the prejudice of the registered voters and all the National and Local Candidates that they are going (sic) votes;
D. That the watcher (sic) of all other candidates for national Offices and Local Officials were all threaten (sic) with death and bodily harm and forcefully excluded from the precincts that they had not vote (sic) for the candidate that they are (sic) representing; 2 Id. , at 22-23 .
He likewise prayed for the exclusion from the canvass of election returns mentioned and the annulment of the election in said precincts or the declaration of a failure of election.
On August 11, 1998, the petitions were consolidated.
On September 23, 1999, the COMELEC dismissed the two petitions, finding that the evidence of both petitioner and Abedin failed to prove their allegations that the election in the questioned precincts was tainted with fraud and terrorism. We quote from the resolution of the COMELEC:
The main allegation of Abedin (in SPC 98-045) is that the ballots in the questioned precinct do not reflect the true will of the duly registered voters because the ballots were accomplished not by voters, but by armed followers of rival candidates. However, the supporting documents Abedin presented do not prove this.
We refer to the declarations of the Abedin's witnesses contained in the following affidavits:
1. Joint affidavit of Pangandaman Abubakar, Koshbari Moti, Ali Mamarosa and Faisal Anti dated May 12, 1998.
2. Joint affidavit of Kiram Dirampatun and Noraima Hadji Ali dated May 12, 1998.
3. Affidavit of Kanapia Bali dated May 12, 1998.
4. Joint affidavit of Ontong Bali, Baolo Bali and Bantong Bali dated May 12, 1998.
5. Affidavit of Manap Maulana dated May 12, 1998.
6. Affidavit of Jamel Capal dated May 12, 1998.
7. Joint affidavit of Kiram Daroma and Omar Malawani dated May 12, 1998.
None of these witnesses presented by Abedin declared that armed men accomplished the ballots. On the contrary, the witnesses claimed that the Chairmen of the barangays where the precincts are located accomplished the ballots without specifying who they are.
While complainants are encouraged by the Commission to bring to the latter's attention commission of elections offenses but the Commission frowns on complainants who do not want to reveal the identity of persons they complain of. Complainants are expected to help the Commission to act promptly on their complaints, rather than give it a burden to do the work of sleuthing.
The same can be said of complainant Domato in SPC-98-104. Domato has failed to substantiate his allegation that "the ballots and book of voters were filled up by the children of the late Panantaon Mandorama, a supporter of mayoralty Candidate Elias Bayabao" and that a "comparison of the Thumbmark and signatures in the book of voters and the official ballots by civilian or by expert shall readily show" these. The identity of the children of the late Panantaon Mandoma who filled up ballots were never revealed by Domato. Domato merely opted to submit his case for resolution without submitting or attaching any documentary evidence or affidavit of witnesses to prove those assertions. We remind the parties that the duty to submit the evidence belongs to them and not for this commission to look for them. 3 Id. , at 26-27 .
Only the petitioners challenges the COMELEC resolution in the present petition and raises the following issues, viz:
I. Whether or not there was Fraud, Terrorism, and other Irregularity committed during the May 11, 1998 Local and National Election at Precincts Nos. 13A, 13A-1, 13A-2, 13A-3, 30A, 33A-1, all at Buadipuso Buntong Municipality, Lanao del Sur?
II. Whether or not there was statistical improbability in the result of the Election at Precinct Nos. 13A, 13A-1, 13A-2, 13A-3, 30A, and 30A-1?
III. Whether or not the Public Respondent had committed Grave Abuse of Discretion in dismissing SPC 104-98? 4 Id., at 10 .
A perusal of the foregoing issues readily reveals that the same are factual and have been correctly passed upon by respondent commission. In Mahammad v. COMELEC, (G.R. No. 136384, December 8, 1999) citing Matalam v. COMELEC, 5 271 SCRA 733 (1997).and Malonzo v. COMELEC, 6 269 SCRA380 (1997).we held that factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the absence of a substantial attack on the validity of the same. The COMELEC, as the government agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of election laws, is entitled to the presumption of regularity of acts with respect to the elections.
Moreover, Section 7 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, provides:
SEC. 6. Failure of election.-- If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any poling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during he preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonable close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Clearly, the three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared must be present, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody of canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect account of force mejeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous case. 7 Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512 (1997).
As petitioner's evidence adduced before the COMELEC in the form of affidavits by his witnesses failed to substantiate his allegations of irregularities committed during the elections, there is no cogent ground to set aside the COMELEC's findings.
The rule is well-settled that the power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. 8 Pe�a v. HRET, 270 SCRA 340 (1997).
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Bellosillo, J., is abroad on official business.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
