ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 142970. June 20, 2000]
DR. ROLITO A. PAHILAN vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 20 2000.
G.R. No. 142970 (Dr. Rolito A. Pahilan vs. Commission on Elections, En Banc, Municipal Board of Canvassers, Guinsiliban, Camiguin and Helenio N. Abecia, Candidate for Mayor.)
Petitioner assails the decision of the Commission on Elections modifying the decision of its Second Division, declaring, thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (en banc) RESOLVES to MODIFY the assailed resolution of the Second Division as follows:
1. The APPEAL is DENIED for lack of merit and the ruling of the respondent Board for the INCLUSION in the canvass of the election returns from Precinct Nos. 8A, 8A-1, 9A, 9A-1, 1A AND 1A-1 is hereby UPHELD;
2. The proclamation of Helenio N. Abecia made by the same Board during the pendency of this appeal is hereby DECLARED null and void the same having been done in vilation of Section 20 (i) of R.A. No. 7166;
3. The respondent Board is hereby DIRECTED to RECONVENE observing the rules on notices and finally INCLUDE in the canvass the votes reflected on the election returns from precinct nos. 8A, 8A-1, 9A, 9A-1, 1A AND 1A-1 subject of this case and, on the basis thereof, PROCLAIM the rightful winner for the position of Municipal Mayor of Guinsiliban, Camiguin.
The present controversy stemmed from a petition for exclusion of election returns in Precincts 8A, 8A-1, 9A, 9A-1, 1A, 1A-1, filed by petitioner before the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Guinsiliban, Camiguin which the latter denied on the ground that petitioner's allegations of vote-buying and misappreciation of votes were not proper grounds for pre-proclamation controversy.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of petitioners' appeal at the Commission on Elections (Second Division), the Board of Canvassers proceeded with the proclamation of Henio N. Abecia as the mayor of Guinsiliban, Camiguin.
Consequently, the Second Division of the Commission on Elections resolved to exclude the returns of the subject precincts from the canvass of elections returns, declared the proclamation of private respondent null and void and directed public respondent Board to reconvene and recanvass the remaining or uncontested returns and proclaim the winning candidate.
The matter having been elevated to the Commission on Elections En Banc, the now assailed decision was handed down.
Thus, the instant petition.
Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code has restrictively enumerated the issues which may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
[a] Illegal composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers;
[b] The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
[c] The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
[d] When substitute or fraudulent election returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.
Plainly, the grounds relied upon by petitioner, namely, vote-buying and misappreciation of votes, are not included in the above enumeration.
It is settled jurisprudence that vote-buying, as in the case at bar, is among the proper grounds for an election protest which is within the ambit of the Regional Trial Court's jurisdiction (Borromeo vs. Comelec, 28 SCRA 775 [1969]).
On the basis of election returns which, on their face, appear regular and wanting of any physical signs of tampering, alteration, or other similar vice, the Commission on Elections cannot justifiably exclude said returns on the occasion of a pre-proclamation controversy whose office is limited to incomplete, falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on their face (Salih vs. Commission on Election, 279 SCRA 19 [1997]).
Moreover, aside from simply alleging that the subject returns were manufactured, petitioners presented no supportive evidence. The Court has consistently maintained that election returns of certain precincts may be excluded and set aside at the cost of disenfranchising the voters only on the clearest and compelling reason showing of their nullity (Allarde vs. Comelec, 156 SCRA 632 [1988]).
WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.
Vitug, 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
