Lucman v. Dimapuro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rasid Lucman and Respondent Macacuna Dimaporo were candidates for the House of Representatives in Lanao del Sur. Petitioner filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) alleging that precinct books of voters in Tubaran were stolen, leading to fictitious election returns. He prayed for the suspension of canvass and proclamation. Procedural History: The COMELEC initially ordered the suspension of canvass but later amended it to allow canvass while requiring parties to interpose objections before the Provincial Board of Canvassers (Board), which was to withhold proclamation. Petitioner moved for the exclusion of returns from several precincts, citing various grounds including statistical improbability, formal defects, tampering, falsity, and preparation at gunpoint. The Board denied these petitions. Petitioner sought review from the COMELEC, which, applying the rule in Lagumbay v. Comelec, found the statistical improbability argument inapplicable to most contested returns. The COMELEC created a committee to examine returns questioned for formal defects and irregularities. Further investigations and hearings were conducted, and the COMELEC issued resolutions addressing various objections and ordering further investigation or examination of specific returns. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-31430), which was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a second supplemental petition. The COMELEC eventually issued a resolution sustaining the Board's actions on most contested returns, rejecting some for being fictitious, and ordering the Board to reconvene to complete the canvass according to its resolutions, while directing them to desist from proclaiming a winner until a specified date. The Petition: Petitioner filed an "appeal by certiorari" from the COMELEC's resolution, seeking to annul certain parts of the resolution and praying for the exclusion of contested returns from the canvass.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Commission on Elections regarding the regularity of election returns. Whether the Commission on Elections erred in sustaining the inclusion of election returns from certain precincts in Tubaran, despite the alleged theft of precinct books of voters. Whether the Commission on Elections erred in sustaining the inclusion of election returns from twenty-eight (28) precincts of Balabagan, despite allegations of preparation without counting votes, exclusion of LP inspectors, and coercion. Whether the Commission on Elections erred in its handling of objections concerning returns from other municipalities based on alleged tampering, falsity, or preparation at gunpoint. Whether the Commission on Elections erred in rejecting petitioner's motions for subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court is set aside and dissolved. The COMELEC's resolution is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the scope of Supreme Court review of COMELEC factual findings: The Court reiterated that its power to review COMELEC decisions is primarily limited to questions of law, not of fact. While the Constitution grants a power of review, Congress can define its scope. The Court held that findings of fact by administrative organs, including the COMELEC, will not be disturbed unless there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence to support them. The Court emphasized that the nature of certiorari proceedings focuses on jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not on re-evaluating factual evidence. The Court found that the COMELEC's findings regarding the existence of elections and the regularity of returns were supported by substantial evidence, making them beyond the scope of review in this certiorari action. On the alleged lack of elections in Tubaran: The Court found substantial evidence supporting the COMELEC's conclusion that elections had been held in most precincts of Tubaran, despite the admitted disappearance of precinct books of voters. Evidence included the presence of ballots in ballot boxes, testimony of the Municipal Treasurer who facilitated the use of precinct lists and CE Form No. 39, a message from the COMELEC's Special Action Team, the election returns themselves, and affidavits from respondent's witnesses. The Court noted that while five precincts were rejected due to empty ballot boxes, the evidence for the remaining precincts was deemed sufficient. On the alleged irregularities in Balabagan: The Court upheld the COMELEC's decision to include the returns from twenty-eight precincts of Balabagan. The COMELEC's findings were based on the testimony of the Election Registrar, who denied allegations of coerced return preparation without vote counting, and on affidavits from election officials. The Court found that the presumption of regularity was not overcome by the petitioner's evidence. It also clarified that the COMELEC's function in canvassing is ministerial and summary, not meant to settle factual disputes that are proper subjects of an election protest. The Court distinguished this case from Lagumbay v. Comelec, where the irregularities were apparent on the face of the returns themselves, unlike the disputed factual issues in Balabagan. On other objections and procedural matters: The Court found that the COMELEC correctly ruled that certain objections were matters for election protests, not canvassing. The Court also affirmed the COMELEC's denial of petitioner's motions for subpoenas, stating that such a broad examination of factual issues was beyond the COMELEC's summary canvassing function and would unduly delay the proclamation of winners. The Court reiterated that the COMELEC's role is to ensure the ministerial duties of the Board of Canvassers are performed summarily. The Court also noted that the returns for Balabagan, previously excluded for senatorial canvass due to statistical improbability, were not similarly manufactured for the House of Representatives race, as candidates from both parties received votes. On the impact of plurality: The Court noted that even if all contested returns were excluded, the respondent would still maintain a plurality of votes, rendering it unnecessary to pass upon all of petitioner's objections to avoid further delays in the election process.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's review of factual findings of the Commission on Elections is limited, particularly when the issue involves the regularity of election returns, which is primarily within the competence of election tribunals. The Court will not disturb findings of fact supported by substantial evidence, especially when the Commission's findings are based on its direct observation and evaluation of evidence.