malinias vs comelec _ 146943 _ october 4, 2002 _ j

7/25/2015 MaliniasvsComelec:146943:October4,2002:J.Carpio:EnBanc

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/146943.htm 1/4

ENBANC

[G.R.No.146943.October4,2002]

SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,TEOFILOCORPUZ,ANACLETOTANGILAGandVICTORDOMINGUEZ,respondents.

DECISIONCARPIO,J.:

TheCase

Beforeus isapetition for reviewoncertiorari[1]of theResolutionsof theCommissiononElections(COMELECforbrevity)enbanc[2]datedJune10,1999andOctober26,2000.TheassailedResolutionsdismissed thecomplaint[3] filedbypetitionerSarioMalinias (Malinias forbrevity) and Roy S. Pilando (Pilando for brevity) for insufficiency of evidence to establishprobablecause forviolationofSection25ofRepublicActNo.6646[4]andSections232and261(i)ofBatasPambansaBlg.881.[5]

TheFacts

Petitioner Malinias was a candidate for governor whereas Pilando was a candidate forcongressionalrepresentativeofMountainProvinceintheMay11,1998elections.[6]

TheProvincialBoardofCanvassersheldthecanvassingofelectionreturnsatthesecondflooroftheProvincialCapitolBuildinginBontoc,MountainProvincefromMay11,1998toMay15,1998.[7]

On July 31, 1998, Malinias and Pilando filed a complaint with the COMELECs LawDepartmentforviolationofSection25ofR.A.No.6646,andSections232and261(i)ofB.P.Blg.881,againstVictorDominguez,TeofiloCorpuz,AnacletoTangilag,ThomasBayugan,JoseBagwanwhowasthenProvincialElectionSupervisor,andthemembersoftheProvincialBoardof Canvassers. Victor Dominguez (Dominguez for brevity) was then the incumbentCongressmanofPoblacion,Sabangan,MountainProvince.TeofiloCorpuz(Corpuzforbrevity)was then theProvincialDirectorof thePhilippineNationalPolice inMountainProvincewhileAnacleto Tangilag (Tangilag for brevity) was then the Chief of Police of the Municipality ofBontoc,MountainProvince.

Malinias and Pilando alleged that on May 15, 1998 a police checkpoint at Nacagang,Sabangan,MountainProvinceblockedtheirsupporterswhowereontheirwaytoBontoc,andpreventedthemfromproceedingtotheProvincialCapitolBuilding.MaliniasandPilandofurther



alleged that policemen, uponorders of private respondents, prevented their supporters,whonevertheless eventually reached the Provincial Capitol Building, from entering the capitolgrounds.

Intheircomplaint,MaliniasandPilandorequestedtheCOMELECanditsLawDepartmenttoinvestigateandprosecuteprivaterespondentsforthefollowingallegedunlawfulacts.

3.ThatonMay15,1998atthesiteofthecanvassingofelectionreturnsforcongressionalandprovincialreturnslocatedatthesecondflooroftheProvincialCapitolBuildingthepublicandparticularlythedesignatedrepresentatives/watchersofbothaffiantswerepreventedfromattendingthecanvassing.

xxx

4.ThattheaforementionedMassaffidavitssupportourallegationsinthisaffidavitcomplaintthatweandoursupporterswerepreventedfromattendingtheprovincialcanvassingbecauseoftheillegalcheckpoint/blockadesetupbypolicemeninNakagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,Mt.Provinceandasanevidencetotheseallegations,CertificationofthePoliceStationisheretoattachedasAnnexDandaffidavitsofsupportersheretoattachedasAnnexE,bothmadeanintegralpartofthisaffidavitcomplaintandthatsaidmassaffidavitsshowthattheProvincialcanvassingwerenotmadepublicor(sic)candidatesandtheirrepresentatives/watcherspreventedbecauseofbarricade,closureofcanvassingrooms,blockadebyarmedpolicementhatcoerceorthreatenthepeople,thecandidatesortheirrepresentativesfromattendingthecanvassing[8]

Insupportofthecomplaint,severalsupportersofMaliniasandPilandoexecutedsocalledmassaffidavitsuniformlyassertingthatprivaterespondents,amongothers,(1)preventedthemfrom attending the provincial canvassing, (2) padlocked the canvassing area, and (3)threatenedthepeoplewhowantedtoenterthecanvassingroom.TheylikewiseallegedthattheProvincial Board of Canvassers never allowed the canvassing to be made public andconsentedtotheexclusionofthepublicorrepresentativesofothercandidatesexceptthoseofDominguez.[9]

Consequently, the COMELECs Law Department conducted a preliminary investigationduringwhichonlyCorpuzandTangilagsubmittedtheirjointCounterAffidavit.

In their CounterAffidavit, Corpuz and Tangilag admitted ordering the setting up of acheckpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain Province and securing the vicinity of theProvincialCapitolBuilding,towit:

3.WeadmithavingorderedthesettingupofcheckpointsinNakagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,MountainProvinceasinfact,thisisnottheonlycheckpointsetupintheprovince.Thereareothercheckpointsestablishedinotherpartsoftheprovince,toenforcetheCOMELECgunbanandotherpertinentrulesissuedbytheCommissiononElectionduringtheelectionperiod.

4.PolicemenwerepostedwithinthevicinityofthecapitolgroundsinresponsetoearlierinformationthatsomegroupswereouttodisruptthecanvassproceedingswhichwerebeingconductedinthesecondflooroftheProvincialCapitolBuilding.Thisisnotremoteconsideringthatthishadhappenedinthepastelections.Infact,duringthecanvassproceedingonMay15,1998alargegroupofindividualsidentifiedwithnolessthanaffiantscomplainantsRoyS.PilandoandSarioMaliniaswasconductingarallyjustinfrontofthecapitol,shoutinginvectivesatcertaincandidatesandtheirleaders.Thisgrouplikewisewereholdingplacardsandpostedsomeinfrontofthecapitolbuilding.

xxx[10]



After the investigation, inastudydatedMay26,1999, theCOMELECsLawDepartmentrecommended to theCOMELECenbanc thedismissal of the complaint for lackof probablecause.[11]

InaResolutiondatedJune10,1999, theCOMELECenbancdismissed thecomplaintofMaliniasandPilando for insufficiencyofevidence toestablishprobablecauseagainstprivaterespondents. On October 26, 2000, the COMELEC dismissed Malinias Motion forReconsideration.

Hence,Maliniasfiledtheinstantpetition.

TheComelecsRuling

Indismissingthecomplaintagainstprivaterespondents,theCOMELECruledasfollows:

AsappearingintheMinutesofProvincialCanvass,complainantRoyPilandowaspresentduringtheMay15,1998ProvincialCanvass.HeevenparticipatedactivelyinadiscussionwiththemembersoftheBoardandthecounselofCongressmanDominguez.TheminutesalsodisclosedthatthelawyersofLAMMP,thewatchers,supportersofothercandidatesandrepresentativesoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippineswerepresentatonetimeoranotherduringthecanvassproceedings.Theminutesdoesnotindicateanychargesofirregularitiesinsideandwithinthevicinityofthecanvassingroom.

PursuanttoComelecRes.No.2968promulgatedonJanuary7,1998,checkpointswereestablishedintheentirecountrytoeffectivelyimplementthefirearmsbanduringtheelectionperiodfromJanuary11,1998toJune10,1998.InMountainProvince,therewerefourteen(14)checkpointsestablishedbythePhilippineNationalPolicewaybeforethestartofthecampaignperiodfortheMay11,1998electionsincludingthesubjectcheckpointatNacagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,MountainProvince.Thus,thecheckpointatSabangan,MountainProvincewasnotestablishedasallegedonlyuponrequestofCongressmanDominguezonMay15,1998butwaybeforethecommencementofthecampaignperiod.GrantingarguendothattheCongressmandidmakearequestforacheckpointatSitioNacagang,itwouldbeameresurplusageasthesamewasalreadyexisting.

Furthermore,anallegedtextofaradiomessagerequestingadvicefromthePNPProvincialDirectoratBontoc,Mt.Provincewasattachedtocomplainantsaffidavitcomplaint.However,saidpersonbythenameofMr.Palicoswasneverpresentedtoaffirmthetruthofthecontentsandthesignatureappearingtherein.[12]

Finding thatMalinias failed to adduce new evidence, theCOMELEC dismissedMaliniasMotionforReconsideration.[13]

TheCourtsRuling

The sole issue for resolution is whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion indismissingMaliniasandPilandoscomplaint for insufficiencyofevidencetoestablishprobablecauseforallegedviolationofSection25ofR.A.No.6646andSections232and261(i)ofB.P.881.

WerulethattheCOMELECdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion.



ForthisCourttoissuetheextraordinarywritofcertiorari,thetribunaloradministrativebodymust have issued the assailed decision, order or resolution in a capricious and despoticmanner.

Thereisgraveabuseofdiscretionjustifyingtheissuanceofthewritofcertiorariwhenthereisacapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdictionwherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassion,prejudice,orpersonalhostility,amountingtoanevasionofpositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoined,ortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.[14]

Such is not the situation in the instant case. The COMELEC dismissed properly thecomplaintofMaliniasandPilandofor insufficientevidence,andcommittednograveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.

First,MaliniaschargedprivaterespondentswithallegedviolationofSection25ofRepublicActNo.6646,quoted,asfollows:

Sec.25.RighttobePresentandtoCounselDuringtheCanvass.Anyregisteredpoliticalparty,coalitionofparties,throughtheirrepresentatives,andanycandidatehastherighttobepresentandtocounselduringthecanvassoftheelectionreturnsProvided,Thatonlyonecounselmayargueforeachpoliticalpartyorcandidate.Theyshallhavetherighttoexaminethereturnsbeingcanvassedwithouttouchingthem,maketheirobservationsthereon,andfiletheirchallengeinaccordancewiththerulesandregulationsoftheCommission.Nodilatoryactionshallbeallowedbytheboardofcanvassers.

In the present case, Malinias miserably failed to substantiate his claim that privaterespondents denied him his right to be present during the canvassing. There was even noshowing thatMaliniaswaswithin the vicinityof theProvincialCapitolBuildingor that privaterespondentspreventedhimfromenteringthecanvassingroom.

As found by the COMELEC and admitted by Malinias, Pilando was present and evenparticipated actively in the canvassing.[15] Malinias failed to show that his rights as agubernatorialcandidatewereprejudicedby thealleged failureofhissupporters toattend thecanvassing.MaliniasclaimedthateventhoughPilandowaspresentduringthecanvassing,thelatterwasonlyabletoentertheroomaftereludingthepolicemenandpassingthroughtherearentranceoftheProvincialCapitolBuilding.[16]Thisallegation,however,isnotsupportedbyanyclearandconvincingevidence.Pilandohimself,whowaspurportedlypreventedbypolicemenfromenteringthecanvassingroom,failedtoattesttotheveraci

malinias vs comelec _ 146943 _ october 4, 2002 _ j

Documents