GR 149666; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149666 ; December 19, 2003
SANGCAD S. BAO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATTY. RAY SUMALIPAO, COL. FELIX CASTRO, JR., MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BUTIG, LANAO DEL SUR, DIMNATANG L. PANSAR, GORIGAO LANGCO, and RASMIA U. SALIC ROMATO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sangcad S. Bao, a candidate for mayor in Butig, Lanao del Sur during the May 14, 2001 elections, filed a petition with the COMELEC to suspend the canvass and declare a failure of election. He alleged widespread irregularities, including bombings causing commotion, missing ballot boxes, forcible taking of election materials, illegal reopening of voting, and voting by non-registrants. An intervenor, candidate Gorigao Langco, adopted these allegations and added further claims of military interference and illegal transfer of polling places. Despite a COMELEC order to hold proclamations in abeyance, two other candidates, Dimnatang Pansar and Rasmia Romato, were subsequently proclaimed winners.
The COMELEC En Banc conducted a hearing. During this hearing, the counsel for petitioner and the intervenor, when asked by the Commission if they were ready to present evidence, requested to instead file a memorandum and considered the case submitted for resolution. The COMELEC subsequently issued a resolution denying the petition, finding that the allegations of irregularities were not substantiated by sufficient evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election.
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a declaration of failure of election is an extreme remedy, allowed only under strict conditions: the election in any polling place has not been held, was suspended before completion, or the results were prevented. The burden of proof rests heavily on the petitioner to establish these grounds by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court found that petitioner and the intervenor failed to discharge this burden. Critically, during the COMELEC hearing, their counsel opted to forego the presentation of testimonial or documentary evidence and instead moved to submit the case for resolution based on memoranda. This constituted a waiver of their right to present further evidence to substantiate their serious allegations. The COMELEC’s factual finding—that the petition was supported only by general allegations without sufficient evidentiary support—was thus accorded respect and finality. The COMELEC’s decision was based on its authority to assess the evidence, and its conclusion that the evidence was inadequate did not amount to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. Therefore, its dismissal of the petition was upheld.