We reiterate settled rulings on the appreciation of election returns in
this case, to wit, (1) before a certificate of votes may be used to
prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any other anomaly
committed in the election returns, it must comply with Sections 16 and
17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6646,[1] (2) the exclusion of election returns on the ground of tampering must be approached with extreme caution and must be based on clear and convincing evidence,
and (3) in case of discrepancy in the other authentic copies of an
election return, the procedure in Section 236 of the Omnibus Election
Code[2] (OEC) should be
followed. For failure to comply with these rules and principles, we
hold that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and
accordingly order it to rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of
voters in this case.
x x x
We find the manner in which the COMELEC excluded the subject returns to be fatally flawed. In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the validity of election returns must be upheld.[30] A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof.[31] Corrolarily, any plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of experience and of the probabilities of the situation, should suffice to avoid outright nullification, which results in disenfranchisement of those who exercised their right of suffrage.[32] As will be discussed shortly, there is a patent lack of basis for the COMELEC's findings that the subject returns were tampered. In disregard of the principle requiring "extreme caution" before rejecting election returns, the COMELEC proceeded with undue haste in concluding that the subject returns were tampered. This is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
x x x
We find the manner in which the COMELEC excluded the subject returns to be fatally flawed. In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the validity of election returns must be upheld.[30] A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof.[31] Corrolarily, any plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of experience and of the probabilities of the situation, should suffice to avoid outright nullification, which results in disenfranchisement of those who exercised their right of suffrage.[32] As will be discussed shortly, there is a patent lack of basis for the COMELEC's findings that the subject returns were tampered. In disregard of the principle requiring "extreme caution" before rejecting election returns, the COMELEC proceeded with undue haste in concluding that the subject returns were tampered. This is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment