[G.R. Nos. 150965-66. January 15, 2002]
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 15 2002.
G.R. Nos. 150965-66. (Wilfredo Bataga, Sr. vs. Commission on Elections
and Luzviminda J. Tan.)
Petitioner assails the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc
affirming the resolution of the Second Division thusly:
WHEREFORE, the rulings of
the Board of Canvassers of Kabacan, Cotabato, admitting for canvass the
election returns from Precinct Nos. 32A/33A, 81A/82A, 84A, 27A,160A/161A, 19A,
46A, 42A/43A, 118A, 155A/156A, 9A, 5A, 124A, 136A, 62A, 89A, 8/A, 11A, 163A,
14A, 111A, 138A, 2A, 25A, 39A, 47A/54A, 131A, 157A, 6A, 7A, 29A, 126A, 107A,
90A, 162A, 142A, 12A, 24A, 8A, 80A, 128A, 23A, 48A, 133A/134A, 137A, 13A, 85A,
35A, 88A, 150A, 109A/115A, 145A/146A, 121A, 30A/31A, 10A, 1A, 164A, 18A, 94A,
143A, 112A, 119A, 4A, 86A, 148A/154A, 26A, 127A, 110A, 114A, 120A, 149/151A,
108A are hereby set aside, and the proclamation of Wilfredo Bataga Sr., as
municipal mayor of Kabacan, Cotabato is hereby annulled.
(pp. 38-39, Rollo)
Petitioner Wilfredo Bataga, Sr. and private respondent Luzviminda J. Tan
were candidates in the May 14, 2001 mayoralty elections of Kabacan, Cotabato
wherein during the canvass of the election returns private respondent objected
to the inclusion of election returns of 90 precincts on the ground that said
returns were obviously manufactured or fabricated.
The Board of Canvassers denied private respondent’s objections,
prompting him to file an appeal with the Commission on Elections.
However, notwithstanding the pendency of private respondent’s appeal
before the Commission’s Second Division, the Board of Canvassers proceeded with
the proclamation of petitioner Bataga as the winning candidate again forcing
private respondent to file a petition to annul said proclamation.
Upon an examination on the contested election returns, the Commission’s
Second Division found that indeed out of the 90 questioned election returns, 72
were obviously manufactured being visibly and predominantly written by one and
the same hand. The COMELEC’s Second Division set aside the ruling of the Board
of Canvassers admitting for canvass the 72 election returns. In consequence, petitioner’s
proclamation was annulled.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, effectively
elevating the matter to the COMELEC En Banc, but still to no avail.
Thus, the instant petition with petitioner contending that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the motion for reconsideration
without setting the same for hearing and when it excluded the subject election
returns.
The Court is not convinced.
Petitioner is not entitled as a matter of right to an oral hearing of his
motion for reconsideration.
Section 6 of Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure simply provides:
Section 6. Duty of Clerk
of Commission to set motion for
hearing. – the Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for
reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission En Banc within ten (10)
days from the certification thereof.
Verily, the above was followed. Petitioner’s motion was so calendared
and considered, and thereafter resolved. Petitioner was thus afforded an
opportunity to be heard. There was, therefore, no denial of procedural due
process. Where the opportunity to be heard is accorded, either through oral
arguments or by written pleadings, there is no denial of procedural due process
(Domingo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 313 SCRA
311 [1999]).
Anent the allegation that the COMELEC abused its discretion when it
excluded 72 election returns without looking at other available evidence and
without strictly following the procedure laid down in Section 235 of the
Omnibus Election Code, suffice it to state that resort to the Commission’s
handwriting experts is not indispensable, as the Commission can undertake the
examination of each and every questioned return by itself, using only common
sense and perception, especially in the instant case where the irregularities
are clearly discernible from the face of the documentary exhibits of record.
They must be excluded for they were found by Commission to be indeed obviously
manufactured and fabricated returns (Aratuc
vs. Commission on Elections, Nos. L-49705-09, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA
251, 281).
Factual findings of the COMELEC, based on its own assessment and duly
supported by evidence, are conclusive upon the Court, more so, in the absence
of substantiated attack on the validity of the same (Mohammad vs. Commission on Elections, 320 SCRA 258 [1999]).
WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of
Court