domingo vs comelec

Domingo vs. COMELEC
313 SCRA 311/ G.R. No. 136587
August 30, 1999

FACTS:

Assailed in this special civil action for certiorari are the En Banc Resolution of the COMELEC and the Resolution of the COMELEC 1st Division, which dismissed, for lack of merit, the petition for disqualification filed by Domingo against herein private respondent, the incumbent mayor of Mandaluyong City.

In May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and private respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. (Benhur) were both mayoralty candidates of Mandaluyong City. After private respondent's proclamation, Domingo filed the instant petition for disqualification, on the ground that, during the campaign period, private respondent "prodded" his father, then incumbent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., to give "substantial allowances" to public school teachers appointed as chairpersons and members of the Boards of Election Inspector (BEIs) for Mandaluyong City.

Petitioner's allegations obtain from the “Pasyal-Aral" outing for Mandaluyong City public school teachers, then Mayor Abalos, Sr. announcing that the teachers appointed to the BEIs will each be given substantial allowances. Petitioner alleged that it was done so as to influence them into voting for him (Benhur) and ensuring his victory. Petitioner presented as evidence photographs and of the said activity, affidavits of 3 public school teachers, and videotapes showing Mayor Abalos Sr. announcing Benhur as the one responsible for such release.

Petitioner alleges that private respondent's act of "prodding" his father constitutes a violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the pertinent provisions of which read:

Sec. 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; . . . shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. . . .

In dismissing the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, the COMELEC 1st Division admonished petitioner and his counsel for attempting to mislead the COMELEC by making false and untruthful statements in his petition.

On reconsideration, the COMELEC, En Banc, affirmed the findings and conclusions of its 1st Division.

ISSUE:

1. Did Mayor Abalos Jr. violate Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code?

2. Did the COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion in its act of dismissing the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence, despite the "overwhelming" pieces of evidence of petitioner, consisting of the video cassette, pictures and affidavits, which were "not denied" by private respondent and presented "no evidence" to substantiate his defense

HELD:

The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed COMELEC Resolutions dismissing the petition and affirming the proclamation of private respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. as duly elected mayor of Mandaluyong City, are hereby AFFIRMED

1. Nothing in the affidavits suggests knowledge on any degree of participation of private respondent in the grant of these allowances. The name of private respondent was not even mentioned or alluded to by any of the three affiants. The videotapes did not prove his participation therein either.

2. The burden of proving that private respondent indirectly influenced the public school teachers of Mandaluyong City, through his father, Abalos, Sr., was a burden that petitioner failed to meet. Neither is this burden overcome by the argument that private respondent, for himself, had "no evidence" to rebut petitioner's allegations, since the burden of proving factual claims rests on the party raising them

Besides, it is not true that private respondent gave only denials and did not present any evidence to his defense. Benhur presented in evidence a certified true copy of Joint Circular No. 1, series of 1998, issued by the DECS, DBM and DILG, which authorized the payment of allowances of public school teachers chargeable to local government funds. The Joint Circular provided the basis for private respondent's argument that the disbursement of funds by then mayor Abalos, Sr. was valid as having been made pursuant to administrative circular, and was not an unlawful attempt made in conspiracy with private respondent to secure the latter's victory in the elections.

In fine, we find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's decision to dismiss the petition for disqualification. The conclusion that petitioner's evidence is insufficient to support the charge of violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code was arrived at only after a careful scrutiny of the evidence at hand, especially of the videotapes of petitioner.

NOTES:

Other issues:

1. Is the Resolution of COMELEC violative of his right to due process, and thus, issued with grave abuse of discretion.

- It is petitioner's argument that the dismissal of his petition for disqualification on the ground of insufficiency of evidence was unfounded, considering that no hearing on the merits was conducted by public respondent on the matter.

Well-established is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. Where opportunity to be heard is accorded, either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no denial of procedural due process. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard in his motion for reconsideration.

2. Private respondent (COMELEC) contends that, inasmuch as the petition for disqualification and the complaint for election offense involve the same issues and charges, (i.e., vote-buying, exerting undue influence on BEI members), petitioner (Domingo) should be held liable for forum-shopping.

We rule to the contrary. Forum-shopping exists when the petitioner files multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues in two or more tribunals or agencies.

The issues in the two cases are different. The complaint for election offense is a criminal case which involves the ascertainment of the guilt or innocence of the accused candidate and, like any other criminal case, requires a conviction on proof beyond reasonable doubt. A petition for disqualification, meanwhile, requires merely the determination of whether the respondent committed acts as to merit his disqualification from office, and is done through an administrative proceeding which is summary in character and requires only a clear preponderance of evidence

3. In the Petition, petitioner's counsel admitted that the assailed quotation in the petition for disqualification (admonished by COMELEC) was based on "erroneous transcript" of the speech which was prepared by somebody else, and which he in turn failed to verify for errors. However, he denies having intended to mislead the COMELEC with the inclusion of this statement, but instead submits that the word "Benhur" was "derived" from the succeeding pronouncement of Abalos, Sr., "not because he is my son", which may in turn be inferred to refer to private respondent, who was a mayoralty candidate at the time.

-We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's finding that Abalos, Sr.'s controversial statement, effectively reduced to this:

“Your President, together with Lito Motivo, walang tigil yan kakapunta sa akin at not because he is my son siya ang nakikipag-usap sa kanila and came up with a beautiful compromise. . . .”

was seriously insufficient and vague to prove violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.

It is upon the videotape recordings that petitioner lays much reliance on, in proving his case for disqualification. The recordings are supposed to document how former mayor Abalos, Sr. announced that his son, private respondent herein, prodded his father to release substantial allowances to teachers who will act as members of the BEIs. As found by the COMELEC 1st Division, the name uttered in the announcement was not "Benhur", private respondent's nickname and what petitioner alleged was uttered, but "Lito Motivo", a name which truly sounded unlike "Benhur". Also, when the COMELEC, through its 1st Division, viewed the videotape submitted by petitioner, "the speech of Mayor Abalos, Sr. was cut and so (they) also did not see and hear that part of Mayor Abalos, Sr.'s speech allegedly uttered by him."

4. Where there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law in the questioned Resolutions, the Court may not review the factual findings of COMELEC, nor substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.

5. By law, the mayor is a co-chairman of the City School Board, there is nothing unusual in his (Abalos sr.) having co-sponsored the said event.