|
|
|
|
To repeat, all these affiants are watchers of
respondent Natividad. The truthfulness of their affidavits is highly
suspect. The more impartial witnesses like the teachers were not presented
by Natividad. Indeed, these complaints of the affiants do not appear to
have been raised by Natividad during the canvassing of the election
returns in Precincts 44A, 44A2 and 50A1 and 50A2. Thus, some of the
election returns in Precinct Nos. 44A and 44A2, 50A and 50A2 were not
excluded because the objections merely related to formal defects and did
not affect the integrity and authenticity of the returns.33 [Original Records of
SP 98-002, pp 117-118, 119, 121.] In fine,
the affidavits of private respondent Natividad are insufficient proofs to
annul petitioner Velayo’s proclamation for as we held in Casimiro, et
al. v. COMELEC, et al.:34 [171 SCRA 468 (1989).] "Obviously, the
evidence relied upon mainly by petitioners to support their charges of
fraud and irregularities in the election returns and in the canvassing
consisted of Affidavits prepared by their own representatives. The
self-serving nature of said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court
has pronounced, reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits x x x.
Sclaw "Aside from said sworn statements, the records do not indicate any other substantial evidence that would justify the exclusion of election returns in the canvassing for being fraudulent in character nor a declaration that the proceedings wherein the returns were canvassed were null and void. The evidence presented by petitioners is not enough to overturn the presumption that official duty had been regularly performed. x x x In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the election returns and the canvassing proceedings must be upheld. A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing proof."
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
