|
|
|
|
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY En Banc, Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, JESUS L. CHU, petitioner,
vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
USON, MASBATE and SALVADORA O. SANCHEZ, respondents
[G.R. No. 135423. November 29, 1999] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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." + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Findings of fact of the COMELEC supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.11 [See Section 5, Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.] Factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same.12 [Malonzo v. Commission on Elections, 269 SCRA 380; see also Matalam v. Commission on Elections, 271 SCRA 733.] The COMELEC, as the government agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of election laws, is entitled to the presumption of regularity of official acts with respect to the elections. Having the expertise and skill of enforcing and implementing election laws, the COMELEC could not have erred as to allow double deductions, thereby frustrating the will of the people. En Banc, Justice Purisima, HADJI HUSSEIN MOHAMMAD, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDULAJID ESTINO, respondents. [G.R. No. 136384. December 8, 1999]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
