7/25/2015

MaliniasvsComelec:146943:October4,2002:J.Carpio:EnBanc

ENBANC

[G.R.No.146943.October4,2002]

SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

TheCase
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections(COMELECforbrevity)enbanc[2]dated June 10, 1999 and October 26, 2000. The
assailed Resolutions dismissed the complaint[3] filed by petitioner Sario Malinias (Malinias for
brevity) and Roy S. Pilando (Pilando for brevity) for insufficiency of evidence to establish
probable cause for violation of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646[4] and Sections 232 and
261(i)ofBatasPambansaBlg.881.[5]
TheFacts
Petitioner Malinias was a candidate for governor whereas Pilando was a candidate for
congressionalrepresentativeofMountainProvinceintheMay11,1998elections.[6]
TheProvincialBoardofCanvassersheldthecanvassingofelectionreturnsatthesecond
flooroftheProvincialCapitolBuildinginBontoc,MountainProvincefromMay11,1998toMay
15,1998.[7]
On July 31, 1998, Malinias and Pilando filed a complaint with the COMELECs Law
DepartmentforviolationofSection25ofR.A.No.6646,andSections232and261(i)ofB.P.
Blg.881,againstVictorDominguez,TeofiloCorpuz,AnacletoTangilag,ThomasBayugan,Jose
BagwanwhowasthenProvincialElectionSupervisor,andthemembersoftheProvincialBoard
of Canvassers. Victor Dominguez (Dominguez for brevity) was then the incumbent
CongressmanofPoblacion,Sabangan,MountainProvince.TeofiloCorpuz(Corpuzforbrevity)
was then the Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police in Mountain Province while
Anacleto Tangilag (Tangilag for brevity) was then the Chief of Police of the Municipality of
Bontoc,MountainProvince.
Malinias and Pilando alleged that on May 15, 1998 a police checkpoint at Nacagang,
Sabangan,MountainProvinceblockedtheirsupporterswhowereontheirwaytoBontoc,and
preventedthemfromproceedingtotheProvincialCapitolBuilding.MaliniasandPilandofurther
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/146943.htm

1/4

7/25/2015

MaliniasvsComelec:146943:October4,2002:J.Carpio:EnBanc

alleged that policemen, upon orders of private respondents, prevented their supporters, who
nevertheless eventually reached the Provincial Capitol Building, from entering the capitol
grounds.
Intheircomplaint,MaliniasandPilandorequestedtheCOMELECanditsLawDepartment
toinvestigateandprosecuteprivaterespondentsforthefollowingallegedunlawfulacts.
3.ThatonMay15,1998atthesiteofthecanvassingofelectionreturnsforcongressionalandprovincial
returnslocatedatthesecondflooroftheProvincialCapitolBuildingthepublicandparticularlythe
designatedrepresentatives/watchersofbothaffiantswerepreventedfromattendingthecanvassing.
xxx
4.ThattheaforementionedMassaffidavitssupportourallegationsinthisaffidavitcomplaintthatweand
oursupporterswerepreventedfromattendingtheprovincialcanvassingbecauseoftheillegal
checkpoint/blockadesetupbypolicemeninNakagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,Mt.Provinceandasan
evidencetotheseallegations,CertificationofthePoliceStationisheretoattachedasAnnexDand
affidavitsofsupportersheretoattachedasAnnexE,bothmadeanintegralpartofthisaffidavit
complaintandthatsaidmassaffidavitsshowthattheProvincialcanvassingwerenotmadepublicor
(sic)candidatesandtheirrepresentatives/watcherspreventedbecauseofbarricade,closureofcanvassing
rooms,blockadebyarmedpolicementhatcoerceorthreatenthepeople,thecandidatesortheir
representativesfromattendingthecanvassing[8]
Insupportofthecomplaint,severalsupportersofMaliniasandPilandoexecutedsocalled
massaffidavitsuniformlyassertingthatprivaterespondents,amongothers,(1)preventedthem
from attending the provincial canvassing, (2) padlocked the canvassing area, and (3)
threatenedthepeoplewhowantedtoenterthecanvassingroom.Theylikewiseallegedthatthe
Provincial Board of Canvassers never allowed the canvassing to be made public and
consentedtotheexclusionofthepublicorrepresentativesofothercandidatesexceptthoseof
Dominguez.[9]
Consequently, the COMELECs Law Department conducted a preliminary investigation
duringwhichonlyCorpuzandTangilagsubmittedtheirjointCounterAffidavit.
In their CounterAffidavit, Corpuz and Tangilag admitted ordering the setting up of a
checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain Province and securing the vicinity of the
ProvincialCapitolBuilding,towit:
3.WeadmithavingorderedthesettingupofcheckpointsinNakagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,
MountainProvinceasinfact,thisisnottheonlycheckpointsetupintheprovince.Thereareother
checkpointsestablishedinotherpartsoftheprovince,toenforcetheCOMELECgunbanandother
pertinentrulesissuedbytheCommissiononElectionduringtheelectionperiod.
4.Policemenwerepostedwithinthevicinityofthecapitolgroundsinresponsetoearlierinformationthat
somegroupswereouttodisruptthecanvassproceedingswhichwerebeingconductedinthesecondfloor
oftheProvincialCapitolBuilding.Thisisnotremoteconsideringthatthishadhappenedinthepast
elections.Infact,duringthecanvassproceedingonMay15,1998alargegroupofindividualsidentified
withnolessthanaffiantscomplainantsRoyS.PilandoandSarioMaliniaswasconductingarallyjustin
frontofthecapitol,shoutinginvectivesatcertaincandidatesandtheirleaders.Thisgrouplikewisewere
holdingplacardsandpostedsomeinfrontofthecapitolbuilding.
xxx[10]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/146943.htm

2/4

7/25/2015

MaliniasvsComelec:146943:October4,2002:J.Carpio:EnBanc

After the investigation, in a study dated May 26, 1999, the COMELECs Law Department
recommended to the COMELEC en banc the dismissal of the complaint for lack of probable
cause.[11]
InaResolutiondatedJune10,1999,theCOMELECenbanc dismissed the complaint of
Malinias and Pilando for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause against private
respondents. On October 26, 2000, the COMELEC dismissed Malinias Motion for
Reconsideration.
Hence,Maliniasfiledtheinstantpetition.
TheComelecsRuling
Indismissingthecomplaintagainstprivaterespondents,theCOMELECruledasfollows:
AsappearingintheMinutesofProvincialCanvass,complainantRoyPilandowaspresentduringthe
May15,1998ProvincialCanvass.Heevenparticipatedactivelyinadiscussionwiththemembersofthe
BoardandthecounselofCongressmanDominguez.Theminutesalsodisclosedthatthelawyersof
LAMMP,thewatchers,supportersofothercandidatesandrepresentativesoftheIntegratedBarofthe
Philippineswerepresentatonetimeoranotherduringthecanvassproceedings.Theminutesdoesnot
indicateanychargesofirregularitiesinsideandwithinthevicinityofthecanvassingroom.
PursuanttoComelecRes.No.2968promulgatedonJanuary7,1998,checkpointswereestablishedinthe
entirecountrytoeffectivelyimplementthefirearmsbanduringtheelectionperiodfromJanuary11,1998
toJune10,1998.InMountainProvince,therewerefourteen(14)checkpointsestablishedbythe
PhilippineNationalPolicewaybeforethestartofthecampaignperiodfortheMay11,1998elections
includingthesubjectcheckpointatNacagang,Tambingan,Sabangan,MountainProvince.Thus,the
checkpointatSabangan,MountainProvincewasnotestablishedasallegedonlyuponrequestof
CongressmanDominguezonMay15,1998butwaybeforethecommencementofthecampaignperiod.
GrantingarguendothattheCongressmandidmakearequestforacheckpointatSitioNacagang,itwould
beameresurplusageasthesamewasalreadyexisting.
Furthermore,anallegedtextofaradiomessagerequestingadvicefromthePNPProvincialDirectorat
Bontoc,Mt.Provincewasattachedtocomplainantsaffidavitcomplaint.However,saidpersonbythe
nameofMr.Palicoswasneverpresentedtoaffirmthetruthofthecontentsandthesignatureappearing
therein.[12]
Finding that Malinias failed to adduce new evidence, the COMELEC dismissed Malinias
MotionforReconsideration.[13]
TheCourtsRuling
The sole issue for resolution is whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
dismissingMaliniasandPilandoscomplaintforinsufficiencyofevidencetoestablishprobable
causeforallegedviolationofSection25ofR.A.No.6646andSections232and261(i)ofB.P.
881.
WerulethattheCOMELECdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/146943.htm

3/4

7/25/2015

MaliniasvsComelec:146943:October4,2002:J.Carpio:EnBanc

ForthisCourttoissuetheextraordinarywritofcertiorari,thetribunaloradministrativebody
must have issued the assailed decision, order or resolution in a capricious and despotic
manner.
Thereisgraveabuseofdiscretionjustifyingtheissuanceofthewritofcertiorariwhenthereisa
capriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdictionwherethepoweris
exercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassion,prejudice,orpersonalhostility,
amountingtoanevasionofpositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoined,ortoactat
allincontemplationoflaw.[14]
Such is not the situation in the instant case. The COMELEC dismissed properly the
complaintofMaliniasandPilandoforinsufficientevidence,andcommittednograveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.
First,MaliniaschargedprivaterespondentswithallegedviolationofSection25ofRepublic
ActNo.6646,quoted,asfollows:
Sec.25.RighttobePresentandtoCounselDuringtheCanvass.Anyregisteredpoliticalparty,coalition
ofparties,throughtheirrepresentatives,andanycandidatehastherighttobepresentandtocounsel
duringthecanvassoftheelectionreturnsProvided,Thatonlyonecounselmayargueforeachpolitical
partyorcandidate.Theyshallhavetherighttoexaminethereturnsbeingcanvassedwithouttouching
them,maketheirobservationsthereon,andfiletheirchallengeinaccordancewiththerulesand
regulationsoftheCommission.Nodilatoryactionshallbeallowedbytheboardofcanvassers.
In the present case, Malinias miserably failed to substantiate his claim that private
respondents denied him his right to be present during the canvassing. There was even no
showing that Malinias was within the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol Building or that private
respondentspreventedhimfromenteringthecanvassingroom.
As found by the COMELEC and admitted by Malinias, Pilando was present and even
participated actively in the canvassing.[15] Malinias failed to show that his rights as a
gubernatorial candidate were prejudiced by the alleged failure of his supporters to attend the
canvassing.MaliniasclaimedthateventhoughPilandowaspresentduringthecanvassing,the
latterwasonlyabletoentertheroomaftereludingthepolicemenandpassingthroughtherear
entranceoftheProvincialCapitolBuilding.[16]Thisallegation,however,isnotsupportedbyany
clearandconvincingevidence.Pilandohimself,whowaspurportedlypreventedbypolicemen
fromenteringthecanvassingroom,failedtoattesttotheveraci

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/146943.htm

4/4