Case Digest (G.R. No. 86117)
Facts:
Dimangadap Dipatuan v. The Commission on Elections, Aleem Hosain Amanoddin, et al., G.R. No. 86117, May 07, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Feliciano, J. Petitioner Dimangadap Dipatuan sought review of decisions of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) — the Comelec Second Division decision of 8 November 1988 and the Comelec En Banc decision of 22 December 1988 — which ordered the inclusion of election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 of Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur, in the municipal canvass for the 1 February 1988 special local elections.Dipatuan and private respondent Aleem Hosain Amanoddin were rival candidates for Mayor of Bacolod Grande; the other private respondents were candidates for vice-mayor and councilors. After the elections, two separate municipal Boards of Canvassers produced conflicting results: a Board chaired by Samuel Minalang completed its canvass on 21 February 1988 but proclaimed the winners only on 29 February 1988 (proclaiming Amanoddin), while another Board chaired by Mamacaog Manggray on 25 February 1988 proclaimed Dipatuan after excluding returns from Precincts 15, 17 and 21.
The Comelec En Banc set aside both proclamations — holding the Minalang Board’s proclamation premature and the Manggray Board improperly constituted — and convened a Special Board of Canvassers in Manila to recanvass the returns. During the recanvass on 21 June 1988, petitioner objected to inclusion of returns from Precincts 15 and 17 as "spurious and manufactured" under Section 243(c) of the Omnibus Election Code, submitting written objections, certified voting records, voter affidavits and witness affidavits. Petitioner alleged alphabetical and chronological voting patterns, sudden ability of illiterates to sign, discrepancies in signatures/thumbmarks, and allowance of veiled persons to vote without proper identification.
The Special Board denied petitioner’s objections and ordered the questioned returns included. The Comelec Second Division affirmed that decision, dismissed Dipatuan’s appeal and directed proclamation of the winners; the Comelec En Banc affirmed on 22 December 1988 and denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari on 23 December 1988 (seeking injunctive relief against proclamation). The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 10 January 1989 to enjoin proclamation, but the Special Board had already proclaimed Amanoddin and others on 28 December 1988. By Resolution of 2 Februa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the inclusion of the election returns from Precincts Nos. 15 and 17 properly susceptible of a pre-proclamation controversy because they were "obviously manufactured" within the meaning of Section 243(c) of the Omnibus Election Code?
- Did the Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion or act without or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering inclusion of those returns...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)