FACTS:

This case involves a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of a resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which allowed the inclusion of 25 election returns in the canvass of votes in Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte. The petitioners claimed that these returns were prepared under threats and undue influence. The resolution reversed an earlier resolution of the COMELEC Second Division that excluded the questioned election returns from the canvass.

Petitioner June Genevieve Sebastian was the mayoralty candidate of the Reporma Party, while petitioner Dario Romano was her running mate. Private respondent Salvador Royo and his candidate for vice mayor, Eric Estela, were the mayoralty candidate and running mate of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, respectively.

On election day, the petitioners sought the exclusion of several election returns from certain precincts, claiming that they were prepared under extreme duress, threat, intimidation, and political pressure. They also stated that four election returns were missing. However, the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied the petition, prompting the petitioners to file separate appeals with the COMELEC. One appeal was dismissed by the COMELEC First Division, while the COMELEC Second Division ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass.

Private respondent Royo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the COMELEC en banc, resulting in the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvass. As a result, the petitioners filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding evidence of coercion, threat, and other irregularities in the preparation of the election returns. They also argued that the COMELEC failed to consider the prevailing atmosphere during the elections, similar to a previous case of Antonio v. COMELEC, wherein returns prepared under threats were excluded from the canvass of votes. The COMELEC, on the other hand, argued that it could not exclude election returns that appeared regular on their face in a pre-proclamation controversy.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the doctrine enunciated in the case of Antonio v. COMELEC.

2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in not considering the evidence of coercion, undue influence, extreme pressure, threat, and intimidation in relation to the preparation, transmission, custody, and appreciation of the contested election returns.

RULING:

1. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the doctrine enunciated in the case of Antonio v. COMELEC. The court held that when election returns appear to be regular, authentic, and duly accomplished on their face, the COMELEC need not inquire into allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes.

2. The COMELEC did not err in not considering the evidence of coercion, undue influence, extreme pressure, threat, and intimidation in relation to the preparation, transmission, custody, and appreciation of the contested election returns. The court held that petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the alleged irregularities affected the regularity, due execution, and authenticity of the election returns.

PRINCIPLES:

• When election returns appear to be regular, authentic, and duly accomplished on their face, the COMELEC need not inquire into allegations of irregularities in the casting or counting of votes.

• The party alleging irregularities in the preparation, transmission, custody, and appreciation of election returns bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to show that these irregularities affected the regularity, due execution, and authenticity of the election returns.