FACTS:

The case involves the election for Mayor in the Municipality of Sta. Rita, Pampanga. Petitioner Francisco Ocampo filed a petition to exclude election returns from Barangay Basilia, citing irregularities. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) included the contested returns in the canvass, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal with the MBC, which was denied. He then filed a formal appeal with the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division found material discrepancies in the contested returns and ruled that the MBC should have suspended the canvass for verification. The COMELEC granted the appeal and excluded certain election returns due to irregularities found.

The case escalated to the Supreme Court, with petitioner Ocampo filing a petition against the COMELEC en banc regarding the proclamation of respondent Salalila as Mayor. The COMELEC Second Division had initially excluded eight contested returns and suspended Salalila's proclamation, but the COMELEC en banc reversed this decision and confirmed Salalila's proclamation. Ocampo alleged grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC en banc and obtained a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court to stop the enforcement of the COMELEC's resolution. Ocampo also filed a separate petition for contempt against Salalila, claiming that he continued to act as mayor despite the temporary restraining order.

Ocampo argues that the contested election returns had material defects and did not contain necessary data, rendering them invalid. He claims that these violations constitute election offenses under Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the absence of required data undermines the validity of the returns.

In relation to the tampered election returns, it was discovered that the returns were altered or falsified and were prepared by the board of election inspectors. The board of canvassers, following Section 235 of the law, utilized the other copies of the election returns and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the election returns for precinct 88-A-1 should be included in the canvass.

2. Whether the election returns for precinct 89-A-1 should be excluded from the canvass.

3. Whether the election returns for precinct 91-A should be included in the canvass despite alleged discrepancies.

4. Whether the election returns for precinct 92-A should be included in the canvass despite the missing vote.

5. Whether the election returns for clustered precincts 93-A and 94-A should be included in the canvass despite formal defects.

6. Whether the election returns for clustered precincts 99-A and 100-A, and precinct 104-A should be included in the canvass despite formal defects.

7. Whether the election returns for precinct 105-A should be included in the canvass despite alleged discrepancies.

8. Whether or not the superimposition of the names of the candidates in the election returns constitutes an alteration or tampering.

9. Whether or not the zero votes received by the petitioner in certain precincts is statistically improbable.

10. Whether or not the election returns can be excluded from the canvassing due to omitted data.

RULING:

1. The election returns for precinct 88-A-1 should be included in the canvass. Although there were formal defects in the returns, such as the lack of entries on the number of registered voters and votes cast, there was no erasure or alteration in the number of votes obtained by the candidates.

2. The election returns for precinct 89-A-1 should not be excluded from the canvass. Although there were discrepancies in the total number of valid votes cast and the number of votes received by a candidate, as well as issues with the thumb marks of the board of election inspectors, these were mere oversights and did not vitiate the validity of the votes or destroy the integrity of the returns.

3. The election returns for precinct 91-A should be included in the canvass. The discrepancies alleged by the Second Division were not supported by evidence, and the election returns did not show any signs of tampering or alteration.

4. The election returns for precinct 92-A should be included in the canvass. The missing vote does not necessarily mean that it was excluded, and it could be due to a voter abstaining or a stray or illegible vote. The missing vote cannot be a ground for exclusion.

5. The election returns for clustered precincts 93-A and 94-A should be included in the canvass. The returns were complete, signed by all members of the board of election inspectors, and did not show any signs of tampering or alteration. The superimposition on the names of candidates did not affect the number of votes garnered by them.

6. The election returns for clustered precincts 99-A and 100-A, and precinct 104-A should be included in the canvass. Although there were formal defects, the number of votes credited to the candidates were correct and there were no signs of tampering or alteration.

7. The election returns for precinct 105-A should be included in the canvass. The alleged discrepancies were not material and did not affect the validity of the returns. The number of votes credited to the candidates were undisturbed and there were no signs of tampering or alteration.

8. The superimposition of the names of the candidates in the election returns does not constitute an alteration or tampering as it was done merely to make the names readable. The petitioner failed to present evidence to prove otherwise.

9. Zero votes received by a candidate does not automatically make the returns statistically improbable. The absence of votes for a candidate alone is not sufficient to deem the returns as fabricated. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to provide convincing evidence of fraud.

10. Omitted data in the election returns are mere formal defects and do not affect the authenticity and genuineness of the returns. The rules governing the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing may have been violated, but this does not warrant their exclusion from the canvassing.

PRINCIPLES:

• Findings of fact by administrative bodies in their specific field of expertise are given great weight by the courts and should not be disturbed unless there is a substantial showing of an erroneous estimation of evidence.

• The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), as an administrative agency and specialized constitutional body in charge of election administration and enforcement, has expertise in its field and its findings are generally respected and given finality.

• Election returns shall be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the count of the votes for canvassing and proclamation purposes, unless there is strong evidence of spuriousness.

• Discrepancies or missing votes in election returns may not be grounds for exclusion if there is no evidence of tampering or alteration.

• Formal defects in election returns may not be grounds for exclusion if the number of votes credited to the candidates are correct and there are no signs of tampering or alteration.

• Election returns that appear regular and free from physical signs of tampering or alteration cannot be unjustifiably excluded.

• The statistically improbable doctrine must be approached with caution and requires convincing proof.

• Omitted data in election returns are defects in form and do not necessarily indicate tampering or spuriousness.