erroneous transcript of the speech which was prepared by somebody
else, and which he in turn failed to verify for errors. However, he
denies having intended to mislead the COMELEC with the inclusion of
this statement, but instead submits that the word Benhur was derived
from the succeeding pronouncement of Abalos, Sr., not because he is
my son, which may in turn be inferred to refer to private respondent,
who was a mayoralty candidate at the time. [24]
We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELECs finding
that Abalos, Sr.s controversial statement, effectively reduced to this:
Your President, together with Lito Motivo, walang tigil yan kakapunta
sa akin at not because he is my son siya ang nakikipag-usap sa
kanila and came up with a beautiful compromise. xxx
was seriously insufficient and vague to prove violation of Section 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code. The burden of proving that private
respondent indirectly influenced the public school teachers of
Mandaluyong City, through his father, Abalos, Sr., was a burden that
petitioner failed to meet.
Neither is this burden overcome by the argument that private
respondent, for himself, had no evidence to rebut petitioners
allegations, since the burden of proving factual claims rests on the
party raising them.[25] Besides, it is not true that private respondent
gave only denials and did not present any evidence to his defense, or
to offer an explanation for his fathers actions, which were assailed as
having been influenced by him. Private respondent presented in
evidence a certified true copy of Joint Circular No. 1, series of 1998,
[26]
issued by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
Department of Budget and Management and Department of Interior
and Local Government, which authorized the payment of allowances
of public school teachers chargeable to local government funds.
[27]
The Joint Circular provided the basis for private respondents
argument that the disbursement of funds by then mayor Abalos, Sr.
was valid as having been made pursuant to administrative circular,
and was not an unlawful attempt made in conspiracy with private
respondent to secure the latters victory in the elections.