G.R. No. L-29026. September 28, 1968
PANTALEON PACIS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ATANACIO NEGRE AND MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENTS.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Primarily to be tested in this, the second Pacis
case,[1]
the validity of the last canvass in Precincts 19, 21 and 22 and the subsequent proclamation of Atanacio Negre as Mayor-elect of Sanchez
Mira, Cagayan.
The
returns in the above-mentioned precincts were contested as a result of
the shooting incident on November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos.
18, 19, 21 and 22 located in schoolbuilding at Namuac barrio where then Vice Mayor Manuel Franco was killed. The
inspectors had fled and left open and unsealed some of the election documents, ballot boxes
and election paraphernalia. It was discovered the following day that some
election returns were either tampered or sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and the tally sheets and tally boards were all
missing.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec)
in the first Pacis case had ordered that
canvassing be held at the Comelec office in
Manila. Proceedings there were however
stopped as a result of the institution of the first case before this Court
which raised issues different from those to be discussed in the present
case. In this Court’s decision in the
first Pacis, case, we issued the following
directives to Comelec, inter alia “(2) to conduct an investigation to
ascertain the true returns from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Sanchez Mira;
and thereafter the board of canvassers [to be constituted by Comelec] to use the true returns for purposes of canvass in said precincts;
and (3) to order the board of canvassers
to canvass the election returns from all the precincts of Sanchez Mira, and
thereafter, to proclaim the winning candidate for the office of Mayor of
said municipality”.
It was thus in pursuance
of the above orders that Comelec initiated an
investigation – Case No. RR-607 – to ascertain the true
returns from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22.
Elicited during the investigation and included in Comelec’s report of May 11, 1968, the following facts
relating to the election returns of the respective precincts are quite
revealing, viz:
“Precinct No. 18: – Here, the copies of the election
returns for the Commission on Elections, the provincial treasurer, and the municipal treasurer contain
erasures and superimpositions with respect to the votes for mayor while the
copy pertaining to the ballot box was clean and without any alteration. It
has been observed that said ballots box copy was placed inside the proper envelope (CE Form 58,
bearing SN 47118), closed with paper seal No. 516360, properly signed by all
the board members; and that the election return itself (CE Form 42) was intact or
duly sealed, bearing paper seal No. 516352, and legibly signed by all the board
members. For votes of mayor, this clean
copy reads as follows: Negre, Atanacio – 39 (in words
and figures); and Pacis, Pantaleon
– 110 (in wards and figures).
It was elicited from the chairman of Precinct 18, Rizal Lagodon, upon intensive
questioning by all the
Commissioners and counsels for both parties, that the board was able to finish
and to sign the elecÂtion returns; that the copy for the ballot box was duly sealed and placed inside the envelope,
then deposited in the ballot
box; that after the shooting, the board left the other election returns
unsealed; that when they returned on the 16th of November, they placed all the
election documents inside the ballot box, and the following day they retrieved
the election returns and distributed them to the proper offices.
The foregoing testimony of the chairman explains why the ballot box
copy of the election return was not altered, whereas the three other copies
were tampered. The Commission,
therefore, believes that said ballot box copy reflects the true result of the
election in Precinct 18, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, as regards the
mayoralty votes.
Precinct No. 19: – The election returns for this
precinct, copies for the Commission on Elections, the provincial treasurer, and
the municipal treasurer, all contain erasures and superimpositions with respect
to the mayoralty votes only. Although
the ballot box copy appears to be clean, yet the entries of votes are very blurred
or illegible not only with respect to the votes for mayor but also for all
other offices. In short, not one of the
four copies of the election return for Precinct
19 can be of service in the canvassing. The
tally sheets and tally boards no
longer exist.
The chairman of this precinct, Violeta Barase, declared under oath that as far as she could
remember Negre obtained 73 votes, while Pacis got 89 votes; that one of the copies of the returns
they prepared was erased by an armed man who entered the polling place on Novem ber 15, 1967 and this was
placed inside the ballot box; that when shown the ballot box copy she could
hardly read the votes for mayor, claiming there are erasures. She also identified a certificate of votes
issued and signed by all the board members of Precinct 19, stating that Negre obtained 73 votes.
The poll clerk of this precinct, William Valdez, corroborated the
testimony of the aforesaid chairman as regards the erased copy of the election returns placed in the
ballot box, which he could not also read when shown to him. He also admitted having written the figure
‘9’ on the vote for Pacis appearing in the Commission
copy; and made a conclusion that if the certificate of votes issued the board
shows that ’73’ votes were obtained by Negre and
because 164 voters actually voted in that precinct, then Pacis
could obtain only around ’89’ votes and not ‘159’ as appearing in the tampered copies of the election returns.
When all the copies of the election return for Precinct 19 were
submitted to the NBI for examinaÂtion, the opinion of its Questioned Documents Division as regards the entries of votes for Pacis
is as follows:
‘With regards to the entries opposite the name
reading as PACIS, Pantaleon of Exhs.
‘HH-6’, ‘EE-5’ and ‘BB2-b’, the
original erased words and figures that could (be) deciphered thereon are
‘eighty-nine’ and ’89’ correspondingly. The
now appearing words and figures are ‘one fifty nine’ and ‘159’.’
On the strength of the testimonies of the chairÂman and poll clerk of
this precinct, after rigid questionÂing by the Commissioners and counsels for
both parties, plus the certificate of votes issued and signed by all the board members with respect
to the votes of Negre and also the NBI report as
regards the votes of Pacis, the Commission believes
that in the absence of any serviceÂable copy of the election return for
Precinct 19, the correct votes for the mayoralty candidates are: Negre, Atanacio – 73 votes; and Pacis, Pantaleon – 89 votes.
Precinct No. 21: – The entries of votes for Mayor in the
different copies of the
election returns are as follows:[2]
1. Commission on Elections copy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Provincial Treasurer copy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Municipal Treasurer copy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Ballot Box copy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chairman of this precinct, Geminia Sumawang, testified that after the board had completed the
entries of votes and signed the
election returns, armed men entered the polling
place and told them to change the votes of Negre
by removing ’60’ votes and giving him only
‘9‘ votes, while Pacis votes were increased
from ‘119’ to ‘179’ votes. This explains
the discrepancy of entries between the words and the figures among the
different copies of the election returns for Precinct 21.
From the foregoing election returns and declarations, the Commission
finds that the correct votes for the mayorÂalty candidates are: NEGRE, ATANACIO – ’69’ votes; and
PACIS, PANTALECN – ‘119’ votes.
Precinct No. 22: – All the four copies of the election
returns for this precinct are clean in all respects. Negre
got ‘3’ votes in words and figures; while Pacis had
‘174’ in words and figures. All the
board members signed it.
On the witness stand, the chairman of this precinct, Romulo Agadon, declared that said
election return was prepared by the Poll Clerk but before they could finish it,
two strangers entered the polling place and told the poll clerk to change the
votes for the mayor, which are not reflected on the tally board; that one of the strangers called the
chairman and told him to sign
said election return, which he did and then
the strangers left; that he
signed the certificate of votes issued
to the LP watcher and found that it tallies with the correct votes shown by the
tally board, which is ’83’ for Negre; and when they
returned on November 16, after the shooting the day before, they placed all the
documents in the
ballot box except the tally sheet which was missing.
The LP inspector, Santiago Udaundo,
corroborated the testimony of the chairman as regards the votes for mayor, which
he further declared in his affidavit dated November 22, 1967, that the tally
board of said precinct shows that Negre obtained 83 votes and Pacis
got 94 votes. He reaffirmed all the statements
appearing in
said affidavit.
On the other hand, the poll clerk, Juan Holnagan,
and the NP Inspector, Alberto Lagadon, disclaimed the
testimonies of the chairman and LP Inspector.
The former
insisted that Negre really obtained ‘3’ votes as it appears
in the tally sheet and tally board, yet when told to explain why he
signed the certificate of votes showing that Negre
got ’83’ votes, he explained that they were rushing at that time end that the
entry of votes therein was not made by him but the LP watcher. The NP Inspector, when shown the same certificate
of votes, stated that he did not look at the figure for mayor when he signed
it, as they
were then rushing because of the gunfire, and further declared that he was not the one who placed the votes for Negre
in said certificate, and he insisted that the election return reflects the votes on
the tally sheet and tally board.
The Commission, however, finds, that there is more reason to
believe that the chairman and the LP inspector are telling the truth in that
the election return for Precinct 22 is no return at all with respect to the
office of mayor, for not only was it prepared at the point of a gun but also
other surrounding circumstances belie its authenticity. It has been observed that this is the only clean copy, in
all respects, among the four precincts situated in the Namuac Elementary School; that the disÂparity of votes
between the two mayoralty candidates, i.e. ‘3‘ against ‘174′ is too big and
follows the same trend of tampering as in Precincts 18, 19 and 21; that the tally sheet and tally
board in this precinct are also missing although no tampering appears on the
return; that as early as November
22, 1967, the LP inspector, in a sworn statement declared, that the election
return in Precinct 22 does not reflect the result of the election as appearing
in the tally sheet and tally board; and that the certificate of votes issued in
behalf of the LP watcher, signed by all the board members, shows a different
number of votes for candidate Negre, than what
appears in the election return.
Neither would it be of any help if the ballot box will be opened
and we were to look for other election documents, since the tally sheet and
tally board are missing and the
ballot box itself was left open from the morning of November 15, 1967 up to the
afternoon of November 16, 1967″.
Comelec, in the
same report, resolved as follows:
“1. To
declare:
a)
The copies of the election return
for the ComÂmission on Elections, the municipal treasurer and the provincial
treasurer of Precinct No. 18 were all falsified; the copy of the election
return for the ballot box of the same precinct which gives 39 votes to Atanacio Negre and 110 votes to Pantaleon Pacis as the true and
correct copy of the election return for said precinct and, consequently, the
copy to be used in the canvass of votes for the office of mayor;
b) The copies of the election returns for the ComÂmission on Elections,
the provincial treasurer and the municipal treasurer of Precinct No. 19 were all falsified while the copy for
the ballot box is not legible; that the true and correct votes for mayor in
this precinct is as originally written by the board of inspectors in the
election returns before their alteration, namely 73 votes for Negre and 89 votes for Pacis
which votes shall be counted by the municipal board of canvassers;
c) The copies of the election return for the ComÂmission on Elections, the
municipal treasurer and the ballot box for Precinct No. 21 were all falsified;
as to the copy for the provincial treasurer, the votes written in words which
give Atanacio Negre 69
votes and Pantaleon Pacis
119 votes are the true and correct return of the votes cast for mayor in said
precinct while the votes written in figures were falsified, so that the said
copy of the election return shall be used in the canvass of the votes for the office of mayor, municipal board of canvassers
to the votes written in words as
indicated herein;
d) There is no valid for the
office of mayor for Precint No. 22 and no vote shall be counted for said precinct in the canvass of votes cast for mayor municipal board of canvassers; and
2. To order the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, to convene at the CommisÂsion on
Elections, Manila on a date to be
fixed by the supervising
attorney of the Commission, and to
canÂvass anew all the votes cast for the office of mayor of said municipality
in the November 14, 1967 elections and to proclaim the municipal mayor elected in accordance with said
canvass.”[3]
Consequently, on May 18, 1968, at 10:00 o’clock in the morning, the
supervising attorney of Comelec convened the board of canvassers at Comelec office in Manila.
All the members were
present and took their respective oaths of office. Before the
canvassing started, petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings so as to enable him to
perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court and to question the May 11, 1968
resolution of Comelec. The motion was denied by the Supervising
Attorney. But petitioner was able to secure an order from the Comelec Chairman to conÂtinue with the canvass and to hold
the proclamation in abeyance pending further orders.
Canvassing proceeded. The
election returns used at first were advance copies, not the copies for the
municipal treasurer, with the exception of Precincts 18, 19, 20 and 21. Later,
at about 4:00 p.m., the municipal treasurer himself arrived with his copier of the election returns.
A recanvass was made. This time the copies used were those for the
municipal treasurer except those for Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22. With respect
to the returns of Precinct
18, the board used the ballot box copy.
For Precinct 19, the
board merely read Comelec’s resolution indicating
what vote should be entered. Pursuant to
the same resolution, the board tallied the votes written in words as
indicated in the copy of the provincial
treasurer for Precinct 21. For
Precinct 22, the board did not count any votes as there was no valid return for that precinct.
After the tally, a statement of votes was signed by all the members of the board of canvassers. The votes obtained by the candidates for
Mayor are as follows: Pacis – 2,102; Negre –
2,342. The board then adjourned.
It was two days
later, May 20, 1968, when the municipal treasurer started notifying the members
of the board of canÂvassers that the proclamation will be held on May 21, 1968
at 4:00 p.m. at the Comelec office in Manila.
In the meantime, on May 21, 1968, petitioner filed his notice of appeal before Comelec
and the present petition for certiorari before
this Court. Impugning the validity
of the canvass, petitioner prays for the following reliefs:
(1) to set aside and reverse the May
11, 1968 resolution of Comelec; (2) to declare the
returns for Precincts 19 and 21 as falsified; (3) to annul the canvass made on May
18, 1968; (4) to order the board of canvassers to file a petition for recount of votes in Precincts 19,
21 and 22; and (5) pending the final determination of the case, to issue
a preliminary injunction restraining the proclamation of the Mayor-elect of
Sanchez Mira.
Before this Court could
act on the preliminary injunction sought,
the board convened at 5:00 in the afternoon of May 21 at the Comelec office in Manila for the proclamation of the
candidate elected to the office of Mayor of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan. The supervising attorney called the
roll. The following members were
present:
(1)
Eleuterio
Matta,
(2)
Esteban Eclarin,
(3)
Victor de Ocampo,
(4)
Dominador
Seludares,
(5)
Jose Cack,
and
(6)
Rolanda Cabulisan.
The following members
were found absent:
(1)
Carmelita Calon,
(2)
Jose Cack,
Jr.,
(3)
Segundo Acdal,
and
(4)
Rafael Pacis.
Carmelita Calon
was personally served notice but she refused to receive the same. With respect to Jose Cack,
Jr., notice was received by his brother in his residence on May 21, I968. Dominador Saludares declared in his affidavit[4] that he
fetched Jose Cack, Jr. from his classes at the Far Eastern
University; but that while they were already in Comelec
premises, Jose Cack, Jr. was
accosted by Hilario Agdeppa
who prevailed upon him (Cack, Jr.) not to attend the
meeting. The notice to Segundo Acdal was served on May 2I, 1968 through Juliet Baccud in the place where he is known to be residing in
Manila. As to Rafael Pacis,
the municipal treasurer could not locate him in his known residence, 931-A Dos Castillas,
Sampaloc, Manila.
A quorum being present, the supervising attorney thereupon asked
the chairman of the board to read the tabulation and fill up a certificate of
proclamation. Thereafter, all the members present signed the certificate of canvass and proclamation at 6:25 p.m. The board adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Atanacio Negre was thus proÂclaimed Mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira.
On May 29, 1968, petitioner filed a supplemental petition[5]
interposing the illegality of the proclamation because Segundo Acdal and Rafael Pacis were not properly
served with notice. Pending final disposition of the case, petitioner prayed
that preliminary mandatory injunction issue to suspend the effect of the
proclamation, and respondent Negre to desist from
performing the duties of the office of Mayor. We issued, on June 11, 1968, the injunctive
writ sought upon all, P1,000-cash bond.
Meanwhile, on June 3, 1968, petitioner Pantaleon
Pacis lodged with the Court of First Instance of Cagayan an election protest (No. 68-5) ex abundantia cautela
pending the final deterÂmination of the present petition for review alleging,
in addition to the illegality of the canvass and proclamation, acts of
terrorism, frauds, anomalies and other irregularities which marred the
elections held in a number of precincts.
On June 14, 1968, counsel for respondent Negre filed an urgent motion to dismiss the present
petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. His ground was that the petition was not
properly served upon respondent within the ten-day period to perfect an appeal
as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
This Court, on June 19, 1968, resolved to deny the motion to
dismiss, in a resolution which reads:
“Upon consideration of the urgent motion of counsel for respondent Atanacio Negre praying that the
petition be dismissed, or, in the alternative, petitioner be ordered to serve
copies of the pleadÂings filed at counsel’s present address, x x x and it appearing upon the
petition filed herein that copy thereof was forwarded by registered mail to
Atty. Maximo A. Savellano,
Jr., counsel for said reÂspondent, at Room 709 Bank of P.I. Bldg., Plaza
Cervantes, Manila, and that the amended [suppleÂmental] petition was forwarded
to the same counsel c/o respondent himself, Atanacio Negre, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, by
registered mail posted on May 29, 1968, the Court RESOLVED (1) to deny the
motion to dismiss; (2) to require petitioner’s counsel to serve x x x a copy each of the petition
and the amended [supplemental] petition together with the annexes thereof on
Atty. Maximo A. Savellano,
Jr., counsel for respondent Negre, at Suite 208 Consolacion Bldg., Cubao, Quezon City; and (3) to require said respondent to answer x
x x within ten (10) days
from notice hereof.”
On June 21, 1968, Comelec answered,
Respondent Negre, in his answers filed on July 1 and July 3, 1968, reiterated his
averment of lack of appellate jurisdiction in this Court; that petitioner has
no cause of action because if the votes in Precincts 19, 21 and 22 were
disregarded for being falsified, it would result in a bigger margin of victory
for respondent Negre; and that judicial recount is
not proper where all the copies of the election returns are tampered with and
especially because the ballot boxes were left open for more than 24 hours.
From the petition, the returns thereto, and the memoranda of the
parties, the problems appear in the following sequence:
I.
May Comelec
validly order the municipal board of canvassers to use, other than the copy for
the municipal treasurer, (a) Comelec’s own finding of
correct votes obtained, and (b) the votes written in words as indicated in the
provincial treasurer’s copy?
II.
Is judicial recount proper when
all the copies of election returns are tampered?
III.
Would the alleged failure of two
members of the municipal board of canvassers to receive notice of meeting bar a
valid proclamation?
1. Comelec’s broad power under the
Constitution and the statutes has gained judicial approval. The rationale is that Comelec
is entrusted with the “enforcement and administration of all laws relative
to the conduct of elections” and the authority to decide “all
administrative questions, affecting elections” – all of which rest upon
the purpose of Comelec: to insure free, orderly and
honest elections[6]
Indeed, the diversity of election frauds and anomalies that have been concocted
by rival parties, surpassing legislative anticipation and scuttling the
prescribed manner of conÂducting
elections, necessitate resort to Comelec’s
general power of administration and supervision.
This Court has set down the rule that when returns are obviously
manufactured or palpably irregular, the canvassing board may reject them.[7] The
board’s decision is open to review by Comelec which
has the power to investigate
irregularities and to act upon the propriety or legality of the canvass
made by the board.[8]
But, it is to be emphasized, this power to reject
returns must be exercised with “extreme caution”.[9] Popular will must not be suppressed at the
slightest cause.
“Clean elections”, we have said in the first Pacis
case, “control the appropriateness of the remedy”. This we will have to underscore once
again. Because acts of
terrorism or fraud the purpose of which is
to destroy the integrity of election returns must have to be
discouraged. For, they may
eventually defeat the will of the majority and, as Chief Justice Concepcion has emphasized,
would “undermine the foundation of our democracy”.[10]
The purpose of the Election Code “to protect the integrity of elections
and to suppress all evils that may vitiate its purity and defeat the will of
the voters”[11]
gives Comelec
authority to ascertain whether
the genuineness of a given election return may yet be salvaged by an
examination of the said return.
Indeed, hindsight has long confirmed our view that the
unscrupulous finds illegal doctoring of election returns as an effective short
cut to prevent the proclamation of the true winner and leave him to the long
tedious task of an election protest – if the aggrieved party still has the
means to undergo the same. Which, as well
observed by Chief justice Bengzon, could only result
in a pyrrhic victory.[12]
Comelec then must strain every effort to ascertain
the true returns to be used in the proclamation,
a possible alternative being that the victor will be cheated
of his victory; the seat that is justly his will be
occupied by one rejected at the polls; our democratic institutions will suffer
in integrity.
With these thoughts to guide us, we first look into PreÂcinct 19.[13]
Comelec made a thorough investigation
concerning the alleged irregularities. It even made use of the services of
the NBI to deterÂmine the original erased entry for Pacis
and the testimony of the chairman and poll clerk of the precinct. It was there ascertained that Negre obtained 73 votes, to Pacis‘
89. This is no abuse of discretion on
the part of Comelec.
If the true result of the voting in Precinct 19 could still be
determined, it is within Comelec’s power to direct
that they be used in the canvass. And
this was done.
With respect to Precinct
21, Comelec directed the board to use the untampered portion of the copy for the provincial treasurer
which is the entry written
in words. The entry being
by long hand was harder to
change and any tampering here would have been easier to detect. The tamperers in
their rush must have left it as it is.
As deserving of serious consideration is the directive of Comelec rejecting the
entries for Mayor in all election return copies for Precinct 22. It will be
recalled that in Comelec’s resolution of May 11,
1968, it was found that all the four copies of the election returns for this
precinct are clean in all respects. Negre got “3” votes in words and figures, while Pacis had “174”, also in words and figures. They all bear the signatures of all the board
members. But then, Comelec
found that it was prepared “at the point of a gun” and that
“other surrounding circumstances belie its authenticity”.
These circumstances we need not repeat.
Reference to the quoted portion of the resolution of May 11 heretofore
transcribed will suffice.
We must now say that
an election return prepared at the point of a gun is no return at all; it is
not one notch above a falsified or spurious return. Comelec was correct in ruling that there was no
valid return for the office of Mayor at Precinct 22 and that no vote should be
counted for said precinct in the canvass of votes for Mayor.
2. One of the prayers of the petition herein is that this Court
order the board of canvassers to file a petition for the recount of votes as
far as Precincts 19, 21 and 22 are concerned.
We find this wholly unacceptable.
Nothing in the election code would give the court power to compel
the board of canvassers to file a petition
for recount. It would seem thus that
such a petition for recount should be a voluntary act. For indeed, Section 163 of
the Code says that such a
petition may be submitted either by the board or by “any candidate
affected”.
But we are confronted with tampered returns from Precinct 19 and
21. Petitioner himself here asked that
the returns for these two precincts be declared “as falsified. As
to Precinct 22, we have said, and so did Comelec say, that the return for that precinct is no return at all; all the copies
thereof were made at the point of a gun.
These are the circumstances which would deter us from stamping our
approval to the petition under Section 163 of the Code. Because, there is no discrepancy between the
different copies of the election returns.
Furthermore, we find no reason why we should break away from our ruling in Espino vs. Zaldivar[14] and Ong vs. Commission on Elections,[15]
that where election returns have been tampered with,
the remedy is before the Comelec – which was done here not with the court of
first instance.
3. Petitioner finally quibbles over the issue that two members of
the canvassing board, Rafael Pacis and Segundo Acdal, were unable to attend the proclamation because of
improper service of notice.
Surrounding facts press for recognition. They reflect in petitioner’s appeal an
intention to unduly delay the proclamation his rival. The notices were served on them by the
municipal treasurer of Sanchez Mira, in their known addresses in Manila.[16]
The municipal treasurer cannot be expected to do more. There was a diligent attempt to notify them. If the two members of the canvassing board
aforesaid were at able to attend the canvass, which was also held in
Manila, it is surprising that they could no longer be located for the purpose
of proclaiming Negre.
Petitioner’s pose lacks credulity. All the ten members were notified in the same
manner by the
municipal treasurer. Six of those who receive their notices attended the proclamation together with the
attorney for petitioner Pacis. Of the four members who were absent, one,
Carmelita Calon, refused the notice served on her
personally; and the other Jose Cack, Jr., whose
notice was received by his brother, was already inside the Comelec
premises but deliberately stayed away from the meeting. It is apparent from the actuations of the
latter two that there was an intention to delay further the proclamation
meeting. The absence of Acdal and Rafael Pacis strikes
one as a similar maneuver. Discernible
is a pattern to frustrate Negre’s proclamation.
Noteworthy too is that the canvass was finished on May 18, 1968
where Negre won.
All the members of the board were then
present. All of them
signed the statement of votes.[17]
The absence or presence of
Rafael Pacis and Segundo Acdal
during the subsequent meeting to proclaim the winner cannot change the result
of the canvass. Negre
would still be proclaimed. Pacis and Acdal knew this.
Finally, the meeting was held with a quorum of six members out of the membership of
ten. It is elementary that a quorum may
act for the entire body. The
proclamation is therefore valid.[18]
At any rate, the proclamation is but a formal act to confirm the
canvass previously held. It is just a
ceremony which follows canvass as a matter of course. Petitioner’s complaint on this point –
considering the result we have heretofore reached – would lead nowhere. New proclamation would be an idle
ritual. It would not change the result;
it would only work delay in the already long delayed proclamation.
For the reasons given, the resolution of the Commission on
Elections of May 11, 1968 is hereby confirmed; the preliminary mandatory
injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved; and the canvass of May 18,
1968, and the proclamation of May 21, 1968 declaring respondent Atanacio Negre as Mayor-elect of
the Municipality of Sanchez Mira, Province of Cagayan,
are both declared valid and subsisting and of full force and effect.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
[1]
The first Pacis case: L-28455, “Pantaleon Pacis, Petitioner versus Commission on
Elections, et al., Respondents”, by this Court on February 10, 1968.
[2]
Record, p. 146.
[3]
Record, pp. 148-149.
[4]
Record, p. 179.
[5]
Rollo, p. 39.
[6]
Sec. 2, Article X, Constitution.
[7]
Tagoranao vs.
Commission on Elections, L-28590 and Cota Cornell vs.
Commission on Elections, L-28598, March 2, 1968, 1968A Phild. 806, 813; Ong vs. Commission on Elections, L-28415, January 29, 1968, 1968A Phild. 248, 254, citing
Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on
Elections, 85 Phil. I49, I57, 158 and Lagumbay vs. Climaco, L-25444, January 31, 1966.
[8]
Espino vs.
Zaldivar, L-22325, December 11, I967, 1967D Phild, 670, 681, 684, and citations therein.
[9]
Tagoranao vs.
Commission on Elections, supra.
[10]
Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections, L-25349, December 3, 1965 cited
in Janairo vs. Commission on Elections,
L-28315, December 8, 1967 and Abes vs. Commission on Elections, L-28348, December 15, 1967.
[11]
Cauton vs. Commission on Elections, L-25467,
April 27, 1967.
[12]
Lagumbay vs.
Climaco, supra.
[13]
Precinct 18 is no problem.
[14]
Supra.
[15]
Supra.
[16]
Annex “A”
of the original petition, p. 44.
[17]
Annex “l”, respondent Negre’s Answer, Record, p. 173.
[18]
See: Espino vs.
Zaldivar, supra, citing Santos
vs. Commission
on Elections, supra.