G.R. No. L-28524. July 29, 1968
ERNESTO NAVARRO, RICARDO Q. ANGELES, JOSE BALTAZAR, JR., EXEQUIEL CANOY, JOSE QUICHO, JOSE DEL ROSARIO, AND RAMON TRONO, AS MEMBERS CONSTITUTING THE MAJORITY OF THE MUNICIPAL BO…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Two petitions for certiorari are before us for resolution: (1) the original petition filed on January
17, 1968 to set aside the decision of respondent Judge Tito V. Tizon (of the Court of First Instance of Bataan) in Election Case No. 77, denying the judicial
recount prayed for by petitioners, under Section 163 of the Revised Election
Code with respect to the votes cast in the last municipal elections in Orion, Bataan; and (2) the supplemental petition filed on January
18, 1968, directed at certain actuations of respondent Commission on Elections.
The events which constitute the background of the petition for
judicial recount are set forth in the decision of respondent Judge as follows:
“In the general elections held on November 14, 1967, the
official candidates of the two contending major political parties for the
municipal offices of Orion, Bataan were the following: For the Nacionalista
Party were the incumbent mayor and re-electionist
Ricardo T. Angeles, Ernesto G. Pascual for Vice-mayor
and the eight candidates for municipal councilors composed by Alberto Almazan, Primitivo Carlos, Filemon Rodriguez, Ricardo Hernandez, Pedro Javier, Estanislao de Jesus, Guillermo Sanchez and Roberto Menardo.
The Liberal Party candidates consisted of Gabriel Manrique for mayor, Felizardo Bernabe for vice-mayor and the eight candidates for
municipal councilors composed by Avelino Sabino, Heremias Apolinario, Pedro Santos, Alfredo Llamzon,
Sinforoso Evangelista, Alfred Seeckts,
Francisco Mariano and Rafael Reyes.
On November 18, 1967,
the Municipal Board of Canvassers headed by Andres Buenaventura as chairman,
with Patricio Trajano, Benedicto
Corpuz, Isidro Bautista, Ramon Flordeliz,
Pedro Venegas, Ernesto Navarro, Pepito
Baltazar and Ramon Trono as
members, conducted the canvass of the election returns for the said municipality
of Orion. By virtue of this canvass, the Municipal
Board of Canvassers accomplished the statement of votes by precinct, I.E. Form
No. Exhibit X-1- Court and the Certificate of Canvass of the Votes Cast for
Municipal offices and Proclamation of the Candidates Elected by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers, C.R. Form No. 85, Exhibit X-2-Court, wherein it appears
that Gabriel Manrique was proclaimed duly elected
municipal mayor having obtained a total of 3,150 votes and Ernesto G. Pascual was proclaimed duly elected vice- mayor having
obtained a total of 3,074 votes. The
eight municipal councilors,who obtained a majority of
votes and proclaimed as elected were Rafael Reyes, Avelino
Sabino, Jeremias Apolinario, Pedro Santos, Sinforoso
Evangelista, Alfredo Llamzon, Alfred Seeckts and Francisco Mariano.
When the Statement of Canvass by Precincts, Exhibit X-1 Court and
Certificate of Canvass of the Votes Cast for Municipal Offices and Proclamation
of the Candidates Elected by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, Exhibit
X-2-Court, were presented to the Board for approval and signature of its
members, the three members of the Board belonging to the Nacionalista
Party, namely, Ernesto Navarro, Pepito Baltazar and Ramon Trono, refused
to, sign the documents. (See
Supplementary Minutes, Exhibit X-10-Court).
Member Ernesto Navarro submitted to the Board a written petition,
Exhibit X-10-B-Court, signed by re-electionist Mayor
Ricardo T. Angeles, objecting to and praying for the suspension of the canvass
in order to enable the Nacionalista Party candidates
to go to Court for a judicial recount on the ground of alleged discrepancies
in the entries in the election returns.
Those members of the Board who voted in favor of the duly elected
candidates as appear in the proclamation form, C.E. Form No. 85, Exhibit
X-2-Court, being majority in number, the Municipal Board of Canvassers
proclaimed the above named candidates as duly elected for the corresponding
municipal offices.
On November 23, 1967, Pedro Bantog,
Municipal Treasurer of Orion, as Deputy of the Commission on Elections,
received from the Commission a telegram, informing him that upon petition of
Ricardo T. Angeles, the Commission on Elections has declared the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Orion under the chairmanship of Andres Buenaventura as
illegally constituted and nullified and voided the proceeding conducted by said
Board particularly the canvass and proclamation of elected candidates. The Commission on Elections directed the Municipal
Treasurer as its deputy, to reconstitute a new body of Municipal Board of
Canvassers pursuant to the requirements of Section 167 of the Revised Election
Code, to reconvene and recanvass the election
returns, and’ thereafter to proclaim the winning candidates. Pursuant to this directive of the Commission
on Elections, the Municipal Treasurer reconstituted a Municipal Board of
Canvassers consisting of Ernesto Navarro as Chairman and with Jose Baltazar, Ramon Trono, Jose del
Rosario, Jose Quicho, Exequiel
Canoy, Ricardo Q. Angeles, Ramon Flordeliz,
Isidro Bautista and Pedro Venegas as members. Thereafter the Municipal treasurer sent
notices to the members of the reconstituted Municipal Board of Canvassers, the
candidates and their authorized representatives, advising them that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers as reconstituted will hold its meeting at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November 25, 1967, at the Municipal
Town Hall. When the meeting was convened councilors
Isidro Bautista and Pedro Venegas were absent, while
Ramon Flordeliz walked out.
After the canvass conducted in the a afternoon of November 25,
1967, the chairman of the Board, Ernesto Navarro, observed, alleged
discrepancies in the various election returns consisting of superimposition,
blurredness of entries and ‘other irregularities affecting the votes received
for mayors and councilors. In view of
this observation the board agreed to suspend the canvass insofar as candidates
for mayor and councilors are concerned and proposed the filing of a petition in
court for a judicial recount in the precincts where alleged discrepancies and
irregularities are found. The Municipal
Board of Canvassers, however, proclaimed Ernesto G. Pascual
as duly elected vice-mayor of Orion.
On November 29, 1967, Atty. Arturo Lopez, as representative of the
Commission on Elections recommended to the Commission that Ernesto Navarro,
Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers ‘of Orion, be suspended and
replaced by any qualified voter of Orion for failure’ to convene the Board of
Canvassers despite his instruction in violation of Comelec
resolution in Case RR-544 and Comelec telegram dated
November 27, 1967. Accordingly, on December 1, 1967, Atty. Arturo Lopez,
by authority of the Commission on Elections, relieved Ernesto Navarro as
chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Orion, Bataan, and replaced by Atty. Eufemia Lacson-Parayno, who is a Comelec Registrar of Orion.
Earlier on the same date of December 1, 1967, the instant petition
signed by Ernesto Navarro as chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, was
filed before this Court for a judicial recount of the votes cast for mayor and
councilors in Precincts Nos. 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 of the Municipality of Orion.
On December 2, 1967,
the reconstituted Municipal Board of Canvassers under the chairmanship of Atty.
Eufemia Lacson-Parayno with
Ramon Flordeliz, Isidro Bautista, Pedro Venegas, Jose Baltazar, Jr., Jose
del Rosario, Jose Quicho, Exequiel
Canoy, Ramon Trono and
Ricardo Q. Angeles as members, was convened at 4:10
o’clock in the afternoon.
The chairman made it understood that the Board will not touch on the
results of the canvass already made by the Board under the chairmanship of
Ernesto Navarro, but will canvass only the returns of Precincts Nos. 17, 20, 22
and 23 pursuant to the resolution of the Commission on Elections of November
27, 1967, so that the results of the said canvass may be incorporated with
those of the previous canvass as certified and approved for the purpose of
establishing a basis for the proclamation of the winning candidates.
Notwithstanding the instruction of the Commission on Elections for
the continuation of the canvass, member Jose Baltazar,
Jr. interpose objection on the grounds that the Municipal Board of Canvassers
formerly headed by Ernesto Navarro had made a report to the Commission recommending
for a judicial recount and the Board had in fact filed the instant petition
for a judicial recount of the votes cast in the questioned precincts. This
objection of member Jose Baltazar, Jr. was overruled
by Chairman Eufemia Lacson
Parayno on the ground among others, that there is a
definite order from the Commission on Elections for the immediate completion of
the canvass and the proclamation of the elected candidates and that the duty
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers is only ministerial insofar as the
canvassing of votes and proclamation of the winning candidates on the basis of
the result of such canvass are concerned.
(See Minutes of the Meeting of the Municipal Board of Canvassers held
on December 2, 1967, Exhibit Z-1- Court).
As a result of the canvass conducted by the reconstituted Municipal
Board of Canvassers on December 2, 1967, under the Chairmanship of Atty. Eufemia Lacson-Parayno, the Board
declared Gabriel Manrique to have received, 3,150
votes for the office of Mayor and Ernesto C. Pascual
to have received 3,074 votes for the office of Vice-mayor of Orion, as shown in
the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Candidates Elected the C.E. Form
No. 85, Exhibit Z-2-Court. When C.E.
Form No. 85, Exhibit Z-2-Court, however, was passed around for the signature of
the members of the Board, recalcitrant members, Jose Baltazar,
Jr., Jose Quicho, Jose del Rosario, Ramon Trono, Exequiel amid Ricardo Q.
Angeles, refused to sign and instead submitted a written manifesto wherein
they stated their refusal to sign the proclamation on the ground that they
object to the continuance of the canvass by virtue of the filing of the instant
petition for a judicial recount. Only
the chairman, Eufemia Lacson-Paraymo
and members Isidro Bautista, Pedro Venegas and Ramon Flordeliz signed the Certificate of Canvass and
Proclamation, Exhibit Z-2-Court.
On December 6, 1967,
herein respondents candidates of the Nacionalista
Party, Ricardo T. Angeles, et al., filed a “Petition for Certiorari with
Preliminary Injunction” before the Supreme Court as G. R. No. L-28365
against the Commission on Elections and respondents candidates of the Liberal
Party, Gabriel Manrique, et al., directed at the
respondents in said case to restrain them from implementing the resolution of
the Commission on Elections dated December 4, 1967, ordering the Municipal
Board of Orion, Bataan, to continue “after
December 6, 1967” its suspended canvass on the basis ‘of questioned
election returns, unless restrained in the meantime by a competent court. Accordingly, on December 7, 1967, the Supreme
Court required the respondents in that case to file not later than December 16,
1967, their answer the petition for certiorari, and issued a temporary restraining
order “enjoining respondents from canvas sing the votes cast in contested
precincts and from proclaiming ‘winners therein.”
The petition for judicial recount was based on certain alleged
irregularities consisting of “erasures, intercalation, superimpositions
and other signs of falsification” in the election returns for 25 out of
the 35 precincts in the municipality
of Orion. The returns referred to are the copies for
the municipal treasurer which had been used by the municipal board of
canvassers in its task of canvassing the votes.
In its decision respondent court did not consider and rule upon
the alleged irregularities in each and all of the returns from-the 25
precincts, but only upon those pointed out by petitioners in their
memorandum. As stated by said Court,
those irregularities and its rulings thereon are reproduced as follows:
“(1) Precinct No. 11.- There are superimposed
entries in the stated votes for all the candidates for the office of councilor.
(2)
Precinct No. 13.- There are
superimposed entries in the stated votes, in words and figures, for the
candidates for mayor, which, observation was in fact concurred in by counsel
for the Liberal Party respondents. The
entries in the photostatic copy of the COMELEC
returns presented by the Liberal Party counsel, on the other hand, appears to
be written in a different hand.
(3)
Precinct No. 16.- There are
patent erasures in the entries of names of seven (7) councilors, which erasures
are also observable in the photostatic copy of the
COMELEC returns for the precinct.
(4)
Precinct No. 17.- Both in
the returns of the Board and the COMELEC, the name of candidates for mayor
Ricardo T. Angeles appearing in line 2 was erased and superimposed with the
entry of the name of candidate Gabriel Manrique. Even the counsel for the Liberal Party candidate
admit that “There is evident signs of erasures”. Also, the name of candidate for councilor
Reyes is entered twice in the list of candidates for councilors: on line the
nave is Mariano he is credited with 75 votes, and on line 11, he is credited
with 100 votes.
(5)
Precinct No. 19.- There are
superimposed entries in the names of the seven (7) councilors, which
discrepancy apparent in the COMELEC copy.
On line 9 for the office of councilors, the votes appear in words as
“thirty-seven” while the figure appears as “38”.
(6)
Precinct No. 24.-
There are evidence erasures and
superimposed entries in the names of candidates for and councilors. Moreover, the entries were directly written
on the returns; in other words, they are not, as they should be, carbon copies
of the original. The chairman of the
bard of inspectors for this precinct oven testified that she made entries
“in my original writing”.
(7)
Precinct No. 26.- The votes
credited to candidate for councilor Alberto Almazan
appear in words “fifty-nine” and in figure as “58”.
(8)
Precinct No. 28.- There are
erasures and superimposed entries in the votes cast for candidates for
councilor on line 3 and 4.
(9)
Precinct No. 29.- The
entries in the names of councilors show cancellations; moreover, the entries in
the returns, which is supposed to be in duplicate carbon copy, appear written
with a ball pen.
(10)
Precinct No. 30.– This
return shows extensive signs of erasures and superimpositions in the names of
the candidates for mayor and councilors, which are also apparent in the
COMELEC, photostat copy.
(11)
Precinct No. 31.- There are
superimposed entries in the names and votes of the candidates for councilors.
(12)
Precinct No. 32.- There are
cancellations and superimpositions in the names of candidates for councilors.
(13)
Precinct No. 33.- There are
alterations in the votes credited to five (5) councilors.
(14)
Precinct No. 35.- There are
alterations in the votes credited to three (3) councilors, which also appear in
the COMELEC photostat copy.”
“The respondents candidates of the Nacionalista
Party also assail the illegibility of the election returns for Precinct Nos 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 30.
In the course of the hearing had on December 12, 1957, the Court
has noted that counsel for respondents-oppositors
Gabriel Manrique and his fellow candidates of the
liberal Party have in their possession certified photostatic
copies of all the election returns for the Municipality of Orion, which were
made from the originals of the election returns in the possession of the
Commission on Elections. The court
directed that the certified photostatic copies of
the election returns be put on record for the purpose of comparing the same
with the corresponding returns used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. The Court has taken pains to scrutinize the
copies of the election returns used by the Board of Canvassers, in the
questioned precincts and has meticulously compared the same with the certified
authentic photostatic copies made from the originals
in the possession of the Commission on Elections and has found the following:
(1)
Precinct No. 11.- The alleged
superimposition of the figures representing the votes obtained by the
candidates for councilors from line 1 to 17 appears to be a retracing of the
light print in the carbon copy to make the figures more heavier and
legible. A comparison with the photostatic copy of the original return in the possession
of the Commission on Elections shows that the questioned figures are the same
and there is no alteration or other signs of falsification.
(2)
Precinct No. 13.- The court finds
the same observation as in Precinct No. 11 that the superimposition on the
number of votes in words and figures for mayor, appears to have been made to
make the figures more heavier and legible.
The number of votes, both in words and figures, are not in discrepancy
with what appears in the photostatic copy of the
original return in the possession of the Commission on Elections.
(3)
Precinct No. 16. – The Court has
made the same observation that the alleged erasures and rewriting or retracing
of the names of he candidates for councilors from line 11 to 17 appear to be
corrections to make the names of the candidates for councilors in alphabetical
order. The Court finds no contradiction
or discrepancy between the returns used by the Loard
of Canvassers and photostatic copy of the original in
the possession of the Commission on Election
(4)
Precinct No. 17.- The Court has
observed that the name of candidate for mayor., Ricardo T. Angeles, appearing
on line 2 has been erased and superimposed with the name of candidate Gabriel Manrique. This
appears to be a matter of correction in order to place in alphabetical order
the name of Angeles ahead on line 1 and the name of Manrique
following co line 2. The number of
votes, however, for the respective candidate for mayor as found on the copy of
the return used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers is not in contradiction,
nor in discrepancy with the corresponding number of votes appearing in the
certified photostatic copy of the returns made from
the original in the possession of the Commission on Elections.
(5)
Precinct No. 19.- the Court notes
that the retracing of the names of the seven councilors was apparently a
correction so as to make the carbon copy, which is very light more heavier and
legible. The votes credited to each
councilor are the same with those appearing in the photostatic
copy made from the original return in’ the possession of the Commission on
Elections.
The variance in the number of votes credited for candidate
Francisco Mariano in line 9, whereby the votes obtained by said candidate was
indicated in words as “Thirty- seven”, whereas, it was written in
figure as “38” is not such discrepancy as to affect the result of
the election for Francisco Mariano and other candidates for councilors.
(6)
Precinct No. 24- The fact that the
entries in the names of candidate for mayor and councilors in the copy of the
election returns used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers were directly
written on the returns and not carbon copy of the original cannot be considered
a discrepancy’ contemplated by the framers of the Election Code. The chairman of the board of inspectors for
Precinct No. 24 explained to the satisfaction of the Court that she had to make
the returns in seven copies and because the third carbon copy was already
light, she had to write on the return now in the possession of the Municipal
Board of Canvassers in her “original handwriting” so as to make the
entries legible. However, the fact remains that the number of votes obtained by
each candidate as indicated opposite their names are not at odds with those
appearing in the certified photostatic copy of the
original in the possession of the Commission on Elections.”
(7)
Precinct No. 26.- There is no
discrepancy in the fact that the votes credited to candidate for councilor,
Alberto Almazan, appear in words as
“fifty-nine”, whereas it was written in figures as “58”,
for it appears in C.E. Form No. 87, Statement of Votes by precinct, Exhibit
X-9-Court, that Alberto Almazan was credited with 59
votes. The Court cannot surmise why Nacionalista Party candidate. Alberto Almazan had
to complain when he was credited with 59 votes instead of 58, so that he was
one vote to his advantage and benefit.
(8)
Precinct No. 28.- The erasures
regarding the entries in the votes for councilors on line 3 and 4 are matters
of corrections. There is no discrepancy
between the copy of the returns used by the Board of Canvassers and the photostatic copy of the original in the possession of the
Commission on Elections.
(9)
Precinct No. 29.- What seems to be
cancellation of the names of councilors on line 1, 5, 15 and 16 is a matter of
Correction. The fact that there are
entries in ball pen was explained by the poll clerk who prepared the returns
that she had to retrace the entries because the carbon copy was so light that
the prints ere not so legible. A
comparison made with the certified photostatic copy
of the original return in the possession of the Commission on Elections does
not show any discrepancy in the number of votes credited for each candidate.
(10)
Precinct No. 30.- The erasures and
superimpositions in the names of candidates for mayor and councilors from line
3 to 14 were explained by the chairman of the board of inspectors to be a matter
of correction because she overlooked the instruction that the names of the
candidates for councilors should be written in alphabetical order and she had
to make the erasures to correct the apparent mistake. At any rate the certified photostatic
copy from the original return in the possession of the Commission on Elections
is not in conflict with the copy used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
(11)
Precinct No. 31.- The retracing
found in the names and votes of the
candidates for councilors was explained by the chairmen of the board of
inspectors and poll clerk that after reviewing the returns as accomplished,
they found out that some of the entries in the carbon copies were so light that
they had to retrace the entries to make them heavier and more legible.
(12)
Precinct No. 32.- The cancellations
and superimpositions in the entries for the names of the candidates for
councilors have been explained by the chairman of the board of inspectors and
poll clerk of this precinct as a mere correction because some of the names of
the candidates for councilors were written on the wrong space so that
corrections were necessary. There is,
however, no discrepancy with the certified photostatic
copy of the original return in the possession of the Commission on Elections.
(13)
Precinct No. 33.- What appears to
be alteration in the votes credited to five councilors was explained by the
poll clerk who prepared the returns for this precinct to be a retracing of the
light carbon copy to make the words arid figures heavier and more legible.
(14)
Precinct No. 35.- Similarly, what
is claimed to be alteration in the votes credited to three councilors has been
explained by the poll clerk who prepared the returns for this precinct that
she had to necessarily retrace the entries because she found out that the
carbon copy intended for the Municipal Treasurer was so light that a retracing
had to be done to make the entries legible
The respondents candidates of the Nacionalista
Party also assail the election returns for Precincts Nos. 20, 22, 23, 25, 26
and 30; in that they allegedly could not be read. In the course of the hearing
had on December 12, 1967, Atty. Restituto Roman, one
of the counsel for the respondents candidates of the Liberal Party took occasion
to manifest in answer to this claim of counsel for the respondents candidates
of the Nacionalista Party of alleged blurredness and
illegibility that he is using eyeglasses but he took off his eyeglasses and
tried to read the questioned returns. He
demonstrated to the Court that even without the aid of his eyeglasses he could
still read the questioned returns.
Indeed the Court has taken pains to minutely and meticulously examine
the questioned election returns and found that although some of the carbon
copies were light, yet the writings thereon were legible. A comparison made with the certified photostatic copies reproduced from the originals of the
returns in the possession of the Commission on Elections and the copies of the
returns used by the municipal Board of Canvasser’s shows that there is no conflict,
inconsistency, or discrepancy between the former and the latter.
The Court notes from the foregoing circumstances that, with respect
to the 14 precincts mentioned in the memorandum of respondents candidates of
the Nacionalista Party, namely, Precincts 11, 13,
16; 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35, it is claimed that the
entries in the carbon copies of the returns intended for the Municipal
Treasurer, or that which was used by the Municipal Board of Canvassers in the
canvass contain erasures; intercalations, superimpositions and other signs of
falsification; and with respect to six other precincts namely, Precincts Nos.
20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 30, the claim of the said respondents is predicated
upon the alleged illegibility of the entries therein. The main issue thus raised in connection with
these two sets of election returns boils down to whether a judicial recount may
be ordered, under Sec. 158 in relation to Sec. 163 of the Revised Election
code, when there arc erasures, intercalations, superimpositions and when the
entries in the carbon copies of the election returns are blurred, or to use the
right case, therefore, calls into question the applicability of Section 168 of
the Revised Election Code which reads:
“Sec. 168. Canvass of
the election for Municipal offices. The
municipal board of canvassers shall meet immediately after the election; The
Municipal treasurer shall produce before it the statements of election from the
different election precincts filed with him, and the board shall count the
votes cast for candidates for municipal offices and proclaim as elected for
said offices those who have polled the largest number of votes for the
different offices, in the same manner as hereinbefore provided for the provincial
board, and to that end it shall have the same powers Including that of
resorting to the court in the case of contradictory statements. The municipal board of canvassers shall not
recount the ballots nor examine any of them but shall proceed upon the
statements presented to it. In case
of contradictions or discrepancies between the copies of the same statements,
the procedure provided in section one hundred and sixty-three of this Code
shall be followed.” (Underscoring supplied).
Section 163 referred to in the afore-quoted Sec. 168 of the Revised
Election Code states:
“Sec. 163.- When statements of a precinct are contradictory.- In
case it appears to the provincial board of canvassers that another copy
or other authentic copies of the statement from an election precinct
submitted to the board give to a candidate a different number of votes and
the difference affects the result of the election the Court of First Instance
of the province, upon motion of the board or of any candidate affected, may
proceed for recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of
determining which is the true statement or which is the true of the count of
the votes cast in said precinct for the office in question. Notice of such proceeding shall be given to
all candidates affected.” (underscoring supplied)
The language of the statute is very plain. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, a
judicial recount of votes will only be directed by the courts in cases of
contradictions or discrepancies between the copies or “other authentic
copies” of the statement or return from an election precinct, or when the
entry of votes in return on its face is clearly falsified, such that the
difference in the number of votes will affect the result of the election. (Parlade v. Quicho, et al., L-16259, Dec. 29, 1959; Abed Santos, Jr.
vs. Santos, et al., L-16375, Dec. 18, 1959; Salcedo
v. Commission on Elections, et al., L-17672, Nov. 16, 1960; Chiongbian
v. Commission on Elections, et al., L-19202, Dec. 11, 1961). The circumstances of the instant case do not
properly fit into this legal precept.
The copies or “other authentic copies” of the statement
or returns from an election precinct referred to in Sec. 163 of the Revised
Election Code, against which copies of the returns used by the Municipal Board
of Canvasses may be compared to determine whether there are contradictions or
discrepancies in the number of votes obtained by the candidates, evidently
refer to any of the four (4) copies mentioned in Sec. 150 of the said code and
intended, pursuant to Sec. 152 thereof, one for the ballot box, another for the
municipal treasurer, another for the provincial treasurer and the last for the
Commission on Elections. (Acuña v. Golez, etc. et al., 16
Supreme Court reports Ann. 32).
In the case at bar, the copies of the election returns intended
for, and used by, the Municipal Board of Canvassers were compared against the
duly certified photostatic copies reproduced from
the original returns in the possession of the Commission on Elections. The Court finds that the alleged
discrepancies in the copies of the election returns used by the Municipal Board
of Canvassers complained of by the respondents candidates of the Nacionalista Party are nothing but corrections and
superimpositions made by the poll clerks, not to alter or falsify the returns,
but rather to make the light imprint on the carbon copies more heavier and
legible than it would otherwise appear if the names of the candidates and the
number of votes they obtained were not retraced or rewritten. Right here, the Court finds a forbidding
obstacle- to any other view of the statute.
To say otherwise would render nugatory the obvious contents of the abovequoted legal provisions that only “in case of
contradictions or discrepancies between the copies of the same statements”
or when it “appears that another copy or other authentic copies of the
statement from an election precinct” will the court “proceed to
recount the votes cast in the precinct.”
Petitioners assail respondent court’s decision on two main
grounds: (a) that the existence of
erasures, alterations and superimpositions on the face of each of the election
returns from fourteen precincts (Nos. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33 and 35) should not have been “lightly brushed aside” with
the explanation that the same were made so that the entries would be
“heavier and more legible; ” and (b) that the comparison made by
respondent court of the returns in question with photostatic
copies of the original returns in the possession of the Commission on Elections
cannot be justified under the law, because photostats
do not afford a fair and permissible basis for determining the existence of
discrepancies, alterations, contradictions and erasures.
In considering the foregoing points one basic postulate must be
kept in mind: the remedy of judicial
recount is a special one, which may be resorted to only “in case of
contradictions or discrepancies between copies of the same statements”
(Sec. 168, Rev. Election Code), or more specifically, “in case it appears
that another copy or authentic Copies of the statement from an election
precinct give to a candidate a different number of votes and the
difference affects the result of the election.
(Sec. 163, Id.). The authentic copies referred to, as held by
this Court in many decisions, are those’ mentioned in Section 150 and intended,
pursuant to Section 152, one each for the ballot box, for the municipal
treasurer, for the provincial treasurer, and for the Commission on Elections.
The existence of erasures
or apparent superimpositions or alterations on one of the four copies
abovementioned does not by itself alone justify judicial recount: If they are susceptible of reasonable
explanation, and do not constitute contradictions or discrepancies with what
appear in the other copies, this remedy is not available. If anything they may be evidence of fraud,
which must be ventilated in an election protest, not in the summary proceeding
envisioned in Section 163 of the Election Code.
Petitioners presented no other copy of the election returns for
purposes of comparison, to determine whether or not discrepancies existed
within the meaning of the said provision.
And respondent Court, evidently to satisfy itself as to the nature of
the erasures, superimpositions and alterations alleged by petitioners, did well
to take testimonial evidence as to how and why they came about,[1]
and even to supply an omission on their part by taking the initiative in
comparing the questioned returns with photostats (supplied
by respondents-oppositors) of the copies submitted to
the Commission on Elections.
Petitioners question the procedure followed by respondent Court,
but they have adduced no evidence to disprove the correctness or validity of its
conclusions, namely, that the discrepancies complained of in the returns used
by the municipal board of canvassers are nothing but corrections and
superimpositions not to alter or falsify the entries but rather to make the
light imprints of the carbon papers heavier and more legible than they would
otherwise appear if the names of the candidates and the number of votes they
obtained had not been retraced or re-written. This explanation, given in each
instance by the chairman or by the poll clerk or by both, of the corresponding
board of inspectors, appeared to the Judge below as entirely satisfactory and
plausible, and we see no reason, as far as the record reveals, to entertain a
different conclusion.
With respect to the claim that the entries in the returns from
six precincts (Nos. 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 30) are illegible, this is a
question of fact an which respondent Court has ruled to the contrary in
categorical terms, having had the opportunity to examine the returns for
itself. This ruling can hardly be
disputed at the present instance, the said returns not having been submitted to
us for similar examination. Besides,
mere illegibility of the entries in one copy of the election return is not
necessarily a grand for judicial recount, for another copy may be availed of,
such as the one in the hands of the Commission’ on Elections.
The supplemental petition of January 15, 1968 questions the validity of the proceedings
of the municipal board of canvassers of Orion held an January 17, 1968 and the consequent proclamation
of the winning candidates made on the same date. The grounds set forth in support of said
supplemental petition will be considered seriatim:
(1) It is alleged that the transfer of the situs
of the canvass from the municipality
of Orion to the office of
respondent Commission in Manila was
without justification.
In this connection the events and circumstances which led to the
transfer may be recalled. Four canvassings in all were held, the first of which was in the
municipality of Orion
itself, on November 18, 1967. On the basis of that canvass, respondent
Gabriel L. Manrique was proclaimed duly elected
Mayor, together with his co-respondents here who ran for the office of
councilor. However, that canvass was
nullified by the Commission on Elections on the ground that the board had been
illegally constituted.
The second canvass was held on November 25, 1967 by a reconstituted board under the
chairmanship of Ernesto Navarro, one of petitioners here, and pursuant to the
order of the Commission. It was in this
canvass that petitioners alleged the existence of discrepancies,
contradictions, alterations and other irregularities in the election returns
from 25 precincts. The true nature of
these alleged discrepancies is discussed at length in the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Bataan in the case for
judicial recount, reproduced verbatim hereinbefore. Curiously enough, in spite of such alleged
discrepancies petitioners allowed the proclamation of the Vice-Mayor-elect-in
the person of Ernesto Pascual. With respect to the other municipal positions
the canvass was suspended after thirty-one (31) out of the thirty-five (35)
precincts had been finished. The returns
from four (4) precincts – Nos. 17, 20, 22 and 23 – were not taken up because of
an objection raised on the ground that the entries therein were blurred and
illegible.
On November 27, 1967,
the Commission on Elections sent a telegraphic instruction to the municipal
treasurer of Orion ordering the board of canvassers to include in the canvass
the returns from the four precincts aforesaid “as reflected in returns in
possession of Commission, certified true copies of which to be furnished …
and proclaim the officials, elect of said municipality.” Because Ernesto
Navarro chairman of the board, failed to convene the same so as to carry out
the instruction of the Commission, the latter’s-representative relieved him of
his position and designated in his place Attorney Eufemia
Lacson-Parayno, the election registrar for Orion.
The reconstituted board met on December 2, 1967 for the third canvass. The chairman explained that only the returns
from precincts Nos. 17, 20, 22 and 23 would be taken up and the results thereof
incorporated with those of the previous canvass in order to establish a basis
for the proclamation of the winning candidates. The entries in the returns were
duly read and tallied, using the photostats from the
Commission for reference purposes. The
consolidated tallies were then prepared, including the results of the previous
canvass concerning the 31 other precincts, but when they were passed around for
the signatures of the members six of them (they are among the petitioners here)
refused to sign the same on the ground that a petition for judicial recount had
been filed in court. The proclamation
was again held up as a consequence.
The petition for judicial
recount was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Bataan
on December 22,1967. Petitions to suspend the canvass and
proclamation filed in the Court of Appeals (CA G. R. No. 40401-R) and in this
Court (G. R. No. L-28365) were likewise dismissed on January 13 and 12,
respectively. Thereupon the Commission
on Elections, having been informed of the tense situation in Orion and upon
petition of herein respondent Gabriel Manrique, the
winning but still unproclaimed candidate for mayor,
ordered the transfer of the situs of the canvass to
the office of the Commission in Manila. We find nothing illegal in this order. It was within the authority of the Commission
to issue, and its discretion in this regard, exercised upon consideration of
the attendant circumstances, must be upheld.
It is the, body vested by the Constitution with the power and function
to insure free and orderly elections, and in the absence of a clear abuse of
such power no interference with its actuations would be justified.
(2) Petitioners say that with reference to the canvass id the
office of the Commission no previous notice was given to the candidates
interested or to the heads of the political parties in Orion. Besides pointing out that there is no
specific law requiring such notice (the canvass is a function of the board of
canvassers alone, Sec. 168, Rev. Election Code respondent Commission cites the
fact that most of the candidate were reelectionists
who had been duly substituted and therefor were
represented in the canvassing board. The
point raised by petitioners is no ground to annul the proceedings in connection
with the canvass of January 17, 1968.
(3) It is next contended that the said canvass was made
notwithstanding the pendency in this Court of a
petition for preliminary injunction. The
fact, however, is that no such writ was ever issued by this Court, and there
was no reason therefore for respondent Commission to further delay the ascertainment
of the results of the municipal election in Orion.
(4) Petitioners aver that no canvass was made on January 17 of the
votes cast, for mayor, notwithstanding which respondent Gabriel Manrique was proclaimed elected for the position. This averment is denied by respondents, and
the records bear them out. The minutes
of the canvass held on December 2, 1967 show that only the returns from four
(4) precincts (Nos. 17, 20, 22 and 23) were taken up and then considered
together wit the statement of the results of the previous canvass of November
25 concerning the 31 other precincts. The votes were duly tallied and the
proclamation of the winning candidates was prepared. But when the official forms for the purpose
were passed around for the signatures of the members of the board six of them
(all of them petitioners here) refused to sign on the ground that there was a
pending petition for judicial recount it seems, however, that with respect to
some candidates for the office of councilor, the canvass of December 2 was not
complete. This was, however, corrected
in the fourth camas held in the office of the Commission on Elections on January 17, 1968.
The minutes of this last canvass show the following:
“. . . The chairwoman reminded the board that, in its meeting held
on December 2, 1967, the canvass of votes cast for mayor, vice-mayor and
several councilors was completed and the proclamation of said officials on the
basis of the completed canvass could have been made a reality as early as
December 2, 1967, were it not for’ the willful refusal of the recalcitrant
members to sign the tally sheets and the proclamation papers (C.E. Form Nos. 87
and 88 respectively); that the only remaining unfinished business now before
the Board is the completion of the canvass of votes cast for some other
councilors in precincts Nos. 2, 16, 19, 25 and 30, and the proclamation of the
elected mayor and councilors.” (p. 2)
“At this juncture, the Chairwoman requested the Recording
Secretary of the Board of Canvassers to produce all documents in his custody
which have something to do with the previous canvass. The Recording Secretary presented a copy of
the Minutes of the meeting held by the Board in Orion, Bataan,
on December 2, 1967, and a copy of the Tally Sheet (C.E, Form No. 87) which was
used during the previous canvassing containing the complete number of votes
received by all candidates in all precincts with the exception of Precinct
Nos. 2, 16, 19, 25 and 30 where no votes were credited to councilor-candidates
Messrs. Pedro Santos, Estanislao de Jesus, Francisco
Mariano, Fortunate Rodriguez, Guillermo Sanchez, Alfred T. Seeckts,
Pedro Javier, Alfredo Llamzon, Roberto Menardo, Rafael Reyes, and Filemon
Rodriguez by the Board of Canvassers then headed by Mr. Ernesto Navarro who was
later replaced by the present chairwoman as chairman of the Board. The said Tally Sheet (C.E. form No. 87) was
certified correct and signed by the Chairwoman and by the Members of the Board
with the exception of the recalcitrant Members on December 2, 1967. The Chairwoman then announced that this
particular Tally Sheet (C.E. Form No. 87) will be completed and will be made
the basis of the subsequent proclamation of the winning candidates. Nobody objected,
so the opening and the reading of the election returns in Precinct Nos. 2, 16,
19, 25 and 30 was started and completed in due time.”
(5) The foregoing portion of the minutes belie petitioners next
allegation, namely, that the canvass was made even in the absence of the
minutes of the previous meetings of the board.
(6) Petitioners bewail the suspension by the supervisor of the
Commission on Elections of the majority of the members of the board of
canvassers. The records,’ however, show
that they were trying to delay unnecessarily the proclamation of the winning
candidates, and consequently their removal from the board was justified. The minutes of the meeting on January 17, 1968, speak for
themselves:
“The canvass completed, duly accomplished C.E. Form Nos. 85
and 87 were passed around for signatures of all the Members. The Chairwoman and Members V Messrs. Ramon Flordeliz, Isidro Bautista and Pedro Venegas
ratified their s signatures affixed on the Tally Sheet on December 2, 1967. Then they all signed the Proclamation Paper
(C.E. Form No. 85). When their turn for
signatures on C.E. Form Nos. 87 and 85 come, Members Messrs. Ernesto Pascual, Jose Baltazar, Jr. Jose
del Rosario, Jose Quicho, Exequiel
Canoy and Ramon Trono
willfully refused to sign them on the alibi that they were not, since the start
of the meeting of the Board of Canvassers, in conformity with the completion of
the canvass of votes cast for mayor and municipal councilors and the subsequent
proclamation of the winning candidates in the Office of the Commission on
Elections in Manila on January 17, 1968′ as ordered by the Commission on
Elections. Atty. Gorospe of the Comelec
supervisory staff reminded the recalcitrant Members that if they so continue
to refuse to sign the Statements of Canvass (C.E. Form No. 87) which they have
just finished and completed as well as the Statements of Proclamation (C.E.
Form No. 85), their actuations will be construed to mean causing unnecessary
delay in the completion of the canvass and subsequent proclamation of the
winning candidates in utter defiance of the order of the Commission on. Elections, which gross violation of the
election law the supervisory staff of the Comelec
would not countenance. Willful refusal to sign the election forms indicated
above is a clear manifestation of obstructing the proceedings of the Board of
Canvassers for which said Board is now in session in the Office of the
Commission on Elections here in Manila. If they persist to refuse to sign these
election forms without valid reasons, the Comelec
supervisor will be constrained not only to order their suspension and
replacement by adequate substitutes but more so to recommend their prosecution
for violation of the election law.
Atty. Gorospe gave them a chance to reconsider
their recalcitrant attitudes. After a
while, Atty. Gorospe requested the Chairwoman to get
from the recalcitrant Members their categorical answers as to whether or not
they would sign C.E. Form Nos. 87 and 85 by calling their names one by
one. Each and everyone of them answered
in belligerent negative.”
Faced with such defiance, the supervisor of the Commission on
Elections replaced the members concerned with lawyers of the said office,
pursuant to its resolution of January 15, 1968, which ordered the completion
of the canvass in the office of the Commission and directed “the Law
Department to designate an attorney to supervise said canvass and proclamation
with the authority to suspend and substitute any absent and/or recalcitrant
member of the municipal board of canvassers.”
On the whole we find nothing irregular or contrary to law in the
procedure adopted by the Commission on Elections and in the actuations of its
representatives.
The petition and supplemental petition are dismissed. Costs against petitioners.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Judicial recount may also be sought when the entry of votes in the election
return is on its face clearly falsified (Salcedo vs.
Commission on Elections L-17672, Nov. 16, 1960; Chiongbian
vs. Commission on Elections, L-19202, December 11, 1961).