JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO AND MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

These two cases, although filed separately, were argued by the
parties and submitted for decision jointly.

Petitioner Joseph Ejercito
Estrada and respondent Braulio Sto.
Domingo were contending candidates for the position of
Municipal Mayor of San Juan, Rizal, in the election held on November 14, 1967.

G. R. No. L-28340.  This is an original petition for certiorari
with a prayer for preliminary injunction, directed against an order of
respondent Judge Pedro C. Navarro of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch.  The petition
alleges in substance that by order dated September 15, 1967, the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Quezon
City Branch, had authorized petitioner, whose real name is Joseph Ejercito, to use his screen name “Joseph
Estrada;” that his certificate of candidacy for the position in question
carries the name “Joseph Ejercito Estrada;”
that in precinct No. 93 of San Juan, Rizal, the board
of election inspectors, by a vote of two to one resolved not to count in favor
of petitioner ballots wherein he was voted for under the names “Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” “Joseph,” “J.
Estrada,” or “Estrada” on the ground that none of them is his
real name; that pursuant to such resolution at least 36 votes cast for
petitioner were not counted or included in the tally; that subsequently, or on
November 20, 1967, two of the three members of the board of election inspectors
(Josefino A. Bueno and Emilia Suarez) filed with the court of respondent Judge a
petition for correction or amendment of the election return in the afore­said
precinct by adding at least 36 votes to those credited therein to petitioner;
that petitioner herein as well as respondent Braulio Sto. Domingo were allowed to intervene in the proceedings
below; that upon motion to dismiss filed by said respondent the court dismissed
the petition, and denied the motion for reconsideration subsequently filed by
petitioner.

We gave due course to the petition and issued a temporary
restraining order to prevent the proclamation of any of the candidates for the
municipal office of San Juan, Rizal.

The only question here is whether under the allegations in the
petition the correction of the election return in precinct No. 93 of San
Juan, Rizal, is justified and proper and may be judicially
ordered.  Section 154 of the Revised
Election Code provides:

“Section 154.- Alterations in the
statement.  After the announcement of the
result of the election in the polling place, the board of inspectors shall not
make any alteration or amendment in any of its statements, unless it be so ordered by a competent court.”

In a number of decisions this Court has held that there are two
requisites that must concur in order to make out a case for correction of an
election return:  (1) there must be an
error therein; and (2) the members of the board of election inspectors must be unanimous in the fact that such an error
exists and they are willing to rectify the same.  Benitez vs. Paredes and Dizon, 52 Phil. 1;
Board of Inspectors of Bongabong vs. Sison, 55 Phil. 914; Gumpal vs.
C.F.I. of Isabela, G. R. No. L-16409, Nov. 19, 1960; Astilla
vs. Asuncion, et al., G. R. No. L-22245, Feb. 29, 1964.

The reason for the requirement of unanimity is that the proceeding for correction
is a summary one, is not supposed to raise
controversial issues, and does not call for a recount or revision of the
ballots themselves, either of which contemplates a different remedy.

In the instant case the aforesaid requisites are not
present.  In the first place, there is no
error alleged as to the election return itself. 
The error lies in the apprecia­tion of the ballots or, more
specifically, in the decision of the
election inspectors not to count in favor of petitioner those ballots wherein
the names “Joseph Ejercito Estrada,”
“Joseph, “J. Estrada,” or “Estrada” appear.  The return, in other words, re­flects
accurately the result of the tally of votes as read and counted, and
consequently cannot be considered erroneous for purposes of correction under
Section 154 of the Revised Election Code.

In the second place, there is no unanimity among the members of
the board of election inspectors.  In
support of the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Braulio
Sto. Domingo be­fore the court below, there is
attached an affidavit signed by the third inspector (Santiago Cardona) and by the poll clerk (Evangeline
Salgado), stating as follows:  “That
we are not aware of the existence of any error or mistake in said election
statement or returns and we are not giving our consent or conformity to the
correction or amendment of the same.” 
This may not be as categorical
an opposition to the petition for correct­ion as might be desired, but it
certainly shows such a lack of unanimity among the members of the board as to
preclude sum­mary correction and call instead for an examination of the bal­lots
themselves to determine whether or not they tally with the number of votes
credited to petitioner.

Moreover, the petition itself is not even definite as to the
error that is sought to be corrected.  It
alleges that “at least 36 votes validly cast for one or
another of the names hereinabove
mentioned were not counted in
favor of herein peti­tioner.”  The
evidence presented in the lower court and referred to in the instant petition
consists of (a) the minutes of voting, showing that 158 votes cast in precinct
No. 93 were tallied and counted; and (b) the certificate of votes which shows
that at least 156 of the said 158 votes were counted for one or another of four
candidates for Vice-Mayor, while only 122 votes were counted
for one or another of the only
four candidates for Municipal Mayor.  From
this evidence, together with the admitted fact that the inspectors, by a vote
of two to one, had resolved not to count for petitioner the ballots wherein the
names hereinbefore mentioned appear, petitioner draws the conclusion that the
difference of 36 votes (between the 158 tallied and the 122 counted for him)
must be the number of votes to be additionally credited in his favor.  This conclusion, while seemingly logical, is
too tenuous and speculative to justify simple correction of the return.  For to properly consider
those additional 36 votes involves more than mere mathematical computation.  It would require looking into the ballots
themselves, as­certaining the names
of the
candidate or candidates for mayor written thereon, their legibility, their
placement, even the very fact that any particular name is written at all.

We are not unmindful of the apparent injustice to petitioner in
the resolution of the board of election ins­pectors of precinct No. 93 of San
Juan, Rizal, considering
that there was already a court decision authorizing him to use the name
“Joseph Estrada.” The resolution assumes more serious implications,
directly affecting public interest, in view of the allegations in the
petitions, both here and below, supported by the affidavit of one of the
election inspectors that they had been threatened and intimidated by men
belonging to the faction of respondent Sto.  Domingo, and or­dered to ignore ballots cast
for petitioner wherein the sur­name “Estrada” was written.  A timely remedy should have been obtained
then and there from the Commission on Elections or its representative so that
the popular will would be accorded free, untrammelled
and legitimate expression.  As it is, the pro­ceeding now resorted
to, namely, correction of the return, is not justified under the facts and
circumstances of this case.  For the
petition assumes the existence of an error in the election return itself –
which is not true – and assumes likewise certain other facts as to the contents
of the uncounted ballots, as to which facts there is no unanimity among the
election inspectors.

G. R. No. L-28374. 
This is a petition for review of an order of the
Commission on Elections involving the elec­tion return in precinct No. 94 of San Juan, Rizal.  Petitioner applied to the Commission for an
order directing the municipal board of canvassers to reject or disregard the
said return on the ground that it was “clearly manufactured.”  Reliance is placed on the
decision of this Court in the case of Lagumbay vs.
Commission on Elections, G. R. No. L-25444, January 31, 1966.  The return
in question shows the following data:

Number of
voters registered in

precinct ………………………                                  Four hundred nine – 409

Number of
voters who actually

voted …………………………                                  Two hundred
twenty nine- 229

Ballots
found in compartment

for valid ballots……….                                              Three Hundred
– 300

The same election return shows the following number of votes
received by the various candidates for Mayor, to wit:

It is claimed by petitioner that the return is obviously
manufactured, considering that while there were only 229 voters who actually
voted 300 ballots were found in the box for valid ballots.  Upon its face the claim would seem clear and
irrefut­able, for it is mathematically impossible for 229 voters to cast 300
valid votes, or 298 votes in the aggregate for the four contending candidates
for the position of Municipal Mayor.

However, a conclusion that an election return is obviously
manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass
must be approached with extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing
proof.  The decision in the Lagumbay case speaks of “inherent improbability”
in the data shown on the return.  Any
plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of
experience and of the pro­babilities of the situation, should suffice to avoid
outright nullification with the resulting disfranchisement of those who
exercised their right of suffrage.  In
this case there
is such an explanation.  The minutes of
voting prepared and signed by the election inspectors in precinct No. 94 show
that the total number who voted is two hundred ninety-nine (299), in both words
and figures, and that of the 300 ballots in the box for valid ballots one (1)
was found to be marked and placed in the envelope for “marked
ballots.” These minutes of voting constitute an official document,
accomplished pursuant to Section 142 of the Revised Election Code.  It is a fair presumption that the number 229
entered in the election return as the number of those who actually voted is a mere clerical
error, and that the correct figure is 299 as shown in the minutes of voting.  The correctness of this figure is supported
by the other entries in the return, and by the fact that the sum total of the
votes counted for the four candidates for Municipal Mayor is 298, with one
ballot rejected and placed in the envelope for marked ballots.

Everything considered, we find no
justifiable ground on which the return in question may be annulled.

Both petitions are therefore dismissed, and the
restraining orders we issued in the two cases are lifted.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Dizon and
Fernando, JJ., took no
part.

Sanchez, J., concurs in a
separate opinion.