FELIX F. DIAZ, SR., PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOHN K. S. DAOAS, RESPONDENTS.

Petition to review and set aside a resolution (RR-896) of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC for short) dismissing the petition of Warren Luyaben and Felix Diaz, Sr., for the amendment of all the
election returns from the municipality of Sagada,
Mountain Province , in connection with the 1970
elections for delegate of said Province to the Cons­titutional Convention, and
for the exclusion from the canvass of all the returns aforesaid, for being
spurious, fabricated and/or fictitious. 
In the course of the proceedings below, Luyaben
withdrew from the case, leaving Felix Diaz, Sr., as sole petitioner.

It is uncontroverted that in the
elections mentioned, the can­didates received in all the municipalities of the Mountain
Province except Sagada,
the following number of votes:

WILLIAM CLAVER……………………… 5,001

FELIX DIAZ, SR. ……………………….. 3,433

WARREN LUYABEN………………….. 3,306

JOHN DAOAS…………………………… 3,291

But the election returns for the 22 precincts in the municipality of Sagada purport to show the
following results:

DAOAS…………………………………….. 2,046

CLAVER…………………………………… 1,726

LUYABEN………………………………….    285

DIAZ, SR. ………………………………….     71

If the returns from Sagada are
accepted, it is plain that herein respondent Daoas
would obtain a large majority over petitioner Diaz; but if said returns are
nullified, the latter would obtain a majority of 107 votes over said
respondent.

Acting on the original petition filed, with the COMELEC, wherein it was charged that many
election inspectors in Sagada had been improperly
appointed (because they had been previously found by the House Electoral
Tribunal to have deliberately tolerated and abetted the commission of frauds in
Sagada in connection with the 1961 elec­tions), and
that the elections for convention delegates (3) in said municipality were
tainted with fraud and terrorism, and other irregu­larities, COMELEC ordered
the bringing to Manila of the precint books of voters
and CE form 39 for all precincts of Sagada and had
the same examined by the fingerprint and handwriting experts of the Com­mission and the NBI.

After hearing the
evidence, the COMELEC found (Resolution RR-896, Annex “E”, Petition,
pages 23-25) that -?

“It may be gathered even from the statements of witnesses of
petitioner that elections were
actually held in the 22 precincts of Sagada, but that
persons other than the registered voters had voted for some of the registered voters or that some of the registered
voters had voted several times.  This is
also borne out by the findings of the
Finger­print-Identification Division of the Commission and the
Handwriting experts of the NBI to the
effect that quite a number of voters had actually voted in these 22 precincts
although some of the votes had been cast by substitute voters.  It is, however, to be noted that if we were
to consider the thumbprints and signatures that could not be identified as those
of persons other than registered voters
in most of these 22 precincts, there were more substitute voters than the registered voters.  Even if we were to consider the thumbprints
and signatures that could not be identified as those of the registered voters
in these 22 precincts following the pre­sumption of regularity, still in quite
a number of these precincts more substitute voters had voted than the
registered voters themselves.  But whether
we consider the unidentified thumbprints and signatures as those of registered
voters or not, the fact remains that many substitute voters had voted in all
these 22 precincts.  This is a matter of
serious concern for it is symptomatic of a grievous malady afflicting our
elections in Sagada. 
Petitioner has called the attention of the Commission to similar frauds
and irregularities in Sagada in the past several
elections.  Sagada
has gained a notoriety of its own since massive and large scale frauds therein
have been exposed in election protest cases filed with the Courts or the
Electoral Tribunals in connection with previous elections.  These frauds and irregularities must be
curbed or else their perpetrators would continue to make a mockery of the
elections in Sagada.”

Illegal voting was most glaring in Precincts Nos. 2, 7, 8, 13, 18,
20, 20-A, and most especially in Precinct No. 22, where there were 75
thumbprints and 32 signatures (were) found to be those of persons other than
the registered voters as against only 12 thumbprints and 4 signatures
definitely identified as those of the registered voters and 11 which could not
be identified whether as those of the registered voters or by substitute
voters.  It is only in Pre­cincts 4, 11,
12, 14, 17 and 19 where majority of the voters who voted were definitely
identified as those of the registered voters. 
The returns from these six precincts must necessarily be upheld as valid
returns which should be included in the canvass.  But even in these six precincts, the members
of the board of inspectors must be called to account for a number of illegal
voting in their respective precincts.  And more so with the members of the board of ins­pectors in the
other sixteen precincts where the illegal voting had been more numerous.”

After concluding that the illegal voting by non-registered
persons in the scale shown could only occur because the inspectors were either
helpless to prevent the illegal voting or that they had tolerated the same, the
COMELEC voted to suspend all the members of the Boards of Inspectors of all the
precincts of Sagada for investigation and prosecution
if so warranted.  Nevertheless, because
the votes returned for precincts 4, 11,
12, 14, 17 and 19 of said muni­cipality gave Claver 471 votes, Daoas 511, and Diaz 30, which, added to the votes reported
for all the other municipalities, give

CLAVER…………………………………… 5,472 votes

DAOAS…………………………………….. 3,802 votes and

DIAZ…………………………………………. 3,463
votes,

the COMELEC
finally resolved as follows:

(1)  
To sustain the validity of the
returns from Precincts 4, 11, 12, 14, 7 and 19 of Sagada,
it appearing that in these precincts more than one-half of those who voted were
the registered voters in said precincts and accordingly to uphold the action of
the Pro­vincial Board of Canvassers of Mountain Province in including said
returns in the canvass;

(2)  
To rule that with respect to the
other sixteen (16) precincts of Sagada, it would not
be necessary for the Commission to decide whether or not the returns from said
precincts are not true returns or are manufac­tured returns or that there was
no elections in said precincts since the result of the election for delegates
for the lone district of Mountain Province would not be affected by the votes
cast in said precincts;

(3)  
To direct the Board of Canvassers
to complete the canvass of the returns for the election of delegates to the
Constitutional Conven­tion for the lone district of Mountain Province,
including in said canvass all the returns from Sagada,
but not to proclaim the winning candidates until 5:00 P.M. of 12 April 1971,
unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

Thereupon, Diaz appealed to this Supreme Court, which issued a
restraining order.

The reports of the fingerprint experts on their examination is to
the effect that the Precinct Books of Voters showed that 2,911 votes were
registered in all Sagada, and of these 2,188 had
reportedly voted and 614 had not; but the thumbprints of 335 were definitely
not identical to those shown in CEF-1, while those of 454 were identical; but
then 1,508 thumbmarks were blurred, smudged or faint
and could not be identified.  The
examination of the signatures purported to be of these 1,508 voters whose
thumbprints could not be analyzed adequately, compared to those of the registry
of voters, gave the following results:

Negative (did not tally) ……………….. 677

Positive ……………………………………. 432

No opinion ………………………………… 399.

Thus, of the 2,188 persons reported to have voted in Sagada only 886 were positively identified as being
registered voters; while 1,012 were ascertained as not registered voters, and
only 399 remained unidentified.  Even if
these unidentified voters were con­sidered as registered ones, the total number
of votes cast by regis­tered voters in Sagada would
only be 1,285; yet the returns showed (ante) 2,046 votes for Daoas.  Even if all
the identified registered voters had cast their votes for Daoas
(which is certainly improbable), the returns are plainly untruthful on their
face.

A closer examination of the returns of votes cast in Precincts 4,
11, 12, 14, 17 and 19 of Sagada, that the COMELEC
sustained as valid because more than 50% of the registered electors voted in
said precincts, parallel inconsistencies and improbabilities appear.

In PRECINCT 4, out pf 132 votes cast, 73 were found to be by re­gistered
voters; 44 by unregistered persons; 25 by persons unidentified.  Adding those cast by registered voters (73)
to those cast by unidentified ones (25) gives a total of only 98 valid votes,
and yet in this precinct the returns credit Daoas
with 119 votes and Diaz with only 2. 
Even assuming that all the voters not identified were in fact registered
voters, and all those identified and unidentified had voted for Daoas, the returns credit Daoas
with more than their combined votes.

In PRECINCT No. 11, we
find:

Votes Cast ———————————————————————-  46

(a)
Identified as not registered voters ————————————— 8

(b) Identified as by registered
voters ————————————— 31

(c) Unidentified or doubtful —————————————————– 7

Total of
registered and doubtful (b & c) ——————————– 38

Credited to Daoas per return ——————————————– 45

PRECINCT No. 12

Votes Cast ———————————————————————– 92

(a) By non-registered voters ————————————————- 25

(b) Identified as by registered
voters ————————————— 49

(c) Not identified or
doubtful ————————————————– 18

Total
of (b) & (c) ———————————————————– 67

Credited
to Daoas ——————————————————— 89

PRECINCT No. 14

Votes Cast ———————————————————————– 57

(a) Identified as not by
registered voters ———————————- 11

(b) Identified as by registered
voters ————————————— 33

(c) Not identified or doubtful ————————————————– 13

Total
of (b) & (c) ———————————————————— 46

Credited
to Daoas per return ——————————————– 55

PRECINCT No. 17

Total Votes Cast —————————————————————- 96

(a) Identified as by not
registered ——————————————- 28

(b) Identified as by registered
voters ————————————— 60

(c) Unidentified ——————————————————————- 8

Total of (b)
& (c) ——————————————————– 68

Credited to Daoas per return ———————————————- 85

PRECINCT No. 19

Total Votes Cast ————————————————————– 154

(a) By not registered voters ————————————————– 42

(b) By registered voters ——————————————————- 83

(c) Not identified —————————————————————- 29

Total
of (b) & (c) ———————————————————- 112

Credited
to Daoas ——————————————————– 118

Credited
to Diaz ————————————————————- 26

In all these six (6) precincts, the total
votes cast by identified registered voters were 329; by unidentified persons
100, or
a total of 429.  In contrast, the
returns credit Daoas with 511 votes, i.e. 82
more than the sum of registered and unidentified voters lumped together.  158 votes were cast by persons identified as
not registered.

Thus the analysis of the returns for the six precincts validated
by the Commission leads to the same conclusion as that derived from a
consideration of all the returns from Sagada, to wit:
that even if all the votes cast by persons identified as registered voters were
to be added to the votes cast by persons who can not be definitely as­certained
as registered or not, and granting, ad arguendo,
that all of them voted for respondent Daoas, still
the resulting total is much below the number of votes credited to the latter in
the returns for Sagada. Plainly, the said returns can
not be relied upon and should be
regarded as fictitious or manufactured and excluded from the canvass of the
votes cast for the different candidates in the district. This conclusion becomes
all the more imperative when account is taken of the additional circumstances that (a) of the 2,188 ballots cast in Sagada in the 1970 election for convention delegates,
nearly one-half (1,012) were cast by persons definitely identified as not registered therein, and this number may even increase because some
of the 399 thumbprints and/or
signatures that could not be identified may have been cast by non-registered
persons; (b) that such wholesale illegal, voting could not have taken place
without the connivance of the ins­pectors, either maliciously or through
intimidation, as found by COMELEC in its resolution and the true results can
not be ascertained; (c) that 16 of the inspectors and poll clerks who acted as
such in the 1970 elections in Sagada had been found
,by the House Electoral Tri­bunal to have “deliberately tolerated and
abetted the commission of frauds” in the 1961 elections (H.E.T. Case No.
145); (d) that Sagada has been notorious for massive
and large scale frauds in the past, as found by COMELEC itself; and (e) that
the resolution of the COMELEC in this case contradicts that which it adopted in
connection with the returns from Karomatan, Lanao, all of which were rejected and excluded from canvass
on account of similar anomalies (Usam vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L33325), when justice and equity
imperatively demand that there should be no discrimination in the application
of the rules by COMELEC.

It is pleaded by respondents that the rejection of the Sagada returns would result in the disfranchisement of a
large number of legitimate voters. But such disfranchisement would only be
provisional, subject to the final determination of the validity of the votes at
the protest that may be filed with the Constitutional Convention.

In the leading case of Gardiner vs. Romulo,
2 6 Phil. 521, this Court quoted with approval from a similar case, Russel vs. State:

“‘ In Russell vs. State (11 Kan.
236), the court said in part: ‘Now comes the contestant and says that the
record (of the election board) is a lie, and proves that 127 of the names so
recorded as the names of legal voters are fictitious, and that 127 spurious
ballots were cast into the ballot box. 
In other words, he proves absolutely that nearly one-fourth of this
record is false.  And this falsehood
cannot have been the result of ignorance or mistake.  It is not possible that this could have
happened with­out the knowledge, consent, and connivance of both the clerks,
and some, at least, if not all, of the judges. 
Surely, there was criminal culpability if not actual, intentional
wrongdoing on the part of all the officers of that election board.  But, says the contestee,
the whole record is not shown to be false. 
Reject the 127 votes proved to have been spurious, and accept the
balance not thus proven.  In other words,
accept all the record not proved untrue. 
If the falsehood resulted
from mere mistake, there would be great force in this demand.  So also, if the falsehood
resulted from the fraud or wrong-doing of others than the board.  But where the recording of­ficers are proved
to have knowingly made a largely false and fraudulent record, how can we place
re­liance on any of the record?  Falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus.

‘It doubtless happens that some legal voters are by this decision
deprived of the benefit of their votes. 
Perhaps there were honest votes cast, enough to have given the majority
to Fredonia.  A large majority of the
citizens of Fredonia are honest men, were ignorant of the fraud which was being
perpetrated, and are doubt­less as much grieved as we at this terrible trespass
on the purity of the ballot box.  May
this example preach its lesson, not alone to them, but equally to every citizen
of the State. 
They who in Rome watched and kept the sacred fire were vestal
virgins.  Equally pure should they be who
watch and guard that which is far more to us than mystic altar fires.'”
(Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521, 559-560)

And this Court concluded:

“In concluding this extremely disagreeable task, we desire to
state that we are aware of the seriousness of disenfranchising the innocent
electors of a whole precinct for acts done by others.  We are not unmindful of the force of the
argument that if courts set aside the returns from a precinct for light and
trifling causes, it will encourage the unscrupulous to seek profit by the
honest mistakes of election officers committed in the conscientious performance
of their duties.  On the other hand we
appreciate the importance to the people of enforcing those statutory provisions
which the legislature have provided to insure a free and undefiled expression
of the popular will at the polls, to the extent that fraud may not flourish
under the guise of honesty.  The right of
suffrage is of comparatively recent origin in this country.  If at this early stage of its existence, the
courts are to countenance such bold disregard of the law as was exhibited in
the municipality of Camiling at the last general
election, representative gov­ernment will soon become a farce; a mere catch­word
or an empty illusion.  Regardless of the
political unrest engendered by such deplorable litigation as the present and
its enormous expense to the contestants, we are of the opinion that a firm
stand against fraudulent elections must now be taken, once for all.  If no encouragement is offered to vicious
practices, they will, at least, never grow larger.’ (Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521, 565-566) “

This doctrine is all the more obligatory when it is borne in mind that what is involved in the
case before us is the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention,
the men that are to frame the amend­ments to the fundamental law of the state
that is to govern the lives of our citizens in years to come.  These men must attend the convention deliberations backed by
unimpeachable credentials.

As already observed, We are not here
dealing with occasional or sporadic irregularities that succeeded in surprising
the good faith of the election inspectors. 
All the evidence and circumstances point to a systematic plan of
allowing persons who were not registered voters in Sagada
to cast their ballots in all the precincts of Sagada,
and to count such spurious ballots and take them into account in the
returns.  There is thus no alternative
but to consider said returns as deliberately prepared with a view to alter the
real results of the voting, through either malice or coercion.  In either case, the returns must be deemed
manufactured or falsified, without any title to be included in the canvass of
votes for delegates by the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Mountain
Province.

WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is reversed in so
far as it directs that the returns from the Municipality of Sagada
for the 1970 elections for convention
delegates be included in the computation by the Board of Canvassers; and the
Commission on Elections is hereby directed to order the Board to exclude said
returns from the canvass.  Let the records be returned to the Commission
on Elections for further proceedings in conformity with this decision.  Costs against private
respondent John K. S. Daois.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.