PEDRO R. DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TITO V. TIZON, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATAAN; THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BATAAN; AND GUILLERMO ARCENAS, RESPONDE…

Object of the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bataan in its Civil Case No. 81,
dismissing herein petitioner’s petition for mandamus and/or prohibition.

The petitioner was a candidate for reelection to the position of
Provincial Governor of Bataan in the elections of November 14, 1967.  On December 21, 1967 he instituted his
petition in the court a quo, seeking to compel the provincial board of
canvassers to exclude (not to count) the votes cast in precinct No. 18 of the
municipality of Dinalupihan and to declare the election in said precinct null
and void on the ground that the election return therein was “patently
manufactured.”  Reference was made
particularly to the fact that while this return shows that 279 ballots had been
cast and counted, only 80 persons actually voted according to a certification
of the election registrar in Dinalupihan. 
The specific allegation in the petition below is that “the board of
election inspectors in said precinct, through participation and/or tolerance, suffered at
least 199 additional ballots to be falsified and allowed to be included in the
election returns for said precinct.”

Guillermo Arcenas, an
opposing candidate for the same position, was allowed by the trial court to
intervene, and is now one of the respondents here. 
Both he and the provincial board of canvassers filed their respective
answers to the peti­tion, denying the material averments therein.

We
are of the opinion that the dismissal of the peti­tion below is correct, and
that the remedy now sought against such dismissal should be denied.

1.     
The election return for precinct No. 18 of
Dinalupihan is not “obviously manufactured” within the mean­ing of
our decision in Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. L-25444,
January 21, 1966.  The said return, as
found by the lower court, is regular and complete on its face.  In fact, when it was canvassed by the
provincial board of canvassers on December 7, 1967, the petitioner did not
raise any objection to it or point to any defect or infirmity in its
contents.  The discrepancy on which the
petition was based is not one which appears on the face of the return, but be­tween
the statement therein that 279 ballots had been cast and an entirely different document,
namely the certification of the election registrar that only 80 voters actually
voted.  This certification, as correctly
explained by the trial court, was not material insofar as the board of
canvassers was con­cerned, since its ministerial duty was to read and canvass
the results of the election on the basis of the returns, once satisfied that
the same were genuine.

2.     
The certification of the election registrar, which
appears below a list of 80 names, states “that the above-named persons are
the only voters who actually voted in Precinct No. 18 of this Municipality as
shown in the Precinct Book, although the minutes of the Board of Inspectors
show that 279 voters actually voted.” (underscoring supplied)

The precinct book
referred to is CE form No. 1.  The data
contained therein with respect to precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan show that there were 352
registered voters in all (183 male and 169 female) and that the number of
registered voters who actually voted and signed the said form was 80 (35
male and 45 female).

The
certification of the election registrar relied upon by the petitioner is
correct as far as it goes.  Only 80
voters appear to have voted according to the precinct book in the sense that
only 80 voters affixed their signatures thereon after voting.  But this does not necessarily mean that no
other voters cast their ballots in the questioned precinct:  there were 279 in all, according to the
minutes of voting, although only 80 of them signed the precinct book.  A certifi­cation, dated December 20, 1967, by
the chairman of the board of inspectors (Rogelio D. Buenaventura) and the poll
clerk (Mrs. Flora D. Dabu) attributes the discrepancy “to our failure to
accomplish the voting record at the back of CE Form No. 1 on account of lack of
actual time,” and makes the additional note that “some registered
voters who actually voted failed to sign in their identification record CE form
1 but signed in the list of voters and their voting records in the poll
clerk’s charge.” (underscoring supplied).

3. CE form No. 1, which is the approved individual voter’s
application for registration, is an innovation introduced by the Commission on
Elections under the new registra­tion law, and takes the place of the old
registry list of voters.  The approved
applications are bound together and make up the so-called precinct book of
voters.  Each voter, after casting his
ballot, is supposed to sign and thumbmark the proper spaces on the form
corresponding to him.  Aside from the
precinct book, however, there is another form prescribed by the Commission,
namely, CE form No. 39, which is a bound pamphlet entitled “List of Voters
who voted and Their Voting Records.” The instruction of the Commission in
the last elections was for every voter to also sign and thumbmark this form.  This is “the list of voters and their
voting records” which was signed by the registered voters of pre­cinct No.
18 of Dinalupihan, many of whom failed to do the same on the precinct book of
voters, CE form No. 1, as shown on the certification made by the board chairman
and the poll clerk, which certification was identified and affirmed by the
former at the trial.

The court below accepted
the foregoing explanation of the discrepancy between the number of voters who
appear to have voted according to the precinct book (80) and the number who
voted according to the minutes of voting signed by the election inspectors and
as shown by the actual ballots found in the ballot box (279).  The explanation is reasonable, especially
considering that there were 352 registered voters in the precinct in question,
and rules out any conclusion that the election return was “obviously
manufactured” so as to justify its annulment under the doctrine of
Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections.

If there was any fraud or irregularity committed in the election
in said precinct; if, for example, some ballots were filled and cast by persons
other than the registered voters themselves, the election return could not, for
that reason, be considered as obviously manufactured.  It would still reflect the actual number of
ballots found and counted, and the remedy to correct the anomaly would be an
election contest, not a petition to exclude the return in question from the
canvass and thus virtually annul the election in that precinct.

The petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles,
and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., did not take
part.