DATU BLAH SINSUAT, PETITIONER, VS. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF COTABATO, RESPONDENTS.

A petition for the issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition, with prayer for the immediate issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, filed by petitioner Datu Blah Sinsuat against respondent Salipa­da
K. Pendatun, the Commission on Elections — herein­after referred to as
COMELEC, and the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Cotabato — hereinafter
referred to as BOARD.

The action for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the
resolution of the Comelec, known as Case Reso­lution No. RR-692, and its
accompanying minute resolution, both dated January 19, 1970, in Case No. 692
entitled “Datu Blah Sinsuat vs. Salipada K. Pendatun”^[1]
insofar as said resolutions sustain the actions or the Board (1) in rejecting
and excluding from the canvass 22 elect­ion returns from 22 precincts located
in the municipa­lities of Dinaig, Ampatuan, Upi and Maganoy, province of
Cotabato; and (2) in including in the canvass 10 election returns from 10
precincts located in the municipalities of Datu Piang and Pikit, also in the
province of Cotabato, particularly the election return from precinct No. 15 of
Pikit.

The action for prohibition seeks to prohibit res­pondent Comelec
from enforcing the two resolutions men­tioned in the preceding paragraph, and
also to prohibit respondent Board from giving effect to said resolutions.

The action for mandamus seeks to compel respondent Board to count
the 22 election returns that were rejected by the Board, or, “in the
alternative, to compel respond­ent Commission to summon the Members of the
Boards of Election Inspectors in these precincts and to order the ballot boxes
in question to be brought before it so that the true result of the election can
be determined by re­sorting to the ballot box copies of the election returns or
to the Tally Sheets, or even to counting the votes in the ballots”^[2];
and to compel the respondent Board to reject the 10 election returns that were
included in the canvass, hereinbefore adverted to, or, in the alternative, to
order respondent Comelec to order the boards of elect­ion inspectors in the
precincts concerned to prepare genuine election returns, and in the particular
case of Precinct No. 15 of Pikit “to order that the ballot box copy be
retrieved for the purpose of determining the true result of the count it that
is possible”^[3].

The petitioner finally prays that after what he seeks in his
petition had been granted by this Court, and had been complied with, that
respondent Board be directed to proclaim the winner as a result of the canvass.

Upon the filing of the verified petition, this Court issued an
order requiring the respondents to answer and at the same time restraining the
Comelec from enforcing its resolutions of January 19, 1970 (Case Resolution No. RR-692, and its
accompanying minute resolution), and also restraining respondent Board from
proceeding with the canvass and proclamation as directed in those resolutions.

In due time respondents Pendatun and Comelec filed their answers
to the petition.  Respondent Board filed
a manifestation, stating that its situation in the present case is similar to
that of respondent Comelec, and that it elects not to file an answer.  In their answers, both respondents Pendatun
and Comelec insist in the correctness of the rulings and orders of the Comelec
in the two ques­tioned resolutions.

From the record We find the following facts pertinent to the
resolution of the issues involved in this case.

In the national elections held on November 11, 1969, Datu Blah
Sinsuat and Salipada K. Pendatun were the official candidates of the
Nacionalista Party and of the Liberal Party, respectively, for the office of
Representative the lone representative district of Cotabato.  There were two other candidates, Apolinario
Tolentino and Leopoldo Jalandoni.

By order of the Comelec, the Board canvassed the elect­ion
returns for the office of Representative at Camp
Crame, Quezon
City.  The
canvass started on November 28, 1969
and lasted until December 10, 1969.  However, the Board did not proclaim the
winner in view of the directive of the Comelec not to make the proclamation in
order to enable the parties to appeal to the Comelec from any ruling of the
Board relating to the inclusion or the rejection of any election return in
connection with the canvass.  Upon the
termination of the canvass, although no proclamation of the winner would be
made, an unofficial tabulation of the votes was made by the Board, and it
appeared that candidate Pendatun obtained 76,466 votes as against 71,492 votes
for candidate Sinsuat, or a margin of 4,974 votes in favor of the former.

While the canvass was in progress, Pendatun filed petitions with
the Comelec praying, among others for the rejection of all the returns in the
municipalities of Ampatuan and Maganoy upon the ground that said returns had
been prepared at gunpoint.  The Comelec
restrained the Board from making any proclamation until after the peti­tions of
Pendatun shall have been resolved.

On December 11, 1969
Sinsuat filed with the Comelec a petition questioning, or appealing from, the
action of the Board in rejecting the election returns upon the ground or
statistical improbability pursuant to the doctrine enun­ciated in the case of
Lagumbay vs. Comelec, et al.^[4],
in the following precincts:

(1)  
Dinaig: Precinct No. 37;

(2)  
Ampatuan: Precincts Nos. 13-M,
23-A and 23-M;

(3)  
Maganoy: Precincts Nos. 4-A, 6-B
and 14; and

(4) Upi: Precincts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 6-A, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24-A, 29, 31 and 35.

In the same petition or December 11, 1969 Sinsuat also questioned,
or appealed from, the action of the Board in including in the canvass 38
election returns from 38 precincts located in the municipalities of Nuling and
Pikit, which were the copies of the election returns furnished the Board by the
Provincal Treasurer, upon the ground that the Provincial Treasurers copies were
“tampered and spurious” and different from the copies which were
“clear, clean, regular and valid” that were furnished the Comelec and
the Nacionalista Party^[5].  The precincts in question are the following:

(1)  
Nuling: Precincts Nos. 7, 8, 9,
10, 12, 14-A, 15, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 32-A, 32-B, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 39-A,
40 A and 41 (23 returns);

(2)  
Pikit: Precincts Nos. 4, 5, 6, 15,
21, 21-A, 26, 29, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 54 (15 returns)

In his petition of December 11, 1969, Sinsuat prayed that the
election returns from Dinaig, Ampatuan, Maganoy and Upi, which were rejected
upon the ground of statistical improbability be included in the canvass; and
that in lieu of the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of the election re­turns for
the 23 precincts from Nuling and 15 precincts from Pikit the Comelec copies of
the election returns be included in the canvass.

On December 16, 1969 Sinsuat filed a “Supplemental Petition
And Appeal” also questioning, or appealing from, the action or the Board
in including in the canvass the election returns from 6 precincts of Pikit,
namely: Pre­cincts Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33, and 15, upon the ground that said
returns were obviously manufactured, because it appears in those returns that
there was an excess of votes over the number of voters who voted.  In the same supplemental petition Sinsuat
questioned, or appealed from the action of the Board in including in the
canvass 4 election returns from 4 precincts of Datu Piang, namely: Precincts
Nos. 23, 13-A, 14 and 19 upon the ground that those re­turns are statistically
improbable under the doctrine laid down in the case of Lagumbay vs. Climaco, supra.  Likewise, in the same pleading Sinsuat
questioned, or appealed from, the action of the Board in rejecting the election
returns from Precincts Nos. 6 and 35 of Upi, from Precincts Nos. 4-A, 6-B, and
14 of Maganoy, and from Precinct No. 31 of Dinaig, claiming that the doctrine
in the Lagumbay case is not applicable to said returns.  In the supplemental peti­tion Sinsuat also
alleged that the election return from Precinct No. 54 of M’lang was not in the
possession of the Provincial Treasurer and the Board failed to include the same
in the canvass.  Sinsuat, therefore, prayed
the Comelec to order the rejection or the election returns from precincts Nos.
10, 16, 27, 31, 33, and 15 of Pikit, and of the election returns from Precincts
Nos. 23, 13-A, 14 and 19 of Datu Piang; the inclusion of the returns from
Precincts 6 and 35 or Upi, Precincts Nos. 4-A, 6-B and 14 of Maganoy, and
Precinct 31 of Dinaig; and the production of an authen­tic copy of the return
or Precinct No. 54 of M’lang and include the same in the canvass.

In connection with the supplemental petition the Comelec points
out in its resolution of January 19, 1970 that Precinct No. 6 of Upi and
Precincts Nos. 4-A, 6-B and 14 of Maganoy had already been included in
Sinsuat’s original petition of December 11, 1969, and with respect to Precinct
No. 35 of Upi the Board had actually included the election return of said
precinct in its canvass^[6].

In his answer to the original petition, filed under date of December 15, 1969, Pendatun insisted
in the cor­rectness of the actions of the Board complained of by Sinsuat.  However, regarding the 23 election returns
from Nuling and the 15 election returns from Pikit which Sin­suat claimed to be
the Provincial Treasurer’s copies which were tampered with Pendatun manifested
in his answer that he interposed no objection to the use of the Comelec copies
of the returns in the canvass if said returns appear on their faces to be
authentic^[7].  By way of a counterclaim Pendatun reiterated
his previous petitions for the reject­ion of all the election returns from the
precincts of Am­patuan and Maganoy upon the ground that said returns were
prepared at gunpoint; and at the same time he questioned the inclusion by the
Board in the canvass of the election returns from the 21 precincts in the
municipality of Upi, namely: Precincts Nos. 12, 15-A, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29-A, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, and 38-A upon the ground that
on the face of said returns the same appear to be statistically improbable
although crude altera­tions had been made to break the pattern of uniform 100%
voting to avoid the application of the doctrine in the Lagum­bay case.  Pendatun prayed for the dismissal of
Sinsuat’s petition; and, on his counterclaim, he prayed that the elect­ions in
Maganoy and Ampatuan be declared null and void, so that all the election
returns from all the precincts in those two municipalities should be rejected;
and that the Board be ordered to reject the election returns from the precincts
in Upi mentioned in his counterclaim.

On December 23, 1969 Pendatun likewise filed an ans­wer to the
supplemental petition of Sinsuat, traversing the pertinent allegations
contained in said supplemental petition, and by way of special and affirmative
defenses he alleged that the supplemental petition was defective for hot having
been verified and for alleging matters which were not new and which could have
been incorporated in the original petition.

A hearing was held before the Comelec on December 24, 1969 on the
petition and supplemental petition of Sinsuat and on the counterclaim of Pendatun,
which plead­ings practically partook of the nature of an appeal from the
actions taken by the Board in either including or rejecting certain election
returns during the canvass, as the case may be. 
During the hearing the Comelec examined, in the presence of the counsel
for both parties, the copies for the Provincial Treasurer of the election re­turns
for the 23 precincts of Nuling and 15 precincts of Pikit which were questioned
by Sinsuat as having been tampered with. 
As a result of the examination of those returns the members of the
Comelec and the counsel for both parties actually found the returns to have
been tam­pered with.  The Comelec,
therefore, required the product­ion of the copies of election returns for the
23 precincts of Nuling and for the 15 precincts of Pikit which were furnished
the Comelec.  The Comelec examined the
Comelec copies one by one, also in the presence of the counsel for both
parties.  The Comelec found the Comelec
copies to be clean and without any alteration, and were serviceable for the
canvass.  In open court the Comelec
promulgated an order which directed the Board to use the Comelec copies of the
election returns of the 15 precincts of Pikit and of the 23 precincts of
Nuling.  The order also required both
parties to file simultaneously, until December
26, 1969, their memoranda in support of their respective petition
in connection with the petition and supplemental petition filed by
Sinsuat.  The order further allowed
Sinsuat to file an amended petition to include precinct No. 39 of Pikit.  In his amended petition Sinsuat claimed that
the Provincial Treasurer’s copy of the election return for that precinct was
also tampered with and the Comelec copy should instead be used in the canvass.

After the promulgation of the resolution mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, the counsel of both parties, as­sisted by the personnel of
the Comelec, made a tentative canvass to find out the result after using the
Comelec copies of the election returns from the 38 precincts located in Nuling
ahd Pikit.  The tentative canvass showed
that then votes of Pendatun were reduced by 2,779, leaving him a total of
73,687; whereas the votes of Sinsuat were increased by 668, giving him a total
of 72,160 votes.  The margin of Pendatun
over Sinsuat was thereby reduced from 4,974 to 1,527 votes.

Because of this development, that after using the Comelec copies
of the election returns from 38 precincts, above-mentioned, Pendatun still had
a margin of some 1,527 votes over Sinsuat, the members or the Comelec were of
the view that the matter regarding the application of the doctrine of
statistical improbability with regards to election return which were questioned
on that ground would be decisive. In this connection, the Comelec says:

“Such being the turn of events as a result of the use of the
COMELEC copies for the 23 precincts of NULING and 15 precincts or PIKIT, it
became crystal clear that the question or statistical improbabi­lity especially
in its application to Prec. No. 37 of DINAIG; Prec. Nos. 13-M, 23-A and 23-M of
AMPATUAN; Prec. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 6-A, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24-A,
29 and 31 of UPI, and its non-application to Prec. Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33, and
15 of PIKIT; and Prec. Nos. 13-A, 14, 19 and 23 of DATU PIANG; has become the
crux of the case, resolution of which was completely determina­tive of
the outcome of the elections in the lone congressional district or
Cotabato.  For this reason, the parties
have agreed that the Commission should rule on this particular question for if
the action or the Board of Canvassers in applying the doctrine of statis­tical
improbability as enunciated in Lagumbay vs. Climaco were to be
sustained by the Commission, there would be no further need to pass on the
questions involving remaining precincts dispute nor would there be need to rule
on the counterclaim and/or appeal of PENDATUN praying for the rejection of the
returns in the munici­palities of AMPATUAN and MAGANOY and in the 21 precincts
of UPI.

“Thus, it had been agreed that the case be submitted for
decision on this question of statistical improbability.  The parties were then given time to file
their respective Memorandum.”

On the same day, December
24, 1969, the Comelec directed the Board to reconvene on December 31, 1969 at Camp
Crame and to formally recanvass the
votes oh the basis of the Comelec copies of the returns from those 38 precincts
located in Nuling ahd Pikit.

On January 7, 1970
Sinsuat filed a motion for recon­sideration or the Comelec’s resolution or December 24, 1969, praying that
precinct No. 15 of Pikit be excluded there­from and/or that the Board be
ordered to reject the election return for Precinct No. 15 of Pikit.  It is alleged in this motion for
reconsideration that during the canvass by the Board oh December 31, 1969 “it was found out that
even the Comelec copy of the return for precinct 15 of Pikit was tampered with
and appeared obviously manufactured and/or statistically improbable”^[8].  It was further alleged that counsel for
Sinsuat had vigorously objected to the admis­sion of the same but the Board had
counted and tabulated said return.

On January 19, 1970
the Comelec issued a minute reso­lution denying Sinsuat’s motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of December
24, 1969.  Pertinent portion
of this minute resolution reads as follows:

“Considering the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal
dated January 3, 1970 of candidate Datu Blah T. Sinsuat praying that the
Resolution of the Commission of December 24, 1969 be reconsidered so as to
exclude the Comelec copy of the return for Prec. No. 15 of Pikit, Cota­bato
among those to be used by the Board of Canvassers in the recanvass, and the
opposition of LP candidate SALIPADA K. PEN­DATUN in his Memorandum dated
January 12, 1970, the Commission RESOLVED to deny the Motion for lack of
merit.”^[9]

The foregoing minute resolution is one of the two resolutions
that are now being questioned in the pre­sent proceedings before this Court.

Also on January 19, 1970
the Comelec issued Case Re­solution No. RR-692^[10],
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED:

1) To sustain the
action of the Board of Canvassers in rejecting as sta­tistically improbable the
election re­turns for:

DINAIG: Prec. No. 37;

AMPATUAN: Prec. Nos. 13-M, 23-A, and 23-M;

UPI: Prec.
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6-A, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24-A, 29 and 31;

“2) To overrule the
Board of Canvassers insofar as it ordered the rejection or Prec. No. 6 of UPI
it appearing that in this precinct NP candidates PADILLA and PALMARES did not
receive any votes and to order the Board of Canvassers, therefore, to include
said return in the canvass;

“3) To reiterate its
Resolution of Decem­ber 24, 1969 directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers
to use the Comelec copies of the returns for the 23 precincts of Nuling and 15
precincts or PIKIT enumerated in said Resolu­tion;

“4) To uphold the
action or the Board of Canvassers in rejecting the returns in Prec. Nos. 6-B
and 14 of MAGANOY as statistically improbable;

“5) To order the
Board of Canvassers to look for serviceable copies of the returns for Prec. No.
4-A of. MAGANOY and Prec. No. 31 of DINAIG and if need be to order the opening
of the ballot boxes in said pre­cincts solely for the purpose of retriev­ing
the ballot box copies, and should the Board hot succeed in finding a
serviceable copy for said precincts, to report to the Commission for further
instructions;

“6) To sustain the
action or the Board in including in the canvas Prec. Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33
and 1511
of PIKIT since the excess or votes over the number of voters in Prec. No. 16
for PENDATUN is only one and the excess of votes in the other precincts refers
to the senatorial candidates;

“7) To sustain the
action of the Board in including in the canvass the returns for Prec. Nos.
13-A, 14, 19 and 23 of DATU PIANG where two NP senatorial candidates got the
same number of votes as six LP candidates and there is therefore, no systematic
blank­ing of the candidates of the other party;

“8) To order the
Board to require the production of serviceable copies of Prec. No. 54 or
M’LANG, and if necessary, to order the opening of the ballot box solely for the
purpose of retrieving the ballot box copy of said returns.  For this purpose, authority is hereby given
to the Board to order the opening of the said ballot box if necessary, and
should not serviceable copy of said re­turn be found, to report to the
Commission for further instructions;

“9) To order the
Board of Canvassers to use the Comelec copy of Prec. No. 39 of PIKIT crediting
to SINSUAT 49 votes and PENDATUN, 66 votes, the votes they received in clean
Comelec copy;

“10) To hold that
further hearing on the two Petitions or LP candidate PENDATUN for the rejection
or the returns of MAGANOY and AMPATUAN and on his counterclaim for the
rejection or the 21 returns or UPI, to wit: Prec. Nos. 12, 15-A, 17, 18, 19,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 29-A, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 38-A would be
unnecessary in view of the fact that the disposition of the returns questioned
by NP candidate DATU BLAH T. SIN­SUAT in his Appeal as set forth above is
already determinative of the outcome or the result of the election in the lone
congres­sional district or Cotabato and the winner in said elections could be
proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers on the basis of our ins­tructions herein;
and

“11) To direct the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Cotabato to reconvene and com­plete its
canvass of the election returns for the office of representative for the lone
district or said province in accordance with the herein resolution, and to
proclaim the presumptive winner at 5:00 P.M. or SATURDAY, January 24, 1970,
unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

“SO ORDERED”

Not satisfied with the decision or the Comelec, as embodied in
the two foregoing resolutions, Sinsuat filed before this Court the instant
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with preliminary injunction.

Sinsuat now urges that the Comelec erred in its ap­plication, or
non-application, as the case may be, of the doctrine of statistical
improbability as enunciated in the Lagumbay case.  In this connection We consider it necessary
to restate the doctrine, in order to find out if the Comelec had acted rightly.

This Court, in the Lagumbay case, has classified into two sets
the election returns that should be reject­ed for being statistically
improbable and obviously manufactured, as follows:

(1)  
Those election returns where it appears
that the number of registered voters equal the number of ballots used and the
number of votes cast and tallied uniformly for all the candidates of one
political party, whereas all the candidates of the other party appear to have
obtained no vote at all; and

(2)  
Those election returns where it
appears that all the reported votes were cast and tallied uniformly for all the
candidates of one political party, whereas the candidates of the other party
appear to have obtained no vote at all.

Thus this Court said:

“It appearing therein — contrary to all statistical
probabilities — in the first set, in each precinct the number of
registered voters equalled the number of bal­lots and the number or votes
reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candidate of the Liberal
Party, the party in power; where­as all the candidates of the Nacionalista
Party got exactly zero; and in the second set, — again contrary
to all statistical probabilities — all the reported votes were for candidates
of the Liberal Party, all of whom were credited with exactly the same
num­ber of votes in each precinct, ranging from 240 in one precinct to 650 in
another precinct; whereas, all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party were
given exactly zero in all said precincts.”

1. We find that of the 22 election returns that were declared by
the Comelec as statistically improbable, thereby sustaining the action of the
Board in rejecting them, 19 fall under the first set and 3 fall under the
second set.  Those that fall under the
first set are the returns from Precincts Nos. 1, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14,
15, 16, 25-A, 29 and 31 of Upi; Precincts Nos. 6-B and 14 of Maganoy; and
Precincts Nos. 13-M, 23-A and 23-M of Ampatuan. 
Those that fall under the second set are the returns from Precincts Nos.
2 and 6-A of Upi and Precinct 37 or Dinaig. 
Regarding these 22 election returns, the Comelec, in its Case Resolution
No. RR-692, dated January 19, 1970,
made the fol­lowing findings:

“In the returns for 17 precincts of UPI, to wit: Prec. Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 6-A, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25-A, 29 and 31, SINSUAT was
credited with all the votes registered or cast in said pre­cincts as against
zero for PENDATUN.

“In precincts Nos. 13-M, 23-M, and 23-A of AMPATUAN, SINSUAT
received all of the votes registered or cast in said pre­cincts as against zero
for PENDATUN.

“In Precinct No. 37 of DINAIG, SINSUAT got 208 votes as
against zero for PENDATUN.

“In these 17 precincts of UPI, 3 pre­cincts of AMPATUAN and
one precinct of DINAIG, which have a total votes of 4,346 credited to SINSUAT
as against zero for PENDATUN, the returns showed a 100% voting for all of the
NP candidates from the President, Vice-Pre­sident, the eight Senatorial
candidates, Congres­sman and the provincial board member12
and uniform zero votes for all the LP candidates from President down to
Congressman, except in Precinct No. 6 of UPI, where NP Senatorial candidates
PADILLA and PALMARES did not receive any votes at all. In short, the pattern of
voting in said precincts falls squarely within the sphere of the Lagumbay
doctrine of 100% re­gistered or cast votes for all the candidates of one party
as against zero per cent for each and all the candidates of the other party and
the independent candidates.  The
Commission, therefore, believes that the Board of Canvassers committed no error
in rejecting as statistically improbable or obviously manufactured the returns
in said precincts.”

x        x          x          x

“In Prec. No. 14 of MAGANOY, there were 106 registered voters
and all of whom voted. President Marcos, the NP official candi­date, got 106
votes, Osmeña, got zero.  Diokno, Espina,
Palmares, Puyat, Tolen­tino, and Tamano got 106 votes; Lopez’ vote had been
tampered with to make it ap­pear in figures as 104 and in words 100; Padilla’s
vote had been altered also to make it appear to be 100 in words and
figures.  SINSUAT’s vote had also been
tam­pered with to make it appear as 100. 
It appears, however, that the original votes of all these candidates in
words and figures is 106 and the tampering in the votes was made obviously to
avoid the application of the doctrine or statistical improbability.  The original writings which are still dis­cernible
should be read and thus read would show that all the candidates of the NP in
these precincts, namely, the President, Vice-President, eight Senators,
Congressman and member of the Provincial Board received uni­formly the same
number of votes as the number of registered votes in these precincts, whereas
all the other candidates uniformly got zero. Consequently, the returns for
Prec. No. 14 or MAGANOY should be rejected as sta­tistically improbable.

“Similarly, in Prec. No. 6-B of MAGANOY, it appeared that
there are 75 registered voters in said precinct. All the candidates of LP
received uniformly zero votes. The votes in figures of Espina, Padilla,
Palmares, have been changed to 70. Their votes in words, however, had been
unchanged. Consequently, since in these returns there is a uniform 100% voting
or all the registered votes for all the candidates of the NP and uniform
blanking of all the candidates of the LP and the Independent candidates, said
returns must also be rejected as statistically improbable.

“Parenthetically, it may be stated here that in the senatorial
canvass, the returns for Prec. Nos. 6-B and 14 were rejected for the same
reasons.”13

We have carefully examined the photostat copies of the 22
election returns in question14, and We find the foregoing
observations of the Comelec to be correct, except for the omission of the name
of candidate Lorenzo Sumulong which appears as one or the eight NP senatorial
candidates who also got 106 votes in the election return of Precinct 14 of
Maganoy15.  However, the state­ment in the resolution
“that all the candidates of the NP in this precinct namely, the President,
the Vice-Pre­sident, eight senators, congressman, member of the pro­vincial
board received uniformly the same number of votes as the number of registered
votes in these precincts, whereas all the other candidates uniformly got
zero” is correct.

It will be noted, as shown in the record, that the Comelec and
the Board, in applying the doctrine of sta­tistical improbability, had strictly
adhered to the fact­ual premise that there should be 100% voting of the report­ed
votes cast and uniformly tallied for all the candidates of one party and a
uniform or systematic blanking of all the candidates of the other party. So
much so, that the Comelec did not reject the election return of precinct 6 or
Upi because it appears in this return that while all the candidates of the
Liberal Party received exactly zero, 100% of all the votes cast were uniformly
credited to the Nacionalista Party candidates from President down to member of
the provincial board (248 votes each), except two can­didates for senator
(Padilla and Palmares) who were not credited with any vote (blank – not zero)16.  Likewise the Board did not reject the
election return of precinct No. 35 of UPI17 because it appears therein that
all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party from the President down to member
of the provincial board, except senatorial candidate Ambrosio Padilla, were
each given uniformly 100% of the total votes cast (276 votes) and Liberal Par­ty
candidate Gerardo Roxas was also credited with 276 votes, and all the other
candidates (including Padilla) were given zero. 
The reason for not applying the doctrine of statistical improbability on
these two election returns (Precs. Nos. 6 and 35 of Upi) is obviously because
the factual premise, of 100% voting of the reported votes cast uniformly
credited to all candidates of one party as against zero vote for the
candidates of the other party, does not obtain in these two election
returns.  On the other hand, it appears
that the election return from Precinct 8-A of Pagalungan was rejected by the
Board, upon the ground of statistical improbability as pleaded by Sinsuat,
because in this election return it appears that the number of votes reported
cast was 100% uniformly credited to all the candidates of the Liberal Party
while all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party were each given zero.18

The doctrine of statistical improbability was enun­ciated by this
Court, in the Lagumbay case, in January, 1966. 
In a number of election cases that came up to this Court after the 1967
and 1969 elections this doctrine had been invoked, but this Court has so far
not applied the doctrine because in those cases the factual basis laid down by
this court in declaring an election return to be statistically improbable, that
is, that 100% of the reported votes cast appear to be uniformly tallied for all
the candidates of one party as against zero vote for the candidates of the
other party, was not shown.  This Court
has been very restrictive in the application of the doctrine19.  This attitude of the court was made explicit
in the language of Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, in the case of Alonto vs.
Comelec20,
as follows:

“x x x We do not find in the returns here questioned that
uniformity of tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party, and the
systematic blanking of the opposing candidates, that lead us to reject the
returns in the Lagumbay case.  And in
Sangki vs. Comelec, L-28359, Dec. 26,
1967, We have warned against undue expansion of the Lagumbay
doctrine without due regard to the factual basis upon which it was based. x x
x”

The attitude of this Court is reaffirmed in the most recent case
of Ilarde v. Comelec, et al.,21 where this Court, in a per curiam
decision, said:

“Under Categories A, B-1, B-2 and B-3, petitioner seeks the
exclusion of the ques­tioned returns for being statistically im­probable while
admitting that they do not fall squarely within the doctrine of statis­tical
improbability enunciated in the case of Lagumbay v. Climaco, L-25444, January
31, 1966.  The Court finds that the
COMELEC adhered to its admonition to canvassers in subsequently decided cases
of proceeding with extreme caution in rejecting returns as ob­viously
manufactured because of statistical improbability, and of viewing the doctrine
restrictively so as not to result in the dis­enfranchisement of innocent
voters, and there­fore ruled properly against petitioner’s urging to expand the
doctrine’s application.  The thrust of
all the subsequent cases is to restrict the doctrine of the Lagumbay case to
the unique uniformity of tally in favor of candidates and the systematic
blanking opposing candidates in the same locality, such as to make the
fraud ‘palpable from the return itself … (and) there is no reason to accept
it and give it prima facie value’, and leading to no other reasonable conclusion
than that the returns were obviously manufactured because they were as ‘utterly
improbable and clearly incredible’ as ‘to win the sweepstakes ten times.'”22

Implicit from the aforequoted pronouncements of this Court is the
view that if it is shown that in the elect­ion return there appears the unique
uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the candidates belong­ing
to one party and the systematic blanking of all the candidates of the opposing
party then the doctrine of sta­tistical improbability enunciated in the
Lagumbay case must be applied.

We believe that the situation of the 22 election re­turns, now in
question, fully warrants the application of the doctrine of statistical
improbability.  In these 22 election
returns We have a clear case of the unique uniformi­ty of tallies of all the
votes reported cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to one party and
the systematic blanking of all the opposing candidates.  We have before Us a case where the doctrine
laid down in the Lagumbay case is squarely applicable.

2. Sinsuat tries to differentiate the case of the 22 election
returns in question from the 50 election returns involved in the Lagumbay case,
pointing out that in the Lagumbay case no explanation was offered why even the
elect­ion inspectors of the Nacionalista Party did not vote for the candidate
of the Nacionalista Party, whereas in the case of these 22 election returns
there are affidavits of the election inspectors of the Liberal Party explaining
why Pen­datun obtained zero vote in their respective precincts where these 22
returns came from.  On January 29, 1970 Sinsuat attached to
the record of this case affidavits al­leged to have been executed by Liberal
Party Inspectors, poll chairmen and poll clerks, purportedly to show that it
was not improbable for him to have garnered all the votes in the precincts
where the 22 returns in question came from23. 
Pendatun claims that he was not given copies of these affidavits until
after the hearing of this case before this Court on January 29, 1970. 
Pendatun also claims that these affidavits were never formally offered
as evidence in the proceedings at Comelec level, and that the supposed affiants
were not called to affirm their supposed statements and were not made available
for cross-examination by the adverse party. 
We do not find in the record that these claims of Pendatun are
contradicted by Sinsuat.

Sinsuat invokes the decision of this Court in the case of Sangki
v. Comelec, et al.24, claiming that in that case this
Court did not apply the doctrine of sta­tistical improbability on the election
returns where Pendatun as candidate for Governor was credited with all the
votes cast ih certain precincts in the province of Cotabato in the elections of
November 14, 1967 as against governatorial candidate Sangki who was given zero
vote because Pendatun presented affidavits of Nacionalista Party inspectors
explaining why they did not vote for Nacionalista Party official candidate
Sangki.  We find in the decision,
however, that the reason why this Court did not apply the doctrine was because
the factual set­ting of the election returns assailed as statistically
improbable in the Sangki case is different from that of the 50 election returns
in question in the Lagumbay case.  The
returns involved in the Sangki case did not reflect a “unique
uniformity” of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the candidates
of one party and the syste­matic blanking of all the candidates or the opposing
party, for while it appears in those returns that Sangki obtained zero the
other candidates of his party (Nacio­nalista) obtained scattered votes.  Thus, this Court said:

“As we go into the bases for the sta­tistically improbable
doctrine hammered out in Lagumbay vs. Climaco, supra, and assess
the merits of petitioner’s and intervenors’ position, we readily read meaning­ful
differences in factual setting between this case and that of Lagumbay.

“In Lagumbay, the declaration that the election returns
therein questioned were ‘utterly improbable and clearly incredible,’ and thus,
should be reject­ed, emphasized that the number of regis­tered voters in about
fifty precincts equal the number of ballots reportedly cast and tallied for each
and every can­didate of one party only – the Liberal Party.  Here, respondent Pendatun points out, which
is not denied by petitioner nor intervenors, that the number of re­gistered
voters in the questioned pre­cincts of Pagalungan and Pikit is not the
same as the number of ballots cast and tallied for the position of Governor,
Vice-Governor, and other candidates or the Liberal Party.

“In Lagumbay, too, all the Liberal Party candidates
were credited with exact­ly the same number of votes while all the Nacionalista
Party candidates received nothing.  Here,
only candidates Abdullah Sangki and Constancia Saluda were shown to have
received zero votes; other candidates of the Nacionalista Party for other posi­tions
voted upon were not blanked in the disputed returns.  A fact which stands in bold relief is that
candidate Magnolia Antonino for Senator – who is not of the Liberal Party –
received in all the ques­tioned precincts a liberal share of the votes.

“In Lagumbay, there was uncertainty as to what happened
to the vote of the Nacio­nalista Party inspector in the disputed precincts, because
the absence of his vote was unexplained. 
Here, respondent Pendatun explained, through affidavits of a good number
of the Nacionalista Party inspectors them­selves attached to his answer, that
some did not vote because they were nor able to regis­ter as voters; that two
Nacionalista Party inspectors in Pagalungan did not vote for can­didates Sangki
and Saludo but for the Liberal Party candidates for Governor and Vice-Governor
because they ‘are more qualified than the former two who are foreign to our
Muhicipality;’ and that other Nacio­nalista Party inspectors believed that the
Liberal Party candidates ‘are more quali­fied than the Nacionalista Party
candidates.’  These averments we are
constrained to say, reduce this particular point to a question of fact.”25

A reading of the last paragraph of the afore-quoted portion of
the decision in the Sangki case would apprise one that the offer of affidavits
by governatorial candi­date Pendatun was not the reason for not applying the
doctrine of statistical improbability as laid down in the Lagumbay case, for as
this Court said “these averments, we are constrained to say, reduce this
particular point to a question of fact”26. 
In other words, the matter regarding the submission of affidavits to
explain the zero vote obtained by an opposing candidate gives rise to a
question of credibility of the affidavits of which the Comelec, or any lower
tribunal, as the case may be, is more called upon to determine rather than this
Court.

In the present case, in connection with the affida­vits presented
by Sinsuat, the following is what the Comelec says:

“SINSUAT submitted the affidavits of LP inspectors in several precincts
of UPI explaining why they have voted for him, the NP candidate, and not
PENDATUN, the LP official candidate.  He
submitted also the affidavits of several citizens and leaders from UPI and
chairmen and poll clerks in these precincts where he got 100% of all the votes
and the members of the Board of Inspec­tors of the Municipalities of AMPATUAN,
MAGANOY and DINAIG to bolster his contention that it was not impossible for him
to get all the votes in the question­ed precincts in said towns.

“On the other hand, PENDATUN contended that in all previous
elections where he had run for an elective office, he had consistent­ly
obtained substantial votes in the municipality or UPI, AMPATUAN, DINAIG and
MAGANOY and therefore, it was unbelievable that he did not receive a single
vote in said municipalities.  He also
claimed that as a matter of fact, in the municipality or UPI, CHRISTIANS,
TAUSAGS from JOLO and other natives tribes outnumber the Muslims to which he
and SINSUAT belong and the Joloanos of UPI have actually some cause to be
resentful against SINSUAT for his harrassments and abuses against them in the
past.

“In any event, in the face of this con­flicting claims of the
parties on the probabilities or improbabilities of SINSUAT gar­nering all the
votes in said four municipali­ties and the blanking of PENDATUN the Commis­sion
believes that the presumption of the return being obviously manufactured in
view of its 100% pattern of voting is not overcomed by the affidavits submitted
by SINSUAT consisting of the affidavits of some LP inspectors and NP and
Muslims leaders in said municipalities. 
On the contrary, the Commission is more inclined to believe that
considering that PENDATUN had in the past been elected as senator, governor,
congressman and during the last war was one of the outstanding leaders of the
resistance move­ment in Mindanao, a fact of history which the Commission can
properly take cognizance of, it would be too much strain on ones credulity to
accept that respondent would not have received any single vote in the 17
precincts of UPI, 3 precincts or AMPATUAN and one precinct or DINAIG as
mentioned above while his opponent in the same precincts received a total of
4,346 votes when in the past elections he had received substantial votes in
said municipalities.”27

We have examined the affidavits ourselves and, like the Comelec,
We are of the view that those affidavits cannot be given the effect as intended
by Sinsuat.  We have noted that all the
affidavits of the Liberal Party inspectors28 who explained why they voted for
Sinsuat and not for Pendatun were made either on November 25, or 26, 1969, even
before November 28, 1969
when the can­vassing had started.  The
affidavits of the poll chair­men and poll clerks who stated that the elections
in their precincts were peaceful and regular29 were made on November 30, 1969 when the canvassing had hardly
started.  The wordings of the affidavits
cannot but give the impression that the affiants were only made to sign
statements already prepared and ready for their signatures.  We cannot give weight to affidavits under the
circums­tances obtaining in this case. 
Affidavits may be manu­factured in the same way that election returns
can be manufactured.  Affiants may be
made to sign affidavits at gunpoint, in the same way that election inspectors
can be made to sign election returns at gunpoint.  An elect­ion case should not be decided oh
the basis of affidavits that are dubious, even if they are not contradicted by
counter-affidavits.

3. Sinsuat likewise maintains that the doctrine of sta­tistical
improbability, enunciated in the Lagumbay case, is not applicable to a single
office involved in an election.  He
contends that: “it is the multiple office nature of the election that made
it inherently improbable for the returns questioned in Lagumbay to be
true.  Such a situation cannot exist in a
single office election like one at bar; for there is nothing incredible in one
can­didate getting all the votes in the precinct as against his opponent.”30

Sinsuat makes capital of the fact that the Lagumbay case involves
a senatorial election where there were eight candidates to be elected.  Of course, no particular mention was made
about the single office of President, or Vice President, or Representative, in
the Lagumbay case because not one of those three offices was involved in said
case.  Sinsuat loses sight of the fact
that in dec­laring an election return to be statistically improbable, this
Court referred to the document as a whole. 
Thus this Court said:

“It appearing therein that – contrary to all
statistical probabilities – in the first set, in each precinct the number
of registered voters equalled the number of ballots and the number of votes
reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candi­date of the Liberal
Party, the party in power; whereas all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party
got exactly zero….”31

x        x          x          x

“It must be noted that this is not an instance wherein one
return gives to one candidate all the votes in the precinct, even as it
gives exactly zero to the other. 
This is not a case where some senatorial candidates obtain
zero exactly, while some others receive a few scattered votes.  Here, all the eight candidates or one
party garnered all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same
number, whereas all the eight candidates of the other party got
precisely nothing.

“The main point to remember is that there is no blockvoting
nowadays.”

This Court, in the Lagumbay case, in declaring the election
returns therein questioned as statistically improbable “opined that the
election result in said precincts as reported was utterly improbable and
clearly incredible”; and “where the fraud is so palpable from the returns
itself (res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for
itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie
value.”

It is clear from the foregoing statements of this Court in the
Lagumbay decision that it is the entire election return, which necessarily
includes the report of votes obtained by candidates for all offices therein
indicated, that is not given prima facie value and should be
rejected.  In other words, where a return
is statis­tically improbable the doubt is cast not only on one of­fice
mentioned in the return but on all the offices in­cluded therein.

In some cases that came up to this Court involving the office of
Mayor, and one case involving the office of Governor, the doctrine of
statistical improbability was invoked for the obvious purpose of annulling the
election returns32.  In none of those cases did this Court apply
the doctrine, not because only a single office is involved and the doctrine is
not applicable to a single office like that of Governor or Mayor, but because
the attendant facts and circumstances in all those cases did not jibe with the
factual premise upon which the doctrine of sta­tistical improbability was based
in the Lagumbay case.  It can be implied
from the decisions of this Court that if, in the canvass or election returns in
connection with the elections where the office of Governor or of Mayor is in­volved,
it appears in the election returns that all candi­dates of one party (including
the candidate for Governor, or for Mayor) were credited with uniform number of
votes reported cast as against the opposing candidates who are all given zero,
the doctrine should apply.  We fully
agree with the observations of the Comelec, in this connection, as follows:

“x x x Although only one is being voted for as Congressman this
fact does not make said election an election for a single office because it is
being held jointly with the election for President, Vice-President and the
eight Senators and only one return is prepared for all said offices after the
votes are counted for all the candidates in the proceeding.  A fortiori if the only one return
(which for this reason may also be called a ‘single return’) is actually
manufactured or fabricated because all the eight Senators of one party have
received all the votes, either registered or cast, in a par­ticular precinct,
whereas the eight Senatorial Candidates of the other party uniformly got zero,
then the return should be considered also manufactured where it appears that
the congressional candidate of one party got the same number of votes as the
eight senatorial candi­dates and the Presidential and Vice-Pre­sidential
candidates, while the congres­sional candidates of the other party got zero,
together with the Presidential, Vice-Presidential and the eight senator­ial
candidates of his party.  It is illo­gical
to suppose that the same return is manufactured for the senators but not with
congressman, that is that it lies for the senatorial results but tells the
truth for the congressional result.  Falsus
in unnum falsus in omnibus.  A manufactured return is no return and should
be rejected in toto as distinguished from a tampered return which
is a good return but had been altered hence, the need to restore the original
entries of the return.”

Accordingly, We hold that the Comelec did not err when it upheld
the action of the Board in rejecting the 22 election returns in question upon
the ground that those returns are statistically improbable and should be
considered as election returns that are “obviously manufactured”,
and, therefore, should be rejected, in accordance with the ruling in the
Lagumbay case.

4. In the alternative, Sinsuat urges that assuming that the 22
election returns in question are statis­tically improbable under the doctrine
of the Lagumbay case, the Comelec should not simply annul them outright but it
should first strain every effort to determine the true result of the elections
from the precincts concerned.  The
position of Sinsuat is that the Comelec should order the preparation or new
returns in lieu of the returns thus rejected. 
The Comelec, in its Resolution No. RR-692, says that even under its
broad powers under the Constitution it does not have the power to order the
preparation of a new return where a return was previously made but is found to
be manufactured.  We agree.  The proposition of Sinsuat has no support in
law and the decisions of this Court.

The thrust of the deicision in the Lagumbay case is to consider
an election return that is statistically improbable as of no value and should
be rejected, no votes in the precinct concerned be counted in the can­vass, and
the recourse of the party affected by the re­jection of the return is to file
an election protest before the proper court or tribunal.  This means that the rejected returns can not
be substituted by returns to be made anew by the boards of inspectors upon
order of the Comelec.  Thus, this Court
said:

“Hence, denying prima facie recogni­tion to such
returns on the ground that they are manifestly fabricated or falsi­fied, would
constitute a practical ap­proach to the Commission’s mission to insure free and
honest elections.”

x        x          x          x

“At any rate, fraud or no fraud, the verdict in these fifty
precincts may ultimately be ascertained before the Senate
Electoral Tribunal.  All we hold now, is
that the returns show ‘prima facie‘ that they do not reflect true and
valid reports of regular voting.  The
contrary may be shown by candidate Climaco – in the cor­responding election
protest.”

Sinsuat would have this Court modify the ruling in the Lagumbay
case, when he says that the Comelec should strain every effort to determine the
true result of the count, and this is to be done by resorting to other copies
of the election returns or to the tally sheets inside the ballot boxes, or it
may compel the boards of inspect­ors to gather again and count the votes.  We find no law, or jurisprudence construing
our election laws, which sanctions this procedure suggested by Sinsuat.  On the other hand, We have the decision in
the second Pacis case33 where this Court upheld the action
of the Come­lec in rejecting an election return which it found that it was prepared
at the point of a gun and ordered that no vote should be counted in the
precinct where that re­turn came from. 
This Court said:

“As deserving of serious considera­tion is the directive of
the 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. x x x But then Comelec found that it was prepared ‘at
the point of a gun’ and that ‘other sur­rounding circumstances belie its
authenticity.” x x x

“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.”34

An election return that is statistically improbable, otherwise called
an “obviously manufactured” return, is no return at all, like a
return prepared at the point of a gun. 
Like a gunpoint return, a statistically improbable return is not valid
and no vote should be counted for any candidate in the canvass of votes in the
precinct where that return comes from.

Sinsuat cites the decisions of this Court in the cases of Mutuc
v. Comelec35.
Pacis v. Comelec36,
and Macud v. Comelec37, to support his submission that
the Comelec should not have rejected outright the 22 returns in question but
should have strained every effort to find out if the returns are really
manufactured or not.  We do hot find the
decisions in these three cases to be in point. 
Not one of these three cases deals with an election return that was
declared statistically improba­ble. 
These three cases deal with an election return that was either
incomplete, or tampered with, or prepared at gunpoint.

In Mutuc what was involved was an election return from
precinct 124 of Makati, Rizal that
was incomplete because while it contained the list of the names of the
candidates there was no entry of the votes cast for them.  The copies of the return furnished the
municipal treasurer, the provincial treasurer and the Comelec were similarly
incomplete.  In this case this Court
directed the Comelec to order the board of inspectors of the precinct concerned
to open the ballot box of the precinct for the purpose of retrieving therefrom
a copy of the election return to be used in the new canvass by the municipal
board of canvas­sers if said ballot box copy had been properly accomplish­ed;
or, in the event that said copy is blank or incomplete, to count all the votes
cast in said precinct and then ac­complish a return based on the count.  The ruling in Mutuc was applied by
this Court in the recent case of Tiglao v. Comelec38,
which involved the election returns from two precincts of Apalit, Pampanga,
where the name of candidate Rogelio Tiglao for the office of Representative was
not listed and no vote was credited to him. 
In this case this Court directed the Comelec to order the boards of
inspect­ors of the two precincts concerned to open the ballot boxes of said
precincts, to count the votes for Tiglao only if any, and then accomplish a new
election return.  It will thus be noted
that in Mutuc and Tiglao the only purpose of having the ballot
boxes opened, as ordered by this Court, was to complete the election returns
that appear on their faces to be incomplete because no votes were credited to a
particular candidate or candidates.  The
ruling of this Court in these cases is in consonance with Section 150 of the
Revised Election Code which provides that immediate­ly after the count the
board of inspectors shall make complete and sign a written statement of
the count, which shall include, among other things, the total number of votes
polled by each candidate, writing out the said num­ber in words and
figures.  This is a mandatory duty of the
boards of inspectors, such that if the boards had not performed their duty
accordingly they could be compelled to do so, either by the Court or by the
Comelec, and for this purpose the ballot box may be opened in order to refer to
the tally sheet or to count the votes of the can­didate who is not credited
with votes on the face of the election return.

In Pacis were involved four election returns, from
Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, which were excluded by
the municipal board of canvassers in the canvass of votes for the office of
municipal mayor in the elections of November
14, 1967.  These four elect­ion
returns were copies for the municipal treasurer or Sanchez Mira, which the
latter submitted to the municipal board of canvassers.  Of these four copies three appeared to have
been tampered with.  The Comelec
sustained the action of the board or canvassers in excluding those four
election returns, because it had earlier been shown to the Comelec that in the
early morning following the elect­ion day, at the time when the members of the
boards of inspectors in these four precincts — the polling places being all
located in the school building of barrio Namuac — were preparing the election
returns they were terrorized and coerced by armed men to change or alter the
election returns which they were then preparing, obviously to favor a
particular candidate for mayor.  In this
case this Court ruled that the municipal board of canvassers and the Comelec
should not have disregarded these four elect­ion returns without first
ascertaining it there are other copies of the returns that could be used in the
canvass, considering that there are four copies of the official election
returns.  This Court observed that
because the municipal treasurer’s and Comelec’s copies were alleged­ly tampered
with, the Comelec should have inquired about the copies of the returns for the
provincial trea­surer, and if these copies are also altered Comelec should get
the copies of the election returns inside the ballot boxes.  This Court said that “every effort then
should be strained to ascertain the existence of serviceable returns
from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22.” 
And so this Court ordered the Comelec “to conduct an investigation
to ascertain the true returns from Precinct 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Sanchez Mira,
and thereafter to instruct the board of canvassers to use the true returns for
the purpose of canvass in said precincts.” 
Complying with the directive of this Court, the Comelec conducted an
investigation.  Eventually the Comelec
made findings, which were embodied in a resolution: (1) that the ballot box
copy of the election return of precinct 18 was intact and clean; (2) that all
the copies or the election returns of pre­cincts 19 and 21, including those
inside the ballot boxes, had been tampered with, but somehow the Comelec, upon
a close examination of the ballots, and by expert testimony of an NBI
handwriting expert and testimonies of credible witnesses, was able to ascertain
the original entries of the votes for mayor in those election returns; and (3)
that all the copies of the election returns of precinct 22 were clean but were
prepared at the point of a gun.  The
Comelec then instructed the municipal board of canvassers to count the votes
for mayor appearing in the ballot box copy or the election return of precinct
18; to count the votes for Mayor as found by the Comelec to be originally
entered in the election returns for precincts 19 and 21, without ordering the
preparation of new returns; but not to count the votes for mayor appearing in
the four copies of the election return for precinct 22 because those copies
were prepared at the point of a gun.  The
board of can­vassers canvassed the votes in these four precincts as directed by
the Comelec.  Again the action or the
Comelec and the municipal board of canvassers was questioned before this Court
ih the second Pacis case.39 
We up­held the Comelec in the second Pacis case.

It will be noted in Pacis that in complying with the
directive of this Court to secure the serviceable copies of the election
returns, the Comelec ordered the opening of the ballot boxes in the four
precincts.  It was certain­ly within the
power of the Comelec to order the opening of the ballot boxes to retrieve the
ballot box copies and determine if they can be used in the canvass, considering
that all the copies outside the ballot boxes were con­sidered unserviceable for
use in the canvass.40 
It will be noted, also, that in the directive of this Court to the
Comelec to conduct an investigation to ascertain the true returns, this Court
did not direct, nor even hinted, that it no serviceable returns could be
secured the Comelec may resort to the count of the votes as they appear in the
ballots inside the ballot boxes in order to ascertain the true results of the
election in those four precincts.  Unlike
in Mutuc and in Tiglao where this Court ordered the counting of
the ballots only for the purpose of completing the election returns in
so far as the candidates who were not credited with votes were con­cerned, in Pacis
this Court did not direct the Comelec to count the votes because the election
returns involved were complete on their faces. 
Because the copies of those four returns outside the ballot boxes were
impugned as tampered or falsified the Court simply directed the Comelec to
secure serviceable copies of the election returns, and in this
connection the ballot boxes had to be opened in order to ascertain if the
copies of the re­turns inside the ballot boxes were serviceable.  The Comelec could not go farther than to try
to secure ser­viceable copies of the returns. 
If no serviceable copies could be obtained it can not order the board of
inspectors to prepare new election returns based on the tally sheets or on the
count of the ballots found inside the ballot boxes.  So much so that after the Comelec had found
that all the copies of the election returns in precinct 22 were prepared at
gunpoint it directed the members of the board of canvassers not to count any
vote for mayor in that precinct, and We upheld the action of the Comelec.  We did not order the count of the ballots in
precinct 22 in order to ascertain the true result of the election in that
precinct and the preparation of new election returns.  When all the copies of the election return
for a particular precinct are found to be unserviceable – either because
they are all tampered with, or obviously manufactured or prepared at gunpoint –
then no vote from the precinct should be counted at the canvass.

Neither do We find in Macud any ruling of this Court which
upholds the proposition or Sinsuat.  It
is claimed by Sinsuat that in Macud this Court sustained the Comelec in
ordering an election return to be accomplished based on the tally sheet.  We do not find any statement in the decision
regarding this matter.  We only find a
statement that the board of canvassers used an election return that was
prepared by the board of inspectors under the super­vision of the
representative of the Comelec.  The
decision makes no mention of the circumstances that brought about the
preparation of the election return under the super­vision of the Comelec
representative.  It could be another case
of an incomplete return which had to be completed under the supervision or the
Comelec representative — and in this connection the tally sheet might have
been con­sulted.

The 22 election returns now in question are the copies or the
election returns corresponding to the Provincial Treasurer or Cotabato, which
the latter official submitted to the Board to be used in the canvass.  These election returns are not questioned as
having been tampered with.  There is,
therefore, no ground for the Comelec to order the production of the other
copies — the copies corresponding to the municipal treasurer and to the
Comelec, or to order the opening of the ballot boxes for the purpose of retriev­ing
the ballot box copies, to compare them with these 22 election returns in search
for “serviceable copies” to be used in the canvass, in consonance
with the ruling in the case of Cauton v. Comelec, supra.

These 22 election returns are complete on their faces – ­in the
sense that every candidate to be voted for appears listed in each and every
such return and opposite the names of the candidates there are entries of the
number of votes received, or zero vote, in words and figures, as the case may
be.  And so, there is also no ground for
ordering the opening of the ballot boxes in order to secure the needed data to
make these returns complete, in consonance with the ruling of this Court in the
cases of Mutuc v. Comelec, supra and Tiglao v. Comelec, supra.

It is not pretended at all in the present case that discrepancies
exist between these 22 election returns and other authentic copies of the same
returns, as would war­rant a recount of the votes in accordance with the pro­visions
of Section 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code.

Neither do We find any allegation in the record that the members
of the boards of inspectors committed an error in the preparation of these
election returns, as would warrant a correction or amendment of the returns
under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code.

Sinsuat urges that the Comelec could even order the boards of
inspectors to recount the ballots inside the ballot boxes in the precincts
where these 22 election returns come from to ascertain the true results of the
elections in these precincts, and then order the prepara­tion of new
returns.  If the ballots inside the
ballot boxes are to be counted, as Sinsuat wants done, in order to check if the
count of the votes tally with those that are reflected on the election returns
in question, then the proceeding would already be in the nature of a full-blown
election contest — a proceeding that the Comelec has no power to initiate, and
much less has it the power to decide the true results of the election.  Sinsuat would want the Comelec to perform a
function which the law and the Constitution does not authorize it to
perform.  It certainly is not within the
broad powers of the Comelec in the enforcement and administration of the laws
relative to the conduct of elections to ascertain that every election
return reflects the true result of the election in a precinct.  The Comelec is concerned only in seeing to it
that the election return used in the canvass is one that is not manufactured,
nor falsified, nor tampered with, nor prepared under coercion or under circumstances
that affects its regularity or genuineness. 
The task of determining whether an election return ref­lects the true
result of the election in a certain pre­cinct pertains to the proper court of
justice or to the proper electoral tribunal, as the case may be, in an elect­ion
contest that is properly brought before said body.

We have held that canvassing boards will not be com­pelled to
canvass returns that are obviously manufac­tured.41  In the case now before Us the Board rejected
the 22 election returns because they are obviously manufactured.  The Comelec confirmed the action of the
Board.  We have declared in this decision
that both the Board and the Comelec are right in their action.  The useless­ness of these 22 election returns
has therefore been de­finitely pronounced. 
A party that relies on election returns that are obviously manufactured,
as in the case of the 22 election returns now in question, must suffer the
consequences of his own act.  After all,
the law gives him another recourse, and, that is, to file the corres­ponding
election protest.

We hold, therefore, that the Comelec had not neglected to perform
an act which the Constitution and the law specifically enjoin as a duty
resulting from office when, after approving the action or the Board in
rejecting the 22 election returns in question, it did not order the pro­duction
of the other copies of those election returns, nor order the opening of the
ballot boxes in order to retrieve the ballot box copies, nor order the recount
of the votes, for the purpose of determining the true result of the election in
the precincts where those 22 election returns came from.

5. It is next contended by Sinsuat that the Comelec erred in
upholding the action of the Board in including in the canvass the election
returns from precincts Nos. 13-A, 14, 19, and 23 of Datu Piang.  It is claimed by Sinsuat that if the doctrine
or statistical improbability is applicable to a single office involved in an
election –­ like that of Representative — these four election returns should
also be rejected.  We cannot sustain the
contention of Sinsuat.  We do not find in
these four election returns the factual basis for the application of the doctrine
of statistical improbability, as enunciated in the Lagumbay case, that is, that
there should be 100% tally of reported votes cast uniformly credited to all
the candidates of one party as against uniform zero votes or systematic blank­ing
of the opposing candidates.  We find that
in these four returns the Liberal Party candidates for President,
Vice-President, Representative, and six for Senator (Cases, Ganzon, Liwag,
Roxas, Sagun and Ziga), along with two Nacio­nalista Party candidates for
Senator (Palmares and Tamano) and Nacionalista Party candidate for member of
the provin­cial board in the special election (Ampatuan), all obtained
uniform number of votes; as against zero vote given to the Nacionalista Party
candidates for President, Vice-President, Representative, six for Senator
(Diokno, Espina, Padilla, Puyat, Sumulong, and Tolentino), along with two
Liberal Party candidates for Senator (Ilarde and Mañalac) and the Liberal Party
candidate for member of the provincial board (Buenaflor).  In these four election returns We find NP
senatorial candidate Palmares and Tamano credited with the same number of votes
as the six LP senatorial candidates; while LP senatorial candidates Ilarde and
Mañalac did not get any vote.  In the
special election for board member NP official candidate Ampatuan garnered all
the votes while LP candidate Buenaflor for the same office got no vote.  The Board and the Comelec, therefore, did not
commit error when they included these four elect­ion returns in the canvass,
because the Lagumbay doctrine is not applicable.

We quote with approval the ruling of the Comelec re­garding these
four election returns, as follows:

“In the returns for Prec. Nos. 13-A, 14, 19 and 23 of DATU
PIANG, it appeared that six LP senatorial candidates got uni­formly the same
number of votes as PALMARES and TAMANO, NP senatorial candidates, and ISKAK
AMPATUAN, NP official candidate for member of the Provincial Board.  For this reason, the Board of Canvassers in­cluded
these precincts in the canvass.  The
Commission upholds the action of the Board in the returns in these precincts since
there is no 100% voting for all the candi­dates of the LP as three candidates
of the NP, two for Senators and one for member of the provincial board, have
received the same number of votes as the LP candidates.  As the Supreme Court said in the Alonto
case, supra:

‘x x x We do not find in the returns here questioned uniformity of
tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party, and the systematic
blanking of the opposing candidates, that lead us to reject the returns in
the Lagumbay case x x x’ “42

Thus, as We have pointed out at the earlier part of this
decision, the Comelec did not apply the Lagumbay doctrine to the election
return in Precinct 6 of Upi, because in said return it appears that there was
no 100% voting for all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party even it all the
Liberal Party candidates got zero vote each. 
All the NP candidates for President down to member of the provincial
board uniformly got 248 votes each, except senatorial candidates Padilla and
Palmares who was not credited with any vote (blank, not zero).  Likewise, the Board did not apply the
Lagumbay doctrine to the election return of Precinct 35 of Upi because in said
return it appears that all the NP candidates, except sena­torial candidate
Padilla, were uniformly credited with 276 votes along with LP senatorial
candidate Roxas who was also credited with 276 votes; while all the other
candidates, including Padilla, were given zero vote. So, it can be observed
that the Board and the Comelec had consistently applied the rule of
“uniformity of tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party, and
the systematic blanking or the opposing candidates.”43

The action of the Board in not rejecting these four election
returns is but in line with the rulings of this Court restrictively applying
the Lagumbay doctrine to the factual basis that We have herein adverted to.44

6. It is also contended by Sinsuat that the Comelec erred in
upholding the action of the Board in including in the canvass the election
returns from Precincts Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33 and 15 of Pikit.  It is claimed by Sinsuat that in these six
precincts there has occurred an excess of votes over the number of voters who
voted.  In his petition, Sinsuat
indicates the “excess” votes as follows:

1. In Precinct No. 10 –

No. of registered
voters – – – –           154

No. of voters who voted – – – – –        154

Votes counted for Osmeña – –         154

Votes counted for Pendatun –          154

Votes cast for Lopez – – – – – – –        134

Votes cast for Magsaysay – – –           23

157

Or an excess of 3 votes cast for the candidates for Vice-President,
over the 154 voters who voted.

2. In Precinct No. 16 –

No. or voters who
voted – – – – – – –    269

Votes counted for Pendatun – – –      270

or an excess of one vote.

3. Precinct No. 37 –

No. of voters who voted
– – – – – – –    414

Votes counted for Pendatun – – – –   
414

but in summing up the votes

counted for the 4 candidates

for members of the provincial

board the total is 442, or an

excess or 28 votes over the

414 votes cast.

4. Precinct No. 31 –

No. of registered
voters – – – – – – –    453

No. of voters who voted – – – – – – –    447

Votes counted for Pendatun – – – –   447

Votes counted for Senators:

Ganzon – – – –     447                  Padilla
– – – – – – – – –     400

Ilarde – – – – – –    447                 Cases – – – – – – – – –           5

Liwag – – – – –      447                 Diokno – – – – – – – – –          1

Mañalac – – – –    447                  Palmares
– – – – – – –       30

Roxas – – – – –     447                  Puyat –
– – – – – – – – –         5

Sagun – – – – –     447                  Sumulong
– – – – – – –      10

Ziga – – – – – – –    447                 Tamano
– – – – – – – –        10

Tolentino – – – – – –
– –        5

TOTAL…..  466

It appears that the total number of votes counted for the
senatorial candidates on the right column (above) is 466 or an ex­cess of 19
votes over the number of votes cast.

5. Precinct No. 33–

No. of voters who
voted – – – – – –      238

Votes counted for
Pendatun – – – –   238

Votes for Vice-President:

Lopez – – – – – –   152

Magsaysay – –      87

239

or an excess of one vote cast for Vice-President over the number of
voters who voted.

6. Precinct No. 15 –

In this precinct the election re­turn shows
that Pendatun got 700 votes. Sinsuat alleges that on the line of “Ballots
found in the compartment for valid ballots” there are written the words
“Two Hundred Fifty plus Four Hundred Fifty”.  Sinsuat further alleges that from the
certificate of the election registrar of Pikit, Mr. Bernardo P. Decrepito,
dated Septem­ber 18, 1969
it appears that the number of registered voters in this precinct is 695.45

We agree with the ruling of the Comelec regarding these six election
returns, as follows:

“Petitioner SINSUAT claims that the returns in six precincts
of PIKIT, to wit: Prec. Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33 and 15 should have been
rejected by the Board on the ground that in these precincts there was an excess
of votes over those of the number of voters who voted.  The Commission, however, notes that, except
with respect to Precinct No. 16 where PENDATUN received 270 votes, while the
number of voters who voted was only 269, resulting in an excess of one vote,
the votes received by PENDATUN did not exceed the number of voters who voted.
What actually is claimed to be in excess of the number of registered voters are
the votes for the senatorial candidates. 
Since the Board is canvassing only the congressional votes there is actually
no excess of votes in these six precincts, except in Precinct No. 16.  Granting that to determine whether there is
an excess of votes in these six precincts we have to consider the totality of
votes cast for the other candidates, particularly the senatorial candidates,
the Commission believes that the excess of votes in these precincts is not very
great as to be ruled out as sta­tistically improbable following the doc­trine
of State ex rel Mitchel vs. Stevens, supra.  Alonto vs. Comelec, 22 SCRA 878
would appear to be more applicable where the court said:

‘Nor do we find that the alleged excess of votes cast (detailed and
enumerated in the petition) is adequate to support the conclusion that the re­turns
are obviously manufactured for reasons of statistical improbability.  x x x’ 
(On page 882)

“The Commission, therefore, believes that the Board committed
no error in not rejecting ‘ the returns from Prec. Nos. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33, and
15 of PIKIT.”46

In the recent case of Ilarde v. Comelec, supra, peti­tioner
Ilarde questioned, the action of the Comelec in not excluding from the canvass
those election returns where senatorial candidate Tamano appears to have been
credited with votes in excess of the number of registered voters.  In upholding the Comelec this Court ruled:

“…The same finding (not statistically improbable) holds true
with regard to the instances cited where the COMELEC ruled against the
exclusion of some returns ques­tioned by petitioner, since the COMELEC found
that the number of votes cast in favor of Tamano were not greatly in excess of
the registered number of voters and could be at­tributed to mistakes or errors
of the poll inspectors, while it had rejected other returns where such excess
was very great.  (Alonto v. Comelec, supra)”

7. Sinsuat also questions the action of the Comelec in not
ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the Comelec copy of the election
return for Precinct 15 of Pikit, upon the ground that it is a tampered
return.  The action of the Comelec in
this connection is embodied in its minute resolution dated January 19, 1970, and this is one of the two
resolutions no being questioned before this Court.47

To resolve the controversy in connection with this Comelec copy
of the election return of Precinct 15 of Pikit, We consider it necessary to
state the factual circumstances attending this particular return.  The record shows, and this is not disputed,
that on November 28, 1969 (the very day, when the canvass started at Camp
Crame, Quezon City) counsel for Sinsuat sent a letter to the Comelec requesting
that they be allowed to take pho­tostat copies of the Comelec copies of the
election returns from precincts in the municipalities of Pikit, Pagaluñgan,
Datu Piang, Carmen, and Sultan Sa Barongis. 
On December 2, 1969
the Comelec, by resolution, granted said request.48  Accordingly, photostat copies of the Comelec
copies of the election returns from the munici­pality
of Pikit, including that of
Precinct 15, were actually taken.  During
the canvass by the Board at Camp Crame, Sinsuat objected to the use in the
canvass of the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of the election returns from the
municipality of Pikit, among them the Provin­cial Treasurer’s copy for Precinct
15, because, according to Sinsuat, the Provincial Treasurer’s copies were
tampered with, and he asked the Board that the Comelec copies which were clean
and untampered with be used instead.  The
Board overruled the objection of Sinsuat to the use of the Provincial
Treasurer’s copies.  On December 11,
1969, Sinsuat filed with the Comelec a petition questioning, among others, the
action of the Board in including in the canvass the Provincial Treasurer’s
copies of the election returns from thirty eight precincts located in the
municipalities of Nuling and Pikit, upon the ground that the Provincial Trea­surer’s
copies were “tampered and spurious” and dif­ferent from the Comelec
copies of the same election returns which were “clear, clean, regular and
valid”.  Sinsuat prayed that in lieu
of the Provincial Trea­surer’s copies for the 23 precincts of Nuling and 15
precincts of Pikit (which included Precinct 15) the Comelec copies of the
election returns for those pre­cincts be used in the canvass. In his answer to
that petition of Sinsuat, Pendatun manifested that he inter­posed no objection
to the use of the Comelec copies.  A
hearing on the petition of Sinsuat was held by the Comelec on December 24, 1969.  What transpired during this hearing may best
be gathered from the resolution of the Comelec which recites as follows:

“In the hearing before the Commission on December 24, 1969, oh
the appeal of SIN­SUAT and the counter-claim of PENDATUN, which actually
partook the nature of an appeal, the Commission examined in the presence of
counsel of both parties the provincial trea­surer’s copies of the election
returns for the 23 precincts of NULING and 15 precincts of PIKIT questioned by
SINSUAT as having been tampered with. 
Examination of said returns by the members of the Commission and by counsel
of both parties confirmed the tampering. 
The Commission, therefore, required the pro­duction of the Comelec
copies which it examin­ed one by one, also in the presence of coun­sel of both
parties.  The Commission found the
COMELEC copies of the returns for the 23 precincts of NULING and 15
precincts of PIKIT to be without any alterations and were therefore
serviceable, so it promulgated in open court the following resolution:

‘A. In the matter of the hearing on the Petition of Candidate DATU
BLAH SINSUAT, dated December 11, 1969,
and the Answer thereto of Congressman SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, dated December 15, 1969; the Supplemental
Petition and Appeal of Cahdi­date Datu Blah T. Sinsuat, dated December 16, 1969, and the Answer
thereto by Congress­man Salipada K. Pendatun dated December 16, 1969.  After hearing arguments of counsels for
opposing parties oh the Basic Petition and Supplemental Petition, the
Commission, after ordering the production for examina­tion of the election
returns copies for the Provincial Treasurer and the Comelec of the precincts
hereinafter treated, RESOLVED as follows:

1. It appearing
after an examination of the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of the elect­ion
returns that there exist alterations and/or erasures in the entry of votes for
the Office of Congressman which affect the integrity of the said election
returns (Provincial Treasurer’s copy), while the corresponding Comelec copies
thereof, which were likewise examined by the Commis­sion and by counsels for
both parties were found to be clean, untampered with, and, therefore,
serviceable copies, the Provin­cial Board of Canvassers of Cota­bato is hereby
directed to use the Comelec copies of the election returns of the following
precincts in its canvass in lieu of the Pro­vincial Treasurer’s copies thereof;

A. PIKIT, Cotabato:

Precincts Nos. 4, 5, 6, 15, 21, 21-A, 26, 29, 33, 34, 40,
41, 42, 43, and 54.’ “

x                    x                      x

“After the promulgation of the foregoing resolution, the
counsel of both parties assisted by some personnel of the Commission made a ten­tative
canvass to find out the outcome of the sub­stitution of the COMELEC copy as
basis of the canvass and as a result PENDATUN’S lead was re­duced by 2,779
votes leaving him a total of 73,687 votes, whereas SINSUAT’S votes were
increased by 668 votes giving him a total of 72,160 votes.  The margin of PENDATUN and SINSUAT was thus
reduced to 1,527 votes.”49

x                    x                      x                      x

On December 31, 1969
the Board, pursuant to the direc­tive of the Comelec, reconvened to recanvass
the election returns in accordance with the findings of the Comelec as embodied
in its resolution of December 24,
1969, above ad­verted to.  In
that recanvass Sinsuat, through counsel, raised for the first time ah objection
to the inclusion in the canvass of the Comelec copy of the election return of
Precinct 15 of Pikit upon the ground that it was a tam­pered return.  The Board, however, disregarded the objec­tion
of Sinsuat.

On January 7, 1970 counsel for Sinsuat filed with the Comelec a
motion, dated January 3, 1970, “for reconsidera­tion and/or appeal from
the order of the Board of Canvas­sers”, and praying “that the
resolution of the Honorable Commission on Election dated December 24, 1969 be
recon­sidered, so that Prec. No. 15 be excluded therefrom and/or that the
Provincial Board of Canvassers be ordered to reject the election return for
Prec. No. 15 of Pikit, Cota­bato and the votes of Pendatun reflected thereon be
removed and deducted from the over-all count made in his favor.”  The ground for this motion was that it was
found out during the recanvass that even the Comelec copy of the election
return for Precinct 15 of Pikit was tampered with and appeared obviously
manufactured and/or statis­tically improbable, and that during the recanvass by
the Board Blah Sinsuat, through counsel, vigorously objected to the admission
of the same, but that the Board had unlawfully counted and tabulated said
return for Pre­cinct 15.50 
Acting on that motion for reconsidera­tion, the Comelec appointed a
committee composed of Comelec personnel to examine the Comelec copy of the
election return for Precinct 15 of Pikit. 
The commit­tee submitted a report to the Comelec which, among others,
states, as follows:

“Observations
on Prec. No. 15,

Pikit, Cotabato

“For Prec. No. 15, Pikit, Cotabato, copy for the Comelec,
bearing Serial No. 47177, the following observations are made:

“1. On Data on Voters –

“With respect to the entry on the number of voters registered
in precinct, it is noted that there are erasures made in the original entry
which with a mag­nifying glass could be read as 692.  The words in the original entry ‘six hundred
ninety-two’ six and ninety-two have been erased.  Over the word ‘six’ is written the word
‘seven’.  In the total number in figures
the original entry 692 could also be discerned and over which is super­imposed
the figure 700.  In the entry on the
number of voters who actually voted the original entry has been erased but
which could still be read as ‘two hundred fifty’.  It is observed that in the original entry in
words, the words ‘two’ and ‘fifty’ have been erased and over the word ‘two’ is
superimposed the word ‘seven’.  In the
entry on total number in figures there appears to have been a superimposi­tion
over the original entry which could not be appreciated with certainty.  The superimposed figures written is 700.

“2. On Data on Ballots –

“In the entry on data on ballots, in the space ballots found
in the compartment for valid ballots the original entry appears to have been
erased and over which was written the words ‘four hundred fifty’.  It is also observed that over the
superimposed entry is written the words ‘two hundred fifty plus’.  In the entry on total number in figures the
original entry which could be read as 250 has been erased and over which
is written the figure 700.  In the entry
for valid ballots withdrawn from the compartment for spoiled ballots, for
having been mistakenly placed therein it appears in the entry on total num­ber
in words the word ‘none’ has been writ­ten. 
However, with respect to the entry in total number in figure the original
entry which could be read as 1 appears to have been erased and the figures 0
was written.

“3. For the Office of Representative in the entry for the votes for
candidate Salipada Pendatun the original entry appears to have been erased in
that the words ‘two’ and ‘fifty’ have been erased and over the word ‘two’ is
written the word ‘seven’.  The original
entry could be read however and ‘two hundred fifty’ as altered reads ‘seven
hundred’.  In the total votes obtained in
figures the original entry which could be read as 250 has been erased and over
which is written the figure 700.

“The Committee also observes that the election return for
Prec. No. 15, Pikit, Cota­bato, copy for the Comelec, contains altera­tions in
the entries not only on the data on voters, data on ballots, and votes for the
Office of Representative as stated above but also for the Office of President,
Vice-President, Senators, and Special Election for Members of the Provincial
Board, with respect to the votes of candidates Osmeña, Lopez, Ganzon, Ilarde,
Liwag, Mañalac, Padilla, Roxas, Sagun, Ziga and Buenaflor, all of which
erasures or alterations are not authenticated by any initials of any members of
the Board of Inspectors.  It is observed
also that both the election returns, copy for Provincial Treasurer and for the
Comelec, bear the signatures of the members of the board of inspectors which
upon comparison of both copies appears to be similar.  The same observa­tion is made with respect to
the envelopes and seals of both election returns.”51

A hearing on this motion for reconsideration was held before the
Comelec on January 9, 1970, with all the three members of the Comelec
present.  During the hearing the report
of the committee that examined the Comelec copy of the election return for
Precinct 15 of Pikit was submitted. 
Counsels for both parties appeared, and manifestations were made by the
counsels and also by the members of the Comelec.  Without taking any evidence to ascertain how
it happened that the Comelec copy in question came to be tampered, the Comelec,
on January 19, 1970, issued a minute resolution denying Sinsuat’s motion for
reconside­ration “for lack of merit”.52 
The Comelec, in its Case Resolution No. RR-692, specifically ordered the
Board to use for Precinct 15 of Pikit “the Comelec copy in accordance with
the Resolution of the Commission of Decem­ber 24, 1969”.53

It is contended by Sinsuat that the Comelec, in ordering the
Board to use in the canvass the Comelec copy of the election return of Precinct
15 of Pikit, “violated its clear duty to direct that only genuine returns
be counted”.54

This Court ordered the counsel for the Comelec to file with the
record of this case an enlarged pho­tostat copy of this Comelec copy in
question.  We have carefully examined
this enlarged photostat copy, and We find that there are really very visible
erasures and alterations thereon.  We
have also found the report of the committee appointed by the Comelec to examine
this Comelec copy to be correct.  The
Court is at a loss to understand, how come that, if the original of this pho­tostat
copy was the one that was examined by the members of the Comelec, and by the
counsels for both parties, on December 24, 1969 that they could not have
noticed the erasures and the alterations that now appear on this photostat
copy, if those erasures and alterations were actually existing on the original
(Comelec copy) that was examined on December 24, 1969.  The record shows that on December 2, 1969
Sinsuat was authorized by the Comelec to secure photostat copies of the Comelec
copies of the election returns for precincts in Pikit (including Pre­cinct 15)
and that he had actually taken photostat copies and had those photostat copies
during the canvass by the Board which ended on December 10, 1969.  On December 11, 1969 Sinsuat filed a petition
with the Comelec precisely assailing as tampered and spurious the Provincial
Trea­surer’s copies of the election returns from 15 precincts in Pikit
(including Precinct 15) and prayed that in lieu of the Provincial Treasurer’s
copies the Comelec copies which were clean and untampered be used in the
canvass.  In that petition of December
11, 1969 Sinsuat did not make any assertion that the Comelec copy for Pre­cinct
15 of Pikit be not used in the canvass because it was a tampered copy.  By that time Sinsuat, or his counsel, must
have seen the Comelec copy already and had in fact a photostat copy of the
same.  And then, on December 24, 1969,
during an open hearing, when the members of the Comelec and the counsels for
both parties examined the Comelec copies of the election returns from Pikit
(which included that of Precinct 15) neither Sinsuat hor his counsel made any
objection to the use of that Comelec copy for Precinct 15 upon the ground that
it is a tampered copy.  After the
examination of the Comelec copies by the members of the Comelec and by the
counsels for both parties on that day, Sinsuat and his counsel even agreed to
the making of a tentative tabulation of votes based on the clean Comelec copies
which had then been examined, and these included the copy for Precinct 15 of
Pikit.  It was only on December 31,
during the recanvass, when Sinsuat, for the first time, objected to the use of
the Comelec copy in the canvass upon the ground that it is tampered.  And We have noted in the very allegation of
Sinsuat in his petition before this Court that he admits that on December 24,
1969 the Comelec copies of the election returns from 15 precincts of Pikit were
clean and untampered.  Thus, in paragraph
9, Section V (The Facts) of his petition Sinsuat makes the following
allegation:

“9. During the
hearing on December 24, 1969, the respondent Commission indeed found as true
the allegations of tampering of the Provincial Board’s copies of the election
re­turns froth the twenty-three (23) precincts from Nuling and fifteen (15)
others from Pikit.  So, it ordered the
Comelec copy of these returns to be used (See pp. 5-6, Annex ‘H’) because it
found them clean as of then.”55

What happened to that Comelec copy which the Comelec and the
counsel for both parties had examined on Decem­ber 24, 1969?  How come that on December 24, 1969 the
Comelec and the counsel for both parties examined and found the Comelec copy of
the election return for Pre­cinct 15 of Pikit to be clean and untampered, and
yet during the canvass by the Board on December 31, 1969 there appeared a
Comelec copy of the election return for that same precinct that was very
visibly tampered and altered?

We do not doubt the veracity of the statements in the Comelec
resolution of December 24, 1969, as embodied in Case Resolution RR-692 of
January 19, 1970, to the effect that when the Comelec copies of the election
returns of 15 precincts of Pikit (which in­cluded the Comelec copy for Precinct
15) were examined it was found that all said copies were “clean, untam­pered
with, and, therefore, serviceable”. 
But it is also undeniable that when the Board met on December 31, 1969
to recanvass the returns it was found that the Comelec copy of the election
return for Precinct 15 bore very visible alterations, or signs of tampering, as
shown on the enlarged photostat copy of said election return which is now
attached to the record.  The Court cannot
close its eyes to the realities that appear on this enlarged photostat
copy.  And so, granting that this Comelec
copy was found to be clean and untampered with on December 24, 1969, the
logical conclusion is that it was tampered with after December 24, 1969 but
before it was submitted to the Board for recanvass on December 31, 1969.

It is Our considered view that when Sinsuat, in his motion of
January 7, 1970 for the reconsideration of the Comelec resolution of December
24, 1970, called attention to the fact that the Comelec copy of the election
return of Precinct 15 of Pikit was tampered with, the Comelec should have taken
steps to ascertain how the tampering came about, because that Comelec copy was
found to be “clean and untampered” by the Comelec itself on December
24, 1969.  It is not denied that when
this Comelec copy was brought before the Comelec during the hearing on January
9, 1970, it appeared to be really tampered with because of the erasures, alte­rations
and superimpositions found therein.

We have said in the case of Pacis vs. Comelec supra56
that “the purpose of the Election Code ‘to protect the integrity of the
election and to suppress all evils that may vitiate its purity and defeat the
will of the voters’ gives Comelec authority to ascertain whether the
genuineness of a given election return may be salvaged by an examination of the
said return“.57 
Technically, the procedure should be to remand this case to the Comelec
to make a specific finding on the matter regarding the erasures, alterations
and superimpositions as they now appear on the Comelec copy.  But because We have before Us the enlarged
photostat copy of the return in question and the report of the committee that
examined said return, We believe that what the Comelec had failed to do — that
is, to examine carefully the return and ascertain what had been altered or tampered
with — this Court may as well do in an effort to salvage the genuine­ness of
this election return.  We are brushing
aside technicality in order to expedite the resolution of the question
involved, because this case affects the public interest.

While the original of the Comelec copy of the elect­ion return of
Precinct 15 of Pikit is not before this Court, We are satisfied that the
enlarged photostat copy can serve our purpose in the examination of the return
in question.  The erasures, alterations,
and superimposi­tions are visible to the naked eye.  The original entries that have been erased
and superimposed are still dis­cernible. 
We have minutely examined the photostat copy, and have taken into
consideration the report of the com­mittee constituted by the Comelec to
examine the Comelec copy of the election return of Precinct 15 of Pikit, and We
agree with all its findings, specifically its finding regarding the votes of
Pendatun, as follows:

“For the office of Representative in the entry for the votes
for candi­date Salipada Pendatun the original entry appears to have been erased
in that the words ‘two’ and ‘fifty’ have been erased, and over the word ‘two’
is written the word ‘seven’.  The
original entry could be read however and ‘two hundred fifty’ as altered reads
‘seven Hundred’.  In the total votes
obtained in figures the original entry which could be read 250 had been erased
and over which is written the figure 700.”

It is Our view that the true entry in the Comelec copy of the
election return of Precinct 15 of Pikit of the votes of Pendatun was 250 and
not 700; and so, while We uphold the Comelec ruling that the Comelec copy of
the election return of Precinct 15 of Pikit be used in the canvass, the Board,
however, should credit Pendatun with only 250 votes this precinct.

8. It is stated in the main resolution, appealed from, that the
Comelec had rid opportunity to examine the election returns from Precincts 4-A
of Maganoy and Precinct 31 of Dinaig, and so it could not make a de­finite
ruling with respect to those election returns. 
The resolution also states that the election return from Precinct 54 of
M’lang was not included in the can­vass of the votes.58

Upon motion of Sinsuat, this Court, in a resolu­tion of February
6, 1970, authorized the opening of the ballot box of Precinct 54 of M’lang in
order to retrieve therefrom all the copies of the return which were al­leged to
have been placed by mistake inside the ballot box by the board of
inspectors.  In the memorandum of data,
or report, submitted by Sinsuat to this Court it is stated that per certified
copy of the Provincial Treasurer’s copy of the election return of Precinct 54
of M’lang there were 35 voters who voted in the precinct, and Pendatun is
credited with 5 votes, Sinsuat with 18 votes, and the other candidates with 12
votes.  An enlarged photostat copy of the
Provincial Trea­surer’s copy of the election return for this precinct is
attached to the record, and is not objected to by Pendatun.59  The Board may, therefore, use the Pro­vincial
Treasurer’s copy of the election return for this precinct in the canvass.

The memorandum of data of Sinsuat also reports that, as certified
to by the Comelec, in Precinct 31 of Dinaig there are 123 votes involved, while
in Precinct 4-A of Maganoy there are 102 votes involved; but no certification
could be issued by the Comelec on the breakdown of the votes in these two
precincts due to the unauthorized alterations in the entry of votes cast for
the office of Representative both in the Comelec and in the Provincial
Treasurer’s copies.60 
There is, therefore, need for the implementation of the order of the
Comelec to the Board to look for ser­viceable copies of the returns for these
two precincts, and if need be to open the ballot boxes solely for the purpose
of retrieving the ballot box copies, and should the Board not succeed in
finding serviceable copies, to report to the Comelec for further instructions.61

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, with the modification that in
using the Comelec copy of Precinct 15 of Pikit the Board should credit
respondent Pendatun with only 250 votes, Case Resolution No. RR-692 of
respondent Commission on Elections, and its accompanying minute resolution,
both dated January 19, 1970, appealed from, are affirmed in all other respects;
and the writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition prayed for are
denied.  The restraining order issued by
this Court on January 23, 1970 is lifted, and respondent Provin­cial Board of
Canvassers of Cotabato is ordered to immediately convene and implement the
orders of respondent Commission on Elections in its Case Resolution No. RR-692
as modified in this decision, complete the canvass of votes cast for the office
of Representative of the lone representative district of Cotabato in the
elections of November 11, 1969, and thereafter proclaim the winning candidate
for the said office.

Petitioner Datu Blah Sinsuat is ordered to pay the costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., with whom
Castro, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur, concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.

---

^[1]
Annexes G and H of the petition.

^[2]
Quoted from petition, page 6 of the record.

^[3]
Quoted from the petition, page 7 of the record.

^[4]
G. R. No. L-25444, Jan. 31, 1966; 16 SCRA 175.

^[5]
Record, p. 42.

^[6]
Resolution, Annex H, pp. 70-71 of the record.

^[7]
Pendatun’s Answer before Comelec, pp. 52-57 of the record.

^[8]
Record, pp. 64-65.

^[9]
Annex G to petition, p. 67 of the record.

^[10]
Annex H of petition, pp. 68-91 of the record.

11 “The Board to use for Prec. No. 15
the Comelec copy in accordance with the Resolution of the Commission of
December 24, 1969.”

12 “There was special election for one board member in
Cotabato.”

13 Pages 8-9 and 16-17 of Resolution, Annex
“H” to the petition, on pp. 75-76 and 83-84 of the record.

14 Annexes 1 to 22 inclusive of Pendatun’s Answer, pp.
136 to 157 of the record.

15 Annex 6 of Pendatun’s Answer, page 141 of the
record.

16 Annex 28 of Pendatun’s Answer, page 182 of the
record. See Paragraph (2) of the dispositive portion of the Resolution, Annex
H, page 88 of the record.

17 Annex 28-A of Pendatun’s Answer, page 183 of the
record.

18 Page 27 of Pendatun’s Answer, page 124 of the
record.

19 Sangki vs. Comelec, L-28359, Dec. 26, 1967,
21 SCRA 1392; Estrada vs. Comelec, L-28374, Dec. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1514;
Demafelis v. Comelec, L-28396, Dec. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1462; Alonto vs.
Comelec, L-28296, Feb. 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 878; Tagoranao v. Comelec,
L-28950, March 12, 1968, 22 SCRA 978; Kibad v. Comelec, L-28469, May 7,
1968, 23 SCRA 588; Ilarde v. Comelec, L-31446, Jan. 23, 1970.

20 G. R. No. L-2849, February 28, 1968.

21 G.R. No.L-31446, January 23, 1970.

22 Underscoring supplied.

23 Annexes J to J-11, K to K-13, L to L-2, M and N;
pages 228 to 258 of the record.

24 L-28359, Dec. 26, 1967; 21 SCRA 1392.

25 Underscoring, supplied.

26 The “averments” refer to the matters
mentioned in the affidavits.

27 See Certification of the results of elections from
1953 to 1967, inclusive, in Cotabato, issued by the Chief of the Statistics and
Election Records Division of the Comelec, attached as Annex 1 of Pendatun’s
Counter-Memorandum, dated Feb. 13, 1970. (Pages 330-331 of the record)

28 Annexes J to J-11, pp. 228 to 239 of the record.

29 Annexes K to K-13, pp. 240 to 251 of the record.

30 Quoted from page 22 of the petition, on page 22 of
the record.

31 Underscoring supplied.  The word “therein” is underscored
to emphasize that the word refers to the whole election return.

32 Sangki vs. Comelec, supra; Tagoranao vs.
Comelec, supra; Kibad vs. Comelec, supra; and several
others.

33 Pacis v. Comelec, L-29026, September 28,
1968, 25 SCRA 377.

34 Underscoring supplied.

35 L-28517, February 21, 1968; 22 SCRA 662.

36 L-28455, February 10, 1968, 22 SCRA 539.  This is the first Pacis case.  The second Pacis is also herein cited.

37 L-28562, April 25, 1968, 23 SCRA 224.

38 L-31566, February 18, 1970.

39 Pacis v. Comelec, L-29026, September 28,
1968; 25 SCRA 377.

40 Cauton v. Comelec, L-15467, April 27, 1967;
19 SCRA 911.

41 Espino v. Zaldivar, L-22325, December 11,
1967; 21 SCRA 1204, 1213, citing Nacionalista Party v. Comelec, 85
Phil., 149, 157-158.

42 Resolution, Annex “H”, pp. 82-83 of the
record; as corrected by Comelec resolution of January 22, 1970.  (See footnote 4a on page 14 of Answer of the
Comelec, on page 211 of the record).

43 See footnotes 14 and 15, ante.

44 See cases cited in footnote 17, ante.

45 See petition, pages 33 and 34 of the record.

46 Pages 14 and 15 of Resolution of January 19, 1970,
annex “H” to the petition, found on pages 81 and 82 of the record.

47 Annex G of the petition, page 67 of the record.

48 Annex 25, Pendatun’s Answer, page 176 of the
record.  See also Comelec’s Answer, pages
198, 219-222 of the record.

49 Case Resolution No. RR-692, Annex “H” of
Sinsuat’s Petition; pp. 68, 71-74 of the record.  Under­scoring supplied.

50 Annex “E” to Sinsuat’s Petition, page 64
of the record.

51 Annex “F” to Sinsuat’s Petition; page 66
of the record.

52 Annex “G” of Sinsuat’s Petition; page 67
of the record. See footnotes 9 and 43, ante.

53 See footnote 2 on page 22 of Case Resolution No.
RR-692, Annex “H” of Sinsuat’s Petition; page 89 of the record.

54 Citing the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Cauton v. Comelec, supra; Espino v. Zaldivar, 21
SCRA, 1204, 1215-1216; and Ong v. Comelec, 22 SCRA, 241-249.)

55 Page 13 of the record. Underscoring supplied.

56 The second Pacis case. See footnote 29, ante.

57 Underscoring supplied.

58 Annex “H” to Sinsuat’s Petition, pp. 85,
86, 89 of the record.

59 See pp. 271, 274, 275 and 282 of the record.

60 See pp. 275 and 283 of the record.

61 Page 89 of the record.

---

Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}