LEONOR A. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CABANATUAN CITY COMPOSED OF EDILBERTO B. REGALADO AS CHAIRMAN AND MELVIN…

The subject of the instant certiorari proceedings is the
resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 in Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44 entitled “In Re:  Petition for Nullification and/or Exclusion
of Election Return, etc.; Honorato C. Perez, Sr.,
petitioner” and the minute resolution of the COMELEC dated April 16, 1980
denying the motion for reconsideration filed on March 31, 1980 by herein
petitioner, Leonor A. Garcia, in said
pre-proclamation case.

The records show that herein petitioner, Leonor
A. Garcia, was the official candidate of the Lapiang Pag­kakaisa ng Bayan (LPB) for the position of mayor of the city of Cabanatuan in connection with the January 30, 1980 local elections.

Private respondent Honorato C. Perez,
Sr. was the incumbent mayor of Cabanatuan
City prior to the January 30, 1980 local
elections.  He was the official candidate
for the same office under the banner of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL).

On January 30, 1980
the City Board of Canvassers for Cabanatuan
City with City Election Registrar Wilfredo Navarro as chairman, convened and started the
canvass of the election returns for the City of Cabanatuan.

On January 31, 1980, herein private respondent Honorato C. Perez, Sr. filed a petition with the re­spondent
Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City praying for
the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidates for
the office of city mayor and vice mayor of Cabanatuan
City on the ground that in various voting centers/precincts in 18 barangays, the votes cast for the KBL were not credited in
their favor in spite of protests made by KBL watchers, thus rendering said
election returns in the 18 barangays mentioned in
private respondent’s petition defective; and that the votes/ballots in question
are of sufficient quantity to substantially affect the results of the
elections.  In said petition, herein
private respondent further prayed that a recounting of the ballots be ordered
(Annex “B”, pp. 73-74, rec.).

Also on January
31, 1980, a telegram
was sent by the chairman of the COMELEC to Atty. Wilfredo
Navarro, in his capacity as chairman of the City Board of Can­vassers for Cabanatuan City, the contents of which read:

“IN VIEW PETITION FILED BY KBL CANDIDATE HONORATO PEREZ
ALLEGING RAMPANT PARTICIPATION OF FLYING VOTERS CMA MASSIVE TERRORISM AND VOTE
BUYING AND CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE IN DUE FORM CMA YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED
THAT COMMISSION HAS RESOLVED TO SUSPEND THE CANVASS OF THE RESULTS OF THE
ELECTION FOR MAYOR THAT CITY AFFECTING
ALL VOTING CENTERS STOP NOTIFY ALL PARTIES CONCERNED STOP YOU ARE HEREBY
INSTRUCTED TO SECURE PROPER GUARDS TO ENSURE THAT INTEGRITY OF RETURNS IS
PROTECTED STOP ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT HEREOF AND ACTION TAKEN END COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS

LEONARO B. PEREZ

CHAIRMAN” (Annex “A”, p. 59,
rec.).

On February 1, 1980
private respondent filed an amended petition dated January 31, 1980, this time
before the COMELEC praying “for exclusion and/or annulment of election
returns, suspension of canvassing and proclamation, and for annulment of certificates
of candidacy of Lapiang Pagkakaisa
ng Bayan (LPB) candi­dates
in the City of Cabanatuan” on the grounds that
herein petitioner, Leonor Garcia, has resorted to
“massive vote-buying”, “terrorism”, “rampant parti­cipation
of flying voters”, non-counting of KBL votes in favor of KBL candidates
and other election irregularities committed in various voting
centers/precincts, including those in Barangay Aduas, Dimasalang, Bantug Bulalo, San Isidro and
Supermarket (Annex “C”, pp. 76-79, rec.).

On the same day that the
amended petition of private respondent was filed, that is, on February 1, 1980,
respondent COMELEC, pursuant to its Resolution No. 1430 (4), sent to Cabanatuan City a COMELEC Special Action Team No. 9,
composed of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, Atty. Benigno R. Lapitan, and Atty.
Jose Balbuena, members, to “exercise direct and
immediate supervision and control in the area of assignment over all COMELEC
personnel and law enforcement agencies, government officials and their
personnel whenever placed under COMELEC deputation or control” and
transmitted to Atty. Wilfredo Navarro, chairman of
the Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City, the
following memorandum:

“MEMORANDUM TO:      ATTY. WILFREDO NAVARRO

City Election
Registrar

Cabanatuan City

“This is to officially inform you and the City Board of
Canvassers of Cabanatuan City that Lt. Col. Francisco
V. Samala of Comelec
Special Action Team No. 9 had a direct telephone talk with Chairman Leonardo B.
Perez who reaffirms the authenticity of the telegraphic order dated January 31,
1980 to you to suspend the canvass of the
results of the election for mayor in Cabanatuan City.

“The Chairman further said that you will be held in contempt and
declare all proceedings null and void should your Board disobey the
above-mentioned COMELEC order.

COMELEC
SPECIAL ACTION TEAM NO. 9

s/t
LT. COL. FRANCISCO V. SAMALA

Member

s/t ATTY. BENIGNO R.
LAPITAN

Member

s/t ATTY. JOSE BALBUENA

Member”

On February 2, 1980 the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City proclaimed herein petitioner, Leonor Garcia, and her running mate, Dr. Romeo Ortiz, as
the elected city mayor and city vice mayor of Cabanatuan
City and also proclaimed all the eight (8) candidates of the KBL as the winning
candidates for the Sangguniang Panglungsod
of Cabanatuan City (Annex “D”, p. 80, rec.)
“notwithstanding the aforestated
orders of the COMELEC suspending the canvassing and proclamation” (p. 60,
rec.).

On February 4, 1980
private respondent filed before the COMELEC an urgent ex-parte
motion to declare proclamation null and void (Annex “E”, pp. 82-86,
rec.).

On February 5, 1980 private respondent Perez filed a second
amended petition before the COMELEC alleging, among others, that the incumbent
Governor Eduardo Joson of the province of Nueva Ecija, a KBL candidate, did
not support private respondent’s candidacy but instead helped and supported the
candidacy of herein petitioner by utilizing the military as well as armed
supporters of the incumbent governor in subverting the will of the electorate
of Cabanatuan City by resorting to massive fraud,
terrorism, vote-buying and other election irregularities (Annex “F”,
pp. 87-92, rec.).

On February 6, 1980, acting on the petition filed by herein
private respondent and the report of the Special Action Team sent to Cabanatuan City stating that the canvass of votes by the
City Board of Canvassers was made in
the presence of armed men who exerted pressure on the said Board, respondent
COMELEC set aside the proclamation earlier made by the City Board of Canvassers
and constituted a new Board of Canvassers. 
The COMELEC likewise ordered the transmission of all the election returns
to the central office for the purpose of recanvass
(Annex “G”, p. 94, rec.).

Subsequently, herein
petitioner filed an action with the Supreme Court to stop respondent COMELEC
from implementing its resolution of February 4, 1980 but said petition was dismissed (Annex
“H”, p. 95, rec.).

Consequently, on February
26, 1980, the new City Board of Canvassers, headed by Edilberto
Regalado as chairman, commenced the recanvass of the election returns during which herein
private respondent presented before the board his documentary evidence; the recanvass resumed the following day, February 27, and up to
February 28, 1980.

On February
29, 1980, petitioner
submitted to the new Board of Canvassers her documentary evidence.

On March 3, 1980, private
respondent filed before the same board his memorandum dated March 3, 1980 in
support of his contention seeking the nullification and/or exclusion of all
election returns pertaining to forty (40) voting centers in nine (9) barangays of Cabanatuan City,
namely:

Barangay                          Voting Center No.

1. Aduas                                    1,
2, 2-A, 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 6,

7, 7-A, 8, 8-A or 13,
9,

10, and 10-A;

2. ACCFA (San Juan)                1, 1-A or 2;

3. Bantug Bulalo                        1, 2, and 3;

4. Dimasalang                           1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

5. Fatima                                   1,
2, and 3;

6. San Isidro                              1
and 2;

7. San Josef Norte                     1,
2, 3 and 4;

8. San Roque                            1, 2 and 3; and

9. Supermarket                          1.

These
election returns were questioned or contested by private respondent Perez on
various grounds, including rampant terrorism, gun-point preparation of ballots,
wanton vote-buying, participation of flying voters,
connivance and collusion with the members of the Citizens Election Committee
(Annex “J”, pp. 171-184, rec.).

On March 5, 1980, herein
petitioner filed her memorandum before the Board praying that all the election
returns in all the voting centers in the nine (9) barangays
contested by private respondent be included in the canvass for being authentic
and genuine, not false or manufactured (Annex “K”, pp. 185-200,
rec.).

On March 5,
1980 the City Board
of Canvassers issued a resolution, pertinent portions of which read:

“xx            xx         xx.

“In the assessment of the evidence
submitted, both for and against, the board was guided by the controlling
fundamental principles on the extent of the powers of boards of canvassers.

“’The canvassing board is merely a
ministerial body.  It is empowered only
to accept as correct, returns transmitted to it which are in due form, and to
ascertain the result as appears therefrom’ (18 Am. Jur. p. 346) x x x.  ‘The canvassers
are to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns, that is, that the papers
presented to them are not forged or spurious, that they are the returns, and
are signed by the proper officers; but when so satisfied they may not reject
any returns because of informalities in them or because of fraudulent practices
in the election’ (Sangki vs. Commission on Elections,
Dec. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA p. 1397 citing Dizon vs.
Provincial Board of Canvassers) x x x.

“It is within this context that the
Board hereby rules on the evidence submitted, as follows:  Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, A-3, B, B-1, B-2, B-3;
Exhibits J & J-1 insofar as they allege terrorism, vote-buying and other
irregularities committed during the election in Cabanatuan
City; Exhibits L to L-8 inclusive; Exhibits M to M-16, inclusive, insofar as
they allege the commission of anomalies in the election, the presence of armed
men, misreading of ballots by the citizens election committee, refusal of the
citizens election committees to recognize the watchers of candidate Honorato Perez and
allow them to observe the proceedings in the voting center, vote-buying and
coercion of voters into voting for a particular candidate; Exhibits N to N-4
insofar as they allege irregularities in the voting, vote-buying and coercion
of voters; Exhibits O to O-6; Exhibits P to P-8 insofar as they allege
the presence of armed men within the vicinities of the voting centers, coercion
of voters, wrong appreciation of ballots, irregular voting procedures and
refusal of the citizens election committees to recognize KBL watchers
and to allow them to observe the proceedings in the voting center;
Exhibits Q to Q-3 insofar as they allege that many flying voters were allowed
to vote, irregular voting procedure, coercion of voters, vote-buying, presence
of armed men and refusal of the citizens election committees to allow the KBL
watchers to observe the proceedings in the voting center; Exhibits R to R-3;
Exhibits T to T-5 insofar as they allege coercion of voters, wrong appreciation
of ballots, the presence of armed men, irregular voting procedures, and refusal
of the citizens election committees to recognize KBL watchers and allow them to
observe the proceedings in the voting
center; and Exhibits S to S-4 are all not admitted for the reason that the
grounds alleged therein are not proper grounds for exclusion of election
returns during canvassing by the board of canvassers.  ‘The question of whether or not there had
been any terrorism, vote-buying and other irregularities in the election should
be ventilated in a regular election protest and not in a petition to enjoin the
board of canvassers from can­vassing the returns’ (City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City, et al vs. Moscoso,
et al., GR No. L-16365, Sept. 30, 1963).

“Exhibits D-1 to D-4, E, F, G to G-3, H to H-3, 1 to 1-1, J-3,
J-3, K to K-2, U to U-1, ‘V’ (adopted as Exh. ’15’ by
Garcia) W to W-1, X to X-1, Y, Z, BB, CC, DD, EE, and FF are likewise not
admitted as being irrelevant and immaterial to the issues at bar.

“Exhibits M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-10, M-13, M-14 insofar as they
allege that the election returns were not prepared by the members of the
citizens election committees of voting centers 1-A, 2, 2-A, 3, 6, 8 and 8-2,
respectively, of Barangay Aduas;
Exhibit N-1 insofar as it alleges that the returns in Voting Center No. 1 and 2
of Barangay Bantug Bulalo were made under the supervision of the leaders of
candidate Leonor Garcia and Governor Joson; Exhibit P-7 insofar as it alleges that the returns in
Voting Center No. 3 of Barangay Fatima was not
prepared by the citizens election committee; Exhibit Q-1 insofar as it alleges that the election return of Voting
Center No. 2 of Barangay San Isidro was not based on
the actual votes cast in said center as the citizens election committee of said center did not count the votes
cast; Exhibit T-2 insofar as it alleges that the election return in Voting
Center No. 1 of Barangay Supermarket was a
manufactured return for the reason that no counting of the votes was actually
conducted by the citizens election com­mittee of said center, are all admitted.

“In refutation of the statements in
the foregoing admitted exhibits, candidate Leonor
Garcia has submitted affidavits executed by the citizens election com­mittees
of the aforementioned voting centers testifying to the fact that they (the
citizens election committees) can­vassed the votes cast, that they prepared the
election returns personally; and, that said election returns contain the true
and correct results of the election held in their respective voting centers
(Exhibits 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-1, 1-L, 1-M, 7-C, 6-A); 9-A (joint affidavit of
the Barangay Council and the Kababaihang
Barangay and watchers
of the LBP).  The foregoing exhibits
submitted by candidate Leonor Garcia are
admitted.  The other exhibits submitted
by candidate Leonor Garcia are rejected as being
immaterial and irrelevant.

“xxx          xxx       xxx       xxx.

“It is, therefore, the ruling of this
Board that all the forty (40) contested election returns should be included in
the canvass for Cabanatuan City” (pp. 46­-50,
rec.).

Likewise, in its session
on the same day, March 5, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers informed the
parties that the canvassing of the forty (40) contested election returns will
begin on the following day, March 6, 1980 (Annex “L”, p. 206, rec.).

On March 6,
1980 the board
convened and proceeded with the canvass and the result was that petitioner, Leonor Garcia, obtained 27,618 as against 25,391 votes
obtained by respondent Perez (Annex “1”, p. 229, rec.).

On March 6, 1980 private
respondent herein filed a notice of appeal with urgent ex-parte
motion for suspension and/or deferment of canvass pending resolution on appeal
dated March 6, 1980 before the COMELEC (Annex “N”, pp. 218-220, rec.)
questioning the March 5, 1980 resolution of the Board of Canvassers and
reiterating the same grounds raised in private respondent’s petition filed
before the Board.

Acting on the appeal of
respondent Perez, the COMELEC issued an order dated March 6, 1980 restraining the proclamation of the winners
in the canvass held by the City Board of Canvassers (Annex “O-1”, p.
223, rec.).

Immediately upon receipt
of the restraining order issued by the COMELEC, herein petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration dated March 6, 1980 (Annex “P”, pp. 224-228, rec.).

On March
11, 1980, without
acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, respondent
COMELEC heard the case wherein the parties, assisted by their respective
counsels, presented oral arguments, dispensed with presentation of testimonial
evidence and agreed to submit the case after filing their respective memoranda.

On March
14, 1980 herein
private respondent submitted his supplementary memorandum before the COMELEC
(Annex “O”, pp. 231-251, rec.); and on March 17, 1980 petitioner herein submitted her supplementary
memorandum (Annex “R”, pp.
252-273, rec.).

On March
27, 1980 respondent
COMELEC issued a resolution the dispositive portion
of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the fore­going considerations, the
Commission is of the considered opinion and so holds as follows:

“1.  To grant the instant appeal of herein
petitioner and the City Board of Canvassers is hereby ordered to exclude from the canvass the forty (40) questioned
election returns;

“2.  To order the City Board of Canvassers to
proclaim immediately the winning candi­dates based on the result of the recanvass after excluding the election returns as mentioned
and specified in paragraph No. 1 hereof.

“3.  This resolution is without prejudice to the
right of any of the parties to file an election protest within the period of
ten (10) days from the proclamation to be made as herein provided, and other
criminal charges as they may deem proper and necessary” (Annex
“A”, p. 71, rec.).

On March 27, 1980
herein petitioner filed before the COMELEC
an urgent ex-parte motion
to hold in abeyance implementation of
the said resolution by the COMELEC dated
March 27, 1980
(Annex “S”, pp. 281-282, rec.).

In spite of said urgent ex-parte motion,
the City Board of Canvassers convened and proceeded to canvass the election
returns pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980,
resulting in the proclamation of respondent Perez as the winner in the
mayoralty race with 22,179 votes over petitioner who obtained 20,071 votes in
Annex “T” (p. 283, rec.) or 20,068 votes as stated at the hearing on
November 8, 1980 before this Court.

On March 31, 1980
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of respondent
COMELEC dated March 27, 1980
(Annex “U”, pp. 284-309, rec.), which was opposed by private
respondent on April 12, 1980
(Annex “V”, pp. 311-320, rec.).

On April 16, 1980,
the COMELEC issued a resolution
(Annex “A-1”, p. 72, rec.) which reads as follows:

“9641 (PP Case No. 44).  For the same reasons as stated in the
Resolution dated March 27, 1980 and for lack of merit, the Commission has
RESOLVED to DENY the motion for reconsideration dated March 29, 1980 and filed
by respondents-appellees Leonor
A. Garcia, et al., the following March 31, 1980.”

Hence, the present
petition for certiorari.

Petitioner impugns the
findings of respondent COMELEC on the following grounds:

A

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS WHEN IT HELD THAT
6 ELECTION RETURNS WERE WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON AND 3 ELECTION
RETURNS WERE PREPARED BY 2 DIFFERENT PERSONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMELEC HANDWRITING EXPERT, CONSIDERING THAT DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FROM
THE NAVARRO BOARD TO THE REGALADO BOARD TO THE COMELEC EN BANC, NO EVIDENCE AT
ALL WAS PRESENTED BY EITHER PARTIES NOR UNDER­TAKEN BY THE COMELEC CONCERNING
HANDWRITING EXPERTS.

B

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW
WHEN IT HELD THAT THE 20 ELECTION RETURNS WERE TAMPERED OR MANUFACTURED AND
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CANVASS BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES/INITIALS OF
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE DO NOT APPEAR AFTER THE LAST
TALLY OF THE VOTES FOR EACH CANDIDATE CONSIDERING THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION THE
REMEDY UNDER SECTION 172 OF THE ELECTION CODE OF 1978 IS TO SUMMON THE MEMBERS
OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE TO CORRECT SUCH OMISSION IN FORM OR DATA AND
NOT TO ANNUL THE ELECTION RETURNS AND DISENFRANCHISE THE VOTERS THEREAT.

C

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CON­SIDERATIONS
WHEN IT RULED THAT 20 OTHER
ELECTION RETURNS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CANVASS ON THE GROUND THAT THESE 20
RETURNS WERE PREPARED THRU CRIMINAL COLLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS
ELECTION COMMITTEE THRU THE INTERVENTION AND/OR DICTATION OF ARMED MEN OF
PETITIONER HEREIN WITHOUT STATING WHICH AMONG THE 20 WERE PREPARED VOLUNTARILY
THRU CRIMINAL COLLUSION OR INVOLUNTARILY THRU DICTATION OF ARMED MEN.

D

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CONSI­DERATIONS
WHEN IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED AND REPORTED TO IT THRU
VARIOUS SELF-SERVING TELEGRAMS AND LETTERS BY THE LEADERS OF RESPONDENT HEREIN, BEFORE AND
DURING THE ELECTIONS AS AGAINST THE FINDINGS, AFTER INVESTIGATION, MADE BY THE
CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, MAJOR GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS CONCURRED BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINTS OF RESPONDENT
HEREIN AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
ASSEMBLYMAN ANGEL CONCEPCION, WERE COMPLETELY BASELESS, FALSE, EXAGGERATED,
UNCORROBORATED, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED AND INTENDED MERELY AS A FACE-SAVING DEVICE
TO RATIONALIZE THEIR (RESPONDENT’S) POLITICAL SURVIVAL IN NUEVA ECIJA IN THE
WAKE OF THEIR RESOUNDING DEFEAT.

E

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY, IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW, AND
OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CONSI­DERATIONS WHEN IT RELIED ON THE AFFIDAVITS OF PAID
KBL WATCHERS AND SYMPATHIZERS THAT THERE WERE MASSIVE VOTE-BUYING, FLYING
VOTERS, TERRORISM AND OTHER ELECTION IRREGULARITIES AS AGAINST THE AFFIDAVITS
AND SWORN STATE­MENTS OF ALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO SERVED AS MEMBERS
OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE IN ALL THE 40 VOTING CENTERS WHOSE 40 ELECTION
RETURNS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE COMELEC. 
EVEN GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MASSIVE VOTE-BUYING,
FLYING VOTERS, TERRORISM AND OTHER IRREGULARITIES, THESE ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR
ANNULMENT OF ELECTION RETURNS BUT GROUNDS FOR AN ELECTION PROTEST” (pp.
15-17, Petition).

The main issue raised by
petitioner before US in this petition for certiorari is whether or not
respondent COMELEC has acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the
exclusion from the canvass of the forty (40) election returns from the forty
(40) voting centers contested by private respondent herein.

I

The resolution of the respondent
COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 shows the following pertinent facts:

“xxx   xxx       xxx       xxx.

“For the purpose of affording the parties concerned,
particularly petitioner Perez and the opposing candidate Leonor
Garcia, the opportunity to further ventilate their respective contentions
before the Commission, and to enable it to physically examine the 40 questioned
election returns, the appeal was set for hearing on March 11, 1980 with notice
to all the parties and/or their respective lawyers.

“At the hearing on March 11 both parties assisted by their
respective lawyers presented oral arguments, dispensed with the presentation of
testimonial evidence, and agreed to submit the case after filing their
respective memoranda; and their memoranda are now attached to the records of
the case;

“The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the City
Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City has erred in
including in its canvass all the forty (40) contested election returns
pertaining to forty (40) voting centers of nine (9) barangays
of Cabanatuan City.

“xxx   xxx       xxx       xxx.

“The City Board of Canvassers has ruled in favor of including
the 40 contested election returns on
the principal ground that it is
merely a ‘ministerial body’, without any power ‘to go behind the returns’ and
inquire into its integrity and authenticity, citing the case of Sangki v. Comelec, Dec. 26, 1967,
21 SCRA p. 1397; 18 Am. Jur. p. 346
& 29 CJS p. 431.  But this
doctrine no longer prevails.  At present,
the Com­mission on Elections is vested with broad powers and functions under
the 1973 Consti­tution and the 1978 Election Code; it has direct control and
supervision over the board of canvassers (Sec. 164, 1978 Election Code); it has
the exclusive power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct
of elections for the purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest elections,
and to perform such other functions as may be provided by law (Sec. 2/1/ &
/8/, Art. XII /C/,
1973 Constitution; Sec. 185, 1978 Election Code; Sec. 17, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52).

“xxx   xxx       xxx       xx.

“The 40 election returns pertaining to 40 voting centers from
9 barangays in Cabanatuan
City, namely, Aduas, San Juan (ACCFA), Bantug Bulalo, Dimasalang, Fatima, San Isidro, San Jose Norte, San Roque and Supermarket, are sought to be excluded by
petitioner on the following grounds mentioned in his memorandum:  1) massive terrorism, threats and coercion;
2) gun-point preparation of ballots; 3) election returns prepared thru criminal collusion of members of
the Citizens Election Committees; 4) election returns prepared thru
intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Candidate Garcia; 5)
rampant vote buying; 6) flying voters
and manufactured ballots; 7) exclusion and disenfranchisement of duly
registered voters, inclusion of voters not registered by means of collusion C.E.C (Citizens Election Committee) which allowed
voters to vote by identification not under oath; 8) premature closure of polling
places; and 9) forcible exclusion of poll
watchers of the petitioner and
the public.

“Contrary to respondent’s contention, the aforestated
grounds are not ‘new grounds’ for they are mentioned in the numerous affidavits
presented before the Board of Canvassers; and the latter even ruled on their admissibility.

“A close scrutiny of the disputed 40 election returns has
revealed the following:

“1.  By comparative examination and analysis among
and between the handwritings appearing in six (6) election returns which are
grouped into two (2) shows distinct and significant writing characteristics,
hence they are WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

Voting Center Number                           Barangay

5                                  Dimasalang

4                                  ACCFA (San
Juan)

3                                  62

7                                  Aduas

6                                  Aduas

1                                  Supermarket

“2.  Other observations:

Voting Center No.                                  Barangay                                             Findings

4                                  (48) San Josef Norte               Entries written by two different persons

3                                  Bantug Bulalo                                                  -do?

2                                  (48) San Josef Norte                                       -do?

1                                  San Isidro                                No signatures/
initials of all the members

after the entry of
votes for each candidate

1-A                               (2) ACCFA                                                      -do?

1-A                               (2) Aduas                                                        -do?

3                                  48                                                                    -do?

5                                  Dimasalang                                                     -do?

2                                  Aduas                                                              -do?

1                                  Bantug Bulalo                                                  -do?

3                                  2 Aduas                                                           -do?

4                                  2 Aduas                                                           -do-

3                                  Dimasalang                             No
signatures/initials of all the members after

the entry of votes
for each candidate

4                                  48 San Josef                                                   -do?

3                                  62                                                                    -do?

8                                  Aduas                                                              -do?

13                                  2 Aduas                                                           -do-

“As to be noted above, twenty (20) election returns appear to
have been tampered and/or manufactured and should not be included in the
canvass.

“On the grounds that certain election returns were prepared
thru criminal collusion of members of the Citizens Election Committee thru the
intervention and/or dictation of armed men
of Candidate Garcia, there are additional twenty (20) election returns which appear to have been adversely affected thereby, to wit:

“1. From Barangay
Aduas – Voting Centers Nos. 1, 4-A, 5, 7-A, 9, 10
& 15;

“2. From Barangay Bantug
Bulalo – Voting Center No. 2;

“3. From Barangay Dimasalang – Voting
Centers Nos. 1, 2 & 4;

“4. From Barangay Fatima – Voting Centers Nos. 1 &
3;

“5. From Barangay San Isidro
– Voting Center No. 2;

“6.
From Barangay San Josef Norte – Voting
Centers Nos. 1 & 3;

“7. From Barangay
San Roque – Voting Centers Nos. 1, 2 & 3;

“8. From
Barangay San
Juan (ACCFA) – 1.

“Although the foregoing conclusions pointing to certain
traces of irregularities in the election returns specified above could be as they are easily detected by any layman’s eyes, nevertheless, the Commission utilized its own handwriting
experts who confirmed the same findings thereon of the chairman and members of
the Commission.

“xxx               xxx                   xxx” (pp. 51-57,
rec.).

II

It is the stand
of the petitioner that the respondent COMELEC
acted with grave abuse of discretion
in holding that 6 election returns were written by one and the same person and
3 election returns were prepared by 2 different persons, because:

“x x x During
the entire proceedings from the Navarro Board in Cabanatuan
City to the Regalado Board in the office of the Comelec in Manila to the oral arguments and hearing before the Comelec en banc in Manila, no evidence at all
was presented concerning the handwriting experts of the Comelec
making such findings.  These findings
were made by the Comelec only after the parties have
submitted their respective memoranda and the case has
been deemed submitted for resolution. 
When the resolution was being prepared therefore, these findings by the
handwriting experts of the Comelec were sought by the
Comelec to confirm their layman’s finding that six
returns were prepared by one person and three returns were prepared by two
persons.  PETITIONER HEREIN OR HER
UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL WERE NEVER INFORMED NOR FURNISHED
COPY OF THESE ALLEGED FINDINGS.  An
opportunity therefore was not afforded the petitioner herein to refute the
alleged findings of the handwriting
experts of the Comelec.  This is a clear case of
disregard of constitutional due process” (p. 19, rec.).

WE
cannot sustain the stand of the
petitioner.  WE are convinced that the
respondent COMELEC acted within its authority in evaluating the handwritings found
on each of the forty contested election returns and in seeking the confirmation
of the handwriting experts in its conclusion that six (6) election returns were
written by one and the same person and three (3) returns were prepared by two
persons, indicating that the same are manufactured returns.

Likewise, WE are not in accord with the argument of the
petitioner that she was denied due process because she was not afforded the
opportunity “to refute the alleged findings of the handwriting experts of
the Comelec.” Such contention is without
merit.  At the outset, it should be
recalled that at the hearing on March
11, 1980 before the COMELEC, the parties dispensed with the
presentation of testimonial evidence, and merely prepared oral arguments and
submitted the case for decision after filing their respective memoranda.  Petitioner therefore waived further
presentation of evidence.

It should also be
emphasized that the findings of the COMELEC
that six (6) of the excluded election returns were written by one and the same person and
three (3) other returns were prepared by two different persons, indicating that said returns are manufactured, were not solely on the findings of the handwriting experts of the COMELEC.  The findings of
the handwriting experts vis-a-vis the nine (9)
election returns merely served to confirm what the COMELEC has found after
it conducted “a close scrutiny of the disputed 40 election returns.”
Thus, as
stated by the respondent COMELEC:

“Although the foregoing conclusions pointing to certain traces
of irregularities in the election returns specified above could be as they are easily detected by any
layman’s eyes, nevertheless the
Commission utilized its own handwriting
experts who confirmed the same findings thereon of the chairman and members
of the Commission” (p. 57, rec.).

It is clear therefore from the aforestated
findings of the respondent COMELEC that there was absolutely to necessity on the part of the
petitioner to refute any further
the findings of the handwriting experts as the COMELEC had already made a prior
conclusion based on evidence
independent of the findings of the handwriting experts.  Moreover, any further proceedings touching on
the findings of the handwriting experts of the COMELEC would only serve to
delay the disposition
of the case and would
not, in any way, alter the findings of the
Commission after it had closely scrutinized the contested election
returns.  Thus, in the case of Aratuc vs. Com­mission on
Elections (88 SCRA 251, 281), WE affirmed the authority of the COMELEC to
decide on contested election returns even without the aid of experts, using
only “common sense and perception”.

Petitioner further argues that “the six (6) voting centers
whose returns were allegedly written by one
and the same person are
geographically located in different barangays each between one to three kilometers
away from the other”.  It is the
stand of the petitioner that it was impossible for a man to prepare the
election returns in the six voting centers; she contends that “this feat is contrary to natural law
and would require superhuman
capacity.”

But, as pointed out by
petitioner herself, only 1 to 3 kilometers separated the six (6) voting centers.  Under
such a given situation, it would still be physically possible for a person to
go from one voting center to another and perform his assigned task with ease, con­sidering that in any election, means of transportation are always
readily made available by the candidates to their leaders and followers for any
political activity.  As aptly pointed out
by the Solicitor General:

“x x x.  Since motorized transporta­tion was
admittedly existing in the city of Cabanatuan, the
distances mentioned were not insurmountable.  As for the amount of work involved in
preparing the returns, there is nothing in the record nor on the faces of the
returns to show that the individual responsible for it was under any definite
time constraints to carry out his task.”

Moreover, judging from the tension obtaining – as the records will bear out – before, during
and after the election in Cabanatuan City, which was
apparently generated by the intense rivalry between the two con­tending
political protagonists, this Court cannot close 
Its eyes to the possibility that the election returns contested by
herein private respondent could have been prepared before election day, or even
on election day and distributed among the different voting
centers with the connivance of the members of the Citizens Election Committee,
if they were not terrorized.

III

Petitioner likewise assailed the respondent COMELEC’s
order to exclude fourteen (14) other election returns which did not bear the
signatures or initials of the members
of the Citizens Election Committees after the entry of votes for each candidate. 
Petitioner advanced the argument that under such circumstances, the
respondent COMELEC should have summoned the members of the committees and directed them to supply the
omitted signatures or initials pursuant to Section 172 of the Election Code of
1978.

Said Section 172 provides that: 
“If it should clearly appear that some requisites of form or data
had been omitted in the election returns, the board shall return them by the
most expeditious means, to the corresponding election committee for correction.  x x“

It is patent that Section 172 imposes such a duty on the board of
canvassers, not on the COMELEC.  When the law imposes a duty or confers a power on the
COMELEC, it expressly mentions
the COMELEC by name.  Typical examples
are Sections 171, 173, 174 and 175.

Moreover,
the correction of the omission of the signatures
or initials of the members of the citizens election committee after the entry of votes for the candidates, could not be among the requisites inform or data that could be corrected under Section
172; because Section 156 requires that the signatures of all the members of the
citizens election committee shall “be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last vote recorded,
or immediately after the name of the candidate who did not receive any
vote” in the voting center itself soon after the counting of all the votes.  Such
signatures shall close the entry of votes for each candidate.  Obviously therefore, the correction of the election returns by the election committee pursuant to Section 172 can only be made when the said election returns are returned by the board of canvassers to such election committee for such correction long after all the votes have been counted and long after the entry of the votes counted for each candidate.

Evidently, the omission of the signatures or initials of the members of the citizens election committees in the 14 election returns raises
serious doubts as to the authenticity and genuineness of said returns.  To
OUR mind, such omissions “stamp the election returns with the indelible
mark of falsity and irregularity, and,
conse­quently, of unreliability, and justify their exclusion from the canvass”
(Usman vs. Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 686).  WE are therefore of the considered view that
the respondent COMELEC was well within its authority in excluding the aforestated returns upon its findings that the same “appear to have been tampered and/or manufactured.”

IV

Herein petitioner further
assigns as error the COMELEC’s appreciation of events
which occurred before and during the election and which were reported through
the various telegrams (pp. 57-58, rec.) sent to the COMELEC by concerned
citizens of Cabanatuan
City.  Peti­tioner belied the reported election
irregularities contained in the various telegrams – among which was the
involvement of the local PC command in the conduct of the election in Cabanatuan
City – by relying on the investi­gation
report (pp. 278-279, rec.) submitted by Brigadier General Vicente E.
Eduardo, Regional Commander, PC/INP RECOM 3, to the PC Chief,
Major
Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, denying the
involvement of the constabulary in partisan politics in Cabanatuan City.

However, the
investigation report of Brig. Gen. Vicente E. Eduardo relied upon by herein petitioner,
was obviously tainted with bias, hence, unreliable, considering that his son was a candidate in one of the
towns of Nueva Ecija and,
understandably, any adverse report from him relative to the conduct of election
in his area of respon­sibility would be prejudicial to, if not a black mark on,
his record and performance as PC/INP Regional Commander.

Petitioner likewise
assailed as error when the COMELEC accorded more weight to the affidavits of
witnesses adduced by private respondent Perez as against the affidavits and
sworn statements of the public school teachers who served as members of the
citizens election committees in the con­tested voting centers.  This issue, as raised by herein petitioner,
was squarely met by the COMELEC when it noted that:

“xxx   xxx       xxx.

“To contradict the affidavits presented on behalf of
petitioner the respondents have likewise adduced affidavits of the teachers who
were members of the Citizens Election Committees in the voting centers in
controversy.  It was noted that most of
their affidavits are verbatim copies of one another, hence, of doubtful
credibility.  Besides, as against the
sworn statements of petitioner’s affiants constituting direct and positive evidence, those of respondent’s
were general denials and thus partake of the nature of negative evidence; and
as between positive and negative evidence, the well-established rule affords
greater weight and credence to the former (Francisco, The Revised Rules of
Court, Vol. VII, 1973 ed. pp. 4-5).

“As pointed out, correctly, by peti­tioner, teachers Lucita Apolonio and Lydia Domingo
have categorically admitted they were forced to sign their affidavits (Exh. AA); and also, the members of the Citizens Election
Committees who executed affidavits contrary to those submitted by petitioner
were ‘hostile and ill-motivated’ for they have been charged by petitioner of
‘rampant violation of the election code and other election irregularities
before the Commission on Elections’ (Exh. U).

“Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the numerous election
irregularities adversely affecting the genuineness and authenticity of the
questioned election returns could have been effected without the knowledge and
consent or collusion of the members of the Citizens Election Committees
concerned; and for which reason, the charges filed against them should be
investigated.  So that respondent’s argument sustained by the City
Board of Canvassers regarding the presumption that official duty was performed,
has been strongly and adequately controverted
by the totality of the facts and circumstances borne out by the
evidence on record in the case at bar” (pp. 69-70, rec.).

V

WE have paintstakingly examined the affidavits submitted by both
parties which are now part of the records in the case at bar and WE are
satisfied that the COMELEC was indeed justified in according more credence to
the affidavits of the witnesses of private respondent Perez over that of the
opposing affidavits of the members of the Citizens Election Committees concerned.

It
is clear to US that the
affidavits submitted by respondent Perez are more consistent with the evidence
of fraud and other election irregularities found by the COMELEC on the face of
the election returns in controversy.  The
affidavits submitted by herein private respondent showed specific allegations
of terrorism, vote-buying, use of flying voters, non-counting of KBL votes in
favor of the KBL candidates, use of force and intimidation by the followers of
petitioner Garcia in the counting of ballots and in the preparation of the
election returns.  In contrast, the
affidavits and sworn statements of petitioner’s witnesses were surprisingly
identical or similar and consisted mainly of general denials, hence,
cannot be accorded greater weight and credence. 
Moreover, two members of the Citizens Election Committee, both public school teachers, subsequently revealed that they were coerced into signing the
affidavits for the petitioner.

Apart from the foregoing,
as deserving of serious consideration are the reports (which will be
quoted later) of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, head
of the Comelec Special Action Team (COMSAT) in Cabanatuan City, and Major Rogelio S. De Joya, Station Commander INP, Cabanatuan
City, which confirmed the wholesale violations of the Election Code on
prohibited acts, such as terrorism, vote-buying and other election
irregularities by the men and followers of herein petitioner.  The same reports also deplored the apparent
lack of cooperation on the part of the military to follow the directives of the
Special Action Team in the disposition of troops in critical areas in Cabanatuan City where armed men were reportedly
sighted.  The reports likewise mentioned
the adamant refusal of the City Board of Canvassers, headed by Wilfredo Navarro, to stop the proclamation of candidate
Garcia in spite of the telegram sent by Chairman Leonardo B. Perez ordering
said board to suspend the proclamation (pp. 64-68, rec.).

Appropriate it is to say
at this juncture that, in the case at bar, the petitioner failed to show patent
and grave abuse by respondent COMELEC of its authority to exclude from the
canvass election returns which are, on their faces, obviously tampered with
and/or manufactured.  In upholding this
authority, WE have had the occasion to say that:

“The broad power of the Comelec,
conferred upon it by the Constitution, to enforce and administer ‘all laws
relative to the conduct of elections’ and to decide all administrative
questions affecting elections ‘for the purpose of insuring
free, orderly and honest
elections’, has been the key in the resolution of many pre-proclamation
controversies involving the integrity and authenticity of election returns.  Invoking the aforestated
power of the Comelec, we justified the action
and upheld the authority of the Comelec to order the
exclusion of ‘obviously manufactured‘ returns (Lagumbay
vs. Climaco and Comelec, 16
SCRA 175), or tampered returns (Cauton vs. Comelec and Sanidad, 19 SCRA
911), or returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances
affecting the returns’ integrity and authenticity (Pacis
vs. Comelec, 25 SCRA 377; Antonio Jr. vs. Comelec, et al., 32 SCRA 319), emphasizing the duty of
the Comelec to see to the use and inclusion in the
canvass of only genuine and regular election returns for determining the
true result of the election.

“xxx   xxx       xxx.

“In the performance of its duty to guard against the
use and inclusion of returns prepared under circumstances showing their falsity
in the canvass of election returns, the Comelec
should not be hampered in the choice of effective means and methods to fully
ascertain the genuineness and regularity of disputed election returns.  To establish the indubitable existence of any such circumstances –
necessarily not evident
from an examination of the election returns themselves – demands recourse to
proof independent of the election returns or to evidence aliunde” (Usman vs.
Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA, 667, 686-687, underscoring supplied).

And as far back as Cauton vs. Commission on Elections (19 SCRA 911, 921-922),
this Court, speaking through the late Justice Zaldivar,
stressed that:

“x
x x x.  The purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of
popular government.  The Commission on
Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in its power to secure
a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections.  In the performance of its duties, the
Commission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods
that will insure the accomplish­ment of the great objective for which it was
created – to promote free, orderly, and honest elections.  The choice of means taken by the
Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute
grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with.  x x x” (underlining supplied).

And lately, in Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections, supra, this
Court finally stated that:

“x x x.  We might
disagree with the Comelec as to which voting center
should be excluded or included, were We to go over the same records Our­selves,
but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out,
considering that Comelec cannot be said to have acted
whimsically or capriciously or without any rational basis, parti­cularly if
it is considered that in many respects and from the very nature of our
respective functions, becoming candor would dictate to Us to concede that
the Commission is in a better position to appreciate and assess the vital
circumstances closely and accurately x x x ” (88 SCRA 251, 281, underscoring supplied).

Finally, in resolving the
main issue raised by the petitioner herein, the respondent COMELEC correctly
took into account the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining before,
during and after the elections in Cabanatuan City,
all “pointing to the unworthiness for inclusion in the canvass of the
questioned election returns.” The COMELEC cited the following noteworthy
events and circumstances:

“As early as January 19, 1980, petitioner as Acting Mayor of Cabanatuan expressed in writing his serious concern and
apprehension regarding the presence of armed men outside and inside the compound of Ex-Mayor Mario S. Garcia, husband
of respondent Leonor A. Garcia, ‘some of whom are reportedly men wanted by the law who are given sanctuary in his premises’ and to preserve peace and order in Cabanatuan
City he (petitioner) requested the Provincial Commander, thru the Station
Commander, to take immediate steps
‘to determine who these armed men and
under what authority of law they carry firearms’ (Exh. A).

“On January 30, 1980, several telegrams were sent to and
received by the Chairman of the Comelec, as follows:

‘INFORMING YOU OF TUMULTOUS CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS CHARACTERIZED
BY RAMPANT VOTE BUYING CMA PROLIFERATION OF FLYING VOTERS CMA TERRORISM AND OPEN HARASSMENT OF ELECTORS AND PARTY
WARD LEADERS LEADING TO HIGH PERCENTAGE
OF VOTERS UNABLE TO VOTE STOP COMELEC CONTROL THIS CITY NEVER FULLY IMPLEMENTED
DUE TO REFUSAL OF LOCAL MILITARY COMMAND TO COOPERATE WITH SPECIAL COMELEC
TASK FORCE LED BY COLONEL SAMALA STOP
WIDESPREAD FEAR THAT CONTINUING TREND OF DIRTY POLITICS (WOULD LEAD TO CHAOS
CMA VIOLENCE CMA AND THE OVERALL THWARTING OF THE PEOPLES WILL STOP THE NUEVA
ECIJA PRESS AND RADIO CLUB URGENTLY
REQUEST THAT IF SITUATIONS COULD NOT BE CHECKED, CMA CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS
BE SUSPENDED LEST LOCAL SITUATION DETERIORATES COMPLETELY.

PETE
SALAZAR

NEPRC PRESIDENT (Exh. B)’

‘MAPITAGANG IPINAGBIBIGAY ALAM SA INYO ANG MASAMANG PANGYAYARI SA ELEKSIYONG ITO SA AKING BARANGAY DIMASALANG
LUNGSOD NG KABANATUAN HINTO KALAT ANG BILIHAN NG BOTO AT PANANAKOT NG MGA
ARMADONG LALAKI KUNG KAYA’T MARAMING TAO ANG HINDI MAKABOTO HINTO NAKIKIUSAP
KAMI NA ULITIN ANG ELEKSIYON UPANG MALAMAN KUNG SINONG MGA TAO ANG TALAGANG
GUSTO NG BAYAN
HINTO

JOSE
JAVIER

KAPITAN BARANGAY
DIMASALANG

(Exh.
B-1)’

‘MORE THAN SIXTY BARANGAY CAPTAINS IN CABANATUAN CITY APALLED AT
OPEN MOCKERY OF CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS CHARACTERIZED BY WHOLESALE ANOMALIES AND
TERRORISM COMMITTED BY LOCAL OPPOSITION PARTY LAPIANG PAGKAKAISA NG BAYAN IN COOPERATION WITH GOVERNOR
JOSON AND WITH OBVIOUS TOLERATION OF LOCAL MILITARY UNITS IN DEFIANCE OF
COMELEC CONTROL WITH SPECIAL COMELEC TASK
FORCE UNDER COLONEL SAMALA WHICH COMELEC SPECIAL TASK FORCE WAS NOT ABLE
TO FULLY IMPLEMENT STOP RAMPANT VOTE BUYING AND OPEN HARASSMENT OF LOCAL
ELECTORATE CMA WARD LEADERS CMA AND EVEN PRECINCT ELECTION BOARD VIRTUALLY
NEGATE ELECTION SAFEGUARDS STOP WIDESPREAD PANIC AND FEAR OF PRESENT AND POST
ELECTION VIOLENCE GRIPPING LOCAL CITIZENRY SPECIALLY IN THE BARANGAYS STOP
RESPECTFULLY URGE STEPS BE TAKEN TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION OR SUSPEND ELECTIONS
TO PREVENT INJUSTICE AND DISREGARD OF POPULAR WILL STOP

FRANCISCO
REYES

ABC PRESIDENT

(Exh.
B-2)’

‘VIGOROUSLY PROTESTING AGAINST RAMPANT VIOLATION OF ELECTION LAWS
IN CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS INCLUDING WHOLESALE ANOMALIES CMA VOTE BUYING CMA WIDESPREAD TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION OF
GOONS AND GUNS STOP COMELEC TASK FORCE LED BY COL SAMALA UNABLE TO FULLY
IMPLEMENT COMELEC CONTROL OF CITY DUE TO RECALCITRANCE OF LOCAL MILITARY UNITS
WHO TOGETHER WITH NUEVA ECIJA GOVERNOR EDUARDO JOSON WHO SUPPLIES LOGISTICS FOR
MAKING THIS ELECTION A VIRTUAL MOCKERY OF SUFFRAGE STOP URGENTLY IMPLORE YOU TO
TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO CORRECT SITUATION OR SUSPEND ELECTION TO PREVENT
COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF PEACE AND ORDER THIS CITY STOP

RICARDO AGAPITO

KBL CAMPAIGN MANAGER

(Exh. B-3)’ /pp. 57-59, rec./.

“xxx   xxx       xxx.

“In a report dated February 2, 1980 to the Chairman, Comelec, Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala,
member of the COMSAT No. 9, states:

‘1.   Pursuant to COMELEC office order dated
January 28, 1980, COMELEC SPECIAL ACTION TEAM NO. 9 for Nueva
Ecija and Cabanatuan City,
composing of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, Atty. Benigno Lapitan and Atty. Jose Balbuena, effected the placement of the police force of Cabanatuan City under COMELEC control and supervision on January 29, 1980.

‘2.   Invoking the provisions of COMELEC Resolution
No. 1430, COMSAT No. 9 requested the Commanding General, First Tabak Division of the
Philippine Army to immediately organize at least three (3) com­panies of
Special Forces, with radio and other necessary equipment to constitute
the strike force which will be utilized
to help police the elections at the disposal and deployment of COMSAT No. 9.

‘3.   Lateral and direct coordina­tions
were made by the COMSAT with the military and police authorities in Fort Magsaysay and Cabanatuan City
that henceforth, the police force of Cabanatuan City, except for the routine and ordinary
duties, should not perform any other duties or assignments unless so directed
by the COMSAT.

‘4.   In accordance with the arrangements made,
thirty (30) PA troops were dispatched from Fort Magsaysay
for detail in Cabanatuan the night of January 29,
1980 upon request of the KBL on grounds of alleged terrorism and vote
buying.  Mayor Perez, KBL candidate for
Mayor however subsequently complained that none of the troops actually arrived.

‘5.   About 200 men from First Tabak
Division and Special Warfare Brigade were made available to the COMSAT.  They came to Cabanatuan
at about 2:00 P.M. after they have voted in camp.  These troops were distributed to the different towns and barangays upon request of those concerned.  Surprisingly enough, however, is the fact
that in Cabanatuan City only KBL has requested for
the detail of troops to various barangays in the city
and more surprisingly was the continuous complaint of people that none of the
soldiers detailed by COMSAT No. 9 by means of orders to the Provincial
Commander was ever seen in the places designated.  Yet, everytime
inquiries were made to verify the complaint, the office of the Provincial
Commander gave the assurance that the troops were dispatched strictly in
accordance with the COMSAT written directives. 
COMSAT was bombarded with complaints from Mayor Perez, Assemblyman Angel
Concepcion and KBL leaders that none of our
directives for the disposition of troops in Cabanatuan
City was ever implemented up to the early morning of January 31.  This was one of the reasons terrorism,
vote buying and other election irregularities were allegedly perpetrated by the
opposition candidates publicly known to be supported by Governor Joson of Nueva Ecija.

‘6.   On January 31, at about noon time, Mayor Honorato Perez showed to to the
COMSAT members the telegram order of Chairman Leonardo B. Perez to the City
Election Registrar to suspend the canvassing of election returns, COMSAT
immediately prepared a written communication to Atty. Wilfredo
Navarro quoting the text of the telegram and instructing him to comply
therewith.  However, subsequent check
made by Lt. Col. Samala and Atty. Balbuena
at City Hall showed that the City Board
of Canvassers had no intention to comply with the above-mentioned telegram
order as the Board of Can­vassers has decided to proceed with the canvass.  In the presence of Atty. Navarro, ex-Mayor
Garcia, husband of opposition candidate for Mayor Leonor
Garcia, and his ward leaders, all in belligerent and intimidating attitude said
that the Board of Can­vassers will not comply with the order for three reasons,
namely:  that they have not seen the
original document; that the grounds cited in the order are not the grounds
provided for by law for the suspension of the can­vassing of election returns;
and they doubt the authenticity of the signature of Chairman Perez.  They were vehemently opposing the order
inasmuch as they have already sacrificed a lot, exerted efforts, spent their
resources and would not allow the suspension of the canvassing of election
returns even if it should mean the shedding of blood.  It was very noticeable that the city hall
where the canvass was being held were surrounded by heavily armed men, some in
uniform and some look like civilians.

‘7.   Immediately Lt. Col. Samala
and Atty. Balbuena went to the Bureau of
Telecommunications and placed a person to person long distance tele­phone call
to Chairman Perez.  When informed of the development and incident
above-mentioned, the Chairman instructed Lt. Col. Samala
to inform the members of the City Board of Can­vassers that they will be held
in contempt and declare all proceedings null and void should they disobey the
order to stop the canvass of election returns. 
Consonantly, a written memorandum to the board was (illegible) sent by
COMSAT.  This notwithstanding, the City
Board of Canvassers proceeded not only with the canvassing but also with the
proclamation of Mrs. Leonor Garcia, the opposition
candidate, as the elected mayor of Cabanatuan City, her
running mate Romeo Ortiz as vice-mayor,
and the eight candidates of the KBL for councilors as councilors?elect”
(pp. 64-66, rec.).

After Election Report of
Major Rogelio S. de Joya, Station Commander INP, Cabanatuan City, dated February 12, 1980, states:

“xxx   xxx       xxx.

“c.  Assessment. – the post election situation in
the city of Cabanatuan is quite tense.  Unofficial reports of the 30 January 1980
election broadcast over the radio showed that the mayoral candidate of the Lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan were leading.  All the Sangguniang
Panglungsod candidates of the KBL were likewise
leading.  In the early morning of 31
January 1980, the City Hall was completely swamp(ed) with military personnel
both from the Nueva Ecija
PC/INP and the Special forces of the Army Brigade in Fort Magsaysay.  The canvassing of votes was being under­taken
when Chairman Leonardo Perez of the Comelec issued an
order to stop the same upon petition of Mayor Honorato
C. Perez on various grounds but in spite of that order the City Board of
Canvassers composed of the Comelec registrar of Cabanatuan City Atty.
Wilfredo Navarro as Chairman and City Fiscal Benjamin
Cabie and City Superintendent of School Mrs. Sabina
J. Ferrer as members proceeded with the canvassing of
votes and proclaimed the following as winners in the 30 January 1980 elections;

“For City Mayor . . . . . Dra. Leonor A. Garcia LPB

 For Vice Mayor . . . . . Dr.
Romeo Ortiz LPB

For Councilors

Charito E. Fabros                   – KBL

Fred Tan                                 –
KBL

Augusto de Guzman               – KBL

Renan Morfe                           – KBL

Dr. Rodolfo Reyes                  –
KBL

Ruperto Franco                       – KBL

Francisco Reyes                    –
KBL

Juanito Ballesteros                 – KBL

Votes garnered by each of the above can­didates
is not available.  On 3 February 80, the Comelec in Manila issued an order declaring that the
proclamation of can­didates made by the Board of Canvassers on 1 February 1980
was illegal, unlawful and therefore considered null and void.  Atty. Wilfredo
Navarro was quoted in saying that during the entire canvassing of votes he was
under duress and extreme physical pressure caused by the presence of military
and civilian both armed with long firearms. 
From the period January 31 up to 9 February 1980, the city hall was
guarded by the special forces of the Army Brigade.  During that period rumors/gossips circulated
in the city that the city hall will be burned and the city market will be the
object of arsonist.  This created tension
and fear among the city populace. 
Leaflets were distributed in the city public market by unidentified
person inciting people to revolt in the event that the proclaimed winners in
the city election cannot assume office.  Barangay captain of Daan Sarile, Obrero, D.S. Garcia and
others complained to the mayor and same was relayed to the Station Commander
that armed men can be seen in the immediate vicinity of their house with the
end in view of threatening them.  These
people are afraid to give state­ment in spite of the fact that some of them
were identified.

“d.  Incident that happened during election day.  – Cabanatuan City
Police Station was placed under Comelec control and
that order was relayed by Lt. Col. Samala, head of
the Comelec COMSAT 9. 
I was informed that contingent of special forces of Army Brigade will be
assigned in Cabanatuan City Police under my
operational control for possible assignment/deployment in the critical barangays of this city. 
When election day came in spite of several follow up made both by Mayor
Perez and the under­signed Station Commander, no augmentation troop came. Repeated
calls from Mayor Perez, candidate for Mayor of the KBL, requesting the
deployment of troops in the following barangays
pursuant to the request of Barangay Captains who
feared armed men visiting the following places to wit:  Bakod Bayan, Samon, Pamaldan,
etc. but no troops were given to me for assignment in said places so I was
forced to dispatch a handful of my men only in a few places reported by Mayor
Perez as I don’t have enough men.  At one
time Mayor Perez reported the presence of armed men in Barangay
Bagong Sikat, San Josef
Norte, Lagare, Crisostomo
and Mabini and when operatives of this Station
responded they gave chase to an owner jeep bearing plate number J-845 loaded
with armed men but to no avail.  However,
one of the occupants of said jeep was identified as Feling
Samonte resident of Aduas, Cabanatuan City. 
Unidentified person/passenger of said jeep threw the firearm they were
carrying near the East Central School and said firearm was brought to this
Headquarters.  This case is still under
investigation and same was reported to that Headquarters but up to this time
the failure of the PA contingent to reach their assigned Barangays
despite order from the Com­mission on Election Action Team remains a
mystery.  No killing has been committed during the entire period but Mayor
Perez reported massive terrorism and
vote buying in several Barangays.

“xxx   xxx       xxx” (pp. 66-68, rec.).

WE agree with the COMELEC
that the totality of the facts and circumstances as borne out by the evidence
on record has sufficiently overcome the prima facie value of the
contested election returns in Cabanatuan City.

The remaining issue
raised by the petitioner relates to her allegations that if there were massive
vote-buying, flying voters, terrorism and other election irregularities during
the elections, these are not grounds for annulment of the election returns but
grounds for an election protest.  This
contention is untenable.  In the early case
of Lagumbay vs. Climaco and
Comelec, supra, this Court upheld the
authority of the COMELEC to order the exclusion of “obviously
manufactured” returns, or tampered returns as held in Cauton
vs. Comelec and Sanidad, supra,
or returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances affecting
the returns’ integrity and authenticity, as held in Pacis
vs. Comelec and Antonio vs. Comelec,
et al. cases, supra.

Furthermore, Section 175
of the Election Code of 1978, in no uncertain language, states:

“The Commission shall be the sole judge of all
pre-proclamation contro­versies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings
shall be final and executory:  It may, motu
proprio or upon written petition, and after
due notice and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a
candidate-elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been made, on any of the
grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173 and 174 hereof.”

Finally, the COMELEC’S
broad power under the present Constitution has gained judicial
recognition.  The rationale is aptly
stated by Chief Justice Fernando in the recent case of Villegas vs. Commission
on Elections, et al. (G.R. No. L-52463, September 4, 1980):

“A
novel provision in the present constitution is that empowering the
Commission on Elections to be ‘the sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the National Assembly
and elective provincial and city officials.’ Thus, its competence is greater
than that formerly found in the 1935 constitution which is limited to the
‘enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
election.’ x x x.  Its authority to decide pre-proclamation
controversies is still one of its functions.” Consequently, the herein
petition must fail.

G. R. No. 54277

The instant certiorari
proceedings seeks to review the resolution of the COMELEC dated June 18, 1980
in Election Protest Case No. 80-92 entitled “Leonor
A. Garcia versus Honorato C. Perez, Sr.” and the
order of the COMELEC dated July 10, 1980, denying the motion for
reconsideration filed on July 2, 1980 by the herein petitioner.

The antecedent facts of
the case are as follows:

On March 27, 1980, the
COMELEC, in Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44 entitled “In Re:  Petition for Nullification and/or Exclusion
of Election Returns, etc., Honorato C. Perez, Sr.,
Petitioner”, promulgated a resolution, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the
Commission is of the considered opinion
and so holds as follows:

“1.  To grant the instant appeal of herein petitioner
and the City Board of Canvassers is hereby ordered to exclude from the canvass
the forty (40) questioned election returns;

“2.  To order the City Board of Canvassers to
proclaim immediately the winning candidates based on the result of the recanvass after excluding the election returns as mentioned
and specified in paragraph No. 1 hereof;

“3.  This resolution is without prejudice to the
right of any of the parties to file an election protest within the period of
ten (10) days from the proclamation to be made as herein provided, and other
criminal charges as they may deem proper and necessary” (Annex
“B”, p. 51, rec.).

Consequently, on March 27, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City proclaimed the herein petitioner Perez as
mayor-elect of Cabanatuan City (Annex “C”,
p. 52, rec.).

On March 31, 1980, herein private respondent Garcia filed a
motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 28, 1980 (Annex “D”, pp. 53-79,
rec.).

On April 16, 1980, the respondent COMELEC issued a resolution
denying the motion for reconsi­deration filed by private respondent (Annex
“E”, p. 80, rec.).

On April 7, 1980, herein private respondent Garcia filed with the
COMELEC an election protest ex abundante ad cautelam entitled “Leonor A. Garcia versus Honorato
C. Perez, Sr.”, and docketed as Election Protest Case No. 80-92 (Annex
“F”, pp. 81-87, rec.).

On April 19, 1980, the
herein petitioner Perez filed before the COMELEC his answer with special and affirmative defenses and counter protest
(Annex “G”, pp. 88-95, rec.).

In a separate motion likewise filed on April 19, 1980, herein
petitioner prayed that his special and affirmative defenses be considered as
valid grounds for dismissal of the election protest ex abundante ad cautelam filed by private respondent (Annex
“H”, pp. 97-98, rec.).

On May 7, 1980, private
respondent filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari
entitled “Leonor A. Garcia versus The Honorable
Commission on Elections, et al.” docketed as G.R. No. 53793, seeking to
set aside the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 and
the minute resolution dated April 16, 1980.

Likewise, on May 7, 1980, private respondent filed her opposition
to petitioner’s motion dated April 18, 1980, alleging that the election protest
case was filed ex abundante ad cautelam and therefore, all actions and
proceedings should be held in abeyance (Annex “I”, pp. 99-107, rec.).

On April 25, 1980, respondent COMELEC conducted a preliminary hearing
on the special and affirmative defenses during which the parties herein argued
and later submitted said incident for resolution.

On May 15, 1980, a resolution was issued by the respondent
COMELEC, the dispositive portion of which is quoted
as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing facts and
circumstances, the Commission has RESOLVED TO DISMISS the instant election
protest dated and filed on April 7, 1980; to reiterate and confirm the
proclamation of protestee HONORATO C. PEREZ, Sr. as
the duly elected City Mayor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija; and consequently, to
dismiss the counter-protest and protestant Garcia’s claim for damages”
(Annex “J”, pp. 108-117, rec.).

On June 5, 1980, private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated May 15, 1980 (Annex
“K”, pp. 118-132, rec.).

On June 17, 1980, herein
petitioner filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration dated June 5,
1980 (Annex “L”, pp. 133-145, rec.).

On June 18, 1980,
respondent COMELEC issued a resolution, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“1.  To grant the motion for reconsi­deration dated
and filed on June 5, 1980 by protestant Leonor A.
Garcia on the specific ground aforementioned, hereby ordering the reinstatement
of the instant election protest case filed ex abundante ad cautelam;

“2.  To defer action on the instant election
protest ex abundante ad cautelam until after Pre?Proclamation Case No. 44 is finally resolved
and terminated; and

“3.  To order the reinstatement of the counter-protest
of protestee Honorato C.
Perez, Sr., but likewise holding in abeyance any further action thereon”
(Annex “A”, pp. 23-24, rec.).

On July 2, 1980,
petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration dated July 1, 1980 (Annex
“M”, pp. 146-149, rec.).

Subsequently, on July 10,
1980, the COMELEC issued an order denying the motion for partial
reconsideration for being “unmeritorious” and further stating that
“no further motion for reconsi­deration from either party shall be
entertained as the final decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 53793 is
being awaited” (Annex “A-1”, p. 25, rec.).

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner raised the
following

“GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT
REVERSED ITS OWN PREVIOUS RESOLUTION THAT ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92 IS A
MERE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS RESOLUTION ORDERING THE EXCLUSION OF 40
ELECTION RETURNS FROM THE CANVASS OF VOTES AND A DUPLICATION OF THE PRE?PROCLAMATION CASE NO. 44 WHICH IS NOW ON CERTIORARI
WITH THE HONORABLE  SUPREME
COURT.

II

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT HELD
THAT IT IS PREMATURE TO DISMISS ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92 IN THE SENSE
THAT IT IS MERELY A PETITION OF PROTEST EX ABUNDANTE AD CAUTELAM.

III

“THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT GRANTED
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REINSTATED ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92.

“ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE

PETITION

IV

“THE CONTINUANCE OF THE INSTANT CASE
WILL NOT ALTER THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION IN CABANATUAN CITY.

V

“WHATEVER DECISION THE HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT MAY RENDER IN G.R. NO. 53793 WILL RENDER THE ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO.
80-92 MOOT AND ACADEMIC.”

The only issue raised
is whether or not the COMELEC was correct in reinstating the election protest ex
abundante ad cautelam
filed by herein private respondent Garcia.

In her election protest ex abundante
ad cautelam, private respondent Garcia
seeks the revision, re-appreciation and recounting of all the votes cast in the
forty (40) voting centers whose election returns were ordered excluded by the Commission
in a resolution promulgated on March 27, 1980, not because of any defect or irregularity in the election or any act
committed by the Citizens Election Committee, but because “the votes in
the 40 voting centers were not counted in the over-all total of the results of
the election x x x”
(p. 83, rec.).  This practically is the
same issue raised in and depends on the resolution of G.R. No. 53793, supra.

Like the petition in G.R. No. 53793, the herein petition equally
cannot prosper.

WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONS IN BOTH CASES ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE ELECTORAL PROTEST FILED ON APRIL 7, 1980 BY LEONOR
A. GARCIA AGAINST HONORATO C. PEREZ, SR., AND WITHOUT COSTS.

Barredo, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De
Castro, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., concurs in the
result, with an expression of his views in a separate opinion.

Teehankee, J., dissents in Case G.R. No.53793 and concurs in Case
G.R. No. 54277 in a separate opinion.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.

Melencio-Herrera, J., reserves his vote.