G.R. No. L-22502-03 - JUNE 1964 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-22502-03June 30, 1964 Mauyag Matanog vs. Cristobal Alejandro, et al. G.R. No. L-22088June 30, 1964 Celestino C. Rosca, et al. vs. Federico C. Alikpala, et al. G.R. No. L-20740June 30, 1964 Bolinao Electronics Corp., et al. vs. Brigido Valencia, et al. G.R. No. L-20315June 30, 1964 Chung Quiao vs. Anita Abaday, et al. G.R. No. L-20265June 30, 1964 Simeona Cumplido vs. Presentacion Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-19882June 30, 1964 Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Rufina Diasanta G.R. No. L-19838June 30, 1964 Pedro R. Dizon, et al. vs. Ambrosio T. Dollete, et al. G.R. No. L-19701June 30, 1964 Pastor Acibo, et al. vs. Higinio Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-19441June 30, 1964 Shell Co. of the Phil., Ltd. vs. Insular Petroleum Refining Co., Ltd., et al. G.R. No. L-19374June 30, 1964 Philippine National Bank vs. Jose F. Monroy G.R. No. L-19004June 30, 1964 Richard A. Klepper vs. American President Lines Ltd., et al. G.R. No. L-18979June 30, 1964 In re: Celso Icasiano Celso Icasiano vs. Natividad Icasiano, et al. G.R. No. L-18924June 30, 1964 Marinduque Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Mun. Council of the Mun. of Hinabangan, Samar, et al. G.R. No. L-18862June 30, 1964 Roman Mirasol vs. Manuel R. Yusay, et al. G.R. No. L-18861June 30, 1964 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Lazaro Mangawang, et al. G.R. No. L-18754June 30, 1964 State Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-18559June 30, 1964 Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. G.R. No. L-18307June 30, 1964 Republic of the Philippines vs. Santiago Gancayco G.R. No. L-18225June 30, 1964 Manuel Camus, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17602June 30, 1964 Francisco Evanado, et al. vs. Ramon Blanco, et al. G.R. No. L-17473June 30, 1964 Fernando Gozon vs. Salud Vda. de Barrameda G.R. No. L-17223June 30, 1964 In re: Koh Chet Koh Chet vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16524June 30, 1964 Francisco S. Olizon vs. Central Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16351June 30, 1964 Calapan Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Community Sawmill Company, et al. G.R. No. L-16250June 30, 1964 Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-13638-40June 30, 1964 Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission etc., et al. G.R. No. L-16803June 29, 1964 Kim Kee Chua Yu and Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-16579June 29, 1964 Saturnina Hollero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Mauyag Matanog vs. Cristobal Alejandro, et al. Celestino C. Rosca, et al. vs. Federico C. Alikpala, et al. Bolinao Electronics Corp., et al. vs. Brigido Valencia, et al. Chung Quiao vs. Anita Abaday, et al. Simeona Cumplido vs. Presentacion Mendoza, et al. Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Rufina Diasanta Pedro R. Dizon, et al. vs. Ambrosio T. Dollete, et al. Pastor Acibo, et al. vs. Higinio Macadaeg, et al. Shell Co. of the Phil., Ltd. vs. Insular Petroleum Refining Co., Ltd., et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Jose F. Monroy Richard A. Klepper vs. American President Lines Ltd., et al. In re: Celso Icasiano Celso Icasiano vs. Natividad Icasiano, et al. Marinduque Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Mun. Council of the Mun. of Hinabangan, Samar, et al. Roman Mirasol vs. Manuel R. Yusay, et al. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Lazaro Mangawang, et al. State Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Republic of the Philippines vs. Santiago Gancayco Manuel Camus, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Francisco Evanado, et al. vs. Ramon Blanco, et al. Fernando Gozon vs. Salud Vda. de Barrameda In re: Koh Chet Koh Chet vs. Republic of the Philippines Francisco S. Olizon vs. Central Bank of the Philippines Calapan Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Community Sawmill Company, et al. Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission etc., et al. Kim Kee Chua Yu and Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Saturnina Hollero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

... . The Municipal Treasurer of Marantao who acted as Secretary of the Board of Canvassers presented the election return for Precinct No. 9. In this election return, there appears the Mayoralty Candidates obtained the following votes (Exhibit "K"):

This caused some confusion in the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers because there was also presented a tally board where the said candidates garnered the following votes (Exhibit "J"):

During the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, there was also presented the copy of the election return from Ibrahim Ali, official candidate of the Nacionalista Party for Board member. This copy of the election return was sent to him by the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors. In this copy, it was alleged that Cota Cornel garnered 157 votes only but when Atty. Isaac Geolina representative of the Comelec was going to take it, said copy disappeared and up to the present time, it has never been recovered.

Lucas Calaca, a member of the Board of Canvassers, questioned the canvassing of the election return for Precinct No. 9 alleging that it should not be canvassed because it was prepared outside the polling place. But Magondacan Gutok, another member of the Board of Canvassers filed a motion to canvass because he said there was no alteration in the election return. There was controversy in the proceedings and when the representative of the Comelec sensed that there would be trouble, he suspended the canvassing and advised the side of Mauyag Matanog to file a petition for a judicial recount.1äwphï1.ñët

x x x           x x x           x x x

The evidence of candidate Mauyag Matanog tends to disclose that at about 11:00 p.m. of November 14, 1963, the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. 9, Marantao, Lanao del Sur, had finished its counting of votes. But the inspectors could not accomplish the election return because the chairman claimed that the blank forms of the election return were lost. When Atty. Benjamin de la Peña, a representative of the Comelec was apprised of this incident, he raised his voice and insisted that the election return be accomplished. However, later on, he said he would wire the Comelec in Manila to send the blank forms ... .

x x x           x x x           x x x

Then at about 7:00 a.m., November 15, 1963 Atty. Mangontawar Guro, Cota Cornel and Mariga Bangki, chairman of the board of inspectors, handed to Atty. Benjamin de la Peña, a copy of the election return which was already accomplished. The copy of the election return for the Municipal Treasurer was received by him thru the mail on November 21, 1963, Exh. "K". And this is the copy submitted by him to the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

The evidence of Candidate Cota Cornel tends to show that tally board, Exhibits "J" and "J-1" are not the tally boards which were used by the board of election inspectors in counting the votes for Precinct No. 9 of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. According to the poll-clerk, Bonayo Renayong, he was the one who wrote the number of votes for each candidate on the tally boards. After the counting, they were signed by all members of the board. He was not able to deliver them to the Municipal Treasurer of Marantao because he was not at the polling place until dawn. So, he kept them. When he could not also find the Municipal Treasurer in Marantao he then gave them to the chairman of the board of inspectors to send to the Municipal Treasurer by mail.

Mariga Bangki, the chairman of the board of election inspectors, testified that tally boards Exhibits "J" and "J-1" are not the tally boards which they used in the counting of votes. The tally boards which they used were duly signed by all members of the board of inspectors. ... .

After counting of votes at midnight of November 14, 1963, all members of the board signed the copies of the election return and placed them in the envelopes. He could not find the Municipal Treasurer of Marantao in order to give him the copies of the election return. So at 2:00 a.m., November 15, 1963, he placed all copies of the election return inside the ballot box and locked it. And then he gave the ballot box to the P.C. In the morning at about 7:00, he returned to the P.C. Headquarters to see Atty. de la Peña. He asked him where was the election return. He answered that they were all inside the ballot box. ... . They opened the box and retrieved four (4) envelopes containing copies of election return. He gave the envelope to Atty. de la Peña intended for the Comelec. ... He denied that there was no blank form of election return, he also denied the testimony of Lt. Decena and he denied having issued the certificate of votes, Exh. "O". He also denied having seen Atty. Mangontawar and Cota Cornel at seven o'clock (7:00 a.m.) in the morning of November 15, 1963 at the P.C. Headquarters.

x x x           x x x           x x x

In the rebuttal, the petitioner in case No. 1292 presented Atty. Isaac Geolina of the Comelec who confirmed the order he has given in Exhibits "F", "G", "H" and "I" appearing in the body of Exh. "E". He further testified that the Comelec ordered to suspend the canvassing and let the parties come to Court because the election return was made outside of the polling place, and that the tally boards Exhs. "J" and "J-I" do not tally with the said election return. He said that the chairman of the board of inspectors wanted to get back the tally board because it was not complete. ... .

Atty. Benjamin de la Peña, another attorney of the Comelec elucidated some important matter in controversy. According to him, the counting of votes in Precinct No. 9, Marantao, was finished at 11:00 p.m. of November 14. But the election return was not accomplished thereafter because the chairman said that there was no election return blank form and he would accomplish it the following morning, Exh. "T". After the counting, the members of the Board of inspectors left the polling place without accomplishing the election return. Then Atty. de la Peña ordered the chairman of the board to deposit the ballot box and tally boards, Exhs. "J" and "J-1" to the P.C. Camp Keithley. The tally boards were not signed by the members of the board of inspectors because he did not anticipate that there would be fraud.

Early morning of November 15, 1963, at about 8:00 o'clock, Atty. Mangontawar in company with Cota Cornel and Chairman of the board handed to him an envelope containing an election return. It is not true that Atty. Mangontawar Guro retrieved the said envelope from the ballot box.

The Court in deciding these cases is confronted with two (2) questions:

First. Are the tally boards, Exhibits "J" and "J-1" admissible as evidence?

Second. Should the election return, Exhibit "K" be the basis of the Municipal Board of Canvassers in canvassing the election return from Precinct No. 9, Marantao, Lanao del Sur?

x x x           x x x           x x x

The Court has observed that the tally boards, Exhs. "J" and "J-1" have not been signed by all the members of the board of inspectors. The said tally boards are not complete and cause some doubt as to their due execution and genuineness. They are not public documents. The signatures of the members of the board of inspectors are essential to their validity. It is obvious that documents like these are susceptible to substitution and falsification.

It has been found that the election return, Exhibit "K" has not been vitiated by another election return having a different entry; or that there is a difference of votes of the same candidate written in words and those written in figures in the same election return; or that the entry of votes in the election return is falsified clearly; or that the entry in the election is not legible; or that the election return was prepared thru force or intimidation (Sec. 163, Revised Election Code: ...).

Anyone of these irregularities found in the accomplished election return is sufficient basis for a Petition for Judicial Recounting. But in this particular case at bar, it can be said that none exists.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Judicial Recounting is hereby denied; the Municipal Board of Canvassers for Marantao, Lanao del Sur, is hereby ordered to canvass the election return, Exhibit "K" from Precinct No. 9; the Provincial Fiscal is hereby ordered to investigate if in the accomplishment of the election return, Exhibit "K", the members of the Board of Inspectors violated any provision of the Election Code and prosecute the party or parties responsible thereof as warranted by the evidence.

Similar to the right of the election inspectors to amend or correct their statements (election returns) in accordance with Sec. 154 expressly mentioned in the preceding quotation is the right of the candidates affected (proper parties) to go to the court in case of discrepancies, pursuant to Secs. 163 and 168 above-quoted. Consequently, paragraph (K) of the rules and regulations issued by the Commission on Elections is equally applicable to the case at bar where two contradictory statements (election returns) were presented to the board of canvassers, for which reason and for the purpose of giving the parties opportunity to go to court, the Board was specifically instructed not to proclaim the mayor elect. (Salcedo, Jr. v. Com. on Elections, et al., L-168235, July 26, 1960.)

... . In the case ofJose Parlade, et al. v. Judges Perfecto Quicho and Mateo Alcasid, et al., G.R. No. L-16259, Dec. 29, 1959, We have stated:

... . In this connection it is best to emphasize that the whole theory of the election law rests on theprima faciepresumption of honesty and integrity of the board of inspectors. On that presumption, it directs the board of canvassers to make the proclamation on the basis of such reports ("statements" the law calls them) as the inspectors shall make. Aware, however, of the failings of human nature and foreseeing the possibility of error, the Legislature has permitted the correction by the court inclear casesat the request of the inspectors themselves (sec. 154 and the Benitez and Sison cases,supra). Also where there are conflicts between one copy of their statement and another copy or authentic copy thereof (or in the statement itself, words contradicting figures), there arisesex necessitate reithe need of finding, which statement or number should be followed by the Board. So the law gives the court of first instance power to recount the votes cast in the precinct.

... . The Parlade case,supra, has definitely settled that the discrepancy in number of votes mentioned in section 163 of the Revised Election Code, which would justify a recount,has reference to the number of votesappearing in different copies of the election returns required by section 150, and not to the discrepancy between the election returns and any certificate given by the board of inspectors to the watchers who may request them under section 153 (Villacarlos v. Hon. Jimenez, et al., L-16437, Dec. 29, 1962).

Considering that the proclamation of the herein petitioners as the sixth elected councilor of the municipality of Del Gallego, Camarines Sur, is disputed, respondent Silverio Balanlayos contending that the former was not proclaimed as such, and this contention seems to find support in Resolution No. 1 passed or adopted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on 16 November 1959 which in turn is supported by the certification signed and issued on 13 November 1959 by the precinct board of inspectors concerned, and there being a discrepancy between the election return where the name of the respondent Balanlayos and the number of votes he has obtained in the precinct referred to at such erection wereomitted or left out and the reportof the precinct board of inspectors submitted to the municipal treasurer of Del Gallego, the controversy comes under the provisions of section 168 in connection with section 163 of the Revised Election Code and not under the provisions of section 174 of the same Code.