EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29026. September 28, 1968.]

PANTALEON PACIS , petitioner,
vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ATANACIO NEGRE AND MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN, respondents.

Camao, Rodriguez, Dagwa & Salvador for petitioner.

Ramon Barrios for respondent Commission on Elections.
SYLLABUS
1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; GENERAL
POWER OF ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION AFFECTING ELECTIONS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION. Comelec's broad power under the Constitution and the
statutes has gained judicial approval. The rationale is that Comelec is entrusted
with the "enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
elections" and the authority to decide "all administrative questions, aecting
elections" all of which rest upon the purpose of the Comelec: to insure free,
orderly and honest elections. The diversity of Election frauds and anomalies that
have been concocted by rival parties, surpassing legislative anticipation and
scuttling the prescribed manner of conducting elections, necessitate resort to
Comelec's general power of administration and supervision. This Court has set down
the rule that when returns are obviously manufactured or palpably irregular, the
canvassing board may reject them. The board's decision is open to review by
Comelec which has the power to investigate irregularities and to act upon the
propriety or legality of the canvass made by the board. But this power to reject
returns must be exercised with "extreme caution." Popular will must not be
suppressed at the slightest cause.
2.
ID.; ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF RETURN. "Clean
elections control the appropriateness of the remedy." Acts of terrorism or fraud the
purpose of which is to destroy the integrity of election returns must have to be
discouraged. For, they may eventually defeat the will of the majority and,
undermine the foundation of our democracy. The purpose of the Election Code "to
protect the integrity of elections 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 yet be salvaged by an examination of
the said return.
3.
ID.; ID. ID.; NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY COMELEC IN INSTANT CASE.
Comelec made a thorough investigation concerning the alleged irregularities. It
even made use of the services of the NBI to determine the original erased entry for
Pacis and the testimony of the chairman and poll clerk of the precinct. It was there

ascertained that Negre obtained 73 votes, to Pacis'89. This is no abuse on the part
of Comelec. If the result of the voting in Precinct 19 could still be determined, it is
within Comelec's power to direct that they be used in the canvass. And this was
done.
4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; DIRECTIVE TO USE UNTAMPERED PORTIONS OF RETURN. With
respect to Precinct 21, Comelec directed the board to use the untampered portion of
the copy for the provincial treasurer which is the entry written in words. The entry
being by long hand was harder to change and any tampering here would have been
easier to detect. The tamperers in their rush must have left it as it is.
5.
ID.; ID.; ID.; DIRECTIVE REJECTING ENTRIES FOR MAYOR IN ELECTION
RETURNS FOR PRECINCT IS CORRECT. As deserving of serious consideration is
the directive of 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 were clean
in all respects. Negre got "3" votes in words and gures, while Pacis had "174" also
in words and gures. They all bear the signatures of all the board members. But
then, Comelec found that it was prepared "at the point of a gun" and that "other
surrounding circumstances belie its authenticity.'' These circumstances we need not
repeat. Reference to the quoted portion of the resolution of May 11 heretofore
transcribed will suce. 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 falsied or spurious
return. Comelec was correct in ruling that there was no valid return for the oce of
Mayor at Precinct 22 and that no vote should be counted for said precinct in the
canvass of votes for Mayor.
6.
ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING BY COMELEC OF PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECOUNT IS
NOT PROPER. One of the prayers of the petition is that this Court order the board
of canvassers to le a petition for the recount of votes as far as Precincts 19, 21 and
22 are concerned. We nd this wholly unacceptable. Nothing in the election code
would give the court power to compel the board of canvassers to le a petition for
recount. It would seem thus that such a petition for recount should be a voluntary
act. For indeed, Section 163 of the Code says that such a petition may be submitted
either by the board or by "any candidate aected." But we are confronted with
tampered returns from precincts 19 and 21. Petitioner himself here asked that the
returns for these two precincts be declared "as falsied.'' As to Precinct 22, we have
said, and so did Comelec say, that the return for that precinct is no return at all; all
the copies thereof were made at the point of a gun. These are the circumstances
which would deter us from stamping our approval to the petition under Section 163
of the Code. Because, there is no discrepancy between the dierent copies of the
election returns. Furthermore, we nd no reason why we should break away from
our ruling in Espino vs. Zaldivar, and Ong vs. Commission on Elections, that where
election returns have been tampered with, the remedy is before the Comelec which was done here - and not with the court of first instance.
7.
ID.; ID.; PROCLAMATION; PRESENCE OF QUORUM OF CANVASSING BOARD.
The canvass was nished on May 18, 1968 where Negre won. All the members of

the board were then present. All of them signed the statement of votes. The
absence or presence of Rafael Pacis and Segundo Acdal during the subsequent
meeting to proclaim the winner cannot change the result of the canvass. Negre
would still be proclaimed. Finally, the meeting was held with a quorum of six
members out of the membership of ten. It is elementary that the quorum may act
for the entire body. The proclamation is therefore valid.
8.
ID.; ID.; ID.; MERE FORMALITY. The proclamation is but a formal act to
confirm the canvass previously held. It is just a ceremony which follows canvass as a
matter of course. Petitioner's complaint on this point would lead nowhere. New
proclamation would be an idle ritual. It would not change the result; it would only
work delay in the already long delayed proclamation.
DECISION
SANCHEZ, J :
p

Primarily to be tested in this, the second Pacis case , 1 is the validity of the last
canvass in Precincts 19, 21 and 22 and the subsequent proclamation of Atanacio
Negre as Mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.
The returns in the above-mentioned precincts were contested as a result of the
shooting incident on November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos. 18, 19,
21 and 22 located in the school building at Namuac barrio where then Vice Mayor
Manuel Franco was killed. The inspectors had ed and left open and unsealed some
of the election documents, ballot boxes and election paraphernalia. It was
discovered the following day that some election returns were either tampered or
sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and the tally sheets and tally boards were all
missing.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) in the rst Pacis case had ordered that
canvassing be held at the Comelec oce in Manila. Proceedings there were however
stopped as a result of the institution of the rst case before this Court which raised
issues dierent from those to be discussed in the present case. In this Court's
decision in the rst Pacis case, we issued the following directives to Comelec, inter
alia: "(2) to conduct an investigation to ascertain the true returns from Precincts 18,
19, 21 and 22 of Sanchez Mira; and thereafter the board of canvassers [to be
constituted by Comelec] to use the true returns for purposes of canvass in said
precincts; and (3) to order the board of canvassers to canvass the election returns
from all the precincts of Sanchez Mira, and thereafter, to proclaim the winning
candidate for the office of Mayor of said municipality".
It was thus in pursuance of the above orders that Comelec initiated an investigation
Case No. RR-607 to ascertain the true returns from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and
22.

Elicited during the investigation and included in Comelec's report of May 11, 1968,
the following facts relating to the election returns of the respective precincts are
quite revealing, viz:
"Precinct No. 18: Here, the copies of the election returns for the
Commission on Elections, the provincial treasurer, and the municipal
treasurer contain erasures and superimpositions with respect to the votes
for mayor while the copy pertaining to the ballot box was clean and without
any alteration. It has been observed that said ballot box copy was placed
inside the proper envelope (CE Form 58, bearing SN 47118), closed with
paper seal No. 516360, properly signed by all the board members; and that
the election return itself (CE Form 42) was intact or duly sealed, bearing
paper seal No. 516352, and legibly signed by all the board members. For
votes of mayor, this clean copy reads as follows: Negre, Atanacio 39 (in
words and figures) and Pacis, Pantaleon 110 (in words and figures).
It was elicited from the chairman of Precinct 18, Rizal Lagodon, upon
intensive questioning by all the Commissioners and counsels for both
parties, that the board was able to nish and to sign the election returns;
that the copy for the ballot box was duly sealed and placed inside the
envelope, then deposited in the ballot box; that after the shooting, the board
left the other election returns unsealed; that when they returned on the 16th
of November, they placed all the election documents inside the ballot box,
and the following day they retrieved the election returns and distributed
them to the proper offices.

The foregoing testimony of the chairman explains why the ballot box copy of
the election return was not altered, whereas the three other copies were
tampered. The Commission, therefore, believes that said ballot box copy
reects the true result of the election in Precinct 18, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan,
as regards the mayoralty votes.

Precinct No. 19: The election returns for this precinct, copies for the
Commission on Elections, the provincial treasurer, and the municipal
treasurer, all contain erasures and superimpositions with respect to the
mayoralty votes only. Although the ballot box copy appears to be clean, yet
the entries of votes are very blurred or illegible not only with respect to the
votes for mayor but also for all other oces. In short, not one of the four
copies of the election return for Precinct 19 can be of service in the
canvassing. The tally sheets and tally boards no longer exist.
The chairman of this precinct, Violeta Barase, declared under oath that as
far as she could remember Negre obtained 73 votes, while Pacis got 89
votes; that one of the copies of the returns they prepared was erased by an
armed man who entered the polling place on November 15, 1967 and this
was placed inside the ballot box; that when shown the ballot box copy she
could hardly read the votes for mayor, claiming there are erasures. She also
identied a certicate of votes issued and signed by all the board members
of Precinct 19, stating that Negre obtained 73 votes.

The poll clerk of this precinct, William Valdez, corroborated the testimony of
the aforesaid chairman as regards the erased copy of the election returns
placed in the ballot box, which he could not also read when shown to him.
He also admitted having written the gure '9' on the vote for Pacis appearing
in the Commission copy; and made a conclusion that if the certicate of
votes issued by the board shows that '73' votes were obtained by Negre
and because 164 voters actually voted in that precinct, then Pacis could
obtain only around '89' votes and not '159' as appearing in the tampered
copies of the election returns.
When all the copies of the election return for Precinct 19 were submitted to
the NBI for examination, the opinion of its Questioned Documents Division
as regards the entries of votes for Pacis is as follows:
'With regards to the entries opposite he name reading as PACIS,
Pantaleon of Exhs. 'HH-6', 'EE-5' and 'BB2-b', the original erased words
and gures that could (be) deciphered thereon are 'eighty-nine' and
'89' correspondingly. The now appearing words and gures are 'one
fifty nine' and '159'.'
On the strength of the testimonies of the chairman and poll clerk of this
precinct, after rigid questioning by the Commissioners and counsels for
both parties, plus the certicate of votes issued and signed by all the board
members with respect to the votes of Negre and also the NBI report as
regards the votes of Pacis, the Commission believes that in the absence of
any serviceable copy of the election return for Precinct 19, the correct votes
for the mayoralty candidates are: Negre, Atanacio 73 votes; and Pacis,
Pantaleon 89 votes.

Precinct No. 21: The entries of votes for Mayor in the dierent copies of
the election returns are as follows: 2
1.

Commission on Elections copy:

Words

Figures

NEGRE, ATANACIO:
by erased word

NINE (preceded
figure preceding)

9 (with erased

SIXTY)
PACIS, PANTALEON:
followed by erased

ONE HUNDRED

179 (superimfol

imposed on erased ased figure

word NINETEEN figure)

2.

Provincial Treasurer copy:

NEGRE, ATANACIO:
PACIS, PANTALEON:

SIXTY-NINE

9 (super- imposed on erased figure)

ONE HUNDRED

179 (super- NINETEEN imposed on

erased figure)
3.

Municipal Treasurer copy:

NEGRE, ATANACIO:
erased SIXTY)

NINE (preceded

9 (superfol by

word imposed on erased

figure)
PACIS, PANTALEON:

ONE HUNDRED

(followed by erased

imposed on erased

179 (superimfol-

word NINETEEN)
figure)

4.

Ballot Box copy:

NEGRE, ATANACIO:
by erased word
SIXTY)

NINE (preceded
9 (super
imposed on erased

figure)

PACIS, PANTALEON:
NINETEEN

ONE HUNDRED

179 (superimfol

imposed on erased

figure)

The chairman of this precinct, Geminia Sumawang, testied that after the
board had completed the entries of votes and signed the election returns,
armed men entered the polling place and told them to change the votes of
Negre by removing '60' votes and giving him only '9' votes, while Pacis votes
were increased from '119' to '179' votes. This explains the discrepancy of
entries between the words and the gures among the dierent copies of the
election returns for Precinct 21.
From the foregoing election returns and declarations, the Commission nds
that the correct votes for the mayoralty candidates are: NEGRE, ATANACIO
'69' votes; and PACIS, PANTALEON '119' votes.

Precinct No. 22: All the four copies of the election returns for this precinct
are clean in all respects. Negre got '3' votes in words and gures; while Pacis
had '174' in words and figures. All the board members signed it.
On the witness stand, the chairman of this precinct Romulo Agadon,
declared that said election return was prepared by the Poll Clerk but before
they could nish it, two strangers entered the polling place and told the poll
clerk to change the votes for the mayor, which are not reected on the tally
board; that one of the strangers called the chairman and told him to sign

said election return, which he did and then the strangers left; that he signed
the certicate of votes issued to the LP watcher and found that it tallies with
the correct votes shown by the tally board, which is '83' for Negre; and
when they returned on November 16, after the shooting the day before,
they placed all the documents in the ballot box except the tally sheet which
was missing. The LP inspector, Santiago Udaundo, corroborated the
testimony of the chairman as regards the votes for mayor, which he further
declared in his adavit dated November 22, 1967, that the tally board of
said precinct shows that Negre obtained 83 votes and Pacis got 94 votes.
He reaffirmed all the statements appearing in said affidavit.
On the other hand, the poll clerk, Juan Holnagan, and the NP Inspector,
Alberto Lagadon, disclaimed the testimonies of the chairman and LP
Inspector. The former insisted that Negre really obtained '3' votes as it
appears in the tally sheet and tally board, yet when told to explain why he
signed the certicate of votes showing that Negre got '83' votes, he
explained that they were rushing at that time and that the entry of votes
therein was not made by him but the LP watcher. The NP Inspector, when
shown the same certicate of votes, stated that he did not look at the gure
for mayor when he signed it, as they were then rushing because of the
gunre, and further declared that he was not the one who placed the votes
for Negre in said certicate, and he insisted that the election return reects
the votes on the tally sheet and tally board.
The Commission, however, nds, that there is more reason to believe that
the chairman and the LP inspector are telling the truth in that the election
return for Precinct 22 is no return at all with respect to the oce of mayor,
for not only was it prepared at the point of a gun but also other surrounding
circumstances belie its authenticity. It has been observed that this is the
only clean copy, in all respects, among the four precincts situated in the
Namuac Elementary School; that the disparity of votes between the two
mayoralty candidates, i.e. '3' against '174', is too big and follows the same
trend of tampering as in Precincts 18, 19 and 21; that the tally sheet and
tally board in this precinct are also missing although no tampering appears
on the return; that as early as November 22, 1967, the LP inspector, in a
sworn statement declared, that the election return in Precinct 22 does not
reect the result of the election as appearing in the tally sheet and tally
board; and that the certicate of votes issued in behalf of the LP watcher,
signed by all the board members, shows a dierent number of votes for
candidate Negre, than what appears in the election return.
Neither would it be of any help if the ballot box will be opened and we were
to look for other election documents, since the tally sheet and tally board are
missing and the ballot box itself was left open from the morning of
November 15, 1967 up to the afternoon of November 16, 1967".

Comelec, in the same report, resolved as follows:

"1.
a)

To declare:
The copies of the election return for the Commission on Elections, the

municipal treasurer and the provincial treasurer of Precinct No. 18 were all
falsied; the copy of the election return for the ballot box of the same
precinct which gives 39 votes to Atanacio Negre and 110 votes to Pantaleon
Pacis as the true and correct copy of the election return for said precinct
and, consequently, the copy to be used in the canvass of votes for the
office of mayor;
b)
The copies of the election returns for the Commission on Elections,
the provincial treasurer and the municipal treasurer of Precinct No. 19 were
all falsied while the copy for the ballot box is not legible; that the true and
correct votes for mayor in this precinct is as originally written by the board
of inspectors in the election returns before their alteration, namely 73 votes
for Negre and 89 votes for Pacis which votes shall be counted by the
municipal board of canvassers;
c)
The copies of the election return for the Commission on Elections, the
municipal treasurer and the ballot box for Precinct No. 21 were all falsied;
as to the copy for the provincial treasurer, the votes written in words which
give Atanacio Negre 69 votes and Pantaleon Pacis 119 votes are the true
and correct return of the votes cast for mayor in said precinct while the
votes written in gures were falsied, so that the said copy of the election
return shall be used in the canvass of the votes for the oce of mayor, the
municipal board of canvassers to count the votes written in words as
indicated herein;

d)
There is no valid return for the oce of mayor for Precinct No. 22 and
no vote shall be counted for said precinct in the canvass of votes cast for
mayor by the municipal board of canvassers; and
2.
To order the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan,
to convene at the Commission on Elections, Manila on a date to be xed by
the supervising attorney of the Commission, and to canvass anew all the
votes cast for the oce of mayor of said municipality in the November 14,
1967 elections and to proclaim the municipal mayor elected in accordance
with said canvass." 3

Consequently, on May 18, 1968, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, the supervising
attorney of the Comelec convened the board of canvassers at Comelec oce in
Manila. All the members were present and took their respective oaths of oce.
Before the canvassing started, petitioner moved for the suspension of the
proceedings so as to enable him to perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court and to
question the May 11, 1968 resolution of Comelec. The motion was denied by the
Supervising Attorney. But petitioner was able to secure an order from the Comelec
Chairman to continue with the canvass and to hold the proclamation in abeyance
pending further orders.
Canvassing proceeded. The election returns used at rst were advance copies, not
the copies for the municipal treasurer, with the exception of Precincts 18, 19, 20

and 21. Later, at about 4:00 p.m., the municipal treasurer himself arrived with his
copies of the election returns. A recanvass was made. This time the copies used
were those for the municipal treasurer except those for Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22.
With respect to the returns of Precinct 18, the board used the ballot box copy. For
Precinct 19, the board merely read Comelec's resolution indicating what vote should
be entered. Pursuant to the same resolution, the board tallied the votes written in
words as indicated in the copy of the provincial treasurer for Precinct 21. For
Precinct 22, the board did not count any votes as there was no valid return for that
precinct.
After the tally, a statement of votes was signed by all the members of the board of
canvassers. The votes obtained by the candidates for Mayor are as follows: Pacis
2,102; Negre 2,342. The board then adjourned.
It was two days later, May 20, 1968, when the municipal treasurer started notifying
the members of the board of canvassers that the proclamation will be held on May
21, 1968 at 4:00 p.m. at the Comelec office in Manila.
In the meantime, on May 21, 1968, petitioner led his notice of appeal before
Comelec and the present petition for certiorari before this Court. Impugning the
validity of the canvass, petitioner prays for the following reliefs: (1) to set aside and
reverse the May 11, 1968 resolution of Comelec; (2) to declare the returns for
Precincts 19 and 21 as falsified; (3) to annul the canvass made on May 18, 1968; (4)
to order the board of canvassers to le a petition for recount of votes in Precincts 19,
21 and 22; and (5) pending the nal determination of the case, to issue a
preliminary injunction restraining the proclamation of the Mayor-elect of Sanchez
Mira.
Before this Court could act on the preliminary injunction sought, the board
convened at 5:00 in the afternoon of May 21 at the Comelec oce in Manila for the
proclamation of the candidate elected to the oce of Mayor of Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan. The supervising attorney called the roll. The following members were
present:
(1)

Eleuterio Mata,

(2)

Esteban Eclarin,

(3)

Victor de Ocampo,

(4)

Dominador Saludares,

(5)

Jose Cack, and

(6)

Rolanda Cabulisan.

The following members were found absent:

(1)

Carmelita Calon,

(2)

Jose Cack, Jr.,

(3)

Segundo Acdal, and

(4)

Rafael Pacis.

Carmelita Calon was personally served notice but she refused to receive the same.
With respect to Jose Cack, Jr., notice was received by his brother in his residence on
May 21, 1968. Dominador Saludares declared in his adavit 4 that he fetched Jose
Cack, from his classes at the Far Eastern University; but that while they were
already in Comelec premises, Jose Cack, Jr. was accosted by Hilario Agdeppa who
prevailed upon him (Cack, Jr.) not to attend the meeting. The notice to Segundo
Acdal was served on May 21, 1968 through Juliet Baccud in the place where he is
known to be residing in Manila. As to Rafael Pacis, the municipal treasurer could not
locate him in his known residence, 931-A Dos Castillas, Sampaloc, Manila.
A quorum being present, the supervising attorney thereupon asked the chairman of
the board to read the tabulation and ll up a certicate of proclamation. Thereafter,
all the members present signed the certicate of canvass and proclamation at 6:25
p.m. The board adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Atanacio Negre was thus proclaimed Mayorelect of Sanchez Mira.
On May 29, 1968, petitioner led a supplemental petition 5 interposing the illegality
of the proclamation because Segundo Acdal and Rafael Pacis were not properly
served with notice. Pending nal disposition of the case, petitioner prayed that
preliminary mandatory injunction issue to suspend the eect of the proclamation,
and respondent Negre to desist from performing the duties of the oce of Mayor.
We issued, on June 11, 1968, the injunctive writ sought upon P1,000-cash bond.
Meanwhile, on June 3, 1968, petitioner Pantaleon Pacis lodged with the Court of
First Instance of Cagayan an election protest (No. 68-S) ex abundantia cautela
pending the nal determination of the present petition for review alleging, in
addition to the illegality of the canvass and proclamation, acts of terrorism, frauds,
anomalies and other irregularities which marred the elections held in a number of
precincts.
On June 14, 1968, counsel for respondent Negre led an urgent motion to dismiss
the present petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. His ground was
that the petition was not properly served upon respondent within the ten-day
period to perfect an appeal as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
This Court, on June 19, 1968, resolved to deny the motion to dismiss, in a resolution
which reads:
"Upon consideration of the urgent motion of counsel for respondent
Atanacio Negre praying that the petition be dismissed, or, in the alternative,
petitioner be ordered to serve copies of the pleadings led at counsel's
present address, . . . and it appearing upon the petition filed herein that copy
thereof was forwarded by registered mail to Atty. Maximo A. Savellano, Jr.,
counsel for said respondent, at Room 709 Bank of P.I. Bldg., Plaza

Cervantes, Manila, and that the amended [supplemental] petition was

forwarded to the same counsel c/o respondent himself, Atanacio Negre,
Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, by registered mail posted on May 29, 1968, the
Court RESOLVED (1) to deny the motion to dismiss; (2) to require
petitioner's counsel to serve . . . a copy each of the petition and the
amended [supplemental] petition together with the annexes thereof on Atty.
Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., counsel for respondent Negre, at Suite 208
Consolacion Bldg., Cubao, Quezon City; and (3) to require said respondent
to answer . . . within ten (10) days from notice hereof."

On June 21, 1968, Comelec answered. Respondent Negre, in his answers led on
July 1 and July 3, 1968, reiterated his averment of lack of appellate jurisdiction in
this Court; that petitioner has no cause of action because if the votes in Precincts
19, 21 and 22 were disregarded for being falsied, it would result in a bigger margin
of victory for respondent Negre; and that judicial recount is not proper where all the
copies of the election returns are tampered with and especially because the ballot
boxes were left open for more than 24 hours.
From the petition, the returns thereto, and the memoranda of the parties, the
problems appear in the following sequence:
I.
May Comelec validly order the municipal board of canvassers to use,
other than the copy for the municipal treasurer, (a) Comelec's own finding of
correct votes obtained, and (b) the votes written in words as indicated in the
provincial treasurer's copy?
II.
Is judicial recount proper when all the copies of election returns are
tampered.?
III.
Would the alleged failure of two members of the municipal board of
canvassers to receive notice of meeting bar a valid proclamation?

1.
Comelec's broad power under the Constitution and the statutes has gained
judicial approval. The rationale is that Comelec is entrusted with the "enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections" and the authority
to decide "all administrative questions, aecting elections" all of which rest upon
the purpose of Comelec: to insure free, orderly and honest elections. 6 Indeed, the
diversity of election frauds and anomalies that have been concocted by rival parties,
surpassing legislative anticipation and scuttling the prescribed manner of conducting
elections, necessitate resort to Comelec's general power of administration and
supervision.
This Court has set down the rule that when returns are obviously manufactured or
palpably irregular, the canvassing board may reject them. 7 The board's decision is
open to review by Comelec which has the power to investigate irregularities and to
act upon the propriety or legality of the canvass made by the board. 8 But, it is to be
emphasized, this power to reject returns must be exercised with "extreme caution."
9 Popular will must not be suppressed at the slightest cause.
"Clean elections, "we have said in the rst Pacis case, "control the appropriateness

of the remedy." This we will have to underscore once again. Because acts of
terrorism or fraud the purpose of which is to destroy the integrity of election returns
must have to be discouraged. For, they may eventually defeat the will of the
majority and, as Chief Justice Concepcion has emphasized, would "undermine the
foundation of our democracy." 10 The purpose of the Election Code "to protect the
integrity of elections and to suppress all evils that may vitiate its purity and defeat
the will of the voters" 11 gives Comelec authority to ascertain whether the
genuineness of a given election return may yet be salvaged by an examination of
the said return.

Indeed, hindsight has long conrmed our view that the unscrupulous nds illegal
doctoring of election returns as an eective short cut to prevent the proclamation of
the true winner and leave him to the long tedious task of an election protest if
the aggrieved party still has the means to undergo the same. Which, as well
observed by Chief Justice Bengzon, could only result in a pyrrhic victory. 12 Comelec
then must strain every eort to ascertain the true returns to be used in the
proclamation, a possible alternative being that the victor will be cheated of his
victory; the seat that is justly his will be occupied by one rejected at the polls; our
democratic institutions will suffer in integrity.
With these thoughts to guide us, we first look into Precinct 19. 13
Comelec made a thorough investigation concerning the alleged irregularities. It
even made use of the services of the NBI to determine the original erased entry for
Pacis and the testimony of the chairman and poll clerk of the precinct. It was there
ascertained that Negre obtained 73 votes, to Pacis' 89. This is no abuse of discretion
on the part of Comelec. If the true result of the voting in Precinct 19 could still be
determined, it is within Comelec's power to direct that they be used in the canvass.
And this was done.
With respect to Precinct 21, Comelec directed the board to use the untampered
portion of the copy for the provincial treasurer which is the entry written in words.
The entry being by long hand was harder to change and any tampering here would
have been easier to detect. The tamperers in their rush must have left it as it is.
As deserving of serious consideration is the directive of 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. Negre got "3" votes in
words and gures, while Pacis had "174," also in words and gures. They all bear
the signatures of all the board members. But then, Comelec found that it was
prepared "at the point of a gun" and that "other surrounding circumstances belie its
authenticity". These circumstances we need not repeat. Reference to the quoted
portion of the resolution of May 11 heretofore transcribed will suffice.
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 falsied or spurious return. Comelec was correct in

ruling that there was no valid return for the oce of Mayor at Precinct 22 and that
no vote should be counted for said precinct in the canvass of votes for Mayor.
2.
One of the prayers of the petition herein is that this Court order the board of
canvassers to le a petition for the recount of votes as far as Precincts 19, 21 and 22
are concerned. We find this wholly unacceptable.
Nothing in the election code would give the court power to compel the board of
canvassers to le a petition for recount. It would seem thus that such a petition for
recount should be a voluntary act. For indeed, Section 163 of the Code says that
such a petition may be submitted either by the board or by "any candidate
affected."
But we are confronted with tampered returns from Precincts 19 and 21. Petitioner
himself here asked that the returns for these two precincts be declared "as falsified."
As to Precinct 22, we have said, and so did Comelec say, that the return for that
precinct is no return at all; all the copies thereof were made at the point of a gun.
These are the circumstances which would deter us from stamping our approval to
the petition under Section 163 of the Code. Because, there is no discrepancy
between the different copies of the election returns.
Furthermore, we nd no reason why we should break away from our ruling in
Espino vs. Zaldivar, 14 and Ong vs. Commission on Elections, 15 that where election
returns have been tampered with, the remedy is before the Comelec which was
done here and not with the court of first instance.
3.
Petitioner nally quibbles over the issue that two members of the canvassing
board, Rafael Pacis and Segundo Acdal, were unable to attend the proclamation
because of improper service of notice.
Surrounding facts press for recognition. They reect in petitioner's appeal an
intention to unduly delay the proclamation of his rival. The notices were served on
them by the municipal treasurer of Sanchez Mira, in their known addresses in
Manila. 16 The municipal treasurer cannot be expected to do more. There was a
diligent attempt to notify them. If the two members of the canvassing board were
able to attend the canvass, which was also held in Manila, it is surprising that they
could no longer be located for the purpose of proclaiming Negre.
Petitioner's pose lacks credulity. All the ten members were notied in the same
manner by the municipal treasurer. Six of those who received their notices attended
the proclamation together with the attorney for petitioner Pacis. Of the four
members who were absent, one, Carmelita Calon, refused the notice served on her
personally; and the other, Jose Cack, Jr., whose notice was received by his brother,
was already inside the Comelec premises but deliberately stayed away from the
meeting. It is apparent from the actuations of the latter two that there was an
intention to delay further the proclamation meeting. The absence of Acdal and
Rafael Pacis strikes one as a similar maneuver. Discernible is a pattern to frustrate
Negre's proclamation.

Noteworthy too is that the canvass was nished on May 18, 1963 where Negre
w on. All the members of the board were then present. All of them signed the
statement of votes. 17 The absence or presence of Rafael Pacis and Segundo Acdal
during the subsequent meeting to proclaim the winner cannot change the result of
the canvass. Negre would still be proclaimed. Pacis and Acdal knew this.
Finally, the meeting was held with a quorum of six members out of the
membership of ten. It is elementary that a quorum may act for the entire body. The
proclamation is therefore valid. 18
At any rate, the proclamation is but a formal act to conrm the canvass previously
held. It is just a ceremony which follows canvass as a matter of course. Petitioner's
complaint on this point considering the result we have heretofore reached
would lead nowhere. New proclamation would be an idle ritual. It would not change
the result; it would only work delay in the already long delayed proclamation.
For the reasons given, the resolution of the Commission on Elections of May 11,
1968 is hereby conrmed; the preliminary mandatory injunction heretofore issued
is hereby dissolved; and the canvass of May 18, 1968, and the proclamation of May
21, 1968 declaring respondent Atanacio Negre as Mayor-elect of the Municipality of
Sanchez Mira, Province of Cagayan, are both declared valid and subsisting and of full
force and effect.
Costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles,

Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.

The rst Pacis case: L-28455, "Pantaleon Pacis, petitioner, vs. Commission on
Elections, et al., Respondents", decided by this Court on February 10, 1968.

2.

Record, p. 146.

3.

Record, pp. 148-149.

4.

Record, pp. 179.

5.

Rollo, p. 39.

6.

Sec. 2, Article X, Constitution.

7.

Tagoranao vs. Commission on Elections, L-28590 and Cota Cornell vs. Commission
on Elections, L-28598, March 2, 1968, 1968A Phild. 806, 813; Ong vs. Commission
on Elections, L-28415, January 29, 1968, 1968A Phild. 248, 254, citing Nacionalista
Party vs. Commission on Elections, 85 Phil. 149, 157, 158 and Lagumbay vs.
Climaco, L-25444, January 31, 1966.

8.

Espino vs. Zaldivar, L-22325, December 11, 1967, 1967D Phild. 670, 681, 684 and
citations therein.

9.

Tagoranao vs. Commission on Elections, supra.

10.

Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections, L-25349, December 3, 1965 cited in

Janairo vs. Commission on Elections, L-25315, December 8, 1967 and Abes vs.
Commission on Elections, L-28348, December 15, 1967.

11.

Cauton vs. Commission on Elections, L-25467, April 27, 1967.

12.

Lagumbay vs. Climaco, supra.

13.

Precinct 18 is no problem.

14.

Supra.

15.

Supra.

16.

Annex "A" of the original petition, p. 44.

17.

Annex "1", Respondent Negre's Answer, Record, p. 173.

18.

See Espino vs. Zaldivar, supra, citing Santos vs. Commission on Elections, supra.