Facts:

The case involves Pedro R. Dizon as the petitioner against Hon. Tito V. Tizon, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan, and Guillermo Arcenas as respondents. The events unfolded following the elections on November 14, 1967, wherein Dizon sought re-election for the position of Provincial Governor of Bataan. On December 21, 1967, he filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Bataan, arguing for a mandamus and/or prohibition against the Provincial Board of Canvassers to exclude the votes from precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan. Dizon claimed the election returns from this precinct were "patently manufactured," pointing to a significant discrepancy: the election return indicated that 279 ballots were cast, while the election registrar certified that only 80 individuals actually voted. Dizon alleged that this discrepancy arose due to the board of election inspectors allowing at least 199 fraudulent ballots to be c

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Pedro R. Dizon, was a candidate for reelection as Provincial Governor of Bataan in the elections held on November 14, 1967.
• After the elections, on December 21, 1967, the petitioner filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bataan.

Nature of the Petition

• The petition sought to compel the provincial board of canvassers to exclude the votes cast in Precinct No. 18 of the Municipality of Dinalupihan.
• The petitioner alleged that the election return for this precinct was “patently manufactured,” as it showed 279 ballots cast while a certification from the election registrar indicated that only 80 persons had actually voted.
• Specifically, it was alleged that the board of election inspectors either participated in or tolerated the falsification of at least 199 additional ballots.

Intervention and Respondents

• Guillermo Arcenas, another candidate for the position of Provincial Governor, was allowed to intervene in the case and became one of the respondents.
• The respondents included:
• Hon. Tito V. Tizon, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan;
• The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan; and
• Guillermo Arcenas.

Election Returns and Certification Documents

• The petition centered on a discrepancy between two documents:
• The election return, which on its face indicated that 279 ballots were cast and counted.
• A certification by the election registrar stating that only 80 voters had actually voted.
• The certification clarified that the 80 voters were those who had signed the precinct book (CE Form No. 1).

Explanation of the Discrepancy

• Minutes of the Board of Inspectors showed that 279 ballots supposedly were accounted for, whereas the precinct book (CE Form No. 1) recorded only 80 signatures.
• A separate list, the “List of Voters who Voted and Their Voting Records” (CE Form No. 39), served as an additional record where many voters—who did not sign the precinct book—signed instead.
• A certification by the chairman of the board of inspectors and the poll clerk explained that the failure to complete the voting record on CE Form No. 1 was due to a lack of time, and noted that some voters signed the alternative list (CE Form No. 39) instead.

Proceedings in the Lower Court

• The trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition.
• The lower court noted that the disputed election return was regular on its face and not manifestly fabricated, as no objection had been raised by the petitioner during the canvassing on December 7, 1967.
• The explanation regarding the discrepancy was found to be reasonable and consistent with the manner in which the voting records were kept and processed.

Issue:

Whether the election return for Precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan was “obviously manufactured” as alleged in the petition.

• Determining if the discrepancy between the number of ballots recorded (279) and the number of signatures in the precinct book (80) was sufficient to deem the return as fraudulently produced.

Whether the certification by the election registrar, indicating that only 80 voters cast their votes (based on the precinct book), was material for the board of canvassers who based their count on the returns and the minutes of voting.

• Assessing the weight of the precinct book (CE Form No. 1) versus the minutes of the voting (which indicated a higher turnout).

• Whether any anomaly or irregularity in the voting records justified the exclusion of the election return from the canvass or the annulment of the election in the affected precinct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)