G.R. No. L-32322-23 - People vs. Ferdez y Jocson

In the elections held on November 8, 1971, Alvaro Filart, the incumbent, was the official Nacionalista Party candidate for mayor of San Guillermo, Isabela, while Armando H. Galicia represented the Liberal Party. Other candidates included Ireneo Narne and Ildefonso Cariaga.
Following the canvass, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Filart as mayor-elect on November 10, 1971, without any objections being raised regarding the authenticity or legality of the election returns at that time.

On November 20, 1971, Armando H. Galicia, having obtained the second highest number of votes, filed an electoral protest before the Court of First Instance of Isabela (Case No. II-4), alleging:

Illegal actions in five precincts (Precincts Nos. 10, 10-A, 13, 13-A, and 13-B) including terrorism, intimidation, undue influence, and manipulation of ballots.
That heavily armed goons, allegedly employed by Filart, prevented voters from casting their ballots freely and even manipulated the ballot boxes and election forms.
That the irregularities resulted in fabricated votes (487 votes) being credited to Filart, which, if removed, would hand the victory to Galicia.

In response, on November 27, 1971, Filart filed his answer with a counterprotest. In his counterclaim, Filart asserted:

The conduct of the elections in the disputed precincts was legal, orderly, and free from coercion.
That the votes cast and canvassed were accurate reflections of the voters’ free will.
That irregularities occurred in other precincts (Precincts Nos. 1-A, 2, 2-A, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12) where he alleged fraud, vote-buying, and undue influence by armed groups allegedly associated with Galicia.

The Court of First Instance of Isabela, after setting schedules for evidence and ballot revision, conducted hearings beginning in April 1972 where both parties participated in the examination and recounting of the ballots in the contested precincts.

Parallel to the protest in the lower court, on November 24, 1971, Galicia filed a verified petition before the Comelec (Comelec Case No. C-291) challenging the election returns in the same disputed precincts.

His petition alleged that at least fifteen armed goons entered the polling places, intimidated voters, and manipulated ballot boxes in Precincts Nos. 10, 10-A, 13, 13-A, and 13-B.
Galicia claimed that the questioned returns were spurious or manufactured, resulting in an illegal canvass that led to Filart’s proclamation with 708 votes against Galicia’s 520.

On December 6, 1971, Galicia moved to suspend the effects of the canvass and proclamation pending the final determination of the controversy, citing earlier decisions and seeking relief with an ex parte order.
A hearing was conducted by the Comelec on December 7, 1971, where based on testimonial evidence—especially from teacher-inspectors—it was found there was a prima facie showing regarding the fraudulent nature of the returns in Precincts 13, 13-A, and 13-B.
Based on these findings, the Comelec rendered its Resolution RR-1174 on May 24, 1972, which:

Set aside Filart’s proclamation.
Declared the returns from Precincts 13, 13-A, and 13-B as spurious.
Directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and exclude those returns in making a new canvass, while allowing Filart a temporal window to appeal.

Filart, dissatisfied with Resolution RR-1174 issued by the Comelec, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
The principal ground raised was that the Commission on Elections lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter since an election protest involving substantially the same grounds had already been filed and was pending before the Court of First Instance of Isabela.
The petition also challenged the validity and timeliness of Galicia’s claims and the alleged actions of armed groups, as well as the procedural propriety in raising contestations before different fora concurrently.

Whether the Commission on Elections had jurisdiction to entertain Galicia’s petition for annulment of Filart’s proclamation when an election protest on similar grounds was already pending before the Court of First Instance of Isabela.
Whether raising questions of spurious or tampered election returns for the first time before the Comelec, despite an ongoing protest in the lower court, violates the principle of pre-proclamation controversy resolution.

Whether Galicia’s allegations of fraud, terrorism, and manufactured returns were properly raised and substantiated at the appropriate stage in the electoral process.
Whether Galicia’s conduct—manifesting participation in the lower court proceedings despite his claims of being in hiding—negates his assertions regarding being prevented from contesting the canvassing process.

Whether the proper resolution of disputes concerning alleged irregularities in election returns is to be done initially by the Board of Canvassers and subsequently by the court that has already acquired jurisdiction over a filed election protest.