Title
Domocao Alonto, Datu Gasanara Lucman, Hadji Mapunud Datu-Iman, Sheik Ismael Laud and Sultan Guiling Buntalis vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-28490
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1968
Candidates alleged election fraud, claiming returns were manufactured and votes counted in PC camps. SC upheld Comelec, citing no grave abuse of discretion, authorized counting locations, and insufficient evidence of statistical improbability.
election law
canvass
commission on
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 200612)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioners: Domocao Alonto, Datu Gasanara Lucman, Hadji Mapunud Datu-Iman, Sheik Ismael Laud, and Sultan Guiling Buntalis, Liberal candidates for provincial offices in the elections of November 14, 1967.
    • Respondents: The Commission on Elections (Comelec), the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Lanao del Sur, and various local election officials.
  • The Petition and Alleged Irregularities
    • Initial Petition
      • Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to reverse the Comelec’s December 19, 1967 decision dismissing their petition for permanent suspension of the canvass of votes.
      • They prayed for rejection of the election returns from 27 municipalities in Lanao del Sur (including Marawi City, Saguiaran, Piagapo, Kapai, Ramain, Bubong, Marantao, Balindong, Tugaya, Masiu, Poona-Bayabao, Tamparan, Lumba-Bayabao, Taraka, Molondo, Bacolod Grande, Madalum, Madamba, Ganassi, Pualas, Pagayawan, Binidayan, Balabagan, Tubaran, Bayang, Lumbatan, and Wao).
    • Grounds of the Petition
      • Allegation that the returns were “obviously manufactured” due to irregularities, fraud, and terrorism during the elections.
      • The petitioners argued that:
        • The canvass was held not in the designated polling places but in PC camps.
ii. The counting was conducted at least three days after the election day (i.e., on November 17 at the earliest), in violation of sections 144 and 151 of the Election Code. iii. In at least 40 contested precincts, returns were already rejected during the senatorial count, and in 38 precincts, statistical improbabilities (i.e., ballots cast exceeding the number of registered voters) indicated manufacturing of returns.
  • Procedural Developments
    • Motions and Rulings at the Election Level
      • The Comelec initially denied the petition on the basis of existing jurisprudence (e.g., Abes vs. Comelec, L-28348, December 15, 1967) asserting that once returns are authenticated, their canvassing should not be questioned.
      • A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, restating their contentions and adding the ground of improper counting location and delay.
    • Respondents’ Position
      • They contended that:
        • The counting in PC camps was undertaken either upon the request of election inspectors and local Liberal representatives or by mutual consent, subsequently approved by Comelec or the Provincial Election Registrar via Resolution RR-551.
ii. Counting outside of the designated polling places had been established practice since 1951 to preserve order and officer safety. iii. The discrepancies in the returns (such as the case of Precinct No. 19 in Lumbatan) were attributable to clerical mistakes rather than fraudulent manufacturing.
  • Contextual Concerns Leading to the Counting Procedure
    • Safety Considerations
      • The transfer of ballot boxes and counting to PC camps was justified by the need to avoid bloodshed amid political tensions.
      • The practice aimed to protect election officers from potential threats, underscoring the exigencies of the situation.
    • Legal Framework
      • Petitioners invoked sections 163, 144, and 151 of the Election Code, arguing that the counting should be immediate and conducted in the precincts as mandated by law.
      • Respondents stressed that exceptional circumstances allowed deviations from the usual procedure provided that proper safeguards and authorizations were in place.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional and Procedural Authority
    • Whether the Comelec had the authority to mandate the rejection of election returns at the provincial level based solely on its earlier action in the senatorial canvass.
    • Whether the provincial boards of canvassers could exercise independent judgment in accepting or rejecting returns even if irregularities were noted in the official copies held by the Comelec.
  • Validity of the Counting Procedure
    • Whether counting votes in PC camps and delaying the count until November 17, instead of conducting it immediately in the designated polling places, violates sections 144 and 151 of the Election Code.
    • Whether special circumstances such as safety concerns and the risk of violence justify the alternative counting procedures adopted.
  • Statistical and Apparent Irregularities
    • Whether the statistical improbability (ballots cast exceeding the number of registered voters) constitutes sufficient evidence to deem the returns as “obviously manufactured.”
    • Whether the alleged clerical error (e.g., in Precinct No. 19 of Lumbatan) impacts the overall validity of the election returns.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms