Title
Pacis vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-29026
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1968
Election returns contested due to tampering and duress; Comelec investigated, corrected returns, and proclaimed Negre as Mayor. Supreme Court upheld Comelec's authority, validity of canvass, and proclamation.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29026)

Factual Background

The elections in the Municipality of Sanchez Mira were marred by a shooting on November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22 at the Namuac Elementary School where then Vice Mayor Manuel Franco was killed, and the inspectors fled leaving election documents and ballot boxes open and unsealed. The tally sheets and tally boards were later found missing and several copies of election returns bore erasures and superimpositions. In the first Pacis case the Court directed Comelec to investigate and ascertain the true returns of Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22 and to order a board of canvassers to use the true returns in proclaiming the winner for Mayor of Sanchez Mira.

Comelec Investigation and Findings

Comelec instituted Case No. RR-607 and on May 11, 1968 submitted a detailed report. It found that the ballot box copy in Precinct 18 was intact and reflected Negre 39 votes and Pacis 110 votes while the other copies were falsified. In Precinct 19 all four copies were either tampered or illegible; from board members’ testimony and an NBI questioned documents report Comelec concluded the true votes were Negre 73 and Pacis 89. In Precinct 21 Comelec found discrepancies between words and figures and concluded the words in the provincial treasurer’s copy were least tampered, showing Negre 69 and Pacis 119. In Precinct 22, although the four copies appeared clean and bore signatures, Comelec found the return was prepared “at the point of a gun,” identified other surrounding indicia of inauthenticity, and ruled that there was no valid return for the office of Mayor in that precinct and that no votes therefrom should be counted.

Canvass, Proclamation and Petitioner’s Challenge

Pursuant to Comelec’s directives the municipal board of canvassers convened at the Comelec office in Manila on May 18, 1968 and conducted a recanvass, using municipal treasurer copies where available and following Comelec’s instructions for the contested precincts. The resulting statement of votes showed Pacis with 2,102 and Negre with 2,342 votes. The board adjourned and later reconvened for proclamation on May 21, 1968, at which meeting six members attended, four were absent, and Atanacio Negre was proclaimed Mayor-elect. Pantaleon Pacis filed a petition for certiorari in this Court on May 21, 1968, and sought reliefs that included annulling the May 11, 1968 resolution of Comelec, declaring certain returns falsified, annulling the May 18 canvass, compelling a recount for Precincts 19, 21 and 22, and obtaining a preliminary injunction against proclamation.

Procedural Posture and Interim Relief

Pacis filed a supplemental petition and the Court issued the preliminary mandatory injunction on June 11, 1968 upon posting of P1,000 cash bond. Negre moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction, contending improper service within the ten-day period of Rule 43, Rules of Court; the Court denied the motion to dismiss, directed proper service of pleadings, and required Negre to answer. Pacis concurrently lodged an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan as a precaution pending resolution of the present petition.

Issues Presented

The Court framed the issues as: (1) whether Comelec validly ordered the municipal board of canvassers to use, other than the copy for the municipal treasurer, Comelec’s own findings of correct votes and the words in the provincial treasurer’s copy; (2) whether judicial recount was proper where all copies of election returns were tampered; and (3) whether alleged failure properly to serve two members of the municipal board of canvassers barred a valid proclamation.

Parties’ Contentions

Pacis urged that Comelec’s May 11, 1968 resolution and the subsequent canvass and proclamation were invalid and sought annulment of the canvass and a court-ordered recount, as well as injunctive relief to enjoin Negre from performing mayoral duties. Comelec and Negre contended that Comelec had plenary investigatory and supervisory power under the Constitution and the Election Code to ascertain true returns and to direct the canvass accordingly; Negre additionally argued lack of appellate jurisdiction on procedural grounds and that a judicial recount was improper where returns were tampered and ballot boxes left open.

The Court’s Holding

The Court, through Justice Sanchez, affirmed Comelec’s May 11, 1968 resolution, dissolved the preliminary mandatory injunction, and declared the canvass of May 18, 1968 and the proclamation of May 21, 1968 valid, subsisting and of full force and effect. Costs were imposed against the petitioner. The decision was concurred in by Chief Justice Concepcion and Justices Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court analyzed Comelec’s constitutional and statutory authority to enforce and administer election laws and to decide administrative questions affecting elections under Sec. 2, Article X, Constitution, and reiterated that Comelec’s power to investigate and to review canvass decisions exists to safeguard free, orderly and honest elections. The Court recognized that when returns were obviously manufactured or palpably irregular the canvassing board may reject them and that such action is subject to Comelec’s review, but cautioned that rejection must be exercised with extreme care so as not to suppress the popular will unless the circumstances warranted it. Applying these principles, the Court held that Comelec reasonably concluded that Precinct 19’s returns could be reconstructed from board testimony and an NBI questioned documents report showing Pacis’s original figure was eighty-nine, and therefore Comelec did not abuse its discretion in directing that Negre’s 73 and Pacis’s 89 be used. For Precinct 21 the Court accepted Comelec’s use of the words as entered in the provincial treasurer’s copy because handwritten words were less likely to have been altered and thus reflected the true vote. For Precinct 22 the Court endorsed Comelec’s conclusion that a return prepared at the point of a gun was not a valid return at all and that no votes from that precinct should be counted. On the recount point the Court ruled that it could not compel the board of canvassers to file a petition for recount; Section 163 permits recount petitions to be submitted by the board or by “any candidate affected,” and where returns were tampered the appropriate remedy lies with Comelec rat

...continue reading

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.