LAGUMBAY - v - COMELEC, CLIMACO
G.R. No. L-25444, January 31, 1966, BENGZON, C.J.
Facts:
1.
This petition prays for revision of an
order of the COMELEC declining to reject the returns of certain precincts of
some municipalities in Mindanao.
2.
The Court issued on December 24, 1965, a
short resolution upholding the Commission's power and duty to reject the
returns of about fifty precincts.
a.
in the first set, in each precinct the
number of registered voters equalled the number of ballots and the number of
votes reportedly cast and tallied for
each and every candidate of
the Liberal Party, the party in power; whereas, all the candidates of the
Nacionalista Party got exactly
zero; and
b.
in the second set, all the reported votes were for candidates of
the Liberal Party, all of whom were credited with exactly the same number of votes in each precinct,
ranging from 240 in one precinct to 650 in another precinct; whereas, all the
candidates of the Nacionalista Party were given exactly zero in all said precincts.
4.
Court opined that the election result to
said precincts as reported, was utterly improbable and clearly incredible. This
is not a case where some senatorial candidates obtain zero exactly, while some others receive a few scattered votes. Here, all the eight candidates of one party garnered all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same number,
whereas all the eight
candidates of the other party
got precisely nothing. There
is no block-voting nowadays.
5.
In Mitchell vs. Stevens, the returns showed a noticeable
excess of votes over the number of registered voters, and the court rejected
the returns as obviously "manufactured". Hence, as the Mitchell
decision concluded, the returns were "not true returns . . . but simply
manufactured evidences of an attempt to defeat the popular will."
Issue: Whether or not prayer for revision of an order of the
COMELEC declining to reject the returns of certain precincts of some
municipalities in Mindanao must prosper.
Held: NO. Petition denied.
These returns were obviously false or fabricated — prima facie.
Precinct No. 3 of Andong, Lanao del Sur. There were 648 registered
voters. According to such return all
the eight candidates of the
Liberal Party got 648 each, and the eight Nacionalista candidates
got exactly zero. Court
held such return to be evidently fraudulent or false because of the inherent
improbability of such a result — against statistical probabilities — specially
because at least one vote should have been received
by the Nacionalista candidates, i.e., the vote of the Nacionalista inspector.
It is "possible" that such inspector did not like his
party's senatorial line-up; but it is not probable that he disliked all of such candidates, and it is not
likely that he favored all the
eight candidates of the
Liberal Party. Therefore, most probably, he was made to sign an obviously false
return, or else he betrayed his party, in which case, the election therein — if
any — was no more than a barefaced fraud and a brazen contempt of the popular
polls.
General rule is that frauds in the holding of the election should
be handled and finally settled by the corresponding courts or electoral
tribunals. Exception is where the fraud is so palpable from the return itself (res
ipsa loquitur — the thing
speaks for itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value.
The returns show "prima facie" that they do not reflect
true and valid reports of regular voting. The contrary may be shown by
candidate Climaco — in the corresponding election protest.
The well-known delay in the adjudication of election protests often
gave the successful contestant a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when
the term of office is about to expire, or has expired. Court felt the mores of
the day require application of the principle in the Mitchell decision even as
it strikes a blow at such pernicious
"grab - the - proclamation - prolong - the - protest" slogan of
some candidates or parties.
