
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-53793 June 29, 1981
LEONOR A. GARCIA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CABANATUAN CITY COMPOSED OF EDILBERTO B. REGALADO AS CHAIRMAN AND MELVIN P. TIONGSON AND MA. VICTORIA A. ESTOESTA AS MEMBERS, and HONORATO C. PEREZ, SR., respondents.
G.R. No. L-54277 June 29, 1981
HONORATO C. PEREZ, SR., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LEONOR A. GARCIA, respondents.
MAKASIAR, J.:
G.R. No. 53793
The subject of the instant certiorari proceedings is the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 in PreProclamation Case No. 44 entitled "In Re: Petition for Nullification anchor Exclusion of Election Return, etc.; Honorato C. Perez, Sr., petitioner" and the minute resolution of the COMELEC dated April 16, 1980 denying the motion for reconsideration filed on March 31, 1980 by herein petitioner, Leonor A. Garcia, in said pre-proclamation case.
The records show that herein petitioner, Leonor A. Garcia, was the official candidate of the Lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan (LPB) for the position of mayor of the city of Cabanatuan in connection with the January 30, 1980 local elections.
Private respondent Honorato C. Perez, Sr. was the incumbent mayor of Cabanatuan City prior to the January 30, 1980 local elections. He was the official candidate for the same office under the banner of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL).
On January 30, 1980 the City Board of Canvassers for Cabanatuan City with City Election Registrar Wilfredo Navarro as chairman, convened and started the canvass of the election returns for the City of Cabanatuan.
On January 31, 1980, herein private respondent Honorato C. Perez, Sr. filed a petition with the respondent Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City praying for the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidates for the office of city mayor and vice mayor of Cabanatuan City on the ground that in various voting centers/precincts in 18 barangays, the votes cast for the KBL were not credited in their favor in spite of protests made by KBL watchers, thus rendering said election returns in the 18 barangays mentioned in private respondent's petition defective; and that the votes/ballots in question are of sufficient quantity to substantially affect the results of the elections. In said petition, herein private respondent further prayed that a recounting of the ballots be ordered (Annex "B ", pp. 73-74, rec.).
Also on January 31, 1980, a telegram was sent by the chairman of the COMELEC to Atty. Wilfredo Navarro, in his capacity as chairman of the City Board of Canvassers for Cabanatuan City, the contents of which read:
"IN VIEW PETITION FILED BY KBL CANDIDATE HONORATO PEREZ ALLEGING RAMPANT PARTICIPATION OF FLYING VOTERS CMA MASSIVE TERRORISM AND VOTE BUYING AND CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE IN DUE FORM CMA YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT COMMISSION HAS RESOLVED TO SUSPEND THE CANVASS OF THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION FOR MAYOR THAT CITY AFFECTING ALL VOTING CENTERS STOP NOTIFY ALL PARTIES CONCERNED STOP YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO SECURE PROPER GUARDS TO ENSURE THAT INTEGRITY OF RETURNS IS PROTECTED STOP ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT HEREOF AND ACTION TAKEN END COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LEONARDO B. PEREZ
CHAIRMAN (Annex "A", p. 59, rec.).
On February 1, 1980 private respondent filed an amended petition dated January 31, 1980, this time before the COMELEC praying "for exclusion and/or annulment of election returns, suspension of canvassing and proclamation, and for annulment of certificates of candidacy of Lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan (LPB) candidates in the City of Cabanatuan" on the grounds that herein petitioner, Leonor Garcia, has resorted to "massive vote-buying", "terrorism", rampant participation of flying voters", non-counting of KBL votes in favor of KBL. candidates and other election irregularities committed in various voting centers/precincts, including those in Barangay Aduas, Dimasalang, Bantug Bulalo, San Isidro and Supermarket (Annex "C", pp. 76-79, rec.).
On the same day that the amended petition of private respondent was filed, that is, on February 1, 1980, respondent COMELEC, pursuant to its Resolution No. 1430 (4), sent to Cabanatuan City a COMELEC Special Action Team No. 9, composed of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, Atty. Benigno R. Lapitan, and Atty. Jose Balbuena, members, to exercise direct and immediate supervision and control in the area of assignment over all COMELEC personnel and law enforcement agencies, government officials and their personnel whenever placed under COMELEC deputation or control and transmitted to Atty. Wilfredo Navarro, chairman of the Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City, the following memorandum:
"MEMORANDUM TO: | ATTY. WILFREDO NAVARRO City Election Registrar Cabanatuan City |
This is to officially inform you and the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City that Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala of Comelec Special Action Team No. 9 had a direct telephone talk with Chairman Leonardo B. Perez who reaffirms the authenticity of the telegraphic order dated January 31, 1980 to you to suspend the canvass of the results of the election for mayor in Cabanatuan City.
The Chairman further said that you will be held in contempt and declare all proceedIngs null and void should your Board disobey the above-mentioned COMELEC order.
COMELEC SPECIAL ACTION TEAM NO. 9
s/t LT. COL. FRANCISCO V. SAMALA
Member
s/t ATTY. BENIGNO R. LAPITAN
Member
s/t ATTY. JOSE BALBUENA
Member
On February 2, 1980 the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City proclaimed herein petitioner, Leonor Garcia, and her running mate, Dr. Romeo Ortiz, as the elected city mayor and city vice mayor of Cabanatuan City and also proclaimed all the eight (8) candidates of the KBL as the winning candidates for the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cabanatuan City (Annex "D", p. 80, rec.) "notwithstanding the aforestated orders of the COMELEC suspending the canvassing and proclamation" (p. 60, rec.).
On February 4, 1980 private respondent filed before the COMELEC an urgent ex-parte motion to declare proclamation null and void (Annex "E ", pp. 82-86, rec.).
On February 5, 1980 private respondent Perez filed a second amended petition before the COMELEC alleging, among others, that the incumbent Governor Eduardo Joson of the province of Nueva Ecija, a KBL candidate, did not support private respondent's candidacy but instead helped and supported the candidacy of herein petitioner by utilizing the military as well as armed supporters of the incumbent governor in subverting the will of the electorate of Cabanatuan City by resorting to massive fraud, terrorism, vote-buying and other election irregularities (Annex "F", pp. 87-92, rec.).
On February 6, 1980, acting on the petition filed by herein private respondent and the report of the Special Action Team sent to Cabanatuan City stating that the canvass of votes by the City Board of Canvassers was made in the presence of armed men who exerted pressure on the said Board, respondent COMELEC set aside the proclamation earlier made by the City Board of Canvassers and constituted a new Board of Canvassers. The COMELEC likewise ordered the transmission of all the election returns to the central office for the purpose of recanvass (Annex "G", p. 94, rec.).
Subsequently, herein petitioner filed an action with the Supreme Court to stop respondent COMELEC from implementing its resolution of February 4, 1980 but said petition was dismissed (Annex " H ", p. 95, rec.).
Consequently, on February 26, 1980, the new City Board of Canvassers, headed by Edilberto Regalado as chairman, commenced the recanvass of the election returns during which herein private respondent presented before the board his documentary evidence; the recanvass resumed the following day, February 27, and up to February 28, 1980.
On February 29, 1980, petitioner submitted to the new Board of Canvassers her documentary evidence.
On March 3, 1980, private respondent filed before the same board his memorandum dated March 3, 1980 in support of his contention seeking the nullification and/or exclusion of all election returns pertaining to forty (40) voting centers in nine (9) barangays of Cabanatuan City, namely:
Barangay |
Voting Center No. |
1. Aduas |
1, 2, 2-A, 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 6, |
|
7, 7-A, 8, 8-A or 13, 9, |
|
10, and 10-A; |
2. ACCFA (San Juan) |
1, 1-A or 2; |
3. Bantug Bulalo |
1, 2, and 3; |
4. Dimasalang |
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; |
5. Fatima |
1, 2, and 3; |
6. San Isidro |
1 and 2; |
7. San Josef Norte |
1, 2, 3 and 4; |
8. San Roque |
1, 2 and 3; and |
9. Supermarket |
1 . |
These election returns were questioned or contested by private respondent Perez on various grounds, including rampant terrorism, gun-point preparation of ballots, wanton vote-buying, participation of flying voters, connivance and collusion with the members of the Citizens Election Committee (Annex "J", pp. 171-184, rec.).
On March 5, 1980, herein petitioner filed her memorandum before the Board praying that all the election returns in all the voting centers in the nine (9) barangays contested by private respondent be included in the canvass for being authentic and genuine, not false or manufactured (Annex "K", pp. 185-200, rec.).
On March 5, 1980 the City Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, pertinent portions of witch read:
"x x x x x x x x x
"In the assessment of the evidence submitted, both for and against, the board was guided by the controlling fundamental principles on the extent of the powers of boards of canvassers.
"The canvassing board is merely a ministerial body. It is empowered only to accept as correct, returns transmitted to it which are in due form, and to ascertain the result as appears therefrom" (18 Am. Jur. p. 346) ... . "The canvassers are to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns, that is, that the papers presented to them are not forged or spurious, that they are the returns, and are signed by the proper officers; but when so satisfied they may not reject any returns because of informalities in them or because of fraudulent practices in the election" (Sangki vs. Commission on Elections, Dec. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA p. 1397 citing Dizon vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers) ... .
"It is within this context that the Board hereby rules on the evidence submitted, as follows: Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, A-3, B, B-1, B-2, B-3; Exhibits J & J-1 insofar as they allege terrorism, vote-buying and other irregularities committed during the election in Cabanatuan City; Exhibits L to L-8 inclusive; Exhibits M to M-16, inclusive, insofar as they allege the commission of anomalies in the election, the presence of armed men, misreading of ballots by the citizens election committee, refusal of the citizens election committees to recognize the watchers of candidate Honorato Perez and allow them to observe the proceedings in the voting center, vote-buying and coercion of voters into voting for a particular candidate; Exhibits N to N-4 insofar as they allege irregularities in the voting, vote-buying and coercion of voters; Exhibits 0 to 0-6; Exhibits P to P-8 insofar as they allege the presence of armed men within the vicinities of the voting centers, coercion of voters, wrong appreciation of ballots, irregular voting procedures and refusal of the citizens election committees to recognize KBL watchers and to allow them to observe the proceedings in the voting center; Exhibits Q to Q-3 insofar as they allege that many flying voters were allowed to vote, irregular voting procedure, coercion of voters, vote-buying, presence of armed men and refusal of the citizens election committees to allow the KBL watchers to observe the proceedings in the voting center; Exhibits R to R-3; Exhibits T to T-5 insofar as they allege coercion of voters, wrong appreciation of ballots, the presence of armed men, irregular voting procedures, and refusal of the citizens election committees to recognize KBL watchers and allow them to observe the proceedings in the voting center; and Exhibits S to S-4 are all not admitted for the reason that the grounds alleged therein are not proper grounds for exclusion of election returns during canvassing by the board of canvassers. 'The question of whether or not there had been any terrorism, vote buying and other irregularities in the election should be ventilated in a regular election protest and not in a petition to enjoin the board of canvassers from canvassing the returns' (City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City, et al vs. Moscoso et al., GR No. L-16365, Sept. 30, 1963).
"Exhibits D-1 to D-4, E, F, G to G-3, H to H-3, 1 to 11 J-3, J-3, K to K-2, U to U-1, "V" (adopted as Exh. '15' by Garcia) W to W-1, X to X-1, Y, Z BB, CC, DD, EE, and FF, are likewise not admitted as being irrelevant and immaterial to the issues at bar.
"Exhibits M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-10, M-13, M-14 insofar as they allege that the election returns were not prepared by the members of the citizens election committees of voting centers 1 -A, 2, 2- A, 3, 6, 8 and 8-2, respectively, of Barangay Aduas; Exhibit N-1 insofar as it alleges that the returns in Voting Center No. I and 2 of Barangay Bantug Bulalo were made under the supervision of the leaders of candidate Leonor Garcia and Governor Joson; Exhibit P-7 insofar as it alleges that the returns in Voting Center No. 3 of Barangay Fatima was not prepared by the citizens election committee; Exhibit Q-1 insofar as it alleges that the election return of Voting Center No. 2 of Barangay San Isidro was not based on the actual votes cast in said center as the citizens election committee of said center did not count the votes cast; Exhibit T-2 insofar as it alleges that the election return in Voting Center No. 1 of Barangay Supermarket was a manufactured return for the reason that no counting of the votes was actually conducted by the citizens election committee of said center, are all admitted
"In refutation of the statements in the foregoing admitted exhibits, candidate Leonor Garcia has submitted affidavits executed by the citizens election committees of the aforementioned voting centers testifying to the fact that they (the citizens election committees) canvassed the votes cast, that they prepared the election returns personally; and, that said election returns contain the true and correct results of the election held in their respective voting centers (Exhibits I-B, 1-C, I-D, 1-E 1- 1, 1-L, 1-M, 7-C, 6-A); 9-A (joint affidavit of the Barangay Council and Kababaihang Barangay and watchers of the LBP). The foregoing exhibits submitted by candidate Leonor Garcia are admitted. The other exhibits submitted by candidate Leonor Garcia are rejected as being immaterial and irrelevant.
"x x x x x x x x x
"It is, therefore, the ruling of this Board that all the forty (40) contested election returns should be included in the canvass for Cabanatuan City" (pp. 46-50, rec.).
Likewise, in its session on the same day, March 5, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers informed the parties that the canvassing of the forty (40) contested election returns will begin on the following day, March 6, 1980 (Annex "L", p. 206, rec.).
On March 6, 1980 the board convened and proceeded with the canvass and the result was that petitioner, Leonor Garcia, obtained 27,618 as against 25,391 votes obtained by respondent Perez (Annex " 1 ", p. 229, rec.).
On March 6, 1980 private respondent herein filed a notice of appeal with urgent ex-parte motion for suspension and/or deferment of canvass pending resolution on appeal dated March 6, 1980 before the COMELEC (Annex "N", pp. 218220, rec.) questioning the March 5, 1980 resolution of the Board of Canvassers and reiterating the same grounds raised in private respondent's petition filed before the Board.
Acting on the appeal of respondent Perez, the COMELEC issued an order dated March 6, 1980 restraining the proclamation of the winners in the canvass held by the City Board of Canvassers (Annex "0-1 ", P. 223, rec.).
Immediately upon receipt of the restraining order issued by the COMELEC, herein petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated March 6,1980 (Annex "P", pp. 224-228, rec.).
On March 11, 1980, without acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, respondent COMELEC heard the case wherein the parties, assisted by their respective counsels, presented oral arguments, dispensed with presentation of testimonial evidence and agreed to submit the case after filing their respective memoranda.
On March 14, 1980 herein private respondent submitted his supplementary memorandum before the COMELEC (Annex "O", pp. 231-251, rec.); and on March 17, 1980 petitioner herein submitted her supplementary memorandum (Annex "R", pp. 252-273, rec.).
On March 27, 1980 respondent COMELEC issued a resolution the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of an the foregoing considerations, the Commission is of the considered opinion and so holds as follows:
"1. To grant the instant appeal of herein petitioner and the City Board of Canvassers is hereby ordered to exclude from the canvass the forty (40) questioned election returns;
"2. To order the City Board of Canvassers to proclaim immediately the winning candidates based on the result of the recanvass after excluding the election returns as mentioned and specified in paragraph No. I hereof.
"3. This resolution is without prejudice to the right of any of the parties to file an election protest within the period of ten (10) days from the proclamation to be made as herein provided, and other criminal charges as they may deem proper and necessary (Annex "A" p. 71, rec.).
On March 27, 1980 herein petitioner filed before the COMELEC an urgent ex-parte motion to hold in abeyance implementation of the said resolution by the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 (Annex " S ", pp. 281-282, rec.).
In spite of said urgent ex-parte motion, the City Board of Canvassers convened and proceeded to canvass the election returns pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980, resulting in the proclamation of respondent Perez as the winner in the mayoralty race with 22,179 votes over petitioner who obtained 20,071 votes in Annex "T" (p. 283, rec.) or 20,068 votes as stated at the hearing on November 8, 1980 before this Court.
On March 31, 1980 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of respondent COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 (Annex "U" ", pp. 284-309, rec.), which was opposed by private respondent on April 12, 1980 (Annex "V ", pp. 311-320, rec.).
On April 16, 1980, the COMELEC issued a resolution (Annex "A-1 ", P. 72, rec.) which reads as follows:
9641 (PP Case No. 44). For the same reasons as stated in the Resolution dated March 27, 1980 and for lack of merit, the Commission has RESOLVED to DENY the motion for reconsideration dated March 29, 1980 and filed by respondents-appellees Leonor A. Garcia, et al., the following March 31, 1980.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari.
Petitioner impugns the findings of respondent COMELEC on the following grounds:
A
THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS WHEN IT HELD THAT 6 ELECTION RETURNS WERE WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON AND 3 ELECTION RETURNS WERE PREPARED BY 2 DIFFERENT PERSONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMELEC HANDWRITING EXPERT, CONSIDERING THAT DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE NAVARRO BOARD TO THE REGALADO BOARD TO THE COMELEC EN BANC, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL WAS PRESENTED BY EITHER PARTIES NOR UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMELEC CONCERNING HANDWRITING EXPERTS.
B
THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE 20 ELECTION RETURNS WERE TAMPERED OR MANUFACTURED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CANVASS BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES/INITIALS OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE DO NOT APPEAR AFTER THE LAST TALLY OF THE VOTES FOR EACH CANDIDATE CONSIDERING THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION THE REMEDY UNDER SECTION 172 OF THE ELECTION CODE OF 1978 IS TO SUMMON THE MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE TO CORRECT SUCH OMISSION IN FORM OR DATA AND NOT TO ANNUL THE ELECTION RETURNS AND DISENFRANCHISE THE VOTERS THEREAT.
C
THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IT RULED THAT 20 OTHER ELECTION RETURNS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CANVASS ON THE GROUND THAT THESE 20 RETURNS WERE PREPARED THRU CRIMINAL COLLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE THRU THE INTERVENTION AND/OR DICTATION OF ARMED MEN OF PETITIONER HEREIN WITHOUT STATING WHICH AMONG THE 20 WERE PREPARED VOLUNTARILY THRU CRIMINAL COLLUSION OR INVOLUNTARILY THRU DICTATION OF ARMED MEN.
D
THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED AND REPORTED TO IT THRU VARIOUS SELF-SERVING TELEGRAMS AND LETTERS BY THE LEADERS OF RESPONDENT HEREIN, BEFORE AND DURING THE ELECTIONS AS AGAINST THE FINDINGS, AFTER INVESTIGATION, MADE BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, MAJOR GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS CONCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINTS OF RESPONDENT HEREIN AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW ASSEMBLYMAN ANGEL CONCEPCION, WERE COMPLETELY BASELESS, FALSE, EXAGGERATED, UNCORROBORATED, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED AND INTENDED MERELY AS A FACE-SAVING DEVICE TO RATIONALIZE THEIR (RESPONDENT'S) POLITICAL SURVIVAL IN NUEVA ECIJA IN THE WAKE OF THEIR RESOUNDING DEFEAT.
E
THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY, IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW, AND OMITTED TO WEIGH PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IT RELIED ON THE AFFIDAVITS OF PAID KBL WATCHERS AND SYMPATHIZERS THAT THERE WERE MASSIVE VOTE-BUYING, FLYING VOTERS, TERRORISM AND OTHER ELECTION IRREGULARITIES AS AGAINST THE AFFIDAVITS AND SWORN STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO SERVED AS MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ELECTION COMMITTEE IN ALL THE 40 VOTING CENTERS WHOSE 40 ELECTION RETURNS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE COMELEC. EVEN GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MASSIVE VOTE-BUYING, FLYING VOTERS, TERRORISM AND OTHER IRREGULARITIES, THESE ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT OF ELECTION RETURNS BUT GROUNDS FOR AN ELECTION PROTEST" (pp. 15-17, Petition).
The main issue raised by petitioner before US in this petition for certiorari is whether or not respondent COMELEC has acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the forty (40) election returns from the forty (40) voting centers contested by private respondent herein.
I
The resolution of the respondent COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 shows the following pertinent facts:
x x x x x x x x x
For the purpose of affording the parties concerned, particularly petitioner Perez and the opposing candidate Leonor Garcia, the opportunity to further ventilate their respective contentions before the Commission, and to enable it to physically examine the 40 questioned election returns, the appeal was set for hearing on March 11, 1980 with notice to all the parties and/or their respective lawyers.
At the hearing on March 11 both parties assisted by their respective lawyers presented oral arguments, dispensed with the presentation of testimonial evidence, and agreed to submit the case after filing their respective memoranda; and their memoranda are now attached to the records of the case;
The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City has erred in including in its canvass all the forty (40) contested election returns pertaining to forty (40) voting centers of nine (9) barangays of Cabanatuan City.
x x x x x x x x x
The City Board of Canvassers has ruled in favor of including the 40 contested election returns on the principal ground that it is merely a "Ministerial body", without any power "to go behind the returns" and inquire into its integrity and authenticity, citing the case of Sangki v. Comelec, Dec. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA p. 1397; 18 Am. Jur. p. 346 & 29 CJS p. 431. But this doctrine no longer prevails. At present, the Commission on Elections is vested with broad powers and functions under the 1973 Constitution and the 1978 Election Code; it has direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers (Sec. 164, 1978 Election Code); it has the exclusive power to enforce and administer an laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest elections, and to perform such other functions as may be provided by law (Sec. 2[l] & 181, Art. XII C 1973 Constitution; Sec. 185, 1978 Election Code; Sec. 17, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52).
x x x x x x x x x
The 40 election returns pertaining to 40 voting centers from 9 barangays in Cabanatuan City, namely, Aduas, San Juan (ACCFA), Bantug Bulalo, Dimasalang, Fatima, San Isidro, San Jose Norte, San Roque and Supermarket, are sought to be excluded by petitioner on the following grounds mentioned in his memorandum: 1) massive terrorism, threats and coercion; 2) gun-point preparation of ballots; 3) election returns prepared thru criminal collusion of members of the Citizens Election-Committees; 4) election returns prepared thru intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Candidate Garcia; 5) rampant vote buying, 6) flying voters and manufactured ballots; 7) exclusion and disenfranchisement of duly registered voters, inclusion of voters not registered by means of collusion C.E.C (Citizens Election Committee) which allowed voters to vote by Identification not under oath; 8) premature closure of polling places; and 9) forcible exclusion of poll watchers of the petitioner and the public.
Contrary to respondent's contention, the aforestated grounds are not 'new grounds' for they are mentioned in the numerous affidavits presented before the Board of Canvassers; and the latter even ruled on their admissibility.
A close scrutiny of the disputed 40 election returns has revealed the following-
1. By comparative examination and analysis among and between the handwritings appearing in six (6) election returns which are grouped into two (2) shows distinct and significant writing characteristics, hence they are WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.
Voting Center Number |
Barangay |
5 |
Dimasalang |
4 |
ACCFA (San Juan) |
3 |
62 |
7 |
Aduas |
6 |
Aduas |
1 |
Supermarket |
2. Other observations:
Voting Center |
Barangay |
Findings |
No. |
|
|
4 |
(48) San Josef |
Entries written |
|
Norte |
by two different |
|
|
persons |
3 |
Bantug Bulalo |
-do- |
2 |
(48) San Josef |
-do- |
|
Norte |
|
1 |
San Isidro |
No signatures |
|
|
initials of all |
|
|
the members after |
|
|
the entry of votes |
|
|
for each candidate |
1-A |
(2) ACCFA |
-do- |
1-A |
(2) Aduas |
-do- |
3 |
48 |
-do- |
5 |
Dimasalang |
-do- |
2 |
Aduas |
-do- |
1 |
Bantug Bulalo |
-do- |
3 |
2 Aduas |
-do- |
4 |
2 Aduas |
-do- |
3 |
Dimasalang |
No signatures/initials |
|
|
of all the members |
|
|
after the entry of |
|
|
votes for each candidate |
4 |
48 San Josef |
-do- |
3 |
62 |
-do- |
5 |
Aduas |
-do- |
1 |
|
|
3 |
2 Aduas |
-do- |
"As to be noted above, twenty (20) election returns appear to have been tampered and/or manufactured and should not be included in the canvass.
"On the grounds that certain election returns were prepared thru criminal collusion of members of the Citizens Election Committee thru the intervention and/or dictation of armed men of Candidate Garcia, there are additional twenty (20) election returns which appear to have been adversely affected thereby, to wit:
"1. From Barargay Aduas - Voting Centers Nos.1,4-A,5,7A, 9, 10 & 15;
"2. From Barangay Bantug Bulalo - Voting Center No. 2;
"3. From Barangay Dimasalang - Voting Centers Nos. 1, 2, & 4;
"4. From Barangay Fatima - Voting Centers Nos. 1 & 3;
"5. From Barangay San Isidro - Voting Center No. 2;
"6. From Barangay San Josef Norte - Voting Centers Nos. 1 & 3;
"7. From Barangay San Roque - Voting Centers Nos. 1, 2 & 3;
"8. From Barangay San Juan - (ACCFA) - 1
"Although the foregoing conclusions pointing to certain traces of irregularities in the election returns specified above could be as they are easily detected by any layman's eyes, nevertheless, the Commission utilized its own handwriting experts who confirmed the same findings thereon of the chairman and members of the Commission.
x x x x x x x x x (pp. 51-57, rec.).
II
It is the stand of the petitioner that the respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding that 6 election returns were written by one and the same person and 3 election returns were prepared by 2 different persons, because:
... During the entire proceedings from the Navarro Board in Cabanatuan City to the Regalado Board in the office of the Comelec in Manila to the oral arguments and hearing before the Comelec en bunc in Manila, no evidence at all was presented concerning The handwriting experts of the Comelec making such findings. These findings were made by the Comelec only after the parties have submitted their respective memoranda and the case has been deemed submitted for resolution. When the resolution was being prepared therefore, these findings by the handwriting experts of the Comelec were sought in, the Comelec to confirm their layman's finding that six returns were prepared by one person and three returns were prepared by two persons. PETITIONER HEREIN OR HER UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL WERE NEVER INFORMED NOR FURNISHED COPY OF THESE ALLEGED FINDINGS. An opportunity therefore was not afforded the petitioner herein to refute the alleged findings of the handwriting experts of the Comelec. This is a clear case of disregard of constitutional due process. (p. 19, rec.).
WE cannot sustain the stand of the petitioner. WE are convinced that the respondent COMELEC acted within its authority in evaluating the handwritings found on each of the forty contested election returns and in seeking the confirmation of the handwriting experts in its conclusion that six (6) election returns were written by one and the same person and three (3) returns were prepared by two persons, indicating that the same are manufactured returns.
Likewise, WE are not in accord with the argument of the petitioner that she was denied due process because she was not afforded the opportunity "to refute the alleged findings of the handwriting experts of the Comelec." Such contention is without merit. At the outset, it should be recalled that at, the hearing on March 11, 1980 before the COMELEC, the parties dispensed with the presentation of testimonial evidence, and merely prepared oral arguments and submitted the case for decision after filing their respective memoranda. Petitioner therefore waived further presentation of evidence.
It should also be emphasized that the findings of the COMELEC that six (6) of the excluded election returns were written by one and the same person and three 3 other return were prepared by two different persons, indicating that said returns are manufactured, were not solely findings of the handwriting experts of the COMELEC. The findings of the handwriting expert's vis-a-vis the nine (9) election returns merely served to confirm what the Comelec has found after it conducted "a dose scrutiny of the disputed 40 election returns." thus, as stated by tile respondent COMELEC:
Although the foregoing conclusions pointing to certain traces of irregularities in the election returns specified about could be as they are easily detected by any layman's eye, nevertheless The Commission utilized its own handwriting experts who confirmed the same findings thereon of the chairman and members of tile Commission (p. 57, rec.).
It is clear therefore from the aforestated findings of the respondent COMELEC that there was absolutely no necessitty the part of the petitioner to refute any further The findings of the handwriting experts as the COMELEC had already ' made a prior conclusion based on evidence independent of tilt, findings of the handwriting experts. Moreover any further proceedings touching on the findings of the handwriting experts of the COMELEC would only serve to delay the disposition of the case and would not, in any way, alter the findings l the Commission after it had closely scrutinized the contested election returns. 'Thus. in The case of Aratuc vs Commission on Elections (88 SCRA 25", 281), E affirmed the authority, of the COMELEC to decide on contested election returns even without the aid of experts, using only "common sense and perception".
Petitioner further argues that "the six (6) voting centers whose returns were allegedly written by one and the same person are geographically located in different barangays each between one to three kilometers away from the other." It is the stand of the petitioner that it was impossible for a man to prepare the election returns in the six voting centers; she contends that "this feat is contrary to natural law and would require superhuman capacity."
But, as pointed out by petitioner herself, only 1 to 3 kilometers separated the six (6) voting centers. Under such a given situation, it would still be physically possible for a person to go from one voting center to another and perform his assigned task with ease, considering that in any election, means of transportation are always readily made available by the candidates to their leaders and followers for any political activity. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General:
... Since motorized transportation was admittedly existing in the city of Cabanatuan, the distances mentioned were not insurmountable. As for the amount of work involved in preparing the returns, there is nothing in the record nor on the faces of the returns to show that the individual responsible for it was under any definite time constraints to carry out his task.
Moreover, judging from the tension obtaining - as the records will bear out - before, during and after the election in Cabanatuan City, which was apparently generated by the intense rivalry between the two contending political protagonists, this Court cannot close Its eyes to the possibility that the election returns contested by herein private respondent could have been prepared before election day, or even on election day and distributed among the different voting centers with the connivance of the members of the Citizens Election Committees; if they were not terrorized.
III
Petitioner likewise assailed the respondent COMELEC's order to exclude fourteen (14) other election returns which did not bear the signatures or initials of the members of the Citizens Election Committees after the entry of votes for each candidate. Petitioner advanced the argument that under such circumstances, the respondent COMELEC should have summoned the members of the committees and directed them to supply the omitted signatures or initials pursuant to Section 172 of the Election Code of 1978.
Said Section 172 provides that: "if it should clearly appear that some requisites of form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board shall return them by the most expeditious means, to the corresponding election committee for correction. ...
It is patent that Section 172 imposes such a duty on the board of canvassers, not on the COMELEC. When the law imposes a duty or confers a power on the COMELEC, it expressly mentions the COMELEC by name. Typical examples are Sections 171, 173, 174 and 175.
Moreover, the correction of the omission of the signatures or initials of the members of the citizens election committee after the entry of votes for the candidates, could not be among the requisites in form or data that could be corrected under Section 172; because Section 156 requires that the signatures of all the members of the citizens election committee shall "be affixed in full view of the public. immediately after the last vote recorded, or immediately after the name of the candidate who did not receive any vote in the voting center itself soon after The counting of all the votes. Such signatures shall close the entry, of votes for each candidate. Obviously therefore, the correction of the election returns by the election committee pursuant to Section 172 can only be made when the said election returns are returned by the board of canvassers to such election commitee for such (correction long after all the votes have been counted and long after the entry of the votes counted for each candidate.
Evidently, the omission of the signatures or initials of the members of the citizens election committees in the 14 election serious doubts as to The authenticity and return raises genuineness of said returns To OUR mind such omissions "stamp the election returns with the indelible mark of falsity and irregularity, and, consequently of unreliability, and justify their exclusion from the canvass" (Usman vs. Commission ion on Elections, 42 SCRA 686) WE are therefore of the considered view that the respondent COMELEC was well within its authority in excluding the aforestated returns upon its findings that the same "appear to have been tampered and/or manufactured."
IV
Herein petitioner further assigns as error the COMELEC's appreciation of events which occurred before and during the election and which were reported through the various telegrams (pp. 57-58 rec.) sent to the COMELEC by concerned citizens of Cabanatuan City. Petitioner belied the reported election irregularities contained in the various telegrams - among which was the involvement of the local PC command in The conduct of the election in Cabanatuan City - by relying on th investigation report (pp. 278-279, rec.) submitted by Brigadier General Vicente E. Eduardo, Regional Commander, PC/ INP RECOM 3, to the PC Chief, Major Gen. Fidel V. Ramos denying the involvement of the constabulary in partisan politics ii Cabanatuan City.
However, the investigation report of Brig. Gen. Vicente E. Eduardo relied upon by herein petitioner, was obviously tainted with bias, hence, unreliable, considering that his son was a candidate in one of the towns of Nueva Ecija and, understandably, any adverse report from him relative to the conduct of election in his area of responsibility would be prejudicial to, if not a black mark on, his record and performance as PC I P Regional Commander.
Petitioner likewise assailed as error when the COMELEC accorded more weight to the affidavits of witnesses adduced 1 private respondent Perez as against the affidavits and sworn statements of the public school teachers who served as members of the citizens election committees in the contested voting centers. This issue, as raised by herein petitioner, was squarely met by the COMELEC when it noted that:
x x x x x x x x x
To contradict the affidavits presented on behalf of petitioner the respondents have likewise adduced affidavits of the teachers who were members of the Citizens Election Committees in the voting centers in controversy. It was noted that most of their affidavits are verbatim copies of one another, hence, of doubtful credibility. Besides, as against the sworn statements of petitioner's affiants constituting direct and positive evidence, those of respondent's were general denials and thus partake of the nature of negative evidence; and as between positive and negative evidence, the well-established rule affords greater weight and credence to the former (Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court, Vol. VII, 1973 ed. pp- 4-5).
As pointed out, correctly, by petitioner, teachers Lucita Apolonio and Lydia Domingo have categorically admitted they were forced to sign their affidavits (Exh. AA); and also, the members of the Citizens Election Committees who executed affidavits contrary that those submitted by petitioner were 'hostile and ill-motivated' for they have been charged by petitioner of "rampant violation of the election code and other election irregularities before the Commission on Elections (Exh. U).
Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the numerous election irregularities adversely affecting the genuineness and authenticity of the questioned election returns could have been effected without the knowledge and consent or collusion of the members of the Citizens Election Committees concerned; and for which reason, the charges filed against them should be investigated. So that respondent's argument sustained by the City Board of Canvassers regarding the presumption that official duty was performed, has been strongly and adequately controverted by the totality of the facts and circumstances borne out by the evidence on record in the case at bar (pp. 69-70, rec.).
V
WE have paintstakingly examined the affidavits submitted by both parties which are now part of the records in the case at bar and WE are satisfied that the COMELEC was indeed justified in according more credence to the affidavits of the witnesses of private respondent Perez over that of the opposing affidavits of the members of the Citizens Election Committees concerned.
It is clear to US that the affidavits submit' ed by respondent Perez are more consistent with the evidence of fraud and other election irregularities found by the COMELEC on the face of the election returns in controversy. The affidavits submitted by herein private respondent showed specific allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, use of flying voters, non-counting of KBL votes in favor of the KBL candidates, use of force and intimidation by the followers of petitioner Garcia in the counting of ballots and in the preparation of the election returns. In contrast, the affidavits and sworn statements of petitioner's witnesses were surprisingly Identical or similar and consisted mainly of general denials, hence, cannot be accorded greater weight and credence. Moreover, two members of the Citizens Election Committee, both public school teachers, subsequently revealed that they were coerced into signing the affidavit its for the petitioner.
Apart from the foregoing, as deserving of serious consideration are the reports (which will be quoted later) of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, head of the Comelec Special Action Team (COMSAT) in Cabanatuan City, and Major Rogelio S. De Joya, Station Commander INP, Cabanatuan City, which confirmed the wholesale violations of the Election Code on prohibited acts, such terrorism, vote-buying and other election irregularities by the men and followers of herein petitioner. The same reports also deplored the apparent lack of cooperation on the part of the military to follow the directives of the Special Action Team in the disposition of troops in critical areas in Cabanatuan City where armed men were reportedly sighted. The reports likewise mentioned the adamant refusal of the City Board of Canvassers, headed by Wilfredo Navarro, to stop the proclamation of candidate Garcia in spite of the telegram sent by Chairman Leonardo B. Perez ordering said board to suspend the proclamation (pp. 64-68, rec.).
Appropriate it is to say at this juncture that, in the case at bar, the petitioner failed to show patent and grave abuse by frequent COMELEC of its authority to exclude from the canvass election returns which are, on their faces, obviously with and/or manufactured. In upholding this authority, WE have had the occasion to say that:
The broad power of the Comelec conferred upon it by the Constitution, to enforce and administer "all laws relative to the conduct of elections" and to decide all administrative questions affecting election "for the purpose of insisting free, orderly honest election" has been the key in the resolution of many pre-proclamation controversies involving the integrity and authenticity of election returns. Invoking the aforestated power of the Comelec, we justified the action and upheld the authority of the Comelec to order the exclusion of "obviously manufactured" returns (Lagumbay vs. Climaco and Comelec 16 SCRA 175), or tampered returns (Cauton vs Comelec and Sanidad, 19 SCRA 911), or returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances affecting the returns" integrity and authenticity (Pacis vs. Comelec, 25 SCRA 377; Antonio Jr. vs. Comelec, et al., 32 SCRA 319), emphasizing the duty of the Comelec to see to the use and inclusion in the canvass of only genuine and regular election returns for determining the true result of the election.
x x x x x x x x x
In the performance of its duty to guard against the use and inclusion of returns prepared under circumstances showing their falsity in the canvass of election returns, the Comelec shout not be hampered in the choice of effective means and methods to fully ascertain the genuineness and regularity, of disputed election returns. To establish the indubitable existence of any such circumstances necessarily not evident from an examination of the election returns themselves - demands recourse to proof independent of the election return or to evidence aliunde (Usman vs. Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA. 667, 686-687, emphasis supplied).
And as far back as Caution vs, Commission on Elections (19 SCRA 911, 921-922), this Court, speaking through the late Justice Zaldivar, stressed that:
... The purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of popular government. The commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which ii was created - to promote free orderly, and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should riot be interfered with. ... " emphasis supplied).
And lately, in Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections, supra, this Court finally stated that:
... We might disagree with the Comelec as to which voting center should be excluded or included, were We to go over the same records Oueselves, but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out, considering that Comelec cannot be stud to have acted whimsically or capriciuosly or without any rational basis, particular if it is considered that in many respects and from the very nature of our respectively function, becoming candor would dictate to US to concede that the Commission is in a better position to appreciate and asses the vital circumstances closely and accurately ... (88 SCRA 251, 281, emphasis supplied).
Finally, in resolving the main issue raised by the petitioner herein, the respondent COMELEC correctly took into account the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining before, during and after the elections in Cabanatuan City, all "pointing to the unworthiness lot inclusion in the canvass of the questioned election returns." The COMELEC cited the following noteworthy events and circumstances:
As early as January 19, 1980, petitioner as Acting Mayor of Cabanatuan expressed in writing his serious concern and apprehension regarding tile presence of armed men outside and inside the compound of Ex-Mayor Mario S. Garcia, husband of respondent Leonor A. Garcia, "some of whom are reportedly men wanted by the law who are given sanctuary in his premises" and to preserve peace and order in Cabanatuan City he (petitioner) requested the Provincial Commander, thru the Station Commander, to take immediate steps "to determine who these armed men and under what authority of law they carry firearms" (Exh. A).
On January 30, 1980, several telegrams were sent to and received by the Chairman of the Comelec, as follows:
INFORMING YOU OF TUMULTOUS CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS CHARACTERIZED BY RAMPANT VOTE BUYING CMA PROLIFERATION OF FLYING VOTERS CMA TERRORISM AND OPEN HARASSMENT OF ELECTORS AND PARTY WARD LEADERS LEADING TO HIGH PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS UNABLE TO VOTE STOP COMELEC CONTROL THIS CITY NEVER FULLY IMPLEMENTED DUE TO REFUSAL OF LOCAL MILITARY COMMAND TO COOPERATE WITH SPECIAL COMELEC TASK FORCE LED BY COLONEL SAMALA STOP WIDESPREAD FEAR THAT CONTINUING TREND 01' DIRTY POLITICS WOULD LEAD TO CHAOS CMA VIOLENCE CMA AND THE OVERALL THWARTING OF THE PEOPLES WILL STOP THE NUEVA ECIJA PRESS AND RADIO CLUB URGENTLY REQUEST THAT IF SITUATIONS COULD NOT BE CHECKED CMA CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS BE, SUSPENDED LEST LOCAL SITUATION DETERIORATES COMPLETELY.
PETE SALAZAR
NEPRC PRESIDENT (Exit. B)'
MAPITAGANG IPINAGBIBIGAY ALAM SA INYO ANG MASAMANG PANGYAYARI SA ELEKSIYONG 110 SA AKING BARANGAY DIMASALANG LUNGSOD NG KABANATUAN HINTO KALAT ANG BILIHAN N BOTO AT PANANAKOT NG MGA ARMADONG LALAKI KING KAYAT MARAMING TAO ANG HINDI MAKABOTO HINTO NAKIKIUSAP KAMI NA ULITIN ANG ELEKSIYON TAPANG MALAMAN KUNG SINO MGA TAO ANG TALAGANG GUSTO NG BAYAN HINTO
JOSE JAVIER
KAPITAN BARANGAY DIMASALANG
(Exh. B-1)
MORE THAN SIXTY BARANGAY CAPTAINS IN CABANATUAN CITY APPALLED AI OPEN MOCKERY OF CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS CHARACTERIZED BY WHOLESALE ANOMALIES AND TERRORISM COMMITTED 13 LOCAL OPPOSITION PARTY LAPIANG PAGKAKAISA NG BAYAN I COOPERATION WITH GOVERNOR JOSON AND WITH OBVIOUS TOLERATION OF LOCAL MILITARY UNITS IN DEFIANCE OF COMELEC CONTROL WITH SPECIAL COMELEC TASK FORCE UNDER COLONEL SAMALA WHICH COMELEC SPECIAL TASK FORCE WAS NOT ABLE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT STOP RAMPANT VOTE BUYING AND OPEN HARASSMENT OF LOCAL ELECTORATE CMA WARD LEADERS CMA AND EVEN PRECINT ELECTION BOARD VIRTUALLY NEGATE ELECTION SAFEGUARDS STOP WIDESPREAD PANIC AND FEAR OF PRESENT AND POST ELECTION VIOLENCE GRIPPING LOCAL CITIZENRY SPECIALLY IN THE BARANGAYS STOP RESPECTFULLY URGE STEPS BE TAKEN TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION OR SUSPEND ELECTIONS TO PREVENT INJUSTICE AND DISREGARD OF POPULAR WILL STOP
FRANCISCO REYES
ABC PRESIDENT
(Exh. B-2)
VIGOROUSLY PROTESTING AGAINST RAMPANT VIOLATION OF ELECTION LAWS IN CABANATUAN CITY ELECTIONS INCLUDING WHOLESALE ANOMALIES CMA VOTE BUYING CMA WIDESPREAD TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION OF GOONS AND GUNS STOP COMELEC TASK FORCE LED BY COL SAMALA UNABLE TO FULLY IMPLEMENT COMELEC CONTROL OF CITY DUE TO RECALCITRANCE OF LOCAL MILITARY UNITS WHO TOGETHER WITH NUEVA ECIJA GOVERNOR EDUARDO JOSON WHO SUPPLIES LOGISTICS FOR MAKING THIS ELECTION A VIRTUAL MOCKERY OF SUFFRAGE STOP URGENTLY IMPLORE YOU TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO CORRECT SITUATION OR SUSPEND ELECTION TO PREVENT COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF PEACE AND ORDER THIS CITY STOP
RICARDO AGAPITO
KBL CAMPAIGN MANAGER
(Exh. B-3) [pp. 57-59, rec.].
x x x x x x x x x
In a report dated February 2, 1980 to the Chairman, Comelec, Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, member of the COMSAT No. 9, states:
1. Pursuant to COMELEC office order dated January 28, 1980, COMELEC SPECIAL ACTION TEAM NO. 9 for Nueva Ecija and Cabanatuan City, composing of Lt. Col. Francisco V. Samala, Atty. Benigno Lapitan and Atty. Jose Balbuena, effected the placement of the police force of Cabanatuan City under COMELEC control and supervision on January 29, 1980.
2. Invoking the provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 1430, COMSAT No. 9 requested the Commanding General, First Tabak Division of the Philippine Army to immediately organize at least three (3) companies of Special Forces, with radio and other necessary equipment to constitute the strike force which will be utilized to help police the elections at the disposal and deployment of COMSAT No. 9.
3. Lateral and direct coordinations were made by the COMSAT with the military and police authorities in Fort Magsaysay and Cabanatuan City that henceforth, the police force of Cabanatuan City, except for the routine and ordinary duties, should not perform any other duties or assignments unless so directed by the COMSAT.
4. In accordance with the arrangements made, thirty (30) PA troops were dispatched from Fort Magsaysay for detail in Cabanatuan the night of January 29, 1980 upon request of the KBL on grounds of alleged terrorism and vote buying. Mayor Perez, KBL candidate for Mayor however subsequently complained that none of the troops actually arrived.
5. About 200 men from First Tabak Division and Special Warfare Brigade were made available to the COMSAT. They came to Cabanatuan at about 2:00 P.M. after they have voted in camp. These troops were distribute to the different towns and barangays upon request of those concerned. Surprisingly enough, however, is the fact that in Cabanatuan City only KBL has requested for the detail of troops to various barangays in the city and more surprisingly was the continuous complaint of people that none of the soldiers detailed by COMSAT No. 9 by means of orders to the Provincial Commander was ever seen in the places designated. Yet, everytime inquiries were made to verify the complaint, the office of the Provincial Commander gave the assurance that the troops were dispatched strictly accordance with the COMSAT written directives. COMSAT was bombarded with complaints from Mayor Perez, Assemblyman Angel Conception and KBL, leaders that none of our directives for the disposition of troops in Cabanatuan City was ever implemented up to the early morning of January 31. This was one of the reasons terrorism, vote buying and other elections irregularities were allegedly, perpetrated by the opposition candidates publicly known to E supported by Governor Joson of Nueva Ecija.
6. On January 31, at about noon Ni or Honorato Perez snowed to the COMSAT members the telegram order of Chairman Leonardo B. Perez to the City election registrar to suspend the canvassing of election returns, COMSAT immediately prepared a written communication to Atty. Wilfredo Navarro quoting the text of the telegram instructing him to comply therewith. However, subsequent clerck made by Lt. Col. Samala and Atty. Balbuena at City Hall showed that the City Board of Canvassers had no petitioner to comply with the above-mentioned telegram order as the Board of Canvassers has decided to proceed with the canvass. In the presence of Atty. Navarro, ex-Mayor Garcia, husband of opposition candidate for Mayor Leonor Garcia, and his ward leaders, all in, belligerent and intimidating attitude siid that the Board of Canvassers will not comply with the order for three reasons, namely: that they have not seen the original thot the grounds cited in the order are not the grounds provided for bv law for the suspension of the canvassing of election returns; and they doubt the authenticity of the signature of Chairman Perez. They were vehemently opposing the order inasmuch as they have already sacrificed a lot, exerted efforts, spent their resources and would not allow the suspension of the canvassing of election returns even if it should mean the shedding of blood. It was very noticeable that the City hall where the canvass was being held were surrounded by heavily armed men, some in uniforms some looks like civilians.
7. Immediately Lt. Col. Samala and Atty. Balbuena went to the Bureau of Telecommunications and placed a person to person long distance telephone call to Chairman Perez. When informed of the development and incident above-mentioned, the Chairman instructed Lt. Col. Samala to informing the members of The City Board of Canassers that they will be held in contempt and declare all proceedings null and avid should they disobey the order to stop the canvas of election returns. Consonantly, a written memorandum to the board was (illegible) sent by COMSAT. This notwithstanding, the City Board of Canvassers proceeded not only with the canvassing but also with the proclamation of Mrs. Leonor Garcia, the opposition candidate, as the elected mayor of Cabanatuan her running mate Romeo Ortiz as vice-mayor, and the candidate of the KBL for councilors as councilors-elect (pp. 64-66, rec.).
After Election Report of Major Rogelio S. de Joya, Station commander INP, Cabanatuan City, dated February 12, 1980, states:
x x x x x x x x x
c. Assessment. - the post election situation in the city of Cabanatuan is quite tense. unofficial reports of the 30 January 1980 election broadcast over the radio showed that the mayoral candidate of the lapiang Pagkakaisa ng Bayan were leading. All the Sanguniang Panglungsod candidates of the KBL were likewise leading. In the early morning of 31 January 1980, the Cit Hail was completely swamp(ed) with military personnel both from the Nueva Ecija PC/INP and the Special forces of the Army Brigade in Fort Magsaysay. The canvassing of votes way being undertaken when Chairman Leonardo Perez of the Commelec issued an order to stop the same upon petition of Mayor Honorato C. Perez on various but in spite of that order the City Board of canvassers comprised of the Comelec registrar of Cabanatuan City Atty. Wilfredo Navarro a Chairman and City Fiscal Benjamin Cable and City Superintendent of School Mrs. Sabina J. Ferrer as members proceeded with the Canvassing of votes and proclaimed the following as winner in the 30 January 1980 elections.
For City Mayor ...............Dra. Leonor A. Garcia LPB
For Vice Mayor ...............Dr. Romeo Ortiz LPB
For Coucilors
Charito E. Fabros |
-KBL |
Fred Tan |
-KBL |
Augusto de Guzman |
-KBL |
Renan Morfe |
-KBL |
Dr. Rodolfo Reyes |
-KBL |
Ruperto Franco |
-KBL |
Francisco Reyes |
-KBL |
Juanito Ballesteros |
-KBL |
Votes garnered by each of the above candidates is not available. On 3 February 80, the Comelec in Manila issued an order declaring that the proclamation of candidates made by the Board of Canvassers on February 1980 was illegal, unlawful and therefore considered null and void. Atty. Wilfredo Navarro was quoted in saying that during the entire canvassing of notes he was under duress and extreme physical pressure caused by the presence of military and civilian both armed with long firearms. From the period January 31 up to 9 February 1980, the city hall was guarded by the special forces of the Army Brigade. During that period rumors/'gossips circulated in the city that the city hall will be burned and the city market will be the object of arsonist. This created tension and fear among the city populace. Leaflets were distributed in the city public market by unidentified person inciting people to revolt in the event that the proclaimed winners in the city election cannot assume office. Barangay captain of Dean Sarile, Obrero D.S. Garcia and others complained to the mayor and same was relayed to the Station Commander that armed men can be seen in the immediate vicinity of their house with The end in view of threatening them. These people are afraid to give statement in spite of the fact that some of them were Identified.
d. Incident that happened during election day.-Cabanatuan City Police Station was placed under Comelec control and that order was relayed by Lt. Col. Samala, head of the Comelec COMSAT 9. 1 was informed that contingent of special forces of Army Brigade will be assigned in Cabanatuan City Police under my operational control for possible assignment/deployment in the critical barangays of this city. When election day came in spite of several follow up made both by Mayor Perez and the undersigned Station Commander, no augmentation troop came. Repeated calls from Mayor Perez, candidate for Mayor of the KBL, requesting the deployment of troops in the following barangays pursuant to the request of Barangay Captains who feared armed men visiting the following places to wit: Bakod Bayan, Samon, Pamaldan etc. but no troops were given to me for assignment in said places so I was forced to dispatch a handful of my men only in a few places reported by Mayor Perez as I don't have enough men. At one time Mayor Perez reported the presence of armed men in Barangay Bagong Sikat, San Josef Norte, Lagare, Crisostomo and Mabini and when operatives of this Station responded they gave chase to an owner jeep bearing plate number J-845 loaded the armed men but to no avail. However, one of the occupants of said jeep was Identified as Feling Samonte resident of Aduas, Cabanatuan City. Unidentified person/passenger of said jeep threw the firearm they were carrying near the East Central School and said firearm was brought to this Headquarters. This case is still under investigation and same was reported to that Headquarters but up to this time the failure of the PA contingent to reach their assigned Barangays despite order from the Commission on Election Action Team remains a mystery. No killing has been committed during the entire period but Mayor Perez reported massive terrorism and vote buying in several Barangays.
x x x x x x x x x (pp. 66-68, rec.).
WE agree with the COMELEC that the totality of the facts and circumstances as borne out by the evidence on record has sufficiently overcome the prima facie value of the contested election returns in Cabanatuan City.
The remaining issue raised by the petitioner relates to her allegations that if there were massive vote-buying, flying voters, terrorism and other election irregularities during the elections, these are not grounds for annulment of the election returns but grounds for an election protest. This contention is untenable. In the early case of Lagumbay vs. Climaco and Comelec, supra, this Court upheld the authority of the COMELEC to order the exclusion of "obviously manufactured" returns, or tampered returns as held in Caution vs. Comelec and Sanidad, supra or returns prepared under threats and coercion or under circumstances affecting the returns' integrity and authenticity, as held in Pacis vs. Comelec and Antonio vs. Comelec, et al. cases, supra.
Furthermore, Section 175 of the Election Code of 1978, in no uncertain language, states:
The Commission shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory: It may, motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a candidate elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been made, on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173 and 174 hereof.
Finally, the COMELEC'S broad power under the present Constitution has gained judicial recognition.7!ᕼdMᗄ7 The rational is aptly stated by Chief Justice Fernando ill the recent case Villegas vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (G.R. No, L-52463, September 4, 1980):
A novel provision in the present constitution is that empowered. the Commission on Election to be "the sole judge of all contests relating in the elections, return and qualifications of all Members of the National Assembly and elective provincial and City officials; Thus, its competence is greater than that formerly found in the constitution which is limited to the enforcement and administration all laws relative to the conduct of election." ... Its authority to decide pre-proclamation controversies is still one of its functions." Consequently, the here in petition must fail.
G.R. No. 54277
The intant certiorari proceedings seeks to review the resolution of the COMELEC dated June 18, 1980 in Election Protest Case No. 80-92 entitled "Leonor A. Garcia versus Honorato C. Perez, Sr. and the order of the COMELEC dated July 10, 1980, denying the motion for reconsideration filed on July 2, 1980 by the herein petitioner.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On March 27, 1980, the COMELEC, in Pre-Proclamation Case No. 44 entitled "In Re: Petition for Nullification and/or Exclusion of Election Returns, etc., Honorato C. Perez, Sr., Petitioner", promulgated a resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Commission is of the considered opinion and so holds as follows;
1. To grant the instant appeal of herein petitioner and the City- Board of Canvassers is hereby ordered to exclude from the canvass the forty (40) questioned election returns;
2. To order the City Board of Canvassers to proclaim immediately the winning candidates based on the result of the recanvass after excluding the election returns as mentioned and specified in paragraph No. 1 hereof;
3. This resolution is without prejudice to the right of any of the parties to file an election protest within the period of ten (10) days from the proclamation to be made as herein provided, and other criminal charges as they may deem proper and necessary (Annex B P. 51, rec.).
Consequently, on March 27, 1980, the City Board of Canvassers of Cabanatuan City proclaimed the herein petitioner Perez as mayor-elect of Cabanatuan City (Annex "C", p. 52, rec.).
On March 31, 1980, herein private respondent Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 28,1980 (Annex "D", pp. 53-79, rec.).
On April 16, 1980, the respondent COMELEC issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent (Annex "E", p. 80. rec.).
On April 7, 1980, herein private respondent Garcia filed with the COMELEC an election protest ex abundante ad cautelam entitled Leonor A. Garcia versus Honorato C. Perez, Sr.", and docketed as Election Protest Case No. 80-92 (Annex "F", pp. 81-87, rec.).
On April 19, 1980, the herein petitioner Perez filed before the COMELEC his answer with special and affirmative defences and counter protest(Annex"G",pp.88- 95 rec.).
In a separate motion likewise filed on April 19, 1980, herein petitioner prayed that his special and affirmative defenses be as valid grounds for dismissal of the election protest ex abundante ad cautelam filed by private respondent (Annex", pp. 97-98, rec.).
On May 7, 1980, private respondent filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari entitled Leonor A. Garcia versus The Honorable Commission on Elections, et al." docketed as G.R. No. 53793, seeking to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC dated March 27, 1980 and the minute resolution dated April 16, 1980.
Likewise, on May 7, 980, private respondent filed her opposition to petitioner's motion (rated April 18, 1980, alleging that the election protest case was filed ex abundante ad cautelam and therefore, all action and proceedings should be held in abeyance (Annex "I", pp. 99- 107, rec.).
On April 25, 1980, respondent COMELEC conducted a preliminary hearing on the special and affirmative defense,9 during which the parties herein argued and later submitted said incident for resolution.
On May 15, 1980, a resolution was issued by the respondent COMELEC, the dispositive portion of which is quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of an the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Commission has RESOLVED TO DISMISS the instant election protest dated and filed on April 7, 1980; to reiterate and confirm the proclamation of protestee HONORATO C. PEREZ, Sr. as the duly elected City Mayor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija; and consequently, to dismiss the counter-protest and protestant Garcia's claim for damages (Annex "J", pp. 108-117, rec.).
On June 5, 1980, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated May 15, 1980 (Annex "K", pp. 118-132, rec.).
On June 17, 1980, herein petitioner filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration dated June 5, 1980 (Annex "L", pp. 133-145, rec.).
On June 18, 1980, respondent COMELEC issued a resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:
1. To grant the motion for reconsideration dated and filed on June 5, 1980 by protestant Leonor A. Garcia on the specific ground aforementioned, hereby ordering the reinstatement of the instant election protest case filed ex abundante ad cautelam;
2. To defer action on the instant election protest ex abundante ad cautelam until after Pre Proclamation Case No. 44 is finally resolved and terminated; and
3. To order the reinstatement of the counter-protest of protestee Honorato C. Perez, Sr., but likewise holding in abeyance any further action thereon (Annex "A ", pp. 23-24, rec.).
On July 2, 1980, petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration dated July 1, 1980 (Annex " M ", pp. 146-149, rec.).
Subsequently, on July 10, 1980, the COMELEC issued an order denying the motion for partial reconsideration for being "unmeritorious" and further stating that "no further motion for reconsideration from either party shall be entertained as the final decision of the Supreme Court in G. R. No. 53793 is being awaited" (Annex "A-I ", p. 25, rec.).
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner raised the following
"GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
I
THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT REVERSED ITS OWN PREVIOUS RESOLUTION THAT ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92 IS A MERE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS RESOLUTION ORDERING THE EXCLUSION OF 40 ELECTION RETURNS FROM THE CANVASS OF VOTES AND A DUPLICATION OF THE PRE-PROCLAMATION CASE NO. 44 WHICH IS NOW ON certiorari WITH THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT .
II
THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT IT IS PREMATURE TO DISMISS ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92 IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS MERELY A PETITION OF PROTEST EX ABUDANTE AD CAUTELAM
III
THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND IN INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF THE LAW WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REINSTATED ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92.
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
IV
THE CONTINUANCE OF THE INSTANT CASE WILL NOT ALTER THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION IN CABANATUAN CITY.
V
WHATEVER DECISION THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT MAY RENDER IN G. R. NO. 53793 WILL RENDER THE ELECTION PROTEST CASE NO. 80-92 MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
The only issue raised is whether or not the COMELEC was correct in reinstating the election protest ex abundante ad cautelam filed by herein private respondent Garcia.ℒαwρhi৷
In her election protest ex abundante ad cautelam, private respondent Garcia seeks the revision, re-appreciation and recounting of all the votes cast in the forty (40) voting centers whose election returns were ordered excluded by the Commission in a resolution promulgated on March 27, 1980, not because of any defect or irregularity in the election or any act committed by the Citizens Election Committee, but because "the votes in the 40 voting centers were not counted in the over- all total of the results of the election ... " (p. 83, rec.). This practically is the same issue raised in and depends on the resolution of G. R. No. 53793, supra.
Like the petition in G. R. No. 53793, the herein petition equally cannot prosper.
WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONS IN BOTH CASES ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE ELECTORAL PROTEST FILED ON APRIL 7, 1980 BY LEONOR A. GARCIA AGAINST HONORATO C. PEREZ, SR., AND WITHOUT COSTS.
Barredo, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., concur in the result.
Concepcion Jr., J., took no part.
Melencio-Herrera J., I reserve my vote.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation