G.R. No. 120823 October 24, 1995
HADJI HAMID PATORAY, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, (NEW) MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TAMPARAN, LANAO DEL SUR AND TOPAAN D. DISOMIMBA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hadji Hamid Patoray and private respondent Topaan D. Disomimba were candidates for mayor of Tamparan, Lanao del Sur in the May 8, 1995 elections. During canvassing, Disomimba objected to the inclusion of election returns from four precincts, alleging they were prepared under duress and were fraudulent. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) included the returns, finding them clean and regular on their faces. The initial canvass showed Patoray leading by 25 votes. Disomimba appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division, on June 30, 1995, affirmed the inclusion of returns from two precincts but reversed for Precincts 16 and 20-A, ordering their exclusion. This exclusion would overturn Patoray’s lead, giving Disomimba a 193-vote advantage. The COMELEC en banc denied Patoray’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exclusion of the election returns from Precincts 16 and 20-A without ordering a recount of the ballots or utilizing other authentic copies of the returns.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COMELEC resolutions. The Court held that the COMELEC erred in excluding the returns without taking the proper remedial steps mandated by law. For Precinct 16, where a discrepancy existed between the “taras” and written figures in the return, the COMELEC correctly identified an irregularity. However, under Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, the proper course was not outright exclusion but to order a recount of the ballots or use the Certificate of Votes to ascertain the true results, given that the discrepancy affected the election outcome. For Precinct 20-A, the return was excluded for lacking data on provincial and congressional candidates. This constituted a material defect under Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code, not a discrepancy. The remedy was for the board of canvassers to call the board of election inspectors to correct the return or, if necessary, to recount the ballots to complete the data. The Certificate of Votes for this precinct was also inadmissible as it was signed only by the chairperson, violating the requirement under R.A. No. 6646 that it be signed by all BEI members. The summary nature of pre-proclamation proceedings demanded that the COMELEC simply order a recount of the votes in the two precincts to determine the true will of the electorate, rather than outright exclusion which would disenfranchise voters.