G.R. No. L-31501 June 30, 1970
DATU BLAH SINSUAT, petitioner, vs. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF COTABATO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a pre-proclamation controversy concerning election returns. Petitioner Datu Blah Sinsuat and respondent Salipada K. Pendatun were candidates. The returns from certain precincts showed extreme results: in precincts of Upi (petitioner’s hometown), Sinsuat received 4,346 votes against zero for Pendatun. Conversely, in 35 precincts of Pagalungan (respondent’s hometown), Pendatun received all 5,809 votes cast against zero for Sinsuat. Affidavits from poll inspectors and officials explaining the zero votes for Pendatun in the Upi precincts were presented by petitioner Sinsuat and stand unrebutted. The Commission on Elections applied the doctrine from the Lagumbay case to reject certain returns as “obviously manufactured” based on statistical improbability.

ISSUE

Whether the Lagumbay doctrine on rejecting election returns as “obviously manufactured” due to statistical improbability is applicable to the factual circumstances of this case.

RULING

No, the Lagumbay doctrine is inapplicable. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority’s application of the Lagumbay dictum is incorrect. The consistent judicial pronouncement after Lagumbay is to restrict its application to returns showing a “unique uniformity of tally” for one party and a “systematic blanking” of all opposing candidates, making the fraud palpable and the conclusion “indubitable and incontestable” from the face of the returns themselves. In this case, the factual background—involving extreme hometown voting patterns and the presence of unrebutted affidavits explaining the zero votes—makes the issue a “very controversial one of fact.” The results cannot be deemed “utterly improbable and clearly incredible” in this context. Therefore, the conclusion of the returns being “obviously manufactured” is not clear and incontestable, precluding the summary application of the Lagumbay doctrine based on statistical improbability. The proper recourse is an election protest, not summary exclusion in a canvass proceeding.