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

In the November 11, 1969 elections, Datu Blah Sinsuat (Nacionalista Party) and Salipada K. Pendatun (Liberal Party) were candidates for Representative of Cotabato. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (Board) conducted the canvass but did not proclaim a winner pending appeals to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). An unofficial tabulation showed Pendatun leading by 4,974 votes. During the canvass, the Board rejected 22 election returns from precincts in Dinaig, Ampatuan, Upi, and Maganoy on the ground of “statistical improbability” under the Lagumbay doctrine (where returns show a pattern of uniform voting for one party and zero for the other). The Board also included in the canvass 10 election returns from precincts in Datu Piang and Pikit, including Precinct No. 15 of Pikit, which Sinsuat claimed were spurious or statistically improbable. Sinsuat appealed these actions to the COMELEC. The COMELEC, in its Resolution of January 19, 1970, sustained the Board’s actions. Sinsuat then filed this petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to annul the COMELEC resolutions, compel the inclusion of the 22 rejected returns and the exclusion of the 10 included returns, and ultimately direct the proclamation of the winner.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the Board’s: (1) rejection of the 22 election returns on the ground of statistical improbability; and (2) inclusion of the 10 election returns, particularly from Precinct No. 15 of Pikit.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolutions.
1. On the 22 rejected returns: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s affirmation of their rejection. The COMELEC examined the returns and found a pattern of “bloc voting” for Sinsuat and zero votes for Pendatun and other candidates, which fell under the doctrine of statistical improbability established in Lagumbay vs. Climaco. The fact that there were votes for other local candidates did not negate the statistical improbability for the congressional race. The COMELEC correctly limited its inquiry to the face of the returns and did not err in refusing to open the ballot boxes or examine other evidence, as the grounds for rejection were apparent from the returns themselves.
2. On the 10 included returns (Precinct No. 15 of Pikit specifically): The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s order to include them. For Precinct No. 15 of Pikit, the COMELEC found that the copy of the return possessed by the Board (the Provincial Treasurer’s copy) was authentic on its face. The discrepancies alleged by Sinsuat (e.g., lack of signatures, different serial numbers) pertained to other copies (e.g., the COMELEC’s copy) and did not render the Board’s copy spurious. The COMELEC correctly applied the rule that the canvassing board must use the copy duly delivered to it unless it is clearly shown to be tampered or falsified. No such clear showing was made. Regarding the other returns from Datu Piang, the COMELEC found the pattern of voting was not statistically improbable as there were votes for candidates of both parties.
The Court emphasized that in pre-proclamation controversies, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction is limited to examining election returns on their face. It cannot go beyond the returns to examine ballots or other evidence without clear proof of tampering or falsification on the face of the return used. The COMELEC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were not warranted. The alternative prayers for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to open ballot boxes or examine other evidence were likewise denied.