G.R. No. L-31446 January 23, 1970
EDGAR U. ILARDE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MAMINTAL TAMANO and RAFAEL PALMARES, respondents.

FACTS

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), in its certification of canvass dated December 27, 1969 for the November 11, 1969 senatorial elections, certified the first seven winning candidates. It further certified that respondent Mamintal A. Tamano was the eighth winning candidate, followed by respondent Rafael Palmares in ninth place, and petitioner Edgar U. Ilarde in tenth place. However, the COMELEC did not proclaim Tamano pending the finality of its December 26, 1969 resolution, which denied both Ilarde’s petition to exclude returns from 3,572 precincts (involving 487,323 votes) and Palmares’s petition to exclude returns from 852 precincts in Mindanao (involving an 85,138-vote difference in Tamano’s favor). Ilarde filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on January 3, 1970, though he was granted an extension to seek a restraining order from the Court.
Ilarde then filed the present petition, alleging the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion by depriving him of a fair opportunity to present evidence to substantiate his objections to the questioned returns. He prayed for the Court to set aside the COMELEC resolutions and order the COMELEC to allow him to cross-examine experts, ensure compliance with its earlier resolution, receive his evidence, and then decide accordingly. Palmares filed an Answer joining Ilarde’s prayer and reiterating his own petition to exclude the 852 precinct returns. The Court issued a temporary restraining order.
Ilarde’s objections to the 3,572 precinct returns were categorized into four groups: (A, B-1, B-2, B-3) statistical improbability; (B-4, B-5) authenticity of returns; (C) fatal defects in returns; and (D) returns obtained through violence and force. He claimed that excluding the 3,572 precincts would allow him to displace Tamano from eighth place. Palmares claimed that excluding the 852 Mindanao precincts would allow him to displace Tamano.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction in denying petitioner Ilarde’s (and respondent Palmares’s) petitions to exclude certain election returns from the canvass and in its conduct of the canvassing proceedings.

RULING

The Court dismissed the petition and dissolved the temporary restraining order. The COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction.
1. On Statistical Improbability (Categories A, B-1, B-2, B-3, and Palmares’s claim): The COMELEC correctly adhered to a restrictive application of the Lagumbay doctrine. The doctrine is limited to returns showing a unique uniformity of tally for one party and the systematic blanking of opponents, making fraud palpable from the return itself. The instances cited by Ilarde, such as Tamano receiving 100% or overwhelming majorities in his bailiwicks, were inadequate to justify exclusion for statistical improbability. The same ruling applies to Palmares’s claim, which was also based on an expansion of the Lagumbay doctrine. The Court noted that all three contenders received overwhelming majorities in their respective home provinces, and expanding the doctrine would lead to disenfranchisement.
2. On Authenticity of Returns (Categories B-4 and B-5): The COMELEC properly relied on reports from experts (the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Printing and officials from the Fingerprint Identification Bureau and NBI Questioned Documents Division) who examined sample returns in the presence of the parties’ representatives and found them genuine and written by different persons. Ilarde failed to specify his exceptions to these reports or make a prima facie case warranting cross-examination or the presentation of his own witnesses, which would delay the summary proceedings intended by election law.
3. On Procedure and Fatal Defects (Category C): Ilarde failed to substantiate his charge that the COMELEC’s procedure was “illogical,” “unsystematic,” and done with “extreme haste.” The record showed extensive canvassing where parties raised objections, resulting in 81 COMELEC resolutions excluding fatally defective returns. The COMELEC created teams to re-examine returns in the presence of the parties, and its members personally reviewed and initialed each of the 3,572 returns in question.
4. On Returns Obtained Through Violence (Category D): The COMELEC correctly ruled that receiving evidence on the 123 returns questioned for being obtained through violence was unnecessary, as the number of votes involved would not affect the result. Furthermore, Ilarde presented no prima facie case (e.g., affidavits from poll officials) to warrant the reception of evidence. General allegations about pending cases in congressional districts were unsubstantiated and not automatically applicable to the senatorial canvass.
The Court ordered the COMELEC to forthwith execute its December 26, 1969 resolution, certify the canvass for Tamano as the eighth winning candidate, and proclaim him accordingly.