GR L 1852; (October, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1852; October 14, 1948
THE BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS, et al. vs. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, Judge of First Instance of Leyte, and CESARIO R. COLASITO
FACTS
Cesareo R. Colasito, a candidate for mayor of Tolosa, Leyte, filed a petition for recount of votes in Precinct No. 8 under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code. He alleged that the Board of Election Inspectors initially issued a certificate showing he received 112 votes and his opponent Luis C. Trinchera received 92. However, the board later submitted an official return to the municipal treasurer showing Colasito with only 62 votes and Trinchera with 142. Based on the initial certificate, Colasito would win the election by 38 votes. The Court of First Instance ordered a recount. The Board of Election Inspectors, the Municipal Treasurer, the Municipal Board of Canvassers, and Trinchera filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court to stop the recount, arguing that the initial certificate is not one of the “statements” or “copies of statements” contemplated by the cited Election Code provisions for initiating a recount.
ISSUE
Whether the initial certificate issued by the Board of Election Inspectors immediately after the count is a “statement” or “copy of a statement” under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, such that a discrepancy between it and the official return filed with the municipal treasurer justifies a court-ordered recount.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition and set aside the lower court’s recount order. The initial certificate is not one of the statements or copies referred to in Sections 163 and 168. The law provides a specific, orderly procedure for election controversies. The recounting mechanism under these sections is a summary, administrative proceeding meant to resolve discrepancies between the official copies of election returns—not to replace a full election contest. Allowing a recount based on a mere certificate, as opposed to the official returns, would disregard the detailed statutory framework, open the floodgates to numerous recount petitions, and improperly bypass the regular election contest proceedings where complex issues (like ballot validity) can be properly adjudicated. The dissent argued the certificate was a valid statement and the recount was proper to expose alleged fraud.
AI Generated by Armztrong.