G.R. No. L-32008, August 31, 1970
ERNESTO VILLALON, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF KIBAWE, BUKIDNON and ARTURO SERIÑA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto Villalon filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul COMELEC Resolution No. RR-704 dated May 21, 1970. The resolution declared the election return for Precinct 20 of Kibawe, Bukidnon, from the November 1967 elections as “obviously manufactured” and ordered its exclusion from the canvass for the municipal mayor. The COMELEC copy of the return credited Villalon with 525 votes and respondent Arturo Seriña with 76 votes. The COMELEC, after examining all copies of the return, found that the original entries prepared by the board of inspectors credited Villalon with 525 votes. However, it concluded the return was manufactured because: (1) except for Villalon, no other candidate received more than 315 votes; (2) the total votes for gubernatorial, vice-gubernatorial, and vice-mayoralty candidates were only 367, 359, and 361, respectively; (3) the minutes showed only 419 official ballots were used; and (4) the total votes credited to the four mayoralty candidates (642) exceeded the ballots received and used. The COMELEC also noted the provincial treasurer’s copy was tampered with to reduce Villalon’s votes from 525 to 225.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in declaring the election return for Precinct 20 as obviously manufactured and ordering its exclusion from the canvass.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the COMELEC resolution, and ordered the inclusion of the COMELEC copy of the return in the canvass. The Court held that the COMELEC’s conclusion of statistical improbability was not based exclusively on the data on the face of the return, as required by the doctrine in Tagoranao v. Comelec. The COMELEC improperly considered evidence aliunde, such as the minutes of voting and the tally sheet. The discrepancies cited by the COMELEC, including the unusually high votes for Villalon compared to other candidates and the excess of total votes over ballots used, did not sufficiently exclude the possibility of error to justify a finding that the return was “manifestly false.” The Court examined the original tally sheet and found no clear and convincing evidence of tampering that would deprive the return of its prima facie correctness. The proper remedy for questioning the return’s authenticity is an electoral protest.