G.R. No. L-35918. June 28, 1974.
JULASIRI M. ANNI, petitioner, vs. MUSS IZQUIERDO, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULU, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves the canvass for the third and last seat for Provincial Board Member of Sulu from the November 8, 1971 elections. After a prior Supreme Court decision (the “first case”) resolved the proclamation for two board member seats, the contest for the final seat was between petitioner Julasiri Anni and respondent Muss Izquierdo. The Commission on Elections (Comelec), in its Resolution RR-1191, ordered the outright exclusion of election returns from 89 precincts across seven Sulu municipalities, branding them as “manufactured returns” due to alleged excess votes. This exclusion, based on a finding of “massive substitute voting” from a comparative examination of voting records, would discard over 5,000 votes cast for petitioner Anni. The Comelec justified this pre-proclamation exclusion by citing its authority to reject returns that are statistically improbable or manifestly fabricated.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the summary exclusion of the 89 returns as “manufactured” in a pre-proclamation controversy, despite evidence of actual voting and the absence of a full-dress hearing on their authenticity.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Comelec resolution. The Court held that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily rejecting the returns. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between pre-proclamation controversies and electoral protests. While Comelec has the power to examine voting records and exclude returns that are patently spurious or statistically improbable, this power is not unbridled. The general rule remains that election returns enjoy prima facie status as bona fide reports of the votes. Their exclusion is warranted only by clear and convincing evidence of their falsity. In this case, the Comelec itself admitted there was actual voting in the contested precincts, and the votes were cast by duly registered voters. The alleged “massive substitute voting,” while a serious charge, required stronger evidentiary foundation and a more thorough examination that is more appropriate in a regular election protest where parties can present testimonial and documentary evidence. The summary exclusion based on a comparative examination of records, without such a full hearing, arbitrarily deprived petitioner of thousands of votes and altered the election result. The proper remedy was to include the returns in the canvass to proclaim a winner based on the prima facie results, leaving the question of their authenticity to be resolved in a subsequent electoral protest. The Provincial Board of Canvassers was thus ordered to reconvene and proclaim petitioner Julasiri Anni as the duly elected third board member.