Matanog v. Alejandro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the November 12, 1963 elections for Municipal Mayor of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, petitioner Mauyag Matanog and respondent Cota Cornel were candidates. Following the election, two disputes arose concerning the votes cast in Precinct No. 9. One dispute involved a claim that the Election Return (Exhibit K) unlawfully increased Cota Cornel's votes from 157 to 297, and that the return was not prepared at the proper time and place, potentially affecting the election outcome. The other dispute was initiated by respondent Cota Cornel seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Municipal Board of Canvassers to include the disputed return in their canvass and to proclaim the elected officials. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner Mauyag Matanog filed a Special Civil Action for Judicial Recount with Preliminary Injunction (Sp. Civil Action No. 1292) to challenge the validity of Election Return Exhibit K. Respondent Cota Cornel filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus (Special Civil Action No. 1290) to compel the canvass of the same return. The two cases were heard jointly by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur. The lower court denied the petition for judicial recount and ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvass of Exhibit K, while also directing the Provincial Fiscal to investigate potential violations of the Election Code by the election inspectors. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, Mauyag Matanog elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Mauyag Matanog filed an original petition for Certiorari with Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Supreme Court. The petition argued that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, by denying the petition for judicial recount despite findings of serious irregularities in the preparation of Election Return Exhibit K and in light of a standing order from the COMELEC suspending the canvass. The Supreme Court initially granted due course to the petition and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the canvass and proclamation. However, after hearing arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in a minute resolution, finding that the alleged discrepancies did not fall within the purview of sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, which govern discrepancies between different copies of election returns or within the return itself (figures vs. words), and thus did not warrant a judicial recount.
Issue(s)
Whether the tally boards, Exhibits "J" and "J-1", are admissible as evidence. Whether the election return, Exhibit "K", should be the basis of the Municipal Board of Canvassers in canvassing the election return from Precinct No. 9. Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in denying the petition for judicial recount.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Municipal Board of Canvassers for Marantao, Lanao del Sur, is ordered to canvass the election return, Exhibit "K" from Precinct No. 9. The Provincial Fiscal is ordered to investigate the accomplishment of Exhibit "K" and prosecute responsible parties if warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the tally boards, Exhibits "J" and "J-1": The Court observed that the tally boards were not signed by all members of the board of inspectors, were incomplete, and thus caused doubt as to their due execution and genuineness. They were not considered public documents, and the absence of signatures was deemed essential to their validity. The Court noted that such documents are susceptible to substitution and falsification, leading to their exclusion as evidence. On whether the election return, Exhibit "K", should be the basis for canvassing: The Court found that Exhibit "K" was not vitiated by any of the grounds that would warrant a petition for judicial recounting under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code. These grounds include the existence of another election return with a different entry, a discrepancy between votes written in words and figures in the same return, falsification of entries, illegible entries, or preparation under force or intimidation. Since none of these irregularities were found to exist in Exhibit "K", it was deemed a valid basis for canvassing. On whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for judicial recount: The Court held that the facts and circumstances did not warrant a judicial recount. While acknowledging that irregularities might have attended the preparation of Exhibit "K", the Court reiterated that such irregularities might not be proper causes for a judicial counting. Citing previous rulings, the Court emphasized that the grounds for ordering the opening of ballot boxes for recounting under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code are specific and relate to discrepancies among authentic copies of the election returns, not between an election return and a watcher's certificate or an unauthenticated tally board. The Court found that the alleged discrepancies in the present case, based on Annex B (certificate to a watcher) and Annex E (certificate from an PC officer), did not fall within the purview of the cited authorities. Therefore, the ruling of the respondent judge was deemed correct, and the remedy of certiorari was not appropriate for correcting erroneous conclusions of fact or law within the judge's jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Discrepancies between an election return and a certificate given to a watcher, or between the election return and a tally board not properly authenticated, do not constitute grounds for a judicial recount under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, as these sections refer to discrepancies among authentic copies of the election return itself.