Diaz v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the canvass of votes for Congressman in the First District of Nueva Ecija, discrepancies were noted in the election returns for Precinct No. 13 and Precinct No. 14 of Quezon municipality. Specifically, candidate Leopoldo D. Diaz's vote count differed between the copy for the provincial treasurer and the copy for the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). In Precinct No. 13, the COMELEC copy showed 29 votes in words and 20 in figures, while the provincial treasurer's copy showed 20 votes. In Precinct No. 14, the COMELEC copy indicated 17 votes, whereas the provincial treasurer's copy showed 7 votes. 2. Procedural History: Candidate Diaz sought a suspension of the canvass to file a petition for a recount with the proper court of first instance, asserting that the vote difference would materially alter the election outcome. Candidate Eugenio Baltao opposed this, alleging that the COMELEC copies of the returns for Precinct No. 13 and Precinct No. 14 were tampered with and falsified due to alleged intercalations. Initially, the court overruled the opposition and scheduled a recount. However, upon Baltao's motion for reconsideration, the court reversed its order, deciding to hear evidence on the alleged tampering before proceeding with the recount. Diaz then moved for reconsideration of this new order, arguing that the court's function under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code was solely to recount ballots, not to investigate tampering. This motion was denied, and as the court proceeded to hear evidence on falsification, Diaz filed the present petition. 3. The Petition: Leopoldo Diaz filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the respondent court from enforcing its order that allowed the presentation of evidence on alleged tampering and falsification of election returns. Diaz argued that the court should proceed directly with the judicial recount as initially ordered, contending that the court's authority under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code was limited to recounting ballots. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether a court, in a recount proceeding, may receive evidence on allegations of tampering or falsification of election returns when discrepancies exist between different copies of the returns, before proceeding with the recount.
Issue(s)
Whether a court hearing a petition for judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code (REC) can receive evidence on allegations of tampering or falsification of election returns before proceeding to the actual recount.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The restraining order issued by this Court is set aside. The respondent court may proceed to receive evidence on the alleged tampering or falsification of election returns before conducting the judicial recount.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the court hearing a judicial recount proceeding is authorized to receive evidence regarding the tampering or falsification of election returns. The Court emphasized that Section 163 of the Revised Election Code (REC) specifically refers to discrepancies appearing in "authentic" copies of the statement. If a copy is proven to be tampered or falsified, it loses its character as an authentic document, and any discrepancy based on it becomes a nullity. Consequently, the presentation of evidence regarding such tampering is necessary and imperative before the court can proceed with the requested recount. The Court reasoned that logic and law dictate that a recount cannot be predicated on a document that is not authentic. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petitioner's fear of delay, noting that the proceeding is summary in nature and the trial court must act with priority and dispatch. The Court cited its previous ruling in Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bansud v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), where it upheld the principle that a finding of falsification in a return justifies the dismissal of a recount petition.
Main Doctrine
In a proceeding for judicial recount, when discrepancies appear between different copies of an election return, and an allegation of falsification or tampering is made regarding one of the copies, the court may receive evidence on such allegation before proceeding with the recount to determine the authenticity of the returns.