Dizon v. Tizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pedro R. Dizon, a candidate for Provincial Governor of Bataan, sought to compel the provincial board of canvassers to exclude the election return from Precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan and declare it null and void. The basis for this petition was the allegation that the election return was "patently manufactured" because it showed 279 ballots cast and counted, while a certification from the election registrar indicated only 80 persons actually voted. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bataan dismissed the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition. Guillermo Arcenas, an opposing candidate, was allowed to intervene in the proceedings. The Petition: The petitioner sought review of the dismissal, arguing that the trial court erred in not declaring the election return manufactured and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the election return for Precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan is "obviously manufactured" so as to justify its exclusion from the canvass. Whether a petition to exclude an election return is the proper remedy for alleged fraud or irregularity in the casting of ballots.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the remedy sought against the dismissal is denied. The decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the election return for Precinct No. 18 of Dinalupihan is "obviously manufactured" so as to justify its exclusion from the canvass: The Supreme Court held that the election return was not "obviously manufactured" within the meaning of established jurisprudence. The Court noted that the return was regular and complete on its face, and the petitioner had not raised any objections to it during the canvass. The discrepancy cited by the petitioner was not apparent on the face of the return itself but arose from a comparison with a certification from the election registrar. This certification indicated that only 80 voters signed the precinct book (CE Form No. 1), while the minutes of voting showed 279 voters had cast ballots. The Court found the explanation provided by the election inspectors to be reasonable: they failed to accomplish the back of CE Form No. 1 due to lack of time, and many voters signed the "List of Voters who voted and Their Voting Records" (CE Form No. 39) instead of the precinct book. This explanation sufficiently accounted for the discrepancy and ruled out the conclusion that the return was "obviously manufactured." On Whether a petition to exclude an election return is the proper remedy for alleged fraud or irregularity in the casting of ballots: The Court clarified that even if fraud or irregularity occurred in the election, such as ballots being cast by unauthorized persons, the election return itself would still reflect the actual number of ballots found and counted. In such instances, the proper remedy is not a petition to exclude the return from the canvass, which would virtually annul the election in the precinct. Instead, the appropriate legal recourse is an election contest, where the alleged fraud or irregularities can be thoroughly investigated and adjudicated.
Main Doctrine
An election return, regular and complete on its face, cannot be considered 'obviously manufactured' solely based on a discrepancy between the number of votes stated in the return and the number of voters who signed the precinct book, especially when a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy exists and the remedy for alleged fraud or irregularity in the casting of ballots is an election contest, not a petition to exclude the return from the canvass.