Sinsuat vs. Pendatun

An election return that displays a unique uniformity of tallies—all reported votes cast credited exclusively and uniformly to every candidate of one political party while all candidates of the opposing party receive exactly zero—is statistically improbable and must be rejected as obviously manufactured; the COMELEC has no power to salvage such a return by ordering a recount or the opening of ballot boxes, because a manufactured return is no return at all and its remedy lies in an election protest. The doctrine applies to the entire return irrespective of the number of offices, and its strict factual predicate—complete party-uniform voting and systematic blanking—cannot be relaxed.

In the November 11, 1969 elections, Datu Blah Sinsuat (Nacionalista Party) and Salipada K. Pendatun (Liberal Party) contested the lone representative seat of Cotabato. The Provincial Board of Canvassers convened at Camp Crame, Quezon City, and canvassed the returns under COMELEC supervision, but no proclamation was made pending resolution of objections. An unofficial tabulation showed Pendatun leading by 4,974 votes. During the canvass, the Board rejected 22 election returns from Dinaig, Ampatuan, Upi, and Maganoy on the ground of statistical improbability under Lagumbay v. Comelec, and included certain returns from Nuling, Pikit, and Datu Piang. Sinsuat appealed to the COMELEC, questioning both the rejection of those 22 returns and the inclusion of the others, while Pendatun counterclaimed for the rejection of all returns from Ampatuan and Maganoy (allegedly prepared at gunpoint) and 21 returns from Upi. The COMELEC examined the returns and found that the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of 38 returns from Nuling and Pikit had been tampered with; it ordered the substitution of the clean Comelec copies, which reduced Pendatun’s margin to 1,527 votes. The outcome thus turned on whether the doctrine of statistical improbability was correctly applied to the disputed returns. On January 19, 1970, the COMELEC issued Case Resolution No. RR-692 and a companion minute resolution, sustaining the rejection of the 22 returns, upholding the inclusion of the Datu Piang and Pikit returns, denying Sinsuat’s motion to exclude the Comelec copy of Precinct 15 of Pikit, and directing the Board to reconvene and proclaim the presumptive winner. Sinsuat then filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

• The Election and Initial Canvass: In the November 11, 1969 national elections, Datu Blah Sinsuat and Salipada K. Pendatun were the official candidates of the Nacionalista Party and Liberal Party, respectively, for Representative of the lone district of Cotabato. By order of the COMELEC, the Provincial Board of Canvassers canvassed the election returns at Camp Crame, Quezon City, from November 28 to December 10, 1969, but no proclamation was made. An unofficial tabulation showed Pendatun with 76,466 votes against Sinsuat’s 71,492, a margin of 4,974. During the canvass, the Board rejected 22 election returns from Dinaig, Ampatuan, Upi, and Maganoy on the ground of statistical improbability under the Lagumbay doctrine. The Board also included in the canvass the Provincial Treasurer’s copies of returns from Nuling and Pikit, as well as returns from Datu Piang.

• Proceedings Before the COMELEC: On December 11, 1969, Sinsuat filed a petition with the COMELEC appealing the Board’s action in rejecting the 22 returns and in including 38 returns (23 from Nuling and 15 from Pikit) which he claimed were the tampered Provincial Treasurer’s copies. He later filed a supplemental petition questioning the inclusion of six Pikit returns and four Datu Piang returns, and the rejection of certain other returns. Pendatun answered, interposing no objection to the use of the Comelec copies of the 38 returns, and counterclaimed for the rejection of all returns from Ampatuan and Maganoy (allegedly prepared at gunpoint) and 21 returns from Upi. On December 24, 1969, the COMELEC examined the returns in the presence of counsel for both parties and confirmed that the Provincial Treasurer’s copies were tampered; the corresponding Comelec copies were found clean and serviceable. The COMELEC ordered the Board to use the Comelec copies. A tentative canvass reduced Pendatun’s margin to 1,527 votes. The parties agreed that the resolution of the statistical improbability question concerning the 22 rejected returns would be determinative.

• The 22 Rejected Returns (Statistical Improbability): The 22 returns came from: Dinaig (Prec. 37); Ampatuan (Prec. 13-M, 23-A, 23-M); Maganoy (Prec. 6-B, 14); and Upi (Prec. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6-A, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24-A, 29, 31). The COMELEC found that in these returns Sinsuat was credited with all the registered or cast votes, uniformly with all other Nacionalista Party candidates from President down to provincial board member, while Pendatun and all other Liberal Party candidates uniformly received zero. In Maganoy Prec. 14, the original entries showed a uniform 106 votes for all NP candidates (including Sinsuat) and zero for LP candidates, though crude alterations were made to break the pattern. The same was true for Maganoy Prec. 6-B. The COMELEC noted that the Board consistently applied the doctrine only where the 100% uniform voting for all candidates of one party and systematic blanking of all opposing candidates existed; for example, Upi Prec. 6 was not rejected because two NP senatorial candidates did not receive any vote (blank, not zero), breaking the uniformity, and Upi Prec. 35 was not rejected because an LP senatorial candidate also received the uniform 276 votes.

• The Disputed Included Returns (Datu Piang and Pikit): The four Datu Piang returns (Prec. 13-A, 14, 19, 23) showed that six LP senatorial candidates uniformly received the same number of votes as two NP senatorial candidates (Palmares and Tamano) and the NP candidate for provincial board, while two LP senatorial candidates received zero. The COMELEC found no 100% uniform tally for all candidates of one party with systematic blanking of the opposing party. The Pikit returns (Prec. 10, 16, 27, 31, 33, 15) were assailed for an alleged excess of votes over the number of voters. The COMELEC found that except for one excess vote for Pendatun in Prec. 16, the excesses related to senatorial candidates, not the congressional votes, and did not render the returns statistically improbable.

• Precinct 15, Pikit – The Tampered Comelec Copy: On December 2, 1969, Sinsuat had obtained photostat copies of the Comelec copies of Pikit returns, including Prec. 15. On December 24, 1969, the COMELEC and both parties examined the Comelec copies and found them clean and untampered; Sinsuat expressly alleged in his petition that the Comelec copies were clean as of that date. On December 31, 1969, during the recanvass, Sinsuat objected that the Comelec copy of Prec. 15 was tampered. A committee appointed by the COMELEC examined the copy and reported visible erasures and superimpositions: the original entry for Pendatun’s votes was “two hundred fifty” (250) in words and figures, which had been erased and overwritten to read “seven hundred” (700). The original entry for the number of voters who actually voted had also been altered from “two hundred fifty” to “seven hundred.” The COMELEC, without further investigation, denied Sinsuat’s motion for reconsideration in a minute resolution and ordered the Board to use the Comelec copy as per the December 24 resolution.

• Other Returns: The COMELEC had not definitively ruled on Prec. 4-A of Maganoy and Prec. 31 of Dinaig because it had not examined serviceable copies, and it ordered the Board to retrieve ballot box copies if necessary. The election return from Prec. 54 of M’lang had not been included in the canvass; the Supreme Court later authorized the opening of the ballot box and a certified copy of the Provincial Treasurer’s copy was produced, showing Sinsuat with 18 votes and Pendatun with 5.

• Statistical Improbability: Petitioner argued that the 22 returns should not have been rejected because the Lagumbay doctrine applies only to elections for multiple offices, not to a single office such as Representative; and that affidavits of Liberal Party inspectors explaining why they voted for Sinsuat negated any statistical improbability.
• Duty to Salvage Returns: Petitioner contended that even if the returns were statistically improbable, the COMELEC was duty-bound to order the opening of ballot boxes, examine tally sheets, or direct a recount to determine the true vote counts, and to order the preparation of new returns instead of simply rejecting the returns.
• Inclusion of Datu Piang and Pikit Returns: Petitioner maintained that the four Datu Piang returns also fell under the Lagumbay doctrine and should have been rejected, and that the six Pikit returns should be excluded because they showed an excess of votes over the number of voters who voted, indicating manufactured returns.
• Precinct 15, Pikit: Petitioner insisted that the Comelec copy for Precinct 15, Pikit, was tampered and obviously manufactured, and that the COMELEC violated its duty to ensure that only genuine returns are canvassed by ordering its use and denying reconsideration.

• Statistical Improbability: Respondents countered that the 22 returns exhibited precisely the uniform 100% tally for all NP candidates and systematic blanking of all LP candidates that the Lagumbay case condemned; the affidavits were dubious, not formally offered, and could not overcome the palpable fraud on the face of the returns.
• No Duty to Salvage Returns: Respondents argued that an obviously manufactured return is void and has no prima facie value; the COMELEC has no power to order a recount or preparation of new returns, as that would constitute an election contest beyond its administrative function. The proper recourse is an election protest.
• Datu Piang and Pikit Returns: Respondents maintained that the Datu Piang returns lacked the essential uniform party-wide tally and systematic blanking of all opposing candidates, so the Lagumbay doctrine did not apply; and that the Pikit returns showed at most a slight excess of votes for senatorial candidates, which under Alonto v. Comelec did not justify rejection.
• Precinct 15, Pikit: Respondents insisted that the Comelec copy had been examined and found clean on December 24, 1969, that Sinsuat himself had vouched for its cleanliness, and that any subsequent tampering did not warrant its exclusion.

• Statistical Improbability: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the rejection of the 22 election returns as statistically improbable under the Lagumbay doctrine.
• Duty to Salvage Returns: Whether the COMELEC had a duty to order the opening of ballot boxes, examine tally sheets, or order a recount and the preparation of new returns after finding the 22 returns statistically improbable.
• Datu Piang Returns: Whether the COMELEC erred in including in the canvass the election returns from Precincts 13-A, 14, 19, and 23 of Datu Piang despite Sinsuat’s claim that they were also statistically improbable.
• Pikit Returns (Excess of Votes): Whether the COMELEC erred in including the election returns from Precincts 10, 16, 27, 31, 33, and 15 of Pikit on the ground of excess votes over the number of voters.
• Tampered Comelec Copy (Precinct 15, Pikit): Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the use of the tampered Comelec copy of Precinct 15 of Pikit and in denying Sinsuat’s motion for reconsideration.

• Statistical Improbability: The rejection of the 22 returns was proper. Nineteen returns fell within the first set described in Lagumbay (100% of registered voters equaled ballots and votes uniformly tallied for all NP candidates, with zero for all LP candidates), and three fell within the second set (all reported votes uniformly tallied for all NP candidates, with zero for all LP candidates). The COMELEC strictly adhered to the required factual premise of unique uniformity of tally for all candidates of one party and systematic blanking of all opposing candidates, even refusing to apply the doctrine to Precincts 6 and 35 of Upi where the pattern was not complete. The affidavits of LP inspectors could not overcome the manifestly manufactured character of the returns; they were prepared even before the canvass, were not formally offered, and were as susceptible to fabrication as the returns themselves. The Lagumbay doctrine applies to the entire return, not only to multi-office elections; a return that is fabricated as to senatorial candidates is equally unreliable as to the congressional candidate, and a manufactured return is void in toto.
• Duty to Salvage Returns: The COMELEC had no duty to order a recount, open ballot boxes, or direct the preparation of new returns. Under Lagumbay and the second Pacis case, an election return that is statistically improbable or obviously manufactured is no return at all, and no votes from the precinct may be counted. The COMELEC’s power is confined to ensuring that only genuine returns are canvassed; determining the true result of an election in a precinct where the return is void is a function of an election protest. The cases of Mutuc v. Comelec and Tiglao v. Comelec, which allowed the opening of ballot boxes to complete incomplete returns, are inapposite because the 22 returns were complete on their faces but manufactured. The Pacis directive to search for “serviceable copies” applies only when returns are tampered, not when they are void ab initio.
• Datu Piang Returns: The inclusion of the four returns was correct. They did not exhibit a uniform tally for all candidates of one party with systematic blanking of all opposing candidates. Two NP senatorial candidates and the NP provincial board candidate received the same number of votes as six LP senatorial candidates, while two LP senatorial candidates received zero. The absence of complete party-uniform voting and systematic blanking precluded application of the Lagumbay doctrine, consistent with Alonto v. Comelec, which rejected expansion of the doctrine.
• Pikit Returns (Excess of Votes): The inclusion was proper. The alleged excess votes involved chiefly senatorial candidates, and the only excess for the congressional candidate was one vote in Precinct 16. A slight excess of votes, as previously held in Alonto v. Comelec and Ilarde v. Comelec, does not render a return statistically improbable.
• Tampered Comelec Copy (Precinct 15, Pikit): The COMELEC’s denial of reconsideration was partly erroneous. The Comelec copy was undisputedly clean on December 24, 1969, but when submitted for recanvass on December 31, it bore visible erasures and superimpositions. The committee report and the enlarged photostat copy confirmed that the original discernible entry for Pendatun’s votes was 250, which had been altered to 700. The COMELEC should have investigated the tampering and, in line with its authority to protect the integrity of returns, determined the genuine entry. The return was not a total nullity because the original entries could still be read. The resolution was accordingly modified: the Board was ordered to use the Comelec copy but to credit Pendatun with only 250 votes.

• Doctrine of Statistical Improbability (Lagumbay v. Comelec) — An election return that shows a uniform tally of all reported votes cast exclusively in favor of all candidates of one political party and a systematic blanking (zero votes) of all candidates of the opposing party is obviously manufactured and statistically improbable; it is void and must be rejected in toto in the canvass. The doctrine applies strictly: there must be 100% uniform voting for every candidate of one party and zero for every candidate of the other party. Minor deviations, such as a single candidate of the favored party receiving no vote or a single opposing candidate receiving votes, negate the application. The doctrine applies to the entire return regardless of the number of offices included, because a return manufactured as to one set of candidates is unreliable for all offices. Affidavits explaining the blanking do not cure the patent nullity; the fraud is “palpable from the return itself.”
• Effect of Obviously Manufactured Returns — A statistically improbable or obviously manufactured return (including those prepared at gunpoint) is a legal nullity that cannot be given prima facie value, and its rejection does not obligate the COMELEC to open ballot boxes, order a recount, or direct the preparation of new returns to ascertain the true vote. The COMELEC’s administrative power to ensure the conduct of honest elections does not extend to determining the actual vote where the return is void; that function belongs exclusively to the appropriate electoral tribunal in an election contest. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an election protest.
• Salvaging Tampered Returns — A tampered return, unlike a manufactured one, is a genuine return that has been altered. When a return is tampered, the COMELEC may search for and use other serviceable copies (including the ballot box copy), and if the original entries can still be discerned with certainty, the COMELEC may credit those discernible entries to protect the integrity of the election. In such a case, the return is not rejected entirely; the authentic entries are restored.

• “A manufactured return is no return and should be rejected in toto as distinguished from a tampered return which is a good return but had been altered hence, the need to restore the original entries of the return.”
• “The task of determining whether an election return reflects the true result of the election in a certain precinct pertains to the proper court of justice or to the proper electoral tribunal, as the case may be, in an election contest that is properly brought before said body.”
• “Affidavits may be manufactured in the same way that election returns can be manufactured. Affiants may be made to sign affidavits at gunpoint, in the same way that election inspectors can be made to sign election returns at gunpoint. An election case should not be decided on the basis of affidavits that are dubious, even if they are not contradicted by counter-affidavits.”
• “The thrust of all the subsequent cases is to restrict the doctrine of the Lagumbay case to the unique uniformity of tally in favor of candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of the opposing candidates … such as to make the fraud ‘palpable from the return itself … (and) there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value.’”

• Lagumbay v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-25444, January 31, 1966 (16 SCRA 175) — Controlling precedent; established the doctrine of statistical improbability for rejecting obviously manufactured returns.
• Alonto v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28296, February 28, 1968 (22 SCRA 878) — Followed; held that the Lagumbay doctrine does not apply absent a uniform tally for all candidates of one party and systematic blanking of the opposing candidates, and that a slight excess of votes does not amount to statistical improbability.
• Pacis v. Comelec (second Pacis case), G.R. No. L-29026, September 28, 1968 (25 SCRA 377) — Followed; ruled that a return prepared at gunpoint is no return at all and no votes from that precinct may be counted; distinguished the treatment of tampered returns, where serviceable copies may be sought.
• Sangki v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28359, December 26, 1967 (21 SCRA 1392) — Distinguished; the Lagumbay doctrine was not applied because the returns lacked uniform party-wide blanking—other candidates of the same party received scattered votes—and affidavits were treated as raising factual questions, not as a basis for excusing blanking in a uniform pattern.
• Mutuc v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28517, February 21, 1968 (22 SCRA 662) — Distinguished; involved incomplete returns, not manufactured ones, allowing the opening of ballot boxes solely to complete the returns.
• Ilarde v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-31446, January 23, 1970 — Followed; reaffirmed the restrictive application of the Lagumbay doctrine and upheld the COMELEC’s refusal to exclude returns where the excess of votes was not great.

• Section 150, Revised Election Code — Imposes on boards of inspectors the mandatory duty to make a complete written statement of the count; cited to distinguish incomplete returns (Mutuc, Tiglao) where ballot boxes may be opened to supply missing entries, from manufactured returns where the duty is not implicated because the return is void.
• Sections 154, 163, and 168, Revised Election Code — Section 154 provides for correction of errors in returns; Sections 163 and 168 govern recounts upon discrepancies between copies. These provisions were invoked to show that no ground for correction or recount existed with respect to the 22 manufactured returns, as no error or discrepancy was alleged.

Chief Justice Concepcion, and Justices Reyes (J.B.L.), Dizon, Makalintal, and Fernando.

N/A — The text of the dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee and the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Barredo was not included in the provided decision.