5/26/2017 G.R.No.

181869

ENBANC


ISMUNLATIPH.SUHURI, G.R.No.181869
Petitioner,
Present:


PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,


YNARESSANTIAGO,
versus CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,


CHICONAZARIO,**
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
THEHONORABLE BRION,**
COMMISSIONON PERALTA,
ELECTIONS(EnBanc), BERSAMIN,
THEMUNICIPALBOARD DELCASTILLO,and
OFCANVASSERSOF ABAD,JJ.
PATIKUL,SULUAND Promulgated:
KABIRE.HAYUDINI, October2,2009
Respondents.
xx
DECISION


BERSAMIN,J.:

Inthisspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,theCourtagaindetermineswhetherornottheexclusionof
certain election returns from the canvass due to allegations of irregularities and statistical
improbabilitymadebyacandidatearepropergroundsforapreproclamationcontroversybywhich
toannultheproclamationofhisrivalasdulyelected.

THECASE

The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Patikul, Sulu had earlier ruled against
petitionerIsmunlatipH.Suhurispleaforthe exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass of

votes cast for the 2007 mayoralty race in Patikul, Sulu and then proclaimed respondent Kabir E.
Hayudini as the dulyelected Mayor. Appealing to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 1/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
Hayudini as the dulyelected Mayor. Appealing to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
Suhuri insisted on the invalidity of the proclamation because of the existing preproclamation
controversyinvolvingtheexclusionofthe25electionreturns.The COMELEC, Second Division,
had sustained Suhuris appeal and nullified Hayudinis proclamation, but the COMELEC en banc
reversedtheSecondDivisionthroughtheassailedresolutionofJanuary29,2008.

SuhurithusassailsoncertioraritheJanuary29,2008resolutionoftheCOMELECen banc
[1]
that reversed the resolution of the Second Division. He claims that the COMELEC en banc
therebygravelyabuseditsdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.

ANTECEDENTS

SuhuriranforthepositionofMunicipalMayorofPatikul,SuluduringtheMay14,2007 national
[2]
andlocalelections.HewasopposedbyHayudiniandathirdcandidate,DatuJunTarsum. During
the canvassing held on May 17, 2007 within the Sulu State College in Jolo, Sulu, Suhuri orally
objectedtotheinclusionoftheelectionreturnsfromthefollowing25precincts,namely:Precincts
09/10A, 11A/12A, 13A/14A, 15A/16A, 17A/18A, 19A/20A, and 21A/22A of BarangayAnuling
Precincts 47A/48A, 49A/50A, and 51A/52A of Barangay Bongkuang Precincts 87A/88A,
89A/90A,91A/92A,93A/94A,95A/96A,97A/98A,and99A/100AofBarangayLanghubPrecincts
101A/102A, 103A/104A, 105A/106A, 107A/108A, and 109A/110A of Barangay Latih and
Precincts116A/117A,118A/119A,and120AofBarangayMaligay.Theaffectedprecinctscarrieda
[3]
totalof4,686votes. HelaterfiledwiththeMBCwrittenpetitionsregardingsuchexclusionon
[4]
May 17, 18 and 19, 2007. He asserted that the 25 election returns were (1) [o]bviously
manufactured(2)[t]amperedwithorfalsified(3)[p]reparedunderduressand(4)[characterized
[5]
by][s]tatisticalimprobability.

TheMBCruledagainstSuhuriintheeveningofMay19,2007byrejectinghisobjectionsto
[6]
the25electionreturns. Thenandthere,hemanifestedhisintenttoappealvisvistheruling.He
[7]
filedhisnoticeofappealshortlythereafter. Inthesameevening,theMBCproclaimedHayudini
asthedulyelectedMayorforhavingobtained7,578votesasagainstSuhuris6,803votesbasedona
[8]
completecanvassoftheelectionreturns,foramarginof775votesinfavorofHayudini.

[9]
OnMay23,2007,SuhurifiledapetitionappealwiththeCOMELEC, docketedasS.P.C.No.07
118.ThepetitionappealwasassignedtotheSecondDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 2/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869

118.ThepetitionappealwasassignedtotheSecondDivision.

OnMay25,2007,Suhurilikewisefiledanelectionprotestadcautelam datedMay21,2007
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Patikul, Sulu to contest the results of the elections for
[10]
Municipal Mayor of Patikul, Sulu. On June 28, 2007, however, the RTC held the election
protestinabeyanceuponSuhurisownmotionduetohispendingpreproclamationcontroversyin
S.P.C.07118.

In a further move, Suhuri brought a socalled petition to declare a failure of election with
[11]
urgentmotiontosuspendand/orannulthecanvassoftheelectionreturnsdatedMay18,2007,
referring to the results from the 25 precincts in Barangays Anuling, Bongkaung, Langhub, Latih,
and Maligay, all within Patikul, Sulu. However, the COMELEC en banc denied the petition for
[12]
insufficiencyofevidenceonOctober9,2007.

On June 12, 2007, the COMELEC, Second Division, gave due course to Suhuris petitionappeal.
[13]

On July 24, 2007, the COMELEC, Second Division, ruling on Suhuris petitionappeal,
excludedthe25questionedelectoralreturnsfromthecanvassforthepositionofMayorofPatikul,
[14]
SuluandvoidedtheproclamationofHayudiniasthedulyelectedMayor.

In due course, Hayudini moved for the reconsideration of the July 24, 2007 ruling of the Second
[15]
Division.

Initially resolving Hayudinis motion for reconsideration, Commissioners Florentino A.
Tuason, Jr. and Nicodemo Ferrer voted in favor of the resolution of the Second Division, while
Acting Chairman Resurreccion Z. Borra, Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner and Commissioner
[16]
Rene V. Sarmiento dissented. Due to the fact that the required majority vote necessary to
reversetheresolutionoftheSecondDivisionwasnotreached,theCOMELECenbancconducteda
rehearing on November 22, 2007 pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of

[17]
Procedure. Attherehearing,Suhuripresented20witnesses,whoaffirmedandidentifiedtheir
respective affidavits. For his part, Hayudini waived the crossexamination. Thereafter, the parties
wererequiredtosubmittheirmemoranda,andtheappealwasthendeemedsubmittedforresolution.
[18]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 3/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
[18]

[19]
On January 29, 2008, the COMELEC en banc promulgated its assailed resolution,
disposing:

WHEREFORE, premises all considered the Commission (En Banc) resolved as it hereby
resolvestoGRANTtheMotionforReconsideration.TheResolutionoftheSecondDivisionishereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.Consequently,theproclamationofKabirHayudiniisherebydeclared
VALID.

ISSUES

Inhispetition,Suhuriinsiststhat:

I. THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (EN BANC)

COMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOREXCESSOF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE 24 JULY 2007
RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COMMISSSIONS SECOND DIVISION BASED ON
THE REPORT OF RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS BELATEDLY
FILEDAFTERRESPONDENTHAYUDINISMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION,FORTHE
SECONDTIME,HASALREADYBEENSUBMITTEDFORDECISIONAND

II. THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (EN BANC)

COMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOREXCESSOF
JURISDICTIONWHENITHELDTHATTHEISSUEPROFERREDBYPETITIONERDOES
NOTINVOLVEAPREPROCLAMATIONCONTROVERSY.
RULINGOFTHECOURT

WeupholdtheassailedresolutionoftheCOMELECenbanc.

I
SuhurisGroundsWereNotProper
foraPreProclamationControversy

Were Suhuris grounds for nullifying Hayudinis proclamation as the duly elected Mayor
properforapreproclamationcontroversy?

Apreproclamationcontroversy,accordingtoSection1,ArticleXXoftheOmnibusElection
Code,refersto:

xxxany question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which
mayberaisedbyanycandidateorbyanyregisteredpoliticalpartyorcoalitionofpartiesbeforethe
boardordirectlywiththeCommission,oranymatterraisedunderSections233,234,235and236in
relationtothepreparation,transmission,receipt,custodyandappreciationoftheelectionreturns.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 4/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
relationtothepreparation,transmission,receipt,custodyandappreciationoftheelectionreturns.

Not every question bearing on or arising from the elections may constitute a ground for a pre
proclamationcontroversy.Section243oftheOmnibusElectionCodeenumeratesthescopeofapre
proclamationcontroversy,asfollows:

Sec. 243. Issue that may be raised in preproclamation controversy The following shall be
properissuesthatmayberaisedinapreproclamationcontroversy:

(a)Illegalcompositionorproceedingsoftheboardofcanvassers

(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be
tamperedwithorfalsified,orcontaindiscrepanciesinthesamereturnsorinotherauthenticcopies
thereofasmentionedinSections233,234,235,and236ofthisCode




(c)Theelectionreturnswerepreparedunderduress,threats,coercion,orintimidation,orthey
areobviouslymanufacturedornotauthenticand

(d) Whensubstituteorfraudulentreturnsincontrovertedpollingplaceswerecanvassed,the
resultsofwhichmateriallyaffectedthestandingoftheaggrievedcandidateorcandidates.

Clearly, Section 243, supra, limits a preproclamation controversy to the questions
[20]
enumeratedtherein.Theenumerationisrestrictiveandexclusive. Resultantly,thepetitionfora
preproclamation controversy must fail in the absence of any clear showing or proof that the
election returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (Section 234, Omnibus
ElectionCode)orappeartohavebeentamperedwith,falsifiedorpreparedunderduress(Section
235,OmnibusElectionCode)orcontaindiscrepanciesinthevotescreditedtoanycandidate,the
[21]
differenceofwhichaffectstheresultoftheelection(Section236,OmnibusElectionCode).

Tobenoted,too,isthatinapreproclamationcontroversy,theCOMELECisrestrictedtoan
examinationoftheelectionreturnsandiswithoutjurisdictiontogobeyondorbehindtheelection
[22]
returnsandtoinvestigateelectionirregularities. Foraslongastheelectionreturnsappeartobe
authentic and duly accomplished on their faces, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or
behindtheelectionreturnsinordertoverifyallegationsofirregularitiesinthecastingorcountingof
[23]
votes.

Suhurisubmitsthatthe25challengedelectionreturnsweredefectiveforbeingmanufactured,
tamperedwithorfalsified,andforstatistical improbability. He lists the following irregularities to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 5/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869

[24]
buttresshissubmission,namely:

i.TheelectionreturnsforPrecinctNos.9A/10Aand99A/100Ahavenosignaturesandthumbmarks
ofpollwatchers.More importantly, the respective poll clerks in the two precincts did not affix
theirsignaturesintheelectionreturns.

ii.ForPrecinctNos.11A/12A,17A/18A,89A/90A,91A/92A,93A/94Aand95A/96A(6ofthe25
contestedelectionreturns),petitionergotzero(0)astatisticallyimprobableresult.

iii.ForPrecinctNos.15A/16A,thereappearstobetwopollwatcherswhoaffixedtheirsignaturesare
thesameandappeartohavebeenmadebythesameandoneperson

iv. For Precinct Nos. 13A/14A, of the 210 total registered voters, respondent Hayudini garnered a
perfect210andpetitionergotone(1)astatisticallyimprobableresult

v.ForPrecinctNos.21/A/22A,thenamesofthemembersoftheBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)
andthepollwatchersappeartohavebeenmadebyonlyoneperson

vi. For Precinct Nos. 49A/50, the printed names of the poll watchers of the petitioner are printed
thereon without their signature, consistent with their Affidavit that they were intimidated into
leavingthepollingplaceasearlyaswhentheyhadjustpresentedtheirappointmentpaperstothe
membersoftheBEI

vii.ForPrecinctNos.11A/12A,thereisonlyonepollwatcherwhoaffixedhissignature

viii.ForPrecinctNos.51A/52A,thereisthelackofsignatureofthethirdmemberoftheBEI

ix. For Precinct Nos. 89A/90A, the entries for the precinct no., barangay, city/municipality and
provincearecompletelyblankwhilenames,signaturesandthumbmarksoftheBEIarecomplete
and

x. ForPrecinctNos.93A/94A,thereisonlyonepollwatcherwhoaffixedhisnameandsignature
[25]
andwithnothumbmark

Suhurifurthersubmitsthatthreat,violence,duressandintimidationattendedthepreparation
of the questioned election returns. As proof, his petitionappeal has included the following
[26]
affidavits, towit:

1.TheaffidavitofBenharS.Mohammad,attestingthatthesupportersofHayudini
andhispartymate,gubernatorialcandidateAbdulsakurTan,preventedhimfrom
enteringthepollingplacewherehewassupposedtovote

2. ThejointaffidavitofAngkaJ.Saradil,NurhiaJ.SidinandMurandaA.Tilah
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 6/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
2. ThejointaffidavitofAngkaJ.Saradil,NurhiaJ.SidinandMurandaA.Tilah
and Injang A. Ajidin, attesting that they were not allowed to vote after being
identified as supporters of Suhuri and that they saw other voters being also
preventedfromvoting

3. TheaffidavitofMunningMandun,adulyappointedwatcher,attestingthatthe
personswhocasttheirvoteswerenotthoseappearinginthevoterslistandthat
thebonafidevoterslistedthereinwerepreventedfromcastingtheirvotes

4. The jointaffidavit of Sherilyn Sawadjaan, Nurmina Usman, Najir S. Bakil,
MerhamiS.Bakil,MubinG.Bakil,NurAsiyaJ.JumdailandGabirS.Jumdail,
dulyappointedpollwatchers,attestingthattheywerenotallowedtoentertheir
assignedprecinctsbyknownsupportersofHayudini

5.ThejointaffidavitofBennajarJul,NelsonJul,RubinAmbutongandWahabN.
Sanuddin,attesting,amongothers,thattheysawMaligayBarangayChairPula
Juhul enter the precinct with an identified group of persons that when affiant
Bennajar Jul confronted Juhul regarding his unlawful presence in the precinct,
Juhulboxedhim,causinghisnosetobleedthattheballotsthattheyhadfilledas
registeredvoterswerenotdroppedintotheballotboxandthattheyweretoldto
gohomebyamemberoftheBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)oftheprecinct
becausethevotinghadsupposedlyendedasearlyas1:30pm

6.ThejointaffidavitofJarahA.Jumdail,KahilT.Barrahani,AlmezerH.Rashid,
EliasO.Villamor,AnnaA.BarrahaniandNajarT.Jihili,attestingthatHayudinis
younger brother Mindal threatened them not to go into their precincts to vote
and that they saw the companions of Mindal accomplish the ballots in said
precinctsinplaceofthebonafideregisteredvoterstherein

7. The joint affidavit of Munib A. Sabiran, Aldibar Sabiran, Nuramin J. Usman,
SarkiyaUsman,andAbdulhanBakil,dulyassignedpollwatchers,attestingthat
theywerenotallowedtoentertheirassignedprecinctsbyknownsupportersof
Hayudini

8.ThejointaffidavitofMuharramJul,KagayanSanuddin,AmilElias,SehonEli,
WeldizonAwwalon,TayteSanuddin,JuljaminSannudin,HaliSannudin,Pathar
Juli and Abduranil Sanuddin, attesting to the illegal intervention of Maligay
Chair Juhul in the casting of votes by threatening them with bodily harm,
resultingintheirnotbeingabletovote

9. TheaffidavitofErmalynJ.Jamasali,amemberoftheBEIondutyinPrecinct
17A/18A, attesting that BEI Chair Rolina Abubakar gave the unused ballots
underduresstounidentifiedmenwhoproceededtofillthemupandhandedthem
toaffiantJamasalitodropintheballotboxand

10.TheaffidavitofPoliceInspectorFranciscoK.Panisan,ChiefofPoliceof
Patikul,attestingthathereceivedseveralcomplaintstotheeffectthatanumber
of registered voters in the precincts clustered within the Anuling Elementary
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 7/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
of registered voters in the precincts clustered within the Anuling Elementary
Schoolwerenotallowedtovoteandthatsomevoterswerephysicallyprevented
fromgettingintotheirrespectiveprecincts.

In fine, Suhuris submissions and supporting affidavits show that the election returns for
PrecinctNos.51A/52AlackedoneofthenecessaryBEIsignaturesthatsixofthecontestedelection
returnslackedsomeorallofthesignaturesand/orthumbmarksofthepollwatchersthatanothersix
electionreturnsmightindicateastatisticalimprobabilityofresultsandthatonlyoneelectionreturn
[27]
hadnoentriesinthespacesfortheprecinctnumber,barangay,city/municipalityandprovince.

Unfortunatelyforthepetitioner,thecitedirregularitiesandomissionscouldnotbethebases
for granting his petition for the exclusion of the 25 election returns in a preproclamation
controversy.

Firstly, the defects cited by Suhuri were mere irregularities or formal defects that did not
warranttheexclusionoftheaffectedelectionreturns.Indeed,themereattendanceorpresenceofthe
formaldefectsdidnotestablishthecommissionofpalpableirregularitiesintheelectionreturns.As
[28]
heldinBaterinav.CommissiononElections, the grounds for the exclusion of election returns
from the canvassing as raised by the petitioners therein referring to, among others, the failure to
close the entries with the signatures of the election inspectors, and the lack of signatures of the
petitionerswatchers,bothinvolvingaviolationoftherulesgoverningthepreparationanddelivery
ofelectionreturnsforcanvassingdidnotnecessarilyaffecttheauthenticityandgenuinenessofthe
subjectelectionreturnsastowarranttheirexclusionfromthecanvassing,beingbutdefectsinform
[29]
insufficienttosupporttheconclusionthatthesehadbeentamperedwithorspurious.

In this regard, the Court has said that the conclusion that election returns were obviously
manufacturedorfalseandshouldconsequentlybedisregardedfromthecanvassmustbeapproached
[30]
with extreme caution and made only upon the most convincing proof and that only when the
[31]
electionreturnswerepalpablyirregularmighttheyberejected.
Secondly, the MBC corrected the defects before the canvass of the election returns upon
finding the cause of the defects to be satisfactorily explained by the members of the Board of
[32]
ElectionTellers.TheMBCsreportbearsthisout,towit:

3. Minutesofthecanvassxxxwillshowthattherewereonlyveryfewelectionreturnsthat
werenotsignedbysomemembersoftheBoardofElectionTellers.TheBoarddecidedtodeferthe
canvass on those returns and issued written directives to each of the concerned Board of Election
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 8/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
canvass on those returns and issued written directives to each of the concerned Board of Election
TellertoappearbeforetheBoardofCanvassersforexplanationforsuchomission.Trueenough,the
summonedmembersoftheBoardofElectionTellerswhofailedtoaffixtheirsignaturesinthereturn
appearedandgavetheexplanationinopensessionthattheyfailedtoaffixtheirsignaturenotbecause
there was fraud, violence or other irregularities in the preparation thereof, but such omission was
causedsolelyandunwittinglybythefactthattheywereheavilysleepy,tired,hungryandmiserably
exhaustedinthewaitingforthedeliveryoftheelectionreturns.Priortothis,theyhavebeeninthe
differentpollingcentersspreadthroughoutthemunicipalityofPatikulearlymorningonelectionday
forthepreparationofthevotingandthevotingproper.

4. Some testified that the counting of ballots and the preparation of election returns in their
respective precinct was merely lighted by candles outside the school classrooms since the school
classrooms were not enough to accommodate all the precincts for the purpose of counting and
preparation of election returns. This had unwittingly contributed to the faultless and innocent
omissiontoaffixthesignature.

5. Inthepresenceoflawyersfromdifferentpoliticalpartiesandcandidates,officialwatchers
and before the Board of Canvassers, the members of the Board of Election Tellers affixed their
signatureonthepreviouslyincompleteelectionreturns.

6. After such completion and towards the end of the canvass, not a single election return
[33]
appearedtobemateriallydefectivexxx.

The COMELEC en banc expectedly approved of the MBCs actions, absent any other
plausible explanation for the defects supported by substantial evidence. In the assailed resolution,
[34]
theCOMELECenbancaptlystated,viz:

Wemeticulouslyreexaminedthequestionedelectionreturnsandtheyallappeartoberegular
and authentic. No showing of alterations and erasures could be seen on their faces. The re
examination would also show that twenty three (23) of the returns were completely signed and
thumbmarkedbyallthemembersoftheBoardofElectionInspectors.Someweresignedbyatleast
two(2)watchers.InPrecinctNos.47A/48Aand91A/92A,allthewatcherssignedthereturns.Only
two(2)returns,PrecinctNos.9A/10Aand99A/100Adidnotcontainthesignaturesofpollwatchers,
but were signed and thumbmarked by the Chairmen and Third Members. Even then, this is not a
formal defect which would constitute a proper ground for exclusion. This means that the
[35]
asseverationsofthepetitionerappellanthasnolegtoleanon.

We agree with the COMELEC en banc. The actions of the MBC were reasonable and
warranted.Judicialnoticeisproperlytakenofthefactthattheconductofelectionsinmanypartsof
thiscountry,particularlyinareaslikePatikul,Sulu,oftencomeundercircumstanceslessthanideal
and convenient for the officials administering the elections and of the fact that the process of
elections usually involvesd sleepless nights, tiresome work, and constant dangers to the lives and
personal safeties of the many officials who work to see to it that the elections are orderly and
peaceful and their results are obtained smoothly and with the least delay. We can easily conclude
thatsuchtryingcircumstancesoftenleadtounintendedomissionsinformsimilartothoseSuhuri
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 9/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869

pointedout.


Thirdly, the allegation of a statistical improbability reflected in the election returns for
Precinct Nos. 11A/12A, 17A/18A, 89A/90A, 91A/92A, 93A/94A and 95A/96A (wherein Suhuri
obtainedzero)andforPrecinctNos.13A/14A(whereinHayudinigarnered210outofthe211total
registeredvoters,withSuhuribeingcreditedwithonevote)lackssubstanceandmerit.

ThedoctrineofstatisticalimprobabilitywasfirstpronouncedinLagumbayv.Commissionon
[36]
Elections, inwhichtheCourtupheldthepoweranddutyoftheCOMELECtorejectthereturns
ofabout50precinctsaffectingtheelectionsofSenators,becausetheirresultswerecontrarytoall
statisticalprobabilities,thus:

Itappearingthereinthatcontrarytoallstatisticalprobabilitiesinthefirstset,ineachprecinct
the number of registered voters equalled the number of ballots and the number of votes reportedly
castandtalliedforeachandeverycandidateoftheLiberalParty,thepartyinpowerwhereas,allthe
candidates of the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero and in the second set, again contrary to all
statisticalprobabilitiesall the reported votes were for candidates of the Liberal Party, all of whom
were credited with exactly the same number of votes in each precinct, ranging from 240 in one
precinctto650inanotherprecinctwhereas,allthecandidatesoftheNacionalistaPartyweregiven
exactlyzeroinallsaidprecincts.

Lagumbayexpoundedonthedoctrineofstatisticalimprobabilityandthedoctrineseffecton
thepoweroftheCOMELECtorejecttheresultsreflectedintheelectionreturnswhensuchreturns
[37]
showedprimafaciethattheydidnotreflectthetrueandvalidreportsofregularvoting,thus:

We opined that the election result in said precincts as reported was utterly improbable and
clearly incredible. For it is not likely, in the ordinary course of things, that all the electors of one
precinct would, as one man, vote for all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party, without giving a
singlevotetooneoftheeightcandidatesoftheNacionalistaParty.Suchextraordinarycoincidence
was quite impossible to believe, knowing that the Nacionalista Party had and has a nationwide
organization,withbranchesineveryprovince,andwas,inpreviousyears,thepartyinpowerinthese
islands.

We also know from our experience in examining ballots in the three Electoral Tribunals
(Presidential, Senate, and House) that a large portion of the electors do not fill all the blanks for
senators in their ballots. Indeed, this observation is confirmed by the big differences in the votes
received by the eight winning senators in this as well as in previous national elections 2 almost a
millionvotesbetweenthefirstplaceandtheeight.Furthermore,in1965,thetotalnumberofelectors
who cast their votes was 6,833,369 (more or less). If every voter had written eight names on his
ballot, the total number of votes cast for all the candidates would be that number multiplied by 8,
namely54,666,952.Butthetotalnumberofvotestalliedforthecandidatesforsenatoramountedto
49,374,942only.Thedifferencebetweenthetwosumsrepresentsthenumberofballotsthatdidnot
containeightnamesforsenators.Inotherwords,some5millionballotsdidnotcarryeightnames.Of
course,thisisaroughestimate,becausesomeballotsmayhaveomittedmorenames,inwhichcase,
the number of incomplete ballots would be less. But the general idea and the statistical premise is
there.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 10/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
there.

Thesamestatisticalresultisdeduciblefromthe1963electiondata:totalnumberofelectorswho
voted, 7,712,019 if each of them named eight senators, the total votes tallied should have been
61,696,152,andyetthetotalnumbertalliedforallthesenatorialcandidateswas45,812,470only.A
greaternumberofincompleteballots.

It must be noted that this is not an instance wherein one return gives to one candidate all the
votes in the precinct, even as it gives exactly zero to the other. This is not a case where some
senatorialcandidatesobtainzeroexactly,whilesomeothersreceiveafewscatteredvotes.Here,all
the eight candidates of one party garnered all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same
numberwhereasalltheeightcandidatesoftheotherpartygotpreciselynothing.

Themainpointtorememberisthatthereisnoblockvotingnowadays.

What happened to the vote of the Nacionalista inspector? There was one in every precinct.
Evidently,eitherhebecameatraitortohisparty,orwasmadetosignafalsereturnbyforceorother
illegalmeans.Ifhesignedvoluntarily,butinbreachoffaith,theNacionalistainspectorbetrayedhis
party and, any voting or counting of ballots therein, was a sham and a mockery of the national
suffrage.

Hence,denyingprimafacierecognitiontosuchreturnsonthegroundthattheyaremanifestly
fabricated or falsified, would constitute a practical approach to the Commission's mission to insure
freeandhonestelections.

InMitchellvs.Stevens,supra,thereturnsshowedanoticeableexcessofvotesoverthenumber
ofregisteredvoters,andthecourtrejectedthereturnsasobviously"manufactured".Why?Theexcess
could have been due to the fact that, disregarding all pertinent data, the election officers wrote the
number of votes their fancy dictated and so the return was literally a "manufactured", "fabricated"
return.Ormaybebecausepersonsotherthanvoters,werepermittedtotakepartandvoteorbecause
registeredvoterscastmorethanoneballoteach,orbecausethoseinchargeofthetallysheetfalsified
their counts. Hence, as the Mitchell decision concluded, the returns were "not true returns . . . but
simplymanufacturedevidencesofanattempttodefeatthepopularwill."Allthesepossibilitiesand/or
probabilitieswereplainfraudulentpractices,resultinginmisrepresentationoftheelectionoutcome.
"Manufactured"wasthewordused."Fabricated"or"false"couldaswellhavebeenemployed.

The same ratio decidendi applies to the situation in the precincts herein mentioned. These
returns were obviously false or fabricated prima facie. Let us take for example, precinct No. 3 of
Andong, Lanao del Sur. There were 648 registered voters. According to such return all the eight
candidatesoftheLiberalPartygot648each,andtheeightNacionalistacandidatesgotexactlyzero.
Weholdsuchreturntobeevidentlyfraudulentorfalsebecauseoftheinherentimprobabilityofsucha
resultagainststatisticalprobabilitiesspeciallybecauseatleastonevoteshouldhavebeenreceivedby
theNacionalistacandidates,i.e.,thevoteoftheNacionalistainspector.Itis,ofcourse,"possible"that
suchinspectordidnotlikehisparty'ssenatoriallineupbutitisnotprobablethathedislikedallof
such candidates, and it is not likely that he favored all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party.
Therefore,mostprobably,hewasmadetosignanobviouslyfalsereturn,orelsehebetrayedhisparty,
inwhichcase,theelectionthereinifanywasnomorethanabarefacedfraudandabrazencontempt
ofthepopularpolls.

Of course we agree that frauds in the holding of the election should be handled and finally
settledbythecorrespondingcourtsorelectoraltribunals.Thatisthegeneralrule,wheretestimonial
ordocumentaryevidence,isnecessarybutwherethefraudissopalpablefromthereturnitself(res
ipsaloquiturthethingspeaksforitself),thereisnoreasontoacceptitandgiveitprimafacievalue.

Atanyrate,fraudornofraud,theverdictinthesefiftyprecinctsmayultimatelybeascertained
beforetheSenateElectoralTribunal.Allweholdnowisthatthereturnsshow"primafacie"thatthey
do not reflect true and valid reports of regular voting. The contrary may be shown by candidate
Climacointhecorrespondingelectionprotest.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 11/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869

UnderLagumbay,therefore,thedoctrineofstatisticalimprobabilityisappliedonlywherethe
uniqueuniformityoftallyofallthevotescastinfavorofallthecandidatesbelongingtooneparty
andthesystematicblankingofallthecandidatesofalltheopposingpartiesappearinthe election
[38]
return. Thedoctrinehasnoapplicationwherethereisneitheruniformityoftalliesnorsystematic
[39]
blanking of the candidates of one party. Thus, the bare fact that a candidate for public office
received no votes in one or two precincts, standing alone and without more, cannot adequately
supportafindingthatthesubjectelectionreturnsarestatisticallyimprobable.Verily,azerovotefor
aparticularcandidateintheelectionreturnsisbutonestrandinthewebofcircumstantialevidence
[40]
thattheelectoralreturnswerepreparedunderduress,forceandintimidation.

TheCourthasthuswarnedthatthedoctrineofstatisticalimprobabilitymustberestrictively
viewed,withtheutmostcarebeingtakenlestinpenalizingfraudulentandcorruptpracticeswhichis
[41]
truly called for innocent voters become disenfranchised, a result that hardly commends itself.
Such prudential approach makes us dismiss Suhuris urging that some of the electoral results had
been infected with the taint of statistical improbability as to warrant their exclusion from the
canvassinapreproclamationcontroversy.Specifically,hispetitionandtherecordsnowhereshow
thathispartymatesreceivedasimilarnumberofvotes(orlackofany)bywhichtoconcludethat
therewereauniqueuniformityoftallyandasystematicblankingofothercandidatesbelongingto
oneparty.

Fourthly,Suhuricontendsthatthreat,violence,duressandintimidationwereattendantinthe
preparation of election returns of the 25 contested precincts. He has presented the affidavits of
[42]
voters and poll watchers from the 25 precincts whose election returns he questioned the
affidavitofoneErmalynJ.Jamasali,amemberoftheBEIofoneoftheprecinctsandtheaffidavit
[43]
ofPoliceInspectorPanisan,ChiefofPoliceofPatikul,Sulu.

Yet, the affidavits, because they referred to incidents that had occurred at the various
precinctsduringthevoting,didnotsubstantiateSuhurisallegationofduress,threats,coercion,and
intimidation during the preparation or making of the election returns. The COMELEC en banc
rightlynotedandpointedthisoutinitsassailedresolution,towit:

xxxthevariousaffidavitspresentedbythepetitionerdo notevenrelateto the fact of the election
returns being manufactured or prepared under duress, but to the alleged irregularities in the voting
[44]
whicharepropergroundsinanelectionprotest.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 12/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869

Fifthly,BEImemberJamasalinarratedinheraffidavitherhavingpersonallywitnessedfraud
committed during the elections. Even assuming that the fraud she thereby exposed constituted an
irregularityintheconductoftheelections,theincident,beingisolated,didnotwarranttheexclusion
ofallthe25electionreturns,butonlyofthereturnfortheprecinctwherethefraudhadoccurred.
However,theexclusionoftheelectionreturnsfromthatprecinct(i.e.,Precinct17A/18A),ifcalled
[45]
for,wouldnotaltertheoverallresultforthemayoraltycontestinPatikul,Sulu, consideringthat
saidprecincthadonly189registeredvoters.WenotethatHayudinihadawinningmarginof775
votesoverSuhuri.

[46]
Lastly, Police Inspector Panisans election report, albeit official, would not justify the
exclusionofthereturnsfromtheprecinctsclusteredintheAnulingElementarySchool.Concededly,
Panisans report, being hearsay because he had not himself actually witnessed the incidents
describedinthereport,wasunreliableandhadnovalueforpurposesofSuhurispetitionappeal.It
would not be trite to emphasize that the results of an election should not be annulled based on
hearsayevidence.

II
COMELECEnBanc
DidNotGravelyAbuseItsDiscretion

Inaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,thepetitionercarriestheburdenofprovingnotmerely
reversibleerror,butgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepart
[47]
of the public respondent for its issuance of the impugned order. Grave abuse of discretion is
presentwhenthereisacapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackof
jurisdiction,suchaswherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonof
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationof
[48]
law. Inotherwords,thetribunaloradministrativebodymusthaveissuedtheassaileddecision,
[49]
orderorresolutioninacapriciousordespoticmanner.

Suhurididnotdischargehisburdenaspetitioner,tosatisfactorilyshowthathisgroundswere
properforapreproclamationcontroversy.Wecannotgotohissuccor,fortheCOMELECcannot
not look behind or beyond the 25 contested election returns in a preproclamation controversy.
Moreover, contrary to his urging, the COMELEC en banc did not rely mainly on the report
submitted by the MBC on December 4, 2007 in order to find against him. It is clear that the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 13/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
submitted by the MBC on December 4, 2007 in order to find against him. It is clear that the
COMELECenbanctooknoteofthemattersandcircumstancesthatSuhurihimselfhadsubmitted
toitsconsiderationwhenitrendereditsassailedresolution.Ifitdidnotaccepthissubmissions,it
didnotabuseitsdiscretion,becauseitbaseditsassailedresolutionontheestablishedfacts,thelaw,
andthepertinentjurisprudence.

Before closing, we stress that the powers of the COMELEC are essentially executive and
administrativeinnature.Thisisthereasonwhythequestionofwhetherornottherewereterrorism,
votebuyingandotherirregularitiesintheelectionsshouldbeventilatedinregularelectionprotests.
[50]
The COMELEC is not the proper forum for deciding such protests. Accordingly, a party
seekingtoraiseissues,theresolutionofwhichcompelsornecessitatestheCOMELECspiercingthe
veilofelectionreturnsthatappearprimafacietoberegularontheirface,hashisproperremedyina
[51]
regularelectioncontest.

WHEREFORE,weaffirmtheresolutiondatedJanuary29,2008issuedinS.P.C.No.07118
bytheCommissiononElectionsenbanc,reversingtheresolutiondatedJuly24,2007ofitsSecond
DivisionandconfirmtheproclamationofrespondentKabirE.HayudiniasthedulyelectedMayor
oftheMunicipalityofPatikul,ProvinceofSuluinthelocalelectionsofMay14,2007.

Thepetitionershallpaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:




REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice




http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 14/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869


(Onofficialleave)
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGCONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice






ANTONIOT.CARPIORENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




(Onleave)
CONCHITACARPIOMORALESMINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice







PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




(Onleave)
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTAMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice





ROBERTOA.ABAD
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htmAssociateJustice 15/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
AssociateJustice



CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourt.




REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Onofficialleave.
**Onleave.
[1]
Rollo,Vol.I,pp.3342.
[2]
Id.,pp.45,112113.
[3]
Id.,p.9.
[4]
Id.,pp.78102.
[5]
Id.,p.8.
[6]
Id.,p.75.
[7]
Id.,p.76.
[8]
Id.,p.9.
[9]
Id.,pp.6674.
[10]
Id.,pp.194202.
[11]
Id.,pp.112116.
[12]
Rollo,Vol.II,pp.566570.
[13]
Rollo,Vol.I,pp.120122.
[14]
Id.,p.4557.
[15]
Id.,272294.
[16]
Id.,p.34.
[17]
Id.,pp.405406.
[18]
Id.,p.35.
[19]
Supra,atnote1.
[20]
Matalamv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.123230,April18,1997,271SCRA733Sanchezv.CommissiononElections,G.R.
No.78461,August12,1987,153SCRA67.
[21]
Sanchezv.CommissiononElections,supra,atp.68
[22]
Matalamv.CommissiononElections,supra,atp.734.
[23]
Loongv.Comelec,G.R.Nos.107814107815,May16,1996,257SCRA1,23.
[24]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 16/17
5/26/2017 G.R.No.181869
[24]
Rollo,Vol.II,pp.605606.
[25]
Underlinesareprovidedforemphasisonly.
[26]
Rollo,Vol.I,pp.205218.


[27]
Id.,pp.351353.
[28]
Baterinav.CommissiononElections,G.R.Nos.9534749,January6,1992,205SCRA1,3.
[29]
Id.,p.10.
[30]
Estradav.Navarro,G.R.No.L28340,December29,1967,21SCRA1514.
[31]
Mutucv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.L28517,February21,1968,22SCRA662,667.
[32]
Rollo,Vol.I,pp.408409.
[33]
Underlinesareprovidedforemphasisonly.
[34]
Supra,atnote1,pp.3839.
[35]
Underlinesareprovidedforemphasisonly.
[36]
G.R.No.L25444,January31,1966,16SCRA175.

[37]
Id.

[38]
SeeSinsuatv.Pendatun,G.R.No.L31501,June30,1970,33SCRA630.
[39]
Doruelov.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.L67746,November21,1984,133SCRA376,377.
[40]
Velayov.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.135613,March9,2000,327SCRA713,743.
[41]
Id.
[42]
Rollo,Vol.I,pp.205218.
[43]
Id.,pp.2729.
[44]
Supra,atnote1,p.40.
[45]
Rollo,Vol.I,p.196.
[46]
Id.,atp.219.
[47]
Suliguinv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.166046,March23,2006,485SCRA219,233.
[48]
ReyesTabujarav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.172813,July20,2006,495SCRA844,857858.
[49]
Maliniasv.CommissiononElections,439Phil319,330.
[50]
Abesv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.L28348,December15,1967,21SCRA1252,1258.
[51]
Matalamv.CommissiononElections,supra,atnote20,p.734.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/181869.htm 17/17