1. ELECTION LAW; REVIEW BY SUPREME COURT OF COMELEC RESOLUTION; QUESTIONED PORTION OF RESOLUTION MUST BE RAISED ON APPEAL IN BASIC CASE. — The Court finds Sanga’s objection to the belated petition of Tiglao seeking to reverse Comelec’s resolution of Dec. 27, 1969 declaring a failure of election in precinct 27 Arayat well taken. There is actually no proceeding pending at the Comelec or in any court regarding this precinct which could properly and timely be brought to this Court for review. The portion of the Comelec resolution of January 26, 1970 declaring a failure of election in this precinct was not raised on appeal by Tiglao in the basic case, L-31566, wherein the Court in its judgment of February 18, 1970 mostly sustained Tiglao in the points raised by him and set aside the Comelec resolution insofar as it would have prematurely resulted in the proclamation of Sanga.

2. ID.; PRE-PROCLAMATION PROCEEDINGS; PETITION FOR OPENING AND RECOUNT OF BALLOTS SHOULD BE FILED BY PRECINCT BOARD OF INSPECTORS. — As to precincts 4 and 23, San Luis, it is conceded that no petition for correction or recount was ever filed respecting these precincts. The Court’s judgment of February 18, 1970 expressly pointed out as to these precincts that "their respective boards of inspectors should have petitioned the court for correction of the returns." It is too late now to inject this question as an issue at this late stage, and goes against the admonition at the last hearing in Baguio City on May 11, 1971 that there should be no further proliferation and injection of new issues which would otherwise render interminable the present pre-proclamation proceedings which should be summary in nature and must come to an end when they have timely been fully availed of by the parties.

3. ID., JUDICIAL CORRECTION OF RETURNS; COMELEC DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO REVIEW JUDICIAL CORRECTION ORDER. — It is evident that no matter how worthy the respondent Comelec’s motives may be, the Comelec lacks jurisdiction and authority to review the judicial correction ordered by the Pampanga court as the court of competent jurisdiction under section 154 of the Revised Election Code. Much less may Comelec set aside the judicially corrected returns, which is a foreclosed question as it itself admits. Assuming in gratia argumenti that the Pampanga court grossly erred in ordering the corrections on the basis of patently false testimony of the inspectors resulting in the excess votes now shown on the corrected returns, Comelec may not collaterally attack and discard the Pampanga court’s ruling.

4. ID.; JUDICIAL CORRECTION ORDER, FINAL AND EXECUTORY FOR PURPOSE OF CANVASS. — The judicial resolution of the inspector’s petition for correction of returns is final and executory for the purpose of the canvass solely and with the court’s order of approval or denial as the case may be, in the exercise of sound discretion, the proceeding comes to an end, giving way to the proclamation and the proper electoral protest.

5. ID.; CORRECTION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 154 OF THE REVISED ELECTION CODE; DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET SO THAT COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CAN ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER PARTIES. — Due process, as guaranteed by the Constitution, requires in order that jurisdiction may be properly acquired over the parties affected and exercised by courts of first instance in correction proceedings under section 154 of the Revised Election Code that (1) notice of the correction proceedings be given to all candidates affected just as it is required under section 163 thereof governing recount proceedings and (2) copy of the return sought to be corrected must be ordered by the courts to be duly submitted to it by the provincial or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, or by the chairman of the board of canvassers concerned who had received the same for the canvassing, without prejudice to availing of other official copies of the return such as the Comelec’s copy and that deposited in the ballot box.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS MAY NOT BE DISPENSED WITH EVEN IF THERE WILL BE SOME DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. — The demands of procedural due process that a party affected must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard must be fulfilled together with the law’s policy of the prompt proclamation of the true winner in the elections. The summary character of the proceedings, if implemented with a firm hand so as to rule out impertinent and irrelevant questions and dilatory tactics, would normally not cause any undue delay in the ensuing proclamation. And if some measure of delay were entailed, nevertheless the due process requirement may not be dispensed with.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALL CASES INCONSISTENT WITH DOCTRINE OVERRULED. — The Court expressly overrules the previous doctrine enunciated by it in the cited cases of Gumpal v. Court of First Instance of Isabela and Cuenco v. Laya, supra, and all other cases inconsistent with the doctrine now enunciated that notice of the correction proceedings must be given to all candidates affected and that copy of the election return sought to be corrected should be ordered by the court to be duly submitted to it by the custodian thereof.

8. ID.; CONTESTED CORRECTION PROCEEDINGS; BALLOT BOX OPENED AND SUMMARY RECOUNT OF BALLOTS CONDUCTED UPON FINDING OF PRIMA FACIE CASE AND THAT INTEGRITY OF BALLOT BOX AND ITS CONTENTS HAS BEEN PRESERVED. — The Court now sets the procedure that in all correction proceedings, the court of first instance upon being satisfied at the hearing that a prima facie case has been made out, must furthermore, unless the correction sought is undubitable or unopposed and may therefore be summarily ordered — in all cases where it finds that the integrity of the ballot box and its contents has been duly preserved, go to the real evidence, open the ballot box and conduct a summary recount of the ballots themselves as in judicial recount proceedings under section 163 of the Code.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; PREVIOUS DOCTRINE DISCARDED. — The Court expressly discards the previous doctrine of Benitez v. Paredes and Dizon v. Provincial Board of Canvassers and all subsequent cases uniformly ruling that in correction proceedings, where the court after hearing the inspectors is satisfied as to the veracity of their petition or affidavits and of the error alleged to have been committed it shall, without any need of opening the ballot boxes, order the corresponding correction of such error in the election return.

10. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDING OF INTEGRITY OF THE BALLOT BOX AND ITS CONTENTS, NECESSARY REQUIREMENT. — The condition herein required that the trial court make a preliminary finding that the integrity of the ballot box and its contents have been duly preserved is, of course, a necessary one, since a new count of the ballots found in a ballot box that has been tampered with would serve no legitimate purpose and would defeat the very objective of the recount to determine from the real evidence of the ballots the true result thereof.

11. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECONDARY EVIDENCE RESORTED TO IN CASE BALLOT BOX IS TAMPERED. — In case the ballot box is tampered, the trial court must content itself with all other secondary evidence available to satisfy itself of the merit of the petition, such as the inspector’s testimonies, the tally board and tally sheet, minutes of voting, etc., without regard to the contents of the tampered ballot box.

12. ID.; INNOVATIVE RULINGS OF THIS COURT NOW INCORPORATED IN ELECTION CODE OF 1971. — It may be duly noted that these innovative rulings of the Court have now been substantially incorporated in the corresponding provisions of the Election Code of 1971 (R.A. 6388) approved on Sept. 2, 1971, particularly section 194 thereof governing correction proceedings formerly provided in section 154 of the old Code, and section 208 on recount proceedings formerly provided in Section 163 of the old Code.

13. ID.; CORRECTION PROCEEDINGS; VOTES OF THE AFFECTED CANDIDATES SHOULD ALL BE RECOUNTED. — The votes of the affected candidates should all be recounted in correction proceedings. Since the ballot box is being opened anyway and each ballot has to be read to find out the votes for the candidate whose name and votes have been omitted from the original returns or for the candidate(s) in whose favor the petition for correction has been filed, the Court deems it in consonance with the spirit of the law to allow the recounting of the votes of the candidates affected and thereby "to restore public tranquility by dispelling all doubts as to the true number of votes cast in a given precinct."cralaw virtua1aw library

14. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE IN ACCORD WITH SECTION 194 OF THE NEW ELECTION CODE OF 1971. — This is in accord with the provisions of section 194 of the new Election Code of 1971, supra, substantially adopting the Court’s innovative rulings in its Resolution of August 31, 1970 which ordain that "after satisfying itself that integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved, the Court shall order the recounting of the votes affected and the proper correction made on the election returns.

15. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE SHOULD BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED. — It should be noted that this ruling that the votes of the affected candidates should all be recounted could work conversely against a party in the position of Sanga in other cases, where the recount results in a decrease of the votes originally credited to him. For the rule should be consistently applied. Hence if the recount in these two precincts showed a total of say, only 45 votes for Sanga instead of 96 votes as actually recounted (as against the original 95 votes credited to him), then only the actual 45 votes recounted for him would be taken into account, resulting in a 50-vote decrease for him.

16. ID.; ID.; ID.; OBJECT OF PROCEEDINGS. — The object of correction proceedings and the recount of the ballots was to determine the true and actual balloting and to have a total and complete return reflective of the true count of the votes and the true results of the election held, whether they result in the increase (or decrease) of votes of both affected candidates, as in these cases, or an increase for one and a decrease for the other.

17. ID., ID.; ID.; SINGLING OUT OF ADDITIONAL VOTES CAST FOR A PARTY NO LONGER POSSIBLE. — Singling out the additional votes cast for petitioner and disregarding those obtained by respondent is no longer possible with the Court’s discarding of the old procedure where a correction of returns in favor of only one favored candidate could be effected upon the mere unanimous sworn petition of inspectors, without need of opening the ballot box and recounting the ballots, assuming that the integrity of the ballot box and its contents have been duly preserved. Now that the new procedure of opening the ballot box and conducting a recount has been established, all the ballots have to be recounted insofar as the affected candidates are concerned, so as to have a true return reflective of the actual results of the election and of the true will of the electorate.

18. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE APPLIED IN THE SAN LUIS PRECINCTS. — The 16 additional votes for Sanga in precincts 3, 8, and 18 San Luis have been ordered credited in his favor, crediting Sanga with a total gain of 51 additional votes in all the precincts recounted. The 51 additional votes gained by Tiglao in the correction recount proceedings in these precincts should accordingly be credited in turn to Tiglao.

19. ID.; ID.; ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF CORRECTION ORDER OF LOWER COURT ALLOWING INSPECTORS TO CORRECT AND INITIAL THE RETURNS FOR PRECINCT 6 SAN SIMON, CRUCIAL IN THE CASE AT BAR. — Crucial is the issue with regard to the admission or rejection of Judge Sarmiento’s correction order of June 28, 1971, allowing the inspectors to correct and initial the returns for precinct 6 San Simon, and to credit Sanga with 75 additional votes vice 0 vote over Tiglao’s counsel’s objection to the recounting of the ballots on the ground that the August 31, 1970 pre-condition that the integrity of the ballots has been duly preserved, had been met. If the correction is admitted, Sanga would emerge the winner by sixty votes, whereas if the correction is rejected, Tiglao would win the proclamation by fifteen votes.

20. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERIMPOSITION IN THE FIGURES INDICATED IN THE RETURNS; CONGENITAL INFIRMITY PATENT ON THE FACE OF THE RETURN. — The San Simon precinct 6 return first came to the Court’s attention because of a congenital infirmity patent on its face. As pointed out by Justice Sanchez in our decision of February 18, 1970, the figures ’75’ were clearly written over the figure ’0’. So it is, that instead of Sanga appearing to have received no vote in said precinct, he is now credited with 75 votes in the return therefrom. From the beginning, the ’correction’ of the return to credit Sanga with 75 votes instead of 0 was placed under grave doubt, if not discredited, and places a great burden on Sanga and/or the inspectors to establish the legitimacy or validity of any subsequent attempts at ’correcting’ the return.

21. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSPECTORS CANNOT ALTER; RETURN WITHOUT ORDER FROM COMPETENT COURT. — The excuse that the chairman of the board of inspectors wrote in the 75 votes upon his attention being called to the alleged error by the poll clerk, but that he, (as well as the poll clerk and the other inspectors), "forgot to initial the change," cannot merit a ruling that such superimposition "was not a tampering but simply a correction." This was in violation of section 154 of the election code then in force. The Comelec should credit no vote for respondent Cornelio Sanga in precinct 6, San Simon. The Court has ruled that "the inspectors could not plead ignorance to the requirements of section 154 of the election code prohibiting any alteration in the returns, unless it be ordered by a competent court, on the assumption that they really discovered the ’mistake’."cralaw virtua1aw library

22. ID.; ID.; ID.; LOWER COURT ORDER CANNOT PREVAIL OVER SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. — Two days after the Court’s judgment of February 18, 1970 was declared final and executory on March 30, 1970, the precinct’s inspectors filed with Judge Sarmiento of the Pampanga court their petition for correction of the same rejected return alleging their mistake in crediting Sanga with zero vote. The Pampanga court per its decision dated April 11, 1970 granted the correction as prayed for and authorized the inspectors to initial the return where the chairman had superimposed ’75’ over the ’0’ originally written thereon, without any recount, but solely on the basis of the ballot box copy of the return and tally sheet which were taken from the ballot box (which had only one padlock instead of three padlocks required by law, the key to which was missing and hammer had to be forced open with a hammer by Comelec representative Jovito B. Barreras), and on the sole testimony of the poll clerk and not that of the poll chairman who admittedly made the superimposition; Held: As this Court’s final judgment of February 18, 1970 stood, no correction order by the Pampanga court could overturn and prevail over this Court’s judgment "to credit no vote for respondent Cornelio Sanga in precinct 6, San Simon."cralaw virtua1aw library

23. ID.; ID.; ID.; FEBRUARY 18, 1970 JUDGMENT MAINTAINED NOTWITHSTANDING AMENDATORY RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 31, 1970. — Neither before the Comelec nor before this Court did Sanga make mention of the correction proceedings for the precinct 6, San Simon return filed on April 2, 1970 nor of Judge Sarmiento’s decision of April 11, 1970, granting the same — much less, petition of this Court that it authorize or allow the correction order of Judge Sarmiento seeking to credit Sanga with 75 votes as against this Court’s judgment of February 18, 1970 to credit no vote for Sanga in the said precinct. Hence when the Court rendered its amendatory resolution of August 31, 1970, it declared the correction proceedings in the six San Luis precincts null and void