Sophia Cadiz Topic: The Commission on Elections

16-4006 Case No. : 01

AMANTE PURISIMA VS HON. SALANGA, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, COMELEC AND

GREGORIO CORDERO; 31 December 1965; No. L-22335; Bengzon, J.

 Purisima requested the suspension of canvass of votes & petition for recount because of
discrepancies of election returns; he presented Nationalista Party’s copies as evidence;
 Both petitions were denied because the Nacionalista copies do not conform with the
requirements under Sec. 163 of Revised Election Code; hence, this petition;
 SC favored Purisima. The reason he failed to submit authentic COMELEC copies is because
the Board declined to suspend the canvassing of votes. He should not be prejudiced by that.

FACTS:

Petitioner Purisima and private respondent Cordero are candidates for any of the 3 positions in the
Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur. During canvass, Purisima noted that the returns from 41
precincts showed on their face that the words and figures for Cordero’s votes had been “obviously
manifestly erased” and superimposed with other words and figures.

Purisima requested for the suspension of canvass before the Provincial Board of Canvassers and
submitted the Nacionalista Party copies of the returns for evidence & comparison. It showed a
discrepancy of 5,042 votes in favor of Cordero. However, the Board denied the request on the ground
that “it was not yet ascertainable if the discrepancies would materially affect the result.”

After the canvass, Cordero got the last spot with a 1,857-vote margin. Purisima again asked for the
suspension of canvass for him to have a judicial remedy, but it was denied and Cordero was
proclaimed the winner.

Purisima filed a petition before the COMELEC to annul the canvass and proclamation (granted), he
also filed a petition for recount before CFI which was dismissed because the Nacionalista copies
cannot be made basis of a petition for recount under Sec. 163 of the Revised Election Code (REC).

ISSUE: Whether CFI is correct in dismissing the petition for recount based on its interpretation of
Sec. 163 of the REC

RULING: NO. CFI erred in dismissing the petition.

For a petition for recount to be granted, the ff. requisites must be present: 1. That it appears to the
Board that a discrepancy exists; 2. That said discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the Board
and another authentic copy thereof; and 3. That said authentic copy must also be submitted to the
Board.
Records show that not only the Nacionalista Party copies showed the discrepancy, but also
COMELEC’s copy. It is settled that COMELEC’s copies are authentic copies which complied the
requirements of Sec. 163 of REC. However, CFI ruled that COMELEC’s copies cannot be applied
because Purisima failed to submit it, but, records also show that the reason it was not submitted is
because the Board declined to suspend the canvass & proclamation. Therefore, such failure to submit
should not prejudice Purisima’s right to petition for recount.

DOCTRINES:

 A candidate affected can file a petition for recount alone, without the
concurrence of the provincial board of canvassers.

 Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the votes

stated in the election returns strike at the reliability of said returns as
basis for canvass and proclamation, thus it is imperative for the board to
stop the canvass so as to allow time for verification of and comparison
with authentic copies and recourse to the courts. A canvass or
proclamation made notwithstanding such patent defects, without
awaiting proper remedies, is null and void.