Demafiles Vs Commission On Elections, 21 SCRA 1462, G.R. No. L-28396, December 29, 1967
Uploaded by
Gi NoDemafiles Vs Commission On Elections, 21 SCRA 1462, G.R. No. L-28396, December 29, 1967
Uploaded by
Gi NoAgripino Demafiles Vs Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 1462, G.R. No.
L-28396, December
29, 1967
Facts:
The petitioner Agripino Demafiles and the respondent Benito B. Galido vying for the mayoralty
in the general elections. On November 21 the respondent Galido asked the provincial board,
acting as municipal board of canvassers pursuant to section 167 (b) of the Revised Election
Code, to disregard, as "obviously manufactured", the election return from precinct 7 on the
ground that the said return shows that 195 voters were registered, of whom 188 voted, when,
according to a certificate of the municipal election registrar only 182 had registered in that
precinct as of October 30, 1997. At its session on the following day, November 22, the board,
over the objection of one member, voted to reject the return from precinct 7 and then
proceeded with the canvass of the returns from the other precints. The resulting tally gave
Galido 888 votes as against 844 for Demafiles. Accordingly, Galido was proclaimed mayor-elect
of the municipality of Sebaste.
On November 24 Demafiles wired the Commission on Elections, protesting the board's action of
rejection of the return from precinct 7 and the subsequent proclamation of Galido, and
challenging the right of two board members, Julito Moscoso and Quirico Escaño, to sit,
considering that they were reelectionists. The COMELEC resolved to annul the canvass and
proclamation of the local officials of the new municipality of Sebaste, Antique, which was made
by the Provincial Board of Antique and to constitute the Board of Canvassers by appointing the
substitutes pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 167 (a) of the Revised Election Code, which shall
canvass anew the results of the election for local offices.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the case is moot because respondent Galido had taken his oath and
assumed office on November 22, pursuant to Republic Act 4870.
2. Whether or not the canvassing board may pass upon the validity of the election return in
this case.
3. Whether or not the canvass and proclamation should be annulled.
Ruling:
With regards to the First Issue:
No. In the court’s view, the last portion of the provision — "and shall have qualified" —
is devoid of any meaning and does not warrant the respondent's reading that the term
of office of the first municipal officials of Sebaste begins immediately after their
proclamation. Here is a clear case of a failure to express a meaning, and a becoming
sense of judicial modesty forbids the courts from assuming and, consequently, from
supplying. The court agreed by the general rule that the term of office of municipal
officials shall begin on the first day of January following their election, and so the
assumption of office by the respondent Galido in no way affected the basic issues in this
case.
With regards to the Second Issue:
Yes. A canvassing board performs a purely ministerial function — that of compiling and
adding the results they appear in the returns, transmitted to it. However, they cannot
pass upon the validity of an election return, much less exclude it from the canvass on
the ground that the votes cast in the precinct from whence it came are illegal. But the
exclusion of the return in this case is sought to be justified on the ground that it is
"obviously manufactured" because, contrary to the statement therein that there were
195 registered voters, of whom 188 voted, the certificate of the local election registrar
states that only 182 voters had registered on October 30, 1967.
With regards to the Third Issue:
Yes. The canvass and proclamation should be annulled because two of the four
members of the board of canvassers were disqualified from sitting in it, they being
candidates for reelection. The statement of respondent Galido that reelectionist
members of the provincial board are disqualified under section 28 only when the board
acts as a provincial board of canvassers, to prevent them from canvassing their own
votes, and not when they sit as a municipal board of canvassers, is branded as obiter
dictum.
The statute draws no distinction between the provincial board acting as a provincial
board of canvassers and the same board acting as a municipal canvassing body new
municipalities, and so we make none, in line with the maxim ubi lex non distinguit, nec
nos distinguere debemos.
