The procedure adopted by the Second Division was a complete inverse of the one outlined above and was contrary to reason. There was complete arbitrariness on its part. First, there was no indication at all that it ever considered the condition of the ballot boxes at the time they were delivered to the Comelec for revision. We find this rather puzzling, considering that it had been apprised of such information even before revision and even its own Rules of Procedure on election protests requires the revision committee to "make a statement of the condition in which the ballot boxes and their contents were found upon the opening of the same" 27 — in recognition of the vital significance of such facts. Second, it placed the burden of proving actual tampering of the ballots on petitioner herein (the protestee below) notwithstanding private respondent’s previous manifestation that most of the ballot boxes bore "overt signs of tampering"28 and only 79 ballot boxes were found intact. Third, instead of diligently examining whether the ballot boxes were preserved with such care as to preclude any reasonable opportunity for tampering with their contents, the Second Division made the probative value of the revised ballots dependent solely on whether spurious ballots were found among them. It failed to recognize that, in view of reports that the ballot boxes had been tampered with and allegations that their contents had been switched with genuine but invalid ballots, the question of whether the revised ballots could be relied on as the same ones cast and counted during the elections could not obviously be settled by an examination of the ballots themselves. Clearly, the time when these were deposited in the ballot boxes — a detail of utmost importance — could not possibly have been determined by that means. These errors on the part of the Second Division were infinitely far from harmless; the proper legal procedure could have made a substantial difference in the result of the election protest and most certainly could have led to a better approximation of the true will of the electorate. This, in the final analysis, is what election protests are all about. Under the circumstances, the question as to who between the parties was duly elected to the office of mayor cannot be settled without further proceedings in the Comelec. In keeping with the precepts laid down in this decision, the Comelec must first ascertain, after due hearing, whether it has before it the same ballots cast and counted in the elections. For this purpose, it must determine: (1) which ballot boxes sufficiently retained their integrity as to justify the conclusion that the ballots contained therein could be relied on as better evidence than the election returns and (2) which ballot boxes were in such a condition as would afford a reasonable opportunity for unauthorized persons to gain unlawful access to their contents. In the latter case, the ballots must be held to have lost all probative value and cannot be used to set aside the official count reflected in the election returns. WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The April 25 and May 12, 2005 orders and the January 23, 2006 resolution of the Commission on Elections Second Division and the May 29, 2006 resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc in EPC No. 2004-61 are hereby declared null and void. The Commission on Elections is hereby DIRECTED to determine, with utmost dispatch and all due regard for the parties’ right to be heard, the true result of the 2004 elections for mayor of Legaspi City. To this end, it shall: (1) identify the precincts the ballot boxes of which were found intact with complete and undamaged seals and padlocks or were otherwise preserved with such substantial compliance with statutory safety measures as to preclude a reasonable opportunity for tampering with their contents. The ballots from these precincts shall be deemed to have retained their integrity in the absence of evidence to the contrary and the Commission on Elections may consider them in the recount.