cralaw:red : Philipppine Supreme Court Jurisprudence" /> cralaw:red : September 1931 Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions" /> cralaw:red : September 1931, Supreme Court, SC, Decisions, Jurisprudence, Resolutions, Supreme Court Decisions, Chief Justice, Associate Justice">


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1931 > September 1931 Decisions > G.R. No. 35937 September 2, 1931 - DIEGO CUEVAS v. JUAN G. LESACA

056 Phil25cralaw:red:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 35937. September 2, 1931.]

DIEGO CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. JUAN G. LESACA, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, and FRANCISCO VIOLAGO, Respondents.

Payawal & Mendoza and Rivera, Pascual & Alba for Petitioner.

The respondent Judge in his own behalf and for other Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS; PROTESTS; OPENING OF BALLOT BOXES. — The point raised in this mandamus proceeding regarding the opening of ballot boxes has repeatedly been decided by this court. In Cecilio v. Belmonte and court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (48 Phil., 243), where the court reviewed the earlier cases dealing with this question, it was held that where irregularity in the conduct of the election inspectors in recounting the ballots is alleged in the motion of protest, it constitutes a sufficient ground for opening the ballot boxes and examining the questioned ballots.

2. ID.; ID.; DUTY OF JUDGE. — The law does not require a prima facie evidence other than the allegations in the protest, of fraud and irregularities in order to authorize the opening of the ballot boxes. Upon the proper filing of a motion of protest duly raising the question of the legality or illegality of ballots cast and the counting thereof, the law requires the court to have brought before it all ballots used at the election in the precincts which are questioned. (De la Merced v. Revilla and Camacho, 40 Phil., 190.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. - The court has no right or authority to deny this right of the contestant, who is entitled to it by virtue of the issue duly raised. The law is mandatory.


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of mandamus against the respondent judge to compel him to permit the opening of the ballot boxes of precincts 1 and 4 of the municipality of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, for an examination of their contents in connection with the election contest instituted by the petitioner in the Court of First Instance of the province, against the other respondent, Francisco Violago, municipal president elect of that municipality.

From the allegations it appears: That the petitioner was a qualified elector and candidate voted for municipal president of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, in the general election of June 2, 1931; that both the petitioner and the respondent, who were also candidates voted for municipal president in that election, duly filed their certificates of candidacy; that within the period fixed by law, the petitioner filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of the province contesting the election of the respondent Francisco Violago, alleging: That in precinct 1 of that municipality the election inspectors fraudulently and unlawfully counted 18 votes for the contestee, which they should not have done, because the candidate’s name was not written in the space intended for municipal president; that said election inspectors fraudulently and unlawfully failed to count 10 votes cast in favor of the contestant, which they should have accredited to him; that in precinct 4 of the same municipality, the election inspectors fraudulently and unlawfully counted 40 votes for the contestee, which they should not have counted because his name was not written in the space intended for municipal president; while fraudulently and unlawfully, the same election inspectors did not count 30 votes cast in favor of the contestant, which should have been accredited to him; that if it were not for this undue appreciation and improper adjudication of votes in precincts 1 and 4, the contestant would have won in the election by a plurality of 90 votes.

At the hearing of the motion, the contestant requested the court to order the opening of the ballot boxes from precincts 1 and 4 of the municipality of San Ildefonso, and the court ordered the presentation of preliminary evidence of fraud so as to determine whether the request might properly be granted; after hearing a number of witnesses, the court decided negatively.

The point here raised regarding the opening of ballot boxes has several times been decided by this court. In Cecilio v. Belmonte and Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (48 Phil., 243), where the court reviewed the earlier cases dealing with this question, it was held that where irregularity in the conduct of the election inspectors in recounting the ballots is alleged in the motion of protest, it constitutes a sufficient ground for opening the ballot boxes and examining the questioned ballots.

In De la Merced v. Revilla and Camacho (40 Phil., 190), this court, confirming the doctrines laid down theretofore, held that the law does require a prima facie showing other than the allegations in the protest, of fraud and irregularities in order to authorize the opening of the ballot boxes. It was furthermore held that in a motion of protest, duly raising the question of the legality or illegality of ballots cast and the counting thereof, the law requires the court to have brought before it all ballots used at the election in the precincts which are questioned. It is a right to which the protestant is entitled when a question has been duly raised, and the court has no right or authority to deny it. The law is mandatory.

Wherefore, it is ordered, that within the briefest possible period, the respondent judge order the opening of the ballot boxes from precincts 1 and 4 of the aforementioned municipality of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and examine the questioned ballots,thereafter deciding he cause upon the merits according to law. Without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1931 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 35937 September 2, 1931 - DIEGO CUEVAS v. JUAN G. LESACA

    056 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 34331 September 3, 1931 - ILOILO COMMERCIAL AND ICE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    056 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 33224 September 4, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE VILLAPANDO

    056 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 33795 September 4, 1931 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. CEFERINO YBAÑEZ ESTRADA

    056 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 34187 September 7, 1931 - JOAQUIN A. ELEAZAR v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 34917 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUA CHU, ET AL.

    056 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 35066 September 7, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE

    056 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 32894 September 8, 1931 - LEOCADIA ANGELO v. CIPRIANO PACHECO

    056 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 33598 September 8, 1931 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO ABAD, ET AL.

    056 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 34638 September 9, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN CABAJAR

    056 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 35235 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MOMO

    056 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 35346 September 10, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO S. SORIANO

    056 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 34283 September 11, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO ALVIAR

    056 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 34004 September 12, 1931 - APOLONIA CALMA v. EULALIO CALMA

    056 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 34497 September 12, 1931 - LA YEBANA COMPANY v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL.

    056 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 33413 September 16, 1931 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO CARIÑO

    056 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 34780 September 16, 1931 - RURAL TRANSIT COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    056 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. 35223 September 17, 1931 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. TALISAY- SILAY MILLING CO., ET AL.

    056 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 34163 September 18, 1931 - GREGORIO PEDRO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    056 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 34574 September 19, 1931 - CIRILO ABELLA v. MARIANO GONZAGA

    056 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 34385 September 21, 1931 - ALEJANDRA TORRES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO LIMJAP

    056 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 34774 September 21, 1931 - EL ORIENTE, FABRICA DE TABACOS, INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    056 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30756 September 22, 1931 - ENRIQUE BRIAS DE COYA v. TAN LUA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 34962 September 22, 1931 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    056 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 35246 September 22, 1931 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAR v. RICARDO DE LEON, ET AL.

    056 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 34906 September 23, 1931 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    057 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. 34840 September 23, 1931 - NARCISO GUTIERREZ v. BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ

    056 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 34401 September 24, 1931 - DEE HAO KIM v. LEON BUSIANG, ET AL.

    056 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 34642 September 24, 1931 - FABIOLA SEVERINO v. GUILLERMO SEVERINO, ET AL.

    056 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 34960 September 25, 1931 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MABALACAT SUGAR CO.

    057 Phil 937

  • G.R. No. 34564 September 29, 1931 - BASILIO CARIÑO v. ARSENIO JAMORALNE

    056 Phil 188