SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 35937           September 2, 1931

DIEGO CUEVAS, Petitioner, vs. JUAN G. LESACA, Judge of FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, AND FRANCISCO VIOLAGO, Respondents.

Payawal and Mendoza and Rivera, Pascual and Alba for petitioner.
The respondent Judge in his own behalf and for other respondent.

VILLAMOR, J.:

This 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 of the Court of First Instance of the province, against the other respondent, Francisco Violago, municipal president elect of that municipality.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

From the allegations it appears: That the petitioner was a qualified elector and candidate voted for the 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 have not done, because the candidates 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 have not 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 due 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The point here raised regarding the opening of ballot boxes has several time been decide by this court. In Cecilio vs. 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 constitute a sufficient ground for opening the ballot boxes and examining the questioned ballots.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In De la Merced vs. 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 legality or illegality of ballots cast and 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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 the cause upon the merits according to law. Without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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