7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

1/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-46863 November 18, 1939

IRINEO MOYA,petitioner,vs.AGRIPINO GA. EL !IERO,respondent.

Elpidio Quirino for petitioner.Claro M. Recto for respondent.

LAUREL, J.:

This is a petition for review by certiorari of the ud!"ent of the Court of Appeals in the aboveentitled case declarin! the respondent, A!ripino #a. del $ierro, the candidate%elect for theoffice of "ayor of the "unicipality of Paracale, Province of Ca"arines Norte, with a "aorityof three votes over his rival, &rineo Moya. &n the !eneral elections held on 'ece"ber (),(*+, the parties herein were contendin! candidates for the aforesaid office. After canvass ofthe returns the "unicipal council of Paracale, actin! as board of canvassers, proclai"ed thepetitioner as the elected "ayor of said "unicipality with a "aority of (- votes. /n'ece"ber , (*+, the respondent field a "otion of protest in the Court of $irst &nstance ofCa"arines Norte, the Court of Appeals, on 0uly (+, (*+* rendered the ud!"enthereinbefore "entioned which is sou!ht by the petitioner to be reviewed and reversed uponthe errors alle!ed to have been co""itted by the Court of Appeals1

(. &n ad"ittin! and countin! in favor of the respondent, 2 ballots either inadvertentlyor contrary to the controllin! decisions of this 3onorable Court.

. &n ad"ittin! and countin! in favor of the respondent, + ballots "ar4ed 5R. del$ierro.5

+. &n ad"ittin! and countin! in favor of the respondent, ballots "ar4ed 5Rufino del$irro.5

). &n ad"ittin! and countin! in favor of the respondent, ballots "ar4ed 5P. del$ierro.5

Ta4in! up seriati" the alle!ed errors, we co"e to the first assi!n"ent involvin! the ei!ht 627ballots now to be "entioned. 6(7 8ith reference to ballot E9hibit $%(: in precinct No. ,alle!ed to have been inadvertently ad"itted in favor of the respondent, such inadvertenceraises a ;uestion of fact which could have been corrected by the Court of Appeals and whichcould we are not in a position to deter"ine in this proceedin! for review by certiorari.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

2/70

respondent because the na"e written on the space for "ayor is 5Pri"o del $ierro5 or 5Pi"ode $ierro5, the error is technical and deserves but scanty consideration. 67 Ballot E9hibit $%= in precinct No. + was erroneously ad"itted for the respondent by the Court of Appeals,the na"e written on the space for "ayor bein! 5#.T. >randes.5 &t is true that on the fourthline for the councilor 5Alcalde Pinon! del $ierro51 appears? but the intention of the elector isrendered va!ue and incapable of ascertainin! and the ballot was i"properly counted for the

respondent. As to this ballot, the contention of the petitioner is sustained 6+7 Ballot E9hibit $% in precinct No. should also have been reected by the Court of Appeals. The ballot bearsthe distin!uishin! "ar4 5/. >.5 placed after the na"e 5M. @opis5 written on space for vice%"ayor. The contention of the petitioner in this respect is li4ewise sustained. 6)7 Ballot E9hibit$%* in precinct No. was properly ad"itted for respondent. /n this ballot the elector wrotewithin the space for "ayor the na"e of Re!ino #uinto, a candidate for the provincial boardand wrote the respondents na"e i""ediately below the line for "ayor but i""ediatelyabove the na"e 5M. @ope5 voted by hi" for vice%"ayor. The intention of the elector to votefor the respondent for the office of the "ayor is clear under the circu"stances. 6:7 Ballot $%(+( in precinct No. ( was also properly counted for the respondent. /n this ballot the electorwrote the respondents na"e on the space for vice%"ayor, but, apparently realiin! his"ista4e, he placed an arrow connectin! the na"e of the respondent to the word 5Mayor56Alcalde7 printed on the left side of the ballot. The intention of the elector to vote for the

respondent for the office of "ayor is thus evident, in the absence of proof showin! that theballot had been ta"pered with. 6=7 Ballot $% in precinct No. : is ad"issible for therespondent and the Court of Appeals co""itted no error in so adudicatin!. Althou!h thena"e of the respondent is written on the first space for "e"ber of the provincial board, saidna"e is followed in the ne9t line by 5Bice5 Culastico Pal"a, which latter na"e is followed inthe ne9t line by word 5consehal5 and the na"e of a candidate for this position. The intentionof the elector to vote for the respondent for the office of "ayor bein! "anifest, the obectionof the petitioner to the ad"ission of this ballot is overruled. 67 Ballot $%( in precinct No. isvalid for the respondent. /n this ballot the Christian na"e of the respondent was written onthe second space for "e"ber of the provincial board, but his surna"e was written on theproper space for "ayor with no other acco"panyin! na"e or na"es. The intention of theelector bein! "anifest, the sa"e should be !iven effect in favor of the respondent. 627 Ballot

$%)) in precinct No. wherein 5A!ripino $. #arcia5 appears written on the proper space, isvalid for the respondent. &n his certificate of candidacy the respondent !ave his na"e as5A!ripino #a. del $ierro.5 The conclusion of the trial court, upheld by the Court of Appeals,that the letter 5$5 stands for 5$ierro5 and 5#arcia5 for the contraction 5#a.5 is not without

ustification and, by liberal construction, the ballot in ;uestion was properly ad"itted for therespondent.

The second error assi!ned by the petitioner refers to three ballots, na"ely, E9hibit $%((* inprecinct No. ( E9hibit $%) in precinct No. , and E9hibit $%= in precinct No. ). These threeballots appear to be a"on! the : ballots found by the Court of Appeals as acceptable forthe respondent on the !round that the initial letter 5P5 stands for 5Pino5 in 5Pino del $ierro5which is a na"e "entioned in the certificate of candidacy of the respondent. The petitionercontends that the initial 5R5 and not 5P5. Even if we could reverse this findin!, we do not feel

ustified in doin! so after e9a"inin! the photostatic copies of these ballots attached to theherein petition for certiorari. The second assi!n"ent of error is accordin!ly overruled.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

3/70

surna"e on these ballots, the intention of the voters in preparin! the sa"e was undoubtedlyto vote for the respondent of the office for which he was a candidate. lawphi1.net

The fourth assi!n"ent of error deals with the ballots wherein 5P. del $ierro5 was voted forthe office of "ayor, and it is the contention of the petitioner that said ballots should not havebeen counted by the Court of Appeals in favor of the respondent. $or the identical reason

indicated under the discussion of petitioners second assi!n"ent of error, na"ely, that 5P5stands for 5Pino5 in 5Pino del $ierro5 which is a na"e "entioned in the certificate ofcandidacy of the respondent, we hold that there was no error in the action of the Court of

Appeals in awardin! the said ballots to the respondent.

8ith the e9ception of ballot "ar4ed as E9hibit $%= in precinct No. + and ballot "ar4ed asE9hibit $% in precinct No. , we are inclined to accept the rest of the disputed ballots for therespondent not only for the specific reasons already !iven but also and principally for the"ore funda"ental reason now to be stated. As lon! as popular !overn"ent is an end to beachieved and safe!uarded, suffra!e, whatever "ay be the "odality and for" devised, "ustcontinue to be the "anes by which the !reat reservoir of power "ust be e"ptied into thereceptacular a!encies wrou!ht by the people throu!h their Constitution in the interest of

!ood !overn"ent and the co""on weal. Republicanis", in so far as it i"plies the adoptionof a representative type of !overn"ent, necessarily points to the enfranchised citien as aparticle of popular soverei!nty and as the ulti"ate source of the established authority. 3ehas a voice in his #overn"ent and whenever called upon to act in ustifiable cases, to !ive itefficacy and not to stifle it. This, funda"entally, is the reason for the rule that ballots shouldbe read and appreciated, if not with ut"ost, with reasonable, liberality. Counsel for bothparties have called our attention to the different and diver!ent rules laid down by this Courton the appreciation of ballots. &t will serve no !ood and useful purpose for us to en!a!e inthe tas4 of reconciliation or har"oniation of these rules, althou!h this "ay perhaps beunderta4en, as no two cases will be found to be e9actly the sa"e in factual or le!alenviron"ent. &t is sufficient to observe, however, in this connection that whatever "i!ht havebeen said in cases heretofore decided, no technical rule or rules should be per"itted todefeat the intention of the voter, if that intention is discoverable fro" the ballot itself, not fro"

evidencealiunde. This rule of interpretation !oes to the very root of the syste". Rationally,also, this "ust be the ustification for the su!!ested liberaliation of the rules on appreciationof ballots which are now incorporated in section ()) of the Election Code 6Co""onwealth

Act No. +:7.

&t results that, creditin! the petitioner with the two ballots herein held to have beenerroneously ad"itted by the Court of Appeals for the respondent, the latter still wins by onevote. &n view whereof it beco"es unnecessary to consider the counter%assi!n"ent of errorsof the respondent.

8ith the "odification of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition for the writof certiorari is hereby dis"issed, without pronounce"ent re!ardin! costs.

Avancea, C.J., Villa-Real, !perial, "ia#, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

4/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-136"6 O#$ober "9, 1918

T%E UNITE STATES,plaintiff%appellee,vs.ELIAS CUETO,defendant%appellant.

$odofredo Re%es for appellant.&olicitor-$eneral 'aredes for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

&n the !eneral election held on 0une =, (*(=, Elias Cueto, now the defendant and appellant,was an election inspector for an election precinct in the "unicipality of Tiaon!, Province ofTayabas. $or the position of "unicipal president of this "unicipality, two !entle"en na"ed"ayo and Ma!biray were candidate. Toribio Briones, a ;ualified elector, belon!ed to theMayo party. 3e was !iven a slip containin! the slate of the candidates of the Mayo faction forthe different offices, such as is circulated at election ti"e, and with this in his possessionentered the pollin! place. Bein! a disabled person, because of failin! si!ht and rheu"atis"in his hand, althou!h still able when necessary to read and write, Briones secured theassistance of Cueto to prepare his ballot. &nstead, however, of copyin! the na"e of Mayo,the candidate for "unicipal president found on the slip of paper, for who" Briones desired tovote, Cueto inserted the na"e of Ma!biray. 8hen once outside the dar4 booth, Briones

noticed that his ballot contained the na"e of Ma!biray and on his obectin! anew ballot withthe Na"e of Mayor was prepared for hi" by the election inspector.

/n these facts, which we find supported by the proof, Cueto was char!ed with andconvicted, of a violation of the Election @aw, and sentence to two "onths i"prison"ent andto pay the costs. This state"ent , with the addition of what is hereafter said, disposes for thesole assi!n"ent of error by the appellant.

The Philippine Bill and subse;uent Act s of Con!ress conceded to ;ualified person the hi!hprero!ative of suffra!e. To carry our this purpose, and then revised by the Philippinele!islature. &ts pri"al feature was to allow the citien to vote secretly for who" he pleased,free fro" i"proper influences. As was well said in the instructive decision in#ardiner vs.Ro"ulo. 6(*()D. = Phil., :(, ::-71

The purity of elections is one of the "ost i"portant and funda"ental re;uisites ofpopular !overn"ent. to banished the spectre of reven!e for" the "inds of the ti"idor defenseless, to render precarious and uncertain the batterin! of votes, and lastly,to secure fair and honest count of the ballots cast, is the ai" of the law. Toacco"plish these ends, Act No. (:2, was enacted. This law re;uires that only;ualified electors shall be ad"itted to the polls? that they shall vote in absolutesecrecy, and that the returns shall be ustly co"piled and announced, &n its essential

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

5/70

details, this law is counterpart of the ballot laws al"ost universally adopted withinco"paratively recent ti"es in the

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

6/70

appellant, by his own confession, has convicted hi"self of an atte"pt to defeat thewill of the people in their participation in the affairs of their own self%!overn"ent. thepeople of the Philippine &slands have been !ranted the ri!ht to select, by secretballot, the "en who shall "a4e laws for the". They have been !iven a ri!ht toparticipate directly in the for" of the "ost i"portant and sacred of the ri!ht of thepeople in self%!overn"ent and one which "ust be "ost vi!ilantly !uarded if a people

desires to "aintain for the"selves and their posterity a republican for" of!overn"ent in which the individual "ay, in accordance with law, have a void in thefor" of his !overn"ent. &f the Republic are to survive and if the people are tocontinue to e9ercise the ri!ht to !overn the"selves and to directly participate in heraffairs of their !overn"ent by selectin! their representatives by secret ballot, then the"a9i"s of such a !overn"ent "ust be left to the watchful care and reverential!uardianship of the people. Eternal vi!ilance is the price paid by a free people for acontinuance of their ri!ht to directly participate in the affairs of their !overn"ent.'esi!nin!, a"bitions, corrupt, and unscrupuluous politicians if the people a off their!uard, will in!eniously and persistently encroach upon the ri!hts of unwary people,and will finally under"ine the very foundations of self%!overn"ent and the ri!ht of thepeople. &t behooves the people under a free !overn"ent to prosecute to the li"it,without stint or favor, every person who atte"pts to defeat, their direct participation

by secret ballot, under the for"s prescribed by law, in the affairs of their !overn"ent.&f nefarious practices of officials of the !overn"ent, such as is described in theco"pliant in the present cae, are to be continued or per"itted by those in authority,and punish"ent is not "eted out speedily and severely upon those who rob thepeople of their political ri!hts, the result is !enerally a revolution in which the peoplea!ain repossess the"selves of the ewels of personal and political liberty and theri!ht to self%!overn"ent, throu!h blood and carna!e.

The defendant not only convicts hi"self out of his own "outh of an atte"pt to defeatthe will of the people of this district in their effort to choose their representatives inthe le!islative branch of the !overn"ent, but also violated his oath of office in whichhe as4ed #od to help hi" honestly and ustly to ad"inister his duties as an inspector

of elections without preudice or favor towards any person, candidate, party, society,or reli!ious sect, which oath "ust have been ta4en freely or without evasion or"ental reservation whatsoever. 6ection :(=, Act No. =:? section )(*, Act No.((.7 &n addition to convictin! hi"self of an atte"pt to violate the ri!hts of thepeople, to!ether with the violation of a sole"n oath, he also convicts hi"self of thefalsification of a public docu"ent, and "i!ht be punished for the latter offense in a"anner very "uch "ore severe than for the cri"e for which he is bein! tried.6Articles +-- and +-( of the Penal Code, as a"ended by Act No. (.7

&n consideration of all of the fore!oin! we are of the opinion that the "a9i"u"penalty of the law should be i"posed, Therefore, the sentence of the lower court ishereby revo4ed, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant andappellant be sentenced to be i"prisoned for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

P:-- and costs, and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary i"prison"ent for thepay"ent of said fine. 6

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

7/70

was not disastrous. 3owever, believin! that either the "a9i"u" or a penalty approachin!the "a9i"u", should always be i"posed on election officers who violate law we "ustproceed to increase the sentence i"posed by the lower court so that the defendant andappellant shall be conde"ned to si9 "onths i"prison"ent, and to pay a fine of P:-, withsubsidiary i"prison"ent in case of insolvency, and with the costs of both instances a!ainsthi". o ordered.

)orres, Johnson, &treet, Avancea and *isher, JJ., concur.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

8/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1393&' M() &, "***

A+ULMAI P.+. MARU%OM,petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ( %AI AMIL IMAPORO,respondents.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

8hether or not a "otion to dis"iss, filed after an answer has been filed, is a prohibitedpleadin! in an election protest pendin! before the Re!ional Trial Court is the issue posed inthis petition for certiorariwith prayer for preli"inary inunction challen!in! the Resolution ofthe Co""ission on Elections 6C/ME@EC7 dated 0uly =, (*** (dis"issin! Co"elec CasePR No. :%*2.

The C/ME@ECs challen!ed order su""aries the relevant facts of the controversy thus1

(. Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for Mayorin the Municipality of Maro!on!, @anao del ur and voted as such inthe last May ((, (**2 national and local election 6sic7. Petitioner is are%electionist and a veteran politician?

. The election in Maro!on! functioned on May ((, (**2, and afterthe votin! the ballot bo9es were trans"itted to the >ali"odan 3all,Provincial Capitol of @anao del ur at Marawi City where theauto"ated countin! of votes and canvass of election returns werecentralied?

+. 'urin! the countin! of votes, serious irre!ularities, ano"alies andelectoral frauds were co""itted at the instance of petitioner or hisfollowers in that votes actually casted 6sic7 for the private respondentwere not counted and credited in his favor thru 6sic7 the concertedacts, conspiracy and "anipulation of the Board of Election&nspectors, "ilitary, Election /fficer and the Machine /perator who

happens to be a nephew of the petitioner?

). &n Precincts Nos. (A%(A(, A(, 2A, (-A%(-A( and ((A about ((:official ballots were refused or reected by the countin! "achinewhich the private respondents watchers or representatives havere;uested and insisted to be re%fed to the auto"ated "achine for thesecond and third ti"es pursuant to the provisions of Co"elecResolution No. +-+- but their re;uests were not heeded by theElection /fficer and the Machine /perator, olai"an Rasad, who is a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt1

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

9/70

close 4in of the Petitioner, and instead considered the said ballots asfinally reected, while in Precincts Nos. (A, +A( and =A, around :=ballots were found therein which were not drawn fro" the officialballots and were included in the countin! of votes over the obectionof the private respondents watchers or representatives?

:. Before the ter"ination of the countin! of votes and theconsolidation of the results, the "achine operator and the Election/fficer carried away fro" the >ali"odan 3all the dis4ette and brou!htthe sa"e to the down town without the 4nowled!e of the privaterespondents watchers or representatives?

=. As a result of the fore!oin! irre!ularities, ano"alies and electoralfrauds, the petitioner was ille!ally proclai"ed as winner because heappeared to have obtained ,-- votes while the private respondent!arnered ,--- votes with a sli!ht "ar!in of only - votes?

. After the countin! of votes, the ballot bo9es were 4ept at the

>ali"odan 3all, Provincial Capitol, Marawi City !uarded and securedby "ilitary and PNP personnel to!ether with thewatchersFrepresentatives of the petitioner and the private respondentand other candidates or political parties until they were transportedand delivered to the respondent court at Malaban!, @anao del urso"eti"e on Au!ust (+, (**2 by (@t. Napisa A# to!ether with theduly authoried representatives of both parties.

999 999 999

(. /n May , (**2, private respondent, 4nowin! that he wascheated and the true winner for Mayor, filed before this 3onorableCo""ission a petition to annul the procla"ation of petitioner

Abdul"adid Maruho" as the duly elected Mayor of Maro!on!, @anaodel ur doc4eted as PC No. *2%=.

. As precautionary "easure to avoid any technicality, privaterespondent filed on May :, (**2, an ordinary 5'rotest ad Cautela!5a!ainst the petitioner before the Re!ional Trial Court, Branch ((,Malaban!, @anao del ur entitled 53adi 0a"il '. 'i"aporo vs.

Abdul"adid Maruho"5 for election protest 6Manual 0udicial Recount,revision and reappreciation of ballots7 doc4eted as Election Case No.((%(.+

+. /n 0une (, (**2, petitioner Abdul"adid Maruho" filed an answer

with counter%protest in Election Case No. ((%( special andaffir"ative defenses and counter%protest.)&n his answer petitionerprayed to hold in abeyance further proceedin!s since the protest isad cautela" or subect to the petition filed before this 3onorableCo""ission.

). /n 0uly , (**2, before PC No. *2%2 could be set for hearin!by this 3onorable Co""ission, the private respondent as petitionertherein, filed a "otion to withdraw his petition in said PC No. *2%2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt4

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

10/70

albeit said case was a"on! those cases the proceedin!s of whichwere ordered to be continued beyond 0une +-, (**2, under Co"elecResolution No. +-)* pro"ul!ated on 0une *, (**2.:. . . .

:. /n 0uly (, (**2, an order was issued by this 3onorableCo""ission, 6$irst 'ivision7 !rantin! the private respondents "otion

to withdraw petition in PC No. *2%2 and considered the sa"ewithdrawn.=. . . .

=.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

11/70

was withdrawn by the private respondent before it could be set forhearin! or acted upon by this 3onorable Co""ission.

((. After the oral ar!u"ents of both parties, the petitioners counselas4ed that he be !iven a"ple ti"e to file a written /"nibus Motion to'is"iss and the respondent court thru then Actin! Presidin! 0ud!e

Rasad Balindon!, issued an order dated epte"ber , (**2, !ivin!ten 6(-7 days to Atty. Tin!cap T. Mortaba to file an /"nibus Motion insubstantiation of all the oral "otions he "ade, furnishin! a copythereof to the undersi!ned counsel for the private respondent whowas li4ewise !iven an e;ual period of ti"e to co""ent. (-

(. /n epte"ber ((, (**2, petitioner filed his "otion todis"iss ((and on epte"ber (, (**2, the private respondent filed avi!orous opposition to "otion to dis"iss. (

(+. 'urin! the hearin! on the "otion to dis"iss and the oppositionthereto on epte"ber (, (**2, the petitioners counsel re;uested for

a"ple ti"e to file a reoinder to the vi!orous opposition to "otion todis"iss sub"itted by the private respondent which was !ranted bythe court and on epte"ber 2, (**2, petitioner filed hisreoinder (and on /ctober :, (**2 private respondent filed hisco""ent ()thereto and thereafter all incidents were sub"itted forresolution of the court.

(). /n Nove"ber (-, (**2, the respondent court thru 3onorablePresidin! 0ud!e Mosle"en T. Macara"bon, issued the assailedorder denyin! the petitioners "otion to dis"iss for lac4 of "erit andorderin! the Revision Co""ittee to report to the court on Nove"ber(*, (**2, at 21+- ocloc4 in the "ornin! for their oath ta4in! and toreceive the instruction of the court in the revision of the ballots and

other allied "atters. (:

(:. /n Nove"ber (2, (**2, the petitioner filed a "otion forreconsideration of the order dated Nove"ber (-, (**2, (=and onNove"ber +, (**2, private respondent filed a vi!orous oppositionto "otionD for reconsideration. (

(=. $indin! no co"pellin! reason to disturb its order dated Nove"ber(-, (**2, the respondent court issued the assailed order dated'ece"ber (, (**2 which denied the "otion for reconsideration forlac4 of "erit. &n the sa"e order, the respondent court reiterated itsprevious order to the "e"bers of the Revision Co""ittee to ta4e

their oaths before Atty. Ra;uea T.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

12/70

prayin! that further proceedin!s in Election Case No. ((%( bedeferred until after protestees petition for certiorariand prohibitionbefore this 3onorable Co""ission shall have been finally resolved,copy of which was served upon the undersi!ned counsel only on'ece"ber (, (**2, at (-1:-

A.M.(*. . . .

(2. That before the undersi!ned counsel could file his opposition tosaid ur!ent "otion on 'ece"ber (), (**2 and in the absence of arestrainin! order or writ of preli"inary inunction issued by 6theC/ME@EC7, the respondent ud!e already issued an order !rantin!the sa"e "otion and orderin! the Revision Co""ittee to hold inabeyance the scheduled revision of ballots on 'ece"ber (), (:, (=,( and (2, (**2, etc. until further order fro" the court . . . .-

Petitioner alle!es that in dis"issin! the petition the C/ME@EC acted in e9cess of, or with!rave abuse of discretion, a"ountin! to lac4 of urisdictionin G

(.D holdin! that a "otion to dis"iss an election protestcase filed in the Re!ional Trial Court is a prohibitedpleadin!?

.D holdin! that the "otion to dis"iss filed after theanswer is not allowed?

+.D failin! to resolve the issues raised in PR No. :%*2 which are sufficient le!al bases to dis"iss ElectionCase No. ((%(.

&n su", petitioner insists that in refusin! to pass upon the three 6+7 principal issues raised inC/ME@EC Case PR No. :%*2, to wit1

(. 8hether or not public respondent acted in e9cessof, or with !rave abuse of discretion, a"ountin! tolac4 of urisdiction in holdin! that a "otion to dis"issan election protest case in the Re!ional Trial Court isa prohibited pleadin!?

. 8hether or not public respondent acted in e9cessof, or with !rave abuse of discretion, a"ountin! tolac4 of urisdiction, in holdin! that a "otion to dis"issfiled after the answer to an election protest case in the

Re!ional Trial court is not allowed? and

+. 8hether or not public respondent !ravely abusedits discretion a"ountin! to lac4 of urisdiction, infailin! to resolve the relevant "aterial and substantialissues raised in PR No. :%*2.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt20

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

13/70

the C/ME@EC 5abdicated its duty under its own rules of procedure and under theConstitution and the election laws.5 uch abdication of duty, accordin! to petitioner,a"ounts to !rave abuse of discretion a"ountin! to lac4 of urisdiction.

&t "ust be borne in "ind that the purpose of !overnin! statutes on the conduct of electionsG

. . . iDs to protect the inte!rity of elections to suppress all evils that "ayviolate its purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of the elections isone of the "ost funda"ental re;uisites of popular !overn"ent. TheCo""ission on Elections, by constitutional "andate "ust do everythin! in itspower to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections.&n the perfor"ance of its duties, the Co""ission "ust be !iven aconsiderable latitude in adoptin! "eans and "ethods that will insure theacco"plish"ent of the !reat obective for which it was created G to pro"otefree, orderly and honest elections. The choice of "eans ta4en by theCo""ission on Elections, unless they are clearly ille!al or constitute !raveabuse of discretion, should not be interfered with. (

ec. 6(7 of Article &H of the Constitution !ives the C/ME@EC the broad power to 5enforceand ad"inister all laws and re!ulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,initiative, referendu" and recall.5 There can hardly be any doubt that the te9t and intent ofthis constitutional provision is to !ive C/ME@EC all the necessary and incidental powers forit to achieve the holdin! of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

&n accordance with this intent, the Court has been liberal in definin! the para"eters of theC/ME@ECs powers in conductin! elections. &u!ulon+ v. CMEEC aptly points out thatG

Politics is a practical "atter, and political ;uestions "ust be dealt withrealistically G not fro" the standpoint of pure theory. The Co""ission onElections, because of its fact%findin! facilities, its contacts with politicalstrate!ists, and its 4nowled!e derived fro" actual e9perience in dealin! withpolitical controversies, is in a peculiarly advanta!eous position to decideco"ple9 political ;uestions . . . . There are no ready "ade for"ulas forsolvin! public proble"s. Ti"e and e9perience are necessary to evolvepatterns that will serve the ends of !ood !overn"ent. &n the "atter of thead"inistration of laws relative to the conduct of election . . . we "ust not byany e9cessive eal ta4e away fro" the Co""ission on Elections thatinitiative which by constitutional and le!al "andates properly belon!s to it.

uccinctly stated, laws and statutes !overnin! election contests especially the appreciationof ballots "ust be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of

public officials "ay not be defeated by technical infir"ities.

An election protest is i"buedwith public interest so "uch so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the realchoice of the people is i"perative, )"uch "ore so in this case considerin! that a "eretwenty 6-7 votes separates the winner fro" the loser of the contested election results.

The pri"ordial issue to be resolved herein is whether or not the C/ME@EC !ravely abusedits discretion in dis"issin! PR No. :%*2.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt24

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

14/70

&n support of his cause, petitioner insists that there is 5nothin! irre!ular or ano"alous in thefilin! of the "otion to dis"iss5 after the filin! of the answer because in effect he is "erelyinsistin! on a preli"inary hearin! of his special and affir"ative defenses. Thus, he clai"sthat the su""ary dis"issal of his "otion to dis"iss is tainted with !rave abuse of discretiona"ountin! to lac4 or e9cess of urisdiction.

8e disa!ree.

The filin! of the "otion to dis"iss, in fact, appears to be part of a perfidious plot to preventthe early ter"ination of the proceedin!s in Election Case No. )2) as evidenced by aconfluence of events clearly showin! a pattern of delay e"ployed by petitioner to avert therevision ballots. These events, pointed out by private respondent :and borne by the record,showthat G

(. &t was only on epte"ber (, (*** after the creation of the RevisionCo""ittee and the appoint"ent of its Chair"an and Me"bers and after thesaid co""ittee was ordered by the trial court to co""ence the revision and

to render its report within - days that the petitioner orally "oved for thedis"issal of the case on the fli"sy !rounds that 6(7 the ballot bo9es subectof the protest and counter G protest have been violated? 67 the auto"atedcountin! of ballots does not conte"plate a "anual recount of ballots? and 6+7protestant is !uilty of foru"%shoppin! warrantin! su""ary dis"issal of theprotest?

. After the oral ar!u"ents on the oral "otion to dis"iss the petitionerre;uested for a"ple ti"e within which to file an /"nibus Motion to 'is"issand over the vi!orous opposition of the private respondent the sa"e was!ranted by the court and the petitioner was !iven a period of ten 6(-7 days tofile the sa"e and the private respondent was li4ewise !iven a period of ten6(-7 days to file his co""ent?

+. /n epte"ber ((, (**2, the "otion to dis"iss =and durin! the hearin! onthe said "otion and the opposition thereto on epte"ber (, (**2, thepetitioner a!ain as4ed for a"ple ti"e to file a reoinder to the vi!orousopposition to "otion to dis"iss which was a!ain !ranted by the court and itwas only on epte"ber 2, (**2 that said reoinder was filed?

). After a denial of the "otion to dis"iss on Nove"ber (-, (**2, 2thepetitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration on Nove"ber (2, (**2? *

:. 8hen the "otion for reconsideration was denied on 'ece"ber (,(**2, +-petitioner filed on 'ece"ber (2, (**2 before the Co""ission on

Elections a petition for certiorariand prohibition with prayer for preli"inaryinunction and as4ed the trial court to defer the proceedin!s of Election CaseNo. ((% until after his petition shall have been finally resolved which was!ranted by the trial court. 3ence, the scheduled revision of the ballots on'ece"ber (), (:, (= and (, (**2 was cancelled and the proceedin!s of thecase held in abeyance?+(

=. As the Co"elec En ancdid not !ive due course to petitioners prayer forwrit of preli"inary inunction, the trial court, upon "otion of the private

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt31

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

15/70

respondent, issued an order for the revision of ballots on $ebruary 2,(***. +/n said day, neither the petitioners counsel nor his desi!natedrevisors appeared, instead the petitioner, assisted by his nu"erous ar"ed"en, nu"berin! around +- stated 6sic7 in strate!ic places, prevented thecourt personnel to enter the court pre"ises. 8ere it not for the "a9i"u"tolerance e9ercised by the PNP personnel and the intervention of the local

datusFleaders, there would have been bloodshed?

. /n $ebruary *, (***, the petitioners counsel filed a withdrawal ofappearance with the attached letter%re;uest of the petitioner as4in! for thedefer"ent of the revision of ballots for at least two 67 wee4s to enable hi" toen!a!e the services of another counsel. Considerin! that the incident wasdesi!ned to delay the further the early disposition of the case which wouldfrustrate the ends of ustice, the court held in abeyance its rulin! on thewithdrawal of appearance of and directed petitioners counsel to handle thecase after the appearance of a new counsel?+

2. To further delay the proceedin!s of the case, the petitioner filed a petition

for transfer of venue of the trial to fro" RTC, Branch ((, Malaban!, @anao delur to &li!an City or in Metro Manila which the private respondent did notoppose so as not to delay the early resolution of this 3onorable upre"eCourt on the said petition?

*. A!ain, the proceedin!s of the case was held in abeyance in view of thependency of the said petition for transfer of venue?

(-. After the dis"issal of the petition in Election Case No. :%*2, thepetitioner filed the instant petition for certioraribefore this 3onorableupre"e Court with a prayer for issuance of te"porary restrainin! order?

((. As a diabolical sche"e to cause further delay of the proceedin!s of thecase, the petitioner filed an ur!ent "otion before this 3onorable upre"eCourt prayin! for the i""ediate issuance of a TR/ directin! the Presidin!0ud!e, RTC, Branch &&&, &li!an City to cease, desist and refrain fro"conductin! any further proceedin!s of Election Case No. )2) until theinstant case shall have been resolved. This 3onorable upre"e Court,without !rantin! the prayer for TR/, directed the RTC, Branch &&&, &li!an Citynot to pro"ul!ate any decision in the said election case until further ordersDfro" this "ost 3onorable Court. +)

&t is clear, !iven the fore!oin! facts of this case, that the roundabout "anner within whichpetitioner virtually substituted his answer by belatedly filin! a "otion to dis"iss three 6+7"onths later is a frivolous resort to procedure calculated to frustrate the will of the electorate.

As pointedly observed by the C/ME@EC in its challen!ed Resolution dated 0uly =,(***, +:petitioner only filed his "otion to dis"iss 5when the results of the trial appearedD tobe adverse to hi"5+=or ri!ht after the creation of the Revision Co""ittee had been orderedby the trial court. &f petitioner truly intended to "ove for the preli"inary hearin! of his specialand affir"ative defenses as he clai"s, then he should have si"ultaneously "oved for thepreli"inary hearin! of his special and affir"ative defenses at the ti"e he filed his answer./therwise, he should have filed his "otion to dis"iss 5within the ti"e for but before filin! theanswer. . .5 pursuant to ection (, Rule (= of the (** Rules of Civil Procedure.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt36

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

16/70

uffice it to state in this re!ard that such a whi"sical chan!e of "ind by petitioner can not becountenanced "uch "ore so in election cases where ti"e is of the essence in the resolutionthereof. &ndeed, the /"nibus Election Code states in no uncertain ter"s that G

ec. :2. 'referential disposition of contests in courts. The RTC, in theirrespective cases, shall +ive preference to election contests over all other

cases, e9cept those of ha/eas corpus, and shall, without delay, hear andwithin thirty 6+-7 days fro" the date of their sub"ission for decision, but inevery case within si9 6=7 "onths after filin!, decide thesa"e. . . . +6e"phasis and italics supplied7.

Petitioner further ar!ues that his sub"issions that a.D the inte!rity of the ballot bo9es hasbeen violated? b.D only reected ballots or ballots "anually counted are the proper subects ofan election protest? and c.D private respondent is !uilty of foru"%shoppin!, are enou!h!rounds to dis"iss the case.

8e re"ain unconvinced.

As aptly observed by the C/ME@EC in the challen!ed Resolution, these !rounds are5evidentiary in nature and can be best ventilated durin! the trial of the case.5+2&t needs bestressed in this re!ard that the purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether thecandidate proclai"ed elected by the board of canvassers is really the lawful choice of theelectorate. +*&n an election contest where the correctness of the nu"ber of votes is involved,the best and "ost conclusive evidence are the ballots the"selves? where the ballots can notbe produced or are not available, the election returns would be the best evidence.)-&n thiscase, the counted official ballots are available and there is no evidence, other than the barealle!ation of petitioner, that the sanctity of the ballot bo9es subect "atter of the protest havebeen violated or the official ballots contained therein i"paired. The best way, therefore, totest the truthfulness of petitioners clai" is to open the ballot bo9es in the protested precinctsfollowed by the e9a"ination, revision, recountin! and re%appreciation of the official ballotstherein contained in accordance with law and pertinent rules on the "atter. Needless to state

this can only be done throu!h a full%blown trial on the "erits, not a pere"ptory resolution ofthe "otion to dis"iss on the basis of the bare and one%sided aver"ents "ade therein.

Petitioners reliance on C/ME@EC Resolution No. 2=2 )(to support his restrictive clai" thatonly reected ballots or ballots "anually counted in case of failure of the auto"ated countin!"achines are the proper subects of an election protest, is ust as unpersuasive.

There is ad"ittedly a lacuna le!es in R.A. No. 2)+= which prescribes the adoption of anauto"ated election syste". 3owever, while concedin! as "uch, this Court ruled in )upa%oon+ v.CMEEC, )that the Co""ission is nevertheless not precluded fro" conductin! a"anual count when the auto"ated countin! syste" fails, reasonin! thus1

. . . &n enactin! R.A. No. 2)+=, Con!ress obviously failed to provide are"edy where the error in countin! is not "achine related for hu"anforesi!ht is not all%seein!. 0e hold, however, that the vacuu! in thelaw cannot prevent the CMEEC fro! levitatin+ a/ove the pro/le! .ection 6(7 of Article &H 6C7 of the Constitution !ives the C/ME@ECthe broad power 5to enforce and ad"inister all laws and re!ulationsrelative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendu"and recall.5

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

17/70

achieve the obective of holdin! free, orderly, honest, peaceful andcredible elections. Con!ruent to this intent, this Court has not beenni!!ardly in definin! the para"eters of powers of C/ME@EC in theconduct of our elections . . . &n the case at bar, the C/ME@EC orderfor a "anual count was not only reasonable. &t was the only way tocount the decisive local votes . . . The botto" line is that by "eans of

the "anual count, the will of the voters of ulu was honestlydeter"ined. 0e cannot ic awa% the will of the people /% +ivin+ aliteral interpretation to R.A. 2345. R.A. 2345 did not prohi/it !anualcountin+ when !achine count does not wor. Countin! is part andparcel of the conduct of an election which is under the control andsupervision of the C/ME@EC . . .

. . . /ur elections are not conducted under laboratory conditions. &n runnin!for public offices, candidates do not follow the rules of E"ily Post. Too often,C/ME@EC has to "a4e snap ud!"ents to "eet unforeseen circu"stancesthat threaten to subvert the will of our voters. &n the process, the actions ofC/ME@EC "ay not be i"peccable, indeed, "ay even be debatable. 8ecannot, however, en!a!e in a swivel chair criticis" of these actions oftenta4en under very difficult circu"stances.

Ierily, the le!al co"pass fro" which the C/ME@EC should ta4e its bearin!s in actin! uponelection controversies is the principle that 5clean elections control the appropriateness of there"edy.5 )

Be that as it "ay, the fact is the aver"ents in petitioners counter%protest and privaterespondents protest already ustified the deter"ination of the issues throu!h a udicialrevision and recountin! of the ballots pursuant to ection :: of the /"nibus Election Codewhich provides that G

ec. ::. Judicial countin+ of votes in election contest. G 0here alle+ations

in a protest or counter-protest so warrant or whenever in the opinion of thecourt the interests of 6ustice so re7uire, it shall i""ediately order the boo4 ofvoters, ballot bo9es and their 4eys, ballots and other docu"ents used in theelection be brou!ht before it and that the ballots be e9a"ined and votesrecounted. 6E"phasis supplied7

o too "ust fall petitioners procedural obection that private respondent should be faulted forforu"%shoppin! vis-8-visthis Courts pronounce"ent in &a!ad v.CMEEC ))which statesin no uncertain ter"s that G

As a !eneral rule, the filin! of an election protest or a petition for 7uowarrantoprecludes the subse;uent filin! of a pre%procla"ation controversy,

or a"ounts to the abandon"ent of one earlier filed, thus deprivin! theC/ME@EC of the authority to in;uire into and pass upon the title of theprotestee or the validity of his procla"ation. The reason is that once theco"petent tribunal has ac;uired urisdiction of an election protest or apetition for 7uo warranto, all ;uestions relative thereto will have to be decidedin the case itself and not in another proceedin!. This procedure will preventconfusion and conflict of authority. Confor"ably, we have ruled in a nu"berof cases that after a procla"ation has been "ade, a pre%procla"ation casebefore the C/ME@EC is no lon!er viable.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt44

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

18/70

The rule ad"its of e9ceptions, however, as where1 6(7 the board ofcanvassers was i"properly constituted? 67 7uo warrantowas not the properre"edy? 6+7 what was filed was not really a petition for7uo warrantoor anelection protest but a petition to annul a procla"ation? 6)7 the filin! of a 7uowarrantopetition or an election protest was e9pressly "ade without preudiceto the pre%procla"ation controversy or was "ade ad cautela!? and 6:7 the

procla"ation was null and void.

Petitioners ar!u"ent that the filin! of a "otion to dis"iss in an election contest filed with are!ular court is not a prohibited pleadin! is well ta4en. As we pointed outin Melendres,Jr.v.CMEEC1):

Neither can petitioner see4 refu!e behind his ar!u"ent that the "otion todis"iss filed by private respondent is a prohibited pleadin! under ection (,Rule (+ of the C/ME@EC Rules of Procedure because the said provisionrefers to proceedin!s filed before the C/ME@EC. The applicable provisionson the "atter are found in Part I& of the Rules of Procedure titled5PR/I&&/N #/IERN&N# E@ECT&/N C/NTET BE$/RE TR&A@

C/

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

19/70

or liberal? the letter or the spirit? the na4ed provision or the ulti"ate purpose?le!al syllo!is" or substantial ustice? in isolation or in the conte9t of socialconditions? harshly a!ainst or !ently in favor of the voters obvious choice. &napplyin! elections laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popularsoverei!nty than to be ri!ht in co"ple9 but little understood le!alis"s. )2

83ERE$/RE, in view of all the fore!oin!, the petition is hereby '&M&E' for lac4 of"erit.

/ /R'ERE'.

"avide, Jr., C.J., ellosillo, 'uno, Vitu+, Mendo#a, Quisu!/in+, 'ardo, uena, $on#a+a-Re%es and "e eon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Melo, 9apunan and 'urisi!a, JJ., are on leave.

'an+ani/an, J., in the result.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_139357_2000.html#fnt48

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

20/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13'44 November "9, 1918

OSE LINO LUNA,petitioner%appellant,vs.EULOGIO RORIGUE/,respondent%appellant?SER0ANO E LOS ANGELES,respondent.

Ra!on "iono and A+apito :+nacio for petitioner.&u!ulon+ ; Estrada for respondent.

O%NSON, J.:

&t appears fro" the record that an election for the office of !overnor of the Province of Rialwas held on the =th day of 0une, (*(=. At said election 0ose @ino @una, Eulo!io Rodri!ueand ervando de los An!eles were candidates for said office. The election was closed, thevotes cast in the various "unicipalities were counted, and a return was "ade by theinspectors of said "unicipalities to the provincial board of canvassers, who, after a canvassof said returns, proclai"ed the followin! result1

6a7 That Eulo!io Rodri!ue received ),+( votes? 6/7 0ose @ino @una ),(:? 6c7 ervando delos An!eles +,:= votes? and 6d7 that Eulo!io Rodri!ue, havin! received a plurality of saidvotes, was duly elected !overnor of said province.

A!ainst said procla"ation 0ose @ino @una presented a protest in the Court of $irst &nstance.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

21/70

Considerin! all of said assi!n"ents of error, we find that they present, in fact, but three;uestions1

6(7 8hat is the effect of holdin! the polls open after the hour fi9ed for closin! the electionJ

67 8hat is the effect of assistance rendered by the inspectors of the election to

incapacitated persons, without first re;uirin! of such persons an oath to the effect that theyare incapacitated to prepare their own ballotsJ

6+7 8hat is the effect of a failure on the part of the authorities to provide proper votin!boothsJ

8ith reference to the first ;uestion, the law provides that 5at all the elections held under theprovisions of this Act the polls shall be open fro" seven ocloc4 in the "ornin! until si9ocloc4 in the afternoon, durin! which period not "ore than one "e"ber of the board ofinspectors shall be absent at one ti"e, and then for not to e9ceed twenty "inutes at oneti"e.5 6ec. ( of Act No. (:2? sec. (( of Act No. -):? sec. :)+ of Act No. =:, and sec.)): of Act No. ((.7 Are the provisions with reference to the ti"e of openin! and closin! the

polls "andatoryJ &t is ad"itted in the present case that the polls were not closed at = p.".The record shows that at = p.". a lar!e nu"ber of voters had not yet been able to vote andthat, for that reason, an a!ree"ent was "ade between so"e of the candidates for office whowere present and the board of inspectors, to the effect that the polls should be 4ept open inorder that such electors "i!ht vote. No obection whatever to that a!ree"ent was "ade byany person at that ti"e.

/ne of the reasons why all of the voters of the "unicipality had not voted before = p.". wasthat the board of inspectors failed to have the list of voters properly prepared at a."., andtherefore but few of the voters were able to vote before eleven or eleven%thirty in the"ornin!. That failure, on the part of the board of inspectors, "ade it i"possible for "any ofthe voters of the "unicipality of Binan!onan to vote before the re!ular ti"e for the closin! ofthe polls.

hall the ballot of an innocent voter, who is prevented, throu!h no fault of his, fro" castin!the sa"e before = p.". be annulled for the si"ple reason that the polls were 4ept open, afterthe hour desi!nated by the law, for the purpose of !ivin! such voter an opportunity to voteJ

E9perience and observation has tau!ht le!islatures and courts that, at the ti"e of a hotlycontested election, the partisan spirit of in!enious and unscrupulous politicians will lead the"beyond the li"its of honesty and decency and by the use of bribery, fraud and inti"idation,despoil the purity of the ballot and defeat the will of the people at the polls. uch e9periencehas led the le!islatures to adopt very strin!ent rules for the purpose of protectin! the voter inthe "anner of preparin! and castin! his ballot to !uard the purity of elections.6Paulino vs.Cailles, + Phil. Rep., 2:.7

The infinite in!enuity of violent partisan spirit in evadin! the rules and re!ulation of electionsand the use of bribery, fraud and inti"idation has "ade necessary the establish"ent ofelaborate and ri!id rules and re!ulations for the conduct of elections. The very elaboratenessof these rules has resulted in their fre;uent violation and the reports of the courts are repletewith cases in which the result of an election has been attac4ed on the !round that so"eprovision of the law has not been co"plied with. Presu"ably, all the provisions of theelection laws have a purpose and should therefore be observed. 6'etroit vs.Rush, 2 Mich.,

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

22/70

:+? (- @. R. A., ((? * R. C. @., (-*(? Patton vs.8at4ins, (+( Ala., +2? *- A". tate Rep.,)+, .7

&t has been announced in "any decisions that the rules and re!ulations, for the conduct ofelections, are !andator% /efore the election, /ut when it is sou+ht to enforce the! after theelection the% are held to /e director% onl%, if that is possible, especially where, if they are

held to be "andatory, innocent voterswill be deprived of their votes without any fault on theirpart. 6Patton vs.8at4ins, (+( Ala., +2? *- A". tate Rep., )+, ? 0ones vs.tate, (:+ &nd.,))-.7

&n the case of #ardiner vs.Ro"ulo 6= Phil. Rep., :(7, we held that when the Election @awdoes notprovide that a departure fro" a prescribed for" will be fatal and such departure hasbeen due to an honest "ista4e or "isrepresentation of the Election @aw, and such departurehas not been used as a "eans for fraudulent practices and it is clear that there has been afree and honest e9pression of the popular will, the law will be held to be directory and suchdeparture will be considered a har"less irre!ularity. 3owever, the irre!ularities "ay be sonu"erous as not to be attributed to i!norance or honest "ista4e, but to a desi!n to defeatthe will of the voters or to such careless disre!ard of the law as to a"ount not only to laches

but to fraudulent intent. &n such cases, the election officers should be punished, the electionshould be declared null and a new election held.

&t has been held, therefore, very !enerally, that the provisions of a statute as to the "annerof conductin! the details of an election are not "andatory, but directory "erely, andirre!ularities, in conductin! an election and countin! the votes, not proceedin! fro" anywron!ful intent and which deprives no le!al voter of his vote, will not vitiate an election or

ustify the reection of the entire votes of a precinct. 6Behrens"eyer vs.>reit, (+: &ll., :*(?3an4ey vs.Bow"an, 2 Minn., +2? pra!ue vs.Norway, +( Cal., (+? 8ebre vs.8ilton, *@a. Ann., =(-.7

The purpose of an election is to !ive the voters a direct participation in the affairs of their!overn"ent, either in deter"inin! who shall be their public officials or in decidin! so"e

;uestion of public interest? and for that purpose all of the le!al voters should be per"itted,unha"pered and un"olested, to cast their ballot. 0hen that is done and no frauds have/een co!!itted, the /allots should /e counted and the election should not /e declared null.nnocent voters should not /e deprived of their participation in the affairs of their +overn!entfor !ere irre+ularities on the part of the election officers, for which the% are in no wa%responsi/le. A different rule would "a4e the !annerand!ethodof perfor"in! a public dutyof !reater i"portance than the duty itself. 6@oo"is vs.0ac4son, = 8. Ia., =(+.7

The errors and irre!ularities which warrant the reection of ballots and the annul"ent of anelection and thus deprive lawful voters of their le!al ri!ht to vote, should be such as to fully

ustify that result. 6The People vs.Coo4, 2 N. K., =? :* A". 'ec., ):(.7 &t has been held thateven !reat irre!ularities on the part of election officers will not of necessity vitiate an election,

where no fraud is co""itted or atte"pted, or no ille!al vote was polled was no le!al voterwas deprived of his vote. 6Morris vs.Ianlanin!ha", (( >an., =*.7

No co"plaint is "ade that any fraud was co""itted nor that any person voted who had nori!ht to vote, by reason of the fact that the polls were 4ept open after the hour fi9ed by thelaw. &t is ad"itted that the polls were 4ept open after the hour, by the consent of all partiesconcerned, for the reasons and purposes above indicated. &n view of such facts, should thevote of the innocent voter be annulled and he thereby deprived of his participation in theaffairs of the !overn"ent when he was !uilty of no ille!al actJ &f the inspectors "ay, for one

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

23/70

reason or another, prevent the openin! of the polls or delay the co""ence"ent of the votin!until (( ocloc4 in the "ornin! and then close the polls in the evenin! so as to prevent allthose who desire to vote fro" votin!, without incurrin! cri"inal liability for a violation of theelection laws, the sa"e "otives will induce the" to delay the openin! of the polls until laterand thus prevent any to vote e9cept those who" they desire.

)he polls should /e opened and closed in strict accord with the provisions of the law. Voterswho do not appear and offer to vote within the hours desi+nated /% the law should not /e

per!itted to vote after the ti!e for closin+ the polls has arrived.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

24/70

8e are fir"ly of the opinion that instead of deprivin! the innocent voters of their ri!ht toparticipate in the affairs of their !overn"ent for irre!ularities co""itted by the electioninspectors, the latter should be proceeded a!ainst in a cri"inal action for failure, on theirpart, to co"ply with the law and be punished in accordance with section * of Act No. (:*?section =+ of Act No. =: and section =+* of Act No. ((.

The various and nu"erous provisions of the Election @aw are adopted to assistthe voters intheir participation in the affairs of the !overn"ent, and not to defeatthat obect. 8hen thevoters have honestly cast their ballots, the sa"e should not be nullified si"ply becausethe officersappointed, under the law to direct the election and !uard the purity of elections,have not done their duty. The law provides a re"edy, by cri"inal action, a!ainst the". Theyshould be prosecuted, and the will of the honest voter, as e9pressed throu!h his ballot,should be protected and upheld. lawphi1.net

&t "ay be noted in this relation that, under the law, the polls are 4ept open fro" a.". until =p.". or, for a period of eleven hours only. &n the "unicipality of Binan!onan the record showsthat there were +: analfa/etos6illiterate persons7 and (=) other voters. The law re;uiresan analfa/etoto ta4e an oath and that the oath shall be filed. Naturally the inspectors re;uire

so"e ti"e in 6a7 ascertainin! whether or not the voter is in fact an analfa/eto? 6/7 inad"inisterin!, preparin!, si!nin! and filin! the oath. uppose one "inute only is allowed forthat wor4. Then two inspectors "ust acco"pany such a voter to the booth, there assist hi"in preparin! his ballot and then return to their position occupied by the" as inspectors. 8edo not thin4 that wor4 could be acco"plished in less than another "inute and it would "orethan li4ely occupy nearer two "inutes. But ad"ittin! that it could be acco"plished in one"inute, we have, at least, two "inutes occupied by two inspectors for each analfa/eto.There bein! +:analfa/etos, it would re;uire :- "inutes to vote, or ( L hours. &f theinspectors had strictly co"plied with the law, not all of the analfabetos of said "unicipalitycould have voted in the eleven hours provided by the law, not to say anythin! of the ti"enecessarily occupied with the (=) other voters of the "unicipality who would, at least,occupy one "inute each of the ti"e of the inspectors, or nearly (F hours "ore. 8ithreference to this particular ;uestion of the ti"e necessary for each analfa/etoto vote, so"e

of the ud!es have esti"ated that it would ta4e, at least, five "inutes of the ti"e of theinspectors for each analfa/eto. 63ontiveros vs.Mobo, R. #. No. (+*:*, p. +-, post.7

$ro" the fore!oin!, it was practically an i"possibility for all of the voters of said "unicipalityto have voted in the eleven hours prescribed by the law even thou!h the polls had beenopened pro"ptly at a.". instead of at nearly (( a.". The above ti"e is co"puted upon thetheory that no ti"e whatever is lost, that the voters arrive one i""ediately after another andthat no ti"e is lost waitin! for the arrival of the voters.

8ith reference to the second ;uestion above presented, the law provides that1

A voter otherwise ;ualified who declares that he can not write, or that fro" blindness

or other physical disability he is unable to prepare his ballot, "ay "a4e an oath tothe effect that he is so disabled and the nature of his disability and that he desiresthe inspectors to assist hi" in the preparation of such ballot. The board shall 4eep arecord of all such oaths ta4en and file the sa"e with the "unicipal secretary with theother records of the board after the election. Two of the inspectors, each of who"shall belon! to a different political party, shall ascertain the wishes of the voter, andone of the" shall prepare the ballot of the voter in proper for" accordin! to hiswishes, in the presence of the other inspector, and out of view of any other person.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

25/70

The infor"ation this obtained shall be re!arded as a privile!ed co""unication.6ection (, Act No. -):? section ::-, Act No. =:? section ):+, Act No. ((.7

aid ;uoted section provides the "ethod by which a person who cannot prepare his ballot"ay be assisted. The conditions are1

6a7 That he "ust "a4e an oath to the effect that he is disabled and the nature of hisdisability to!ether with the fact that he desires the inspectors to assist hi" in thepreparation of his ballot?

6b7 That a recordof said oath shall befiledwith the "unicipal secretary with the otherrecords of the board of inspectors after the election? and

6c7 8hen said oath is ta4en, then two of the inspectors, each of who" shall belon! todifferent political party, "ay assist hi" in the preparation of his ballot.

&n view of said conditions, what shall be the effect of a failure to co"ply therewithJ uppose,for e9a"ple, that the voter is incapacitated? that the board of inspectors are fully aware of

that fact? that they failed to re;uire of hi" the oath? that they failed to 4eep on file the oathta4en, or that one inspector only assisted said voter in the preparation of his ballot, or thattwo assisted hi" which belon!ed to the sa"e party, shall the ballot of such an incapacitatedperson be reectedJ hall all of the votes of the precinct be nullified because of the failure ofthe inspectors to co"ply strictly with the letter of the lawJ

8e held in the case of Paulino vs.Cailles 6R. #. No. (:+, + Phil. Rep., 2:7 that theballots of incapacitated persons who voted without ta4in! the oath or were assisted by oneinspector alone, or by two belon!in! to the sa"e party, should not be counted if such ballotscould be identified. 8e further held that, in the absence of fraud, all of the ballots of theprecinct should not be invalidated by the "ere fact that the inspectors did not co"ply withtheir duty. &nnocent voters should not be deprived of their participation in an election for a

violation of the law for which they were in no way responsible and which they could notprevent.lawphil.net

The incapacitated persons "entioned in said section above noted are usually persons whoare unable to ac;uaint the"selves with the provisions of the law. They are, therefore,absolutely dependent upon the advice and counsel of others. #enerally, they have no ideawhatever as to the for" and re;uire"ents in castin! their ballots. Their i!norance, however,does not relieve the" fro" their responsibility under the law, nor fro" the effect of theirfailure to co"ply therewith. 6Manalo vs.evilla, ) Phil. Rep., =-*? #ardiner vs.'e @eon, R.#. No. (+2 decided March (:, (*(, not published? Paulino vs.Cailles, R. #. No. (=+,+ Phil. Rep., 2:.7

The law intended that those votes only who are incapacitated in so"e way should be

assisted. To insure a co"pliance with the law an oath of incapacity is re;uired. To prove thatonly such persons have received assistance, the election board is re;uired to 4eep a recordof such oath. To !uarantee that such voters should not be i"posed upon, the law wiselyprovided that two inspectors of different political faith should assist the".

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

26/70

re;uired and were assisted by one inspector only in the preparation of their ballots. But, inview of the fact that such ballots have not been identified they cannot be reected. The votercannot be punished. The re"edy is by a cri"inal action a!ainst the inspectors for a failure toco"ply with the law. 6ection *, Act No. (:2? section =+, Act No. =:? section =+*,

Act No. ((.7

aid section 6=+7 provides, a"on! other thin!s, that any "e"ber of a board ofre!istration, or board of inspectors, or board of canvassers who willfully declines or fails toperfor" any duty or obli!ation i"posed by the Election @aw, shall be punished byi"prison"ent for not less than one "onth nor "ore than one year, or by a fine of not lessthan P-- nor "ore than P:-- or both.

8ith reference to the third ;uestion above indicated, relatin! to what is the effect of a failureon the part of the authorities to provide proper votin! booths, it "ay be said that we haveheld in the case of #ardiner vs.Ro"ulo 6= Phil. Rep., :(7 that the re;uire"ents of theElection @aw providin! for the location of pollin! stations and the construction of booths and!uard rails for the latter "ay be departed fro" in so"e particulars and yet preserve, insubstantial for", the secrecy which the law re;uires. But the failure to provide doors and

!uard rails for the booths and the placin! of the writin! shelf so that it faces the side insteadof the rear of the booths are, co"bined, a fatal disre!ard of the law, inas"uch as such anarran!e"ent does not offer, even in substantial for", the secrecy and seclusion which,accordin! to the purpose and spirit of the Election @aw, is its "ost "andatory re;uire"ent.

ection * of Act No. (:2, as a"ended by section :( of Act No. =: and section )(: ofAct ((, provides that there shall be in each pollin! place, durin! each election, a sufficientnu"ber of votin! booths, not less than one for every fifty voters, in the election precinct. aidsection further provides how such votin! booths, not less than one every fifty voters, in theelection precinct. aid section further provides how such votin! booths shall be constructed.The purpose of said provisions is to furnish each voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot insecrecy. uppose the board of inspectors does not prepare the votin! booth in e9actly thefor" prescribed by law, what shall be the effectJ upport, the e9a"ple, that they construct a

booth less than one "eter s;uare as is provided by the law but yet sufficiently lar!e toenable the voter to enter and to prepare his ballot in secrecy? or suppose that the doorswin!in! outward to the booth shall e9tend to the floor instead of within fifty centi"eters ofthe floor? or suppose that the shelf upon which the voter shall prepare his ballot shall be lessthan thirty centi"eters wide, shall the entire election be declared null and void for suchfailures when it is ad"itted and proved, beyond ;uestion, that even with such defects in thefulfill"ent of the re;uire"ents of the election law they were in fact constructed in a "annerwhich provided the voter a co"plete opportunity to prepare his ballot in absolute secrecyJ8hile there is no provision in the law, relatin! to the construction of booths, they shall beconstructed in such "anner as to afford the voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot insecret, that !ustbe the pri"ary and ulti"ate obect of havin! the booths constructed in the"anner indicated.

8hen we held that the law re;uirin! the preparation of the booths in a particular "anner was"andatory, we did not "ean to hold that unless they were prepared in e9act confor"ity withthe law, that the election would be nullified. 8e si"ply held that if they were not constructedin a "anner which afforded the voters an opportunity to prepare their ballots in secret, theelection would be declared null and void on that account. &f, however, upon the other hand,the booths were so constructed, even thou!h not in strict accord with the provisions of thelaw, as to afford each voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in secret, the election shouldnot be declared null and void. ecrecy is the obect of the booth. An opportunity to prepare

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

27/70

his ballot in private is the purpose of the provision. 8hen the booth affords that protection,the purpose of the law is fulfilled. To hold otherwise G to establish a different rule G would"a4e the !annerof perfor"in! a public duty "ore i"portant than the perfor!anceof theduty itself.

&n the present case, while there is so"e conflict in the evidence, and while the proof clearly

shows that the booths were not constructed in strict accordance with the provisions of thelaw, we are of the opinion that a lar!e preponderance of the evidence shows that the boothswere constructed 6defectively perhaps7 in a "anner which afforded each voter an opportunityto prepare his ballot in absolute secrecy. That bein! true, we find no reason for chan!in! or"odifyin! the conclusion of the lower court.

The defendant%appellant alle!es, and atte"pts to establish the fact, that in the "unicipality ofan $elipe Nery "any irre!ularities were co""itted which should invalidate the election. $ore9a"ple, he alle!es the different colu"ns of the pollin! list were not properly filled. Even!rantin! that fact, the voter was in no way responsible. The voter not bein! responsible, hisballot should not be nullified on that account. $illin! the different colu"ns of the pollin! list isa duty i"posed upon the election officers. &f they fail to perfor" their duty they are

responsible? and as we have fre;uently said, the ballots of innocent voters should not benullified for a failure on the part of election officers to perfor" their duty in accordance withthe provisions of the law. The re"edy is a cri"inal action a!ainst the inspectors if they haveviolated the law and not to nullify the votes of innocent voters.

The defendant%appellant further alle!es that in the "unicipality of an $elipe Nery, a nu"berof voters voted who were not residents of said "unicipality. That ;uestion was presented tothe court below, and upon a full consideration he refused to nullify the election in said"unicipality upon the !rounds alle!ed. 8hile it is true that the proof shows that so"e !raveirre!ularities were co""itted by the board of inspectors, we are not persuaded that theevidence is sufficient to ustify this court in nullifyin! the entire vote of said "unicipality. &nview of that conclusion, we dee" it unnecessary to discuss the other alle!ations of thedefendant%appellant with reference to the stri4in! out of certain alle!ations in his answer.

The lower court, after hearin! the evidence and after e9a"inin! the ballots cast in the"unicipality of Taytay, found that :- ballots which had been counted for the defendant%appellant should not be counted for hi" and ordered that the total vote of the defendant%appellant should be reduced by that nu"ber. The defendant%appellant in fact ad"its that thesaid :- votes should be deducted fro" his total vote. &n view of that ad"ission of thedefendant%appellant, we dee" it unnecessary to discuss the reasons therefor.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

28/70

the ballots of the innocent voters should not be nullified on that account? that theballots of such persons only should be annulled when identified?

6+7 That inas"uch as the votin! booths in the "unicipality of Antipolo were preparedin a "anner and for" which per"itted the voter to prepare his ballot in absolutesecrecy, the vote of that "unicipality should not be nullified? and

6)7 That the ud!"ent of the lower court reducin! the total vote of the defendant%appellant by fifty identified fraudulent ballots counted for hi", in the "unicipality ofTaytay, should be affir"ed.

As a result of the count of the ballots, cast in the various "unicipalities by the provincialboard of inspectors, Eulo!io Rodri!ue received ),+( votes, 0ose @ino @una received ),(:votes and ervando de los An!eles received +,:= votes. ervando de los An!eles did notprotest the election. $ro" all of the fore!oin!, the total votes of Eulo!io Rodri!ue "ust bereduced by :- votes, leavin! hi" a total of ),( only, or a clear "aority of (() votes.

Therefore, with the "odification herein indicated, the ud!"ent of the lower court is affir"ed

as "odified, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the record be i""ediately returned tothe lower court with direction that a ud!"ent be entered directin! and orderin! the provincialboard of inspectors to a"end its count accordin!ly.

&t is so ordered, without any findin! as to costs.

Arellano, C.J., )orres, &treet, Malcol! and Avancea, JJ., concur.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

29/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4'"43 e 1', 194*

CIPRIANO A+A2IL, ET AL.,petitioners%appellees,vs.USTICE O! T%E PEACE COURT O! +ACOLO, NEGROS OCCIENTAL, ETAL.,respondents%appellants.

Vicente J. *rancisco, Ra!on

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

30/70

one of the !rounds for their e9clusion fro" the list of voters was that they could not preparetheir ballots the"selves, that is, that they could not read and write. The attorneys for thechallen!ed voters received notice of the decision of the ustice of the peace of Bacolod onNove"ber , (*+2, when the present petition for certiorariwas instituted in the Court $irst&nstance of Ne!ros /ccidental by the petitioners in their own behalf and in behalf of the otherchallen!ed voters for the purpose of havin! the ud!"ent of the ustice of the peace of

Bacolod in the aforesaid e9clusion proceedin!s set aside. After hearin!, the 3onorable0ud!e otero Rodas of the Court of $irst &nstance of Ne!ros /ccidental rendered ud!"entsettin! aside the decision of the respondent ustice of the peace of Bacolod and orderin! therestoration of the e9cluded voters in the per"anent electoral census of Talisay, Ne!ros/ccidental. $ro" this ud!"ent the instant appeal was brou!ht, and the respondents%appellants "a4e an elaborate assi!n"ent of nine errors. &n view of the result hereinbelowreached, we do not consider it necessary to consider seriati" these errors.

8hile the present controversy "ay see" acade"ic because the (*+2 election is over, wehave nevertheless assu"ed the tas4 of decidin! the sa"e on its "erits in view of thei"perative necessity and i"portance of havin! a correct electoral census in the "unicipalityof Talisay, Ne!ros /ccidental, and for that "atter in any "unicipality or city in the Philippines,for use in future elections. &n the sche"e of our present republican !overn"ent, the peopleare allowed to have a voice therein throu!h the instru"entality of suffra!e to be availed of bythose possessin! certain prescribe ;ualifications 6Article I, Constitution of the Philippines?sections *+ and *), Election Code7. The people in clothin! a citien with the electivefranchise for the purpose of securin! a consistent and perpetual ad"inistration of the!overn"ent they ordain, char!e hi" with the perfor"ance of a duty in the nature of a publictrust, and in that respect constitute hi" a representative of the whole people. This dutyre;uires that the privile!e thus bestowed should be e9ercised, not e9clusively for the benefitof the citien or class of citiens professin! it, but in !ood faith and with an intelli!ent eal forthe !eneral benefit of the state. 6

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

31/70

re"anded to the Court $irst &nstance of Ne!ros /ccidental with instruction to hear anddecide the petitions for e9clusion of the "erits, in the first and last instance 6section ((+,Electoral Code7, !ivin! the parties every opportunity to present their respective evidence. sothat it "ay thereafter "a4e such corrections in the electoral census of Talisay, Ne!ros/ccidental, as "ay be proper 6section *-, Electoral Code7, and to refer to the olicitor%#eneral such violations of the Election @aw as "i!ht have been co""itted. 8ithout

pronounce"ent as to costs.

Avancea C.J., !perial, "ia#, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

32/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1*496* Se$ember 14, 1993

P%ILIP G. ROMUALE/, petitioner,vs.REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, +RANC% ', TACLO+AN CITY, ONATO A0INCULA,+OAR O! ELECTION INSPECTORS, PRECINCT No. 9, MAL+OG, TOLOSA, LEYTE,( $e MUNICIPAL REGISTRAR COMELEC, TOLOSA, LEYTE, respondents.

tilia "i!a%u+a-Molo for petitioner.

)he &olicitor $eneral for respondents.

0ITUG, J.:

An event in this decade, which future !enerations would li4ely co"e to 4now si"ply as the

5E'A Peoples Power Revolution of (*2=,5 has dra"atically chan!ed the course of ournations history. o, too, not a few of our country"en have by it been left alone in their ownpersonal lives. /ne such case is that of the petitioner in this special civil action for certiorari.

The petitioner is Philip Ro"ualde, a natural born citien of the Philippines, the son of thefor"er #overnor of @eyte, Bena"in 5>o4oy5 Ro"ualde, and nephew of the then $irst @ady&"elda Marcos. o"eti"e in the early part of (*2-, the petitioner, in consonance with hisdecision to establish his le!al residence at Baran!ay Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte, 1caused theconstruction of his residential house therein. 3e soon thereafter also served as Baran!ay Captainof the place. &n the (*2) Batasan Election and (*2= 5snap5 Presidential Election, Ro"ualdeacted as the Ca"pai!n Mana!er of the >ilusan! Ba!on! @ipunan 6>B@7 in @eyte where hevoted."

8hen the eventful days fro" the (st to the )th of $ebruary, (*2=, ca"e or were about toco"e to a close, so"e relatives and associates of the deposed President, fearin! for theirpersonal safety, whether founded or not, 5fled5 the country. Petitioner Ro"ualde, for one,to!ether with his i""ediate fa"ily, left the Philippines and sou!ht 5asylu"5 in the

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

33/70

&n the early part of (*2, Ro"ualde atte"pted to co"e bac4 to the Philippines to run for acon!ressional seat in @eyte. /n + March (*2, he finally decided to boo4 a fli!ht bac4 tothe Philippines but the fli!ht was so"ehow aborted.&

/n : epte"ber (**(, Ro"ualde received a letter fro" Mr. Charles Cobb, 'istrict 'irectorof the

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

34/70

/n -+ April (**, the respondent court rendered the assailed decision, 1"thus1

83ERE$/RE, this Court finds respondent Philip Ro"ualde dis;ualified tore!ister as a voter for the (** elections and hereby reverses the decision ofthe lower court in toto.

The Municipal Re!istrar of the Co""ission on Elections of Tolosa, @eyte, ishereby ordered to delete and cancel the na"e of respondent Philip #.Ro"ualde fro" the list of ;ualified voters re!istered $ebruary (, (**, atPrecinct *, baran!ay Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte.

/ /R'ERE'.

3ence, this recourse.

/n May (**, this Court issued a te"porary restrainin! order directin! respondentRe!ional Trial Court 0ud!e Pedro Espino to cease and desist fro" enforcin! ;uestioneddecision.13

The petitioner has raised several issues which have been well synthesied by the olicitor#eneral into G

6(7 8hether or not the MTC and RTC ac;uired urisdiction over, respectively, Case No. -(%.(** and Case No. *%-+%), the petition havin! been filed by one who did not alle!e to behi"self a re!istered voter of the "unicipality concerned? and

67 8hether or not the respondent court erred in findin! the petitioner to have voluntarily leftthe country and abandoned his residence in Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte.

The petition is i"pressed with "erit.

Anent the first issue, the petitioner assails for the first ti"e the urisdiction of the respondentCourt and the MTC of Tolosa, @eyte, in ta4in! co!niance of the case, despite an absence ofany alle!ation in the petition filed with the MTC that Advincula was hi"self a re!istered voterin Precinct No. * of Baran!ay Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte confor"ably with ection () of the/"nibus Election Code. 14

8hen respondent Advincula filed the petition with the MTC for the e9clusion of hereinpetitioner Ro"ualde, the latter countered by filin! his answer 1&and prayin! for the denial ofthe petition, without raisin! the issue of urisdiction. But what can be tellin! is that when the MTCdecision, denyin! the petition for dis;ualification, went on appeal to the RTC, Ro"ualde, in hisown appeal%"e"orandu", e9plicitlypra%ed that the M)C decision /e affir!ed. This unassailableincident leads us to reiterate that 5while lac4 of urisdiction "ay be assailed at any sta!e, a partysactive participation in the proceedin!s before a court without urisdiction will estop such party fro"assailin! such lac4 of urisdiction.5 16

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

35/70

&n any case, we consider pri"ordial the second issue of whether or not Ro"ualdevoluntarily left the country and abandoned his residence in Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte. 3ere, thisti"e, we find for the petitioner.

The olicitor #eneral hi"self sustains the view of petitioner Ro"ualde. E9pressin! surpriseat this stance !iven by the olicitor #eneral, respondent Advincula posits non

se7uiturar!u"ent 1'in his co""ent assailin! instead the person of olicitor Ed!ar Chua. &f itwould have any value, at all, in disabusin! the "inds of those concerned, it "ay well be to recallwhat this Court said in Ru/io vs.&to.)o!as1 18

&t is also incu"bent upon the /ffice of the olicitor #eneral to present to theCourt the position that will le!ally uphold the best interest of the !overn"ent,althou!h it "ay run counter to a clients position.

&n election cases, the Court treats do"icile and residence as synony"ous ter"s, thus1 56t7heter" 5residence5 as used in the election law is synony"ous with 5do"icile5, which i"portsnot only an intention to reside in a fi9ed place but also personal presence in that place,coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.5 195'o"icile5 denotes a fi9ed per"anent

residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for li4e reasons, one intends toreturn. "*That residence, in the case of the petitioner, was established durin! the early (*2-s tobe at Baran!ay Malbo!, Tolosa, @eyte. Residence thus ac;uired, however, "ay be lost byadoptin! another choice of do"icile. &n order, in turn, to ac;uire a new do"icile by choice, there"ust concur 6(7 residence or bodily presence in the new locality, 67 an intention to re"ain there,and 6+7 an intention to abandon the old do"icile. "1&n other words, there "ust basicallybe ani!us !anendicoupled withani!us non revertendi. The purpose to re"ain in or at thedo"icile of choice "ust be for an indefinite period of ti"e? the chan!e of residence "ust bevoluntary? and the residence at the place chosen for the new do"icile "ust be actual. ""

The political situation brou!ht about by the 5Peoples Power Revolution5 "ust have trulycaused !reat apprehension to the Ro"ualdees, as well as a serious concern over thesafety and welfare of the "e"bers of their fa"ilies. Their !oin! into self%e9ile until conditions

favorable to the" would have so"ehow stabilied is understandable. Certainly, their suddendeparture fro" the country cannot be described as 5voluntary,5 or as 5abandon"ent ofresidence5 at least in the conte9t that these ter"s are used in applyin! the concept of5do"icile by choice.5

8e have closely e9a"ined the records, and we find not that "uch to convince us that thepetitioner had, in fact, abandoned his residence in the Philippines and established hisdo"icile elsewhere.

&t "ust be e"phasied that the ri!ht to vote is a "ost precious political ri!ht, as well as abounden duty of every citien, enablin! and re;uirin! hi" to participate in the process of!overn"ent so as to ensure that the !overn"ent can truly be said to derive its power solelyfro" the consent of the !overned. "38e, therefore, "ust co""end respondent Advincula forspendin! ti"e and effort even all the way up to this Court, for as the ri!ht of suffra!e is not to beabrid!ed, so also "ust we safe!uard and preserve it but only on behalf of those entitled andbound to e9ercise it.

83ERE$/RE, findin! "erit on the petition the sa"e is hereby #RANTE' '

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

36/70

/ /R'ERE'.

Cru#, 'adilla, idin, $rio-A7uino, Re+alado, "avide, Jr., Ro!ero, >ocon, ellosillo, Melo,Quiason and 'uno, JJ., concur.

>arvasa, C.J., and *eliciano, J., are on leave.

7/25/2019 EPA Case 012416

37/70

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No5. L-683'9-81 Se$ember "", 1986

E0ELIO +. A0IER, petitioner,vs.T%E COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ( ARTURO !. PACI!ICAOR, respondents.

Raul &. Roco and orna 'ata6o-9apunan for petitioner.

CRU/, J.:

The new olicitor #eneral has "oved to dis"iss this petition on the !round that as a resultof supervenin! events it has beco"e "oot and acade"ic. &t is not as si"ple as that. everallives have been lost in connection with this case, includin! that of the petitioner hi"self. Theprivate respondent is now in hidin!. The purity of suffra!e has been defiled and the popularwill scorned throu!h a confabulation of those in authority. This Court cannot 4eep silent in theface of these terrible facts. The "otion is denied.

The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Anti;ue for the Batasan!Pa"bansa in the May (*2) elections. The for"er appeared to enoy "ore popular supportbut the latter had the advanta!e of bein! the no"inee of the >B@ with all its per;uisites ofpower. /n May (+, (*2), the eve of the elections, the bitter contest between the two ca"e toa head when several followers of the petitioner were a"bushed and 4illed, alle!edly by thelatters "en. even suspects, includin! respondent Pacificador, are now facin! trial for these"urders. The incident naturally hei!htened tension in the province and sharpened thecli"ate of fear a"on! the electorate. Conceivably, it inti"idated voters a!ainst supportin!the /pposition candidate or into supportin! the candidate of the rulin! party.

&t was in this at"osphere that the votin! was held, and the post%election develop"ents wereto