G.R. No. L-16119; February 14, 1920
CLEMENTE DAYRIT, petitioner, vs. PRIMITIVO SAN AGUSTIN, auxiliary judge, and EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, respondents.

FACTS:
An election for municipal president was held in Angeles, Pampanga, on June 3, 1919, with Clemente Dayrit and Emiliano J. Valdez as candidates. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Dayrit the winner by a plurality of 224 votes. Valdez filed an election protest, alleging fraud due to the presence of unofficial ballots. During the protest proceedings, the ballot boxes were examined, and in Precinct No. 1, 272 unofficial ballotsall cast for Dayritwere discovered. The ballot boxes had been kept in the office of then-incumbent President Valdez from the close of the election until the court examination, contrary to legal requirements. When the trial court indicated it would exclude these unofficial ballots, Dayrit offered to present testimony from a majority of the precinct’s voters to prove that they had voted for him using official ballots received from and cast in the presence of precinct inspectors. After about 60 witnesses testified, the protestant objected to further witnesses on the ground of cumulative evidence, and the respondent judge sustained the objection, barring Dayrit from presenting additional proof. Dayrit then filed this original action in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge erred in refusing to allow the protestee (Dayrit) to present further witness testimony on the grounds that such evidence was merely cumulative.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the respondent judge to allow Dayrit to present his witnesses. The Court held that the proposed testimony was not cumulative if its purpose was to establish that the voters had cast official ballots for Dayrit in accordance with law, and that the unofficial ballots found in the box were placed there after the election. The secrecy of the ballot is a personal privilege that may be waived by the voter; since the witnesses were willing to testify, they could be compelled to do so to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The Court emphasized that the will of the majority must be determined based on the legal ballots cast at the election, and subsequent tamperingsuggested here by the custody of the ballot boxes with Valdez and the appearance of unofficial ballots not reported by the inspectors initiallyshould not defeat that will. Dayrit was entitled to prove that the voters legally voted for him with official ballots. Costs were awarded against the respondents.