GR L 5770; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953
BRICCIO MADRID and FELIPE AREVALO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ANATOLIO C. MANALAC, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon; MELCHOR H. AQUINO, SALVADOR ARCANGEL, PLACIDO TOLEDO, JUAN T. RAZO, VICENTE CELINDRO and ALEJANDRO LAGARDE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Briccio Madrid and Felipe Arevalo, candidates for councilor of Donsol, Sorsogon in the November 13, 1951 elections, filed an election protest on November 28, 1951, against the respondents who were proclaimed elected by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on November 16, 1951. The protest alleged that the Board’s canvass did not tally with the true count shown in the election statements from the 30 contested precincts. During the trial on February 1, 1952, petitioners presented as evidence the 30 election statements (Exhibits L to OO) and other documentary evidence. Respondents moved to dismiss the protest. On May 26, 1952, respondent Judge dismissed the protest, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because petitioners failed to submit the ballots as evidence, constituting a clear abuse of discretion. Petitioners then filed this certiorari petition to set aside the dismissal and order a decision based on the evidence they presented.
ISSUE
Whether an election protest for a municipal position, alleging an erroneous tally by the Board of Canvassers, can be entertained by the court based solely on election statements without the necessity of submitting the ballots as evidence.
RULING
Yes. The petition is granted. The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule in the election law or rules of evidence requiring the presentation of ballots as evidence in an election contest. The ordinary rules of evidence apply, and evidence must be relevant to the points in issue. The production of ballots is necessary only in specific instances, such as when fraud in casting, forgery, or falsification is alleged. In this case, the protest was based solely on the alleged discrepancy between the Board’s canvass and the election statements, with no other irregularities claimed. Therefore, presenting the ballots was not necessary to determine the correctness of the canvass. Section 175 of the Revised Election Code merely provides that the court may order the production of ballot boxes and election statements if required by an interested party or the court itself; it is not mandatory. The respondent Judge erred in dismissing the protest for failure to present the ballots.