Merced v. Revilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An election for municipal president and other officers was held in Baliwag on June 3, 1919. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Pablo Camacho as the winner based on a majority of votes. Procedural History: Guillermo de la Merced filed an election protest on June 14, 1919, alleging that certain ballots were fraudulently marked and excluded, and that election inspectors misrepresented the reading of ballots, fraudulently counting votes for Camacho that were cast for de la Merced. He also alleged that inspectors prevented his watchers from freely witnessing the counting. The protestant requested the opening of the ballot box containing marked and spoiled ballots, which was denied by the respondent judge. The Petition: De la Merced filed an original action praying for a preliminary injunction to prevent the dismissal of his election protest and to require the respondent judge to hear it on its merits. He also sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to open certain ballot boxes and permit him to examine the ballots, particularly those alleged to be marked and spoiled.
Issue(s)
Whether the protestant in an election protest has a right to have the court examine and pass upon the validity of ballots alleged to have been fraudulently and maliciously marked or excluded from the count. Whether Section 479 of Act No. 2711, mandating the examination of all ballots used in an election protest, is applicable even when alleged marked and spoiled ballots are segregated in a separate box.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition for mandamus, ordering the respondent judge to permit the petitioner to examine the alleged marked and spoiled ballots. The preliminary injunction previously issued was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to examine ballots: The Court held that Section 479 of Act No. 2711 is mandatory, requiring the court to "forthwith cause the registration list and all ballots used at such election to be brought before it and examined." This provision grants the protestant the right to examine all ballots used in the election when the protest involves allegations of fraud, fraudulent exclusion, or miscounting of ballots. The Court emphasized that the law does not require a prima facie showing of fraud beyond the allegations in the protest itself to authorize the opening of ballot boxes. The mere fact that marked and spoiled ballots were placed in a separate box does not negate this mandatory requirement. On the applicability of Section 479: The Court found that the protestee's contention, that the protestant must first present proof of fraud before examining alleged marked and spoiled ballots, would logically prevent any examination of ballots. This contradicts the clear mandate of Section 479. The Court reiterated that when a protestant alleges that legal ballots cast for him were counted for his opponent, or that ballots were fraudulently excluded, the law imposes a mandatory duty on the court to examine all ballots used in the questioned precincts. The separation of ballots into different boxes does not alter this legal obligation.
Main Doctrine
In an election protest, the court has a mandatory duty to cause the examination of all ballots used in the election when the protestant alleges fraud, fraudulent exclusion, or miscounting of ballots, and such examination is a right of the protestant under proper allegations.