Salvani v. Garduno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Enrique Salvani was declared provincial governor of Antique. Protestant Mamerto Portillo filed an election protest, alleging irregularities and fraud, specifically attacking returns from Caluya and alleging rejection of valid ballots for protestant. Salvani filed a counter-protest, alleging illegal failure to count votes for him and awarding of invalid votes to Portillo in San Jose's eighth precinct. Procedural History: Boxes were brought to court. Protestant Portillo waived allegations concerning Caluya boxes due to witness non-arrival, and the court admitted this waiver, refusing to open Caluya boxes. In San Jose's eighth precinct, ballots were found destroyed by anay. Salvani sought to amend his counter-protest, alleging criminal destruction by Portillo's interest to prevent examination of ballots. The court refused the amendment and the testimony of 63 voters who would testify they voted for Salvani, stating independent proof of fraud was needed. The Petition: Salvani filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to open Caluya boxes and receive the testimony of witnesses regarding San Jose's eighth precinct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to order the opening of the ballot boxes from the municipality of Caluya. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to allow the amendment to the counter-protest and to receive the testimony of voters regarding the destroyed ballots in the eighth precinct of San Jose.
Ruling
The petition is denied with respect to the first cause of action (Caluya boxes) and granted with respect to the second cause of action (San Jose's eighth precinct). The respondent judge is directed to allow the amendment to the counter-protest and to grant a supplemental hearing for the presentation of voter testimony.
Ratio Decidendi
On the refusal to open Caluya boxes: The Court held that it was proper for the protestant to withdraw his allegations concerning Caluya. Once these allegations were withdrawn, there was nothing in the protest or counter-protest that raised any question as to the regularity of the proceedings in that precinct. Therefore, the opening of the boxes was discretionary with the court. The Court reiterated the doctrine that in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, the refusal to order the opening of ballot boxes not challenged in the protest or counter-protest will not be disturbed. The fact that the boxes were already in court did not materially affect the result. On the refusal to allow amendment and receive voter testimony for San Jose's eighth precinct: The Court found no good reason for rejecting the proposed amendment, as it was based on facts discovered only after the box was opened and was submitted promptly thereafter. The Court stated that the testimony of voters as to how they voted should be received when ballots are destroyed, even without independent proof of criminal intervention by the adversary. The Court reasoned that if such testimony is admissible to rehabilitate returns, it should also be admissible to impeach them under similar circumstances. While acknowledging that such testimony should be received with caution, the Court held that it must be weighed by the same principles governing all testimony. The trial court's reliance on prior cases requiring independent proof of fraud was deemed too restrictive in this context, especially when the ballots themselves were destroyed, making it impossible to verify the returns through the best evidence.
Main Doctrine
In election protests, the testimony of voters is admissible to impeach election returns when ballots have been destroyed, even without independent proof of criminal intervention, provided the testimony is weighed with caution.