Borja v. Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the general elections of June 2, 1931, Gregorio J. Borja and Manuel H. Roxas were candidates for municipal president of Jalajala, Rizal. The municipal council, acting as the board of canvassers, declared Borja obtained 107 votes and Roxas 130, proclaiming Roxas as the winner. Procedural History: Borja contested the election, alleging that 32 votes counted for Roxas were among 56 illegal votes cast by persons excluded from the voters' list. The Court of First Instance found that 32 excluded electors were allowed to vote despite notice to the inspectors. The court deducted these 32 votes from Roxas' total, resulting in 107 votes for Borja and 92 for Roxas, and declared Borja the winner. The Petition: Roxas appealed the decision, questioning the deduction of the 32 votes and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that these votes were cast for him.
Issue(s)
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to support the conclusion that the 32 illegal votes were cast in favor of Manuel H. Roxas. Whether the burden of proof regarding the recipient of illegal votes rests on the party alleging the illegality. Whether the election for the office of municipal president should be quashed if the recipient of illegal votes that could change the result cannot be determined.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that the election for municipal president of Jalajala, Rizal, is quashed, and neither candidate was legally elected. The Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the chief of the executive bureau and the provincial board of Rizal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court was insufficient to reach a reasonably convincing conclusion. To satisfy the evidentiary standard, the circumstances must be such that they lead to no other conclusion than the one alleged. The Court reasoned that factors such as personal animosity from a land dispute or the political leanings of election inspectors do not constitute sufficient proof that a voter followed partisan feelings rather than personal reason. Applying the principle that the voter is in the best position to know for whom they voted, the Court emphasized that the identification of ballots or testimony from the voters would have been the best evidence, which the contestant failed to provide. Therefore, the deduction of 32 votes from Roxas was based on mere conjecture and was legally erroneous. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the burden of proof rests on the contestant to show not only that illegal votes were polled but also for whom they were cast. Rejecting a contrary theory that the candidate advantaged by the general result must prove the legality of their votes, the Court adopted the 'safer rule' that the party holding the affirmative of the issue must prove all facts necessary to make their case. Relying on McCrary on Elections, the Court stated that an illegal voter can be called as a witness and compelled to disclose their vote. Because the contestant failed to identify the specific ballots or produce evidence showing the votes were cast for Roxas, the allegation that Roxas received the illegal votes remained unproven. On Issue 3: The Court determined that since 32 illegal votes were cast and they were sufficient in number to alter the election result, but it remained unknown for whom they were cast, the election for that specific office must be quashed. The Court noted that an election cannot depend on uncertainty, and the majority must be susceptible to proof. It explicitly rejected the practice of 'proportionate division' of illegal votes among candidates. Following the rule in 9 R.C.L. sec. 140, the Court held that when so many persons vote in violation of the law that the result is placed in doubt and illegal votes cannot be excluded with certainty, the court must annul the election for the disputed office rather than arbitrarily declare a winner.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof rests upon the party alleging that illegal votes were cast to prove not only the commission of illegal voting but also that such votes were cast in favor of the opponent. Where the number of illegal votes is sufficient to alter the result of the election, but it cannot be determined for whom they were cast, the election for the disputed office must be quashed.