G.R. No. 31948. November 15, 1929
PABLO A. CRUZ, CONTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. ATILANO DE GUZMAN, CONTESTEE AND APPELLANT.
VILLAMOR, J.:
of municipal president “of Angat, Bulacan, in the last general
elections held on June 5, 1928. Cruz received 731 votes and De Guzman
787, the municipal board of canvassers proclaiming De Guzman elected by
a majority of 56 votes.
Pablo A. Gruz and his fellow partisans, the candidates for
vice-president and councilors, contested the election of De Guzman and
his fellow partisans, alleging certain irregularities committed by the
election inspectors in precincts 1, 2, 4, and 6, more particularly
described in the motion of protest reproduced in the appellant’s brief.
The contestees filed a general denial, and contend that they, have been legally elected to their respective offices.
After the proper proceedings, the court below founct?that contestant
Pablo A. Cruz obtained 738 votes as against contestee Atilano de
Guzman’s 658 votes, or a majority of 80 votes for the municipal
presidency of Angat.
Pablo A. Cruz’s fellow partisans, the candidates for the offices of
vice-president and councillor of the said municipality of Angat, were
also declared elected, with the exception of Narciso Perez, who lost
out in the drawing of lots between himself and Felix Ventura, De
Guzman’s fellow partisan and candidate for councillor.
Contestee Atilano de Guzman appealed from the judgment of the trial court, and in his brief assigns the following errors:
“1. The lower court erred in finding that there was
a general, premeditated scheme on the part of appellant Atilano de
Guzman and his followers, to influence the popular will in the general
elections held on June 5, 1928, bribing the electors and buying their
votes, and requiring of them in return, certain marks of identification
upon their ballots.“2. The lower court erred in rejecting,
as marked, ballots C-2 to C-25 (24 ballots) cast in favor of appellant
Atilano de Guzman in precinct No. 1, and in not rejecting ballots G-l
to G-25, and G-27 to G-43 (42 ballots) in favor of appellee Pablo A.
Cruz in the same precinct, notwithstanding the fact that all the
aforesaid ballots for both of said candidates are in the same condition
and present the same appearance.“3. The lower court erred in
rejecting ballots Exhibits XX-12 to XX-13; XX-15; XX-18; XX-21; XX-24;
XX- 32; XX-34; XX-35; XX-38 to XX-41; XX-43; XX-46 and XX-47 (20
ballots) cast in favor of appellant De Guzman, on the ground that they
are marked ballots, and in counting and adjudicating in favor of
appellee Pablo A. Cruz the ballots Exhibits 121 to 126; 131 to 134;
136; 138 to 141 (15 ballots), which were cast in favor of said
candidate in election precinct No. 2, notwithstanding the fact that
said ballots are all practically in the same condition and appearance.“4.
The lower court erred in rejecting as marked or countersigned, ballots
Exhibits XXX-1 to XXX-3; XXX-5 to XXX-16; XXX-18 to XXX-20; XXX-22;
XXX-24 to XXX-25; XXX-27 to XXX-28; XXX-80 to XXX-31; XXX-33 to XXX-36;
XXX-38; XXX-41 to XXX-43; XXX-47; XXX-50; and XXX-56 (36 ballots) cast
in favor of Atilano de Guzman and in counting as valid in favor of
appellee Pablo A. Cruz, Exhibits 168 to 208 (41 ballots), which were
cast in election precinct No. 4 in favor of said candidate,
notwithstanding the fact that they are all in the same condition and
present the same appearance.“5. The lower court erred in
rejecting as marked and countersigned, ballots C-36 to C-39; C-41 to
C-57; C-59 to C-86; C-88 to C-89 (51 ballots) cast in favor of the
appellant, Atilano de Guzman, and in counting as valid votes Exhibits
G-47 to G-50 and G-54 (5 ballots), which were cast in favor of the
appellee Cruz, in precinct No. 6, notwithstanding the fact that they
are all in the same condition and present the same appearance.“6,
The lower court erred in not declaring contestee Atilano de Guzman,
president elect of the municipality of Angat, Province of Bulacan, with
a plurality of votes over his opponent Pablo A. Cruz, the appellee, and
in not dismissing the election contest instituted by Pablo A. Cruz.”
A resume of the ballots referred to in the appellant’s assignments
of error shows that he claims 131 ballots cast for him, as improperly
rejected by the court below, and likewise objects to 103 ballots
improperly awarded to the appellee by the trial court.
| Precinct No. | Deducted from appellant | Awarded to appellee |
| 1 | 24 | 42 |
| 2 | 20 | 15 |
| 3 | 36 | 41 |
| 6 | 51 | 5 |
| Total | 131 | 103 |
The trial court held that there was a general premeditated scheme on
the part of the appellant, Atilano de Guzman, and his followers to
influence the popular will in the general elections held on June 5,
1928, by bribing the electors and buying their votes, requiring of them
in exchange, certain marks of identification on their ballots.
It is true that some of the witnesses of the appellee did testify to
such a concerted scheme on the part of the appellant and his
copartisans at a meeting in the house of one Francisco Cruz, at
which several persons assisted. Upon this point, it is to be noted that
such a scheme is not mentioned among the reasons for the protest
alleged by the contestant in his original motion. Nevertheless, the
contestant presented witnesses to prove this fact, and the contestee
did not object; and so, in the instant case, there appears to be no
violation of the general rule that the evidence must be confined to the
facts alleged, because of the acquiescence of the person against whom
such evidence was presented. However, the record shows that the parties
agreed in open court that the persons mentioned by the contestant’s
witnesses (the appellee in this case), would, in respect to what was
agreed upon at the meeting referred to and the alleged bribery of the
voters, deny the statements of the contestant’s witnesses. Having
examined the evidence of record, it seems improbable that in
formulating a plan directly in violation of the Election Law, the
author or authors thereof would have exposed it at a gathering of
several persons, it being neither natural nor usual for one proposing
to commit a crime to expose to the public his criminal intentions.
Moreover, it should be remembered that experience has taught certain
lessons regarding elections. In these political contentions, passion
and partiality run wild, and the contending parties leave no stone
unturned in order to win out. For this reason, testimony as to alleged
schemes of the adversary should be received with caution, and unless
strongly corroborated by other evidence, is not sufficient to decide
the result of a popular election.
In the present case, we observe that of the four witnesses presented
by the contestant to testify on the alleged scheme to influence the
popular will, the one named Simon Roxas, a democrata
inspector, after the elections applied to the appellant Atilano de
Guzman for employment, and as the latter could not give it to him, he
went to one Matias Fernando, a well-known leader of the Nacionalista
Party, who engaged him as conductor of his auto-bus. The other witness,
named Jose Cruz, also wrote the letter Exhibit 100 to the appellant
Atilano de Guzman applying for work which the latter could not give
him; but now he is working on the truck of the aforesaid Matias
Fernando, having been urged to do so by one Isabelo Francisco, who told
him he could get work there if he testified against Atilano de Guzman.
The record does not disclose the motives of the two other witnesses,
Segundo Angeles and Benito Nepomuceno, who pretend to be democrats, but
we believe that, from what has been said concerning the former two,
there is sufficient reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses,
aside from the fact that their statements have been absolutely
contradicted by the appellant and his witnesses, Francisco Cruz and
Jose Landayan.
In view of the agreement between the parties referred to above, we
find that the facts affirmed by the witnesses for the appellee are
contradicted by those for the.appellant. And, if we consider the fact
that these same witnesses for the appellee who, according to
themselves, were offered money to vote for the appellant, which they
refused, and, furthermore, as not a single ballot for the appellant has
been identified as obtained through bribery, and bearing marks, it
cannot be held that the evidence preponderates in favor of the
appellee’s contention.
As to the 131 ballots alleged by the appellant to have been
improperly rejected by the court below, the latter rejected them
considering them as marked ballots, because on some of them the names
of the candidates for councilors are written at the extreme right of
the ballot, on others at the extreme left, and in the rest, in the
middle but with a space between the names and surnames. There is no
question that the names of the candidates were not written in the
spaces assigned by law. Neither is there any question as to whether or
not the voter placed some distinguishing mark or sign on them
prohibited by the law. Beyond the fact that the ballots in question
have been prepared by the voter in the form stated, said ballots appear
to be perfectly clean.
In several election contests, and in particular those of Cailles vs.
Gomez and Barbaza (42 Phil., 496); Valenzuela vs. Carlos and Lopez de
Jesus (42 Phil., 428); Mandac vs. Samonte (49 Phil., 284); and lately
in Penson vs. Parungao (52 Phil., 718); and in Geirosa vs. Taningco (G.
R. No. 30609 ),[1] this court, construing section 452 of the
Election Law, enunciated certain rules respecting marked ballots. In
Penson vs. Parungao, the court said that marks on ballots must appear
on the ballots themselves, and cannot be proved by means of evidence aliunde,
but with data contained in the ballots themselves. Had it not been that
some of the appellee’s witnesses testified, without any objection on
the part of the appellant, that the plan adopted by the appellant and
his copartisans was to require the voters to prepare their ballots by
writing the names of the candidates for councillor either on the right
side, or on the left, or in the middle of the ballot but with a space
between the names and surnames, the ballots in question could not by
themselves alone have been contested as marked.
We cannot give full credit to the testimony of witnesses Benito
Nepomuceno, Simon Roxas, Segundo Angeles, and Jose Cruz, who mention
marks of identification, for the reasons stated above, and
furthermore, because the great majority of the 103 ballots of the
appellee objected to by the appellant, are prepared in the same manner,
the names of the candidates for councillor being written sometimes at
the extreme right, other times at the left, and still others in the
middle of the ballot but with a space between the names and surnames.
We therefore conclude that the 131 ballots claimed by the appellant
are not marked ballots within the meaning of the law, as well as the
103 ballots awarded to the appellee. And the lower court having held
that the appellee obtained a majority of 80 votes, which must be
deducted from the 131 votes referred to, leaves a majority of 51 votes
in favor of the appellant. In accordance with this result, the judgment
appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and appellant
Atilano de Guzman is declared municipal president elect of Angat,
Bulacan, by a majority of 51 votes. Without special pronouncement of
costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Street, J., dissents.
[1] Promulgated March 22, 1929, not reported.