THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OP NUEVA ECIJA, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ENRIQUE VILLAS, GUILLERMO REYES, AND DOMINGO PILI, RESPOND…

This petition for a writ of mandamus arose
out of an information filed by the petitioner in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, charging the respondents, Enrique Villas,
Guillermo Reyes and Domingo Pili, with violation of the Election Law.
The information alleged that “the above named accused Enrique Villas,
Guillermo Reyes and Domingo Pili, being election inspectors duly
appointed and qualified as such of precinct 4 of San Antonio, Nueva
Ecija, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, did then
and there voluntarily, maliciously, illegally, and criminally make and
sign a false statement of the result of the votes legally cast for”
certain named candidates. The information recited in what particulars
the statement was false. Upon motion of the prosecution, the respondent
judge ordered the production in court of the ballot boxes pertaining to
precinct No. 4 of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. At the preliminary
investigation of the case, after the accused were arraigned and pleaded
not guilty, the prosecution moved for the opening of said ballot boxes
with a view to introducing their contents in evidence. This motion was
objected to .by the defense, and the objection was sustained by the
respondent judge. Hence this petition for a writ of mandamus to compel
the respondent judge to order the opening of the ballot boxes.

As a provincial fiscal it was the duty of the petitioner to
prosecute all crimes and offenses committed within the Province of
Nueva Ecija (Administrative Code, section 1681). It is not disputed
that the facts alleged in the information filed against the respondents
Villas, Reyes and Pili, constitute a violation of the Election Law. To
establish such facts the ballots cast in precinct No. 4 of San Antonio,
Nueva Ecija, were essential proof; and, unless the law provides
otherwise, the petitioner had the right to introduce said ballots in
evidence and to demand their production by judicial process requiring
the opening of the ballot boxes. It is, however, vigorously contended
by counsel for the respondents (1) that there is no law in this
jurisdiction which authorizes the opening of ballot boxes for the
purpose of using their contents exclusively in criminal cases in the
absence of any election contest; (2) that, after the lapse of the
period of one year prescribed by the Election Law for the preservation
of the contents of the ballot boxes, such contents, especially the
ballots, ceased to have any legal existence, and were therefore
inadmissible as evidence; (3) that, as the determination of the
criminal case would imply, among other things, the recounting of votes
for the office of representatives, it is the legislature and not the
court that is empowered by law to open the ballot boxes in case of
contest, and (4) that mandamus does not lie in this particular case.

Unlike those obtaining in some of the States of the American Union,
from which come the cases chiefly relied upon by counsel for the
respondents, the pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions in
this jurisdiction do not restrict the right to examine and open the
ballot boxes to proceedings in election contests. Our organic law
provides that “elections shall be held only on such days and under such
regulations as to ballots, voting, and qualifications of electors as
may be prescribed by the Philippine legislature” (Philippine Autonomy
Act; section 16); and pursuant to the authority thus conferred on it,
the Philippine Legislature enacted an election law, section 468 of
which provides :

“The municipal treasurer shall retain the boxes
unopened in his possession in a safe place and under his
responsibility, until the final decision of any election contest, and
in any event for one year, subject to the order of the court of
competent jurisdiction or other officer specially authorized by law to
open the same.

“After one year from the date of the
elections, the boxes, if the contents are not needed for any lawful
purpose, shall be opened and immediately after opening them, the
contents shall be burned by the municipal treasurer in the presence of
the municipal president and two municipal councilors.”

The law clearly contemplates that, even in the absence of any
election contest, the ballot boxes may be opened by order of a court of
competent jurisdiction or any officer specially authorized by law to
open the same. After one year from the date of the elections the ballot
boxes shall be opened in order that their contents may be burned, but
this can only be done “if the contents are not needed for any lawful
purpose”. What is this lawful purpose? Can it be reasonably contended
that the prosecution of crimes and offenses is not a lawful purpose
within the meaning of the law? Is not the pursuit of the legislative
policy to punish election frauds a lawful purpose? {seems clear that
these questions admit of but one answer, and that answer must be in the
affirmative.

In Rafols vs. Court of First Instance and Provincial
Fiscal of Cebu (47 Phil., 736), this court declared that “when the law
specifies the cases when the ballot boxes may be opened, it is our duty
to exact compliance with the provisions of the law.” It also declared,
however, that after the filing of “a complaint against the alleged
violators of the law”, the respondent fiscal “had the right to
introduce as a part of his evidence the contents of the ballot boxes
here in question and the court with jurisdiction over the case may
validly order the opening of said boxes.” What this court refused to
permit in that case was the opening of the ballot boxes for the purpose
of conducting a fishing expedition with a view to finding out whether
frauds were committed. In the case at bar, there was no attempt to
conduct such a fishing expedition. The petitioner moved for the opening
of the ballot boxes after the filing of an information, after the
accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and in the course of the
preliminary investigation. The Rafols case thus strengthens, rather
than weakens, the petition in the present case.

What has been said in refutation of the contention that there is no
law in this jurisdiction which authorizes the opening of ballot boxes
for the purpose of using their contents as evidence in criminal cases,
practically disposes of the second contention of counsel for the
respondents. It is clearly deducible that under the law in this
jurisdiction the ballots do not cease to have any legal existence even
after the lapse of the period of one year prescribed by the Election
Law for the preservation of the contents of the ballot boxes. For, as
already shown, the law clearly contemplates that the contents of the
ballot boxes shall not be burned if they are still needed for some
lawful purpose. In the instant case, the record shows that the ballots
in question were not burned because they were needed as evidence in a
criminal case. The cases cited by counsel for the respondents on the
point now under consideration, are not controlling. The decisions in
those cases were based on statutory provisions which required the
burning of the ballots after the lapse of a certain period of time, if
there was no election contest duly commenced, irrespective of whether
or not they were needed for some other lawful purpose.

This brings us to the contention that as the determination of the
criminal case would imply, among other things, the recounting of votes
for the office of representative, it is the legislature and not the
court that is empowered by law to open the ballot boxes in case of
contest. It requires no extended discussion to show that this
contention is without merit.

The provision of our organic act that the senate and house of
representatives shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of their elective members, is not in any way impinged
upon by the opening and examination of the ballot boxes here in
question. The object of the criminal proceedings instituted in the
court below is not to contest the election of any member of the
legislature, but to punish election frauds. The mere fact that the
ballots cast for a member of the legislature may be involved should not
be allowed to defeat the legislative policy of preventing election
frauds by penalizing those who commit them. To hold otherwise would be
to invite violations of the Election Law with impunity. Such a
situation should be avoided by all the means of fair interpretation.

The prosecution of crimes and offenses is a matter of public
concern. Public interests demand that prosecutions should be conducted
with vigor and diligence. It is not only the right but the duty of the
prosecuting officer to produce the best evidence of which the case is
susceptible. (Code of Criminal Procedure, section 69.) To secure this
end, he is entitled to the aid of judicial process, and the granting of
such aid will be compelled by mandamus in appropriate cases.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted, without any special pronouncement as to costs.

Street, and Butte, JJ., concur.

I certify that Ramon Avancena, Chief Justice, and James C. Vickers, Associate Justice, participated
in this decision and voted to grant the writ prayed for; that their
names do not appear signed hereto for the reason that they were on
leave at the time of the promulgation of the decision.— STREET, J.