Facts:

This case, G.R. No. 36514, involves an election contest between Francisco Balon (protestant and appellant) and Manuel Moreno (protestee and appellee) regarding the contested election for a member of the provincial board of Camarines Norte. The election took place on June 2, 1931, with four candidates: Simeon Garfin, Manuel Moreno, Francisco Balon, and Gabriel Pimentel. The provincial board of canvassers certified and proclaimed the results on June 6, 1931, wherein Simeon Garfin received 3,707 votes, Manuel Moreno got 3,619 votes, Francisco Balon acquired 3,563 votes, and Gabriel Pimentel secured 2,920 votes. On June 19, 1931, Balon filed a protest against Moreno's election, alleging multiple irregularities and fraudulent activities conducted by election inspectors in various municipalities which led to the improper counting of votes. Specifically, Balon claimed he lost 270 valid votes due to the alleged irregularities. In a counter-protest, Moreno disputed the validity of so

...

Facts:

Background and Election Results

• In the general election held on June 2, 1931, for the provincial board of Camarines Norte, four candidates vied for the two available seats: Simeon Garfin, Manuel Moreno, Francisco Balon, and Gabriel Pimentel.
• The board of canvassers certified the vote totals as follows:
• Simeon Garfin – 3,707 votes
• Manuel Moreno – 3,619 votes
• Francisco Balon – 3,563 votes
• Gabriel Pimentel – 2,920 votes
• Based on the certification, Simeon Garfin and Manuel Moreno were proclaimed as the members elect of the provincial board.

Filing of the Election Protest and Allegations

• On June 19, 1931, Francisco Balon filed a protest against the election of Manuel Moreno.
• The protest alleged that irregularities, illegal acts, and frauds were committed in several municipalities (Basud, Daet, Talisay, Labo, San Vicente, Indan, and Paracale), including:
• Erroneous and fraudulent counting of votes in favor of Moreno in certain precincts.
• Valid votes cast for Balon being erroneously or fraudulently rejected and not counted.
• Balon claimed that had the alleged irregularities not occurred, he would have secured an extra 270 votes, resulting in a plurality of 564 votes over Moreno.
• In response, Manuel Moreno counter-protested, alleging that valid votes for him were otherwise improperly handled due to similar irregularities and that ballots in several precincts had been mishandled or dismissed, which if corrected would have given him a plurality of 411 votes.

The Examination Process and Role of Commissioners

• The trial court, handling the election contest, appointed two commissioners with the duty to inspect and recount all ballots in the designated precincts.
• The commissioners were instructed to prepare comprehensive summaries for each precinct covering:
• Total number of ballots in the white (or valid) and the small red (or spoiled) ballot boxes.
• The number of ballots reportedly used, objected ballots, and the distribution of votes for both parties as per the inspectors’ reports.
• At the hearing on September 7, 1931, both parties admitted the jurisdictional facts.
• A significant point of contention arose when Balon’s attorney requested that the boxes for spoiled ballots (red boxes) in certain precincts be opened to examine votes allegedly valid in his favor, while Moreno’s attorney objected, arguing that the petition did not allege that valid ballots were inadvertently placed in those boxes.
• Initially, the trial court overruled the objection but later reversed its position and refused to examine the ballots from the spoiled ballot boxes.
• Subsequent motions by Balon—including a request for reconsideration of this ruling, the presentation of additional evidence regarding the ballots in the red boxes, and a motion to amend the protest—were all denied.

Trial Court’s Decision and the Subsequent Appeal

• After examining the ballots from the boxes for valid ballots, the trial judge found that Manuel Moreno had been elected by a plurality, initially calculated as 40 votes and later amended to 43 votes over Balon.
• Balon then advanced multiple assignments of error on appeal, alleging both procedural and substantive errors committed by the trial court regarding:
• Its refusal to open and examine the ballots from the spoiled ballot boxes.
• Its rejection of several contested ballots that Balon argued should have been counted for him based on the rule of idem sonans and the clear manifestation of voter intent.
• Improper counting and adjudication of ballots that benefited Moreno, including instances of ballots allegedly counted twice and errors in proper allocation between the candidates.

Issue:

• Whether the trial court erred in refusing to examine the ballot boxes containing the so-called spoiled ballots, despite the petition alleging that valid votes for Balon were erroneously relegated to these boxes.
• Whether the court was correct in not receiving additional evidence or allowing witnesses regarding the contents of the spoiled ballot boxes, contrary to the petitioner's assertions.
• Whether the rejection of certain ballots—purportedly containing valid votes for Balon under the rule of idem sonans—was proper, taking into account clear indications of voter intent despite minor typographical or spacing errors.
• Whether the trial court made errors in counting and adjudicating the ballots, including instances of allegedly double-counting ballots in favor of Moreno and improperly excluding ballots favoring Balon.
• Whether the exclusion of the petitioner’s late-motion to amend his protest can be justified given the circumstances and the timing after the case was submitted for decision.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)