Case Digest (G.R. No. 31636)
Facts:
The case of Saturnino Gallardo vs. Elias Aldana revolves around an election contest stemming from the local elections held in Las Pinas, Rizal, where Elias Aldana was the incumbent municipal president. Following the election, official returns indicated that Gallardo received 364 votes, while Aldana received 431 votes, leading to Aldana's declaration as the winner and subsequent induction into office. However, Gallardo filed a protest alleging electoral fraud, claiming various irregularities in the voting process, such as incorrect ballot handling, loss of ballots, and improper assistance to illiterate voters during ballot preparation.During the trial in the Court of First Instance, a comprehensive examination of the ballots was conducted, ultimately revealing that Aldana had received 432 valid votes and Gallardo 382 votes, giving Aldana a majority of 50 votes instead of the 67 votes initially reported. Gallardo’s protest cited that many ballots were filled out improperly by u
Case Digest (G.R. No. 31636)
Facts:
- Background of the Election Dispute
- Saturnino Gallardo, the petitioner and appellant, contested the election result for the office of municipal president of Las Piñas, Rizal.
- Elias Aldana, the respondent and incumbent, was declared the duly elected municipal president based on official returns showing Gallardo with 364 votes and Aldana with 431 votes.
- Electoral Returns, Recount, and Revised Vote Count
- Following Gallardo’s protest against the official returns, a recount was conducted in the three precincts of the municipality.
- The trial judge’s recount resulted in revised figures: Aldana obtained 432 votes while Gallardo’s votes were adjusted to 382, thereby reducing Aldana’s margin from an alleged 67-vote lead to a 50-vote lead.
- Allegations of Fraud and Electoral Irregularities
- The protest raised several charges including:
- Improper appreciation and admission of ballots by election inspectors.
- Subtraction or loss of ballots.
- Illegal construction of election booths.
- Improper preparation of ballots, particularly for illiterate voters, by persons who had not taken the required oath.
- Specific claims focused on assistance given to illiterate voters that did not comply with the formalities prescribed by Section 453 of the Election Law.
- Irregularities Involving Ballot Preparation
- Florentino Pallera allegedly prepared 26 ballots for the straight Nacionalista ticket; however, only 14 accompanying affidavits were found, leaving 11 ballots unsupported by the requisite oath affidavit.
- Similar allegations were made against:
- Benjamin Cristobal – 11 ballots allegedly improperly prepared.
- Sixto Tolentino – 6 ballots similarly prepared.
- Baltazar Quilatan – 6 ballots similarly prepared.
- Additional 38 ballots prepared by unidentified individuals based on visual similarity in handwriting.
- In precinct No. 1, further challenges arose from ballots allegedly prepared without required affidavits by:
- Jose Timbang, chief of the municipal police, who is barred by law from election involvement.
- Juan del Rosario, municipal treasurer, likewise prohibited from election activities.
- Total Votes Challenged by Precinct
- Precinct No. 1: 75 votes were contested on the grounds of improper assistance and lack of oath affidavit.
- Precinct No. 2: 37 votes were similarly challenged.
- Precinct No. 3: 31 votes faced contestation based on the same irregularities.
- Central Point of Contention
- The primary legal question revolved around whether ballots cast by illiterate voters should be invalidated solely because the helpers who prepared the ballots did not take the oath (and hence did not provide the written affidavit) as required by law.
Issues:
- Main Issue
- Whether votes should be deducted en masse from the contestee’s totals on the basis that ballots for illiterate voters were prepared by assistants who did not take the oath and make the required affidavit under Section 453 of the Election Law.
- Subsidiary Issues
- Determining if the irregularities in ballot preparation amount to a broader fraudulent scheme aimed at undermining the will of the electorate.
- Assessing the sufficiency and probative value of visual handwriting comparisons as evidence to prove unauthorized assistance.
- Evaluating whether isolated irregularities can justify discounting votes or if only a systematic fraud can lead to such a measure.
- Interpretative Issues
- Whether the principles elucidated in the case of Olano vs. Tibayan are applicable in this context and mandate the presumption of legality for ballots found in the valid-ballot box.
- The extent to which procedural irregularities, even if established, affect the overall validity of the election results.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)