Case Digest (G.R. No. 143439)
Facts:
In Luna v. Rodriguez, an election for Governor of Rizal was held on June 6, 1916, with Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez and Servando de los Angeles as candidates. After municipal inspectors returned their count to the provincial board, Rodriguez was proclaimed winner with 4,321 votes over Luna’s 4,157 and Angeles’s 3,576. Luna filed a protest in the Court of First Instance. On a first trial the decision was reversed on appeal and remanded for a new hearing. At retrial, Judge McMahon found 50 illegal votes counted for Rodriguez in Taytay and an extension of polling hours in Binangonan due to inspector delay, then ordered those votes deducted, resulting in Luna’s apparent plurality. Both contestants appealed, raising three principal assignments of error regarding polling hours, assistance to incapacitated voters, and voting booth construction.Issues:
- What is the effect of holding the polls open after the hour fixed for closing?
- What is the effect of assistance rendere
Case Digest (G.R. No. 143439)
Facts:
- Election and initial proceedings
- On June 6, 1916, an election was held for Governor of Rizal Province. The candidates were Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez and Servando de los Angeles. After canvass, the provincial board proclaimed:
- Rodriguez – 4,321 votes
- Luna – 4,157 votes
- De los Angeles – 3,576 votes
- Luna protested in the Court of First Instance. After trial and decision, this Court in Luna v. Rodriguez and De los Angeles (37 Phil. Rep. 186) set aside the decision and ordered a new trial.
- Second trial and lower court decision
- Judge William E. McMahon presided over the new hearing, admitted additional evidence and upheld most municipal returns except:
- Taytay – 50 ballots for Rodriguez were invalid and deducted.
- Binangonan – Polls were not closed at 6 p.m.; a number of votes cast after closing were deducted en bloc from Rodriguez’s total without distinguishing to candidate.
- After these deductions, Judge McMahon found Luna had a plurality and ordered the board of canvassers to amend its count. Both parties appealed, presenting multiple assignments of error, which this Court consolidated into three principal legal questions.
Issues:
- What is the legal effect of holding the polls open after the hour fixed by statute?
- What is the effect of assisting incapacitated voters without requiring the prescribed oath or record?
- What is the effect of failing to provide voting booths in strict conformity with statutory specifications?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)