Garchitorena vs. Crescini and Imperial 39 Phil. 158 (1918) JOHNSON, J.

: Facts: On the 6th day of June, 1916, an election was held in Ambos Camarines for governor, and other provincial and municipal officers. At said election, Andres Garchitorena, Manuel Crescini, Engracio Imperial, and Francisco Botor were candidates for the office of governor. The election was closed. The returns were made by the inspectors of the various municipalities to the provincial board of inspectors which, after an examination of said returns, reached the conclusion that Andres Garchitorena had received 2,468 votes; that Manuel Crescini had received 3,198 votes; that Engracio Imperial had received 1,954 votes and Francisco Botor had received 692 votes. Upon that result the provincial board of inspectors decided that Manuel Crescini had received a plurality of all votes cast, made a proclamation declaring that he had been elected Governor, and issued to him a certificate to that effect. Immediately upon notice of said proclamation, Andres Garchitorena presented a protest against said election, alleging that many frauds and irregularities had been committed in various municipalities of said province, and that he had, in fact, received a majority of all legal votes cast. To said protest answer was duly made, issue was joined, and a trial was had, after which the Honorable Maximino Mina, judge, in a very carefully prepared opinion, declared that Andres Garchitorena had, in fact, received a majority of the legal votes cast, and ordered the provincial board of inspectors to correct its report theretofore made, accordingly. Later, for certain reasons, a new trial was ordered which was had before the Honorable Isidro Paredes, judge, who, after considering all the proof adduced during the trial of the cause, reached exactly the conclusion which Judge Maximino Mina had theretofore reached, and issued the same order to the provincial board of inspectors, requiring them to correct their report or canvass in accordance with said decision. From that decision, Manuel Crescini and Engracio Imperial appealed to this Court, briefs were presented, and the cause was finally submitted for decision on the 16th day of December, 1918. Issue: Whether or not Judge Paredes and Mina acted in grave abuse of discretion in ruling out in favor of Garchitoreni.

Held: No. . Courts, of course, should be slow in nullifying and setting aside the election in particular municipalities or precincts, and they should not nullify the vote until it is shown that the irregularities and frauds are so numerous as to show an unmistakable intention or design to defraud, and which does actually and in fact defeat the true expression of the opinion of the voters of said precinct or municipality. A reading of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, in relation with the facts stated in connection therewith, in said municipalities, shows an unmistakable intention and design on the part not only of the election inspectors but of many of the voters, to defeat, by the methods adopted, the true expression of opinion, through the ballot, of the people of said municipalities. The presumption is that an election is honestly conducted, and the burden of proof to show it otherwise is on the party assailing the return. But when the return is clearly shown to be wilfully, and corruptly false, the whole of it becomes worthless as proof. When the election has been conducted so irregularly and fraudulently that the true result cannot be ascertained, the whole return must be rejected. The record of the frauds and irregularities committed in the said municipalities in which Judges Mina and Paredes annulled the entire vote, not only shows that legal voters were prevented from voting, but in some instances, legal ballots were tampered with and destroyed after they had been cast, to such an extent that no confidence can be placed in the return. The return in no sense discloses the expressed will of the voters. Search has been made in vain for cases in jurisprudence in which the frauds and irregularities committed were more glaring and more atrocious, and in

which the real will of the voters were more effectively defeated, than is found in the records in said municipalities in the present case. The statements of fact made by Judges Mina and Paredes relating to said frauds and irregularities are fully sustained by the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause. Hence, said judges did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling out in favor of Garchitorena.