ELEC - Chapter I

ANDRES GARCHITORENA vs.
MANUEL CRESCINI and ENGRACIO IMPERIAL

[G.R. No. 14514. December 18, 1918.]
FACTS:
Manuel Crescini: was elected and proclaimed as governor of the Province of Ambos Camarines in 1916 after he
received a plurality of all votes cast, garnering 3,198 votes.
Andres Garchitorena: was also a candidate for the office of governor of the Province of Ambos Camarines, but he lost
in the election, garnering only 2,468 votes. Upon Crescini’s proclamation, 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.
Judge Maximino Mina: 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. Judge Mina held that
the frauds and irregularities committed in the municipalities of Minalabac, Sagnay, Bato, Iriga, and Lagonoy were such
as to absolutely defeat the honest expression of the desires of the voters of said municipalities. Thus, the entire vote
in said municipalities were annulled.
Judge Isidro Paredes: After a new trial was ordered and held, he reached the same conclusion which Judge 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.
HELD:
a.) 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. It is impossible to make a list of all the
frauds which will invalidate an election. Each case must rest upon its own evidence.
b.) 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.
LEON MAQUERA vs. JUAN BORRA
[G.R. No. L-24761. September 7, 1965.]
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 4421: requires "all candidates for national, provincial, city and municipal offices" to "post a surety bond
equivalent to the one-year salary or emoluments of the position to which he is a candidate, which bond shall be forfeited
in favor of the national, provincial, city or municipal government concerned if the candidate, except when declared
winner, fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast for the office to which he has filed his certificate of candidacy, there
being not more than four candidates for the same office;"
COMELEC: In compliance with RA 4421, COMELEC, on July 20, 1965, decided to require all candidates for President, Vice-
President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives to file a surety bond, by a bonding company of good
reputation, acceptable to the Commission, in the sums of P60,000 and P40,000 for President and Vice-President,
respectively, and P32,000 for Senator and Member of the House of Representatives;
HELD:
a.) The effect of said RA 4421 is to prevent or disqualify from running for public office those persons who, although
having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution or by law therefor, cannot file the surety bond
aforementioned, owing to failure to pay the premium charged by the bonding company and/or lack of the
property necessary for said counterbond.
b.) Said property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican system ordained in
our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same, for said political system is premised upon
the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, and this, in
turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be voted for shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the
individual concerned, whereas social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that,
accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office; and
c.) The bond required in RA 4421 and the confiscation of said bond are not predicated upon the necessity of
defraying certain expenses or of compensating services given in connection with elections, and is, therefore,
arbitrary and oppressive. Thus, the Supreme Court held that RA 4421 is unconstitutional and hence null and void.

ELEC - Chapter I

Uploaded by

ELEC - Chapter I

Uploaded by

ANDRES GARCHITORENA vs.

MANUEL CRESCINI and ENGRACIO IMPERIAL

You might also like