G.R. No. L-63510 December 26, 1984
AURELIO ALEMAN, petitioner, vs. HON. MELECIO GENATO (retired) as former Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, succeeded by Hon. Glicerio V. Carriage, Jr.; and NICANOR CARAMBA, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 17, 1982 barangay elections for Mialen, Clarin, Misamis Occidental, Aurelio Aleman was proclaimed the winner with 393 votes against Nicanor Caramba’s 358 votes. Caramba filed an election protest, alleging irregularities including voting by non-registered individuals. The Municipal Circuit Court invalidated 12 votes from Aleman, reducing his total to 381, which still gave him a 23-vote lead over Caramba’s unchanged 358 votes.
On Caramba’s appeal, the Court of First Instance (CFI) invalidated an additional 26 votes from Aleman, categorizing the voters as “flying voters.” This deduction left Aleman with only 355 votes, resulting in Caramba being declared the winner. Aleman challenged this CFI decision via certiorari, arguing that even assuming the voters were flying voters, there was no specific evidence presented that those individuals actually voted for him to justify deducting their ballots from his total.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in deducting ballots from the protestee’s total count without evidentiary proof that the invalidated flying voters cast their votes in his favor.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle in election cases that the true will of the electorate must be ascertained based on concrete evidence. A deduction of votes from a candidate’s tally is a penalizing act that requires positive proof linking the invalidated ballots to that specific candidate. The respondent CFI’s deduction of 26 votes was based on a presumption that the flying voters voted for Aleman, but the court’s successor judge admitted the decision relied merely on a “presumption in good faith” of the retired judge’s meticulousness, not on any evidentiary record.
The Supreme Court found no evidentiary basis in the records to show that the 26 questioned voters actually voted for Aleman. Consequently, the deduction constituted grave abuse of discretion as it was not supported by evidence but by mere presumption, which is insufficient to justify altering an election result. To resolve the matter definitively and uphold the paramount objective of determining the genuine expression of the popular will, the Court ordered a physical recount of the ballots. It directed the respondent judge to conduct the recount with deliberate speed and to reappreciate the ballots to resolve the protest based on the actual evidence found therein.