G.R. No. 71843 and L-71844, March 12, 1986
Lourdesito Deferia, et al., petitioners, vs. Honorable Edgardo L. Paras, et al., respondents.

FACTS

This consolidated petition originated from election contests for Barangay officials in Barangay Mabini, Cadiz City, following the May 17, 1982 elections. Petitioner Lourdesito Deferia, a defeated candidate for Barangay Captain, and petitioners Gil Ore and Alexander Gabriel, defeated candidates for Councilmen, filed separate protests in the City Court (later Municipal Trial Court). They alleged massive fraud and irregularities in Precincts 56 and 57, including a policeman ordering the cessation of vote counting and the carting away of a ballot box in Precinct 56, and multiple voting and ballot tampering in Precinct 57. Specifically, they alleged that a voter, Docer Camposa, voted ten times in Precinct 57.
After initial testimony, petitioners moved to reopen the ballot box for Precinct 57 to present the ballots as evidence. Presiding Judge Alfredo Hilario denied the motion, reasoning that the evidence of multiple voting could pertain to assisting illiterate voters, which is permitted, and that petitioners failed to specifically name the individuals who voted multiple times or to lodge a prior challenge with the Citizens Election Committee. Petitioners then filed a certiorari petition directly with the Intermediate Appellate Court, bypassing the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Trial Court Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reopen the ballot boxes for examination.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion. While the Appellate Court correctly held that the certiorari petition should have been filed first with the RTC, the Supreme Court resolved to decide the merits to abbreviate proceedings in line with the policy for speedy disposition of barangay election contests. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that in an election contest, ballot boxes may be opened when allegations of fraud are substantiated by competent evidence. Here, the lower court itself acknowledged in its order that “there is evidence that voting more than once was allowed in Voting Center No. 57.” This admission provided a substantive basis for the motion. The judge’s assumption that this could be lawful assistance to illiterates was speculative and made without supporting evidence. Furthermore, the absence of a prior challenge before the election committee should not preclude the opening of ballot boxes when there is testimonial evidence of irregularities, as the paramount objective is to ascertain the genuine will of the electorate. Therefore, the denial of the motion, which effectively barred crucial evidence, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The Supreme Court set aside the challenged orders and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion to open the ballot box for Precinct 57.