ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
JUAN DE
LA CRUZ,
G. R. No. 12256 February 6, 1917 -versus-PERCY M. MOIR, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, MELECIO M. TRINIDAD, FULGENCIO JAYME AND LEOCADIO BLANCO, Respondents. MORELAND, J:
This is a Petition for
a Writ of Certiorari to be directed to the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga
requiring him to remit to this court, all the records and papers
relating
to a certain election contest pending therein instituted by Juan de la
Cruz against Melecio M. Trinidad, that the proceeding had in said
contest
may be revised by this Court and certain of the steps taken therein be
declared null and void on the ground that they were taken by the court
without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
"That in trying to identify these votes of the illiterates, the petitioner moved the Court below to put the election inspectors of Macabebe on the witness stand requiring them to select and separate and annul the said votes of the supposed illiterates, but the respondent judge refused to grant said motion of the petitioner, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction and abusing his judicial discretion. "That during the trial of the protest, the petitioner has offered to prove that of the 193 voters who voted as illiterates a great majority could write and could personally prepare their own ballots without the necessity of the aid of the inspectors, and that this mode of voting was adopted by the inspectors of the election only to perpetrate fraud on the votes; but all the evidence offered to this point by the petitioner, to wit, (1) Exhibit D [in the Court below] which is a collection of the certificates of oaths of all the electors of Macabebe wherein can be seen who can write and who cannot; (2) Exhibit E [Court below] which is the list of the 193 voters who voted as illiterates and (3) witness Cornelio Bustos who knew the majority of these voters as he has been an election inspector too in the said municipality of Macabebe in one of he last elections, was rejected by the respondent judge notwithstanding this evidence is material, competent and relevant to the allegations of the petitioner in the protest. This rejection of evidence constitutes on the part of the respondent judge a violation of his duty and an abuse of his judicial discretion the correction of which law and justice demand. "That by separating and annulling the votes of the illiterates who voted in violation of the law the result of the election at the municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, will be changed in that the petitioner herein will have the majority of the legal votes cast at that election and will therefore have to be declared elected instead of respondent Melecio M. Trinidad. "That the said respondent judge, the Hon. Percy M. Moir, has also exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion in that upon opening the ballot box he has refused, to the prejudice of the petitioner, to annul 62 ballots for the respondent Melecio M. Trinidad in spite of the fact that these 62 ballots were marked with certain initials, said initials having not been proven to have been put without the knowledge and consent of the votes. On the other hand, the petitioner has conclusively proven that the votes themselves made those marks while preparing their ballots, that the ballot boxes were carefully and duly are for by the municipal secretary until said ballot boxes were delivered to the Court. "That the said respondent judge has also abused his discretion and thus exceeded his jurisdiction in finding and concluding after the ballot box was opened that the said ballot box has been tampered with while in the custody of the municipal secretary, when in fact there was no evidence produced by the respondents proving the tampering of the ballot box. "That by annulling these 62 marked ballots for respondent Melecio M. Trinidad, the result of the election at the municipality of Macabebe will be changed in that the petitioner Juan de la Cruz will have the majority of the legal votes cast in that election and will therefore be declared elected as municipal president instead of said respondent Melecio M. Trinidad. "That the respondent, the Hon. Percy M. Moir, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, has also exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion in not annulling the election had on June 6, 1916, at the municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, in spite of the fact that the evidence establishes [1] that while the inspectors were preparing the ballots of the alleged illiterates, there were present around them in the voting booths several other voters watching how the ballots were being filled by the inspectors thereby violating the secrecy of the election; [2] that the inspectors of respondent Melecio M. Trinidad in preparing the ballots for the illiterate voters did not at all ascertain the wishes of said illiterates but filled their ballots as said inspectors wished; [3] that the inspectors of respondent Melecio M. Trinidad were guilty of electioneering in the voting booths; [4] that the voting booths were not constructed in the manner provided for by the election law and were without doors; [5] that those who were waiting to vote near them could well see the ballots filled by the voters in their respective booths and could read such ballots if they wanted it; [6] that the voting booths were constructed outside of the guard rail; [7] that the public were prohibited by the inspectors to approach and observe the election within the distance of 30 meters with the exception of 10 voters at a time who were called to vote; [8] that the entrance of the voters to the electoral college was regulated in groups of 10 by 10 from each party, a mode adopted to discover before hand the force of each party, but a mode contrary to law. These facts have been proven although the respondent judge has failed to make findings of them, and these facts are sufficient to annul an election." Another ground upon which the petition was based was added by an amendment to the petition which says:
An Answer was duly filed
by which, while certain allegations of the petition are denied, the
main
facts are admitted. The denials referred chiefly not to fact alleged in
the petition but to conclusions which the petitioner draws from facts.
"Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause - the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction should, therefore, be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, as We have said before, the decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction." [p. 251].
"A full and thorough
examination of all the decided cases in this court touching the
question
of certiorari and prohibition fully supports the proposition already
stated
that, where a Court of First Instance has jurisdiction of the
subject-matter
and of the person, its decision of any question pertaining to the
cause,
however erroneous, cannot be reviewed by certiorari, but must be
corrected
by appeal" [p. 271].
None
of the acts set out
in the petition affect the jurisdiction of the Court. They are acts
performed
in the exercise of jurisdiction; and, even though the decision of the
Court
upon each one of the questions presented by the allegations of the
petition
was wrong in fact and in law, his jurisdiction would remain unaffected.
As We have said so many times, it is always necessary to bear in mind
the
difference between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. When
a Court exercise its jurisdiction, an error committed while engaged in
that exercise when the error is committed. If it did, every error
committed
by a court would deprive it of jurisdiction and every erroneous
judgment
would be a void judgment. This, of course, is not possible. The
administration
of justice would not survive such a rule. The decision of the trial
court
in the case before Us holding that certain ballots cast by illiterates
which had been prepared for them by the inspectors of election were
legal
and valid although the illiterates did not, previous to the preparation
of their ballots by the inspectors, take the oath required by law
showing
that they could not cast their ballots without assistance, is a
decision
entirely within the jurisdiction of the Court was wrong in that
decision.
The same could be said if he had held the precise contrary and had
excluded
all of the ballots cast by illiterates; and, of course, it necessarily
follows that his failure to separate those which the petitioner claims
were illegal from those he claims were legal does not alter the
situation.
The Court has power and authority to conduct the case as he believes
law
and justice require and whatever he does is within his jurisdiction so
long as he does not violate the principle of due process of law or
transcend
the limits of the case before him.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur. Trent, J., concurs in the result. |
|