Garchitorena vs Crescini

Garchitorena v. Crescini (December 18, 1918) De Facto Officers Physical possession of the Office FC!"# On the $th of %&ne 191$ an election 'as hel in the province of mobos, Camarines,for the electoral position position of overnor overnor an other provincial provincial an m&nicipal m&nicipal officers. officers. !he sai overnor position position 'as bein vie by the names of nres Garchitorena, *an&el Crescini, +nracio mperial an Francisco -otor. fter  fter  the elections 'ere close an the ret&rns of the ballots 'ere mae by the inspectors of the vario&s m&nicipalities to the provincial boar of inspectors, the follo'in are the res<s of the sai election,  nres Garchitorena ha receive ,/$8 votes0 that *an&el Crescini ha receive ,198 votes0 that +nracio mperial ha receive 1,92/ votes an Francisco -otor ha receive $9 votes. fter the final e3amination an tallyin of votes by the -oar of nspectors, they eclare *an&el Crescini as the ne'ly electe Governor, for he receive the pl&rality of votes cast. !hey iss&e a certificate to him as he 'as proclaime the 'inner. 4pon notice of sai proclamation, immeiately the r&nner &p, nres Garchitorena presente a protest aainst sai election, contenin that there 'ere many fra&s an irre&larities committe in vario&s m&nicipalities of the sai province, also he allee that he receive a ma5ority of all the leal votes cast. !'o !'o trials 'ere con&cte, an the 5&es (*ina an Parees) both fo&n in favor of  petitioner.

""4+# 6hether or not petitioner 'on the elections.

74G# :es :es Petitioner, in this case is the 'inner in the elections. !he pres&mption is that an election is honestly con&cte, an the b&ren of proof to sho' it other'ise is on the party assailin the ret&rn. -&t 'hen the ret&rn is clearly sho'n to be 'illf&lly an corr&ptly false, the 'hole of it becomes 'orthless as proof. 6hen the election has been con&cte so irre&larly an fra&&lently that the tr&e res< cannot be ascertaine, the 'hole ret&rn m&st be re5ecte. t is impossible to ma;e a list of all the fra&s 'hich 'ill invaliate an election. +ach case m&st rest &pon its o'n evience. !he recor of the fra&s an irre&larities committe in the sai m&nicipalities in 'hich %&es *ina an Parees ann&lle the entire vote, not only sho's that leal voters 'ere prevente from votin, b&t in some instances, leal ballots 'ere tampere 'ith an estroye after they ha been cast, to s&ch an e3tent that no confience can be place in the ret&rn. !he ret&rn in no sense iscloses the e3presse 'ill of the voters. voters. "earch "earch has been mae in vain for cases cases in 5&rispr& 5&rispr&en ence ce in 'hich the fra&s fra&s an irre&larities committe 'ere more larin an more atrocio&s, an in 'hich the real 'ill of the voters 'ere more effectively efeate, than is fo&n in the recors in sai m&nicipalities in the present case. !he statements of fact mae by %&es *ina an Parees relatin to sai fra&s an irre&larities are f&lly s&staine by the evience a&ce &rin the trial of the ca&se.