You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

L-42288

February 16, 1935

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
CORNELIO BAYONA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
At about eleven o'clock of June 5, 1934, while the general election in
the precinct number 4, located in the neighborhood of Aranguel the
Municipality of Pilar, Province of Capiz, defendant was surprised by Jose E.
Desiderio, who was then the representative of the Department of Interior to
inspect the general election in the Province of Capiz, and the commander of
the Constabulary F.B Agdamag going on this occasion with said Jose E.
Desiderio, carrying in his belt the 32 caliber Colt revolver, within the fence
surrounding the building intended for the said polling station number 4, and
a distance 22 meters of that polling station. Immediately Jose E. Desiderio
was seized the revolver in question.
The defense, through the testimony of Jose D. Benliro and Dioscorus
Buenvenida, try to establish that the defendant stop here on the street in
front of the polling station was number 4 of this invitation and Jose D. Benliro
order to beg the said defendant to bring home to the voters of said Jose D.
Benliro who had already finished voting, and that when they arrived and Jose
E. Desidierio and the commander of the Constabulary F.B Agdamag , the
defendant here was on the street. From the polling station to the site where,
according to the witnesses, the defendant was when he took off a distance of
27 meters.
As to the contention that the defendant could not leave his revolver in his
automobile without the risk of losing it because he was alone, it is sufficient
to say that under the circumstances it was not necessary for the defendant
to leave his automobile merely because somebody standing near the polling
place had called him, nor does the record show that it was necessary for the
defendant to carry arms on that occasion.
ISSUE: W/N defendant violated is a statutory provision of election rule 50
meters away from polling station
HELD: No. Officer in pursuing a criminal; nor would the prohibition

extend to persons living within fifty meters of a polling place, who

merely clean or handle their firearms within their own residences


on election day, as they would not be carrying firearms within the
contemplation of the law. that in the case at bar there is no
evidence that the defendant went to the election precinct either
to vote or to work for the candidacy of anyone, but on the other
hand the evidence shows that the defendant had no intention to
go to the electoral precinct; that he was merely passing along the
road in front of the building where the election was being held
when a friend of his called him; that while in the strict, narrow
interpretation of the law the defendant is guilty, it would be
inhuman and unreasonable to convict him. The intention to
intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election is
not made an essential element of the offense. Unless such an
offender actually makes use of his revolver, it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he intended to intimidate
the voters.
Therefore, the court adopt the specious reasoning that the
appellant should be acquitted because it was not proved that he
tried to influence or intended to influence the mind of any voter,
anybody could sell intoxicating liquor or hold a cockfight or a
horse race on election day with impunity.