Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21124 November 8, 1963
JESUS JIMENEZ, SR., protestant-appellee,
vs.
MARGARITO LOFRANCO, protestee-appellant.
(Election Case No. 1305 of the Court of First Instance of Bohol)
GREGORIO APARECE, ET AL., protestants-appellees,
vs.
MARINO PACALDO, ET AL., protestees-appellants.
(Election Case No. 1315 of the Court of First Instance of Bohol)
BENGZON, C.J.:
These are two election protests coming up from the Bohol court of first instance. The first (No. 1305) concerns the office of Mayor, Inabanga, Bohol, and the second (1315) relates to that of Vice-Mayor and councilors of the same town.
Said court declared protestant Jesus Jimenez the duly elected Mayor, and Protestant Gregorio Aparece and Councilor Lofranco, Vice-Mayor and councilor, respectively. According to the court, the first won by a plurality of 504 votes, the second by 295 votes and the third by 222 votes.
The three losers went to the Court of Appeals for revision; but the latter forwarded the matter to this Tribunal. Two questions are involved. The first is whether the lower court committed error in rejecting as "marked" ballots containing the prefixes "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", "Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.", " Dra.", "Gob.", etc.
The trial judge, Hon. Hipolito Alo rejected hundreds of ballots for protestees 1 containing such prefixes for the following reasons:
In sustaining the invalidity of the ballots, we took into account the following circumstances:
(a) In every ballot only one candidate is given a prefix, the rest none. And we believe that such procedure was followed in order to identify the elector who had prepared that ballot. Among the invalidated ballots we do not find a single ballot where two candidates bear prefixes.
(b) In several ballots the prefixes given to one and the same candidate are of different nature, thus facilitating the identity of the electors who had prepared them.
We are not obvious of our duty to use extreme caution before invalidating a ballot, but from a cursory reading of the invalidated ballots, where different prefixes are used, an impartial mind will be fully convinced that such prefixes have no other purpose than to identify the electors who had prepared the ballots. It is for instance beyond human comprehension that while in the ballot a candidate for councilor is given the prefix Hon., no single candidate either for Senator or Governor is given the same prefix in that ballot, neither is the rest of the candidate given any prefix.
xxx xxx xxx
Although Section 149, paragraph 5, of the Revised Election Code provides:
Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", "Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.", "Dr.", "Gob.", or suffixes like "hijo", "Jr.", "Segundo", are valid."
this law only applies if the prefixes were not used as identification marks.
Upon a review of the ballots with prefixes — which are all mentioned in the decision — we cannot say that the trial judge committed legal error in rejecting the same and practically declaring that the protestee or their partisans, cleverly taking advantage of the provisions of section 149, Paragraph 5, devised a pattern or system to mark and identify ballots and votes, and employed the same in the different precincts. Let us consider ballots in one precinct — No. 1 for instance — which the judge invalidated:.
In the space for Senators
Exhibit B-35. — Mr. Almendras
Exhibit B-63. — Ginoo Almendras
Exhibit B-81. — Dr. Almendras
Exhibit B-83. — Aly Almendras
Exhibit B-94. — Datu Almendras
Exhibit B-103. — Hon. Almendras
Exhibit B-78. — Datu Borja
Exhibit B-97. — J. Borja Logio (The name of the candidate Jacinto C. Borja).
Exhibit B-8. — Dato Cea (The name of the candidate is Edmundo Cea).
Exhibit B-19. — Gono-o Cea
Exhibit B-87. — Hon. Cea
Exhibit B-25. — Ginoo Dopes
Exhibit B-66. — Dr. Dopez
Exhibit B-68. — Hon. Dopez
Exhibit B-73. — Mr. Lopez
Exhibit B-86. — Don Lopez
Exhibit B-10. — Mr. Magsaysay
Exhibit B-12. — Dr. Magsaysay
Exhibit B-13. — Rep. Magsaysay
Exhibit B-16. — Sir Magsaysay
Exhibit B-45. — Ginoo Magsaysay
Exhibit B-52. — Daato Magsaysay
Exhibit B-4. — Mr. Pajo
Exhibit B-74. — Ginoo Pajo
Exhibit B-17. — Sir Quymson (The name of the candidate Sofronio Ouimson).
Exhibit B-59. — Hon. Quimson
Exhibit B-64. — Dato Quimson
Exhibit B-79. — Dr. Quimson
Exhibit B-90. — Guino-o Quimson
Exhibit B-18. — Mr. Rodriguez (The name of the candidate Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr.)
Exhibit B-84. — Ginoo Rodriguez
Exhibit B-9. — Ginoo Tañada (The name of the candidate Lorenzo Tañada).
Exhibit B-15. — Hon. Tañada
Exhibit B-39. — Mr. Tañada
In the space for Vice-Governor.
Exhibit B-43. — Timmy Datulid (The name of the candidate Timoteo Butalid).
In the space for Board Members.
Exhibit B-76. — Sir Araneta (The name of the candidate Jose Ma. Araneta).
Exhibit B-3. — Ginoo Chatto (The name of the candidate Lino Chatto).
Exhibit B-6. — Sir Chatto
Exhibit B-28. — Datu Chatto
Exhibit B-20. — Datu Enerio (The name of the candidate Benedicto Enerio).
Exhibit B-82. — Gino-o Enero
Exhibit B-99. — Dr. Enerio
Exhibit B-1l. — Ginoo Peñaflor (The name of the candidate Crispina Peñalor).
Exhibit B-53. — Dora Peñaflor
Exhibit B-58. — Datu Peñaflor
Exhibit B-61. — Don Peñaflor
Exhibit B-67. — Dr. Peñaflor
Exhibit B-72. — Hon. Pingping Peñaflor
Exhibit B-80. — Sir Peñaflor
In the space for Mayor.
Exhibit B-7. — M. M. Lofranco (The name of the candidate is Margarito J. Lofranco).
Exhibit B-21. — Mr. Lofranco
Exhibit B-32. — Ginoo M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-48. — Don M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-54. — Dr. M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-55. — Sir Tito Franco.
In the space for Councilors
Exhibit B-57. — M. R. A. Anabesa (The name of the candidate is Alejandro Añabienza).
Exhibit B-62. — Dr. A. Añabieza
Exhibit B-69. — Ginoo A. Añabieza
Exhibit B-71. — Don A. Añabieza
Exhibit B-98. — Hon. Añabieza
Exhibit B-14. — Sir F. Bautista (The name of the candidate is Fortunato Bautista).
Exhibit B-46. — Don F. Bautista
Exhibit B-50. — Datu F. Bautista
Exhibit B-77. — Hon. F. Bautista
Exhibit B-5. — Datu Jose Lofranco (The name of the candidate is Jose A. Lofranco).
Exhibit B-23. — Don Jose Lofranco
Exhibit B-24. — Hon. Jose Lofranco
Exhibit B-60. — Dr. J. Lofranco
Exhibit B-40. — Hon M. Melecio (The name of the candidate is Marcial Melecio).
Exhibit B-89. — Don M. Melecio
Exhibit B-95. — Dr. Melecio
Exhibit B-101. — Datu M. Melicio
Exhibit B-38. — Hon. A. Niñeza (The name of the candidate is Anastacio Neneza).
Exhibit B-42. — Sir A. Niñeza
Exhibit B-49. — Mr. A. Niñez
Exhibit B-51. — Don A. Niñeza
Exhibit B-92. — Datu A. Niñeza
Exhibit B-29. — Don S. Petalcorin (The name of the candidate is Sotera Sotera E. Petalcorin).
Exhibit B-41. — Datu S. Petalcorin
Exhibit B-65. — Hon. S. Petalcorin
Exhibit B-96. — Mr. S. Petalcorin
Exhibit B-36. — Ginoo Petesio (The name of the candidate is Emeterio Petecio).
Exhibit B-44. — Dato E. Petecio
Exhibit B-47. — Dr. E. Peticio
Exhibit B-56. — Mr. E. Petecio
Exhibit B-26. — Sir. C. Terrefranca (The name of the candidate is Cresenciano Torrefranca).
Exhibit B-30. — Hon. C. Torrefranca
Exhibit B-93. — SIR C. Torrefranca
Exhibit B-05. — Don C. Torrefranca
It is noticeable and significant that the prefixes above given to the same candidate in one precinct are not repeated. In one precinct, the candidate Lofranco was given in the same precinct about 30 different prefixes, none of them repeated. See this list of Precinct No. 2.
In the space for Mayor
Exhibit B-110. — Tay M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-112. — Darling M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-123. — Talahuron Lofranco
Exhibit B-124. — Into M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-127. — Abe M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-129. — Brod M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-131. — Abay M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-132. — Kasama M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-136. — Doña M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-140. — Momoy M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-143. — Migs. M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-149. — Teacher M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-152. — Sr. Margarito Lofranco
Exhibit B-154. — Boutan M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-155. — Chico M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-160. — Binati M. Lofranco
Exhibit H-161. — Prin. Margarito Ufranco
Exhibit B-162. — Dadde M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-165. — Halangdon M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-166. — Igso M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-168. — Engco M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-169. — Kaibigan M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-172. — Tata M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-176. — Cherry M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-177. — Eyo M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-178. — For M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-184. — Oyong M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-186. — Yoyog M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-187. — Noy M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-199. — Comrad M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-190. — Titing M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-191. — Nong M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-193. — Director M. Lofranco
Exhibit B-195. — Dad M. Lofranco.
And this system of marking was used more or less extensively in 38 other precincts of the 43 election precincts in that town.
Protestees alleged that the prefixes were used merely as a sign of respect; and some witnesses were presented to that effect. Yet, it was not shown that these were the same voters who had cast the marked ballots. And it is incredible that one candidate from Pangasinan (Quimson) should get such appellations as "Dato", "Dr.", "Hon.", "Sir", "Guino-o", whereas none of Bohol received equally respectful appellations in the same ballots. (The province had such candidates for Senator as Borja and Pajo.).
Finally, although this is not necessarily conclusive, there is the telling circumstance that the protestees themselves regarded as marked — and so objected thereto other ballots of protestants that bore the same or similar prefixes or suffixes. And the court, acting impartially, sustained the objections, and rendered many ballots for protestants too.
As already stated, the use of prefixes to identify, appears to have been used in forty out of the 43 election precincts of the municipality. It would not be far-fetched to hold that appellees cleverly resorted to it, but the contestuncovered the deception, and the court quite correctly frustrated it.
The second and last question is appellants' contention that the trial judge should have invalidated the returns of the whole precinct No. 5, after finding several ballots (1-2) written by two hands (each ballot) and several ballots (5) written by one hand (all of them). We hold that this has no merit, these — alone — being insufficient to justify annulment of the balloting in the entire precinct. Anyway, the whole precinct had only 132 votes (p. 105. brief of appellants) and supposing they were all for protestants, the annulment thereof could not obviously overcome their plurality specified at the beginning of this decision (504, 295, 222, respectively).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellants.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Labrador and Paredes, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1 Other similarly marked ballots for protestants were also rejected.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
