Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967
PRISCILO G. INTING, petitioner,
vs.
ZOILA L. CLARIN, respondent.
Cristito O. Cimagala for petitioner.
Jose Zafra for respondent.
ANGELES, J.:
An appeal by writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the protestant-appellee, Zoila L. Clarin, elected Mayor of Loay, Bohol, in the general elections of November 12, 1963, with a plurality of twenty-six (26) votes over the opponent, Priscilo Inting, protestee-appellant. In the lower court, the protestant was declared winner with a plurality of two (2) votes.
The case was elevated to this Court on October 26, 1967, and it was included in the agenda of cases for deliberation by the Court on November 6, 1967, on which date the Court resolved to give due course to the petition, and required the petitioner to deposit, within five days from notice, the docket and legal research fees. The legal fees were paid on November 8, 1967.
Notice was given to the respondent, Zoila L. Clarin, to file her memorandum within five (5) days from receipt of notice of the resolution; however, as no memorandum nor manifestation that the case is being submitted on the pleadings, notwithstanding the lapse of more than two weeks, had been received from the said respondent, the case was submitted for decision on December 6, 1967.
Assailed in the petition is the conclusion of the appellate court declaring invalid nine (9) ballots for the protestee-appellant (Inting) for the reason that an initial is written preceding the printed numerals on each of the ballots, while in the case of twenty-five (25) ballots for the protestant-appellee (Clarin) each of which also bears identical marking, the appellate court declared the ballots valid and counted them in favor of the protestant.
Here is presented a side-by-side comparison of the ballots referred to:
|
Ballots for the protestee invalidated by the appellate court — |
Ballots for the protestant invalidated by the trial court, reversed, and declared valid by the appellate court — |
|
P3-CI-27, letter "F" preceding figure 4 (councilor); |
Pc-IC-27, word "Tome" preceding figure 7 (senator); |
|
P-3-CI-29, letter "E" preceding figures 2 and 3, respectively, (councilor); |
P5-IC-9, word "Esteban" preceding figure 1 (councilor); |
|
P-3-CI-44, letter "G" and "A" preceding figures 2 and 3, respectively, (councilor); |
P5-IC-17, prefix "Atty" preceding figure 4 (senator); |
|
P3-CI-71, letter "A" preceding figure 6 (councilor); |
P5-IC-35, prefix and word Atty and "Pepe" preceding figure 2 (senator); |
|
P3-CI-75, letter "G" preceding figure 2 (councilor); |
P5-47, letter "V" preceding figure 4 (senator); |
|
P3-CI-83, letters "F" preceding figure 4 (councilor); |
P6-IC-9, name "Toney" preceding figure 4 (senator); |
|
P-3-CI-96, letters "A" and "F" preceding figures 3 and 4, respectively (councilor); |
P7-IC-38, word "Dart" preceding figure 1 (senator); |
|
P3-CI-114, letter "C" preceding figure 1 (board member); |
P7-IC-4, "CIB" preceding figure 3 (senator); |
|
P3-CI-125, letter "G" preceeding figure 5 (councilor). |
P7-IC-48, word "Piping" preceding figure 6 (senator); |
|
P9-IC-12, word "Rudolf" preceding figure 3 (senator); |
|
P10-IC-99, word "Peping" preceding figure 7 (councilor); |
|
P11-IC-40, word "Dodong" preceding figure 2 (board member); |
|
P11-IC-74, letter "A" preceding figures 5 (senator); |
|
P11-IC-42, prefix "SB" preceding figure 4 (senator); |
|
P15-IC-13, letter "V" preceding figure 5 (senator); |
|
P15-IC-56, word "Rudy" preceding figure 5 (senator); |
|
P19-IC-5, word "Artur" preceding figure 2 (senator); |
|
|
|
P19-IC-7, word "Arturo" preceding figure 3 (senator); |
|
P19-IC-90, word "Patang" or Pa-ang preceding figure 1(councilor); |
|
P20-IC-26, word "Sen" preceding figure 2 (senator); |
|
P-20-IC-16, word "Sen" preceding figure 2 (senator); |
|
P20-IC-61, letter "C" preceding figure 2 (senator); |
|
P21-IC-98, Letter "R" preceding figure 4 (senator); |
|
P21-IC-99, letters "V" and J preceding figures 6 and 7(senator) but without name of voted senator; |
|
P22-IC-30, prefix "Atty" preceding figure 3 (senator) |
It is to be noted that the above-mentioned nine (9) ballots for the protestee invalidated by the appellate court, all came from one precinct, Precinct 3. This fact, taken together with the circumstances that the initials are written preceding the printed numbers on the ballots all of which correspond to the lines for councilor, impliedly suggests that the marking was a preconceived pattern designedly placed on the ballot to identify it thereafter. The ruling invalidating said nine (9) ballots as marked, is affirmed.
With regard to the twenty-five (25) ballots for the protestant contested by the protestee of which thirteen bear distinctive marks, thus P4-IC-27 (Tome), P5-IC-9 (Esteban), P5-IC-35 (Pepe), P6-IC-9 (Toney), P7-IC-4 (CIB), P7-IC-38 (Dart), P10-IC-99 (Peping), P11-IC-40 (Dodong), P15-IC-56 (Rudy), P19-IC-5 (Artur), P19-IC-7 (Arturo), P19-IC-90 (Patang or "Pa-ang), P21-IC-99 (letters "V" and "J" before figures 6 and 7 [senator]), but without names of voted senator, these thirteen ballots were declared invalid because of the presence thereon of impertinent and irrelevant expressions. The remaining twelve (12) ballots are declared valid votes for the protestant because, albeit each of the said twelve (12) ballots contained the marking of an initial or a prefix preceding the printed number thereon, said marks appeared only in three or four ballots of each precinct, and there appears to be no indication that the superfluous mark or sign was placed on the ballot to identify its voter.
The next being assailed by the protestee-appellant is the conclusion of the appellate court declaring invalid eleven (11) ballots for protestee-appellant, for the reason that on each of said ballots there appears an initial preceding the printed numbers. Said ballots are — three (3) from Precinct 15; four (4) from Precinct 16; and, (4) from Precinct 21.
Conformably with the ruling laid down with respect to the nine (9) and twenty-five (25) ballots hereinabove discussed, We hold that the aforementioned ballots, shall be, as they are hereby declared valid votes for the protestee. This is in keeping with the principle that a ballot which has been cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the voter, and hence, extreme caution should be observed before it is invalidated. (Cacho v. Abad, 62 Phil. 564, 566).
We do not agree also with the Court of Appeals in considering as invalid some other eleven (11) ballots for the protestee-appellant, where on each ballot an initial or letter is written over the printed word for a position from Precincts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 22, for instance, in Exhibit P6-CI-65, the letter "C" is placed over the printed word "Vice Mayor" when on the other hand, the appellate court itself has considered as valid in favor of the protestant twenty-seven (27) ballots which have identical marks appearing also over the printed word of a position. Accordingly the aforesaid eleven (11) ballots are counted as valid votes for Inting.
We have not passed upon the other errors assigned in the petition for the reason that they involve factual issues.
In recapitulation, out of the 1,798 votes declared by the Court of Appeals as legally garnered by the protestant, thirteen (13) should be deducted for being invalid votes; to the 1,772 votes declared in favor of protestee should be added twenty-two (22) more — which makes 1,785 votes for the former and 1,794 for the latter, and, therefore, the protestee has won with a plurality of nine (9) votes over the protestant.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the court a quo, declaring the protestant as the elected Mayor of Loay, Bohol, in the November 1963 elections, is hereby reversed, with costs against the said protestant, herein respondent.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
