GR L 19275; (November, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19275; November 29, 1963
MAXIMO FERRAREN, petitioner, vs. RAMON B. AÑONUEVO, respondent.
FACTS
In the 1959 mayoral election in San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Maximo Ferraren as the winner with a plurality of one vote over Ramon Añonuevo. Añonuevo filed an election protest contesting the results in Precinct No. 5. Ferraren, in turn, filed a counter-protest covering Precincts Nos. 1-A, 3, 3-A, and 6. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Añonuevo, declaring Ferraren’s proclamation null and void and ordering Añonuevo’s proclamation. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding Añonuevo received 718 votes against Ferraren’s 697. Ferraren appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate court’s rulings on the validity of specific ballots.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly adjudicated the validity of the contested ballots, thereby determining the true winner of the mayoral election.
RULING
The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the contested ballots, applying established principles on marked ballots and idem sonans. The legal logic centered on distinguishing between innocuous writings and marks placed for voter identification, which invalidate a ballot. For Ferraren’s protest in Precinct No. 5, the Court agreed that ballots with phrases like “Nako si Kristo” and “A.P.O.” in spaces for other offices were marked for identification and thus invalid. However, it reversed the appellate court on seven other ballots (Exhibits 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 12, 18), finding the writings like “Madalang” or “Ponsing” did not serve as identifying marks; these were considered merely stray votes but valid for Ferraren. On Añonuevo’s votes, the Court upheld ballots with “R. Ano” and “A Aneabo” as valid under the idem sonans rule for “Añonuevo.”
In the counter-protest for Precinct No. 1-A, the Court largely sustained the appellate court, rejecting claims of different handwriting or marked ballots, except for Exhibit Y, which was correctly invalidated as marked. For Precinct No. 3, the Court found five ballots (Exhibits AA, BB, CC, DD, HH) marked due to the name “D. Florida” and subtracted them from Añonuevo’s count. It credited Ferraren with Exhibit 30 (“Menarin” as idem sonans for “M. Ferraren”) but agreed Exhibit 31 was marked. After this detailed recalculation, the final tally showed Añonuevo with 711 votes and Ferraren with 708 votes. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed, with modification, the judgment declaring Ramon Añonuevo the duly elected mayor by a plurality of three votes.