G.R. No. L-21228; November 22, 1963
NICETAS FELISILDA, petitioner, vs. CRISPULO ACHACOSO, respondent.

FACTS

In the 1959 elections for mayor of Duero, Bohol, Nicetas Felisilda was proclaimed winner over Crispulo Achacoso by a margin of 60 votes. Achacoso filed an election protest. The trial court, after invalidating certain ballots, declared Achacoso the winner by 96 votes. Felisilda appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the decision, still declaring Achacoso elected but with a reduced plurality of 12 votes.
Felisilda elevated the case to the Supreme Court, assigning four errors. He argued the appellate court wrongly invalidated nine ballots cast for him as marked, erroneously stated three other disallowed ballots were counted for him, incorrectly validated twenty-nine ballots for Achacoso, and failed to review thirty ballots disallowed by the lower court for containing prefixes.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible errors in its appreciation of the contested ballots, which would alter the final vote count and the election result.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, declaring Felisilda elected. The legal logic centered on the proper appreciation of ballots and the admissibility of evidence aliunde. The Court first upheld the trial court’s refusal to consider testimonial evidence presented after the ballots were examined by commissioners, deeming such evidence unreliable and an “after-thought” that could open the door to undesirable practices.
On the merits, the Court ruled that the nine ballots (Exhibits B-60, B-205, B-196, B-277, B-442, B-75, B-429, B-395, B-138) containing prefixes like “Noong,” “Parie,” “Pri,” “dont,” “Don,” “Señor”/”Sr.,” “ter,” and “Mr.” were not marked. In the absence of admissible extrinsic evidence showing a deliberate intent to identify the voter, such prefixes, often honorifics or common misspellings, do not per se invalidate a ballot. The three ballots (B-142, B-145, B-148) were confirmed to have been disallowed by the trial court, not counted for Felisilda as the appellate court mistakenly thought; being valid, they were added to his tally.
For Achacoso, the Court invalidated Exhibit A-413, which contained only his nickname “Polo” for mayor. Under Section 149(9) of the Revised Election Code, a nickname alone is insufficient; it must be accompanied by the candidate’s name or surname. Other ballots for Achacoso containing his nickname alongside his surname were correctly validated. Finally, the Court declined to review the thirty ballots disallowed by the lower court, as Felisilda failed to assign this as error in the Court of Appeals. While an election protest appeal opens the entire case, a party must still call the appellate court’s attention to specific matters for review.
The recalculation yielded 1,478 votes for Felisilda and 1,477 for Achacoso. Consequently, Felisilda was declared elected mayor by a plurality of one vote.