GR L 6589; (January, 1954) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6589 and L-6655; January 29, 1954
Eligio Caraecle, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and Felix del Castillo, respondents. (G.R. No. L-6589)
Felix del Castillo, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and Eligio Caraecle, respondents. (G.R. No. L-6655)
FACTS
In the November 13, 1951 elections for mayor of Malangas, Zamboanga, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Eligio Caraecle as the winner with 636 votes against Felix del Castillo’s 612. Del Castillo filed an election protest contesting 39 ballots counted for Caraecle. Caraecle filed a counter-protest contesting 37 ballots for del Castillo. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, after trial, declared 28 of the 37 contested ballots valid for del Castillo and 16 of the 39 contested ballots valid for Caraecle. Adding these to the uncontested votes (601 for del Castillo and 596 for Caraecle), the trial court declared del Castillo the winner with 629 votes to Caraecle’s 612. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment but modified the plurality in favor of del Castillo to only 2 votes. Both parties then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
The primary issue revolves around the validity of specific contested ballots and whether they should be counted as votes for Caraecle or del Castillo, or rejected as marked ballots, to determine the rightful winner of the mayoral election.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals with modifications regarding the count of specific ballots and the final vote tally.
1. On Ballot B-15 of Precinct No. 1: The Court ruled it should be counted for Caraecle. The Court of Appeals found the name written for mayor was “Cebarle,” which sounds like “Caraecle.” The fact that “Mayor Castillo” was written on a space for Senators did not make it a vote for del Castillo, as the name on the correct space (for mayor) prevails.
2. On Ballot B-16 of Precinct No. 1: The Court ruled it was correctly counted for del Castillo. The voter wrote “Mayor” on the third space for councilors and “F. del Castillo” on the fourth space for councilors, with no name written on the space for mayor. This sufficiently indicated the voter’s intention to vote for del Castillo for mayor.
3. On Ballot A-2 of Precinct No. 1-A: The Court affirmed its rejection as a marked ballot. Caraecle’s name was written in Arabic script while all other candidate names were in Roman characters, serving no purpose other than to identify the ballot.
4. On Ballot A-4 of Precinct No. 7: The Court ruled it should be rejected as a marked ballot. The writing of the letters “MBDC” on a space for Senators was clearly for identification purposes and not allowed under the election code.
5. On Seven Ballots Contested by del Castillo (A-1, A-2 of Precinct No. 2; A-1, A-6 of Precinct No. 4; A-1, A-2, A-3 of Precinct No. 7): The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s ruling rejecting these ballots as marked. These ballots contained extraneous and impertinent writings (e.g., a voter’s signature, the word “Daguit,” phrases like “wala na cag walo rine,” “Datu Bulac,” “Castillo wala mapatay,” “Datu Bilat,” and “and Carlos Virgo 17 Lt Inf”). The Court abandoned the old rule from Cailles vs. Gomez and upheld the prevailing doctrine that writing impertinent expressions invalidates a ballot.
6. On Costs: The Court held that the lower court retained discretion in taxing costs under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, rejecting del Castillo’s contention on this matter.
FINAL COMPUTATION:
Starting with uncontested votes (del Castillo: 601, Caraecle: 596):
* For del Castillo: Add the 28 ballots found valid by the trial court, but subtract ballot B-15 of Precinct No. 1 (now awarded to Caraecle). Total: 601 + 28 – 1 = 628.
* For Caraecle: Add the 16 ballots found valid by the trial court, add ballot B-15 of Precinct No. 1, but subtract ballot A-4 of Precinct No. 7 (rejected as marked). Total: 596 + 16 + 1 – 1 = 612.
Result: Felix del Castillo wins with a plurality of 16 votes (628 to 612). The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment declaring del Castillo the elected mayor, with costs against Caraecle.