G.R. No. L-6589 and L-6655; January 29, 1954
Eligio Caraecle, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and Felix del Castillo, respondents. (and) Felix del Castillo, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and Eligio Caraecle, respondents.

FACTS

In the November 13, 1951 elections for mayor of Malangas, Zamboanga, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Eligio Caraecle elected 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 elected with 629 votes to Caraecle’s 612. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment but modified the plurality in favor of del Castillo to 2 votes. Both parties then appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issue involves the validity of specific contested ballots and the correct computation of votes to determine who obtained a plurality of valid votes for the office of mayor.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals with modifications on the vote count.
1. On Ballot B-15, Precinct No. 1: The Court of Appeals found the name written for mayor was “Cebarle,” which sounds like “Caraecle.” Despite del Castillo’s claim that the ballot was never in issue and contained “Mayor Castillo” on a senatorial space, the Supreme Court ruled it should be counted for Caraecle. The idem sonans rule applied to “Cebarle,” and the words “Mayor Castillo” on an incorrect space did not control.
2. On Ballot B-16, Precinct No. 1: The ballot contained the word “Mayor” on a councilor space and “F. del Castillo” on the next councilor space, with no name on the proper mayor space. The Court ruled this sufficiently indicated the voter’s intent to vote for del Castillo for mayor and counted it for him.
3. On Ballot A-2, Precinct No. 1-A: The name “Caraecle” was written in Arabic script while other names were in Roman characters. The Court upheld its rejection as a marked ballot, finding no innocent explanation for the different script.
4. On Ballot A-4, Precinct No. 7: The letters “MBDC” written on a senatorial space were held to be for identification purposes, making it a marked ballot to be rejected.
5. On Seven Ballots Contested by del Castillo (A-1, Precinct 2; A-2, Precinct 2; A-1, Precinct 4; A-6, Precinct 4; A-1, Precinct 7; A-2, Precinct 7; A-3, Precinct 7): The Court of Appeals had counted these for Caraecle, invoking an old rule from Cailles vs. Gomez. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that rule had been abandoned. The writing of impertinent or extraneous expressions (e.g., a voter’s signature, words like “Daguit,” “wala na cag walo rine,” “Datu Bulac,” “Castillo wala mapatay,” “Datu Bilat,” and “and Carlos Virgo 17 Lt Inf”) invalidates the ballot. All seven were rejected.
6. On Costs: The Court held that courts retain discretion in taxing costs under the Revised Election Code, rejecting del Castillo’s contention on this point.
FINAL COMPUTATION:
Uncontested votes: Del Castillo (601), Caraecle (596).
From del Castillo’s 28 valid contested ballots, subtract ballot B-15 (precinct 1) now awarded to Caraecle: 27 valid.
From Caraecle’s 16 valid contested ballots, subtract the seven rejected marked ballots and ballot A-4 (precinct 7): 8 valid.
Add valid contested votes: Del Castillo (601 + 27 = 628); Caraecle (596 + 8 = 604).
Result: Del Castillo has a plurality of 24 votes and is declared the duly elected mayor. Costs were imposed on the protestee, Caraecle.