G.R. No. L-23895. February 16, 1967.
SEMENIANO TRAJANO, protestant-appellant, vs. MATEO B. INCISO, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

In the election for Mayor of Lawa-an, Samar, on November 12, 1963, Mateo Inciso was proclaimed Mayor-elect by the Board of Canvassers with 974 votes against Semeniano Trajano’s 946 votes, a plurality of 28 votes. Trajano filed an election protest contesting Precincts 1, 2, and 11. After trial and appreciation of contested ballots, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision finding Inciso the winner with 957 votes against Trajano’s 946 votes, a difference of 11 votes. Trajano appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law, and assailed the appreciation of fifty-six (56) ballots.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed errors in the appreciation of the contested ballots, which would affect the election results.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding no error in the appreciation of the fifty-six ballots.
1. First Group (31 ballots from Precinct 11 counted for Inciso): Appellant contended these ballots, filled by two persons, should be rejected as marked and void under Rule 23, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code. The Court upheld the lower court’s finding that the presumption juris tantum that the ballots were filled by two persons before being cast was rebutted by convincing evidence: the ballot box was cut open, envelopes were torn, the Municipal Treasurer discovered a destroyed window and the tampered ballot box, and the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors testified the extraneous writings were not present when the ballots were read and the box was intact when delivered. Thus, the ballots were tampered after casting and were properly counted.
2. Second Group (7 ballots from Precinct 11 claimed for Trajano): The lower court declined to count these, finding six ballots void for being accomplished by two persons each, and one ballot (Exh. Q-17) having an indecipherable vote for Mayor. The Supreme Court agreed, noting the six ballots contained the name “Trajano” in handwriting markedly different from the rest of the ballot and identical in at least four ballots, indicating they were filled by two distinct persons before casting, making them null and void. As for Exh. Q-17, the vote for Mayor was illegible and correctly considered a stray vote.
3. Third Group (18 ballots from Precincts 1 and 2 counted for Inciso): Appellant contended these were marked. The Court examined them in sub-groups:
* First Sub-group (5 ballots): Allegedly marked due to being written by two persons. The Court found no error, as the variation in writing (partly script, partly block letters) was for emphasis, not identification, and no intent to identify was shown. For Exh. UUU-87, the lower court’s finding that the names were in the same handwriting was sustained.
* Second Sub-group (11 ballots): Allegedly defective because one person accomplished several ballots and because they contained votes for “Camenforte,” a non-candidate for Councilor. The Court found no striking likeness between the assailed ballots and rejected ballots, and no proof the same person filled them. Writing the name of a non-candidate does not invalidate the ballot absent evidence it was intended for identification.
* Third Sub-group (2 ballots): Involved idem sonans. Exh. XX-50 with “Peisna” (interpreted as “Peisva” by appellant) for Councilor was correctly ruled idem sonans for candidate “Espina.” Exh. XXX-90 with “M. NCSO” for Mayor was correctly held idem sonans for “Inciso.”
Therefore, the decision declaring protestee Inciso the winner by 11 votes was affirmed in toto.