G.R. No. 26672 , September 9, 1927
PROCESO ECHARRI, protestant-appellant, vs. FELICIANO GOMEZ, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

In the 1925 elections for Governor of Laguna, Feliciano Gomez was proclaimed winner over Proceso Echarri by a margin of 21 votes. Echarri filed an election protest, alleging irregularities in the returns from all precincts. The trial court, after a revision of ballots, declared Gomez the winner by 232 votes. Echarri appealed, assigning errors in the trial court’s adjudication of ballots and its handling of alleged fraud in the third precinct of Pila, where ballots were destroyed by sulphuric acid. Gomez, while not appealing, also assigned errors under the right granted by Echarri’s appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in its adjudication of specific contested ballots.
2. Whether the election in the third precinct of Pila should be declared null due to the destruction of ballots.
3. What rules govern the validity of ballots with nicknames, abbreviations, or votes for a candidate for multiple offices.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment with modification, declaring Gomez the winner by a recomputed majority of 427 votes.

1. On Ballot Adjudication: The Court conducted its own meticulous revision of the contested ballots. Applying established doctrines from *Cailles v. Gomez*, *Lucero v. De Guzman*, and *Mandac v. Samonte*, it deducted 1,051 votes from Gomez’s total and 1,246 votes from Echarri’s total as adjudicated by the trial court. This resulted in final totals of 11,317 votes for Gomez and 10,890 votes for Echarri.

2. On Rules for Ballot Validity:
* Nicknames and Abbreviations: A ballot is not invalid merely because a candidate’s Christian name is written as a diminutive, augmentative, contraction, or abbreviation in Spanish or a local dialect, provided the voter’s intent to vote for that candidate is clear.
* Votes for Multiple Offices: Following the enactment of Act No. 3210 , a ballot is null if a person, who is a candidate for only one office, is voted for two different offices. This overruled the prior doctrine in *Valenzuela v. Carlos* which was based on the old Administrative Code.

3. On the Destroyed Ballots in Pila: The Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to nullify the election in the third precinct of Pila. It found the protestant’s evidencethat Gomez’s partisans destroyed the ballots with acid to hide falsified returnsincredible and physically improbable based on experimental evidence. The lack of conclusive proof as to who caused the destruction triggered the presumption that the canvass and returns were regular and truthful, as held in *Mandac v. Samonte*. The returns, therefore, must prevail.

The other assignments of error by both parties were deemed unnecessary to discuss in light of the Court’s comprehensive revision.