G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967
PRISCILO G. INTING, petitioner, vs. ZOILA L. CLARIN, respondent.

FACTS

This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals declaring respondent Zoila L. Clarin the elected Mayor of Loay, Bohol, with a plurality of 26 votes over petitioner Priscilo G. Inting. The trial court had declared Clarin the winner by a plurality of 2 votes. The Supreme Court assails the appellate court’s conclusion invalidating nine (9) ballots for Inting because an initial is written preceding the printed numerals on each, while validating twenty-five (25) ballots for Clarin bearing identical markings. A side-by-side comparison of the ballots is provided. The nine invalidated ballots for Inting all came from Precinct 3, with initials preceding numbers for councilor positions. The twenty-five ballots for Clarin, each also bearing an initial or word preceding a printed number, were validated by the appellate court, reversing the trial court’s invalidation of them. The protestee also assails the invalidation of eleven (11) other ballots for him from Precincts 15, 16, and 21 for having initials preceding printed numbers, and another eleven (11) ballots where an initial or letter is written over the printed word for a position.

ISSUE

Whether the appellate court erred in its inconsistent application of the rules on marked ballots, by invalidating certain ballots for Inting while validating similar ballots for Clarin.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It affirmed the invalidation of the nine (9) ballots for Inting from Precinct 3, as the fact they all came from one precinct and bore initials preceding numbers for councilor implied a preconceived pattern to identify the ballots. However, it invalidated thirteen (13) of the twenty-five (25) ballots for Clarin because they bore distinctive marks or impertinent expressions (e.g., “Tome,” “Esteban,” “Pepe”). The remaining twelve (12) ballots for Clarin were declared valid, as the marks appeared only in three or four ballots per precinct with no indication they were placed for identification. The Court further held that the eleven (11) ballots for Inting from Precincts 15, 16, and 21, invalidated by the appellate court for having initials preceding numbers, should be valid under the same principle applied to Clarin’s twelve valid ballots. Additionally, the eleven (11) ballots for Inting with initials over printed position words were declared valid, as the appellate court had validated twenty-seven (27) similar ballots for Clarin. After recalculating, Inting garnered 1,794 votes against Clarin’s 1,785 votes, giving Inting a plurality of nine (9) votes. The decision declaring Clarin elected was reversed.