G.R. No. 28523 , February 18, 1928
AURELIO CECILIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. GABRIEL BELMONTE, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

In the 1925 elections for Governor of Nueva Ecija, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Gabriel Belmonte (protestee) as the winner with 10,841 votes against Aurelio Cecilio’s (protestant) 10,797 votes, a plurality of 44 votes. Cecilio filed an election protest. After a lengthy trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision revising the count to 10,260 votes for Belmonte and 10,006 for Cecilio, affirming Belmonte’s victory with a plurality of 254 votes. Cecilio appealed, raising ten assignments of error, including the trial court’s grant of a new trial for the presentation of additional evidence, the validity of ballots cast for Belmonte, the counting of specific ballots, the rejection of a handwriting expert’s testimony, the alleged reliance on falsified returns, and the imposition of costs.

ISSUE

The main issues, synthesized from the assignments of error, are:
1. Whether a Court of First Instance, in an election protest, can grant a motion for a new trial for the presentation of additional evidence.
2. Whether ballots cast for a candidate (Belmonte) who allegedly was not properly registered should be declared invalid.
3. Whether the trial court correctly adjudicated the validity of the contested ballots and the credibility of expert testimony.
4. Whether the trial court erred in ordering an investigation of election law violations and in imposing costs on the protestant.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court.

1. On the grant of a new trial: The Court held that Courts of First Instance have the power to grant motions for a new trial in election protest cases for the purpose of correcting errors of law, applying by analogy Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ). This power is recognized notwithstanding the summary nature of election proceedings and previous contrary rulings, as the decision of the Court of First Instance in such cases is final and non-appealable. The grant of a new trial in this case to allow the protestee to present certificates of candidacy was proper.

2. On the validity of ballots for Belmonte: The Court found that the protestee, Gabriel Belmonte, was in fact a registered candidate. The certificates of candidacy presented during the new trial proved his registration. Therefore, ballots cast for him were valid.

3. On the adjudication of ballots and expert testimony:
* The trial court’s findings on the validity of individual ballots, based on its examination and appreciation of the evidence, are conclusive on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. No such abuse was found.
* The rule that the testimony of handwriting experts does not bind the court was reiterated. The trial judge was within his discretion to base his findings on his own examination of the ballots.
* Even if the votes claimed by the protestant under several assignments of error were conceded, the total would not overcome Belmonte’s plurality of 254 votes.

4. On the investigation order and costs:
* The trial court’s order for the prosecuting attorney to investigate election law violations was in accordance with Section 2660½ of the Administrative Code (as amended), which suspends the prescription period for offenses discovered incident to a judicial election contest.
* The imposition of costs upon the defeated protestant was proper under Section 482 of the Election Law.

All assignments of error were overruled. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant Cecilio.