GR L 18027; (June, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18027; June 29, 1962
ALEJANDRO SARMIENTO, protestant-appellee, vs. SERAFIN QUEMADO, protestee-appellant.
FACTS
In the November 17, 1959 elections for Vice-Mayor of Laua-an, Antique, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Serafin Quemado as the winner with 1,155 votes, a one-vote plurality over Alejandro Sarmiento, who received 1,154 votes. Sarmiento filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance of Antique. After trial, the court initially declared Sarmiento the winner with 1,148 votes against Quemado’s 1,146. Upon motions for reconsideration, the court amended its decision, reducing Sarmiento’s votes by one but still declaring him the winner by a one-vote plurality. Quemado appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which gave due course to the appeal despite the non-appealability provision in the Revised Election Code for such contests, as a constitutional question of law was involved.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court correctly adjudicated the validity of specific contested ballots, the resolution of which would determine the true winner of the vice-mayoral election.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and declared Serafin Quemado the duly elected Vice-Mayor. The Court meticulously reviewed the ballots contested by both parties under the legal principles governing ballot marking and voter intent. For Quemado’s appeal, the Court found that the trial court erroneously invalidated several ballots cast for him. Specifically, ballots Q-9 and Q-20 were incorrectly nullified as marked; Q-9’s alteration of numerical sequence and Q-20’s alleged preparation by two hands did not constitute deliberate markings intended for identification. Ballots Q-57, Q-58, and Q-62, annulled for containing repeated surnames, were reinstated as the repetitions were not proven to be identification marks absent clear evidence of such intent.
Conversely, the Court upheld the trial court’s rulings on most ballots challenged by Quemado against Sarmiento. Ballots containing stray names or words like “Siro,” “gao,” or “Strong” were correctly counted for Sarmiento, as these were not shown by evidence aliunde to be deliberate marks. The Court emphasized that for a ballot to be invalidated as marked, there must be clear evidence of a deliberate intent to identify the voter, which was lacking here. The final tally, after crediting Quemado with the five reinstated votes, showed Quemado with 1,151 votes against Sarmiento’s 1,147, giving Quemado a plurality of four votes.