G.R. No. L-18926 November 30, 1962
ANASTACIO PANGONTAO, petitioner, vs. FLORES M. ALUNAN and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

In the 1959 elections for Mayor of Talakag, Bukidnon, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Anastacio Pangontao as the winner by 37 votes over Flores M. Alunan. Alunan filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance, after a recount, reaffirmed Pangontao’s election but reduced his plurality to 4 votes. Alunan appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the validity of numerous ballots counted for Pangontao.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the contested ballots and, in its decision, voided five specific votes previously counted for Pangontao (Exhibits B-22, B-23, B-24, B-25, and E-11). It invalidated none of the ballots challenged by Pangontao. This recalculation resulted in a final tally of 1,100 votes for Pangontao and 1,101 votes for Alunan, giving Alunan a one-vote plurality. The appellate court consequently reversed the trial court and declared Alunan the duly elected mayor. Pangontao appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in invalidating the five specific ballots (Exhibits B-22, B-23, B-24, B-25, and E-11) cast for petitioner Pangontao, thereby altering the election result?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error. The Supreme Court meticulously examined each contested ballot and affirmed the appellate court’s findings and legal reasoning. For Exhibits B-22, B-23, B-24, and B-25, the Court agreed that they were marked ballots. All four ballots contained a vote for “Atty. Aquino” as a councilor. Given that Atty. Aquino was Pangontao’s nephew and one of his lawyers in the case, writing his name served as a deliberate scheme to identify the ballot and the voter, thus invalidating them under election law principles prohibiting marks that compromise secrecy.
Regarding Exhibit E-11, the Court also sustained its rejection as a marked ballot. This ballot contained votes for “Carlos P. Garcia” and “Juan Pajo” as councilors. While Pajo was a senatorial candidate and that vote could be considered stray, Garcia was the incumbent President of the Philippines and not a candidate for any local office. Following precedent (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals), writing the name of a nationally prominent figure who was not a candidate for the position constitutes an identification mark, invalidating the ballot. The Supreme Court found no merit in Pangontao’s other assignments of error concerning ballots counted for Alunan, upholding the appellate court’s determinations that they were not marked. Consequently, the recalculation stood, and the decision declaring Alunan the winner by one vote was affirmed.