G.R. No. L-21135 November 8, 1963
Delfin Protacio, petitioner-appellant, vs. Eleuterio de Leon and the Court of Appeals, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In the 1959 mayoral election in Parañaque, Rizal, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Eleuterio de Leon as the winner by a margin of 33 votes over Delfin Protacio. Protacio filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, which subsequently declared him the duly elected mayor with a plurality of seven votes. De Leon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially modified the CFI decision, reducing Protacio’s lead to five votes. However, upon De Leon’s motion for reconsideration, a CA Division of Five promulgated an Amended Decision reversing the earlier judgment and declaring De Leon the winner by a majority of 20 votes.
Protacio appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, contending that the CA’s Amended Decision erred in its appreciation of specific ballots, thereby affecting the final vote count. His petition raised twenty assignments of error, primarily arguing that the CA invalidated ballots for Protacio and validated ballots for De Leon in a manner contrary to the Revised Election Code and established jurisprudence on ballot marking and identification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its appreciation of contested ballots, thereby incorrectly determining the winning candidate for Mayor of Parañaque in the 1959 elections.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, modifying the CA’s Amended Decision after a meticulous review of the contested ballots. The Court applied established legal principles on ballot validity, particularly regarding distinguishing marks and voter identification.
The Court invalidated several ballots credited to De Leon. For instance, Exhibit P-4 was declared invalid as the voter wrote the names of famous movie stars (Armando Goyena and Tessie Quintana) in spaces for local offices, constituting a clear mark to identify the ballot. Exhibit P-51 was also invalidated because the name “F. Valderrama,” a registered voter in the precinct, was written on the ballot, serving as a signature to identify the vote. Conversely, the Court validated Exhibit A-2 for De Leon, finding no conclusive evidence that the name “R. Buenavista” written thereon was intended for identification, as the handwriting differed from the voter’s list signature.
Regarding ballots (like Exhibits P-71, P-75, etc.) allegedly containing names of De Leon’s political leaders as marks, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s factual finding that there was insufficient reliable evidence to prove a concerted scheme to mark ballots. The Court noted the testimony presented was hearsay and from an interested witness. However, the Court independently invalidated other ballots for De Leon based on clear markings, such as irrelevant names or words that could identify the voter.
For Protacio, the Court invalidated ballots like Exhibit B-11, where the voter wrote “De Jesus” (a known nickname for Protacio) but added the word “Pare” before it, which was deemed an unnecessary identifying mark. The Court also affirmed the lower court’s discretion in rejecting the testimony of an NBI handwriting expert, finding the expert’s conclusions unreliable.
After a full recapitulation, the Supreme Court adjusted the final tally to 5,154 votes for De Leon and 5,146 votes for Protacio, resulting in a winning margin of eight (8) votes for De Leon. The dispositive portion of the CA’s Amended Decision was thus modified and affirmed, declaring Eleuterio de Leon the duly elected Mayor.