G.R. No. L-23286 August 23, 1966
QUERUBIN PERFECTO, protestant and appellee, vs. ALFREDO SAPICO, ET AL., protestees, ALFREDO SAPICO, protestee and appellant.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 elections for vice-mayor of Caramoran, Catanduanes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Alfredo Sapico as the winner with 817 votes, a plurality of four votes over Querubin Perfecto who received 813 votes. Perfecto filed an election protest contesting the results in Precinct No. 16, where the returns credited Perfecto with 31 votes and Sapico with 43 votes. Upon revision of the ballot box for that precinct, the commissioners found 46 ballots claimed by Perfecto and 45 ballots claimed by Sapico. Of Perfecto’s ballots, nine were contested by Sapico, leaving 37 uncontested. Of Sapico’s ballots, three were contested by Perfecto, leaving 42 uncontested. The trial court sustained objections to two of the ballots objected to by Sapico and one of those objected to by Perfecto. Consequently, the court counted 44 votes for Perfecto (an increase of 13 from the return) and 44 votes for Sapico (an increase of one from the return). The trial court found that Perfecto obtained 826 votes and Sapico 818 votes, declared Perfecto the vice-mayor-elect with an eight-vote plurality, and ordered Sapico to vacate the office. Sapico appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues involve the validity of specific contested ballots: whether the ballots claimed by Sapico (Exhibits N, N-1, N-2) and those claimed by Perfecto (Exhibits 1 to 9) should be counted in their favor or considered stray or marked ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
1. Regarding Sapico’s contested ballots (Exhibits N, N-1, N-2): The Court upheld the trial court’s ruling on Exhibit N, finding that the name written was “Sasablo,” not “Sasapco” as claimed by appellant, and that “Sasablo” is not idem sonans with “Sapico.” The Court noted that decisions of courts of first instance in election protests for vice-mayor are appealable only on purely questions of law, and the determination of what name was written is a question of fact. The Court examined Exhibit N and agreed with the trial court’s factual finding.
2. Regarding Perfecto’s contested ballots (Exhibits 1 to 9): The trial court had nullified Exhibits 5 and 6 as marked ballots due to a sticker pasted on them, but counted Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 as valid votes for Perfecto. The Supreme Court upheld this. It found that the names written on these ballots (“R. Ferfecto,” “R. Perpecto,” “Q. Recto,” “Roben,” “R. Fupecto,” “Perfexto,” and “R. Parfecto”) were idem sonans with “Perfecto” or “R. Perfecto.” As for “Roben,” the Court noted the unchallenged finding that Perfecto was familiarly called “Ruben” in the locality, and “Roben” is idem sonans with “Querubin.” The Court rejected Sapico’s argument that Perfecto’s testimony about votes for “Ruben Perfecto” being identifiable meant the ballots were marked for identification, clarifying that the testimony meant the candidate could be identified, not the voter.
The decision was affirmed with costs against Sapico.