G.R. No. L-23827. February 28, 1967.
SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO, protestant-appellee, vs. PEDRO CASTRO (deceased), protestee-appellant. MISAEL CLAMOR, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 election for Mayor of Cateel, Davao, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Pedro Castro as the winner with 1,769 votes against Santiago Silverio’s 1,754, giving Castro a 15-vote plurality. Silverio filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance (CFI). Castro filed a counter-protest. Before the hearing, Castro died on May 6, 1964, and Vice-Mayor Misael Clamor succeeded him. After hearing, the CFI declared Silverio the winner by 7 votes, crediting him with 1,740 votes and Castro with 1,733. An appeal was taken on behalf of the deceased Castro directly to the Supreme Court, raising questions of law. The Supreme Court resolved a dispute regarding the personality to appeal by requiring Vice-Mayor Clamor to intervene. The appeal involved the review of 119 ballots, which were discussed in four groups.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the correctness of the trial court’s appreciation and ruling on the validity of the contested ballots, which would determine the true winner of the mayoral election.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the CFI. After reviewing the contested ballots, the Court found that the CFI erred in rejecting thirteen (13) valid ballots for Castro and in accepting one (1) invalid ballot for Silverio. Consequently, thirteen votes were added to Castro’s total and one vote was deducted from Silverio’s total. The final count was Castro with 1,746 votes and Silverio with 1,739 votes. Therefore, Castro (whose interest was succeeded to by intervenor-appellant Clamor) was declared the winner by a plurality of seven (7) votes. The Court’s detailed analysis of the ballot groups was as follows:
1. First Group (71 ballots for Silverio): The CFI correctly ruled these ballots valid. The desistance from completely filling the spaces for senators and/or councilors did not render the ballots marked, as there was no evidence of a purpose to mark discernible upon their face.
2. Second Group (23 ballots concerning prefixes, nicknames, and descriptions):
* Subgroup A (15 ballots for Castro rejected by CFI): The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s rejection of 14 ballots as marked. Words like “Egg,” “Toli,” “Pudpud,” “Salokot,” “Towang,” and “C Vote” were obvious marks. The prefix “Dr.” for Castro (who was not a doctor) was used in a pattern to identify ballots. The figure “5,” the suffix “Jr.,” and the insertion of “(Catigbak)” were also deemed marks. However, the Court reversed the CFI on one ballot (O-31) containing “Datu” before candidate Sarmiento, ruling it was not a mark as it appeared only once and “Datu” is an allowed prefix.
* Subgroup B (8 ballots for Silverio ruled valid by CFI): The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s validity rulings. The nicknames (“Oto,” “Titoy,” “Mano,” “Bobby”) were the candidates’ actual nicknames. “Conoyaes” was idem sonans for councilor candidate Gonzales. “Atty.” before P. Sanico (a lawyer) was not a mark. “Vice” before Clamor merely described the office.
3. Third Group (11 ballots for Castro rejected by CFI for common authorship): The Supreme Court reversed the CFI and ruled all 11 ballots valid. The CFI invalidated them based on “general appearance or pictorial effect,” concluding they were written by the same persons. The Supreme Court held that extreme caution is required before invalidating ballots, and doubts should be resolved in favor of validity. The CFI’s reliance on general resemblance was insufficient, as established authorities require the presence of individual characteristics to conclude common authorship.
4. Fourth Group (4 ballots with various markings):
* The Court affirmed the CFI’s validity ruling for a ballot with “x” before “Penanueva,” as the “x” was meant as an initial.
* The Court affirmed the validity of a ballot with mixed script and block letters, as allowed by rule in the absence of evidence of a design to mark.
* The Court reversed the CFI on two ballots: (1) a ballot for Castro with the name written in large letters, which was deemed a mark as it stood out conspicuously; and (2) a ballot for Silverio with “x Silverio x,” which was ruled marked due to the superfluous “x” marks indicating an intent to identify the ballot.