G.R. No. L-25907 January 25, 1967
ISABELO LLOREN, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 elections for municipal mayor of Inopacan, Leyte, Isabelo Lloren was initially proclaimed the winner by the municipal board of canvassers with 1,449 votes against Pacito Abrea’s 1,440 votes, a plurality of 9 votes. Abrea filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which, after trial, nullified 174 votes for Lloren and 24 votes for Abrea, declaring Abrea the mayor-elect with 1,416 votes against Lloren’s 1,275 votes, a plurality of 141 votes. Lloren appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the trial court’s decision by crediting Lloren with an additional 121 votes (88 ballots bearing only his nickname, 23 allegedly marked ballots, and 10 previously declared illegible votes). The Court of Appeals declared Abrea the winner with 1,416 votes against Lloren’s 1,396 votes, a majority of 20 votes (later reduced to 19 on motion for reconsideration). Lloren filed the present petition for certiorari, raising several errors regarding the invalidation of specific ballots as marked or illegible.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring specific ballots as marked, illegible, or otherwise invalid, thereby affecting the final vote count and the declaration of Pacito Abrea as the duly elected mayor.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling on the validity of the contested ballots as follows:
1. Exhibit G, Precinct 6 and Exhibit H, Precinct 11: Declared valid for Lloren under the principle of idem sonans. “Sabilo yran” and “Eisabi” were counted as votes for Isabelo Lloren, reflecting the voter’s intent.
2. Exhibit C, Precinct 3: The ballot was correctly declared marked and invalid due to the word “engat” written in an inverted position on the last line for councilors, which was a clear indication of the voter’s intent to identify the ballot.
3. Exhibit B, Precinct 15; Exhibit D, Precinct 13; Exhibit J, Precinct 16; and Exhibit D, Precinct 12: These ballots were correctly declared invalid as marked. The irrelevant words “pansay,” “seniorito,” “shot,” and the statement “Binabati kong vice-mayor ug Beloy mayor” written in spaces not intended for voting served to identify the ballots.
* Exception: Exhibit A, Precinct 17 was declared valid for Lloren. The words “lowlow” written before and after the name “Compendio” (a candidate for councilor) were considered, in the absence of contrary evidence, as a nickname or appellation of affection and not a mark.
4. Exhibit K, Precinct 15: Declared valid for Lloren. The five big circles on the first line for senators were interpreted as indicating the voter’s desistance to vote for other candidates, not as a mark.
5. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R of Precinct 7; Exhibits A, B, C of Precinct 11; Exhibits J, K, L, M, N, P, B, C, D, E, F, G, H of Precinct 14; and Exhibits S, U, V of Precinct 18: The invalidation of these ballots as marked was sustained. The uniform appearance of specific words or names (e.g., “engat,” “boy,” “Daniel,” “Menong,” “sorab,” “Mines”) in the same spaces across multiple ballots within the same precinct demonstrated a clear pattern and design to identify the ballots.
6. Exhibits A, B, and C, Precinct 18: The invalidation was sustained. The uniform appearance of the capital letters “AAD” on line 1 for senators in three ballots from the same precinct was intended to mark the ballots and not merely coincidental.
7. Exhibits A and C, Precinct 12; Exhibit A, Precinct 13; and Exhibit C, Precinct 17: The invalidation was sustained. The irrelevant expressions “Have a good time Mr. Pacito,” “Forget me not,” and “Tse na lang” written on the ballots did not fall under any statutory exception (such as nicknames or appellations of affection) and nullified the ballots.
In summary, the Supreme Court credited four additional ballots to Lloren (Exhibits G-Precinct 6, H-Precinct 11, A-Precinct 17, and K-Precinct 15) but upheld the rejection of all other contested ballots. Consequently, Pacito Abrea was declared the elected mayor with a majority of 15 votes. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed as modified.