GR L 37106; (June, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37106 June 30, 1975
JOSE M. LONTOC, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch XXI, Court of First Instance of Rizal, and TEODORO RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose M. Lontoc and private respondent Teodoro Rodriguez were candidates for Mayor of Montalban, Rizal, in the November 8, 1971 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rodriguez as the winner. Lontoc filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance, impugning the election returns from all precincts on grounds of fraud, terrorism, and the counting of spurious ballots. Rodriguez, in his answer, filed a counter-protest contesting the election in fifteen precincts. Both parties later withdrew their respective protests for several precincts. After trial, the respondent judge dismissed Lontoc’s protest, confirmed Rodriguez’s proclamation, and ordered Lontoc to pay attorney’s fees. The court, after a revision of ballots, found that Rodriguez won by a plurality of 110 votes.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the respondent court committed reversible error in its appreciation of the contested ballots and in its factual findings regarding the validity of ballots without watermarks and ballots allegedly bearing identifying marks.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent court’s decision with modification, reducing Rodriguez’s plurality to 105 votes. The Court upheld the lower court’s appreciation of the contested ballots, applying the rules under Section 189 of the Revised Election Code of 1971 (R.A. 6388) and established jurisprudence. The legal logic centered on the paramount principle of giving effect to the voter’s intent and not disenfranchising them for mere technicalities or innocent mistakes. The Court sustained the findings that certain markings, such as brackets after a candidate’s name or the writing of a candidate’s known nickname, did not constitute invalidating marks absent clear evidence of an intention to identify the ballot. The Court also affirmed the validity of ballots lacking the official watermark, based on credible testimony that millions of such ballots were officially distributed. Furthermore, the Court agreed that alleged thumbprints on other ballots were accidental flourishes not intended for identification. The ruling emphasizes that election protests require a meticulous, objective examination of ballots, with all doubts resolved in favor of preserving the vote, to determine the true will of the electorate.