G.R. No. L-6853 December 29, 1953
FRANCISCO F. ILLESCAS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In the November 13, 1951 elections for mayor of Angat, Bulacan, Francisco F. Illescas was proclaimed elected by the municipal board of canvassers, having received 2,200 votes against Benito Cruz’s 2,181. Benito Cruz filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, contesting all precincts except one. Illescas also filed a counter-protest regarding specific precincts. After revision and trial, the Court of First Instance declared Illescas elected with a plurality of four votes. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and declared Benito Cruz the winner with a plurality of five votes. Illescas appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, limiting the controversy to 25 ballots specified in his assignments of error. Benito Cruz, in support of the appealed decision, also imputed error regarding 20 ballots in his counter-assignments.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly adjudicated the contested ballots, thereby determining the rightful winner of the mayoral election.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring Benito Cruz the duly elected mayor. The Court meticulously reviewed each contested ballot:
1. Ballots counted for Benito Cruz (Respondent): The Court upheld the counting of ballots Exhibits I-4, 3-4, 3-6, 4-2, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7, 5-7, 5-10, 6-1, 6-4, 6-2, 6-5, 9-13, 8-1, 12-1, 13-6, 13-7, and 13-9 in favor of Benito Cruz. The rulings were based on specific provisions of the Revised Election Code:
* Section 149, paragraph 6: An erroneous initial accompanying the correct surname does not annul the vote (e.g., “V. Cruz,” “B or F. Cruz,” “R. Cruz,” “E. Cruz”).
* Section 149, paragraph 3: When a candidate’s name appears in two spaces, it is counted for the correct office, and the other is considered stray.
Section 149, paragraph 2 & 6: The principle of idem sonans applies (e.g., “Binti/Bintu Kris/Kais” for Benito Cruz, “Bento” for Benito, “Coros” for Cruz).
Section 149, paragraph 9: Use of a nickname accompanied by the surname is valid unless used to identify the voter (e.g., “Benito Alinsangan Cruz”).
* Section 149, paragraph 13: A vote for a non-candidate is void only for that office and does not invalidate the entire ballot.
2. Ballots counted for Francisco Illescas (Petitioner): The Court modified the Court of Appeals’ ruling on three ballots, crediting them to Illescas:
* Exhibit G-5: Previously rejected as marked due to the word “nardo” written above “F. Illescas.” The Supreme Court found the penmanship comparison inconclusive and counted the vote.
* Exhibit H-5: Previously rejected because only “Kiko” was written. The Court ruled that a nickname which is a derivative of a candidate’s name (like “Kiko” for Francisco) is valid if the candidate is popularly known by it and no other candidate has the same nickname.
* Exhibit H-6: Previously rejected for “Dodong Illescas” due to lack of evidence that “Dodong” was his nickname. The Court noted uncontradicted testimony that Illescas was known by “Dodong” and counted the vote.
3. Ballots not credited to Illescas: The Court sustained the rejection of ballots Exhibits J-8 and K-3, which were found to have been prepared by two different hands (a mark of invalidity).
4. Sample Ballots (Exhibits C-1 to C-14): The Court, though deeming it superfluous, addressed the respondent’s claim that 14 sample ballots (9 for Cruz, 5 for Illescas) were wrongly rejected under Section 128 of the Revised Election Code. It held that the prohibition is directory when election inspectors and voters act in good faith, and these votes should be counted. Adding these would increase Cruz’s plurality.
5. Other Contested Ballots: The Court found it unnecessary to rule on other ballots contested by the respondent, as the result would remain favorable to Cruz.
Result: After reviewing the 25 ballots contested by Illescas, the Supreme Court credited three additional votes to him. However, this adjustment still resulted in Benito Cruz winning with a plurality of two votes. The inclusion of the 14 sample ballots, if considered, would increase his plurality to six. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.