G.R. No. L-6496. January 27, 1954

Demetrio N. Sarcon and Leopoldo R. Jalandoni were candidates for the
office of Mayor of Midsayap, Province of Cotabato, and had been voted
for as such in the elections held on November 13, 1951. In the canvass
made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, Sarcon obtained 3,181 votes
and Jalandoni 3,088 votes, and as a result the former was proclaimed
elected. In due time, the latter filed an election protest in the Court
of First Instance of Cotabato.

The trial court, upon petition of protestant, directed the National
Bureau of Investigation to examine all the ballots contained in the
white boxes as well as the stubs contained in the boxes for spoiled
ballots, the corresponding voter’s affidavits and lists of voters, and
all the pads containing the stubs of ballots used, of precincts Nos. 19
and 34 of Midsayap, to determine if the ballots cast in said precincts
were genuine, or were cast by persons other than the legitimate voters.
Angel H. Gaffud, examiner of said Bureau, made the examination as
directed and submitted his report to the court.

During the trial, the protestant, through counsel, introduced as
part of his evidence the certificate of candidacy he had filed as
required by law but its admission was objected to on the ground that
his motion of protest does not contain any allegation that he has filed
any certificate, but the objection was overruled and the certificate
was admitted in evidence. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the court
rendered judgment nullifying 226 ballots cast for the protestee and
declaring the protestant as the mayor elect with a majority of 133
votes.

The case was originally taken to the Court of Appeals, but, as
appellant has raised as one of the errors that the lower court had no
jurisdiction to try the case because the motion of protest does not
allege sufficient jurisdictional facts, it was later certified to this
Court.

Appellant contends that the motion of protest does not contain
jurisdictional facts because it fails to state that the protestant is a
candidate voted for in the elections held on November 13, 1951 and that
he has presented the required certificate of candidacy. He claims that
these allegations are essential and the failure to include them in the
motion of protest operates to divest the court of its jurisdiction over
the case.

We agree with counsel that courts of first instance, when taking
cognizance of election protests, act as courts of special jurisdiction.
In this sense they have a limited jurisdiction. They can only act when
the pleadings aver jurisdictional facts. As this court aptly said:

“The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over an election
protest until the special facts upon which it may take jurisdiction are
expressly shown in the motion of protest. There is no presumption in
favor of the jurisdiction of a court of limited or special
jurisdiction. * * * Such court cannot, by any supposed analogy to
ordinary proceedings, exercise any power beyond that which the
legislature has given.” (Tengco vs. Jocson, 43 Phil., 715.) But we
disagree with counsel that the motion of protest in the present case
does not allege facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the lower
court.

Among the important allegations appearing in the motion of protest
are that protestant is a qualified elector and one of the registered
candidates voted for in the general elections held on November 13,
1951, that, in accordance with the certificate of canvass of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers, the protestee received 3,181 votes and
the protestant 3,088 votes, and on December 3, 1951, the protestee was
declared elected to the office of Mayor of Midsayap. In our opinion,
these allegations substantially comply with the law and are sufficient
to confer upon the court the requisite jurisdiction. It is true that
the motion of protest does not in so many words state that protestant
has presented his certificate of candidacy, or that he is a candidate
for the office of Mayor of Midsayap, but all these allegations are
clearly inferred or deducible from the facts expressly alleged therein
for it cannot be denied that one cannot be a registered candidate
unless he has duly filed the required certificate of candidacy for the
office he seeks to be a candidate. This is a requirement which must
needs be met before a person can be eligible or be voted for (section
31, Revised Election Code). This is also the interpretation placed by
the Senate Electoral Tribunal on the words “registered candidate” in a
case involving a similar issue (Sanidad vs. Vera et al. case No. 1,
Senate Electoral Tribunal). Indeed, to countenance the plea of
appellant would be to defeat an otherwise good cause through a mere
technical objection, which is the duty of the courts to prevent, for
“It has been frequently decided, and it may be stated as a general rule
recognized by all the courts, that statutes providing for election
contests are to be liberally construed, to the end that the will of the
people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by merely
technical objections. To that end immaterial defects in pleadings
should be disregarded and necessary and proper amendments should be
allowed as promptly as possible.” (Hayfrom vs. Mahoney, 18 Am. St.
Rep., 757, 763; McCrary on Elections, 3rd ed., sec. 396; Galang vs.
Miranda, 35 Phil., 269.) As a corollary, it should be stated that the
lower court did right in allowing the presentation in evidence of the
certificate of candidacy of protestant which is necessary to establish
a material jurisdictional fact.

Let us now come to the merits of the case. Note that the ballots
disputed by appellant are those cast in precincts Nos. 19 and 34, and
that these were all examined as ordered by the court by Angel H.
Gaffud, a handwriting expert of the National Bureau of Investigation.
The ballots disputed among those cast in precinct No. 19 amount to 306
of which 226 were found to be spurious. And among those cast in
precinct No. 34 those disputed amount to 200 ballots, and of these 53
were found also to be spurious. The handwriting expert classified the
first batch into 14 groups, and basing his opinion on the striking
similarities of the handwriting found in each group, he gave the
opinion that the 226 ballots had been written by one and the same hand.
The second batch was classified into 10 groups and following the same
process he reached the same conclusion. The lower court concurred in
this opinion as regards the 226 ballots but disagreed with regard to
the 53. It found that these 53 ballots were all written in, Maro
characters, and considering that these characters were not known to the
handwriting expert, it entertained doubt as to the veracity of his
findings. This doubt the court resolved in favor of the protestee and
counted them in his favor.

Counsel for appellant disagrees with these findings concerning the
226 ballots and, pointing out the individual characteristics of the
writer of each ballot shown by his habit of writing, “such as his
slant, the proportional heights of his one spaced to his two spaced
letters, or to one another; the pressure of writing, the spacing, the
penlift of the writer, the crossing of his “t’s,” the dotting of his
‘i’s’, his habitual initial and terminal strokes, whether they are
blunt or flying, the loops of his letters, his speed in writing, and
the use of capital letters”, he now vehemently contends that the
ballots in question cannot be considered as having been written by one
and the same hand. And to make his opinion more impressive and factual
he made his own grouping of the ballots and proceeded to compare one
with the other pointing out certain differences which in his opinion
tend to destroy the findings of the handwriting expert and of the trial
court. In view of these conflicting opinions, and in order to reach a
conclusion as close as may be possible to the truth, we have examined
these ballots one by one and have found that, with the exception of 15
ballots which appear to have been written by different persons, the
findings of the handwriting expert are correct and should be sustained.
For the purposes of this decision, and in order that the
characteristics of the writing may be better appreciated, we have
placed the ballots in small groups within the classification made by
the handwriting expert and the following are the reasons supporting our
conclusion:

 

Group I

Forty-five ballots (Exhibits A; A-1; A-4; A-10;
A-14; A-25; A-36; A-42; A-62; A-63; A-9; A-12; A-30; A-34; A-35; A-37;
A-46; A-49; A-50; A-52; A-53; A-66; A-67; A-72; A-74; A-81; A-85; A-86;
A-90; A-91; A-94; A-96; A-97; A-100; A-102; A-103;A-107; A-109; A-110;
A-2; A-3; A-15; A-93; A-45 and A-101) were undoubtedly written by only
one person. While there is an attempt to disguise the handwriting by
using different writing instruments, as indelible pencil, lead pencil
and blue-colored pencil, and by varying the slant of the writing, pen
pressure and spelling form, formation of letters and habits are clearly
noticeable. In all these ballots, except one or two, one cannot help
but notice the peculiar form of the capital letter T in “Tadio” and
“Tan”. Except the first ballot, the M in “Mantel” has four “legs”. The
capital letter C in “Cambronero” and “Carlos” has a peculiar formation,
that is, the initial stroke begins from below, has a loop on top and is
brought down with the usual curve. The capital F in “Flores”, the
capital S in “Sarcon”, and the capital R in “Roguiiton” are similar in
practically all these ballots. Zulueta was voted for in all these
ballots as “Suluezeta”, or “Suluezta”, or “Suluezela” having forgotten
to place the cross-bar in the t, “Suluezat”, and the terminal “a” is
separate from the “t”,. a practice habitual to the writer.

Twelve
ballots (Exhibits A-6; A-8; A-16; A-39; A-40; A-43; A-51; A-54; A-58;
A-61; A-70; and A-73). These were clearly written by same person who
wrote the above 45 ballots. The characteristic formations of the
capital letters M in “Martel”, C in “Cambronero” and “Carlos”, T in
“Tan” and “Tadio” and R in “Roganton” in the above 45 ballots are all
found in these 12 ballots. In all these ballots the name of Zulueta
begins with capital Z in printed form. The terminal letter “a” is
separate from the “t” just like the 45 ballots above.

Fourteen
ballots (Exhibits A-13; A-19; A-20; A-21; A-22; A-26; A-29; A-41; A-44;
A-55; A-57; A-75; A-76 and A-87). In all these ballots one hand wrote
the votes for Senators with indelible pencil, without any attempt to
disguise the penmanship. Another hand, which is the same one that wrote
the above-mentioned 45 ballots, wrote in lead pencil the votes for the
provincial and municipal officials, with the usual characteristic
formation of the capital letters M in “Mantel”, C in “Cambronero” and
“Carlos”, R in “Roganton” and T in “Tadio” and “Tan”.

Eleven
ballots (Exhibits A-5; A-7; A-32; A-38; A-60; A-69; A-71; A-77; A-78;
A-80; and A-106). One hand wrote the votes for senators in all these 11
ballots, but different from the hand that wrote the above 14 ballots.
This writer is a more accomplished writer. He tried to disguise his
writing in 3 of these ballots (Exhibits A-5; A-78 and A-80) by making
his letters smaller, but this is betrayed by his usual formation of the
capital letter Z in “Zulueta” which is the same in all the ballots. He
also wrote in the last 2 ballots the votes for members of the
Provincial Board. The rest of the votes in these 11 ballots was written
by another hand, the same that wrote the 45 ballots, supra,
as shown by the capital letters M in “Mantel”, C in “Cambronero” and
“Carlos”, T in “Tadio27 and “Tan”, R in “Roganton”, B in “Bangas” and Y
in “Yerno”. He tried to disguise his handwriting in the last ballot by
changing his slant.

Three ballots (Exhibits A-27; A-31 and A-84). These were prepared by the same person who wrote the 45 ballots, supra,
with an indelible pencil. The usual characteristics of his writing as
already described are present, like the C in “Cambronero” and “Carlos”,
F in “Flores”, R in “Roganton” and others.

Six ballots
(Exhibits A-68; A-79; A-92; A-99; A-33; and A- 56). The first four
ballots were each prepared by different voters and could have been
regular were it not for the insertion of the name of candidate Carlos
Tan in the space for special election by the same guilty hand that
invalidated all the ballots discussed. But this cannot invalidate them.
In the last two ballots, “Sarcon” and “Yerno” in the spaces for Mayor
and Vice-Mayor, respectively, were written by the same guilty hand as
shown by the capital letter C in “Carlos”, T in “Tan” and Y in “Yerno”.
These two ballot are, therefore, invalid.

Five ballots, (Exhibits A-23; A-59; A-64; A-89 and A-105).

The
voter in the first ballot voted only for “Borra” and “Cambronero”; in
the second, the voter voted only for “Quirino” and “Roganton”, in the
third the voter voted for “Sarcon,” “Yerno” and four councilors; in the
fourth the voter voted for “Zulueta”, “Borra” and “Cambronero” and in
the last voted for seven councilors from line 2 to 8. With the
exception of the third ballot, the name “Sarcon” was written by the
same guilty hand and should therefore be declared invalid. Only the
third is valid.

Three ballots (Exhibits A-11; A-24 and A-83).
Similarly, these three ballots were tampered by the same guilty hand.
The first 2 ballots were voted in Arabics while the third voted only
for “Kimpo” in blue pencil. The guilty hand wrote “Carlos Tan” and the
other writing as can be seen by his characteristic capital letters “C”
and “T”.

Two ballots (Exhibits A-98 and A-48). These were
each prepared by two hands. “Zulueta” in both ballots were written by
one hand, the same person who wrote this word in the 11 ballots, supra.
This hand wrote also the rest, written in blue-colored pencil, in the
second ballot. The rest of the writing in the first ballot was written
by the same guilty hand that prepared the 45 ballots, supra.

Two
ballots (Exhibits A-17 and A-47). These two ballots were each prepared
by 2 hands. “Carlos Tan” was written in both ballots by the same guilty
person in the 45 ballots, supra, but the name “Sarcon” was written by the same hand in the two ballots.

Four ballots (Exhibits A-82; A-95; A-104 and A-108). These were prepared by the same guilty hand that prepared the 45 ballots, supra. He tried to disguise his writing but he could not escape judgment by one who has become used to his letter formation.

Three
ballots (Exhibits A-18; A-65 and A-88). A careful scrutiny of these
ballots shows that nothing in them indicates that they have been
tampered with. They are valid.

Group II

Thirty ballots (Exhibits B to B-30, inclusive, with
the exception of B-28). They were all prepared by only one individual,
the same person who wrote the votes for Senators in the group of 11
ballots, supra, of Group I. The writer made an attempt to
disguise his handwriting which may be classified into three groups, as
follows: first group, Exhibits B; B-1; B-7; B-8; B-10; B-12; B-15;
B-16; B-17; B-18; B-22; B-24; B-25; B-26; acid B-27; second group.
Exhibits B-2; B-3; B-4; R-5; B-9; B-13; B-19; and B-21; and third
group, Exhibits B-6; B-11; B-14; B-20; B-23; B-29 and B-30. The first
group may be described as the writer’s ordinary handwriting with his
usual slant; in the second group, he changed his slant making it a
little bit vertical; and in the third group, he made his letters
smaller but in his usual slant. The writer is an accomplished one. He
comouflaged his handwriting ty using lead, indelible and blue-colored
pencils, but this did not vitally change his habitual form. His
formation of capital Y in “Yerno” in all the ballots, except a few, is
eye-catching, in that, it starts with a flourish from below. This is
also true in his capital V in “Villareal”. One can easily notice his
formation of Z hi “Zulueta”, K in “Kimpo”, M in “Mantel”, C in
“Cambronero” and T in “Tadio” and “Tan”. They are all alike in all the
ballots.

One ballot (Exhibit B-28). This is void because the
writings therein were written by three different hands. This is
apparent by a mere examination of the ballot.

Group III

Seventeen ballots (Exihibits C to C-16, inclusive).
They were all written by one and the same person. The general
appearance of the handwriting in all the ballots shows that the
writing’s therein were made hurriedly, but the writer did not attempt to
disguise his penmanship. The ballots may be grouped into three: first
group Exhibits C; C-1; C-2; C-3; C-6; C-9; C-10; C-11; C-12 and C-14
were all written in lead pencil; second group, Exhibits C-4; C-5; C-7;
C-8; C-13; and C-15; all written in blue-colored pencil; and the last
group, Exhibit C-16, written in indelible pencil.

Group IV

Nine ballots (Exhibits D to D-8, inclusive). They were all written by one hand with apparently the same indelible
pencil. No attempt was made to disguise the handwriting. The most
Distinguishing characteristic of the handwriting is the upward flourish
in all terminal letters of the names of the candidates, especially the
terminal letter “o” in “Yermo”, “Cambronero” and “Kimpo”.

Group V

Eight ballots (Exhibits E-1; E-4; E-5; E-6; E-11-
E-12; E-13 and E-16). They were all written by one hand. The similar
formation of the following capital letters betray the fraud committed:
S in “Sarcon”, Y in “Yermo”; B in “Bengson” and “Borra”, R in
“Rogenton” and “Randing”; F in “Flores” and V in “Villareal”. In all
the ballots, the capital letter C in “Cuenco” and “Cambronero” were
written like a small letter c.

Four ballots (Exhibits E-9;
E-18; E-21 and E). They were written by the same person who wrote the 8
ballots in the preceding paragraph. The writing was disguised by the
writer changing his slant, making it vertical and using different
pencils. But the characteristic formation of his capital letters Y in
“Yermo”, F in “Flores”, V in “Villareal”, R in “Ragonton” and “Rand’ng”
are unmistakably present.

Four ballots (Exhibits E-10; E-17;
E-19 and E-20). They were all written by one hand using a blue-colored
pencil. The writing in all the ballots is very similar with the same
light pen pressure. The heavier downward stroke in the terminal “1” in
“Laurel”, “Mantel” and “Villareal” is glaringly noticeable.

Three ballots (Exhibits E-3; E-7 and E-14). They were written by the same hand that wrote the 8 ballots, supra.
The writing in these ballots was disguised by making the letters a
little bigger than the group referred to. But the same letter formation
can be- found in these ballots.

Two ballots (Exhibits E-2 and
E-15). They were written by one person. This is apparent by a mere
examination of the ballots. His letter formation and slant are alike in
both ballots.

Three ballots (Exhibits E-8; E-22 and E-23).
Nothing in these ballots shows that they were tampered with. They were
each written by different voters. They are valid.

Group VI

Four ballots (Exhibits F to F-3). They were all
written by one and the same person, the first ballot, in indelible
pencil, and the last three in blue-colored pencil. The handwriting in
these 4 ballots is very much alike. Even the spelling of the senators
vote for in these 4 ballots is the name “Luarel” for. Laurel, “Zuelta”
for Zulueta, and “Locin” for Locsin.

Group VII

Two ballots (Exhibits G and G-1). They were each
written by two hands. One hand wrote the name “Sarcon” in both ballots,
while the Arabic votes in each ballot were written by two different
persons. This is apparent by a mere examination of the ballots. These
ballots are, therefore, void.

Group VIII

Eight ballots (Exhibits H and H-7, inclusive). They
were all written by one person using a blue-colored pencil. The
handwriting in these ballots is all identical, the writer having made
no attempt to disguise his penmanship. This is apparent by a mere
examination of the ballots.

Group IX

Seven ballots (Exhibits 1-1 to 1-7, inclusive). They
were all written by only one individual who tried to disguise his
handwriting by using indelible, lead and blue-colored pencils. But his
attempt ia belied by his identical formation of the four-legged capital
M in “Mantel”, the capital letter “D” in “D. Sarcon” and “D. Mantel” in
4 of the ballots, capital letter Z in “Zuleta” and L in “Loosing” and
“Laurel”. – His attempt is further exposed by his wrong spelling of
Zulueta as “Zuleta” and Locsin as “Locsing” which are found in all the
ballots.

One ballot (Exhibit 1-8). This was written by at
least tv/o hands. One hand wrote the names “Sarcon”” and “Yermo” in the
spaces for Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively. One can immediately
detect that the writer of these names is more accomplished than the
hand that wrote the votes for senators, members of provincial board and
councilors.

One ballot (Exhibit 1.) This appears to be good. There is nothing to indicate that it was tampered with.

Group X

Two
ballots (Exhibit J and J-2). They were written by one individual. The
handwriting in both ballots is identical in all respects

The name of Carlos Tan was written in both ballots as one word.

One
ballot (Exhibit J-1). The handwriting in this ballot appears to be
different from that in the other ballots and there is nothing to
indicate that it was tampered with.

Group XI

Two ballots (Exhibit K and K-1). They were written
by one hand. No attempt to disguise the writing was made and the
similarity of the penmanship in both ballots is very apparent. These
two are void.

Group XII

Two ballots (Exhibits L and L-1). These two ballots
were written by two different persons. The dissimilarities between the
handwriting in both ballots are more striking than any similarity that
can be seen. The slant, letter distances, stroke, penlift and pen
pressure are different. These two ballots are, therefore, valid.

Group XIII

One ballot (Exhibit M). This was written by two
persons. One hand wrote the senatorial candidates from line 3 to 7,
while the rest was written by another. The first hand is the same one
that wrote the senatorial candidate in the group of 14 ballots, supra, under Group I. The slant, pen pressure and terminal strokes are different from the second hand.

One
ballot (Exhibit M-1). This was written by the same person who wrote the
votes for provincial and municipal officials in the ballot discussed in
the preceding paragraph. The letter formation slant and the penlift in
“Yermo” are identical.

Group XIV

Two ballots (Exhibits N and N-1). They were written
by one and the same person. No attempt to disguise the writing was
made. The sizes of the letters, spacing, alignment and letter
formations in both ballots are identical. These two ballots are,
therefore, void.

In resume, we find that of the 226 ballots declared
spurious by the lower court, 15 are legitimate and should be cast in
favor of the protestee. These ballots are Exhibits A-68; A-79; A-92;
A-99; A-64; A-18; A-65; A-88; E-8; E-22; E-23; I; J-I; L and L-1. The
findings of the lower court as to the balance of 211 ballots should be
sustained. Deducting this number from the votes awarded to the
protestee by the Board of Canvassers, we have that the protestant has
won the election with a majority of 118 votes.

Wherefore, with the above, modification, we hereby affirm the decision appealed from,without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.