PERFECTO BALASON, PROTESTANT-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO BALIDO, PROTESTEE-APPELLANT.

The case involves a dispute over a public office Barrio Captain – of Concepcion,
Batangas, Batangas, as an off-shoot to the barrio
elections held by the residents of the said barrio of Con­cepcion on January 12, 1964, pursuant to
Republic Act 3590 known as the “BARRIO CHARTER”.

At the said elections,
the Board of Elect­ion Tellers proclaimed Ernesto Balido
as the duly elected Barrio Captain of Concepcion,
Batangas, Batangas, who
received one hundred fifty-one (151) votes as against his opponent, Perfecto Ba­lason who obtained
one hundred forty-nine (149) votes, with a plurality of two (2) votes
over the latter.

On January 25, 1964,
Perfecto Balason filed election protest before the
Municipal Court of Batangas, Batangas
impugning the election of Ernesto Balido to the
office of Barrio Captain of Concepcion, Batangas, Batangas, on the
grounds of “(a) errors or mistakes or bad appreciation of ballots; and (b)
improper adjudication of votes.”

After a trial, the Municipal Judge rendered decision declaring
“the protestant (Perfecto Balason) the winner of the
elections for Barrio Captain in the barrio of Concepcion,
Batangas, Batangas, held on
January 12, 1964, with a plurality of six (6) votes…” The protestee was ordered to pay to the protestant 250.00 as
damages in the form of attorney’s fees, plus P12.00 as commissioner’s fees, and
the costs.

Ernesto Balido appealed to the Court of
First instance of Batangas from the decision of the
inferior court.

After a trial on the merits of the case, a decision was rendered
declaring “the protestant (Perfecto Balason) the
winner in the elections for Barrio Captain of Concepcion,
Batangas, Batangas, held last January
12, 1964, with a plurality of three (3) votes over the protestee,
Ernesto Balido, who is hereby ordered to pay to the protestant the sum of P300.00 as
attorney’s fees, and the costs.”

From the foregoing last decision, Ernesto Ba­lido
appealed to this Court.

Section 8, Republic Act 3590, known as the BARRIO CHARTER, provides:

“All disputes over barrio elect­ions shall be brought before
the justice of the peace court of the municipality concerned; And in the determination and decision thereof, the court
shall follow as closely as possible the
procedure prescribed for inferior courts in Rule 4, Rules of Court.  The decision or the jus­tice of the peace
court shall be appealable pursuant to the Rules of Court
to the Court of First Instance whose decision shall be final on questions of fact.”

Six assignments of error are listed in the appellant’s brief.

Under the first error, the rejection by the trial court of the
ballots, exhibits DD and EE, for the protestee, on
the ground they are marked, is as­sailed.  In urging for the reversal of the court’s
ruling, the appellant says:  “It is
possible that the secretary of the Board of Election Tellers had placed these
numbers (332 and 333) on the questioned ballots, to indicate how much ballots
he had prepared or were in his possession before voting started.” The
conten­tion, based as it is on a mere
supposition, is, obviously, without merit, for, if any semblance of truth there
could be in the assumption, to establish it as a fact, the appellant should have summoned any member of the
Board of Election Tellers to the witness stand to testify on that matter.

In relation to these two challenged ballots which the trial court
had rejected as marked, the court said:

“5.  Exhibit “DD”, because it is a marked
ballot.  The placing of No. 332 on the
upper right hand corner of the ballot enables a third person to determine,
without other aid, that it was the vote of a particular person.  The voter thereby endangers the secrecy of
his ballot by placing said number as a mark of identification.”

“6.  Exhibit “EE”, where the number 333
(was written) on the ballot serves to identify the voter.”

Under the second error, it is contended that the court erred in
not declaring the ballot, exhibit W, as
valid vote for the protestee.  Appellant argues thus:  “On the ballot, the
name of Ernesto Balido is written n the space for sitio.  The lower court re­jected this ballot, on the ground that protestee’s
name was not written on the proper space for barrio captain.  The trial court said:

“2.  Exhibit ‘W, where the name Ernesto Balido is
written on the space for sitio. ‘In order that a vote may
be counted in favor of the candidate for a particular of­fice, his name must be
written in the space reserved on the ballot for the name of the candidate for
that office.  If the name is writ­ten in
the space reserved for ano­ther office, the ballot cannot be counted as a vote
for said per­son for the office for which he is a candidate.” (Aviado v. Telaus, 52 Phil. 665.)

Under the third error, the admission of the ballot, Exhibit 55,
as valid vote for the protestant, is assailed, on the ground that said ballot
“contains a completely and entirely distinct name from that of the
protestant.”

In reference to this particular ballot, the court said:

“Exhibit ‘55’, where the name P. Balason
Guerra is written in the space for barrio captain.  Guerra is one of the candidate
for councilman and the placing of his name in line with Balason
does not annul the vote in favor of the latter.” (Amurao v. Calagi, CA-G. R.
No. 18240-R, June 14, 1457)

Under the fourth error, the ruling of the court in not rejecting
the ballots, exhibits 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 75 and 76 for the protestant,
is assailed, the appellant arguing that
– “x x x as it may
readily be observed, these ballots are not the official ballots intended for
the use of the voters, because they are different from those originally
prepared and distribu­ted among them by the secretary of the Board of Elect­ion
Tellers.”

In this regard, the trial court said:

“Exhibits ‘58’, ‘59’, ’60’, ‘61’, ‘62’, ‘63’, ‘74’, ‘75’, and ‘76’. 
The court cannot see how or in what way they
violated the secrecy of the ballot.

“Further, the court declared valid the challenged ballots of protestant
Perfecto Balason with a statement that his name is
writ­ten in the space for barrio cap­tain because in each and every one of said
ballot it can be seen that it was the intention of the voter to vote for said
candidate.”

Specifically ruling on the ballot, exhibit 60, one of those
objected to on the ground that it was not an official ballot, the trial court
said:

“Exhibit 60, where the name of P. Balason is written in the space of Barrio Captain.  The objection that it is not an
official ballot is without merit considering
the testimony of Alfredo Austria, chairman of the Board of Inspect­ors, who
said that they had to use emergency ballots which they ran out of official ones
and that said
ballots were initialed by him before they were deposited into the box.”

Under the fifth error, the ruling of the court with reference to the ballots, exhibits 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,
29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 48,
50, 51, 58, 59, 66, 68, 80, and
83 admitting them as valid votes for
the protestant, is assailed, appellant arguing thus:  “The record will show that protestee stated the ground of his object­ion to each of
these ballots.  The court, by merely
stating that ‘in all of which P. Balason is written
on the space for Barrio Captain’ did not resolve the objections raised in the way
the rule provides.”

Unfortunately, however, the appellant has fail­ed to state in his
brief the grounds of his objec­tions to the admission of said ballots, as he
had in­terposed in the lower court, and in view thereof, there is lacking a frame of reference upon
which to base a ruling on the admissibility of said ballots.  Be that as it may, however, the reference to
the bal­lots, exhibits 58 and 59 in this error under consideration, which
ballots are also assailed under the fourth error, on the ground that they are
not official ballots, gives strong
indication that the questioned ballots under the fifth error were also objected
to for the identical reasons as those ballots mentioned in the fourth
error.  At any rate, there seems to be no
valid reason to reject the questioned ballots as valid votes for the
protestant, because, as the trial court said, “the said ballots were
counted as valid for the protestant, because the name of P. Balason
is already written on the
proper space for Barrio Captain.”

Under the sixth and last error, the ruling of the court admitting
the ballot, exhibit 57, as valid vote for the protestant, is disputed,
appellant con­tending that the name “Perepeato”
is not idem sonans with “Perfecto”.

With respect to this ballot, the trial court said:

“Exhibit ’57’, where the name ‘Perepeato’
is written in the space for Barrio Captain. ‘A name or surname incorrectly written which, when read has a sound
equal or similar to that of the real name or surname of a candidate shall be counted in his
favor.'” [Rule 2, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code.]

The foregoing considerations clearly demons­trate that the issue
posed by the appellant in re­lation to the ballots disputed in his brief, is
factual, going into the correctness of the appre­ciation of the ballots.  Hence, the decision of the trial court on the
admissibility of said ballots is final. 
And there is no question of law raised in this appeal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed on the
grounds:  firstly, the question raised
being factual, the decision of the trial court is final, and this Court lacks
jurisdiction to review the appeal; and, secondly, the appreciation made by the
trial court of the disputed ballots being in accord­ance with the facts and the
law, the decision is affirmed.  Costs against the appellant.

Dizon, Acting C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Reyes, J.B.L.,
J., on official leave of absence.