PIO VALENZUELA, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JUAN B. CARLOS AND SILVINO LOPEZ DE JESUS, RESPONDENTS. JUAN B. CARLOS, APPELLEE.

At the general election held in the Province of
Bulacan on June 3, 1919, three persons presented themselves as
candidates for the office of provincial governor, to wit, Juan B.
Carlos, Pio Valenzuela, and Silvino Lopez. In this election the
Nationalist party was split into two factions, represented respectively
by Silvino Lopez, the candidate of the Nationalist party proper, and
Juan B., Carlos, the candidate of the faction known as the Nationalist
Popular League, while the third candidate mentioned, Pio Valenzuela,
was the representative of the Democratic party. As might be expected
from these conditions the election was hotly contested, and such
political excitement was engendered. When the election was over and the
returns canvassed, it was found that, upon the face of the official
returns, Juan B. Carlos had been elected provincial governor, having
received 10,046 votes, as certified by the provincial board of
canvassers; while Pio Valenzuela was second, with 9,861 votes; and
Silvino Lopez third, with 7,187. Carlos was accordingly certified as
elected and later was inducted into office.

Dissatisfied with the result, Pio Valenzuela, the defeated
democratic candidate, in due time began the present proceedings by
motion to contest the election. Both his opponents having been duly
cited, Juan B. Carlos appeared and not only made an active defense
against the contestant’s motion but instituted a counter-contest; while
Silvino Lopez, after having formally answered, allowed the proceedings
to take their course without further participation on his part.

Upon submission of the case for decision, his Honor, Judge
Bartolome Revilla, presiding in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan,
after considering the contentions of both parties, decided that Carlos
had been elected by a plurality of about 1,800 votes over Valenzuela
and he accordingly dismissed the contest. From this decision the
contestant appealed.

In beginning the discussion it should be noted that the unofficial
figures showing the results of the election, as published at Malolos,
the provincial capital of Bulacan, in the two or three days immediately
succeeding the election, differed materially from those afterwards
promulgated by the provincial board of canvassers; and these
differences were sufficient to change the apparent result of the
election for provincial governor. The most conspicuous of these changes
is found in the figures relative to the first precinct of San Rafael,
where by the official returns Carlos received 329, instead of 111 votes
with which he had been credited in the unofficial returns; while in the
same precinct Valenzuela, who had been credited in the unofficial
returns with 154 votes, received in the official returns only 29 votes.
In the second precinct of San Rafael, the official canvass showed a
reduction of 10 votes in the number received by Carlos, he being here
officially credited with 160 votes instead of 170. In the third
precinct, where the votes in favor of Carlos and Valenzuela
respectively had been reported as 17 to 50, the official returns showed
32 to 35, indicating a loss of 15 to Valenzuela and a corresponding
gain of 15 for Carlos.

These discrepancies between the unofficial figures and the results
of the official canvass were not restricted to the municipality of San
Rafael, being scattered over a number of other municipalities or
precincts which are unnecessary to be mentioned. Some of these
discrepancies can of course be assumed to be the result of mere errors
in the unofficial reports, due to the fatalities of chance as the
information passed from one person to another on its way from the
places where the votes were counted to the provincial capital; for
nobody ever heard of an election of any magnitude in which the
unofficial reports coincided in every detail with the true returns. In
this instance, however, the changes effected in the returns by the
official figures are decidedly more favorable to Carlos than to his
opponent; and it is a fair assumption that some intelligent agency may
have been at work either to garble the first unofficial figures or to
falsify the final official returns.

The explanation supplied by the contestee is to the effect that the
discrepancies referred to—so far as they may have resulted from
designing human intervention—were the result of a prank perpetrated by
one Aniceto Cruz, who had charge of the telephone over which the
unofficial returns of the election were received at the provincial
building in Malolos, from whence they were given general publicity,
upon the billboard and by mimeographed copies, for the information of
everybody. We incline to the view that the personality mentioned may
have contributed somewhat to the confusion which resulted in the
returns but the incident can exert no decisive influence over the case
and we pass it without further comment.

In prosecuting our examination into the details of the vote cast in
the various contested precincts, we shall for obvious reasons first
direct attention to those precincts which have been put in issue by the
contestant, the appellant in this court, as part of his case in chief;
and in this connection we note that the contestant insists upon the
total suppression of the returns from the three precincts of the
municipality of Bustos, the seventh precinct of Malolos, and the three
precincts of Paombong. In regard to the first and third precincts of
San Rafael the contestant insists that the returns sent in by the
inspectors were falsified as regards the office of governor. As a
consequence he contends that secondary evidence should be admitted to
show what the results in these precincts really were. In respect to the
second precinct of San Rafael, it was at first insisted by the
contestant that the official returns had here also been falsified by
the election officials to the detriment of the contestant; but when the
boxes were opened and their contents examined, the result of the
recount was found to be more favorable to Carlos, by a few votes, than
the result shown by the official returns. When this fact was revealed,
the contestant took the position that the contents of these boxes had
probably been tampered with and that the ballots found in said boxes
should not be accepted as conclusive as to the votes cast. Instead, he
suggests that the court should here either adhere to the official
returns or accept the unofficial figures as correct.

We shall now proceed to consider the contests relating to the
various precincts in the order above suggested, indicating what we
consider the proper figures for each precinct in turn, and reserving to
the conclusion of this opinion such observations as we may wish to make
with respect to particular ballots which have been brought into
discussion.

Bustos; precinct 1.—The appellant has assigned error to
the action of the court in refusing to suppress the returns from the
first precinct of Bustos. In this connection it appears that the ballot
boxes pertaining to this precinct were violated on or about the night
of June 22, 1919; and when said boxes were examined in this contest,
there were found in the box of used ballots only 6 ballots bearing the
name of Carlos and 6 bearing the name of Valenzuela, whereas by the
official returns Carlos received 177 votes in this precinct and
Valenzuela 13.

Upon the question as to which of the present litigants, if either,
is responsible for the spoliation of these boxes, the evidence is
undecisive. It is morally certain that said act cannot be attributed to
Carlos, since his interests would have been better promoted by the
conservation of the ballots than by their destruction; and he has
produced a full tale of 177 individuals, who swear that they voted for
him in this precinct. It is suggested in the appellant’s brief that the
despoiling of these boxes was really in the interest of Carlos since,
if the ballots had been produced, they would have proved the truth of
the appellant’s charge that many votes had been dishonestly read for
Carlos when they were in fact cast for Valenzuela. But this rests upon
the assumption that this species of fraud was perpetrated, which is
refuted by the testimony of the witnesses, 177 in number, who declared
that they had voted for Carlos. It is absolutely incredible that, if
such a fraud as that supposed by the contestant had been perpetrated,
the contestee could have produced, or would have attempted to produce,
the requisite number of witnesses to swear that they had voted for him.

From evidence submitted on the part of the contestant one is
inclined to credit the charge that the ballots were extracted from the
boxes in question on the night of June 22, 1919, by a policeman named
Marcelo, Bunag, aided by one Agustin Lopez, both affiliated with the
Nationalist party, and that said ballots were carried by these two to
the home of one Hermenegildo Hilario.

On the other hand, it may be inferred from proof submitted by the
contestee that a certain defeated candidate for representative had
entertained criminal designs on these boxes, with a view to the
possible furtherance of his own contest for a seat in the House of
Representatives. In this connection the witness Valeriano Castro
testified that said personage had offered him the sum of P200 to steal
the boxes of the first precinct of Bustos, saying that the
disappearance of those boxes would enable him to be successful in his
contest for the office of representative. Singularly enough, the
individual alluded to, although at one time participating in the
present lawsuit as one of the attorneys for the contestant, did not
take the stand to refute this imputation; and the unfavorable inference
which the trial judge drew from his reticence was apparently not
entirely without basis.

But assuming that either the one or the other of the parties thus
placed under suspicion were the possible authors or instigators of the
act, we do not think that sufficient connection has been shown on the
part of the contestant or contestee to justify fixing the
responsibility upon either. In considering a question of this kind, it
must be borne in mind that, after a general election has been held,
many disappointed persons have their minds fixed with curiosity and
suspicion upon the ballot boxes. Charges of irregularities and fraud
readily spring up; and when it is shown that a box has been violated
the commission. of the offense should not be laid at the door of any
particular candidate without strong presumptions or actual proof of
complicity. In the present case it is a reasonable and tenable
supposition that this act of spoliation was committed by some third
person, and possibly without the design to promote the interest of
either of those litigants. In this view the spoliation of these boxes
was the act of a stranger, and in our opinion neither litigant should
be penalized therefor. The practical result is that the official
returns for this precinct must be adhered to and Carlos is therefore
entitled to be credited with 177 votes and Valenzuela with 13.

As already stated the trial judge permitted the contestee, over the
objection of the contestant, to introduce witnesses who waived their
privilege of secrecy and testified that they had voted for the
contestee. This testimony was in our opinion admissible for the purpose
of rehabilitating the returns from this precinct. In this connection it
is to be borne in mind that the contestant had impugned the returns
from this precinct and had introduced evidence tending to show that the
boxes of this precinct had been violated by persons affiliated with the
party to which the contestee belonged. In this state of the case it was
proper to admit the testimony of voters in order to show that the
contestee actually received the votes with which he had been credited.
This procedure is criticised by the appellant as permitting an election
to be held a second time by the court. But it must be remembered that
this proof is received not for the purpose of accrediting the votes of
the witnesses so testifying to either litigant but to show that the
returns which have been brought under suspicion are correct; and it is
in this sense that such proof is considered admissible. The action of
the trial judge in admitting this proof was therefore correct and
besides it was in conformity with the decision of this court in Dayrit vs. San Agustin and Valdez (40 Phil., 782).

When it was understood that the testimony of these numerous voters
from the first precinct of Bustos would be presented in court, the
trial judge, at the request of the contestee and over the objection of
the contestant, appointed a date for the taking of their testimony in
the municipality of Bustos, of which both parties had due notice; and
upon that date his Honor went to that municipality and a great number
of said witnesses were there examined. It is now assigned as error that
the action of the judge in repairing to the municipality of Bustos was
unauthorized and that the judicial acts there done are devoid of legal
effect. For this reason the appellant would have us declare that the
testimony thus taken cannot be used in this case. This position is in
our opinion not well taken. It is true that there is no provision of
law directly authorizing a court to repair to a place other than that
where the court sits for the purpose of taking the testimony of
witnesses, though there is a provision under which the Secretary of
Justice may direct a special session of court to be held in any
municipality. (Sec. 163, Adm. Code.) It is to be borne in mind,
however, that the session of court which was thus held in the
municipality of Bustos was held for the exclusive purpose of taking the
testimony of witnesses and it was held during the probatory term,
before the cause was submitted for argument or judicial determination.
Under these circumstances the trial judge must be considered to have
been acting somewhat in the character of a commissioner to take a
deposition; and as it does not appear that he abused his discretion in
going to the municipality of Bustos for this purpose the irregularity
in so doing was not vital.

Among the 177 persons who thus testified that they voted for Carlos
were a number of illiterate persons; and upon cross-examination some of
them said that they had not been required, as a preliminary to voting,
to make oath concerning their incapacity to prepare their ballots, and
some also stated that only one inspector was present when their votes
were made out. For this reason the appellant insists that the votes of
these persons should be deducted from the votes of Carlos in this
precinct. In our opinion this position is not well taken, even
supposing that the irregularities mentioned actually occurred.

It must now be regarded as settled doctrine of this court that
innocent voters should not be deprived of their votes by the failure of
the election officers to comply with requirements of law such as are
here under consideration. While such provisions are mandatory before
the election, they are to be considered after the election as directory
only. (Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 39 Phil.,
208, 214.) By this it should be understood that if the vote of an
illiterate person should be challenged before it is put in the ballot
box on the ground that he has not taken the required oath or that he
has been assisted in the preparation of his ballot only by a single
inspector, such vote would not be admitted. But after the vote is cast,
the irregularity is not vital. This court has never declared an
election in any precinct invalid for any mere irregularity of this
character, unaccompanied by other evidence of fraud.

In the case of Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, supra,
it is suggested that the vote of an illiterate person who has voted
without complying with the formal requirements above contemplated
should be deducted from the votes cast if the ballot can be identified.
However, it must be remembered that when the court speaks of rejecting
a ballot on such ground, or grounds, the situation contemplated is that
where the irregularity complained of is part of a fraudulent scheme to
frustrate a free expression of the desires of the electorate. Where
there is no evidence of fraud and it clearly appears that the vote as
cast actually reflects the choice of the voter, the innocent voter
should not be disfranchised by the deduction of his vote from the total
number cast.

Bustos; precincts 2 and 3.—The boxes in these precincts
were opened and a recount was had at the instance of the contestant. No
specific assignment of error has been made to the action of the court
in connection with the revision of these votes but it is intimated that
the returns from both these precincts should have been suppressed. We
find no proof in the record that would have justified such course, and
the supposed error was not committed. There is, however, one
circumstance connected with the vote in these precincts to which
attention will be directed. It is that when the box containing the used
ballots of the second precinct was opened by the five commissioners
appointed for this purpose, two of them made a note in the report to
the effect that various ballots found in this box were written in one
and the same hand. In the similar report concerning the ballots
contained in the box from the third precinct the same two commissioners
made a note to the effect that 160 ballots in favor of Carlos appeared
to have been written by one hand and 25 by another. Nevertheless, all
five of the commissioners allowed these ballots to pass without
question and they were adjudicated to Carlos. Under these circumstances
there is nothing for us to do except to adhere to the revision, as
approved by the trial judge. Certainly, if there had been anything to
be made out of this circumstance favorable to the contestant, the
question should have been properly raised and the ballots brought
before us. But this has not been done. The statement that such a large
proportion of the ballots contained in the box of the third precinct
was written by a single hand, if true, suggests the possibility that
the box had been violated. But if so, the official returns would
doubtless have prevailed in any event.

The result is that Carlos must be credited with 193 votes in the
second precinct of Bustos and Valenzuela with 36, which are the figures
adopted by the trial judge. The revised figures for the third precinct,
as adopted by the trial judge, show a vote of 206 for Carlos and 32 for
Valenzuela, but the vote of the latter must be here increased to 39f by
reason of the addition of 7 disputed ballots which we concede to him as
will hereafter appear.

Malolos; precinct 7.—In this precinct the polls were
closed at the precise hour fixed by law, or 6 o’clock p. m., at which
time there were still two hundred or more electors who had not voted
and most of whom were then present near the voting booths, awaiting an
opportunity to cast their ballots. The appellant insists that the
democratic voters had been systematicaly excluded from the polls during
the entire day and that the closing of the polls at the hour mentioned
had the effect of disfranchising nearly two hundred of the voters of
this party. In this connection evidence was submitted tending to show
that the voters pertaining to the Nationalist party proper and to the
League were lined up on opposite sides of the polling place and from
these only voters were allowed to enter alternately when occasion came
to admit them. The result was, so it is alleged, that the democratic
voters were unable to gain admittance in any appreciable numbers during
regular voting hours.

Upon this point a preponderance of the evidence in our opinion
shows that no systematic effort of the kind here supposed to
disfranchise democratic voters was made; and the circumstance that so
many persons were unable to vote was due to the inadequate facilities
for handling so many voters within the lawful voting -hours. Indeed,
not a few of the witnesses examined by the contestant testified that
they were unable to vote merely because of the crowd.

The proof shows that the polls were closed promptly at 6 for the
reason that before election day instructions had been sent out from the
Executive Bureau in Manila to the effect that the voting should be
closed at 6 in accordance with the provisions of law and this order was
communicated by Governor Buendia to the election officials in Malolos.
It is possible that among those disfranchised by the early closing of
the polls persons of democratic affiliation may have predominated; but
it is shown that many voters of other parties were disfranchised in the
same manner. It results that the trial judge did not err in adhering to
the original returns in the seventh precinct of Malolos and in there
alloting to Carlos 133 votes and to Valenzuela 88.

Paombong; precincts 1, 2, and 3.—The appellant seeks to
suppress the returns from the three precincts of Paombong on the ground
that, during the hours appointed for the election, voters known to be
of democratic affiliation were kept from voting. The plan by which this
is supposed to have been accomplished was similar to that alleged to
have been used in the seventh precinct of Malolos, namely, that the
voters belonging to the Nationalist party proper were kept in line at a
certain place near the polls, and the voters of. the League were
similarly lined up on another side. From these two lines only voters
were admitted to the polling place, either alternately or by taking an
equal number from each line to obtain the quota necessary to fill the
booths at any time. The ward leaders charged with the duty of
maintaining these lines are alleged to have excluded voters of
democratic affiliation, with a natural desire to get their own voters
through with as little delay as possible.

Upon examining the proof bearing upon this feature of the election,
we are convinced that the democratic voters were here discriminated
against in the matter of admission to the polls, and that this was done
with the connivance of the election officials, with the result that
when the hour fixed by law for closing the polls arrived comparatively
few of the voters of this persuasion had been able to vote.
Nevertheless, this irregularity cannot be held to have vitiated the
election; for the reason that in each of these precincts, the election
officials kept the polls open until every eligible voter present had
voted. This was done at the urgent insistence of the democratic leaders
themselves for the express purpose of securing an opportunity for their
followers to vote. In one of these precincts the voting appears to have
continued practically throughout the entire night, and in all three
precincts the voting continued until all registered voters who
presented themselves for this purpose had voted. A comparison of the
registration lists with the number who actually voted in these three
precincts shows that very few eligible voters, if any, could have
failed to vote on account of being excluded from the polls during the
regular voting hours of election day. In this connection we note that
the average number of registered voters who failed to vote for any
cause in these three precincts was below twenty; and where so many
hundred were enrolled it is evident that the number thus actually
deprived of the right to vote, if any, must have been inconsiderable.

The legality of the election in the first precinct of Paombong is
also attacked by the appellant on the ground that some persons were
here assisted as illiterates who are alleged to have been competent to
make out their own ballots. It appears, however, that such persons gave
assurances that they were unable to write and apparently took the oath
prescribed for illiterates. Some of these persons who were thus
assisted as illiterates exhibited bandaged hands as evidence of their
temporary incapacity to write. The incident does not impress us as one
that would justify the annulment of an election; and it is partly
explainable by reference to the fact that not a few persons qualify as
electors on the ground of being able to read and write who nevertheless
are very deficient in their command of the pen. As might be expected
when election day comes and these persons are confronted with the duty
of preparing their ballots they are seized by lack of confidence, and
naturally many seeks assistance on the ground that they are unable to
prepare their votes. If such assistance is sought in good faith, and
there is nothing in the case before us to indicate the contrary, the
irregularity, if such it be, is unimportant.

It must be held that his Honor, the trial judge, did not err in
adhering to the official returns in the three precincts of Paombong,
thereby awarding to Carlos 607 votes and to Valenzuela 79.

San Rafael; precinct 1.—The contest over the vote in this
precinct presents the concrete question whether the official returns,
as made out and certified by the election officers, were falsified in
respect to the office of provincial governor by showing a vote of 329
to 29, instead of 111 to 154, as between Carlos and Valenzuela.

The counting of the votes in this precinct consumed the entire
night of June 3, and was finished early in the morning of June 4, 1919.
Upon the conclusion of the count, the few watchers and spectators who
had had the patience and curiosity to stay to the end, dispersed; and
the election officials say that they then proceeded to make out the
returns in quadruplicate.

Two copies of this return are in evidence and the only difference
observable is that, in the copy Exhibit G, the words stating the number
of votes cast for two candidates for representative (Norberto Manikis
and Cirilo B. Santos) are written over erasures, showing that the votes
first placed opposite these names had been changed. This incident is
explained by the inspectors, who concur in saying that in setting down
these figures an error had been made in placing the vote of Manikis
opposite the name of Santos and the vote of Santos opposite the name of
Manikis. The same error appears to have been made in each of the four
copies, and was not noticed until the time came for the inspectors to
sign. Upon discovery of the mistake, two entirely new copies of the
returns were made out upon the only two remaining forms which were
available; and for the other two it was necessary to erase the original
figures and substitute the correct figures. Upon a careful examination
of the proof bearing upon this alteration, we are satisfied that the
alteration was made in the manner and for the reason stated, but, as we
shall presently show, there is no certainty that the returns now before
us and containing the changes above referred to are the precise returns
that were made up before the inspectors dispersed.

The work of holding the election having been thus accomplished, the
ballot boxes were placed upon a cart and dispatched in the direction of
the municipal building. The president of the board of inspectors, one
Nazario Valero, accompanied the carretela, and the municipal secretary,
who had been in attendance at the polling place, also started along.
Now, it so happened that Valero’s residence is near the municipal
building, and as all who had participated in the election work were
exceedingly tired, it was agreed between Valero and the municipal
secretary that the former should keep the boxes in his house and under
his care until they could be delivered to the secretary later.
Accordingly the boxes, upon reaching their destination, were
transferred to the home of Valero, just opposite the municipal
building, where they remained until late Friday afternoon of June 6,
when they were brought over to the municipal building upon the occasion
of a meeting of the council.

The evidence shows that the copy of the certified official returns
from this precinct which should have been promptly forwarded to the
provincial treasurer at Malolos was not forwarded for two days, and as
a result the provincial treasurer came to San Rafael on the evening of
the 5th, inquiring why those returns had not been sent in. In reply he
was informed that the municipal secretary had then forwarded the
document.

The unofficial returns fro this precinct, however, reached Malolos
on the morning of the 4th, showing, as we have stated in the beginning
of this opinion, that Carlos had here received 111 votes and Valenzuela
154; and these returns had been then duly published on the bulletin
board at the provincial building. Just how this information was sent to
Malolos is a matter of dispute. The evidence submitted on this point by
the contestant tends to show that when the conclusion of the count was
reached, it appeared that the vote was 111 to 154 as between Carlos and
Valenzuela, and that the results of the election for this office, as
well as others, was communicated over the telephone between 9 and 10 a.
m., on the 4th, by the municipal treasurer, one Servillano de Jesus, to
the office of the provincial treasurer at Malolos. The fitness Vicente
Valimento says that at the time the communication just mentioned was
transmitted over the telephone by the municipal treasurer he (the
witness) was present and saw in the hands of the treasurer a copy of
the returns showing the results of the election for the various
offices, among which were the figures for governor indicated by him,
namely, 111 to 154. The person in charge of the telephone in Malolos,
Aniceto Cruz, says that he faithfully received and recorded the returns
and that the figures placed on the board were those actually received
by him.

On the other hand, the municipal treasurer denies having sent any
such message, and the testimony of witnesses at the other end of the
line (Malolos) tends to show in an unconvincing way that Aniceto Cruz
may have deliberately introduced changes into the figures received by
him.

A careful perusal of the testimony relating to this incident leaves
one with the impression that something is wrong and that the version of
the matter given by the municipal treasurer is lacking in candor. We
believe that his testimony is animated by a desire to shield somebody
and that for this purpose he has feigned not to have participated in
sending in the first returns. Yet those returns went through his
office, and he could scarcely have been ignorant of the fact of that
communication, even if he did not send it.

We now return to the incident of the counting of the votes. The
same Vicente Valimento mentioned above testified that he was present
where the count was conducted during the whole night of the 3d, and
sufficiently near to hear the votes called out; that he kept tally on a
cardboard of every vote for certain offices, including that of
governor, and he exhibited in court the board on which these votes had
been recorded. He says that he truly recorded the vote and that the
number actually received by the two respective candidates were as
stated, to wit, 111 to 154. He was corroborated substantially, as to
the result thus stated, by two witnesses, Generoso Inducil and Getulio
Gonzales, who were watchers for the Nationalist party. ‘The first of
these witnesses says that Valenzuela got more votes in the count than
Carlos, without giving figures, while the latter says that Carlos got
111 votes to Valenzuela’s 154.

We are unable to treat the testimony of this trio as lightly as did
the trial judge, and we are of the opinion that, taken together, and in
combination with other facts, it is sufficient to engender belief that
the official returns are false. The inference thus deduced in our
opinion becomes a certainty when a fact is considered to which
attention will now be directed.

It is well-known that where the electorate is largely illiterate
and voters are required to write into the ballot the names of the
persons voted for, there is a tendency to vote most heavily for the
offices at the head of the ballot, except where great public interest
may have been aroused over some particular office lower down on the
ballot. Thus, taking at random the official returns from precinct 4 of
Pulilan, where 590 persons voted, we note that 540 voted at the top for
senator, while only 497 voted for governor, the third office on the
ballot, and 436 for municipal president. Now, by the official returns
of the first precinct of San Rafael, it appears that in all 419 persons
voted. Of these 381 voted for senator and 339 for representative, while
for the office of governor, next below on the ballot, the total vote
recorded is 406. This vote for the office of governor is within 3 per
cent of the total number of persons voting and it is reasonably certain
that this number could not have voted for that office.

We have examined the averages in a number of precincts taken at
random, and we find that the number of votes cast for the office of
governor runs on the average from 15 to 20 per cent below the total
number voting. In other words, the fraud in the first precinct of San
Rafael is proved by the excessive and unreasonable total of votes
attributed to the three candidates, and especially to Carlos. On the
other hand, the vote for governor as revealed in the unofficial returns
is about 25 per cent below the total number voting, and though this
disparity is large, the percentage is not markedly out of line with the
vote cast for this office in some other places.

Our conclusion is that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
returns showing 329 votes for Carlos and only 29 votes for Valenzuela
in the first precinct of San Rafael are evidently falsified; and in our
opinion the true vote in this precinct, as between the candidates
mentioned, is 111 for Carlos and 154 for Valenzuela.

Sera Rafael; precinct 2.—The contestant asked for a
recount of the votes in the second precinct of San Rafael, and when the
boxes were opened the result was found to be more favorable to Carlos
by a few votes than the official returns had shown. The contestant’s
attorneys thereupon asked the court to adhere to the official returns.
The reason assigned for this is that the box is now supposed to have
been violated. This, we think, is refuted by the proof; and although
this box had been taken to Manila upon the occasion of the contest over
the election for representative, it does not appear to have been
officially opened in that contest, and we are fairly well satisfied
that it had not been tampered with. It result that the trial judge
committed no error in assigning to Carlos 178 votes and to Valenzuela 7
in this precinct, °Which is the result of the recount, there being no
assignment of error by the contestant upon details.

San Rafael; precinct 3.—In order to exhibit the facts
relative to the contest in the third precinct of San Rafael, it is
necessary to relate an incident connected with the election in precinct
1, which is this: When the counting of the votes in that precinct had
been concluded, Nazario Valero took with him from the voting place, as
was proper, the official returns and the unused ballots, from one to
two hundred in number, pertaining to this precinct. These he turned
over on the morning of June 5 to the municipal secretary. What became
of this package of unused ballots is not absolutely known. The
municipal secretary says that they disappeared. But when the box of
used ballots pertaining to the third precinct of San Rafael was opened
in this contest there were found therein 114 ballots pertaining to the
first precinct, showing that this box at least had been violated, and
that the perpetrator of the crime had substituted ballots of the first
precinct for the genuine ballots of the third precinct which he must
have taken therefrom. Of said 114 ballots, 17 were so fixed as to
purport to be votes for Carlos, 50 for Valenzuela, 15 for Silvino
Lopez, and 32 without any name for governor. As between Carlos and
Valenzuela this is precisely the vote shown by the unofficial returns;
and if these votes were accepted as genuine the contents of this box
would strongly corroborate the contention of the contestant to the
effect that the original returns were as published immediately after
the election.

But the fatal circumstance here is that the ballots substituted for
the genuine ballots are not ballots of this precinct but of precinct lf
and the proof shows that ballots bearing the proper mark for this
precinct were used in voting here. Why did the violator of this box
substitute ballots from precinct 1 in a box pertaining to precinct 3?
The answer is doubtless found in the fact that precinct 3 had been
lately formed from precinct 1, and the ballots especially designed for
use in precinct 3 were requisitioned and obtained after the votes for
the other precincts had been obtained. ”The man who performed the
substitution, knowing that precinct 3 had just been detached from
precinct 1, probably thought—if the matter occurred to him at all—that
tickets from precinct 1 might pass without question, and he possibly
did not notice that the tickets taken by him from this box bore the
distinguishing number of this precinct. At any rate the fraud is
manifest.

When it was thus revealed in court by the inspection of this box
that the votes cast had been substituted by illegal ballots pertaining
to another precinct, the contestee Carlos was permitted to introduce 33
witnesses, all of whom waived their privilege of secrecy and, with the
exception of one, testified that they had voted for the contestee. The
single witness referred to said that he voted for Valenzuela. The
latter introduced no witnesses to ratify the remaining votes that had
been credited to him in the official returns in his favor.

Upon this state of the proof the trial judge gave Carlos 32 votes
and Valenzuela 1, thereby depriving Valenzuela of 34 out of the 35
votes with which he had been credited iji the official returns from
this precinct. Upon this it is alleged in error that the trial judge,
upon discovering that the contents of the box had been changed, should
have adhered to the official returns.

Whether his Honor should have done so, in our opinion depends upon
whether Valenzuela can be, fairly said to have been responsible for the
violation of this box; and upon this we are constrained to hold that
such responsibility is not proved. It is true that, superficially
considered, the changes effected in the contents of this box might seem
to have been made in his interest, since, if these spurious substituted
ballots had been accredited by the court, the result in this precinct
would have corroborated, in a vital way, the contention of the
contestant to the effect that the returns as posted on the bulletin
board at Malolos were correct and that the official returns had been
changed after the count was over. Nevertheless, we are confident that
the contestant acted in good faith in asking that this box be opened
and that personally he probably had no knowledge of the act of
violation. We therefore concede to him the benefit of the doubt and
hold that the official returns must be here accepted as to both
candidates, which show 32 votes for Carlos and 35 for Valenzuela.

Having concluded our survey of the results in those precincts where
the contestant seeks the entire suppression of the returns, we shall
proceed to consider those precincts the returns from which have been
brought into discussion under the counter-protest; and in this
connection we observe that the trial court, at the instance of the
counter-protestant, Carlos, totally suppressed the returns in the first
and third precincts of Polo, the five precincts of Meycauayan, the two
precincts of San Ildefonso, and the third precinct of Angat. To these
therefore in turn our attention will presently be directed.

But before so doing it is necessary to dispose of the assignment of
error (No. 1) directed to the action of the court in permitting the
contestee, Carlos, to amend his motion of counter-contest on the date
of September 16,1919. In this connection it appears that the original
protest was filed by the contestant on June 23, 1919, and the original
answer and counter-protest was filed by the contestee on July 7, 1919.
After this the cause was finally called for hearing, after a single
adjournment, on September 16, 1919, upon which date the amended
counter-protest was submitted by the contestee. Upon this date no proof
had as yet been submitted by the contestant; and we are of the opinion
that it was clearly within the discretion of the court to admit at that
juncture the amended counter-protest. Certainly it would be difficult
to discover the possibility of any legal prejudice resulting from that
act to the contestant, no proof having as yet been taken by either
party. When in addition to this it is remembered that the taking of
proof in this case was continued over a period of more than one year,
and that a considerable period of time intervened between the filing of
the counter-protest and the taking of any evidence whatever by the
contestee in support of the allegations of his counter-protest, it is
quite evident the trial judge cannot now be put in error in having
allowed the contestee to amend.

Polo; precinct 1.—The appellant calls in question the
action of the trial judge in having allowed the ballot boxes of this
precinct to be opened, it being insisted that the proper conservation
of the same had not been sufficiently proved. We are unable to agree
with the appellant on this point; and we accept the testimony of
Francisco Mendiola, who was acting secretary of the municipality at the
time of the election, in relation with that of his successor, Eugenio
Agustinis, as sufficient to show prima facie that the boxes
were kept inviolate until they came under the care of the detachment of
the Constabulary that was sent to guard them, after which the boxes
went into the custody of the clerk of the court.

The data upon which the trial judge mainly relied as his basis for
the annulment of the election in this precinct consist of certain facts
which were revealed when the ballot boxes were opened, namely, first,
that the list of illiterate voters and incapacitated persons who
required assistance was not found in the box where the inspectors said
it had been placed; secondly, the number of used ballots (435) found in
the appropriate box was 7 less than the number of persons (442) who
appeared to have voted, while on the other hand the number of spoiled
ballots (51) and unused ballots (114) was sufficient, when added to the
number of ballots actually used, to complete the exact number of
ballots (600) delivered for election purposes to the inspectors of this
precinct. From this circumstance the trial judge inferred that 7
ballots had been used outside the polls during the election for the
fraudulent purpose of having the ballots prepared outside and delivered
to the intending voter, who in turn was required to bring back from the
polling booth the clean ballot delivered to him by the election
officers. In this practice, the ballots thus illegitimately used serve
the function of a shuttle; and by means of even a single ballot, the
votes of many may be controlled. In the view of the trial judge the 7
ballots thus illegally used in the first precinct of Polo must have
been surreptitiously introduced after the election into the box of
spoiled and unused ballots through a slot which may have been left
uncovered.

In addition to the circumstance above noted it was found upon
examining the ballots cast in this precinct that more than 70 had been
written with lead pencil, and this, notwithstanding the fact that
indelible pencils had been supplied to the election inspectors in
sufficient number to supply all the booths. The inspectors testified
that between 10 and 11 o’clock on the morning of the election it was
discovered that there were no pencils in three of the booths. The
necessary inference to be drawn from these facts is either that the
indelible pencils had been surreptitiously taken from these booths
after the voting began or that such pencils had not been placed in the
booths at all. At any rate the absence of the indelible pencils from
the voting booths during a part, or the whole of the day, must be taken
as probably explaining the appearance of the 92 ballots written with
lead pencil.

All of the circumstances above referred to, taken together, and
others of leas moment mentioned by the trial judge, are not in our
opinion sufficient to justify the annulment of the election in this
precinct. It is not to be denied that there is ground for a suspicion
that one or more ballots may have been used in exactly the manner
suggested, and it is conceivable that ballots may have been thus
illegally introduced into the boxes during the election. But taken
together, all this is matter of pure conjecture, and the circumstances
mentioned do not in our opinion furnish any secure basis for annulling
the returns from the entire precinct.

As a consequence of the view we take of the facts relating to this
precinct, all of the legal votes found in this box must be counted.
This means that we here concede to Carlos 17 votes and to Valenzuela
371, admitting certain ballots challenged by the commissioners, as will
appear hereafter.

Polo; precinct 3.—Upon examining the ballots cast in this
precinct there was found to be a discrepancy of one between the number
of persons who actually voted and the number of ballots found in the
box of used ballots, while the total number of used and unused ballots,
plus the spoiled ballots, fell short by two of the total number of
ballots delivered to the election officers prior to the election for
use in this precinct. In addition to this, the number of ballots which
the inspectors said they were able to identify as having been made out
by themselves fell somewhat short of the number which they should
apparently have been able to identify as written in their script,
having regard to the number of illiterates who were shown by the
registration lists to have sought assistance. Moreover, a number of
voters in this precinct who had personally prepared their own ballots
stated, after looking through the ballots found in the box, that the
ballots prepared by them were not there.

In regard to the discrepancy of one between the number apparently
voting and the number of used ballots, as well as the shortage of two
in the number of ballots necessary to complete the number of those
originally here placed in the hands of the election officers, the same
must be said as was said of a similar discrepancy in the first precinct
of Polo, namely, that though these facts may excite suspicion they do
not prove fraud in the sense necessary to nullify the election. Nor in
our opinion is a sufficient case made for the annulment of the election
on the additional ground that some 12 or 13 ballots which the
inspectors apparently should have filled out for illiterate persons
were not identified; or that some voters who voted for Carlos said they
did not find their ballots among those actually cast. Such proof we
consider of doubtful value, and the too ready acceptance of the
inference drawn from it would in our opinion be exceedingly dangerous
to the security of election results. In this connection it should be
borne in mind that when an election is over, persons on the losing side
whose position has not been publicly known may readily feign, as a
matter of vanity or policy, to have voted for the successful candidate,
and if confronted with the proposition of identifying their ballots,
they naturally would hesitate to admit as theirs a ballot which
possibly would contradict their pretensions in respect to some one or
another of the persons voted for. Moreover, election inspectors
themselves might not infrequently have good personal reasons for not at
once recognizing the work of their hands. On the whole we are inclined
to minimize the weight of proof of this character; and at any rate the
circumstances referred to, even if true, are not in our opinion
sufficient to justify the disfranchisement of the entire electorate in
this precinct, as would result from the annulment of the election.

The official returns from the third precinct of Polo must be
therefore adhered to; and in this connection it will be noted that no
addition can be here allowed in favor of Carlos by reason of the
statement of a number of voters who claim to have voted for him but who
said that their ballots were not to be found among the used ballots.
The admission of these votes would indeed amount to the holding of a
second election by the court. Carlos can in consequence be credited
only with the 13 votes attributed to him in the official returns, while
Valenzuela receives 244.

Meycauayan.—The protestee submitted the testimony of
numerous witnesses tending to show irregularities in the conduct of the
election in the various precincts of Meycauayan. The external
irregularities thus charged, with respect to the conduct of the
election in the several precincts, as summed up in the appellee’s
brief, are substantially as follows:

In the first and second precincts the voters, so it is claimed,
were permitted to crowd into the polling places without due regard to
the accommodations, with the result that two electors were sometimes
found to be installed in a single compartment at the same time; and in
said precincts Hermogenes Lim, Moises Buning, and Alipio Pedro were
permitted to engage in improper activities as watchers, mingling among
the voters, urging them to vote for certain candidates, and unlawfully
assisting some in the preparation of their ballots. By this means, it
is contended, the secrecy of the election was fatally impaired.

In the third precinct the voters are said not to have been duly
identified; and an inspector, one Jose Padilla, a partisan of Pio
Valenzuela, is said to have paced to and fro during a great part of
election day in front of the voting booths, observing the voters and
placing model ballots (plantillas) in their hands. As preparatory to
the recount of the ballots in this precinct, those cast for Arsenio
Francia, one of the candidates for municipal president, were placed in
a pile separate from the pile containing the votes of his two opponents
Hermogenes Lim and Pablo Noriega; and it is said that the count was
suspended while there yet remained in the box other ballots which were
not examined.

It is also claimed that after the voting was finished in this
precinct the registration list was augmented by adding the names of
persons not previously registered in order to adjust the list to the
number voting.

In precinct 4 the voting was interrupted at one time during the day
for a few minutes—some of the witnesses say as long as half an hour—by
the sudden appearance of a shrieking woman who, being pursued by a man
armed with a bolo, sought refuge in the polling place. This incident
caused many of the people who were collected around the place to enter
its precincts; and as a result of the disorder the election inspectors
jumped up, scattering over the floor the unused ballots and other
papers connected with the election.

Upon examining the proof in support of the irregularities mentioned
above, it is quite apparent that such of these irregularities as are
actually proved do not have the significance that the attorneys for the
appellee would have us attribute to them, and they certainly could not
be taken to justify the annulment of the election returns from these
precincts. Indeed, the attorneys for the appellee rely upon these
irregularities not so much for the purpose of thereby nullifying the
returns from these precincts as for the purpose of showing the
existence of irregularities and fraud sufficient to justify the opening
of the boxes and the examination of the ballots found therein.

The facts upon which the trial judge relied for the suppression of
these returns were deduced by him chiefly from the internal evidence of
fraud, supplied by the contents of the boxes themselves. Upon these
features of the case we shall presently make some comment, but it must
first-be stated that in our opinion by a clear preponderance of
evidence both internal and external, the ballot boxes in the several
precincts of Meycauayan had been tampered with before their contents
were the subject of inspection in this case. It results that the facts
revealed upon opening said boxes cannot serve as a basis for setting
the official returns aside. It is well settled as a legal proposition
that where the evidence shows that the ballot boxes have been ^violated
and their contents changed, the original count must prevail; and it has
been held that the fact that some of the ballots in a box have been
tampered with impeaches the integrity of all in that box on a recount.
(20 C. C. J., 255.) Before the ballots found in a box can be used to
set aside the returns, the court must be sure that it has before it the
identical ballots deposited by the voters. (Rhode vs. Steinmetz, 25 Colo., 308; Cobb vs.
Berry, 168 Pac, 46.) Upon the point of the due conservation of these
boxes, it appears that, prior to the trial in this case, a contest over
the municipal offices in this municipality had been instituted; and the
contents of these boxes were examined in that contest. It results that
the seals have been broken, and the external appearance of the boxes at
the time of the trial afforded no proof either one way or the other
upon the question whether they have been violated. But wholly apart
from this, the evidence of violation is conclusive.

A witness named Genoveva Pengson, school mistress, introduced by
the contestant, testified that a short while after the election she and
others filled out the forms of about 150 official ballots, of which she
herself fixed 30. This was done, so she says, in the interest of the
contest of one of the candidates for municipal president, the idea
being that the ballots thus fixed were to be surreptitiously introduced
into the ballot boxes for the purpose of giving plausibility to his
claims. For other offices than that of municipal president the names of
various candidates were inserted, as suited the whims or preferences of
the person writing the ballot.

We have no doubt that ballots were thus fabricated by Genoveva
Pengson, and the proof of the statement is found in the fact that she
undoubtedly recognized and identified 18 of these ballots in the boxes
of the third precinct. The only doubt which we have entertained with
reference to the testimony of this witness is whether or not those
spurious ballots might not have been fixed on or before the election
and fraudulently intromitted on that day into the ballot box. If a
conspiracy to effect this had been made effective, this would doubtless
have justified the annulment of the election in this precinct; but
taking the proof all together this court is unable to say that such
fact is proved.

In connection with the testimony of Genoveva Pengson, and as
corroborative of the inferences deducible therefrom, may be mentioned
the testimony of one Benigno Roque, sanitary inspector, who says that
on or about Sunday morning of June 22, 1919, he had occasion to go to
the municipal building in Meycauayan upon an errand relative to the
issuance of a burial certificate, and that upon this occasion he passed
into the office of the municipal secretary and saw the municipal
president, Liberato Exaltation, confronting some open ballot boxes and
with numerous ballots on the table before him, among which was a
handful of mutilated ballots.

When it is borne in mind that Genoveva Pengson is corroborated by
two witnesses as to the fact that ballots were filled out by
her,—though said witnesses fix the time as the day of the election; and
when it is further borne in mind that Genoveva Pengson afterwards
recognized her own handiwork in 18 of the ballots found in the boxes of
the third precinct, and that 59 mutilated ballots were found in the
ballot box of the fourth precinct, which undoubtedly came from some
other box, the fact of the violation of the boxes must be considered
conclusively established.

It is suggested in the opinion of the trial judge that the
circumstance that 59 mutilated ballots were found in the box of
precinct 4 might be interpreted as showing that there was collusion
among the inspectors of the election; but it is impossible to see how
this transfer of ballots from the box of one precinct to another could
have been effected upon the day of election before the official returns
were made up. Nor is any reason discernible why such feat should have
been then undertaken.

In stating the conclusion that the violation of the boxes in these
precincts is proved, we have not overlooked the proof submitted by the
contestee tending to show that said boxes were properly conserved,
under the care of the appropriate officials, from the time the election
was held. This proof, we admit, was prima facie sufficient to
justify the opening of the boxes in this contest; but it is not
conclusive and cannot prevail against the combination of facts showing
that violation occurred.

Bearing in mind, then, our assumption that some and perhaps all of
the ballot boxes pertaining to the various precincts of Meycauayan had
been violated, we now direct our attention to the facts revealed upon
the actual examination of said boxes. In this connection it may be
stated that upon opening the boxes in precinct 1, 4 used ballots were
found to be missing, and there was an excess of 7 among the spoiled
ballots. Again, the inspectors recognized only 5 ballots as having been
prepared by them for illiterate persons, while 17 appeared to have
sought assistance. Furthermore, one Juan Bello, a voter in this
precinct declared that he was unable to find his ballot among those
contained in the box of used ballots. From the facts above-mentioned
his Honor inferred that 7 ballots had been illegitimately used outside
of the polling place for the purpose of shuttling prepared ballots into
the election boxes, and that some of the votes of illiterates, as well
as that of Juan Bello, had been fraudulently substituted by other
ballots. His Honor furthermore suspected that 59 ballots found in the
box of the fourth precinct with tops torn off, so that the precinct to
which they originally pertained could not be known, had been taken from
the box of precinct 1. Whether this conjecture be true or not cannot be
known. But it is evident that, in conformity with our ruling upon the
first and third precincts of Polo, the official returns must here
prevail.

In the second precinct, the two ballot boxes which should have
contained respectively the used ballots and the spoiled ballots were
both found, upon being opened, to contain ballots which appeared to be
in all respects legitimate ballots. Of such ballots the first box
contained 393 ballots and the other 95, which, being added together,
make a total of 488, or an excess of 88 over the whole number who
voted. This indicates that something is wrong here, but what is the
nature of the trouble and whom does it affect? Perhaps it could be said
that the boxes had simply been violated and these excess ballots
introduced after the election. But the trial judge entertained the view
that many persons had voted more than once in this precinct, resulting
in an excess of ballots. This may have been the case, as there is some
evidence tending to show that on election day the voters were admitted
to the polling place in this precinct without identification. If so,
the inspectors, at the beginning of the count, would have been
confronted with the fact that they had decidedly more ballots on hand
than would be accounted for by the number who had voted. In view of
this, it is a plausible conjecture that the inspectors may have
discarded excess ballots sufficient to reduce the number of used
ballots to about the number who ought to have voted. We may add that
authority for such procedure to reduce an excess of ballots is found in
the Election Law ( Adm. Code, sec. 462).

Now it is evident that the official returns from this precinct were
made up from the contents of the box containing 393 ballots, since by
the official returns Carlos is here credited with 38 votes, and
Valenzuela with 289, and in the box referred to there were found 38
votes for Carlos and 288 for Valenzuela. The 95 ballots found in the
other box therefore probably represent discarded excess ballots; and
upon inspection of these, it is found that only two bear the name of
Carlos while fifty bear the name of Valenzuela, and the remainder have
no name in the space for the office of governor. From this it is
evident that if any of Valenzuela’s followers voted a second or third
time, this candidate could have gained nothing by the process, since
practically all of the discarded votes for governor bear his name. On
the other hand, Carlos benefited by the discarding of these votes since
the proportion of votes thus discarded which bear his name was not by
any means equal to the ratio of his vote to that of Valenzuela in the
box whose contents were counted. In this view of the case, the
irregularity supposed to have occurred was not prejudicial to Carlos;
and therefore the election in this precinct cannot be annulled at his
instance on the ground of this irregularity.

In the third precinct, both boxes, upon being opened, were found to
contain ballots which, to all appearance, might have been legitimately
voted; but as the number of electors actually voting was 175 it is
evident that the official returns were based upon the count of the box
which contained exactly 175 ballots. Of these 105 were votes for
Valenzuela and 32 for Carlos. The other box contained 221 ballots in
all and showed a decidedly higher percentage of votes for Carlos than
the box first mentioned (Valenzuela 78; Carlos 53). Of course this
shows that something is wrong here also. The question is, In what did
the fraud or irregularity consist?

The trial judge in his decision notes the fact that the oath does
not appear to have been here administered to the illiterate voters, and
that there was a failure to identify the voters prior to admitting them
to vote. From this he apparently inferred that repetition of votes
occurred, with a consequent necessity on the part of the inspectors to
isolate and put into a separate box the large excess of ballots over
the number of actual voters. Possibly this may to some extent have been
the case as in the second precinct, but the enormous excess of the
votes that should have been discarded (221) under this theory, suggests
that some other factor was at work. We believe that these ballot boxes
had simply been stuffed after the election; and it was here, as will be
remembered, that Genoveva Pengson found the ballots that had been
prepared by herself. When the two boxes of the fourth precinct were
examined, there were found altogether ballots used, unused, and
mutilated, to the number of 659, or 59 in excess of the total number
which had been here delivered to the officers for election purposes;
and in the first of these boxes there was a package of exactly 59
ballots with the tops torn off, apparently for the purpose of
destroying evidence of the precinct to which these ballots had been
destined. The circumstance that 53 of them bear the name of Carlos
raises a suspicion—nothing more—that this number of votes may somehow
have been stolen from him; but all that we can say with certainty is
that the ballot boxes of these precincts had been violated: Their
contents therefore cannot be used to subvert the official returns.

Upon opening the boxes of the fifth precinct of Meycauayan, 1
ballot of the 600 here delivered to the election officials for purposes
of the election appeared to be wanting, while the number of ballots
found in the box of used ballots was 4 less than the number of persons
voting. In addition to this 3 ballots prepared by one of the
inspectors, Buenaventura Desiderio, was found in the box of spoiled
ballots,—whether for Carlos or Valenzuela is not stated. In conformity
with our ruling upon the effect of similar irregularities in other
precincts, it is necessary to hold that this election cannot be
annulled on account of the facts here stated.

But another circumstance is relied upon by the contestee to annul
the election in this precinct, namely, that the boxes were returned
without any official count of the vote having been made at the place
where the election was held. In this connection it appears that the
fifth precinct of Meycauayan is in a rural district, probably several
kilometers distant from the poblacion; and it is claimed by
the contestant that immediately after the polls were closed, between 5
and 6 p. m., on election day, the inspectors opened the boxes and set
out for the poblacion, carrying the boxes with them. Having
arrived at about 8 p. m., at the municipal building, or office of chief
of police immediately adjacent thereto, they are supposed to Have there
opened the boxes and made up the returns. This incident is denied by
persons concerned; but it is conceivable that the inspectors may have
done this thing, either from ignorance or some necessity arising from
lack of facilities for making the count at the polling place during the
nighttime. Into these conjectures we shall not enter, inasmuch as we
are of the opinion that the election in this precinct should not be
annulled by reason of said irregularity, there being nothing to show
that the official returns as made out are fictitious.

The result of the discussion relative to the contest in Meycauayan
leads to the conclusion that the official returns must be here adhered
to, not only because the boxes have evidently been tampered with, thus
destroying the probative value of the ballots found in the boxes, but
because the irregularities proved to have occurred in the several
precincts are not such as in our opinion would justify the annulment of
the election. We therefore concede to Carlos in the five precincts of
this municipality 137 votes, and to Valenzuela 958.

San Ildefonso; precincts 1 and 2.—His Honor wholly
suppressed the returns from both precincts of the municipality of San
Ildefonso on account of certain irregularities in the conduct of the
election; and although these precincts have many voters, the vote was
so nearly equally divided between Carlos and Valenzuela that the action
taken affects the result to the extent of only 4 votes in the first
precinct and 13 in the second. The proof indicates in our opinion that
during the greater part of the day average conditions as regards order
and decorum prevailed at the polling places in this municipality; but
as the day wore on and it became apparent that the voting facilities
were inadequate to accommodate the persons desiring to vote within the
lawful hours of voting, the persons waiting to vote became impatient,
and with the connivance or consent of the election officers began to
press into the polling places faster than they could vote. This
condition was more pronounced in the first precinct than elsewhere; and
there is evidence tending to show that some of the voters prepared
their ballots outside of the voting booths, availing themselves for
this purpose of school desks or resting the ballots on the splays of
the window. Moreover, it was observed that not infrequently the
incoming voter entered a booth before it had been vacated by his
predecessor.

That some disorder of this kind occurred may be admitted, but we
can feel no assurance as to its extent or duration; and we think we
would be attributing undue importance to it, if we should permit the
ejection to be set aside in these precincts on that account. We note in
this connection that in the original counter-protest, the vote in San
Ildefonso was attacked by the contestee on the sole ground that ballots
containing the name of Carlos had been erroneously misread for
Valenzuela, and it was only in the amended counter-protest of September
16, 1919, that charges appeared with respect to the violation of the
secrecy of the voting. It may therefore be inferred that the disorder
above alluded to was not of a character to have attracted general
attention on election day, and hence it was probably not such as to
have vitally affected the expression of the voters’ will. Certain other
irregularities are mentioned in connection with the election in these
precincts, such as failure to identify the voters who presented
themselves to vote, and the circumstance that the number of illiterates
in fact assisted by the inspectors was less than the number indicated
in the registration list as having asked for assistance. We consider
the evidence in support of these irregularities insufficient to merit
serious attention.

We have looked with greater suspicion upon the activities of the
president of the board of inspectors of the first precinct, one
Quintino Villacorte, who is said to have paced to and fro in the
polling place, obtruding himself unduly upon the attention of the
voters, and exerting pressure upon them to vote for certain candidates.
It is further claimed that, upon receiving the ballots from voters,
instead of inserting them at once into the ballot box, he did not
hesitate to open them on the pretext that they were improperly folded.
Notwithstanding all this, we are persuaded that if there had been any
systematic fraud perpetrated here in the interest of Valenzuela, the
result would probably have been more conspicuous in the returns.
Instead therefore of annulling the election in this municipality, we
here adhere to the election returns and concede to Carlos 311 votes and
to Valenzuela 327.

Angat; precinct 3.—The election in the third precinct of
Angat may be said to have reproduced on a minor scale some of the
features of disorder that characterized the election in the first
precinct of San Ildefonso during certain hours of the afternoon; and it
is perhaps sufficient to say that the case made for the annulment of
the election here is decidedly weaker than in the election in San
Ildefonso. According to the testimony of Teodorico Santos, the voters
came into the polling place in good order and in proper succession
until in the afternoon, when they began to crowd the place, with the
consequence that the election officials no longer checked off the
voters as they entered; but after the election was over, so this
witness says, names were checked off in the registration list to
correspond approximately with the number who had voted. According to
another witness, officious offers were made by inspectors here to write
out the ballots of persons who knew how to write. Our conclusion upon
examining the proof is that irregularities of the character mentioned
have not been proved to the extent that would justify a court in
annulling the returns. It results that in the third precinct of Angat
Carlos must be credited with 76 votes and Valenzuela with 151.

We now take up the discussion of the disputed ballots which are
supposed to represent votes for the appellant Valenzuela but which were
rejected by the trial judge. In approaching this feature of the case,
in order to abridge discussion and avoid the constant repetition of
rudimentary propositions, a word will be said as to the attitude of
this court in passing on the validity of ballots in general. The first
and principal thing to be here stated is that voters should be
encouraged to write their own ballots so far as possible, and it is the
bounden duty of every person ducting an election to assist in the
attainment of the freest possible expression of the will of the
electorate through the voters themselves. Consistently with this, the
utmost liberality must be observed in reading the ballots, with a view
to giving effect to the intention of the voters. Where many are
illiterate, the minor blemishes found on the ballots may be expected to
exhibit great variety, including errors of spelling, the casual making
of blurs and erasures, to which may be added unnecessary touches and
flourishes with the pencil. None of these blemishes can be considered
as affecting the validity of the ballot, where an honest intention on
the part of the voter to vote for certain persons is discernible in the
ballot. With respect to errors of spelling, or lack of finish in the
written name, it may be said that no honest mistake, due to ignorance
or illiteracy, should be permitted to defeat the intention of the
voter, if that intention is discoverable; and in this connection the
utmost liberality of construction must prevail.

We have held in this decision that if a surname is written as the
name of a person voted for and this name is clearly a different surname
from that of the candidate, such vote cannot be counted for the
candidate, even though the two surnames in some respects resemble each
other. For this reason, we have after some hesitation sustained the
trial judge in discarding several ballots, claimed by Valenzuela in
which the surname Valencia is written. Subject to exceptions of this
character, the general rule for the guidance of the election inspectors
and of lower courts must be to give effect to the intention of the
voter, whenever that intention is fairly discernible.

We may add that in order for a ballot to be considered marked, in
the sense necessary to invalidate it, it must appear that the voter has
designedly placed some superfluous sign or mark on the ballot which
might serve to Identify the ballot thereafter. Genuine illustrations of
such ballots, actually so marked by the voter, are of rare occurrence;
and considerations of public policy as well as of justice require that
no ballots should be discarded as a marked ballot unless its character
as such is unmistakable.

Another point which has been several times ruled in this case is
that a vote in favor of a candidate for a certain office is not to be
discarded merely because the name of the same person appears voted in
connection with some other different office, unless, of course, as
would scarcely ever be the case, the court can infer that the voter
deliberately adopted this device as a means of identifying his ballot.
To justify this inference there should be something more before the
court than the bare fact that the name is written under more than one
office. Of course this ruling will not be understood as permitting a
single person to be voted for more than once for the same office, as
for instance, if the voter should repeat the name of the same candidate
in voting for an office like that of councillor, where several are to
be voted for.

Polo; precinct 1.—The trial
judge threw out the returns from this precinct, as already stated, and
among the irregularities noted by him is the fact that many used
ballots here found in the box appeared to have been written with a lead
pencil instead of the indelible pencil supposed to have been delivered
to the inspectors for use in the election booths. In view of the fact
that we have reversed the trial judge in throwing out these returns, it
becomes necessary to pass incidentally on the validity of such of these
ballots as are fairly open to question; and we do not hesitate to hold,
in conformity with the doctrine of Manalo vs. Sevilla (24
Phil., 609), that the mere circumstance that a ballot is written with a
lead pencil, instead of with an indelible pencil, does not invalidate
the vote. True it is, this circumstance might in some cases be
relevant, in connection with other evidence, as tending to show that
fraud was perpetrated, as for instance where ballots are prepared away
from the polls and fraudulently introduced into the ballot box during
the course of the election. But in the case before us, we do not
consider the evidence sufficient to warrant the conclusion that any
such fraud was practiced. So far then as concerns being written with a
lead pencil, none of these votes can be discarded.

Some 20 other ballots brought up to this court as Exhibits AAAA-73
to AAAA-92 of the appellant were not actually ruled out by the trial
judge, because of the fact that, for other reasons, he threw out all
the votes of this precinct. But they were challenged before the
commissioners, and we have looked them over. In some there are manifest
errors in spelling the name Valenzuela, but in all the intention to
vote for him is sufficiently manifest to warrant the admission of the
vote. In one, the word “gobernador” is added after the name Pio
Valenzuela (AAAA75) ; in another, nine instead of eight councillors are
voted for, and the name of the last is below the bottom line enclosing
the space for names of the councillors (AAAA77); in another, a comma is
inserted between Pio and Valenzuela (AAAA-81) ; in another, commas or
period are inserted between the Christian name and surname of the
persons voted for as councillors (AAAA-82); in another, the voter,
evidently a very poor scribe, after vainly attempting to write the
names of the persons for whom he intended to vote as councillors, gave
up the effort and covered the remaining space with illegible scrawls
(AAAA-89). These and other similar defects noted in these ballots we
consider too trivial to require extended comment.

Polo; precinct 2.—Of the 23 ballots (Exhibit 25-A to 25-U,
inclusive) here rejected by the trial court all, with the exception of
one, in our opinion represent good and legal votes for Valenzuela and
should be counted for him. Among defects observable among these
ballots, which the trial judge considered vital, but which in our
opinion do not affect the validity of the vote are these: Certain
circular flourishes of the pencil over the space appropriate for votes
for municipal councillors, evidently made by the voter to indicate that
he did not wish to vote for any person for that office (25-A); the
placing of the title “Dr.” before the name of Pio Valenzuela and the
making of an oblique mark over the space for municipal councillors,
after the name of the single person voted for in that space, the
purpose evidently being to show that the voter did not wish to vote for
more (Exhibit B); the spelling “Poi” for “Pio,” and the placing of a
mark like the initial stroke of the letter A in the space for municipal
president, where the voter evidently started to write a name but for
some cause failed to finish (Exhibit C). In the same ballot there
appear some superfluous scrawls in connection with the initial letters
of the names of two persons voted for as municipal councillors. These
merely show that the voter, who was evidently unversed in the art of
penmanship, had difficulty in starting out to spell these names. In
another ballot, a triangular fragment, about the size of the print of
one’s thumb, has been torn out of the side of the ballot (Exhibit D), a
circumstance which to our mind could have no possible significance,
regardless as to how and when this fragment was torn off.

Exhibit 25-E was held to be a marked ballot by the trial judge for
the reason that the voter in voting for members of the provincial board
first erroneously wrote the word Fortuto for Fortunato, the Christian
name of one of the candidates for this office. Observing his mistake,
he cancelled the word Fortuto and wrote out the full name of the
candidate correctly in the next line below. It is evident that the
ballot should not be considered a marked ballot by reason of the
correction of the error here first made by the voter. In the ballot
25-G, the voter first erroneously wrote the name of Pio Valenzuela in
the place for representative, but perceiving his mistake, he erased the
name in that place, so far as he could, leaving a blur, and wrote the
name again in the place for the name of provincial governor. The vote
for governor cannot be rejected either because of the erasure or
because the same name has been written twice in connection with two
different offices. The ballot 25-H should not be rejected for the error
in the spelling of the name of the candidate voted for, which is here
written “Puo Balenzula;” nor is it vitiated by the further fact that
nine persons are voted for as municipal councillors instead of eighty
one of the names being written below the line which marks the space for
this office. This irregularity can affect the ballot only as regards
the office of councillors. The vote for Pio Valenzuela in ballot
Exhibit 25-1 is not rendered invalid by the circumstance that the voter
first wrote the name of Leandro Cabral in the space for municipal
president but afterwards struck this out and wrote the name of Arcadio
Constantino for the same office. The ballot 25-J is not rendered
invalid by reason of the illegible scrawls with which the space for
municipal councillors is covered, it being evident that the voter
merely intended to indicate that he could not or did not wish to vote
for councillors. Nor is the same ballot vitiated by the fact that the
words “Por tonto” are written in the space where the voter might have
placed the name of candidates for members of the provincial board. It
is probable that he may at first have intended to write the name of
Fortunato Rivera in this space, but gave up the attempt. The ballot
25-K cannot be rejected as marked for the mere reason that the word
“Pare” (compadre) is prefixed to the name of one of the persons voted
for as municipal councillor. The ballot 25-L is not vitiated by the
fact that the voter first wrote the name of Leandro Constantino for
municipal president, but perhaps thinking better of the matter, struck
the name out. The ballot 25-LL is not rendered invalid by the
circumstance that the name of Valenzuela is incorrectly spelled
“Baranzuela,” nor by the further fact that the voter first wrote the
name of a certain person for representative but later struck the name
out with repeated strokes of the pencil. The ballot 25-T is not
vitiated by the circumstance that the word “Senador” is prefixed to the
name of Teodorico Sandiko, candidate for senator. The ballot 25-V
should not be rejected because among the names of the persons voted for
as councillors there appear two names which it may be supposed are
entirely fictitious, namely, Agustin Bolsevik and Melecio Kaiser. The
remaining ballots in this lot, for the most part, contain repetitions
of the errors above indicated, and which in our opinion do not justify
the annulment of the ballot.

In the case of the ballot 25-T only, do we think it clear that the
ballot must be rejected as a vote for Pio Valenzuela, for all that is
written in the space for the name of provincial governor are the words
“Piu Gobernadur,” which is not the name of the candidate.

The 5 ballots 27-A to 27-E of course cannot be counted for Pio
Valenzuela, as governor, since in this ballot he is voted for only as
candidate for representative.

The result of our review of these ballots is that Pio Valenzuela is
entitled to 22 more votes in the second precinct of Polo than the court
allowed him, that is to say, we here concede to Carlos 19 votes and to
Valenzuela 296.

Bustos; precinct 3.—Of the 7 ballots claimed by Valenzuela
and discarded by the trial judge in the third precinct of Bustos, all
are in our opinion good ballots and must be counted for him. The only
defect from which 2 of these are supposed to suffer is that of being
written in lead pencil—a circumstance which, as we have repeatedly
held, does not affect their validity. In both of these the voters began
writing the first name with an indelible pencil but as the paper did
not take the coloring matter freely, they discarded the indelible
pencil and had recourse to a lead pencil. The ballot 13-C should not
have been considered a marked ballot even assuming, as the trial judge
supposed, that the name written for vice-president was Juanito Lopez.
As a matter of fact the name there written is Jacinto Lopez. The ballot
13-H is good though voter made more than one superfluous touch with the
pencil in starting to write the names of persons voted for, and he also
voted for nine councillors, instead of eight, the name of one being
outside of the proper space. In ballot Exhibit I the voter made a
horizontal stroke, 1 inch in length, immediately over the name of one
of the persons voted for, and he gave further variety to the ballot by
placing periods between the Christian name and surname of many of the
persons voted for. Neither of these details in anywise affect the
validity of the ballot. The ballot 13-K is supposed to be marked by
reason of the fact that a woman (Maria Desiderio) is voted for as
member of the council, but this cannot affect the validity of the vote
for governor. We believe at least two more of the ballots of this
series discarded by the trial judge were good, but as no question has
been made as to them by the appellant, they are here ignored.

Baliuag; precinct l.—Of the 18 ballots of the series of
Exhibits U which the trial judge discarded in this precinct, all are in
our opinion good except 2. No. 8 of this series cannot be counted for
the contestant because the surname of the person voted for is written
Valencia, which is a well-known and different surname from Valenzuela.
No. 15 of the same series was rejected by the trial judge as a marked
ballot. We acquiesce in this action as the figures, or letter, written
near the bottom of the ballot may have been designedly placed there by
the voter with a view to the possible future identification of the
ballot, and there are no indicia connected with the mark which would
enable us to reverse the finding of the trial judge. No. 17 of this
series is not rendered invalid by the circumstance that the voter
prefixed a series of numerals (1-8) before the names of the persons
voted for as municipal councillors. These numerals were evidently
placed merely to enable the voter to keep account of the exact number
of names which he proposed to write. Other defects noted in ballots of
the same series are in our opinion trivial, such as accidental blurs,
erasures, casual check marks, superfluous touches or flourishes with
the pencil, and the placing of dashes in spaces which are designedly
left vacant. None of these defects in the ballots before us are
sufficient in our opinion to invalidate them.

As a consequence of this revision Carlos is to be credited in this precinct with 151 votes and Valenzuela with 50.

Baliuag; precinct 2.—Of the 9 disputed ballots of the
series of Exhibits V, rejected by the trial judge in this precinct, all
but 3 are in our opinion good ballots. No. 6 of this series may be
considered marked by reason of having a printed slip pasted in this
place for representative and bearing the name Ricardo Gonzalez. No. 9
was rejected as a marked ballot by the trial judge by reason of the
fact that the letter 0 has been placed in the upper right hand corner
of the space for provincial governor. This mark was evidently written
with the same sort of pencil as that used by the voter, and conceivably
it may have been designedly there placed by him with a view to the
future identification of the ballot. ,At any rate there are no indicia
connected with the mark that would justify us in reversing the judge’s
action, for which reason we acquiesce in the rejection of this ballot.
No. 10 cannot be counted for the appellant for governor since his name
is written in the space for representative. Other defects noted in
these ballots are a mere repetition of features repeatedly mentioned by
us on passing over other ballots, and the ballots are not vitiated
thereby.

As a result of this revision Valenzuela is entitled to 6 votes in
addition to those conceded in this precinct by the trial judge, with
the result that Carlos is here to be credited with 168 votes and
Valenzuela with 204.

Baliuag; precinct 3.—Of the 2 disputed ballots coming from
this precinct we concede to Valenzuela the first, which is merely
written with a lead pencil and exhibits no other defect. The second
cannot be counted for him since the surname written in the space for
governor is not the name Valenzuela.

As a result of this revision Carlos receives 164 votes in this precinct and Valenzuela 126.

Baliuag; precinct 4.—Of the 30 disputed ballots of the
series of Exhibits T coming from this precinct all without exception
are in our opinion good votes for Valenzuela. No. 1 is not rendered
invalid as a vote for Valenzuela for the office of governor by reason
of the fact that his name also appears as one of the two individuals
named for members of the provincial board. Nos. 9 and 11 were rejected
as marked by the trial judge by reason of the fact that in the extreme
upper left hand corner of these ballots appears a mark somewhat like
the arithmetical radical sign used to indicate the extraction of a
root. The same mark appears in a number of other ballots of the same
series, and as these ballots are all apparently written in the same
hand it may be supposed that they were the work of some inspector who
assisted illiterate voters. Certainly the voter cannot be held
responsible for this caprice, and the ballots must be considered good.
Other defects supposed by the trial judge to vitiate certain ballots of
this series constitute merely a repetition of blemishes which we hold
to be immaterial, in conformity with our ruling upon other ballots.
There is, however, one feature noticed in connection with some of these
ballots to which attention should be directed. It is that on the back
of some there appears certain pencil strokes which have evidently been
placed thereon by some person other than the voters, doubtless with the
intention of annulling these ballots. So palpable a fraud cannot be
permitted to defeat the will of the voter.

As a consequence of this revision we concede to Carlos in the fourth precinct of Baliuag 167 votes and to Valenzuela 917.

Baliuag; precinct 6.—The action of the trial judge in
discarding 3 ballots claimed by the contestant in this precinct must be
sustained. Of these one cannot be counted for Valenzuela because the
name of the person voted for is written Pedro Valenzuela. The other two
must be considered marked ballots by reason of the fact that a printed
slip bearing the name of Ricardo Gonzalez is pasted in the space where
the name should have been written of the person voted for.

As a consequence, the vote for the two candidates in this precinct
must stand as declared by the trial judge, or 93 votes for Carlos and
165 for Valenzuela.

Pulilan; precinct 1.—The 2 ballots (PPP-1 and PPP-2) of
which the contestant was deprived in this precinct are clearly good. In
one the pencil used by the voter was repeatedly dampened with the
result that the coloring matter shows a disposition to spread. These
blurs cannot affect the validity of the vote. The other ballot has
evidently come in contact with a drop of ink as a result of which there
is an ink stain on the back of the ballot. For this the voter cannot be
held responsible.

As a consequence of this revision Carlos receives 42 votes in this precinct and Valenzuela 98.

Pulilan; precinct 2.—Of the 12 ballots of the series of
Exhibits ÑÑÑ, here discarded by the trial judge, the following 9 we
declare to be valid: No. 1, a ballot marked with a cross (+) in the
space intended for one of the two to be voted for as members of the
provincial board, the evident intention of the voter being merely to
indicate thereby that he did not intend to vote for more than one for
this office; No. 4, a ballot evidently written by a very ignorant and
illiterate voter in which the initial letter of Teodorico Sandico, for
senator, was at first incorrectly written, whereupon the voter left
this letter alone and made a second and more successful attempt. In the
same ballot the name of Pio Valenzuela is written Pio Talenzuela, it
being evident that the voter simply did not know how to make a V. No.
5, a ballot containing a light curved stroke with the pencil below the
name of the sole person named for councillor, erroneously supposed by
his Honor to have been designed as a mark, is good. Nos. 6 and 7, two
ballots wherein the name of Pio Valenzuela is badly written, but the
intent to write his name is manifest, are also good, as in Not 8, a
ballot in which the voter, after writing by mistake the name of
Fortunato Rivera in the place for governor, erased that name and wrote
over it that of Pio Valenzuela, the person for whom he intended to
vote. No. 9, in which the voter in writing the names of the candidates
for councillor indulged the pleasantry of prefixing the title
“Emperador” before the name of one and “Consejo de guerra” before that
of another, is not invalidated as to the vote for governor by this
fact. No. 16, in which the name first written for municipal
vice-president was struck out and blurred over with pencil marks, we
also hold to be a good ballot.

On the other hand, we approve of the action of the trial court in
rejecting a ballot which contains an impertinent expression in Tagalog
in the space wherle the names of persons voted for as councillors
should have been placed (No. 2), and one in which the name of the
person voted for is truly illegible (No. 3). No. 13 of the same series
was also properly rejected as a vote for Pio Valenzuela, inasmuch as
the name there appearing is merely “Pio Valen.” The voter here may have
decided that he did not wish to vote for Pio Valenzuela at all, and for
this reason may have left the name unfinished.

As a consequence of this revision Carlos is to be credited in this precinct with 28 votes and Valenzuela with 171.

Pulilan; precinct 3.—Of the 4 votes discarded by the trial
judge in this precinct, 2 are good votes for Pio Valenzuela,
notwithstanding the fact that the scribes were so illiterate that the
name as written is almost, though not completely, illegible. The other
2 cannot be counted for Pio Valenzuela, for governor, since the name is
written in the space for representative.

As a consequence of this revision Carlos received 81 votes in this precinct and Valenzuela 294.

Pulilan; precinct 4.—Of the 21 disputed ballots from this
precinct of the series LLL, we concede to Valenzuela the following: No.
5, which is without a blemish; No. 6, in which the name first written
by the voter for municipal president has had another name written over
it in some other hand, an irregularity which cannot affect the vote for
governor; No. 7, where one of the two names originally written for
members of the provincial board was erased by the voter; No. 8, where
the name of Valenzuela is poorly written, but legible; Nos. 10, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, and 24, for the same reason; No. 21, where the first
part of the name of Teodorico Sandiko was repeated by the voter, but
erased, in the space above where the name should have been written;
Nos. 26 and 27 are good notwithstanding the blurs made by the
illiterate voter in attempting to improve the results of his
penmanship. On the other hand, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 29 are bad because
the name of Valenzuela is here placed in the space for representative;
while No. 20 is bad because illegible.

Eighteen other ballots of the series of Exhibits MMM cannot, in our
opinion, be counted for Valenzuela though formally good, since these
votes were found in the box of spoiled ballots, and all except 2 are
indorsed “inutilizada.” Our surmise is that these are “excess” ballots
which may possibly have been separated by the inspectors from the other
used ballots pursuant to the provisions of section 462 of the
Administrative Code (1917). Even after discarding these votes, the
number of used ballots which where counted are said by the attorney for
the appellant to be six in excess of the number of persons reported to
have voted. Whatever the irregularity here may have been, it cannot now
be cured.

As a consequence of this revision Carlos is entitled to be here
credited with 76 votes in the fourth precinct of Pulilan, and
Valenzuela 264.

Bocaue; precinct 1.—The ballot here discarded as a marked
ballot, bearing the letters “Por su na” in the space for members of the
provincial board, is a good ballot. The voter probably intended to
write Portunato Rivera here, but did not command the requisite skill in
writing (QQQ). The 8 ballots of the series of Exhibits RRR, which were
discarded by the trial judge, affirming the action of the inspectors of
election, are all good votes for Valenzuela. The defects from which
they are supposed to suffer, such as slight blurs and insignificant
erasures, in no wise affect their validity.

As a result of this revision Carlos receives 83 votes in this precinct and Valenzuela 141.

Bocaue; precinct 2.—The three ballots here eroneously
rejected by the trial judge on the ground that they are written with a
lead pencil must be credited to the contestant. With this correction
the vote of Carlos in this precinct is 144 to 163 for Valenzuela.

Bocaue; precinct 3.—The three ballots of the series of
Exhibits VVV, of which the appellant was here deprived on the ground
that nine persons were voted for as councillors, one name being written
outside of the space for such office, must be restored to him, as this
irregularity in the ballot with respect to councillor could not affect
the legality of the vote for governor. Of the seventeen ballots of the
series of Exhibits UUU, which were rejected by the inspectors and by
the trial judge as defective ballots, the following are good votes for
Valenzuela, namely, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13,
since the defects from which they are supposed to suffer are not
sufficient to render them invalid. These ballots merely reproduce in
one way or another various trivial defects which we have repeatedly
held to be of no moment. On the other hand, Nos. 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17
of the same series are rejected because the name of Pio Valenzuela is
written in the space reserved for the office of representative.

By reason of this revision the vote in this precinct stands 123 for Carlos and 167 for Valenzuela.

Malolos; precinct 2.—Of the nine disputed ballots coming
from this precinct of the series of Exhibits 14-A to 14-1 only the
second ballot can be pronounced invalid as a vote for Valenzuela as
governor. His name is here written in the place where the
representative should be voted for. The name of Valenzuela, for
governor, is badly spelled in some of these ballots; and in at least
one the name is almost, but not entirely, illegible.

As a result of the revision in this precinct Valenzuela is entitled
to receive eight more votes than are conceded to him by the trial
judge, with the result that in this precinct Carlos should be credited
with 220 and Valenzuela with 164 votes.

Malolos; precincts 1, 5, 7.—In the revision effected by
the trial judge the votes of the rival candidates in these three
precincts have been combined; and error has been assigned by the
appellant with respect to only two ballots from the fifth precinct,
which were discarded by the trial judge. The first of these is not
rendered void by reason of the fact that the voter evidently by error
voted for a certain person as member of the provincial board but
perceiving his error crossed that name out and placed the same name in
the space for municipal president. As regards the other the trial judge
states that the ballot is written in two different hands. In our
opinion the whole ballot was written out by a single person and must be
counted.

As a result of this revision Valenzuela is entitled to two
additional votes in the fifth precinct, with the result that the total
vote for the two candidates in the first, fifth, and seventh precincts
of Malolos should stand as 423 for Carlos and 285 for Valenzuela.

Malolos; precinct 6.—The four disputed votes coming from
this precinct of the series 17-C to 17-F which were discarded by the
trial judge for one reason or another, in some cases more fanciful than
real, should in our opinion be counted for Valenzuela. The name of Pio
Valenzuela as written in the ballot 17-F is in some respect incomplete,
but the scribe was evidently very illiterate and his efforts at
expressing the name of the person voted for must be interpreted in the
sense most favorable to giving effect to the vote.

As a result of this revision Carlos is entitled to be credited in this precinct with 81 votes and Valenzuela with 176.

Bigaa; precinct 1.—The 3 ballots AA, AA-1 to AA-2 of which
the contestant was deprived in this precinct on the ground that two are
written in pencil and one in ink, instead of being written with an
indelible pencil, must be restored to him in conformity with our
repeated ruling upon this point.

As a consequence of the revision in this precinct Carlos received 244 votes and Valenzuela 103.

Guiguinto; precinct 1.—Of the ten disputed ballots of the
series of Exhibits GG, discarded by the trial judge, all except one
represent good votes for Valenzuela and must be counted for him. No. 1
of this series cannot be counted for him because the surname written by
the voter is Valencia, which is a well-known and different surname from
that of the contestant. The defects from which the other ballots are
supposed to suffer are such as we have repeatedly declared to be
immaterial and repetition of details is unnecessary.

As a consequence of this revision the appellant is entitled to be
credited with nine more votes than were conceded to him by the trial
judge, with the result that Carlos here received 107 votes and
Valenzuela 113.

Guiguinto; precinct 2.—Of the ten disputed ballots of the
series of Exhibits HH, which were discarded by the trial judge in this
precinct, all without exception represent good votes for Pio Valenzuela
and must be counted for him. Two of these ballots are written with lead
pencil, and the defects imputed to others consist of trivial blemishes
requiring no comment.

As a result of this revision the appellant is entitled to six more
votes than were conceded to him by the trial judge in this precinct,
with the result that Carlos here receives 86 votes and Valenzuela 95.

Santa Maria; precinct 2.—Of the sixteen disputed ballots
of the series FF from this precinct, which were discarded by the trial
judge, all in our opinion contain valid votes for Valenzuela and must
be counted for him. No. 1 of this series is not rendered invalid as a
vote for Valenzuela by reason of the fact that the voter after writing
the name of one person for municipal councillor, with evident intention
of abbreviating his labors, added “todos los concejales.”

As a consequence of this revision Valenzuela is here entitled to
receive sixteen more votes than were conceded to him by the trial
judge, with the result that Carlos should be here credited with 193
votes and Valenzuela with 83.

Marilao; precinct 1.—The ballot ZZZ-1 here discarded by
the trial judge on the ground that it is a blurred or marked ballot is
practically without blemish, though written by a person who was not a
skillful writer. The blurs on the ballot ZZZ-2 in no wise affect its
validity. Both must be counted for the contestant.

Of ten of the disputed ballots of the series YYY, discarded by the
trial judge, all except two are in our opinion free from any defect
that would invalidate the ballot. No. 3 of this series should be
counted for governor although he is also voted for another office. Nos.
1 and 2 cannot be counted for Valenzuela because the name written for
the office of governor is Valencia, a well-known surname which though
in some respects similar to Valenzuela is materially different
therefrom.

As a result of this revision Valenzuela is entitled to ten more
votes in this precinct than were conceded to him by the trial judge,
with the result that Carlos is here entitled to be credited with 64
votes and Valenzuela with 182.

Having completed our revision of the questions presented upon this
appeal, whether relating to the annulment of the returns from certain
municipalities and precincts en toto or to the rejection of
particular ballots, it remains to consolidate the results. This is
effected in the subjoined table, which contains a complete statement of
all returns, as revised, which have been the subject of attack either
in the contest or in the counter-contest. It will be remembered,
however, that both parties abstained from submitting proof in regard to
some of the precincts originally questioned by them, and as to these
the trial judge simply followed the official returns. These returns are
of course also adopted by us. As to the votes in other precincts both
parties have acquiesced in the conclusions of the trial judge, with the
consequence that his estimate of the votes in such precincts remains
unchanged. For the rest, the figures appearing in this table are such
as are adopted by this court as showing the true results of the
election in the several municipalities concerned, in conformity with
the preceding opinion.

Table showing revised returns from contested municipalities and precincts

Municipality.		Precinct.	Carlos.	Valenzuela.
Angat…………………………………………………………..		2	53	123
	Do……………………………………………………….	3	76	151
Baliuag………………………………………………………..		1	151	50
	Do……………………………………………………..	2	168	204
	Do……………………………………………………..	3	164	126
	Do……………………………………………………..	4	167	147
	Do…………………………………………………….	5	188	46
	Do…………………………………………………….	6	93	165
Bigaa………………………………………………………..		1	244	103
	Do……………………………………………………	2	108	170
	Do……………………………………………………	3	151	148
Bocaue…………………………………………………….		1	83	141
	Do…………………………………………………..	2	144	163
	Do………………………………………………….	3	123	167
Bulacan………………………………………………….		1	67	133
	Do…………………………………………………	2	182	176
	Do…………………………………………………	3	70	158
	Do…………………………………………………	4	94	134
Bustos…………………………………………………..		1	177	13
	Do………………………………………………..	2	193	36
	Do………………………………………………..	3	206	39
Guiguinto……………………………………………….		1	107	113
	Do………………………………………………..	2	86	95
Malolos………………………………………………..		1,5,7	423	285
	Do……………………………………………….	2	222	164
	Do……………………………………………….	3	81	233
	Do……………………………………………….	4	98	303
	Do………………………………………………	6	81	176
Marilao……………………………………………….		1	64	182
	Do………………………………………………	2	46	53
Meycauayan…………………………………………		1-5	137	958
Norzagaray………………………………………….		1,2	297	146
	Do……………………………………………..	3	58	69
Obando……………………………………………..		1	88	227
	Do…………………………………………….	2	110	104
	Do…………………………………………….	3	28	21
Paombong………………………………………….		1	235	2
	Do…………………………………………….	2	213	12
	Do…………………………………………….	3	159	65
Polo………………………………………………….		1	17	371
	Do…………………………………………….	2	19	296
	Do…………………………………………….	3	13	244

Table showing revised returns from contested municipalities and
precincts—Continued

Municipality.		Precinct.	Carlos.	Valenzuela.
Pulilan………………………………………………………….		1	42	98
	Do……………………………………………………….	2	28	171
	Do……………………………………………………….	3	81	294
	Do……………………………………………………….	4	76	264
San Ildefonso………………………………………………..		1	78	224
	Do……………………………………………………….	2	85	143
San Rafael…………………………………………………….		3	28	157
	Do……………………………………………………….	1	188	192
	Do……………………………………………………….	3	32	35
Santa Maria		1	242	57
	Do……………………………………………………….	2	148	83
	Do……………………………………………………….	3	112	124
	Do……………………………………………………….	4	149	68
		__________	__________	__________
	Total………………………………………………………	……………….	7,185	8,918

To the foregoing totals there remain to be added the votes that have
never been questioned at any time. These embrace the returns from the
municipalities of Calumpit, Hagonoy, San Jose, San Miguel, and the
first precinct of Angat. The official returns here show a total of
2,667 for Carlos and 1,364 for Valenzuela; and in this connection we
note that in the summary of these returns contained in the opinion of
the trial judge, the vote for Valenzuela in the second district of San
Miguel is made to appear as 53 when in fact it was only 33. Clerical
errors of this kind are of course corrected by this court without
regard to whom they may affect.

Combining this corrected total with the revised returns shown in
the table, we have for the final and definitive result, the following:

For Valenzuela………………………………………..		10,282
For Carlos……………………………………………..		9,852
		__________
	Plurality of Valenzuela……………………	430

In the light of the foregoing revision of the returns, it becomes
our duty to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to declare, as
we hereby do declare, that in the general election of June 3, 1919, Pio
Valenzuela was duly elected to the office of governor of the Province
of Bulacan, having received 10,282 votes, as against 9,852 for Juan B.
Carlos, and 7,187 for Silvino Lopez. Judgment will accordingly be
entered to this effect, and, a certified copy of the result as
determined by this court will be forwarded to the provincial board of
the Province of Bulacan in its capacity as provincial board of
canvassers, with directions to amend its count and certify the result
accordingly. Costs of both instances will be paid by the appellee. So
ordered.

Araullo, C. J. Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.