FELIPE RODRIGUEZ, PROTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE ZAMBRANO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of La Union in an election protest case
involving the results of the general election of June 5, 1934, as to
the office of municipal president of Balaoan in said province. The
trial court rendered judgment finding that the protestant-appellee,
Felipe Rodriguez, and the protestee-appellant, Vicente Zambrano, each
received 435 votes for said office in said election.

This appeal involves the reading of fifty-six questioned ballots
which we have carefully examined. We concur with the trial court for
the reasons stated in its decision that the ballots Exhibits K, L-4,
L-8, L-9, N-2, O, O-1, K-2, L-2, P-2, P-3, L, L-1, L-5, L-6, M, M-3,
N-4, O-3, I, L-B, I-C, 2, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, 2-F, 2-H, 3, 4-A, 4-C, 5-B,
5-C, &-A, 6-G, 4-B and 6-J are good and sufficient ballots and
should be counted for the respective candidates. We likewise agree that
the ballots Exhibits 6, 1-D, 6-B, 6-E, N-l, N-6, N-7, O-2, K-1 and P
are invalid and were properly rejected.

The trial court held ballots 2-E, 2-G, 4, 5, 5-D, L-10 invalid for
illegibility of the names of the candidates. We have examined these
ballots and come to the conclusion that the court erred on the side of
strictness. The spelling is poor and the penmanship is worse, but
making due allowance for the well-known and often commented
difficulties of the voters under the existing system, we find written a
sufficient expression of the intention and will of the voters who cast
these ballots and therefore consider them valid.

The trial court rejected ballot Exhibit 6-H because the voter
placed the figures 1 and 2 before the names respectively of the two
candidates for whom he voted for the offices of the members of the
provincial board. We think the inference that this is a marked ballot
is not warranted. The ballot is well written and indicates a person of
more than average education. It is quite natural that such a person
should make the enumeration indicated. He was voting for two members of
the provincial board and wished to make that clear. Of the more than
800 ballots that were cast, no other ballot was similarly marked which
might give rise to a suspicion of collusion for the purpose of
identifying-the ballots.

Ballot Exhibit P-4 was properly rejected by the court. In this
ballot the figure 2 was written opposite the name of the candidate for
representative and the figure 1 was written opposite the name of the
candidate for provincial governor. There is no rational connection
between these figures and the offices voted for. Whatever the purpose
of writing these figures on the ballot, they plainly are improper.

Ballot Exhibit P-l was rejected by the trial court “because the
names of the candidates are written in two different kinds of
penmanship, thus rendering this ballot as marked and non-admissible.”.
The principle involved here is that the style of penmanship indicates
that the ballot was prepared by two different persons. But this
inference is not necessarily to be drawn merely because the voter
writes part of his ballot in script and part in print. Ballot Exhibit
P-l, which is partly in script and partly in print, is written
apparently with the same color of pencil, with the same pressure and
there is a distinct similarity even between the written and the printed
characters. There is no indication that the voter intended to mark his
ballot or that the ballot was prepared by two persons. In this
connection we call attention to ballot Exhibit 1-D which is likewise
written partly in print and partly in script but without the
characteristics of ballot P-l. In ballot Exhibit 1-D the first three
names voted for are printed in clear and regular print, the remaining
ten names are in poor and unsteady script which does not suggest any
similarity to the printed characters of the first three names. This
ballot was properly rejected by the trial court.

It results from this revision of the fifty-six questioned ballots
that the two votes (ballots Exhibits L-10 and P-1) should be added to
the 435 votes credited to Felipe Rodriguez by the trial court and six
votes (ballots Exhibits 2-E, 2-G, 4, 5, 5-D and 6-H) should be added to
the 435 votes credited to Vicente Zambrano by the trial court, giving
the former 437 votes and the latter 441 votes.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and Vicente
Zambrano, the protestee-appellant, is declared the duly elected
municipal president of Balaoan in the Province of La Union as a result
of the general elections held June 5, 1934, without special
pronouncement as to costs in this instance.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.