CEISANTO VILLAVIRAY, PROTE3TANT AND APPELLEE, VS. CIBIACO ALVAREZ AND FLOBENCIO OLIVA, PROTESTEES. CIRIACO ALVAREZ, APPELLANT.

This is an election case which involves
the office of municipal president of the municipality of Nasugbu in the
Province of Batangas. In the elections held on June 5, 1934, Crisanto
Villaviray and Ciriaco Alvarez were opposing candidates for said
office. The municipal council of Nasugbu, acting as the canvassing
board, adjudged 518 votes in favor of Ciriaco Alvarez and 515 votes in
favor of Crisanto Villaviray and proclaimed the former duly elected.
Thereupon Crisanto Villaviray filed his election protest in due form in
the Court of First Instance of Batangas. That court recanvassed the
votes and adjudicated 518 votes to Crisanto Villaviray and 509 votes to
Ciriaco Alvarez. The latter appealed to this court and the cause was
submitted on November 25, 1934.

The only question presented by the specifications of errors of the
parties involves the reading of 36 contested ballots. We will take
these up in the order presented in the specifications of errors.

The appellant’s first assignment of error is as follows:

“Del Precinto No. 1, el Juzgado a quo erro
al no adjudicar a favor de Ciriaco Alvarez, como votos de este, las
balotas identificadas por exhibitos 2-1, 2-6 y 2-9 y al no rechazar
como voto valido a favor de Crisanto Villaviray la balota identificada
por Exhibit B-5.”

Ballot No. 2-1 was correctly rejected because “Baris” does not
sufficiently indicate the intention of the voter to vote for Ciriaco
Alvarez.

Ballot No. 2-6 was correctly rejected because the name of the
candidate was placed on the line intended for votes for members of the
provincial board and not on the line for municipal president. It is
deplorable that the prescribed form of ballot has induced this mistake
to be committed in a great number of instances that have come to our
attention in contested election cases. Voters would not be misled if
the form were amended so that all the names of the candidates voted for
should be written either on the same lines as the printed names of the
offices or all on lines under the printed names of the offices instead
of part one way and part the other way, as now in the prescribed form
of ballot. Of course, the simplest way, the one in universal use
elsewhere, would be to print the names of the candidates. Most of the
difficulties in counting ballots and correctly deciding election
contests would disappear.

Ballot No. 2-9 was correctly rejected because only the given name
and no surname is written. Ballot No. B-5 was correctly counted because
“Crisanto V” written on the line for votes for municipal president is a
sufficient indication of the intention of the voter under the
circumstances of this case. (Namocatcat vs. Adag, 52 Phil., 789, 792.)

The appellant’s second assignment of error is as follows:

“Del Precinto No. 2, el Tribunal a quo
errd al resolver que votos emitidos a favor de Ciriaco Alvarez,
identificados por los exhibitos 4, 4-4, 4-5, 4-3, y 4-7 sean
rechazados.” Ballots 4, 4—4 and 4-5 upon which the name of Ciriaco
Alvarez appears written in the proper place with sufficient
distinctness should have been counted for him. The fact that on these
three ballots out of a total of over a thousand votes three different
persons were voted for another office who were not candidates does not
destroy these ballots. They should be considered merely scattering
votes under section 464 of the Election Law (Act No. 3387) approved
December 3, 1927. These isolated cases do not indicate that the object
of the voter was to mark his ballot so thai it might be identified.
There is no ground for suspicion of collusion here as there was in the
case of Illarde vs. Rodulfa (G. R. No. 30551, promulgated
February 18, 1929, not reported), in which some 311 voters wrote on
their ballots the name of a person who was not a candidate for office.

Ballot No. 4-3 was correctly rejected because the name of Ciriaco
Alvarez was written on the line for votes for members of the provincial
board and not for the municipal president.

Ballot No. 4-7
was rejected by the trial court because the first name of Alvarez was
abbreviated “A” instead of “C”. We have examined this ballot and
compared it with the letter “C” in other names on the ballot and are
clearly of the opinion that the court erred in reading the letter “C”
to be an “A”. This ballot should have been counted.

The third assignment of error of the appellant is as follows;

“Del Precinto No. 3 erro igualmente el Juzgado a quo
al adjudicar a favor de Crisanto Villaviray como votos validos las
siguientes balotas: Exhibitos F-l, F-2, F-3, F-4, las cuales deben ser
rechazadas.”

On ballot F-l the voter wrote “Veray Alis”. It is suggested in the
appellee’s brief but not supported by anything in the record that
“Alis” is the maternal family name of the candidate Crisanto
Villaviray. This ballot should have been rejected.

Ballot F-2 shows only the surname “Villaviray” correctly written.
This court has repeatedly held that the surname alone is sufficient to
identify the candidate unless there are other candidates of the same
name to be voted for on the same ballot which might give rise to
confusion. Ballots F-3 and F-4 correctly give the surname Villaviray.
Doubt arises as to the reading of the given name. We have come to the
conclusion that what is written is a sufficient suggestion of the name
“Crisanto”.

The fourth assignment of error of the appellant is as follows:

“Del Precinto No. 5, erro asimismo el Juzgado a quo
al no adjudicar como votos validos a favor del apelante Ciriaco Alvarez
las balotas identificadas por los exhibitos 8, 8-1, 8-8, 8-2, 8-8 y
8-9, y al adjudicar como voto valido a favor de Crisanto Villaviray la
balota identificada por Exhibito H-4, cuando debe ser rechazada.”

Ballots 8, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-9 leave no doubt in our minds that it
was the intention of the writers to vote for the appellant “Alvarez for
the office of municipal president.

With regard to ballot
8-8, the surname is correctly written. Doubt has arisen as to whether
we should accept the abbreviation “S.” as a sufficient abbreviation of
the given name “Ciriaco”. It is well known that “C” at the beginning of
the name Ciriaco has commonly the same sound as “S”. Furthermore, the
name Ciriaco is frequently spelled Siriaco. An example of the latter is
the name of the well known saint and martyr San Siriaco. Under these
circumstances, we think these ballots should be counted. (Cf. Sinogba vs.
Reganit, G. R. No. 36244, 57 Phil., 955.) However, had the initial been
“M” or “R” or some other letter wholly different in sound from “C” or
“S”, the ballot would have been rejected.

Ballot H-4 should have been rejected because the name Villaviray is
plainly written in handwriting different from that of the rest of the
names written on the ballot.

The protestant Crisanto Villaviray makes the following affirmative assignment of error:

“6. The lower court erred, however, in adjudicating
16 ballots, marked Exhibits 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7 and 2-8 of precinct
No. 1; Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10 of precinct No. 2;
Exhibit 6-1 of precinct No. 3; and Exhibits 8-4, 8-5 and 8-6 of
precinct No. 5, all of the municipality of Nasugbu, Province of
Batangas, as valid votes in favor of the protestee-appellant Ciriaco
Alvarez.”

Ballots 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 all sufficiently indicate the surname Alvarez.^[1]
The given name Ciriaco is indicated by the abbreviation “S” in view of
what was said above with reference to ballot 8-8, the lower court did
not err in admitting these ballots.

Ballot 2-7 is written, as nearly as we can make it out, “Siryaco
Albiz” which appears on the proper line opposite the printed words
“Municipal President”. We have no doubt of the intention of the voter
to cast his ballot for Ciriaco Alvarez. Ballot 2-8 appears to be
written “Ceria Alvaris”. We think this ballot too should be counted.
Ballot 4-1 can easily be read “Ciriaco Alabaris” and should be counted.
Ballot 4-2 seems to be written “Sariko Abs.” The ballot is evidently
written by a person almost illiterate and while in such cases a liberal
allowance should be made for misspellings we cannot quite bring
ourselves to the point of holding that the abbreviation “Abs.” should
be held idem sonans with Alvarez. This ballot should be rejected.

Ballots 6-1 which reads “C. Abares”; 8-4 which reads “Siryaco
Alariz”; 8-5 “C. Abares”; 8-6 “C. Abaris”, all seem to us to be
entitled to acceptance under the rule of idem sonans and sufficiently to indicate the will of the voter to cast his ballot for the protestee Ciriaco Alvarez.

The revision of the ballots thus made added to the ballots
uncontested gives Crisanto Villaviray 516 votes and Ciriaco Alvarez 518
votes. It results that the judgment appealed from must be reversed and
Ciriaco Alvarez declared the duly elected municipal president of the
municipality of Nasugbu, without special pronouncement as to costs in
this instance. So ordered.

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