Trajano v. Inciso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the election for Mayor of Lawa-an, Samar, Mateo Inciso was proclaimed Mayor-elect with 974 votes against Semeniano Trajano's 946 votes, a difference of 28 votes. Procedural History: Trajano filed an election protest, contesting Precincts 1, 2, and 11. The Court of First Instance of Samar, after trial and appreciation of contested ballots, declared Inciso the winner with 957 votes versus Trajano's 946 votes, a difference of 11 votes. The Petition: Trajano appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law and assailing the appreciation of fifty-six ballots.
Issue(s)
Whether thirty-one ballots from Precinct 11, containing votes for Inciso, should be rejected as marked ballots because they allegedly consist of ballots filled by two persons before being deposited. Whether seven ballots from Precinct 11, purportedly with votes for Trajano, should have been counted in his favor, considering that six were allegedly void for being accomplished by two persons and one was indecipherable. Whether eighteen ballots from Precincts 1 and 2, counted for Inciso, were marked and should have been rejected.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, declaring Mateo Inciso the winner by 11 votes. All fifty-six contested ballots were found to be properly counted for protestee Inciso.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of thirty-one ballots from Precinct 11 allegedly filled by two persons: The Court reiterated that the validity of a ballot filled by more than one person hinges on whether the tampering occurred before or after casting. A presumption juris tantum exists that ballots with multiple handwritings were tampered before casting, but this presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the lower court found sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption, concluding that the ballots were tampered after casting. This factual finding, supported by evidence such as the cut-open ballot box, torn envelopes, and testimony from the Election Inspector, was not disturbed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, these thirty-one ballots were properly counted for protestee Inciso. On the issue of seven ballots purportedly with votes for Trajano: The parties agreed that the writings on these ballots were made before casting. The dispute centered on whether they were accomplished by one or two persons. The lower court found six ballots void for being accomplished by two persons and one ballot indecipherable. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the ballots, concurred that six ballots contained the name "Trajano" in a handwriting markedly different from the rest of the writing, and that the name "Trajano" was written in an identical manner in at least four of these ballots, indicating they were filled by two distinct persons before casting, thus rendering them null and void. Regarding the seventh ballot (Exh. Q-17), the Court agreed with the lower court that the vote for Mayor was illegible and thus a stray vote. On the issue of eighteen ballots from Precincts 1 and 2 allegedly marked: The Court addressed these in sub-groups. For five ballots allegedly marked due to variations in script and block letters, the Court applied the rule that such variations are innocent and do not invalidate a ballot unless clearly intended for identification. No such intent was shown. For eleven ballots questioned for being accomplished by one person who also filled other rejected ballots, the Court found no striking similarity in handwriting to support the claim. These ballots were also questioned for voting for a non-candidate (Camenforte) for Councilor; the Court held that voting for a non-candidate does not invalidate a ballot without evidence of intent for identification. For three ballots (RRR-84, SSS-85, AAAA-93), the Court found no support for the claim that they were written by the same person or by one person. Finally, for two ballots involving idem sonans, the Court affirmed the lower court's findings that "Peisva" (or "Peisna") was idem sonans for Espina, a Councilor candidate, and "M. NCSO" was idem sonans for Inciso, the Mayoralty candidate. Thus, these eighteen ballots were validly counted for protestee Inciso.
Main Doctrine
The allowance or rejection of a ballot filled by more than one person depends on its condition before it was cast. If tampered after casting, the ballot is valid. If already bearing fillings of two or more persons when cast, it is void. A presumption juris tantum exists that ballots with two or more handwritings were tampered before casting, but this is rebuttable by evidence.