Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21135)
Facts:
Delfin Protacio, Petitioner and Appellant, vs. Eleuterio de Leon and the Court of Appeals, Respondents and Appellees, G.R. No. L-21135, November 08, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.In the November 10, 1959 general elections, Delfin Protacio and Eleuterio de Leon were opposing candidates for Mayor of Paranaque, Rizal. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed De Leon mayor-elect by a 33-vote margin (5,192 to 5,159). Protacio filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Election Case No. 5913). The CFI, after recount and examination, declared Protacio duly elected by a plurality of seven votes over De Leon.
De Leon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. No. 30500-R). The CA Special Sixth Division, in a decision dated December 22, 1962, modified the CFI judgment by reducing Protacio’s margin from seven to five votes. On De Leon’s urgent motion for reconsideration the case was referred to a Division of Five, which on March 15, 1963 promulgated an amended decision (one Justice dissenting). The amended CA decision re-tabulated numerous contested ballots (setting out changes under categories of votes awarded and counter-assignments) and reversed the CFI, holding that De Leon had a majority of twenty votes over Protacio and ordering dismissal of the protest.
Protacio brought the case to the Supreme Court "on appeal by certiorari," attacking the CA’s amended determination of the validity of numerous specific ballots. He advanced twenty assignments of error contending that the CA: (a) improperly awarded twenty-six ballots to De Leon that had been invalidated in the CA’s original decision; (b) erroneously deducted two ballots (held valid in the original decision) and another ballot (held valid by the trial court) from Protacio; and (c) improperly invalidated only three ballots that were the subject of Protacio’s counter-assignments. The parties and the courts disputed dozens of individual ballots on grounds including the presence of prominent non-candidates’ names (alleged marking), added appellations or nicknames, differing handwritings, printed or embellished letters, extraneous words or numerals, and disputed signatures or initials.
The Supreme Court examined the challenged ballots and the evidentiary record (including testimony alleged to establish a scheme to identify ballots and an NBI dactyloscopic expert’s report). It evaluated which ballots were properly counted for each candidate under the Revised Election Code and applicable precedents. After striking certain ballots and sustaining others, the Court modified the CA’s totals and concluded that De Leon l...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in its amended decision by reassigning the validity of specified ballots contrary to the Revised Election Code and controlling precedents?
- Were the extrinsic (aliunde) testimony purporting to prove a scheme to mark ballots and the NBI dactyloscopic expert’s report admissible and entitled to weight sufficient to invalidate ballots?
- After resolving the disputed ballots according to law and precedents, who obtained ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)