[ G.R. No. L-2327. January 11, 1949 ] 82 Phil. 545
[ G.R. No. L-2327. January 11, 1949 ]
CANUTO F. PIMENTEL, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO FESTEJO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
Pedro Festejo was proclaimed elected as mayor of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur, in the elections of November 11, 1947, with 1,108 votes against 1,101 votes in favor of Canuto F. Pimentel. The latter protested. The trial court found that Festejo received 1,107 votes and Pimentel 1,101 votes and, consequently, dismissed the protest. Appellant appealed, contending that the lower court erred in not crediting to him the fifty nine ballots mentioned in his first three assignments of error as votes in his favor, with which he would appear to have received a total of 1,160 votes and, therefore, enough majority to win the election. As stated in appellant’s brief, his name in the thirty seven ballots mentioned in his first assignment of error “was written on the line corresponding to vice-mayor,” in the eight ballots mentioned in his second assignment of error “was written on the line corresponding to the second space for member of the Provincial Board,” and in the fourteen ballots mentioned in his third assignment of error “was written in the space for councilor.” Either names of other persons, not candidates for mayor, are written in the space for mayor in said ballots, or said space appears to be in blank. Appellant’s contention is premised on the theory that his name was only misplaced in the ballots in question but the intention of the voters to elect him as mayor can be gathered from the fact that in the order or sequence of the candidates for the several positions mentioned in each ballot, his name would appear to be written in the space for mayor if the names of the candidates for governor, member of provincial board, mayor and councilor have not been also misplaced one or two lines above or below the correct space. Appellant’s theory is untenable. It appears on record that the majority of the election inspectors in Santa Lucia belonged to the same political party of appellant and, therefore, had the control in the decisions of the board of inspectors. They did not count the ballots in question in favor of appellant. This shows that said majority inspectors had not found upon the face of the ballots themselves that the voters voted for appellant as mayor. Belonging to the same political party of appellant, they cannot be assumed or expected to have deprived appellant unjustly of any vote. Said inspectors appear to have applied the law correctly. The Constitution has reserved the right to exercise suffrage to citizens of legal age who “are able to read and write.” (Section 1, Article V.) Section 135 of the Revised Election Code provides that the voter shall fill his ballot “by writing in the proper space for each office the name of the person for whom * * * he desires to vote.” The last provision is couched in a language the mandatory character of which cannot be questioned. Therefore, for any ballot to be counted for a candidate for mayor, it is indispensable that his name be written by the voter in the proper space for mayor, which word is clearly printed in the ballot and cannot be mistaken by a person who, as provided by the Constitution, is able to read. A name can be counted for any office only when it is written within the space indicated upon the ballot for the vote for such office (Lucero vs. de Guzman, 45 Phil., 852). It is impossible to count a ballot as vote for a candidate for mayor, when his name is clearly written in the space reserved for another office (Aviado vs. Talens, 52 Phil., 665; Villaviray vs. Alvarez, 61 Phil., 42). Official ballots are printed in the form specified by sections 124 and 126 of the Revised Election Code for the clear and unmistakable determination of the will of the voters, so as to avoid, as far as possible, disputes among the members of the board of election inspectors that would hamper the early determination of the result of an election. That early determination is demanded by public interest. delays in the counting of votes increase uncertainty in the public mind, provoke uneasiness, and are a temptation for those bent on thwarting the popular will. On this respect we can still look to the elections in the United States as example and model. Notwithstanding the fact that about 50,000,000 voters had cast their votes in a vast country expanding from ocean to ocean, it took only about eleven hours from the closing of the election, probably the most surprising and spectacular in American history, for the whole world to know that Harry S. Truman has been re-elected President on November 2, 1948. Considering that in fifty nine ballots claimed by appellant in this appeal his name does not appear written in the space reserved for mayor, he cannot claim them as votes in his favor as candidate for mayor. There is no need of considering the counter-assignments of error of appellee. The appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against appellant. Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.