At  the general  election held on  June 2, 1931, Patricio Fernandez  and Higinio Mendoza were  official candidates for provincial governor of Palawan.   The provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Higinio Mendoza governor-elect of the province with 2,871 votes as against Patricio Fernandez's 2,638, that is, with a majority of 233 votes.

On July  15,  1931,  Patricio Fernandez filed a  motion of protest against Higinio Mendoza, alleging falsification of the election returns, campaigning, threats, intimidation of voters, loss of official ballots,  illegal construction of the booths in the polling places, improper preparation of ballots for illiterate voters by  persons who had failed to take the oath required by the law, and frauds and other irregularities committed by the election inspectors in counting and awarding the votes in the eight precincts of the municipality of Coron.   The contestee answered  with a denial of the protest  allegations and a counter-protest based upon fraud and irregularities committed by the contestant's inspectors in counting and awarding votes  in the precincts of Cuyo, Puerto  Princesa,  Agutaya, and  Balabac.

The case was heard from October 5, to November 4,1931. After the appointed commissioners had filed their  report, the court rendered a comprehensive and well-written  decision of 285 pages, holding that the irregularities mentioned in the amended protest had not been proved, and that the irregularities  practiced by the  election  inspectors  were not sufficient to justify the quashing, of the election in the eight precincts of the municipality of Coron, and that contestee Higinio Mendoza had obtained 888 votes  in that municipality, as against 253 obtained by contestant Patricio Fernandez in the same municipality or a plurality of 634 votes.  Then taking up the counter-protest with reference to precincts 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of Cuyo, 3, 4, and 6 of Puerto Princesa, and  those of Agutaya and  Balabac, the court found that the contestee had obtained 716 votes as  against the contestant's 1,051 ,  finally summing up the votes in all the municipalities  of Palawan, the court  found that the contestant had obtained 2,590 votes and the contestee 2,850, by virtue whereof Higinio Mendoza,  the contestee, was declared governor-elect of the Province of Palawan by  a majority of 260 votes.

The protestant appealed from this decision, and assigns 16 errors under precinct 1 of Coron, 12 under precinct 2, 14 under precinct 3, 2 under precinct 4, 8 under precinct 5, 10 under precinct 6, 1 under precinct 7, and 14 under precinct 8.

CORON
Precinct 1. One of the most salient assignments of error made by the appellant with respect to this precinct refers to the alleged use of "shuttles" in the preparation of ballots. This contention is deduced from the alleged loss of two ballots.  On this point the lower court says that the protestant-appellant  did  not present  any evidence showing the manner and  form in which these two  ballots disappeared for alleged fraudulent purposes, nor has he offered any proof to show that said ballots have been used in other precincts.  Even the inspector for the protestant,  Pedro Vergara, did not make any mention of the disappearance of these two ballots in  his  testimony,  nor do the minutes of the board show that any protest has been filed by Vergara on this matter.

The trial judge discusses the alleged use of "shuttle" in this precinct and says that his attention was called for the first  time on October 22,  1931 to the  existence of traces on ballots HM-947, -859, and -1003.  Then he goes on describing the ballots, stating that not one of the two sets of commissioners who revised the same ballots  on two occasions, October  5th and 21st, reported having found  or discovered said traces.   The court notes further that the commissioners have examined and revised  minutely all the ballots  found in the box of valid ballots not only in this case but also in another contest over the office of provincial board member, and in neither of these reports was such an irregularity ever mentioned.  It should also be noted that the protestant  himself and his representative on the revision committee, Pedro de Borja, had been handling these same ballots and they did not notice any of the traces here in question,  notwithstanding the fact that the traces of the name  "T.  Pamado"  on ballot  HM-1003  are  so pronounced that it necessarily should have been noticed by one handling said ballot if those traces were in fact already there at the time of the revision on October 5th and 21st, respectively.

In view of the evidence submitted on the point, the court found that the alleged discovery of the traces on the three ballots  mentioned above  after the presentation of  appellant's oral evidence in connection herewith, without any of his witnesses having testified on the matter,  leads to the conclusion  that those traces were placed on the questioned ballots  after election and said ballots  are good and valid votes for the protestee.  (Demeterio vs. Lopez, 50 Phil., 45; Gallardo vs. Aldana, 53 Phil., 388;  Valenzuela vs. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42  Phil., 428.)

In the third  assignment  of error regarding the  voters with educational qualifications, it is alleged by the appellant that these electors were allowed to vote with the assistance of third persons without the corresponding oath of incapacity as required  by law.   This contention of  the appellant was overruled by the  court below, stating that, according to the evidence, the electors Silvestre Doreses and Catalino Bigonte subscribed the requisite oath for incapacitated electors on April 11, 1931, as shown by Exhibits 25-a-48 and 25-a-49, owing to the fact that although their qualifications was "education", they were incapacitated from preparing their own  ballots due to physical  disability.  The  protestant, however, alleges that besides the two persons above named, there were other incapacitated electors who  did not subscribe the required oath of incapacity but voted on  election day,  such as Nicolas Bagalay, Estanislao Severino, Nicanor Bejar and Florentino Bero.   This is not entirely true.   These four electors presented their affidavits, Exhibits 25-a-37, 25-a-1, 25-a-26 and 25-a-7, respectively, the affidavit (Exhibit  25-a-1)  of Estanislao Severino having been subscribed by the leader of  the protestant,  Anacleto Rose, who also prepared the former's ballot on election day. The fact that these affidavits  were subscribed on the very day of the election should not be accorded much importance taking into account the fact that the real qualification possessed by these electors  was not "education" but  "property".   It is  evident that through  error on the part of the inspectors the  qualification noted in the registry  list was "education" instead of "property" and this being the case, it seems perfectly legal that  the affidavits of the four persons above named should have been prepared even  on the day of the elections.

Appellant assigns several other errors in this  precinct, all of which were, in our opinion, properly overruled by the lower court.

In paragraph  9 of the amended  protest and in the  second assignment of error, precinct  1, the protestant claims that 93 ballots of the protestee appear  to be in the handwriting of only a few persons.  The protestee, on the other hand, contends that of these  93 ballots  only 59 could be  sorted out into 14 different groups with  the same handwriting in each group.   The trial judge states that the existence of these 59 ballots appear to be well  justified, inasmuch as deducting from the 50  ballots of  illiterates  5 which were written out  by protestant's leaders, Pedro Mambog and Anacleto Rose, would  leave 45 affidavits, to which  should be added the personal votes of the 14 helpers chosen  by the illiterates to assist  them in the preparation of the ballots, making a total of 59 ballots.

As  to the annulment of the election in this precinct, the lower  court held that the protestant-appellant has  failed to prove the  frauds and  irregularities alleged in  the  14 paragraphs of his amended protest, stating further that if errors had been committed, said errors are due more to the carelessness and inexperience of the inspectors.  The result of the election in precinct 1 of Coron  during the  last election, as well as  during  the elections of 1925 and  1928, already demonstrate  that it was the evident will of the over-whelming majority of the electors to vote openly in favor of the protestee, and it would be highly unjust now to frustrate it simply  on the strength of errors committed by the election inspectors  of  that precinct."  The court goes on to summarize the evidence submitted  and declares that the few errors committed by the inspectors in the annotation of ballot numbers, in the registry list, and in the preparation of a few affidavits for incapacitated voters on June 2d instead of  the first two sessions of the board, on April 11th and 18th, respectively, were due to ignorance and inexperience of said election inspectors.  The voters cast their ballots freely  and without any compulsion whatever.  The secrecy of the ballot remained inviolate.  The court is of the opinion that the result of the election in this precinct represented the true expression of opinion and wishes of the voters of said  precinct  and municipality.  The court thereupon  upheld the validity of  the election in this precinct, citing jurisprudence on page 59 of  his decision.   After examining the  ballots cast in this precinct the court found  that the  protestant obtained 40 votes  and the protestee 197.  In view of the evidence set forth in the decision of the court a quo and not contradicted  in appellant's brief, we are constrained  to hold that said evidence fully supports the findings of  fact of the trial court.

Precinct 2. In the amended protest, the appellant prayed for the annulment of the election  in this precinct on 14 grounds all of  which appear on  pages  66 and 67 of the decision of the lower court.

In its discussion of the different grounds alleged by the protestant, the court made special reference to the evidence of record from which it draws the following conclusions:

1. That the electors excluded by the  circuit justice of the peace had appealed on time.
   
2. That all ballots were fully opened before being read.
   
3. That no marked ballots were illegally counted.
   
4. That no electors were  registered  after April 18th.
   
5. That there was no electioneering within a radius of 30 meters from or inside the polling place.
   
6. That only qualified voters  were permitted to register and vote.
   
7. That no absentees voted during election.
   
8. That no electors in other precincts voted for the second time in this precinct.
   
9. That no electors voted twice in this precinct in his own name.
   
10. That the number of ballots prepared by other persons for illiterate voters tallies with the number of said electors.
    
11. That no incapacitated voters were permitted to vote without subscribing the requisite oath of incapacity.
    
12. That there has been no fraudulent disappearance of official ballots.

As stated, the trial judge made a careful analysis of the evidence on the different points  raised in the amended protest, and, in our opinion, his conclusions are fully supported by the record.

In paragraph 10 of his amended protest and in the third assignment of error, precinct 2, the protestant objected to the admission of 69 ballots  of the protestee on the ground that they appear to be in the handwriting of only a few persons.  The protestee, however, admits that of the  101 ballots in which he is voted for governor in this precinct, only 56 ballots may be separated into 11 different groups each of which appear to be in a different handwriting.  The trial judge says:   "The existence of these 56 ballots' in similar handwriting for each of the 11  groups  of ballots of which they consist appears to be well justified,  inasmuch as of the 47 affidavits for illiterate  voters we should  deduct the two ballots prepared by  protestant's leaders, leaving still 45 affidavits to which should be added the 11 personal votes of the persons chosen by the illiterates to assist them in the preparation of their respective ballots, or a total of 56 ballots.  Upon the foregoing facts there is, therefore, nothing extraordinary or anomalous in the finding of such ballots in the same handwriting."

As to the annulment of the election in this precinct the court said: "After considering the evidence of both parties, the court finds that the election in this precinct was conducted in an orderly and legal manner; that the secrecy of the ballot has been maintained; that the popular will in this precinct has been in favor of the protestee in the same way as in precinct 1 of this municipality.  To  be sure, anomalies of this nature bordering  on gross  negligence or dereliction of duty may have been committed  by the  inspectors due to their ignorance  and  carelessness. For this reason the petition for the annulment of the election in this precinct is not in order."  (Demeterio vs. Lopez, 50 Phil., 45; Rosanes vs.  Peji, 53 Phil., 25; Kiamzon  vs. Pugeda, 54 Phil., 755.)

As in the resolution of the various alleged irregularities in precinct 1, the court proceeded to scrutinize the ballots in this precinct and found that the protestant obtained 18 votes and the protestee 104.

Appellant assigns in his brief 12 errors in precinct 2 of Coron, but as  the  questions involved therein are ones of fact, we  do not  consider  it necessary to discuss them at length, inasmuch as the lower court has already made  an exhaustive analysis of the evidence sustaining its findings which, in our opinion, requires no correction.

Precinct 3. Protestant alleged 14 grounds for the annulment of the election in this precinct, quoted in the, decision of the lower court, pages 99 to 101.   The alleged irregularities in the precinct are, in legal effect,  of the same nature as the alleged irregularities in precincts 1 and 2.   As in the case of precincts 1 and 2,  the  lower court, after examining the evidence of record, decided to overrule all 14 grounds, stating that the protestant has failed to adduce competent evidence to convince the court  of the truth of the  allegations in his amended protest relative to this precinct.  Therefore, the court found that the election in this precinct was conducted in substantial compliance with the requirements of law; that the secrecy of the ballot has been maintained; that the popular will has been in favor of the protestee,  adducing that  "If  there were any  illegal votes, said votes  did not exceed 17  ballots which  could very well be segregated from the votes, since they constitute but a very negligible part of the 155 valid votes emitted in this precinct.   As to these 17 illegal votes, relate merely to the ballots prepared for illiterate voters without corresponding electors' oath, it shows that the petition to quash the election in this precinct should likewise be  ignored."  And the court  proceeded  to  examine  the ballots and declared that in this precinct the  protestant obtained 28 votes and the protestee 65.

On appeal, the protestant  assigns 14 errors which, in our opinion, require no special discussion for the reason that they refer to  questions  of fact which were properly decided by the lower court.  And  finding no ground for reversal, we are of the opinion that the conclusions of the lower court must be upheld.

In paragraph  10  of his  amended protest and  in the twelfth assignment of error, precinct 3, the protestant objected to the admission of 88 ballots  (excluding repetitions) of the protestee on the ground that they appear to be in the handwriting of  only  19  persons.   Whereas  the trial judge states  (page 25, decision)  that only 30  ballots could reasonably be classified as being  in the handwriting of 4 persons, the appellee admits that there are 45 ballots which appear to be written by 12 persons.   In this precinct there were 14 illiterate voters registered, but only 7 of them were able to fill out the requisite oath of their  illiteracy.  Accepting that only  30 ballots, as the trial judge found, appear in the handwriting of only 4 persons, and considering that both contending parties agree with the trial judge that only 4 persons  assisted  said 7 illiterate voters,  11 ballots deducted from  30  would leave 19 ballots of illiterate voters without the corresponding affidavits.

The appellant contends that the excess number of ballots over 11 should be deducted from the appellee's votes.   The trial judge, however, overruled this contention there being no evidence of fraud.  And even granting that the number of ballots in excess is 77, according to the appellant, or 35, according to the appellee, such discrepancy is immaterial. There being no  evidence of fraud, any excess of ballots of illiterates over  the  number of affidavits  cannot be  held inadmissible, for the provision of the Election Law requiring the  administering  of  oaths to helpers and  illiterate voters alike is mandatory only before the election and merely directory  thereafter.   (Olano vs.  Tibayan, 53  Phil., 168;  Gallardo vs.  Aldana,  supra; Ignacio  vs. Navarro, G. E. No. 37401¹.)

Precinct 4. The frauds and irregularities alleged to have been  committed in this precinct are seven in number and they appear enumerated on pages 138 and 139 of the appealed decision.

During the trial of the case the protestant, according to the lower court, did  not offer  any oral evidence in support of his allegations.   The appeal refers only to the illegal votes of Juan Pabalan, a minor,  Felipe Antiqueno, a blind man,  and Andres  Aberion, who qualified by education but who voted  with the assistance of another person without the corresponding oath  of incapacity.   It is also alleged by the appellant that Juan Echague and Valeriano  Agutaya voted twice.

With regard to  Pabalan and Antiqueno the lower court found that neither of them was challenged during the legal period and, consequently, any evidence tending to show that these voters were  registered and that they voted  although not possessing the necessary  qualifications is immaterial, citing the case of Dejarme vs. Castaiieda, G. R.  No. 30611.²

With respect to  Juan Echague the lower court ruled that his votes stands in precinct 4  inasmuch as his vote in precinct 1  was already discarded.  As to Agutaya, witnesses Santiago Daco and  Gregorio Rodriguez testified not having seen him in precinct 5, and so  the court held that his vote in  precinct 4 is good and valid.  The  appealed decision makes no  reference of the case of Andres Aberion, and neither does the appellant show any  error  on the part of the lower court.

Precinct 5. The irregularities pointed out in the amended protest  are repeated on pages 143 and 144 of the appealed decision.  After examining the  evidence the  trial  court found that  none of said alleged irregularities was committed.

With regard to the  use of "shuttles" alleged  by the appellant  in  connection with the supposed  disappearance of official ballots, it is worthy of note that the protestant attempted to establish by the testimony of two witnesses, Valentin Daco and Gregorio Rodriguez, that several official ballots in this precinct were prepared outside the polling place by one Francisco Zumarraga.  On this point the lower court says: "These  two witnesses took the stand after protestant's witness Santiago Daco  had already finished his lengthy testimony on the frauds and  irregularities alleged to have been committed in this precinct by the leaders of the protestee.  As a matter of fact, after counsel for protestant had finished with his lengthy direct  examination of Santiago Daco, in which the latter was asked to name all the anomalies he had seen committed and of the protests he was supposed to have  lodged with the board of inspectors regarding these alleged anomalies, shortly  before counsel placed his second witness, Valentin Daco, on the stand, an attempt to  establish some connection regarding the alleged use of a few ballots as 'shuttles' in this precinct was  made by asking witness, Santiago Daco, the following question on re-direct examination:

"DEL ROSARIO. You stated this morning that some of your protests were not attended to and recorded  in the minutes of the board of election inspectors.  Will you state some of these protests which were not recorded?

"SANDOVAL. Objection to the question on the ground that it is not a proper question for redirect examination.

"COURT. Sustained.

"Santiago Daco was not able to testify to a fact which he had absolutely failed to mention or to even insinuate during his long  direct-examination  and  cross-examination,  and which fact must have undoubtedly been learned by him afterwards  (during the interval between Santiago Daco's occupying the witness-stand on  direct and cross-examination and the succeeding recesses occurring in the meantime before Valentin Daco testified).  To be sure, Santiago Daca would have been able to place a connecting link between what he had already testified  and what was afterwards to burst forth from the cunning witnesses, Valentin Daco and Gregorio Rodriguez, when the latter began to tell the story of the alleged use of the 'shuttle' in this precinct.  As to what these last two witnesses  afterwards testified, Santiago Daco was conspicuously mum and silent.

"Valentin  Daco in effect stated that he was  one of the watchers for protestant in this precinct on June 2d; that at 10.30 a. m. that day, when he went out of  the polling place to answer the call of nature, he saw near the school shop several  electors surrounding one Francisco Zumarraga, who was writing the names of candidates such as Gil Montilla on official ballots; that from a distance of about 18 meters and while squatting on a  nearby toilet where he stayed five minutes, he could see through a hole 1 1/2 inches in diameter Francisco Zumarraga handing over official ballots which the latter had already filled out to some six electors, who forthwith proceeded  to   the  polling  place;  after which said electors would return back to  where Zumarraga was  and give back another piece of paper to the latter.

"Declaring further, Valentin Daco stated that upon his return to the polling place, he forthwith reported the matter to Gregorio Rodriguez, who told him to keep quiet because he (Rodriguez) wanted to catch the anomaly himself; that when Rodriguez returned to the polling place,  Rodriguez then informed  Santiago  Daco, the protestant's inspector, who in turn brought up the question before the board; that the chairman then informed Daco that he could not order the arrest of the persons  charged because there was  no proof.   At this juncture Valentin Daco attempted to repeat before the court the exact words he claims were used  by Santiago Daco in making the protest to the board  (after failure to)  Santiago Daco who had just left the stand to testify that he had never made any such protest.

"On cross-examination, Valentin Daco admitted not having reported the anomaly he had seen committed by  Francisco Zumarraga to the Constabulary soldier whom he met in the afternoon,  not only because he had already reported the matter to Gregorio Rodriguez, but also because he did not know it was  the business of the  Constabulary soldier detailed there to watch the proceedings in connection with the elections, although  he knew that any person preparing official ballots inside of the polling place was guilty of a criminal  and punishable act.  This witness, moreover, gave  an exhibition of his extraordinary well trained sense of observation made at the eleventh hour when, in reply to question propounded to him by the court and by counsel for the protestee on cross-examination, he mentioned literally,  all  of the characteristics which differentiated a private from  an official ballot, as recited in several decisions of the Supreme Court, one of the differences mentioned by him being that of the texture of the paper used, the texture of the official ballot, according to him, being finer than the paper on which the private ballot is printed.  Valentin Daco  could tell whether one kind of paper was finer or courser than another, from the appearance of the paper itself and without touching it, as he claims  to have seen this difference when  he passed by the place where Francisco Zumarraga was writing on official ballots while being surrounded by the six electors named by him.

"Gregorio Rodriguez, on the  other  hand,  testified that upon being informed by Valentin Daco that Zumarraga was writing on official ballots outside of the polling place, he hastened to catch Zumarraga, but was unable to do so; that he then informed Santiago Daco of this anomaly, and Daco in turn protested to the board against this preparation of official ballots outside, and at the same time requested the chairman of the board to  have Zumarraga arrested,  which request was, however, turned  down.  The  witness then repeated that the chairman is supposed to have replied to Santiago Daco, using almost the same identical and memorized  sentences as those used by Valentin Daco.

"When Gregorio Rodriguez was asked on cross-examination whether he reported  this matter to the  Constabulary soldier in precinct 5, or to the provincial commander and the provincial  fiscal when he went  to Coron  on  June 4th, he replied in the negative.

"The court cannot believe the testimony of Valentin Daco and Gregorio Rodriguez on the alleged anomaly of the use of the 'shuttle' in this precinct.  If such a gross election fraud had  in fact been perpetrated, it cannot be conceived how it has come to pass that Santiago Daco was absolutely silent regarding this matter.  Santiago Daco  at least could have made efforts to mention this fraud when he was asked to name the anomalies he  had seen committed and the protests he had filed with the board on election day.   It is now claimed by counsel for protestant that he had  purposely desisted from making Daco  testify on this fact because Santiago  Daco's testimony would be hearsay, but if this is the contention, the court believes it is more of a hearsay testimony to just let either Valentin Daco or himself be supposed  to have  spoken to the board  concerning Santiago Daco's petition for the arrest of the person responsible for the preparation of official ballots outside the  polling place. Moreover, if this fraud had really been committed, why is it that the only election irregularity reported by Gregorio Rodriguez to the provincial fiscal had reference to the action of the board in allowing Juan Aboratigue and Eugenio Dadaya to vote despite the order of exclusion of the circuit justice of the peace against these electors?  And why is it that up to the present, no criminal complaint has been filed against Francisco Zumarraga?

"Besides, this alleged  anomaly is not borne out by the minutes of June 2d, Exhibits 11 and 11-a.   This document does not contain any protest filed to that effect by Santiago Daco, whose signature is affixed thereon.  Had such a  gross anomaly  as the  preparation  of official  ballots outside the polling place been really committed, Santiago Daco would, without doubt have inserted his energetic protests in said minutes, and the absence of any protest to that effect forces the court to conclude that said  anomaly did not in fact exist.  While  it is true that Santiago  Daco attempted to deny having voluntarily affixed his signature not only to the election returns and the minutes of June 2d, but also to all the  other election documents used  in this  precinct, which he claims to have signed only through intimidation, threats of violence and force brought to bear upon him by the chairman  of  the board, nevertheless the stubborn fact remains  that  Daco's signature  on said minutes,  election returns and registry lists indubitably show upon their face that they were written in the most natural and  ordinary manner possible, even clearer than the signature  prepared by him in open court on the paper Exhibit 12 handed to him by the undersigned judge during the trial of this case.

"In the opinion of the court, the mere failure of Santiago Daco to testify upon this point is sufficient to taint the testimony of Valentin Daco and Gregorio Rodriguez with the earmarks  of evident falsehood."

The other assignments of error regarding this precinct refer to questions of fact which, in our opinion, were  properly decided by the trial  court.  For this reason we shall not discuss them here again.

As to the annulment of the election in this precinct, the lower court concluded that the protestant's evidence does not justify it, citing the doctrine laid down in the case  of Demeterio vs. Lopez,  supra.

In connection  with the irregularities alleged  in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the amended protest, the trial judge says: "Counsel for the protestant  in the course of his objection to the admission of protestee's ballots in this precinct objected to 144 ballots on the ground of alleged similarity  in penmanship.   On the other hand,  an examination of the ballots themselves shows  that only  54 ballots could reasonably be separated into 17 different groups  of ballots, the handwriting of which appears to be similar for each group. The existence of these 17 groups of ballots of the same handwriting for each group is, however, justified by the 37 affidavits for illiterate voters and the personal votes of the  17 persons who prepared the ballots of illiterate voters as appearing in the affidavits  (Exhibits  69-a-1 to 69-a-37),  or a total of 54 ballots which must of necessity appear to  be in the same handwriting  for each group.   Therefore, there can be no anomaly in the finding of these 54 ballots."

The  trial judge  then  proceeded  to examine the  ballots cast in this precinct,  and, deducting from the protestant 1 vote and from the protestee 6 votes which were considered illegal, the court adjudicated 35 votes to the protestant and 147 to the protestee.

Precinct 6. Nine grounds,  enumerated  on  pages 186 and 187 of the appealed decision, are alleged in the amended protest, and, on appeal, ten errors  are assigned by the appellant regarding the irregularities committed in this precinct.  Said  irregularities were decided correctly by the lower court after a careful revision of the evidence submitted by both parties.

In connection with  the  allegation that illiterate voters were permitted to be assisted  by other persons in the preparation of their ballots without requiring them to file the necessary oath,  it appears that during the revision of the ballots by  the commissioners  appointed by the court, the commissioner for the protestant claimed that 28 of the protestee's ballots appear to be in the handwriting of a few persons only.  That number was raised to 39 by the counsel for the protestant.  The protestee admits that of the 61 ballots in which he is  voted for governor in this precinct, only 28 may be separated into 10 groups in the same handwriting  for  each group.   The lower  court held:  "The existence of these 28 ballots in similar handwriting for each of the ten groups, appears to be well justified.  Out of the 23 affidavits for illiterates, the 5 ballots prepared by the protestant's watchers must be deducted, leaving still 18 affidavits to which should be added the 10 votes of the persons chosen by said illiterates  to  assist them in  the preparation of their respective ballots,  or  a  total of 28 ballots which, of necessity, have to appear in the same handwriting for each group."  Accordingly, the court found that the preparation of said ballots was done in compliance with the requirements of the law and should therefore be admitted in favor of the  protestee.

The  other assignments of error require no further discussion,  for,  in  our opinion, the conclusions of the lower court, which appellant impugns, are fully supported by the evidence in the  record.

As in the case of the other precincts, the lower court examined the ballots cast in this  precinct and found  that the protestant received 14 votes and  the protestee 61.

Again, appellant prays for the annulment of the  election in this precinct.  The lower court held, and we believe rightly, that the election in this  precinct  must be upheld. The trial judge  observes that, while it is  true that in the discharge of their functions the inspectors might have committed anomalies, due in a large measure to ignorance, pressure of work  or inefficiency,  still, the facts proved inevitably show that such anomalies were not done with fraudulent intent.  The overwhelming majority of the people in the municipality of Coron clearly manifested their desire to entrust to the protestee the direction of the provincial government of Palawan, and their desire should be respected by all means, since it would be highly unjust to punish the innocent electors for the anomalies alleged  to have been committed by the election inspectors.

Precinct 7. There are six grounds quoted on  page 20f of the appealed decision for the alleged irregularities committed in this precinct.   All of them were decided adversely by the lower court after having reviewed the evidence presented by both parties.   The result of the examination of the ballots cast in this precinct gives 99 votes to the protestee  and 96 to the protestant.   The appellant  states in his brief that although frauds and violations of  the Election Law in this precinct were similar to those  in other precincts, they do not materially affect the election, because the voters in this precinct were educated.

Precinct 8. Eleven  grounds, enumerated  on pages 218 and 214 of the lower  court's  decision, are alleged  in  the 'amended protest and 14  errors are assigned on appeal in support of  appellant's  petition for the  annulment  of  the election in this  precinct.

As in other precinct,  the trial  judge made a  thorough analysis of the testimony of the  witnesses offered by  the protestant,  and he draws therefrom the following conclusions: First, that the official inspector of the protestant was not a  registered  voter in  this precinct; second,  that  the official watchers for the protestant and protestee were not allowed  to  remain inside  the polling place  after all  the voters had already cast their respective ballots third, that no absentees voted in this precinct on election day; fourth, that no  marked ballots  were  illegally  counted;  fifth and sixth, that the; number of ballots prepared by other persons for illiterate voters tallies wife the number of same illiterates;  seventh, that no  incapacitated voters were assisted by  other persons without filling out the requisite oath of incapacity;  eighth, that no disqualified elector was permitted to be registered and to vote; ninth, that no  registered elector in this precinct voted in other precincts for the second  time; tenth, that there  has been  no  disappearance of official ballots; eleventh, that the annulment of the election  is not justified.

Considering the evidence referred to in the appealed decision, we are constrained to hold that said evidence fully supports the conclusions of the trial court.  Appellant's assignments of error are, therefore, not well taken.

In this precinct, however, mention  should  be made of the action of the chairman of the board of election inspectors in excluding from the polling place all the watchers/both for the protestant and for the protestee, upon the termination of the voting.  The trial judge says:  "While the action of the chairman in requesting the watchers of the contending parties in said precinct  to stay out of the polling place during the counting and reading of the ballots  seems unique, and although said  chairman had placed  a  rather strange interpretation of the provision of law governing this matter, still, on the whole, the court considers that no frauds were committed even in the absence of said watchers."   And  consequently, the trial judge holds that this irregularity does not suffice to invalidate the election in this precinct.  According  to the lower court, the ballots  themselves show that the sending away of the watchers did not in any manner affect the result.

In concluding that  the frauds alleged by the protestant in connection with this ground of the protest have not been proved, the trial judge  observes:

"If the action of the chairman of the board in sending away all the watchers for both factions after the close of the voting had been maliciously and intentionally done to enable the board to commit frauds, as claimed by the witnesses for the protestant, the result of the revision of the ballots would have confirmed said contention.  The truth of the matter, however, is that the report of the commissioners, clearly contradicts and runs counter with this claim. According to said report (Exhibits Z-1  and 44-A,  Rec. pp. 222-224), 121 ballots (HM-1 to HM-121, inclusive), were found  bearing the name of the protestee,  Higinio Mendoza, although only in 114 of these does his name appear  written  in the proper space  (Rec. p. 223); and that only 8 ballots (PF-1 to PF-8) were found for the protestant.   According to the election return  (Exhibit 111-35), the protestee obtained  123 votes,  while  the  protestant 2 votes, from which it is  evident that the discrepancy is only slightly different.  If fraud had in fact been contemplated, and if the inspectors had really intended to  commit fraud upon  asking the watchers for both factions to  leave the polling place, the difference would  have been much bigger.

"The protestant attempted to  prove that one Sabino Yalung was employed by the board to coerce the electors and to watch their manner  of voting.   Upon this point, Pedro Nangit asserted that said Sabino Yalung, a policeman from Coron,  frequently went to  the  booths, peeping  into  said booths at times, and sometimes even  leaning one-half of his body thereon while electors  were inside  writing their ballots.  This testimony is contradicted by his own cousin, Esteban Nangit, also a watcher of the protestant in this precinct, who immediately followed Pedro Nangit on the witness-stand, and categorically admitted in open court that the policeman Sabino Yalung only peeped into the booths for the purpose of finding out whether a booth was occupied or not; that  upon finding a booth to be vacant,  he called another voter from outside to get  in to prepare his ballot; that as  soon as Yalung  noticed that a booth was  occupied, Yalung immediately left the place, without in any way interferring with the voters who happened to be preparing their ballots.   This assertion, when taken in connection with the previous admission made by both Pedro Nangit and Esteban Nangit, that nobody could see the names of the candidates written by the voters on their ballots while inside the booths, and that policeman Yalung did not mix with the electors while the latter were preparing their ballots, nor did this policeman, or for that matter, any of the members of the board of inspectors, or any other persons whomsoever, ever intimidate, or force or threaten any elector to vote for one or the other of the contending candidates in  said elections, said electors having freely and voluntarily, and without any interference or hindrance, prepared their respective ballots inside the booths, entirely discredits the testimony of Pedro Nangit upon this point.

"It is not only in this particular testimony that these two principal witnesses for the protestant contradict each other. Besides their inconsistent versions relative to the question of whether or not the names of the voters were announced or not by the chairman before delivering  the corresponding official ballot,  their testimony is conflicting in  regard to the place where they both stayed after being sent out of  the polling place at the time of the reading of the ballots.

"It  should be borne in mind that both these witnesses insinuated that after  the proclamation of the results had been made, at about 10 o'clock p. m. on June 2d, the three inspectors and the policeman and poll clerk continued to remain inside the polling place making a lot of noise  until about 5 a. m. on June 3d when the board adjourned.  Up to this point, their versions are still uniform.   They wholly disagree, however,  in one  important particular.  While Pedro  Nangit,  insisted that after the announcement of the results had been published by the chairman, he and his cousin  Esteban Nangit proceeded to the house where they were both  residing in San Miguel, a  short distance from the polling place, where  they both remained with other electors of their  faction,  chatting and watching what the inspectors were supposedly doing inside the polling place, until 5  o'clock the next morning, said inspectors  having passed by said house on their way home at about 4.30 a. m. June 3d; Esteban Nangit's version on  the other hand, is that after he and the other watchers were sent away by the chairman  at  6 o'clock in  the evening, he and Pedro Nangit stayed outside in the open air near the polling place to wait for the reading of the ballots and the announcement of the results,  after which he and Pedro Nangit continued to remain in the same place in the open air from 10 p. m. on June 2d until  4 a. m, on June 3d, looking  at what the inspectors were doing inside; and that Pedro Nangit never left him there, nor did  they two enter any house  during said interval of time.  Their testimony is  so  inconsistent and conflicting in  material points in the case that the court cannot help but doubt of their veracity."

The contention  of the appellant that the court erred in not holding that 100 ballots are in the handwriting of only a few persons,  is untenable.  Of the 100 ballots, the admission of which was questioned by the appellant on the ground of identical handwriting, the trial judge found that only 40 could reasonably be classified as being in the handwriting of 4 persons,  adding  that the  existence of these 40 ballots is amply justified by the 18 affidavits for illiterate voters, to which must be added the 4 votes of the persons who prepared said ballots  and the 18 thumb-marks of 18 illiterate voters, or a total  of 40 ballots which of necessity must appear to be in the same handwriting for each  group. As  to  the  alleged  falsification of the election returns, this contention is  also untenable.  It appears on the election returns  that  133 ballots were  used in this precinct on election day.  This statement is confirmed by the report of the commissioners, Exhibits' Z-1  and 44-a,  and by the ballot pads found inside the box for valid ballots.  Thus, according to said reports, the total ballots used is 133, which tallies exactly with  the  remaining  official ballots found inside the ballot box.  (Page 235, decision.)

The appellant prays for the annulment of the election in this precinct,  which petition was denied by the trial court. On  this point we  deem  it  advisable to  repeat  here  the grounds upon which the trial judge  denied appellant's prayer  for  annulment:

"The action of the board,in unseating Juan Macanas as inspector, and in sending  away all of the watchers of both contending  candidates in  this precinct during the reading of the ballots, does not, in the opinion of this court, constitute  sufficient cause to invalidate the elections.   It  has been sufficiently proved by  the positive admissions of  the witnesses of the protestant, Pedro Nangit and Esteban Nangit, that the voting was legally conducted from  7 a. m. until 6  p. m. on June 2, 1931, that only electors who presented themselves  before the  board  on election  day and whose identity was proved beyond doubt through previous consultation with and verification of the registry  lists by the  inspectors were  handed  the corresponding ballot in the  presence  and without any protest whatsoever  on  the part of the  four watchers of the protestant, Pedro Nangit, Esteban Nangit, Romualdo  Llanera, and Mamerto Dalabahan;  and that each and every one of the  electors who voted on said  date  prepared  their respective ballots inside the voting booths in  utmost privacy  and secrecy, without any  molestation or interference whatsoever,  and  without any  force,  threats or intimidation of any kind, or  nature brought to bear upon them by any person.  Upon such a state of facts, the court is convinced  that the  elections were on the whole  legally conducted, the results of which represented the true expression of, the opinion and wishes of the voters  in this precinct."

The trial judge examined the ballots cast in this precinct and found that the protestant received 8 votes and the protestee 96.

And finally summarizing the total votes  obtained by the contending parties in the  8 precincts of Coron, the judge a quo makes the following tabulation:  

	Contested precincts in Coron								Total number of votes
	l	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
H. Mendoza	197	104	122	65	147	61	96	96	888
P. Fernandez	40	18	12	28	35	14	99	8	254
									_______
Total majority for Higinio Mendoza									634

Accordingly, the court declared that in the 8 precincts of the municipality of Coron the protestant received 254 votes and the protestee 888.

In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion, and so hold,  that the  decision of the lower court sustaining the validity of the election in the eight precincts of the municipality of  Coron  is supported by the evidence of  record. This conclusion disposes of the appeal as regards the pro- test filed by the protestant.

The appellant contends, however, that on account of the counter-protest  filed by the protestee the lower court erred in deducting from the protestant 72 ballots, and in adjudicating to the protestee 70 ballots enumerated on pages 123 and 124 of  the appellant's  brief.  But,  having decided to sustain the  election in the  eight precincts of the municipality of  Coron,  we  deem  it unnecessary to  examine the ballots  referred  to  by the  appellant in  connection  with protestee's counter-protest, inasmuch as, even admitting the appellant's contentions in this respect, the result will be the same; for, by deducting from the protestee's plurality of 260 votes  said 142  ballots which were involved in the counter-protest, appellee would still have a plurality of 118 votes over the appellant.

The  decision appealed  from is, therefore, affirmed  with costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers,  Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.

---

¹ Page 1000, post.
² Promulgated April 22, 1929, not reported.