PRISCILO B. INTING, PETITIONER, VS. ZOILA L. CLARIN, RESPONDENT.

Inting versus Clarin

The Case

This is an election protest between Priscilo Inting, the protestee, and Zoila Clarin, the protestant, over the office of Mayor of Loay, Bohol, in the general elections of November 1963. The trial court declared Clarin the winner by a plurality of two votes; the Court of Appeals declared her the winner by a plurality of twenty-six votes; and Inting came to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. The case matters because it fixes the standard for judging marked ballots: a ballot cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the voter, and extreme caution must be observed before it is invalidated. It also teaches that the same kind of marking cannot be struck down for one candidate and counted for the other.

Procedural History

The protest began in the trial court, which declared the protestant, Clarin, the winner with a plurality of two votes. The case went up to the Court of Appeals, which declared Clarin elected with a plurality of twenty-six votes over Inting. Inting then filed an appeal by writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Court gave due course to the petition and required the petitioner to deposit the docket and legal research fees, which were paid. The respondent, Clarin, was notified to file her memorandum, but no memorandum and no manifestation that the case was being submitted on the pleadings was received from her, and so the case was submitted for decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the ballot rulings of the Court of Appeals and reversed.

Facts

In the November 1963 elections, Priscilo Inting and Zoila Clarin were the opposing candidates for Mayor of Loay, Bohol. After the canvass, Clarin filed an election protest. The trial court counted the ballots and declared her the winner by a plurality of two votes.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals examined the contested ballots. It invalidated nine ballots for Inting because an initial was written preceding the printed numerals on each of them, and all nine came from one precinct, Precinct 3. For Clarin, the appellate court declared valid twenty-five ballots bearing identical markings. Of these, thirteen bore distinctive marks, such as a name or a prefix written before the printed number, and the appellate court declared these thirteen invalid because of impertinent and irrelevant expressions. The remaining twelve were declared valid votes for Clarin, because the marks appeared only in three or four ballots of each precinct and there was no indication that the superfluous mark was placed on the ballot to identify its voter.

The appellate court also invalidated eleven ballots for Inting because an initial preceded the printed numbers, and another eleven ballots for Inting because an initial or letter was written over the printed word for a position. Inting challenged these rulings before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the nine ballots for Inting from Precinct 3, each bearing an initial preceding the printed numerals, were correctly invalidated as marked ballots.
• Whether or not the twenty-five ballots for Clarin bearing identical markings were correctly treated, thirteen as invalid and twelve as valid.
• Whether or not the eleven ballots for Inting bearing an initial preceding the printed numbers were valid votes.
• Whether or not the eleven ballots for Inting bearing an initial or letter written over the printed word for a position were valid votes.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on a doctrine laid down in the jurisprudence, which the Court states as follows:

A ballot which has been cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the voter, and hence, extreme caution should be observed before it is invalidated.

This presumption governs every ballot contested in the case, and it is the reason the Court counts ballots rather than discards them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the invalidation of the nine ballots for Inting. All nine came from one precinct, Precinct 3, and the initials were written preceding the printed numbers on the lines for councilor. Taken together, these circumstances impliedly suggested that the marking was a preconceived pattern designedly placed on the ballot to identify it thereafter.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the invalidation of the thirteen ballots for Clarin bearing distinctive marks, such as names and prefixes written before the printed numbers, because of the presence thereon of impertinent and irrelevant expressions. The remaining twelve ballots were valid votes for Clarin, because the marks appeared only in three or four ballots of each precinct, and there was no indication that the superfluous mark was placed on the ballot to identify its voter.

On the third issue, the Court declared the eleven ballots for Inting valid. These came from Precincts 15, 16, and 21, and the Court applied the same ruling it had laid down for the earlier ballots, in keeping with the presumption that a ballot cast reflects the will of the voter.

On the fourth issue, the Court likewise declared valid the eleven ballots for Inting on which an initial or letter was written over the printed word for a position. The Court found it inconsistent for the appellate court to invalidate these ballots when that same court had considered valid in favor of Clarin twenty-seven ballots bearing identical marks over the printed word of a position.

The Court did not pass upon the other errors assigned, because they involved factual issues. Recapitulating, thirteen votes were deducted from the 1,798 votes the Court of Appeals had declared for Clarin, leaving 1,772; and twenty-two votes were added to the 1,772 declared for Inting, making 1,785 for Clarin and 1,794 for Inting. Inting therefore won with a plurality of nine votes.

Doctrine

A ballot which has been cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the voter, and extreme caution should be observed before it is invalidated. A superfluous mark does not by itself invalidate a ballot. The test is whether the mark was placed there to identify the voter. Where the same kind of marking appears on only a few ballots in each precinct, there is no indication of an identifying purpose, and the ballots are valid. Where the marks form a preconceived pattern, as when initials precede the printed numbers on the councilor lines of ballots all coming from one precinct, the ballots are marked and must be invalidated. Finally, the same kind of marking must be judged by the same standard for both candidates; a court cannot invalidate a ballot for one candidate and count an identically marked ballot for the other.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, set aside the declaration that Clarin was the elected Mayor of Loay, Bohol, and thereby recognized Inting as the winner by a plurality of nine votes, with costs against Clarin.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a ballot which has been cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the voter, and extreme caution should be observed before it is invalidated. Examiners use this case on marked ballots, on the requirement of an identifying pattern before a ballot is struck down, and on the rule that identical markings must be treated alike for both candidates.