G.R. No. L-24468. February 28, 1967
ANTONIO K. BISNAR, PROTESTANT-APPELLEE, VS. BRAULIO LAPASA, PROTESTEE-APPELLANT.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
In the election of November
12, 1963 Antonio K. Bisnar and Braulio Lapasa were candidates for the office of vice-mayor in the municipality of Inopacan, Province of Leyte. The
municipal board of canvassers of Inopacan proclaimed Lapasa winner, with a majority of 32 votes (1,293 to
1,261). Bisnar
lodged a protest (Election Case No. 24-B) in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which rendered judgment in his favor and declared
him to be the duly elected vice-mayor of Inopacan,
with a plurality of twenty-four (24) votes (1,250 to 1,226). The protestee
appealed directly to us and now alleges that the lower court erred: (1) in declaring null and void Exhibits A, B,
C, and D of Precinct No. 6; Exhibits A-1 and B-1 of Precinct 12; Exhibits A, F,
G, H and J of Precinct 16; Exhibit A of Precinct 17; and Exhibits A, D, E, F,
G, and M of Precinct 18; and (2) in declaring null and void fifty (50) other
ballots in which he appears voted for, on the ground that the same are marked.
On each of the eighteen
(18) ballots referred to in the first assignment of error, only the word “Bala,” said to be the nickname of protestee-appellant, is written on the space for
vice-mayor. In the first place there is
no showing that “Bala” is the nickname of protestee-appellant.
No evidence on this point is cited by him. Indeed, he admits that no evidence aliunde whatsoever was presented by the parties. What the trial court said in its decision is
that the word “Bala,” even if
it be considered as protestee-appellant’s nickname,
is not sufficient to render the vote valid for him. This, after all, is a correct statement of
the rule.
Section 34 of the Revised
Election Code expressly provides that certificates of candidacy shall not
contain nicknames of the candidates; and section 149,
paragraph 9 allows the use of nicknames and appellations of affection
and friendship if accompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, except
when they are used as a means to identify the votes. On the basis of these provisions, this Court
has held in a number of cases that for a ballot containing the nickname of a
candidate to be counted in his favor the nickname must be accompanied by either
his name or surname, unlike a ballot which contains only the christian name or surname of a candidate, which is
considered valid if there is no other candidate with the same name or surname
for the same office (Felisilda v. Achacoso,
G. R. No. L-21228, November 22, 1963; Tajanlangit v. Caseñas,
G. R. No. L-18894, June 30,
1962).
Protestee-appellant invokes our decision in Abrea vs. Lloren, 81 Phil.
809. We have heretofore explained, in Tajanlangit vs. Caseñas, supra,
the reason why in that decision we considered as valid for Isabelo
Lloren the ballots where he appeared voted for only
by his nickname “Beloy“. We
said:
“Examining the ratio decidendi in
the case of Abrea vs. Lloren,
supra, the reason why this Court admitted ballots containing only a nickname
was because 602 of the total number of 1,010 votes counted for Isabelo Lloren were cast by
writing his nickname ‘Belot‘; and it had no
alternative than to brush aside legal technicalities for the sake of ‘giving
effect to the will of the people as freely and clearly expressed in the
ballots’. In justifying the admission of
602 ballots containing the nickname ‘Beloy‘, this
Court took into consideration certain proven facts, to wit, (a) that in his
certificate of candidacy, candidate Lloren stated
that he was known by the nickname Beloy; (b) that Lloren distributed sample ballots containing only his
nickname Beloy on the line for Municipal Mayor; (c)
that the ballots containing only his nickname represent 60% of the total number
of votes received by Lloren; and (d) that no objection
was interposed by the other party against the evidence presented by Lloren that he was properly and commonly known by the
nickname Beloy and no other candidate for mayor bears
the same nickname.”
None of the circumstances mentioned in the decision just quoted
is present in the instant case. The
trial court properly rejected the 18 ballots now claimed by appellant.
We now consider individually the fifty (50) ballots subject of
the second assignment of error.
1. Precinct 6, Exhibits E
and F.
Exhibit E was rejected by
the trial court as a marked ballot because of the word “opalao” written on space 6 for councilors. The word could have been intended for an
actual person, whether candidate or not, although imperfectly written. There is no
evidence as to what it means, or that it was used to identify the
ballot. Under the circumstances this
should be counted for protestee-appellant.
So should Exhibit F, which was invalidated by the trial court
because of a diagonal line drawn across the ballot, from the third to the last
space for senators. Considering that
the first two spaces are properly filled, the voter must have drawn the line to
indicate his desistance from voting for other senatorial candidates.
2. Precinct 7, Exhibits
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P and Q.
Exhibit B was
prepared by a poor writer. He wrote “I. Lloren”
on the space for mayor and “I. Lapsa” on
the space for vice-mayor. “I” is not the initial of protestee-appellant.
The rule is that an erroneous initial of the name which accompanies the
correct surname of a candidate does not annul the vote in his favor (Section
149, paragraph 6, Revised Election Code).
This is a valid vote for protestee-appellant.
In Exhibits C, D,
E, F, G and H the word “engat” appears on space 1 for senators. In Exhibits I and J, the same word is written
on spaces 6 and 8 for senators, respectively.
This word is not and could not have been intended as the name of a
person. In the Visayan
dialect it means “shining” or “luminous,”
and can only be regarded as an irrelevant and impertinent
expression. The same is true of the word
“boy,” which appears in Exhibits K, L, M, O and P on space 8 for
senators, and in Exhibit Q, on
space 6 for councilors.
In fact we have already ruled on these very same ballots and held
them invalid in the case of Lloren vs. Court of
Appeals and Pacito Abrea,
G. R. No. L-25907, January 23, 1967. We there said:
“In all of these cases, a pattern is readily discernible – a
group of voters in the same precinct wrote a particular word or name among
those voted for certain offices. It is
unlikely that in a precinct, for example, Precinct 14, 6 voters would all
innocently write the name “Minong” or “Menong”
on line 4 for senators x x x
x x x
And, this curious pattern or way of voting is true with respect to the other
ballots specified above. The appearance
of the aforementioned words in practically the same spaces in several ballots,
in the same precincts, is a clear and
convincing proof of a design to identify them.
Thus, in a case, the appearance in 4 ballots of the name “Cesario” or “Cesar” uniformly on the first
space for senators, and of the name “Gregorio” on line 8 for senators
in 8 ballots, in the same precinct, was held to be conclusive proof that the
name of the candidate was used as a means to mark the ballots (Delgado v. Tiu, G.R. No. L-14143, May 27, 1959).”
3. Precinct 12, Exhibits A,
B, C, D, G, H, and I.
In Exhibit A the words
considered by the trial court as objectionable are: “Have a good time Mr. Pacito” on spaces 4 to 5 for councilors; in Exhibit B, “I forgot his name” on
space 3 for councilors; in Exhibit C, “Forget me not” on space 5 for
councilors; in Exhibit D, “Binabati kong vice-mayor ug Biloy Mayor” cross-wise to the ballot on the right
hand margin opposite the spaces for governor down to vice-mayor; in Exhibit G,
“Rock Beloy” on space 1 for senators; in
Exhibit H, the word “Mede” on space 5 for senators; and in Exhibit I, the word “Daling”
on space 1 for senators.
Exhibits A and C have
already been passed upon and declared invalid by this Court in Lloren vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito Abrea, supra, where we said:
“As a general rule, a voter must write on the ballot only the names
of candidates voted for the offices appearing thereon. Certain exceptions, however, were provided in
Sec. 149 of the Revised Election Code.
For example, prefixes such as
“Sr.”, “Mr.” “hijo“,
“Jr.”, etc. will not invalidate the ballot. Initials, (Par. 15), nicknames or
appellations of affection and friendship will not invalidate the ballot, if
accompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, and above all, if they
were not used as a means to identify the voter.
Even under a liberal view, the words written on the ballots under consideration cannot be
considered as falling within the exception to the rule. Consequently, they are irrelevant expressions
that nullified the ballots.”
The
same ruling should apply to Exhibits B, D, and G.
Exhibits H and I are, however, valid ballots. In the absence of evidence that the words
“Mede” and “Daling” were intended
as identifying marks, the same should be considered as stray votes but shall
not invalidate the ballots.
4. Precinct
13, Exhibits C, D, A-Abrea, B-Abrea,
C-Abrea, D-Abrea, E-Abrea and F-Abrea.
In Exhibit C the words “Medi Hingasoko Jabines” are
written on space 5 for councilors. The words “Medi Hingasoko”
is an irrelevant and impertinent expression which invalidates the
ballot.
In Exhibit D the word
“Coper” appears on space 5 for
councilor. We are not convinced that
this was intended to mark the ballot.
The same is true with respect to Exhibit B-Abrea,
where the word “coper” precedes the name
“Roxas” an space 1
for senator. We hold these two ballots
valid for protestee-appellant.
In Exhibit A-Abrea the words
“Forget Me Not” are written on the space for vice-governor. Following our ruling in Exhibit C, Precinct
12, this ballot was correctly declared invalid by the trial court.
In Exhibit C-Abrea the word objected to is “Cardo”
on space 1 for senators; in Exhibit D-Abrea, it is
“Señorito” on apace 2 for councilors; in
Exhibit E-Abrea, the word is “Rudy” on
space 1 for senators; and in Exhibit F-Abrea, it is
“Talay” on space 5 for councilors.
In the case of Exhibits C-Abrea and E-Abrea the words “Cardo”
and “Rudy”, respectively, are evidently nicknames, which in the
absence of evidence that they were intended for identification, do not
invalidate the ballots. The ruling of
the trial court with respect to them is therefore reversed.
Exhibit D-Abrea is a marked
ballot. The word “Señorito” is not used as a prefix, for it does not
accompany the name of a candidate and hence does not fall under Section 149,
paragraph 5, of the Revised Election Code.
We can conceive of no reason for its use except to mark the ballot.
In Exhibit F-Abrea, following our ruling in Exhibits H and I of Precinct
12, the appearance of the word “Talay” should
be considered only as stray vote and the ballot itself as valid for protestee-appellant.
5. Precinct 14, Exhibits A,
B, C, D, E, F, and G.
In Exhibit A, the initial “R.L.” appears below the seal of the Republic of
the Philippines and the word “Sorab”
on the space for governor. The presence
of the aforementioned initial on such a conspicuous part of the ballot clearly
indicates the intention of the voter to identify his vote. This ballot was correctly rejected by the
trial court.
In Exhibits B, C, D, E, and G, the word “Menong” or “Minong” appears uniformly on space 4 for senators, while in
Exhibit F, the same word is on space 1 for councilors. These ballots have been declared invalid in our decision in Lloren v. Court of Appeals and Pacito Abrea, supra, quoted hereinbefore in
connection with Exhibits C, D, E,
F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P,
and Q of Precinct 7.
6. Precinct 16, Exhibits B, C, and E.
In Exhibits B and C “Zenon
Mones” and “deong
Cuenco” appear on space 1 for
senators, respectively, and in Exhibit E the word “shot” is written
on the left margin opposite the spaces for councilors.
“Zenon
Mones” is evidently a name and its appearance on
Exhibit B does not invalidate the ballot in the absence of evidence that it was
written for identification purposes.
Exhibit C is a valid
ballot and should be counted in favor of Lapasa. The word “deong”
preceding the name of “Cuenco” may be
considered as an appellation of affection or friendship under Sec. 149,
paragraph 9 of the Revised Election Code.
Exhibit E is marked and
therefore invalid. In Lloren vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito
Abrea, supra, we ruled on this particular exhibit thus:
“x x
x the appearance of these words, which are neither
appellations of friendship nor nicknames of candidates, in spaces not intended
for writing could not have been intended
for any purpose than to identify the ballots.”
7. Precinct 17, Exhibits B,
C, D, E, F, and G.
Exhibit B, on which “I. Lloren Biloy Lloren” is written on
the space for mayor, was rejected by the lower court as a marked ballot. We
find no reason why this ballot should not be valid. In writing “I. Lloren
Biloy Lloren” merely
emphasized his intention to vote for Isabelo Lloren for mayor.
In Exhibit C, the word “Lowlow”
was written before and after the name “Compendio“,
who was voted for councilor. This
particular ballot was already ruled upon by us and accepted as valid in Lloren vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito
Abrea, supra, where we held:
“. . . Unlike in the previous case, the alleged identifying words
were written with the name of a duly registered candidate. In the absence of evidence aliunde that these words are not nickname or appellation of affection or friendship, and were intended
to mark the ballot, we incline to uphold its validity.”
In Exhibit D “Kowacnit Sigordo” is written on space 6 for councilor; in Exhibit E “Tse
na lang” is written on
space 3 for councilors; in Exhibit
F, “Ci na lang” is written on space 6 for councilors; and in
Exhibit G “Mahal kong Lloren” appears on the space for mayor and “Ganon den Lapasa” appeared on the space for vice-mayor.
Exhibit E was held to be invalid in Lloren
vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito Abrea,
supra, where we said that the words “Tse na lang”
constitute an impertinent and irrelevant expression which annulled the entire
ballot. The same ruling applies by
analogy to Exhibits D and F. The ruling
of the trial court with respect to Exhibit G, however, should be reversed, since
the words “Mahal kong Lloren” specify
nothing but affection and friendship, repeated by indication in the succeeding
vote for Lapasa.
8. Precinct 18, Exhibits B
and K.
In Exhibit B, the
initials “A.A.D.” appears on space 1 for senators.
This particular ballot
was held invalid in Lloren vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito Abrea, supra, where
we said:
“It is true that under paragraph 15 of Section 149 of the
Revised Election Code, initials, while they are not valid votes, will not
invalidate the whole ballot. But the
initials referred to in said provision as not constituting valid vote must
refer to initials of registered candidates.
Furthermore, the appearance of these initials in 3 ballots in the same
precinct, on the same space, cannot be merely coincidental, but intended to
mark the ballots (Ferrer v. Alban, supra).”
In Exhibit K, “C Pausto” is
written before the name of “Cuenco,”
who was voted for senator on space 1 for senators, and “Pausto” appears before the name “De la
Rosa,” who was also voted for senator on space 2 for senators. On the space for Mayor appear the words
“Biloy Leoren Lioren Lioren“.
The use of these words before
the names “Cuenco” and “De la
Rosa” cannot be considered as innocently made by the voter. “Pausto” is not the christian name of candidate Cuenco
nor of candidate De la Rosa. Had it been
used only once it could conceivably be an innocent mistake, but not when used
successively, especially considering that the rest of the spaces for senators
contain only the surnames of the candidates.
This is a convincing circumstance that the same was written for no
other purpose than to identify the ballot.
Summarizing our
conclusions, we hold that fifteen (15) ballots declared invalid by the lower
court should be adjudicated to the protestee-appellant,
namely, Exhibits E and F, Precinct 6; Exhibits B, Precinct 7; Exhibits H and
I, Precinct 12; Exhibits D, B-Abrea, C-Abrea, E-Abrea and F-Abrea, Precinct 13; Exhibits B and C, Precinct 16; Exhibits
B, C, and G, Precinct 17. Added to the
1,226 votes credited to him in the appealed decision, the total is 1,241, which
is still less by 9 votes obtained by protestant-appellee
Antonio K. Bisnar.
The judgment appealed
from is affirmed, with the only modification that protestant-appellee Antonio K. Bisnar is declared
winner by 9 votes over protestee-appellant Braulio Lapasa. Costs against appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.