G.R. No. 30282. March 01, 1929
SERAPION ADESER, PROTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. MATED TAGO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLANT.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
of the Court of First Instance of Bohol holding that the protestant
Serapion Adeser obtained 215 votes for the office of municipal
president of Bimiao, Province of Bohol, in the general elections held
in said municipality on June 5, 1928, and the protestee 212 votes, thus
giving the former a plurality of 3 votes over the latter.
In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following errors as icommitted by the court below in its judgment, to wit:
“1. The lower court erred in appreciating in favor
of the petitioner the following ballots; 1-A (precinct No. 1) and 3-A
(precinct No. 4) both with ‘Apiong Cerila’ for president; 2-A (precinct
No. 1) with ‘Serapion A.?;’ 1-A, 2-A (precinct No. 2) and 4-A (precinct
No. 4) with ‘Serapion A;’ 1-A (precinct No. 3) and 5-A (precinct No. 4)
with ‘Serapion’ on the space for president and ‘Adeser’ on that for
vice-president; 1-A and 2-A (precinct No, 4), illegible; and 5-X
(precinct No. 1) which was burned.“2. The lower court erred
in not appreciating in favor of the respondent ballot 6-X in precinct
No. 1, with the name ‘Mateo’ and a not well written surname for
president.“3. The lower court erred in finding that the
petitioner obtained more votes than the respondent and in declaring the
former elected-president of the municipality of Dimiao.”
The following pertinent facts are necessary for the solution of the questions raised in the instant appeal.
In the general elections held in the municipality of Dimiao, Bohol,
on June 5, 1928, among the registered candidates voted for the office
of municipal president of said municipality, were Mateo Tago, who
obtained 213 votes, and Serapion Adeser, who obtained 212 votes, giving
a plurality of only one vote in favor of the former as against the
latter, according to the results of the canvass, made by the municipal
board of canvassers of Dimiao. In pursuance whereof, on June 7, 1928,
said board proclaimed Mateo Tago President elect of said municipality.
Dissatisfied with said result, Serapion Adeser on June 13, 1928, and
in due time, filed a motion of protest in the Court of First Instance
of Bohol against Mateo Tago, alleging as a cause of protest, certain
irregularities committed in the appreciation of ballots in precincts
Nos. 1 and 3 of the municipality of Dimiao. Mateo Tago also filed, in
due time, an answer with a counter-protest, alleging that
irregularities had been committed in the appreciation of the ballots in
precincts Nos. 2 and 4 of the same municipality.
Having acquired jurisdiction to try the protest and counter-protest
by virtue of said motion, the Court of First Instance of Bohol, upon
petition of the parties, appointed three commissioners who took charge
of the opening of the four valid-ballot boxes of the four precincts,
and of recounting the ballots contained therein, later on submitting to
the trial court a report of the result of their proceedings, stating
that the protestee Mateo Tago obtained 209 votes and the protestant
Serapion Adeser 204 votes, having rejected seven (7) contested ballots
in favor of the former, and thirteen (13) likewise contested, in favor
of the latter. The said 20 contested ballots having been submitted to
the Court of First Instance of Bohol for decision, the latter
adjudicated three (3) of them to Mateo Tago, and eleven (11) to
Serapion Adeser, which, added to the votes obtained by said candidates,
respectively, gave a total result of 215 votes in favor of Serapion
Adeser, and 212 votes in favor of Mateo Tago.
From this judgment Mateo Tago appealed to this court.
With respect to ballots, 1-A of precinct No. 1, and 3-A of precinct
No. 4 of the municipality of Dimiao, contested by the appellant in his
first assignment of error as erroneously admitted in favor of Serapion
Adeser, the vote being written in favor of one “Apiong Cerila” for the
office of municipal president, it appears from the record that Serapion
Adeser stated in his certificate of candidacy that he was also and
still is known by the nickname of “Apiong Cerila.” Inasmuch as among
Filipinos of scant education it very frequently happens that a person
is better known by his nickname than by his Christian name and surname, and as it does not appear that there is any other person with the
nickname “Apiong Cerila” (except Serapion Adeser), the voters who wrote
such nickname in the space for the office of municipal president of
Dimiao could not have voted for any other than Serapion Adeser, This
being the will of the two voters who used such nickname in voting for
him, we must give it effect and hold said two ballots valid and
admissible in favor of Serapion Adeser.
As to ballots 2-A of precinct No. 1, 1-A of precinct No. 2, and 4-A
of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant as erroneously
admitted by the court below in favor of Serapion Adeser because in the
space for the office of the municipal president in each of them is
written only “Serapion A,” while it is true that in the cases of
Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza (42 Phil., 496), and Lucero vs.
De Guzman (45 Phil., 852), it was held for the reasons stated therein,
that the Christian name and the initial letter of the candidate’s
surname alone are not sufficient to identify the person voted for,
nevertheless, we believe that when there is no other candidate bearing
the same name and surname and the same initials, the Christian name and
the initial letter of the surname are sufficient to identify the
candidate bearing- said Christian name and said initial of surname.
In the instant case, Serapion Adeser is the only candidate for
municipal president of Dimiao, Bohol, with said name and surname, and
when the four voters, respectively wrote in the four ballots the name
of “Serapion A” in the space for the office of the municipal president,
they could not have had the intention to vote for any other candidate
than Serapion Adeser.
When they wrote only the initial A of Adeser’s surname, it cannot be
said that said four voters desisted from voting for him, for if they
had so intended, they would have erased his name and placed another
instead, or asked for another ballot.
It appearing clearly, then, that the intention of the four voters,
who wrote in their respective ballots the name of “Serapion A” for the
office of the municipal president of Dimiao was to vote for Serapion
Adeser, effect must be given to their will and said ballots must be
admitted as valid in favor of the said Serapion Adeser.
With respect to ballots, 1-A of precinct No. 3, and 5-A of precinct
No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant Mateo Tago as erroneously
admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser because the Christian name
Serapion is written in the space for the municipal president, and the
surname Adeser between the space for municipal president, and that for
municipal vice-president, a careful examination of said two ballots
will show that there being no space left wherein to write the surname
Adeser, after having written the Christian name Serapion, the voters
were under the necessity of writing the surname below said Christian
name, and this circumstance does not indicate that said voters desired
to vote for Serapion Adeser for the office of municipal vice-president
of Dimiao.
The admission of these two ballots as valid in favor of Serapion Adeser is not, therefore, erroneous.
As to ballots 1-A and 2-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the
protestee-appellant. as erroneously admitted by the trial court in
favor of Serapion Adeser because the latter’s name and surname are
illegible, there are written in the space for the office of municipal
president in ballot 1-A the words “Siropio adise,” and in ballot 2-A,
the words “Sirapio adise,” which, read by a Filipino who barely knows
how to read and write, has a sound similar to Serapion Adeser, save
that the voters who wrote them did not know how to spell correctly.
These two ballots squarely come within the rule of idem sonans and, consequently, are valid and may be admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser.
Ballot 5-X of precinct No. 1, contested by the protestee-appellant
as erroneously admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser, because it was
marked with a burn on the upper right-hand corner, after being
submitted to a careful examination clearly shows that said burn was
accidental and not made for purposes of identification and, therefore,
its admission was correct.
In the second assignment of error, the protestee-appellant claims
ballot 6-X of precinct No. 1, because it clearly appears that he has
been voted for therein for the municipal presidency, although his
surname is not clearly written. A careful examination of said ballot
leads to the conclusion, from the inartistic and defective manner in
which his name and surname are written in the space for the municipal
president, that the voter desired to write the name of Mateo Tago;
therefore, this ballot should be admitted as a
vote in his favor.
Summarizing the above, we find that the two ballots, 1-A of precinct
No. 1, and 3-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant
Mateo Tago as inadmissible because in the spaces for municipal
president is written the nickname “Apiong Cerila” and not Serapion
Adeser; the four ballots, 2-A of precinct No. 1, 1-A and 2-A of
precinct No. 2, and 4-A of precinct No. 4, also contested by Mateo Tago
as inadmissible because in the space for municipal president is written
only the Christian name Serapion, and the initial A of the surname; and
not the whole surname Adeser; the two ballots, 1-A of precinct No. 3,
and 5-A of precinct No. 4, likewise contested by protestee-appellant as
inadmissible because the Christian name Serapion is written in the
space for municipal president and the surname Adeser between the space
for municipal president and in that for municipal vice-president; and
the two ballots 1-A and 2-A
of precinct No. 4, also contested as inadmissible because the names
appearing in the spaces for municipal president are illegible; and the
ballot 5-X of precinct No. 1, also contested by Mateo Tago as
inadmissible because it is marked with a burn, are all valid and may be
admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser; and that ballot 6-X claimed by
Mateo Tago as a vote in his favor is also valid and admissible. From
the 215 ballots adjudicated by the court below to Serapion Adeser,
there is none, then, to be deducted; but one ballot must be added to
the 212 adjudicated to Mateo Tago, making a total of 213, the former
obtaining a plurality of 2 votes over the latter.
By virtue whereof, and with the aforementioned modification, the
appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.
Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
DISSENTING:
STREET, J., with whom concurs VILLAMOR, J.,:
I dissent from so much of this decision as holds that a ballot on
which is written “Serapion A” can be read as a vote for Serapion
Adeser, on the ground stated in my dissenting opinion in Namocatcat vs. Adag, G. R. No. 30283.[1]
[1] P. 794, ante.