Facts:

Emilio Arzaga (petitioner) contested the election results of the November 10, 1959 general election held in El Nido, Palawan, where he was initially proclaimed the winner for the mayoral position by a margin of two votes, having received 509 votes against Francisco Bobis, Sr. (respondent) who garnered 507 votes. Following the election, Bobis filed a contest, and the Court of First Instance of Palawan declared Arzaga the winner by three votes. The matter was subsequently escalated to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's ruling, declaring Bobis the winner with a margin of five votes (502 to 507). The Supreme Court received Arzaga's appeal via certiorari against this decision. The core of the case involved the examination and interpretation of a total of 21 ballots, where each party challenged the validity of specific votes. Arzaga submitted twelve assignments of error regarding fifteen ballots, while Bobis made five counter-assignments involving six ballo

...

Facts:

Background of the Election

• On November 10, 1959, during the general election for municipal office in El Nido, Palawan, the board of municipal canvassers proclaimed incumbent Emilio Arzaga as mayor with 509 votes against 507 for his opponent, Francisco Bobis, Sr.
• Shortly thereafter, Arzaga’s election was contested, and the Court of First Instance of Palawan similarly declared him the winner with a vote count of 509 against 506.
• Francisco Bobis, Sr. brought the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s decision, declaring Bobis, Sr. elected with 507 votes over Arzaga’s 502.

Scope of the Controversy and Ballot Disputes

• The case involved a review of 21 ballots in total, comprising 12 ballots challenged by petitioner Arzaga and 6 ballots raised in counter-assignments by respondent Bobis, Sr.
• Petitioner Arzaga filed twelve assignments of error concerning various ballot exhibits (e.g., A-6, A-1, B-6, B-14, B-5, B-10, B-11, B-12, A-2, A-3), contending that errors in counting or discounting votes affected the outcome.
• Respondent Bobis, Sr. responded with five counter-assignments of error, contesting the validity of ballots favoring Arzaga in specific instances.

Contestation on the Validity of Specific Ballots

• Several ballots were examined under the idem sonans rule—where a name or variant that sounds identical is to be considered a vote for the candidate—for example, ballots exhibiting “F. Vuvis,” “F. Pabes (or Pabis), Sr.,” and “F. Babes/Babeis” were scrutinized.
• The petitions involved disputes over whether names written in alternative forms or accompanied by additional words (some deemed indecent or derogatory) should be counted as valid votes.
• Particular emphasis was given to the ballot where “Perez Bungcad” was written, with evidence showing there was indeed a candidate for councilor with the surname “Bungcad,” thereby affecting the marking interpretation.

Detailed Examination of Ballot Errors and Court Findings

• Petitioner’s Assignments of Error
• The first assignment related to Ballot Exhibit “A-6” was overruled by applying the idem sonans rule.
• The second assignment concerning Exhibit “A-1” was similarly overruled and counted in favor of respondent Bobis, Sr.
• The third assignment regarding Exhibit “B-6” dealt with the use of indecent words by the voter, which led to the ballot’s invalidation against Arzaga.
• In the fourth assignment, Exhibit “B-14” (where “Perez Bungcad” was written) was sustained as a valid vote for Arzaga due to corroborative evidence of a candidate with the surname “Bungcad.”
• The fifth assignment challenged Exhibit “B-5” wherein the voter wrote “R. Perez Cabus Cabus.” With no clear evidence of intentional marking, the Court ruled it a stray vote but counted it in favor of Arzaga.
• The sixth to eighth assignments involved Exhibits “B-10,” “B-11,” and “B-12.” In these ballots the voter added impertinent words (e.g., “Perez lagare talob sa kabila,” “Perez lagari,” “Perez lagare”) that were deemed intentional marks, thus invalidating those ballots against Arzaga.
• The ninth assignment, relating to Exhibit “B-8” (with the inscription “Bienes---OPA”), was overruled due to insufficient evidence that the marking was an intentional show of preference.
• The tenth assignment regarding ballots Exhibits “A-1,” “A-3,” “A-7,” and “A-8” was overruled because no specific indecent words or expressions were reliably identified.
• The eleventh assignment about Exhibit “A-2” affirmed that the ballot correctly indicated a vote for Bobis, Sr. via the idem sonans principle.
• The twelfth assignment contested Exhibit “A-3” and was overruled on the basis that the nickname “Kiko” and respectful expression “Padrieno” did not clearly indicate a marked vote.

Final Vote Tally Adjustment

• The Court of Appeals, after evaluating both sets of assignments and counter-assignments, added two votes to petitioner Arzaga’s total and subtracted one vote from him while increasing Bobis, Sr.’s votes by one.
• The final adjusted count was 503 votes for Arzaga and 508 votes for Bobis, Sr., resulting in a majority of five votes in favor of Bobis, Sr.

Issue:

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the idem sonans rule in determining the validity of votes when names were misspelled or accompanied by additional written expressions.
• Whether the ballots that contained extraneous or indecent words should be treated as intentionally marked, thereby invalidating the vote in favor of the purported candidate.
• Whether cited precedents and provisions of the Revised Election Code (especially Section 149) were correctly applied in assessing the ballots and in determining the overall election result.
• Whether the adjustments in the vote totals (adding, subtracting, or nullifying specific ballots) were properly executed to reflect the true intention of the voters.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)