Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18953)
Procedural History
The case appears as an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners assigned twelve errors concerning the validity of various ballots, while the respondent presented five counter-assignments of error. A total of twenty-one ballots came under scrutiny as a result of this appeal.
Examination of Ballots
Ballot Exhibit 'A-6' (Precinct 3-A): The court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision to count this ballot in favor of Bobis, as it complied with the idem sonans rule, allowing for phonetic similarities in candidate names.
Ballot Exhibit 'A-1' (Precinct 3): This ballot was also counted in favor of Bobis, as the name written was held to be phonetically similar under the idem sonans rule.
Ballot Exhibit 'B-6' (Precinct 3-A): The lower court's ruling deeming this ballot invalid was upheld due to the presence of indecent language on the ballot.
Ballot Exhibit 'B-14' (Precinct 3-A): This ballot was controversial; the court concluded it was not marked due to the ambiguities surrounding writing non-candidates’ names, leading to its count in favor of Arzaga.
Ballot Exhibit 'B-5' (Precinct 3-A): The third case of potential marking was found valid for Arzaga due to insufficient evidence of intent to mark it.
Ballots Exhibits 'B-10', 'B-11', and 'B-12' (Precinct 3-A): These ballots were ruled marked; the expressions included were deemed to indicate intent to identify the voter.
Ballot Exhibit 'B-8' (Precinct 3-A): The court reversed the previous finding of it being marked due to lack of clear intent behind the written words.
Ballots Exhibits 'A-1', 'A-3', 'A-7', and 'A-8' (Precinct 3-A): As no specific indecent words were identified by Arzaga, these ballots were counted for Bobis.
Ballot Exhibit 'A-2' (Precinct 3): This ballot was accepted in favor of Bobis under idem sonans.
Ballot Exhibit 'A-3' (Precinct 3): The court found that the intent of the voter was not clearly identifiable, ruling it valid for Bobis.
Respondent’s Counter-Assignments of Error
Counter-Assignment on Exhibit 'B(s)-1': Upheld for Bobis due to phonetic similarity; Exhibit 'B(s)-2' was ruled invalid.
Counter-Assignment on Exhibit 'H-1': Determined a valid vote for Arzaga under idem sonans.
Counter-Assignment on Exhibit 'B-1': Ruled valid for Arzaga due to lack of clear evidence indicating it was marked.
Counter-Assignment on Exhibit 'B-7': Found valid for Arzaga despite written comments, as insufficient proof of marking was presented.
Counter-Assignment on Exhibit 'B-2': The court ruled this ballot as marked, advising that such identification through multiple writings invalidated the ballot.
Final Decision
The decision from the lower court was modified slightly, leading to the addition of two votes for Arzaga and a deduction of one vote due to the final ruling on ballot Exhibit &
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18953)
Case Overview
- The case arose from the general elections held on November 10, 1959, where Emilio Arzaga was initially declared the winner of the mayoral race in El Nido, Palawan, by a narrow margin of two votes (509 to 507).
- The decision was contested by his opponent, Francisco Bobis, Sr., who subsequently won in the Court of Appeals by a margin of five votes (502 to 507).
- The current appeal stems from the Court of Appeals' decision, with both parties contesting the validity of certain ballots.
Jurisdiction and Legal Background
- The appeal is made through a petition for certiorari aimed at reviewing the decision from the Court of Appeals.
- The case involves the application of the Revised Election Code, particularly focusing on the "idem sonans" rule, which allows for names that sound similar to be counted as valid votes.
Petitioner’s Assignments of Error
- Petitioner Emilio Arzaga presented twelve assignments of error, primarily contesting the validity of 15 ballots.
Assignment of Error 1
- The Court of Appeals was said to have erred in counting Ballot Exhibit 'A-6' as a valid vote for Bobis, Sr.
- The ballot featured "F. Vuvis," which was deemed acceptable under the idem sonans rule.
Assignment of Error 2
- Arzaga contested the validity of Ballot Exhibit 'A-1' where "F. Pabes (or Pabis), Sr." was written, which also was counted for Bobis under the idem sonans rule.
Assignment of Error 3
- Ballot Exhibit 'B-6' was invalidated by the Court of Appeals due to the presence of indecent language.