Amurao v. Calangi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of November 8, 1955, Rafael I. Amurao and Indalecio Calangi were candidates for mayor of Mabini, Batangas. The municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed Calangi as the winner by five votes. Amurao filed an election protest, impugning returns from nine precincts. Calangi filed a counter-protest, assailing returns from seven precincts, though one was later withdrawn. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Batangas declared Amurao the mayor-elect by six votes. Upon appeal by Calangi, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, declaring Calangi the duly elected mayor by a plurality of 74 votes. The Petition: Amurao filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising as the sole issue the alleged erroneous appreciation of certain ballots by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether ballots where the candidate's name is not written in the proper space for mayor, despite manifest voter intention, should be counted for the candidate or considered stray votes. Whether ballots with the names of candidates written twice should be invalidated or counted as stray votes for the office for which the candidate was not running. Whether ballots containing irrelevant or indecent expressions, or specific punctuation marks, should be invalidated as marked ballots. Whether the distribution of cement by an incumbent mayor for electioneering purposes renders the votes of recipients invalid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Amurao was declared the mayor-elect of Mabini, Batangas, with a majority of twenty-five (25) votes. The Court ruled that 56 ballots counted for Calangi were stray and invalid due to general misplacement. It also addressed the validity of ballots with repeated names, marked ballots, and the impact of electioneering.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of general misplacement of names: The Court held that for any ballot to be counted for a candidate for mayor, it is indispensable that the candidate's name is written by the voter in the proper space for mayor. While the intention of the voter is paramount, this principle is not absolute and must yield to specific statutory provisions designed to ensure the integrity and secrecy of the ballot. The Court reiterated the ruling in Lucero vs. De Guzman that only names written within the space designated for a particular office can be counted for that office, applying this rule to cases of general misplacement. The Court distinguished the Villavert vs. Fornier case as involving only a single misplacement, not a general misplacement, and thus not applicable to the present issue. The Court emphasized that deviating from strict adherence to the law would open the door to a dangerous situation where votes could be declared valid regardless of order and place, potentially undermining the secrecy of the ballot. Therefore, the 56 ballots counted for Calangi were deemed stray and invalid for having been cast in violation of Sections 135 and 149 (13) of the Revised Election Code. On the issue of names written twice: The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that ballots with names written twice were necessarily marked ballots. Citing Section 149, paragraphs 3 and 13 of the Revised Election Code, the Court held that when a candidate's name appears in two spaces, it shall be counted for the office for which the candidate is running, and the vote for the other office shall be counted as stray. The Court found no evidence that the repetition of names was for the purpose of identifying the ballots. It stressed that no ballot should be discarded as marked unless its character as such is unmistakable, and that extreme caution should be observed before invalidating ballots, especially in the absence of evidence aliunde showing a deliberate design to mark the ballot. Thus, these ballots should be counted for Amurao. On the issue of marked ballots and irrelevant expressions: The Court affirmed the rejection of Ballot Exhibit I-13 due to the irrelevant and indecent expression "Hemiay na Bolos," which was sufficient to nullify the ballot as ruled in Caraecle vs. Court of Appeals. Similarly, Ballot Exhibit A-19 was properly rejected for containing the unnecessary and irrelevant expression "Anac ni Carias bombay" after the name Rafael Amurao, following the same authority. However, the Court found that the word "Caibiaan" in Ballot Exhibit O-53, written after a candidate's name for councilor, might have been intended as an expression of affection or friendship and could not be considered a mark under Section 149, paragraph 9, of the Revised Election Code, thus it should be counted for Amurao. The commas separating names of candidates for councilors in Ballot Exhibit M-41 were also deemed innocently written in haste and not a distinguishing mark unless clear evidence showed otherwise. Nine other ballots rejected as marked due to names or nicknames were also ordered counted for Amurao, as these could not be considered distinguishing marks without evidence aliunde showing a deliberate intent to identify the ballots, falling under the provision for stray votes for non-candidates. On the issue of electioneering (distribution of cement): The Court found the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the votes of recipients of distributed cement should not be invalidated due to lack of express statutory prohibition to be erroneous. Section 49 of the Revised Election Code prohibits expenditures to induce voting. The Court acknowledged that cement is a thing of value and its delivery as an inducement is unlawful, making the candidate amenable to criminal prosecution. However, the Court did not deem it necessary to pass on the invalidity of the votes themselves, as even if deducted, it would not materially affect the outcome of the appeal, with Amurao still winning by a small margin. The Court noted that while the House Electoral Tribunal in Zoza vs. Lucero declared such votes illegal, it was not essential to decide this point in the present case.
Main Doctrine
For a ballot to be counted for a candidate, the name of the candidate must be written in the proper space designated for the office. While the intention of the voter is paramount, this principle is not absolute and must yield to specific statutory provisions designed to ensure the integrity and secrecy of the ballot, especially in cases of general misplacement of names. Votes written outside the designated spaces, unless the intention is indubitably clear and does not violate other provisions, are considered stray.