Arzaga v. Bobis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general election of November 10, 1959, Emilio Arzaga was proclaimed municipal mayor of El Nido, Palawan, by a majority of 2 votes. His election was contested, and the Court of First Instance of Palawan affirmed his victory by 3 votes. Francisco Bobis, Sr., appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's decision and declared Bobis, Sr., the winner by 5 votes. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, declaring Francisco Bobis, Sr., the winner. This case is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioner Arzaga assigned twelve errors involving 15 ballots, while respondent Bobis, Sr., made five counter-assignments of error relative to 6 ballots, totaling 21 ballots for review. The Supreme Court reviewed these ballots to determine the final vote count.
Issue(s)
Whether ballots with names written as "F. Vuvis" and "F. Pabes (or Pabis), Sr." should be counted in favor of respondent Bobis, Sr., under the idem sonans rule. Whether Ballot Exhibit "B-6" is a marked ballot due to the inclusion of indecent words. Whether Ballot Exhibit "B-14" is a marked ballot. Whether Ballot Exhibit "B-5" is a marked ballot. Whether Ballots Exhibits "B-10", "B-11", and "B-12" are marked ballots due to the inclusion of the name "Perez" and impertinent words. Whether Ballot Exhibit "B-8" is a marked ballot. Whether Ballots Exhibits "A-1", "A-3", "A-7", and "A-8" contain indecent words or expressions. Whether Ballot Exhibit "A-2" should be counted in favor of respondent Bobis, Sr., under the idem sonans rule. Whether Ballot Exhibit "A-13" is a marked ballot. Whether ballots Exhibits B(s)-1 and B(s)-2 should be rejected or counted in favor of respondent Bobis, Sr. Whether Ballot Exhibit B-1 (Precinct 3) is valid for petitioner Arzaga. Whether Ballot Exhibit B-1 (Precinct 3-A) is valid for petitioner Arzaga. Whether Ballot Exhibit B-7 (Precinct 3-A) is marked. Whether Ballot Exhibit B-2 (Precinct 3-A) is a valid vote for petitioner Arzaga or a marked ballot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with a modification, declaring Francisco Bobis, Sr., elected as municipal mayor of El Nido, Palawan, with a majority of five (5) votes. The final tally was Arzaga 503 votes and Bobis, Sr., 508 votes.
Ratio Decidendi
On the application of the idem sonans rule for "F. Vuvis" and "F. Pabes (or Pabis), Sr." (Assignments of Error I & II): The Court reiterated the idem sonans rule, which states that a name or surname incorrectly written but sounding similar to the candidate's name shall be counted in his favor. "F. Vuvis" was deemed to sound similar to Bobis, Sr., and "F. Pabes (or Pabis), Sr." was also considered to fall under this rule. Therefore, these assignments of error were overruled. On Ballot Exhibit "B-6" being a marked ballot (Assignment of Error III): The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Ballot Exhibit "B-6" was marked because the voter included indecent and insulting words after writing the names of candidates. Such markings are intended to identify the ballot and thus invalidate it. This assignment of error was overruled. On Ballot Exhibit "B-14" being a marked ballot (Assignment of Error IV): The Court found that there was no evidence aliunde to prove that "Perez Bungcad" written on the ballot was intended to mark it. Since "Bungcad" was a candidate for councilor, the inclusion of his name, even with an incorrect first name, did not necessarily invalidate the ballot. This assignment of error was sustained, and the ballot was counted for petitioner Arzaga. On Ballot Exhibit "B-5" being a marked ballot (Assignment of Error V): The Court held that the writing of "R. Perez Cabus Cabus" on a space for senators, where Perez was not a candidate, should be considered a stray vote under paragraph 13, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code, rather than a marking that invalidates the entire ballot. The absence of evidence aliunde to show intent to mark the ballot led to this conclusion. This assignment of error was sustained, and the ballot was counted for petitioner Arzaga. On Ballots Exhibits "B-10", "B-11", and "B-12" being marked ballots (Assignments of Error VI, VII, VIII): The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that these ballots were marked. The inclusion of the name "Perez" along with impertinent and derogatory words like "lagare talob sa kabila" and "lagari" strongly implied an intentional marking to identify the ballot. The common derogatory expression across three ballots from the same precinct reinforced this conclusion. These assignments of error were overruled. On Ballot Exhibit "B-8" being a marked ballot (Assignment of Error IX): The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Ballot Exhibit "B-8" was marked. The presence of "Bienes — OPA" written in capital letters at the bottom of the ballot, separate from other names, indicated an intentional mark, especially in the absence of evidence that "OPA" were initials of a candidate. This assignment of error was overruled. On Ballots Exhibits "A-1", "A-3", "A-7", and "A-8" containing indecent words (Assignment of Error X): The Court overruled this assignment of error because the petitioner failed to specify the alleged indecent words or phrases on these ballots. Without such specification, the claim could not be substantiated. These ballots were counted in favor of respondent Bobis, Sr. On Ballot Exhibit "A-2" being counted for respondent (Assignment of Error XI): The Court applied the idem sonans rule to "F. Babes" or "F. Babeis", finding that the voter clearly intended to vote for respondent Bobis, Sr. This assignment of error was overruled. On Ballot Exhibit "A-13" being a marked ballot (Assignment of Error XII): The Court found that the intention to mark the ballot was not clear from the writing "Kiko Padrieno-Bobis, Sr.", where "Kiko" is a nickname and "Padrieno" is an expression of respect. Therefore, the ballot was considered valid for respondent Bobis, Sr. This assignment of error was overruled. On Ballots Exhibits B(s)-1 and B(s)-2 (Respondent's First Counter-Assignment of Error): The Court sustained the claim for Exhibit "B(s)-1" where "F. Bobis" was written, applying the idem sonans rule. However, it overruled the claim for Exhibit "B(s)-2" where "F. Boslro" was written, finding no similarity in sound to Bobis, Sr. On Ballot Exhibit B-1 (Precinct 3) being valid for petitioner (Respondent's Second Counter-Assignment of Error): The Court applied the idem sonans rule to "E. arsaaa", finding that the voter intended to vote for petitioner Arzaga. This counter-assignment of error was overruled. On Ballot Exhibit B-1 (Precinct 3-A) being valid for petitioner (Respondent's Third Counter-Assignment of Error): The Court upheld the validity of this ballot for petitioner Arzaga, noting the absence of evidence aliunde to prove that "Casoy Guzman" was a mark. This counter-assignment of error was overruled. On Ballot Exhibit B-7 (Precinct 3-A) being marked (Respondent's Fourth Counter-Assignment of Error): The Court found that in the absence of evidence aliunde, it could not be determined if "Dreo Boro Sosoc" was meant to stand for a non-candidate. The phrase "I love y darling" was considered a mere expression of preference. Thus, the ballot was deemed valid for petitioner Arzaga. This counter-assignment of error was overruled. On Ballot Exhibit B-2 (Precinct 3-A) being a valid vote for petitioner (Respondent's Fifth Counter-Assignment of Error): The Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this point. It found that the repeated writing of "S. Sumurraga" in multiple spaces (senators, vice-governor, vice-mayor), when Santiago Sumurraga was only a candidate for vice-mayor, indicated a clear intention to mark the ballot for identification. This was distinguished from situations where a name appears in only two spaces. The Court cited Gutierrez vs. Aquino as applicable, holding that such repeated writing invalidates the ballot. This counter-assignment of error was sustained, and the ballot was nullified.
Main Doctrine
The idem sonans rule applies to variations in spelling that result in similar pronunciation. A ballot is considered marked if it contains indecent or impertinent words, or if a candidate's name is written multiple times in a manner that suggests intent to identify the voter, thereby invalidating the ballot.