Corocoro v. Bascara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hadji Taher Corocoro and respondent Hadji Sinal Bascara were candidates for mayor in the Municipal District of Poonabayabao in the 1959 general election. The Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed respondent Bascara as the winner with 196 votes against petitioner Corocoro's 170 votes. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an election protest, and the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur ruled in his favor, declaring him mayor-elect with a plurality of 12 votes. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision and declared respondent Bascara the duly elected mayor. The Petition: Petitioner sought certiorari from the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in adjudicating 30 questioned ballots to the respondent, contravening provisions of the Revised Election Code, and in admitting aliunde evidence to determine voter intent.
Issue(s)
Whether the 30 questioned ballots, bearing the name "Madamba," should be counted in favor of respondent Hadji Sinal Bascara, who was also known by the name "Madamba," despite his certificate of candidacy stating "Hadji Sinal Bascara." Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting aliunde evidence to ascertain the intention of the voters.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring Hadji Sinal Bascara as the duly elected mayor. The 30 questioned ballots were declared valid votes for the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of counting ballots with the name "Madamba" for respondent Hadji Sinal Bascara: The Court held that the 30 questioned ballots should be counted in favor of the respondent. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that the respondent was popularly known in Poonabayabao by the name "Madamba." The Court emphasized that the object of ballot appreciation is the identification of the person voted for, and technical rules should not obstruct the discovery of the voter's intent. The Court cited the principle that if a nickname is acceptable, a name by which a candidate is actually known in the community should be given even greater consideration. Furthermore, the Court noted that even the petitioner, along with other candidates, had agreed in writing (Exhibit 5) prior to the election that votes for "Madamba" would be counted in favor of Hadji Sinal Bascara, as he was always called by that name. This agreement, freely and voluntarily signed by the petitioner, precluded him from assailing the ruling. On the issue of admitting aliunde evidence: The Court found no error in the admission of aliunde evidence. The Court reiterated its stance, as stated in Perez v. Suller, that courts must give efficacy to the voice of the electorate and not stifle it. The admission of evidence to ascertain the voter's intent, especially when the name written on the ballot is not identical to the name on the certificate of candidacy but is a name by which the candidate is popularly known, is consistent with the principle of giving effect to the will of the voter. The Court stressed that technical rules should not be a roadblock to discovering the voter's intent, and the evidence presented clearly established that the voters intended to vote for the respondent when they wrote "Madamba."
Main Doctrine
Ballots bearing a candidate's popular name, even if not the exact name in the certificate of candidacy, should be counted in his favor if the voter's intent is clearly discernible, especially when the candidate is widely known by that name and rivals have agreed to count such votes.