Gabuya v. Dayao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of November 10, 1959, Remigio Gabuya and Eutiquio Dajao ran for Mayor of Dimiao, Bohol. Gabuya was proclaimed elected. Dajao filed a protest, which the Court of First Instance of Bohol upheld, declaring Gabuya elected by 773 votes to 637. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, ruling that 170 votes for the protestee-appellee (Gabuya) were marked ballots. The Court of Appeals declared the protestant-appellant (Dajao) elected by a plurality of 38 votes. The Petition: The protestee-appellee (Gabuya) filed a petition for review, questioning the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the 170 ballots were marked.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that 170 ballots were marked. Whether the manner of voting, specifically the use of nicknames or derivatives of first names prefixed to surnames for councilor candidates, constitutes a design to identify the ballots.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the declaration that the 170 ballots were marked and invalid. The Court ruled that the protestant-appellant (Dajao) was the duly elected Mayor of Dimiao, Bohol.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that 170 ballots were marked: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the 170 ballots were marked. The Court noted that the manner of voting, which involved using nicknames or derivatives of first names prefixed to surnames for councilor candidates, was consistent across all disputed ballots. This common pattern lent credibility to the protestant's evidence that sample ballots prepared in this manner were distributed with instructions to voters to follow them. Such a pattern, when coupled with evidence of intent to identify voters, renders the ballots invalid. On the issue of whether the manner of voting constitutes a design to identify the ballots: The Court held that the manner of voting, while potentially using nicknames, was indeed a design to identify the ballots. The Court of Appeals considered not only the method of filling out the ballots but also the evidence aliunde presented by the protestant. This evidence established that the specific manner of voting was planned and executed to identify the votes of certain individuals or groups, thereby violating the Election Law. The Court distinguished this from cases where nicknames are used without such an intent to identify, emphasizing that the presence of evidence of intent is the determinative factor in nullifying ballots for being marked.
Main Doctrine
The use of nicknames or appellations of affection and friendship, if accompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, does not annul a vote, provided it is not used as a means to identify the voter. However, if there is evidence aliunde showing that such manner of voting was planned to identify the votes of certain voters or groups of voters, the ballots are considered marked and invalid.