Felisilda v. Achacoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the 1959 general elections, Nicetas Felisilda and Crispulo Achacoso were candidates for municipal mayor of Duero, Bohol. Felisilda was initially proclaimed elected with a plurality of 60 votes based on the canvass of election returns. Procedural History: Achacoso filed an election protest, contesting ballots counted in favor of Felisilda. Felisilda counter-protested ballots counted for Achacoso. The Court of First Instance invalidated ballots for both parties, declaring Achacoso elected with a plurality of 96 votes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the ruling, declaring Achacoso elected with a plurality of 12 votes. The Appeal: Felisilda appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in invalidating nine ballots in his favor, erroneously considering three ballots counted for him as disallowed, counting twenty-nine ballots for Achacoso as valid, and failing to pass upon thirty ballots disallowed by the lower court for containing prefixes.
Issue(s)
Whether certain ballots containing prefixes or minor deviations were validly counted for the protestee. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its disposition of specific ballots contested by the protestee. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in counting certain ballots in favor of the protestant. Whether the Supreme Court can pass upon issues not raised before the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It declared twelve ballots valid for the protestee (Nicetas Felisilda) and deducted one ballot from the protestant's (Crispulo Achacoso) votes. Consequently, Felisilda was declared elected with a plurality of one vote.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of invalidating nine ballots for being marked: The Court found that several ballots with prefixes like "Noong," "Parie," "Pri," "dont," and "Don" were erroneously invalidated by the Court of Appeals. It reiterated that such prefixes, without evidence aliunde showing intent to identify the voter, do not constitute a mark. Ballots with "Señor" and "Sr." over the printed name were also deemed erroneous inclusions as marked. A ballot with "ter" before "Magsaysay" and another with "Mr." before a candidate's number were also considered valid as they lacked evidence of intent to mark. The Court upheld the trial court's decision to disregard testimonial evidence presented after ballot scrutiny, deeming it unreliable. On the issue of erroneously considering three ballots as disallowed: The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in stating that Exhibits B-142 and B-145 were allowed by the trial court. The trial court had actually rejected B-142 and disallowed B-145. Similarly, Ballot B-148 was disallowed by the trial court. Therefore, these three ballots should have been counted in favor of protestee Felisilda, as they were erroneously considered valid by the Court of Appeals in its initial assessment. On the issue of counting twenty-nine ballots as valid for the protestant: The Court found that Exhibit A-413, containing only the word "Polo" in the space for mayor, should have been disallowed. Since "Polo" was established as the nickname of protestant Achacoso, and it was not accompanied by his name or surname, it violated Section 129(9) of the Revised Election Code. The other questioned ballots for the protestant were considered valid as the nicknames were accompanied by the correct surname. On the issue of not passing upon thirty ballots disallowed for containing prefixes: The Court held that this issue could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. While an election protest appeal opens the entire case, parties must bring specific matters to the attention of the appellate court through assignments of error. The Court of Appeals must be given an opportunity to rule on issues before they can be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that for a ballot to be considered marked, there must be clear evidence aliunde showing intent to identify the voter. Mere prefixes or suffixes, or misspelled words, without such corroborating evidence, do not invalidate a ballot. Furthermore, issues not assigned as errors in the Court of Appeals cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, as the appellate court must be given the opportunity to pass upon them first.