Calo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salvador L. Calo and Casiano G. Plaza were candidates for mayor of Butuan City in the November 10, 1959 elections. The Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed Calo as the winner with a plurality of 186 votes. Procedural History: Plaza filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance of Agusan. The trial court declared Plaza elected with a plurality of 26 votes. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a 4-1 decision, affirmed the trial court's ruling with modification, declaring Plaza elected by a plurality of 5 votes. The Appeal: Calo filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging eight errors on the part of the Court of Appeals. The core of the dispute revolved around the proper appreciation of ballots, specifically those containing variations of the name "Plaza" and those alleged to be marked ballots.
Issue(s)
Whether ballots containing "D.O. Plaza" or "Monting Plaza" should be considered stray votes for mayor when Democrito O. Plaza was a candidate for Governor. Whether certain ballots were erroneously counted for the protestant (Plaza) or erroneously nullified for the protestee (Calo). Whether specific ballots containing extraneous writings or unusual entries should be annulled as marked ballots.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It found that the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of several ballots. The Court recalculated the votes, deducting stray votes from Plaza's tally and adding votes erroneously nullified for Calo. Consequently, the Supreme Court declared Salvador L. Calo as the duly elected mayor of Butuan City with a plurality of thirty-four (34) votes over Casiano G. Plaza.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion that voters who wrote "D.O. Plaza" or "Monting Plaza" for mayor intended to vote for someone other than Casiano G. Plaza, simply because Democrito O. Plaza was a candidate for Governor. The Court reasoned that the identity of names necessarily connotes identity of persons unless proven otherwise, and no such evidence was presented. Therefore, these ballots should not have been automatically considered stray votes for mayor without further consideration of voter intent. However, the Court proceeded to identify other ballots that should be considered stray votes for Plaza, such as those with "D.O. Plaza" and "D. Plaza" written on the mayor space, totaling 21 votes to be deducted from Plaza's tally. The Court also considered ballots with "D.O. Pleza", "D. Pesza", and "D. Palasas" as stray votes. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed numerous ballots that were either erroneously counted for Plaza or erroneously nullified for Calo. For Plaza, the Court identified eleven (11) ballots with "D.O. Plaza" for mayor that should be stray votes, three (3) ballots with "D. Plaza" that should be stray votes, three (3) ballots with "D.O. Pleza", "D. Pesza", and "D. Palasas" that should be stray votes, and one (1) ballot with "D.B. Plaza" that should be a stray vote. Additionally, five (5) ballots with pasted stickers bearing names, two (2) ballots with "Plaza" written successively for Senators, and one (1) ballot with "Mga lider sopsop elang tian guipaboro" were annulled as marked ballots. These deductions totaled 26 votes from Plaza's tally. For Calo, the Court found that thirteen (13) ballots were erroneously nullified by the trial court as marked ballots and should have been counted for him. These included ballots with "vocales", "Conbaburd", "E. Chez", "Badong Calo-Nanong", "That's all", "Grand Allaian", "Air" or "Ais", "sn B sanci", "S Kato", "Martha", "Pasing", "D.O. Plaza ako", and one written in ink. The Court provided detailed reasoning for each of these thirteen ballots, emphasizing the lack of clear intent to mark the ballot or the violation of election laws. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of marked ballots by reiterating the provisions of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code. The Court distinguished between ballots that contain extraneous writings intended to identify the voter or the ballot and those that contain errors in spelling, initials, or non-identifying phrases. For instance, ballots with "D.O. Plaza" written successively for Senators, or with phrases like "Mga lider sopsop elang tian guipaboro" or "D.O. Plaza ako", were considered marked ballots and annulled. Conversely, ballots with "vocales", "Conbaburd", "E. Chez", "Badong Calo-Nanong", "That's all", "Grand Allaian", "Air" or "Ais", "sn B sanci", "S Kato", "Martha", "Pasing", and one written in ink were found not to be marked ballots, either due to lack of clear intent to mark, the principle of idem sonans, or the violation of specific provisions by the trial court (e.g., nullifying a ballot merely because it was written in ink). The Court emphasized that the intent to mark must be clearly established.
Main Doctrine
In the appreciation of ballots during election protests, the Revised Election Code, particularly Section 149, must be strictly followed. Votes should not be annulled for minor errors in spelling or the use of initials if the voter's intent to vote for a specific candidate can be reasonably ascertained, especially in cases of poor penmanship or when the name is idem sonans with the candidate's name. Ballots are considered marked only when there is clear evidence of intent to identify the voter or the ballot, and not merely due to extraneous writings that do not serve such a purpose.