Perfecto v. Sapico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 12, 1963 elections, Alfredo Sapico was proclaimed vice-mayor-elect of Caramoran, Catanduanes, with 817 votes, a plurality of four over Querubin Perfecto, who garnered 813 votes. Perfecto filed an election protest, contesting the results in Precinct No. 16. Procedural History: Upon revision of the ballot box for Precinct No. 16, the commissioners found 46 ballots for Perfecto and 45 for Sapico. The lower court sustained Sapico's objection to two ballots and Perfecto's objection to one ballot. Consequently, Perfecto's votes were increased to 826 and Sapico's to 818, declaring Perfecto the vice-mayor-elect with a plurality of eight votes. Sapico appealed. The Petition: The appeal questioned the lower court's ruling on contested ballots, specifically Exhibit N, claimed by Sapico, and Exhibits 1 to 9, claimed by Perfecto.
Issue(s)
Whether Exhibit N, with the name "Sasablo" written, should be counted in favor of appellant Sapico under the doctrine of idem sonans. Whether Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, containing variations of "Perfecto" or nicknames, should be counted in favor of protestant Perfecto. Whether Exhibits 5 and 6, containing stickers, are valid votes for Perfecto.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, declaring Querubin Perfecto the duly elected vice-mayor of Caramoran, Catanduanes. The Court ruled that Exhibit N was a stray vote and that Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 were valid votes for Perfecto, while Exhibits 5 and 6 were properly nullified as marked ballots.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Exhibit N: The Court held that the question of whether "Sasablo" is idem sonans with "Sapico" is a question of fact, not purely of law. Decisions in election protests for vice-mayor in regular municipalities are appealable only on questions of law. Furthermore, the Court examined Exhibit N and found that the name written was "Sasablo," not "Sasapco," and it was not contended that "Sasablo" is idem sonans with "Sapico." Therefore, the lower court did not err in considering Exhibit N as a stray vote. On the issue of Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9: The Court found no merit in the contention that these ballots should have been annulled. The names written were "R. Ferpecto," "R. Perpecto," "Q. Recto," "Roben," "R. Fupecto," "Ferpexto," and "R. Parfecto." The Court noted that, with the exception of "Roben," all these names are idem sonans with "Perfecto" or "R. Perfecto." Regarding "Roben," the lower court found, and the appellant did not dispute, that protestant Perfecto is familiarly called "Ruben" in the locality. The Court stated that "Roben" is idem sonans with "Querubin." The Court also clarified that Perfecto's admission that votes with "Ruben Perfecto" could be identified meant the candidate voted for, not the voter or the ballot itself, given his familiar name. On the issue of Exhibits 5 and 6: The lower court nullified Exhibits 5 and 6 as marked ballots due to the presence of stickers pasted over the blank space for Provincial Governor. The Supreme Court found no error in this ruling, as the presence of stickers on a ballot, especially when not related to the candidate's name or intended to identify the voter in a prohibited manner, typically renders the ballot marked and invalid.
Main Doctrine
The determination of whether a name written on a ballot is idem sonans with a candidate's surname is a question of fact, not purely of law, and thus subject to the limitations on appeals in election protests involving municipal positions. Ballots with stickers pasted over the blank space for an office are considered marked ballots and should be nullified.