Balason v. Balido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a dispute over the position of Barrio Captain of Concepcion, Batangas, Batangas, stemming from the barrio elections held on January 12, 1964, pursuant to Republic Act 3590 (The Barrio Charter). Ernesto Balido was proclaimed the winner with 151 votes against Perfecto Balason's 149 votes. Procedural History: Perfecto Balason filed an election protest before the Municipal Court of Batangas, Batangas, alleging errors in ballot appreciation and improper adjudication of votes. The Municipal Court declared Balason the winner with a plurality of six votes and awarded damages. Ernesto Balido appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas. The CFI, after trial, again declared Balason the winner with a plurality of three votes and awarded attorney's fees. Ernesto Balido then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Ernesto Balido appealed the CFI's decision, raising six assignments of error concerning the rejection and admission of various ballots.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting ballots marked with numbers. Whether the trial court erred in not declaring a ballot with the candidate's name written in the wrong space as valid. Whether the trial court erred in admitting a ballot with a slightly different name for the protestant. Whether the trial court erred in admitting ballots claimed to be unofficial. Whether the trial court erred in admitting ballots without adequately resolving specific objections. Whether the trial court erred in admitting a ballot where the name written was not idem sonans with the protestant's name.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the issues raised by the appellant regarding the appreciation of ballots are factual in nature. Consequently, the decision of the trial court on these factual matters is final and beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court found no reversible error in the trial court's appreciation of the disputed ballots, affirming the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of marked ballots (Exhibits DD and EE): The Court upheld the trial court's rejection of these ballots, finding them to be marked. The presence of numbers on the ballots, which could identify the voter, violated the secrecy of the ballot. The appellant's contention that the numbers were placed by the secretary was deemed mere supposition, lacking substantiation by testimony from a member of the Board of Election Tellers. On the issue of a ballot with the name in the wrong space (Exhibit W): The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that a vote must be written in the proper space designated for the office. Writing Ernesto Balido's name in the space for 'sitio' instead of 'barrio captain' rendered the ballot invalid for the position of barrio captain, citing Aviado v. Telaus. On the issue of a ballot with a slightly different name (Exhibit 55): The Court sustained the admission of this ballot for Perfecto Balason, even though it contained "P. Balason Guerra." The Court reasoned that Guerra was a candidate for councilman, and the inclusion of his name alongside Balason's did not annul the vote for the latter, following the principle that the voter's intent should be given effect when possible, as in Amurao v. Calagi. On the issue of unofficial ballots (Exhibits 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 75, and 76): The Court found no violation of the secrecy of the ballot. Specifically regarding Exhibit 60, the trial court's admission was justified by the testimony of the chairman of the Board of Inspectors, who explained that emergency ballots were used due to a shortage of official ones and that these were initialed before being deposited. The trial court's finding that the voter's intention was clear was also upheld. On the issue of ballots without adequate resolution of objections (Exhibits 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 48, 50, 51, 58, 59, 66, 68, 80, and 83): The Court noted that the appellant failed to specify the grounds of his objections in his brief, thus lacking a basis for review. However, inferring from the fourth assignment of error, the objections likely pertained to the ballots not being official. The Court reiterated that as long as the name of the candidate was written in the proper space, the ballot could be counted for him, indicating the voter's clear intent. On the issue of idem sonans (Exhibit 57): The Court applied the rule of idem sonans, stating that a name or surname incorrectly written but sounding equal or similar to the real name shall be counted in favor of the candidate. The name "Perepeato" was considered sufficiently similar to "Perfecto" under this rule, as provided in Rule 2, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that issues concerning the appreciation of ballots in an election protest are factual and, as such, the decision of the trial court on these matters is final and not subject to review by the appellate court, absent any question of law.