Lloren v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 12, 1963 elections, Pacito Abrea and Isabelo Lloren were candidates for municipal mayor of Inopacan, Leyte. The municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed Lloren as the winner by a margin of 9 votes. Procedural History: Pacito Abrea filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance (CFI) nullified 174 votes for Lloren and 24 for Abrea, declaring Abrea the winner by 141 votes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the CFI decision, crediting Lloren with an additional 121 votes. The CA declared Abrea the winner by 20 votes, later reduced to 19 votes after a motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Isabelo Lloren appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several issues concerning the validity of ballots, particularly those declared as marked by the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether certain ballots declared illegible by the Court of Appeals should be counted for the petitioner under the principle of idem sonans. Whether Exhibit C of Precinct 3 is a marked ballot. Whether certain ballots declared invalid for being marked should have been considered valid for the petitioner. Whether Exhibit K of Precinct 15, declared a marked ballot, should have been counted for the petitioner. Whether numerous ballots from various precincts, declared marked due to uniform writings or names, were correctly invalidated. Whether Exhibits A, B, and C of Precinct 18, declared null and void, were correctly invalidated. Whether Exhibits A and C of Precinct 12, Exhibit A of Precinct 13, and Exhibit C of Precinct 17 were valid votes for the appellant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, declaring Pacito Abrea the winner by a majority of 15 votes. The petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of ballots declared illegible (Exhibit G, Precinct 6 and Exhibit H, Precinct 11): The Court found that the principle of idem sonans applied. For Exhibit G, the scribed name "Sabilo yran" was considered a phonetic equivalent of Isabelo Lloren, despite poor penmanship. For Exhibit H, the word "Eisabi" on the mayor space, despite an erased word elsewhere, indicated a clear intent to vote for the petitioner, also due to poor writing. Therefore, these ballots should have been counted for the petitioner. On Exhibit C, Precinct 3 being a marked ballot: The Court upheld the CA's finding that Exhibit C was a marked ballot. The word "engat" was written in an inverted position on the last line for councilors, a manner inconsistent with the ordinary writing of candidate names on the same ballot. This deviation from the norm, unlike a ballot entirely filled upside-down, was considered a clear indication of an intent to identify the ballot, thus invalidating it. On other ballots declared invalid for being marked (Exhibit B, Precinct 15; Exhibit A, Precinct 17; Exhibit D, Precinct 13; Exhibit J, Precinct 16; and Exhibit D, Precinct 12): The Court partially agreed with the CA. For Exhibit B, Precinct 15, the word "pansay" written on top of "Senators" was deemed irrelevant and not innocent, serving to identify the ballot. For Exhibit J, Precinct 16, and Exhibit D, Precinct 12, the words "shot" and "Binabati kong vice-mayor ug Beloy mayor" written on margins were also considered identifying marks. However, for Exhibit A, Precinct 17, the word "lowlow" written before and after a candidate's name was considered potentially an appellation of affection or friendship in the absence of contrary evidence, thus upholding its validity and crediting the vote to the petitioner. For Exhibit D, Precinct 13, the word "seniorito" appearing on the side without accompanying a candidate's name was correctly rejected as an irrelevant expression. On Exhibit K, Precinct 15 being a marked ballot: The Court found that the five large circles on the first line for senators could have indicated the voter's desistance from voting for other candidates, especially considering the voter's apparent poor writing and incomplete ballot. Therefore, this ballot should have been counted for the petitioner. On numerous ballots with uniform writings (Exhibits A-J, K-R, Precinct 7; Exhibits A-C, Precinct 11; Exhibits J-P, B-H, Precinct 14; Exhibits S, U, V, Precinct 18): The Court sustained the CA's ruling that these ballots were marked. The uniform appearance of specific words or names (e.g., "engat", "boy", "Daniel", "Menong", "sorab", "Mines") in practically the same spaces across multiple ballots within the same precinct strongly indicated a design to identify the ballots. This pattern was considered conclusive proof of intent to mark the ballots, as previously held in similar cases. On Exhibits A, B, and C, Precinct 18 being null and void: The Court agreed with the CA that the uniform writing of capital letters "AAD" on the first line for senators, not being initials of any candidate and appearing in multiple ballots in the same precinct and space, was intended to mark the ballots, thus invalidating them. On Exhibits A and C, Precinct 12; Exhibit A, Precinct 13; and Exhibit C, Precinct 17: The Court found that the expressions written on these ballots ("Have a good time Mr. Pacito", "Forget me not", "Tse na lang") were irrelevant expressions that did not fall under the exceptions provided in the Revised Election Code for prefixes, suffixes, nicknames, or appellations of affection. These were considered attempts to identify the ballots, thus nullifying them.
Main Doctrine
The invalidation of ballots must be done with extreme care and caution, supported by the strongest evidence of an intention to sully the purity of suffrage. Doubts must be resolved in favor of the legality of the ballot. The principle of idem sonans applies to votes where the name is not exactly written but sounds the same. Identifying marks on ballots, especially when appearing uniformly in multiple ballots within the same precinct, are strong indicators of an intent to identify the ballot and thus invalidate it.