Farin v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 8, 1971 elections for Municipal Mayor of Iba, Zambales, petitioner Benjamin Farin and respondent Oscar R. Gonzales were among the candidates. After the canvass, Farin was proclaimed mayor with 2,252 votes against Gonzales' 2,250. Procedural History: Gonzales filed an election protest, and the Court of First Instance of Zambales confirmed Farin's proclamation, awarding him 2,254 valid votes versus Gonzales' 2,248. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found both candidates tied with 2,151 votes each and ordered a drawing of lots. The Petition: Petitioner Farin sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, specifically questioning the appreciation of five contested ballots, arguing that two should have been credited to him and three rejected as valid votes for Gonzales.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of five contested ballots. Whether Exhibit "OO" should be considered a valid vote for petitioner Farin. Whether Exhibit "54" should be considered a valid vote for petitioner Farin. Whether Exhibit "7" should be considered a valid vote for respondent Gonzales. Whether Exhibit "TT" should be considered a valid vote for respondent Gonzales. Whether Exhibit "SSS" should be considered a valid vote for respondent Gonzales.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was modified. Petitioner Benjamin Farin was declared the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Iba, Zambales, with a plurality of three votes over respondent Oscar Gonzales.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appreciation of five contested ballots: The Supreme Court re-examined five ballots (Exhibits "OO", "54", "7", "TT", and "SSS") that were crucial in determining the tie declared by the Court of Appeals. The Court applied established rules of ballot appreciation to ascertain the voter's intent and determine the validity of each vote. On Exhibit "OO": The Court ruled that Exhibit "OO" should be considered a valid vote for Farin. Despite the name "Firni" (which is idem sonans with Farin) not being in the proper space for Mayor, the presence of the word "Mayor" preceding it, coupled with the voter's apparent poor eyesight and low education, indicated a clear intention to vote for Farin for Mayor. The Court emphasized that the intention of the voter, if discernible with reasonable certainty, should be given effect, even if the name is not in the correct space. On Exhibit "54": The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Exhibit "54" should not be counted as a valid vote for Farin. The ballot contained a cancelled vote for Farin in the Mayor's space, indicating the voter's desistance. The Court reiterated that a cancelled vote signifies an intention not to vote for that candidate, and initials alone, especially when cancelled, do not constitute a valid vote. On Exhibit "7": The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to count Exhibit "7" as a valid vote for Gonzales. While the ballot contained extraneous words "Lando Batitu Bangal" on the last line for Councilors, the Court found no clear indication that these words were intended to mark the ballot for identification. Considering the voter's poor penmanship and spelling errors, these words were deemed stray, and the vote for Gonzales in the proper space was considered valid. On Exhibit "TT": The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and ruled that Exhibit "TT" should be considered a stray vote and not counted for Gonzales. The name "gonsalis" was written in the space for Vice-Mayor, not Mayor, and was not preceded by the name of the office. Unlike in Exhibit "OO", the voter had correctly written names in the proper spaces for other offices, suggesting the placement error was not due to general confusion but a specific misplacement for the Mayor's office, thus rendering it a stray vote for Mayor. On Exhibit "SSS": The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and ruled that Exhibit "SSS" should be rejected as a stray vote and not counted for Gonzales. The name "Gonzales" was written obliquely in the space for Vice-Mayor, not Mayor. The Court cited Section 189, paragraph 15, of Republic Act No. 6388, which states that a vote for a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself is void and counted as stray. The placement in the Vice-Mayor space for a Mayor candidate made it a stray vote.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in its appreciation of five contested ballots, leading to an incorrect tie in votes. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the ballots, applying established rules on ballot appreciation, including the principle of idem sonans and the criteria for identifying marked ballots, ultimately declaring petitioner Benjamin Farin as the duly elected Municipal Mayor.