Kempis v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves an election protest concerning the position of municipal mayor. The protestant (Simeon Kempis) alleged errors in the counting and appreciation of ballots by the lower court. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Leyte declared the protestant as the winner by a majority of one vote. The protestado (Nicolas Bautista) appealed this decision. The Petition: The protestado-appellant sought to reverse the decision of the lower court, arguing that certain ballots were erroneously awarded to the protestant-appellee.
Issue(s)
Whether ballot K-14, containing the signature "E. Diaz" in the lower right margin, should be counted. Whether ballot K-15, with the initials "S.K." in the space for mayor, is valid. Whether votes written as "S. Kempisa" for Provincial Board Member should be counted for the protestant (mayor). Whether votes written as "S. Kimpis" for Vice-Mayor should be counted for the protestant (mayor). Whether votes for "S. Kempis" as councilor should be counted for the protestant (mayor). Whether ballots K-16 and K-34, where the protestant was voted for as mayor, were correctly awarded. Whether ballot B, with "N. Bautista" in the vice-mayor space, should have been counted for the protestado (mayor). Whether ballot X-3, with "Simyon Kempis" for Provincial Board Member, was correctly considered stray.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, declaring Nicolas Bautista as the duly elected Mayor of Dulag, Leyte. The Court ordered the exclusion of certain ballots from the count for both parties and adjusted the vote totals accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of ballot K-14: The Court held that ballot K-14, bearing the signature "E. Diaz" in the lower right margin and with all councilor lines filled, constitutes a "contraseña" (password or identifying mark). Such marks render a ballot invalid under Article 146 of the Revised Election Code, as they are intended for identification and not for voting for a specific office. Therefore, this vote should not be counted. On the validity of ballot K-15: The Court ruled that ballot K-15, containing the initials "S.K." in the space designated for mayor, is invalid. Under Rule 15 of Article 149 of the Revised Election Code, initials alone are insufficient to identify a candidate. This aligns with prior jurisprudence holding that such markings do not sufficiently identify the voter's intent for a specific candidate for a specific office, thus rendering the vote invalid. On votes for "S. Kempisa" for Provincial Board Member: The Court held that ballots where "S. Kempisa" is written in the space for Provincial Board Member (specifically, in the second line for two positions and the first line for two positions across several ballot numbers) cannot be counted for Simeon Kempis as mayor. The presumption is that a name written in a specific space is intended for that office, not another. Therefore, these votes are not for the mayoral position. On votes for "S. Kimpis" for Vice-Mayor: Similarly, the Court ruled that ballots with "S. Kimpis" written in the space for Vice-Mayor (across several ballot numbers) cannot be counted for Simeon Kempis as mayor. The principle remains that a vote is presumed to be for the office indicated by the space where the name is written. Thus, these votes are not valid for the mayoral contest. On votes for "S. Kempis" as Councilor: The Court found that in ballots K-9 and K-11, "S. Kempis" was voted for as councilor. Following the same principle, these votes are not for the office of mayor and therefore should not be counted in favor of the protestant for the mayoral position. On ballots K-16 and K-34: The Court affirmed the lower court's decision to award ballots K-16 and K-34 to the protestant, Simeon Kempis, as his name was correctly written in the space for mayor. The lower court did not err in adjudicating these two votes to the protestant. On ballot B: The Court agreed with the protestado-appellant that ballot B should not have been counted for the protestado-appellee (Bautista) as mayor. The name "N. Bautista" appeared in the space for Vice-Mayor. Applying the principle that a vote is presumed for the office indicated by the space, this ballot should not have been counted for mayor, thus requiring a deduction of one vote from the protestado. On ballot X-3: The Court upheld the lower court's decision to consider ballot X-3 as stray. The name "Simyon Kempis" was written in the space for Provincial Board Member. Since Simeon Kempis was a candidate for mayor and not Provincial Board Member, and given that this was not the designated space for the mayoral vote, the vote was correctly classified as stray under Rule 13 of Article 149 of the Revised Election Code.
Main Doctrine
A ballot containing a signature or initials not in the designated spaces, or not clearly identifying the candidate for the specific office voted for, is considered invalid. Votes cast for a candidate for an office other than the one for which they are running are not counted for that candidate.