Pimentel v. Festejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the elections of November 11, 1947, Pedro Festejo was proclaimed elected mayor of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur, with 1,108 votes against 1,101 votes for Canuto F. Pimentel. Procedural History: Canuto F. Pimentel filed an election protest. The trial court found Festejo received 1,107 votes and Pimentel 1,101 votes, dismissing the protest. The Petition: Appellant Pimentel appealed, contending the lower court erred in not crediting him with fifty-nine ballots where his name was written in spaces for other offices (vice-mayor, provincial board member, councilor) instead of mayor, arguing the voters' intent to elect him mayor could be inferred. The majority of election inspectors, belonging to Pimentel's party, did not count these ballots for him.
Issue(s)
Whether the fifty-nine ballots, where appellant Pimentel's name was written in spaces other than for mayor, should be counted in his favor. Whether the intention of the voter can be considered despite the name not being in the proper space.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, dismissing the protest. The fifty-nine ballots were not counted in favor of appellant Pimentel.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of counting ballots with names in improper spaces: The Court held that for a ballot to be counted for a candidate for mayor, it is indispensable that the candidate's name be written by the voter in the space designated for mayor. The Court cited Section 135 of the Revised Election Code, which mandates that voters fill their ballots by writing the name of the person for whom they desire to vote in the proper space for each office. The Court reiterated the principle that a name can only be counted for an office when it is written within the space indicated for that office, and it is impossible to count a ballot as a vote for a candidate for mayor when his name is clearly written in the space reserved for another office. This principle was supported by previous rulings in Lucero vs. De Guzman and Aviado vs. Talens. On the issue of voter's intent and the role of election inspectors: The Court rejected appellant's theory that voter intent could be inferred from the misplaced names. The fact that the majority of election inspectors, who belonged to the appellant's political party, did not count these ballots for him was presented as evidence that even those with an interest in his success did not find sufficient indication on the face of the ballots themselves that the voters intended to vote for him as mayor. The Court emphasized that official ballots are designed for clear and unmistakable determination of voter will, and delays in counting votes are detrimental to public interest. The Court also noted that the Constitution requires voters to be able to read and write, implying a capacity to follow instructions on the ballot.
Main Doctrine
A ballot must have the candidate's name written in the proper space designated for the office to be counted for that candidate, absent clear evidence of voter intent to the contrary, which must be discernible from the ballot itself.