Bautista v. Castro

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This petition seeks the reversal of the decision of respondent Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal, Branch 9, Quezon City rendered in an appealed election case and which decision proclaimed herein private respondent Roberto Miguel as the duly elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, in the Barangay Elections held on May 17, Both the petitioner Sergio Bautista and private respondent Roberto Miguel were candidates for the office above mentioned. On May 25, 1982, Roberto Miguel filed a protest before the City Court of Quezon City, (docketed as Election Case No. 82-408) on the ground of fraud and illegal acts or practices allegedly committed by Bautista. It appears that the results of the election in all the four (4) voting centers in Bgy.

1. In Voting Center.No.519 : MIGUEL = 126 votes BAUTISTA = 180 votes Protestant-appellant contested the ruling of the lower Court on the following ballots: Exhs. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, and o.

Protestee-appellee contested the ruling of the lower Court on the following ballots: Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2.

In Voting Center No.520 : MIGUEL = 152 votes BAUTISTA = 122 votes Protestant-appellant contested the ruling of the lower Court on the following ballots: Exhs. P, Q and R. 3. In Voting Center No.521 : MIGUEL = 150 votes BAUTISTA = 136 votes Protestant-appellant contested the ruling of the lower Court on the following ballots: Exhs.

6 and 7. 4. In Voting Center No.522 : MIGUEL = 222 votes BAUTISTA = 212 votes Protestant-appellant contested the ruling of the lower Court on the following ballots: Exhs.

AA, BB, BB-1, BB-2 and CC. Protestee-appellee contented the ruling of the lower court on the following ballots: Exhs. 8, 9, 9-a 10, 10-a, 11, 11-a, 12, 12-a, 13, 14, 14-a, 15, 15-a, 16 and 16-a.

5. Total Votes in all Voting Centers Nos. 519, 520, 521 and 522: MIGUEL = 650 BAUTISTA = 650 (pp. 11-12, Rollo) The trial court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads: ACCORDINGLY, Roberto Miguel is hereby declared to have received the same number of votes as the protestee Sergio Bautista for the position of Bgy.Rollo) From this decision of the city court, protestant Roberto Miguel filed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. On July 29, 1982, judgment was rendered on the appeal which, as stated in the first portion of this decision, declared protestant Roberto Miguel the duly elected Barangay Captain of Bgy.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring and proclaiming protestant-appellant ROBERTO MIGUEL as the duly elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, in the Barangay elections held on May 17, 1982 with a plurality of twenty-four (24) votes over and above his protagonist protestee-appellee SERGIO BAUTISTA; setting aside as null and void the proclamation of protestee-appellee as the elected Barangay Captain made by the Barangay Board of Canvassers on May 17, 1982; sentencing protestee-appellee to pay protestant-appellant the costs and expenses that the latter has incurred in this protest, in accordance with Sec. 7, of COMELEC Resolution no. 1568, to wit: P 25.00 for filing and research fee for petition of protest 2,500.00 for cash deposit for expenses for revision of ballots; 25.00 for appellant docket and research fee; 50.00 for appeal bond deposit; P 2,600.00 Total The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to furnish 4 copies of this Decision to the Commission on Elections, the Ministry of Local Governments, the Commission on Audit, and the Secretaries of the Sangguniang Bayan and Sangguniang Barangay, in accordance with Sec. 15 of Comelec Resolution No. 1566.

SO ORDERED. (pp. 87-88, Rollo) Petitioner Sergio Bautista filed the instant petition for review by certiorari on August 13, 1982 on the following questions of law: 1) Whether or not the supposed opinion of a person, who was brought by private respondent but who was never presented as a witness, is competent and admissible evidence to support the appellate court's (CFI) conclusion that no less than eighteen (18) votes cast in favor of your petitioner were written by one and the same person. 2) Whether or not a ballot which does not contain the signature of the poll chairman be considered a valid ballot.

3) Whether or not Considering that the term for the contested office had expired on June 7, 1988,1this petition has become moot and academic. Anent the first question, petitioner Bautista questions the reliance by respondent court on the opinion of one The ballots involved in this objection of petitioner are exhibits "B" to "O"

which all pertained to voting center No. 519 and Exhibits "T", "T-l", "U", "U-l", "V" and "V-1" from voting center No. 521.

b) Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N and O were counted by the lower court for BAUTISTA, over the objection of protestant-appellant that these ballots were written by a single hand. These ballots and the writings therein contained were the subject of QUESTIONED HANDWRITINGS EXAMINATIONS and PDIL REPORT NO.

09-682 of Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui, Examiner of Questioned Documents (Ret. Chief Document Examiner, NBI), who was allowed by the lower court to assist it in the appreciation of ballots contested by either party as having been written by a single hand and to take photographs of the questioned ballots, his report and photographs having been submitted by protestant-appellant to this Court accompanying his memorandum. The pertinent portions of the FINDINGS in the said report read as follows: Comparative examinations between and among the various letter designs, their structural constructions and other characteristics appearing in Exhibits "B"

to "O" inclusive, "T", "T-1", "U", "U-I", "V" and "V-l", reveal the existence of significant identifying handwriting characteristics, more particularly in - l.

general style of writings; 2. size and propertion (sic) of letter designs; base and height alignments; and relationship between adjacent letters; 3. lateral spacing; and initial and terminal strokes; 4.

structural constructions and more perplexed elements embedded in the structures of letter forms; and such characteristics are exemplified in the following words/ names: . . .; and the scientific evaluation of the aforementioned writing characteristics includes the consideration of the idiosyncrasies of natural variation as shown in the numerous similar letter forms, although at some instances, the writer succeeded in having changed the entire letter designs of certain letters (at different style), but somehow certain significant writing characteristics reappeared in the various letters during the process of writing, thus be able to connect one writing from the others as having emanated from one source."

The probative value of the above-mentioned writing characteristics are further augmented by the presence of unusual structural construction of letter forms and/or in combinations with adjacent-letters, thus . . .

The CONCLUSION of the said report states: The questioned handwritings appearing in Exhs. "B" to "O", inclusive, "T", "T-1", "U", "V"

and "V-l", were WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

Notwithstanding this report, this Court has taken pains and meticulous effort to examine with its naked eye the questioned ballots and handwritings, and compare the same with each other in order to determine whether or not they were indeed written by a single hand, and this Court is convinced beyond doubt that Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N and O, were written by a single hand, considering the remarkable similarity if not almost identity of the writings on these ballots. The lower Court's ruling on these twelve (12) ballots is hereby reversed, and the twelve (12) votes for protestee-appellee based thereon should be deducted from him.

With respect to Exhs. I and J, this Court entertains some doubt on their having been written by a single hand, and therefore resolves the doubt in favor of the validity of these two (2) ballots, as votes for protestee-appellee. Therefore, the ruling of the lower Court counting Exhs.

I and J for protestee-appellee stands. (pp. 78-80, Rollo) The contention of petitioner that respondent court relied on the report of an alleged handwriting expert is misplaced.bona fide voters, it counted certain ballots in favor of petitioner which the alleged handwriting expert found as written by only one person. Petitioner also argues that respondent court misinterpreted and misapplied Section 36(f) of Comelec Resolution No. 1539.

We Sec. 36. Procedure in the casting of votes. (a) Identification of votes.

- The chairman shall check in the certified list of voters the name of the person offering to vote. (b) Delivery of ballot. - Before delivering the ballot to the voter,the Chairman shall , in the presence of the voter, the other members of the board and the watchers present,He shall then fold the ballot once, and without removing the detachable coupon, deliver it to the voter together with a ball pen.

(c) Instructions to the voter.- If a voter so requests, the poll clerk shall instruct him on how to fill the ballot. (d) Preparing the ballot. - Upon receiving the ballot, the voter shall fill the ballot secretly.

(e) Returning the ballot. - (1) In the presence of all the members of the Board, the voter shall affix his right hand thumbmark on the corresponding space in the detachable coupon; and shall give the folded ballot to the chairman; (2) The chairman shall without unfolding the ballot or looking at its contents, and in the presence of the voter and all the members of the Board, verify if it bears his signature and the same serial number recorded in the voting record. (3) If the ballot is found to be authentic, the voter shall then be required to imprint his right hand thumbmark on the proper space in the voting record.

(4) The chairman shall then detach the coupon and shall deposit the folded ballot in the compartment for the valid ballot and the coupon in the compartment for spoiled ballots. (5) The voter shall then leave the voting center. (f) When ballot may be considered spoiled.

- Any ballot returned to the chairman with its coupon already detached, or which does not bear the signature of the chairman, or any ballot with a serial number that does not tally with the serial number of the ballot delivered to the voter as recorded in the voting record, shall be considered as spoiled and shall be marked and signed by the members of the board and shall not be counted. The ballots concerned were marked Exhibits "BB", "BB-1" and "BB-2"

from voting center No. 522. The respondent court ruled that: b) Exhs.Rollo) The As regards exhibit "Z" and "Z-l", respondent court reversed the decision of the trial court which ruled that these were not marked ballots and hence, were valid votes for petitioner BAUTISTA.

We agree. It cannot be said that these writings were accidental. Exhibit "S"

(Voting Center No. 521) was excluded by respondent court as a vote for petitioner. a) Exh.

S was counted by the lower court for BAUTISTA over the objection of protestant-appellant that this ballot was found in the small compartment of the ballot box for spoiled ballots and the said ballots appear to be in excess of the number of ballots actually used. The records show that as reflected in the MINUTES OF VOTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES found inside the ballot box, (1) there were 311 voters who cast their votes, and the ballots actually used bear Serial Nos. 1-311, (2) 1 voter did not return his/her ballot, 8 ballots were spoiled ballots and 302 ballots appreciated by the Board of Election Tellers. The questioned ballot, Exh.

S, together with blank questioned ballot, was found by the Committee in the small compartment for spoiled ballots. It does clearly appear that these two (2) ballots, one of which is Exh. S, are in excess of the 311 ballots actually used and must be considered as "EXCESS BALLOTS"

under Sec. 151 of the 1978 Election Code and "shall not be read in the counting of votes." In view of the foregoing considerations, the ruling of the lower court on Exh. S is hereby reversed, and this ballot shall not be counted as a vote of protestee-appellee and therefore deducted from him.

(pp. 81-82, Rollo) We affirm. Petitioner objects to respondent court's ruling rejecting Exh. 11.

The use of nicknames and appellations of affection and friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the candidate, does not annul such vote, except when they were used as a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole ballot is invalid: Provided , That if the nickname used is unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it is the one by which he is generally or popularly known in the locality and stated in his certificate of candidacy, the same shall be counted in favor of said candidate, if there is no other candidate for the same office with the same nickname. While the Exhibit "6" was invalidated by both respondent court and the city court as stray vote on the ground that petitioner's name, written as "Bo.

Barangay Bautista" was placed on the first line intended for councilmen.Farin v.Gonzales and CA , G.R. No. L-36893, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 237, cited by petitioner, it was ruled that where the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the ballot but is preceded by the name of the office for See Exh. Respondent court correctly invalidated Exhibit "7".

This ballot cannot be considered as a vote for petitioner whose name was written seven (7) times in the ballot. ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent court is MODIFIED as regards Exhibits "5" and "6".

SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur. Footnotes This was the correct procedure under BP 222, as allowed by the 1973 Constitution.

Art. IX, Sec. 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution now requires the appeal to be made directly to the Commission on Elections (see Flores v. Commission on Elections, 184 SCRA 484). 1 Under BP. 222, Sec. 3, the term of office of the barangay officials elected under this Act shall be six years, which shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have been elected and shall have qualified.

This term however was cut short by Proclamation No. 3 of the President dated March 25, 1986 particularly Sec. 2 of Art. 111 thereof, which provides: Sec. 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986. Under the present administration, the first barangay election was conducted on March 28, 1989 by virtue of R.A. 6679 which provides in Section 1 thereof: Sec. 1.

The elections of barangay officials set on the second Monday of November 1988 by Republic Act No.

6653 are hereby postponed and reset to March 28, 1989. They shall serve a term which shall begin on the first day of May 1989 and ending on the thirty-first day of May 1994.