Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24253 February 17, 1967 - BRIGIDO CRISTINO v. LEON CAVITE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24253. February 17, 1967.]

BRIGIDO CRISTINO, Protestant-Appellant, v. LEON CAVITE, Protestee-Appellee.

Ramon M. Torres for Protestant-Appellant.

Avelino Rosal for Protestee-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; REVISED ELECTION CODE; BALLOT APPRECIATION, APPEALS. — Where the evidence is hopelessly in conflict as to the voters’ intention in writing "D. Cristino" which may either be for protestant Brigido Cristino otherwise known as "Ding" Cristino, or his brother Bernardo Cristino also known as "Doc", "Dr." and "Do" Cristino; and where the appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court on the legality of the lower court’s refusal to credit protestant with the 154 votes, the findings of fact of the Court a quo must perforce be accepted.

2. ID.; ID.; VOTER’S INTENTION. — A rule so sound that it commands respectability is that the intention of the voter should be given effect, not stifled or frustrated. However, the Supreme Court is not authorized to draw a conclusion planted on surmise, speculation or guesswork, as it may result in declaring the wrong man as the winner. It is as correct here to say, as it is below, that the claimed ballots should be placed in the category of stray votes.

3. ID.; REVISED ELECTION CODE, SEC. 149, RULE 16, CONSTRUED. — The provision in Sec. 149 of the Revised Election Code, Rule 16, that "when two or more candidates have the same surname and one of them is seeking reelection, a ballot wherein only such surname is written shall be counted in favor of the candidate seeking reelection" contemplates of only a surname being written and not when prefixed by an initial "D" which may either be a vote cast for protestant "Ding" Cristino or his brother" ‘Doc" Cristino.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Claimed by protestant, but rejected by the court below, 1 are 154 ballots cast in the November, 1963 local elections in Hindang, Leyte, on which is written the name "D. Cristino" on a space for councilors. All quarters concede that should these 154 ballots be credited in favor of protestant, he will easily dislodge protestee who is at the tail end in the list of proclaimed elected councilors of that town. Otherwise, protestant loses (924 for protestant, 941 for protestee) by 17 votes. And, the judgment below dismissing his protest must of necessity be confirmed.

The problem of ballot appreciation came up because in the last local elections, three candidates for councilor bear the same surname, Cristino: Brigido Cristino, the protestant; Bernardo Cristino, a brother of Brigido; and Zosimo Cristino, a first cousin of the first two. Evidence there is that protestant Brigido is known as "Beding" Cristino, or "Ding" Cristino. Bernardo Cristino, upon the other hand, carries the nicknames "Bernal" Cristino, or "Dr." or "Doc" Cristino, for he obtained from the National University the degree of Doctor of Dental Medicine in 1936, altho he did not pass the board examinations. One thing in common between the brother Brigido Cristino and Bernardo Cristino is that both of their Christian names start with the capital letter B.

Evidence is hopelessly in conflict as to who was intended by the voter when he wrote "D. Cristino" on the ballot. Since the appeal solely questions the legality of the lower court’s refusal to credit protestant with the 154 votes aforesaid and is direct to this Court, we must perforce accept the findings of fact below. 2 On the controversial point of the voter’s intention, His Honor, the trial judge, has the following to say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But with respect to all the ballots consisting in all of one hundred fifty-four (154) ballots from the three (3) precincts where the words ‘D. Cristino’ alone appear and as the Court is not convinced from the evidence of the protestant that these refer to him alone, the ‘D’ standing for his nickname ‘Ding’, as it is also claimed by the protestee to stand for the initial for the other candidate Bernardo Cristino who is also known as ‘Doc’ or ‘Dr. or ‘Do’ the Court is of the opinion that Rule 6 of Section 149 cannot be applied as the intentions of the voters cannot be clearly found as to who of the two Cristinos — Brigido and Bernardo they — intend to vote. It cannot be considered as a wrong initial accompanied by a correct surname as in the Illescas [case] as there are two (2) candidates bearing the same surname . . . we can gather that the use of an erroneous initial accompanied by a correct surname could be considered valid if there is only one (1) candidate bearing the correct surname after the erroneous initial, but as in the case at bar, there are three (3) candidates for councilors with the same surname of ‘Cristino’, it would be stretching our mind too much to consider the ballots containing ‘D. Cristino’ alone, for the protestant. Our stand is further strengthened by the case of Gonzaga v. Seno, L-20522, decided on April 23, 1963 where our Supreme Court held, ‘When there are two or more candidates for an office with the same name or surname, the voter shall, in order that his vote may be counted, add the correct name, surname or initial that will identify the candidate for whom he votes.’ . . . In the present case, the initial ‘D’ followed by the correct surname of three candidates for the same office is claimed by the protestant to correspond or denote his nickname ‘Ding’. It is also claimed by the protestee to denote the initial of the other candidate Bernardo Cristino whose nickname is also ‘Dr.’, ‘Doc’ and/or ‘Do’. Our stand is further bolstered by the withdrawal of protestant’s claim on ballots where ‘E. Cristino’ alone appear, Exh.’G-1’ in Precinct No. 7; Exh.’C-1’ in Precinct No. 15 where ‘G. Cristino’ alone appear; and in Precinct No. 17, Exh.’L’, where ‘G. Cristino’ appear; Exh.’P’ where ‘I. Cristino’ alone appear and Exh.’U-1’ where ‘D. Justino’ alone appear. The withdrawal of protestant’s claim by protestant’s counsel on the above-enumerated ballots has also influenced the mind of the Court [on] the sincerity of the protestant’s claim that all ballots where ‘D. Cristino’ alone appear should be declared for protestant pursuant to Rule 6, as under the said Rule the above-stated ballots where protestant withdrew his claim, could also be claimed under the said provision of law.

In view of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that all the one hundred fifty-four (154) ballots where the words ‘D. Cristino’ alone appear on the space for councilors, should and are hereby declared as stray votes which should not be counted for the protestant . . ." 3

The protestant argues that he is entitled to all the 154 votes written with "D. Cristino." He reasons out that he distributed sample ballots bearing the name "D. Cristino" ; and that, upon the other hand, appellee has not shown that their party distributed any sample ballots bearing the same name. The theory advocated is susceptible to legitimate attack from two directions. First, the lower court observed that "there is no proof that these were the same sample ballots [one which is Exhibit Cristino-C where the name "D. Cristino" appears for councilors], used and distributed during the last election; that their genuineness is questionable as they could have been printed after the last election and after the filing of this case in court and that these four (4) exhibits [sample ballots] are impertinent and immaterial as they could not exclusively show the intentions of the voters." 4

Second, both protestant Brigido Cristino and his brother Bernardo Cristino obviously are well known in the town. Brigido, according to the election returns garnered 880 votes [increased to 924, per decision below] to Bernardo’s 704 votes. For indeed, Brigido Cristino in the last election was a reelectionist; Bernardo Cristino was also a former elective councilor. The two of them, Brigido and Bernardo were both candidates for the same position of councilor in the 1955 election; but both lost. This props up the conclusion below that the "D. Cristino" ballots may not be counted for protestant.

A rule so sound that it commands respectability is that the intention of the voter should be given effect, not stifled or frustrated. 5 But here we are not authorized to draw a conclusion planted on surmise, speculation or guesswork. The dangerous implications which may result in declaring the wrong man as the winner, are sufficient enough to deter us from giving our nod to protestant’s claim. It is as correct here to say as it is below that the claimed ballots should be placed in the category of stray votes.

But protestant summons to his aid Rule 16, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code, as amended by Republic Act 3036, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"16. When there are two or more candidates for an office with the same name and/or surname, the voter shall, in order that his vote may be counted, add the correct name, surname or initial that will identify the candidate for whom he votes: Provided, That when two or more candidates have the same surname and one of them is seeking reelection, a ballot wherein only such surname is written shall be counted in favor of the candidate seeking reelection."cralaw virtua1aw library

Protestant would want to place himself within the proviso that when two or more candidates have the same surname and one of them (as is his case) is seeking reelection, a ballot where only such surname is written shall be counted in favor of the candidate seeking reelection. The inherent weakness in protestant’s ratiocination is that the disputed ballots did not bear "only such surname" — Cristino. Instead, the name "D. Cristino" was written on those ballots. And, "D. Cristino" may either be a vote cast for protestant Brigido Cristino or his brother Bernardo Cristino. 6

Upon the premises, we vote to affirm the judgment under review.

Costs against protestant-appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L. Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. Zaldivar, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. In Election Case No. B-25, Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch VIII (Baybay).

2. Aballe v. Santiago, L-16307, April 30, 1963; Cabrera v. Tiano, L-17299, July 31, 1963; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Ozarraga, L-16631, July 20, 1965; Abuyo v. de Suazo, L-21202, October 29, 1966.

3. Decision below, pp. xxxiii-xxxv, Appendix A of appellant’s brief.

4. Decision below, pp. xix-xx, Appendix A of appellant’s brief.

5. Valenzuela v. Carlos, 42 Phil. 428, 465; Mandac v. Samonte, 49 Phil. 284, 301; Rodriguez v. Zambrano, 61 Phil. 77, 78; Perez v. Suller, 69 Phil. 196, 198; Abrea v. Lloren, 81 Phil. 809, 814, 817.

6. In a case decided by the House Electoral Tribunal, Abeleda v. Abeleda, 49 Off. Gaz. No. 11, p. 4947, both parties to the contest bear the same surname "Abeleda." According to the evidence the protestant’s nickname is "Ipe" or "Pepe" and the protestee was baptized "Jose Jesus", and "Pepe" is a nickname for "Jose." Ballots for "Pepe Abeleda" or merely "Pepe" or "P. Abeleda" were not counted for either party, since it is not possible to know whether they were intended for the protestee, whose name is Jose, or the protestant who claims the nickname "Pepe." See also: Moya v. del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199, 203-204.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22533 February 9, 1967 - PLACIDO C. RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22729 February 9, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25999 February 9, 1967 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18461 February 10, 1967 - NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL. v. NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19280 February 10, 1967 - EUGENIA CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 February 10, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22568 February 10, 1967 - DIOSCORO V. ASTORGA v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826, L-22937 February 10, 1967 - CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24415 February 10, 1967 - ANDRES MORALES v. MANUEL TUGUINAY

  • G.R. No. L-23895 February 16, 1967 - SEMENIANO TRAJANO v. MATEO B. INCISO

  • G.R. No. L-19485 February 17, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24253 February 17, 1967 - BRIGIDO CRISTINO v. LEON CAVITE

  • G.R. No. L-20525 February 18, 1967 - PETRONILA PINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21039 February 18, 1967 - FLORENTINO PILAR v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21336 February 18, 1967 - VICENTE MENDOZA, ET AL. v. TIBURCIO DUAVE

  • G.R. No. L-22077 February 18, 1967 - ALFREDO K. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22238 February 18, 1967 - CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22780 February 18, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24110 February 18, 1967 - LEONCIO BARRAMEDA v. CARMEN GONTANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25758 February 18, 1967 - JOAQUIN ORTEGA v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-25567 February 20, 1967 - CIRILO M. MANAOIS v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19777 February 20, 1967 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20819 February 21, 1967 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26053 February 21, 1967 - CITY OF MANILA v. GERARDO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21012 February 25, 1967 - GLICERIO TINIO, ET AL. v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20445 February 25, 1967 - ANICIA V. MERCED, ET AL. v. COLUMBINA VDA. DE MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21696 February 25, 1967 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANS. CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24769 February 25, 1967 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21805 February 25, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL TAN

  • A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967 - FLORA QUINGWA v. ARMANDO PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-17215 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CATALINO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18759 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-18707 February 28, 1967 - AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20192 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF CRESENCIO V. MARTIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18930 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21120 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21894 February 28, 1967 - LOPE DESIATA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22465 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. ASCENCION P. OLARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22677 February 28, 1967 - PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, ET AL. v. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23098 February 28, 1967 - DOMINGO T. JACINTO v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23827 February 28, 1967 - SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO v. PEDRO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-24468 February 28, 1967 - ANTONIO K. BISNAR v. BRAULIO LAPASA

  • G.R. No. L-24477 February 28, 1967 - JOSE KATIGBAK v. RICARDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25044 February 28, 1967 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26816 February 28, 1967 - PABLO DE JESUS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 - ADELAIDA TANEGA v. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.