BAUTISTA vs.

CASTRO
G.R. No. 61260, February 17, 1992

Facts: Petitioner Sergio Bautista and respondent Roberto Miguel were candidates for the position of barangay
captain. The former was proclaimed the winner with a plurality of two votes. On the other hand, Miguel filed a
protest before the City Court of Quezon City on the ground of fraud and illegal acts allegedly committed by
Bautista. The latter answered but filed no counter protest.

From the results of the election, it appears that four voting centers were contested. Thus, a revision and
recounting of the ballots was conducted which resulted in a tie. Eventually, the trial court rendered a decision
declaring Miguel and Bautista have the same number of votes. From this, Miguel filed an appeal to the CA wherein
a judgment was rendered declaring Miguel as the duly elected barangay captain and setting aside as null and void
the proclamation of Bautista.

Bautista filed a petition for review by certiorari questioning the following:

1. The reliance by respondent court on the opinion of Desiderio Pagui, who was never presented and
qualified as an expert witness on the questioned handwritings in the ballots;
2. The validity of the ballots that does not contain the signature of the poll chairman; and
3. The appreciation of the judge as to the contested ballots.

Furthermore, Bautista argued that respondent court misinterpreted and misapplied Section 36(f) of the COMELEC
Resolution No. 1539 regarding the procedure in the casting of votes. It allegedly failed to take into consideration
the other provision of the Section 36 of the said resolution.

Issue:

1. Whether or not a ballot which does not contain the signature of the poll chairman be considered valid.
NO.
2. Whether or not respondent judge acted correctly in its appreciation of the contested votes. NO.

Ruling:

1. The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter
as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal.

The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. 222) and the rules implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res. No. 1539) leave no room for
interpretation. The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a
voter as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This requirement is
mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.

Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539 provides:

Sec. 36. Procedure in the casting of votes.

(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.
In the present case, the ballots concerned were marked Exhibits "BB", "BB-1" and "BB-2" from voting center No.
522. The respondent court ruled that the ballots concerned were counted by the lower court for Bautista over the
objection of protestant-appellant that these ballots are not duly authenticated by the absence of the signature of
the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers at the back thereof. An examination of the back portion of these
ballots reveals that it is completely blank of any signature or initial. The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. 222) and the rules
implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res. No. 1539) leave no room for interpretation. Therefore, absence of the
signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers is necessary for the validity of the ballots.

2. Generally, a voter must write on the ballot only the names of candidates voted for the offices appearing
thereon. Exceptions were provided in Section 149 of the Revised Election Code. For example, prefixes
such as “Sr.,” “Mr.,” and the like and suffixes such as “hijo,” “Jr.,” etc. will not invalidate the ballot (par. 5).
Initials (paragraph 15), nicknames or appellation of affection and friendship will not invalidate the ballot, if
accompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, and above all, if they were not used as a means
to identify the voter. Even under a liberal view, the words written on the ballots under consideration
cannot be considered as falling within the exception to the rule. Consequently, they are irrelevant
expressions that nullified the ballots.

As regards to 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. In reversing the
trial court, respondent court ruled that the presence of an arrow with the words "and party," was meant
for no other purpose than to Identify the voter.

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 which he is a candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for such candidate. In relation to this,
Section 155 (11) of the 1978 Election Code provides:

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.

Here, Bautista objects to respondent court's ruling rejecting Exh. "5". The word "BLBIOY" was written in the spare
for Barangay Captain and this was Bautista's nickname which is registered in his certificate of candidacy. While the
name written was "BLBIOY", there was no doubt that the voter intended to vote for "BIBOY", the nickname of
which petitioner was popularly known, and which nickname was duly registered in his certificate of candidacy.
Hence, the respondent court's decision as regards Exhibit "5" is reversed and the vote is counted for Bautista.

The writing of a name more than twice on the ballot is considered to be intentional and serves no other purpose
than to identify the ballot.

Respondent court correctly invalidated Exhibit “7.” This ballot cannot be considered as a vote for petitioner whose
name was written 7 times in the ballot. The writing of a name more than twice on the ballot is considered to be
intentional and serves no other purpose than to identify the ballot.

Therefore, the decision of respondent court is modified as regards to Exhibits 5 and 6. Respondent Miguel was
declared the duly elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, with a plurality of
twenty-two (22) votes.