G.R. No. L-19083 November 22, 1963
Hadji Taher Corocoro, petitioner, vs. Hadji Sinal Bascara, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hadji Taher Corocoro and respondent Hadji Sinal Bascara were candidates for mayor of the Municipal District of Poonababayao in the 1959 elections. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed Bascara the winner with 196 votes against Corocoro’s 170. Corocoro filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, challenging the results in Precincts Nos. 2 and 4. The trial court ruled in favor of Corocoro, declaring him the duly elected mayor with a plurality of 12 votes.
Bascara appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated Bascara as the winner. The pivotal issue involved 30 ballots where voters wrote the name “Madamba” or variations thereof (e.g., Madaba, Madum) in the space for mayor. The trial court had invalidated these ballots. Corocoro appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the Court of Appeals erred in counting these ballots for Bascara and in admitting extrinsic evidence to ascertain voter intent.

ISSUE

Whether the 30 ballots bearing the name “Madamba” or its variants are valid votes for respondent Hadji Sinal Bascara.

RULING

Yes, the ballots are valid votes for Bascara. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The paramount objective in ballot appreciation is to ascertain and give effect to the voter’s intent, guided by the principle of suffrage as the expression of popular sovereignty. Technical rules must not frustrate this intent.
The legal logic is clear: the evidence overwhelmingly established that respondent Bascara was popularly and officially known in the community by the name “Madamba.” This was proven by his residence tax certificate, tax clearance, firearm license, real estate tax receipts, and his registration as “Madamba” in the guerrilla forces. While his certificate of candidacy listed “Hadji Sinal Bascara,” his identity as “Madamba” was a matter of common knowledge in the electoral district. Furthermore, a day before the election, all mayoralty candidates, including petitioner Corocoro, signed a written agreement (Exhibit 5) stipulating that votes for “Madamba” should be counted for Bascara. Corocoro, having voluntarily signed this agreement, was estopped from later assailing it.
The Court rejected a purely literal or idem sonans analysis, emphasizing that the identification of the person voted for is the core objective. Since “Madamba” was Bascara’s actual and commonly used name, the voters’ intention to vote for him was clearly discernible. Admitting extrinsic evidence to establish this common knowledge was proper to effectuate the will of the electorate. Consequently, the 30 ballots were correctly adjudicated to Bascara.