GR 133840; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133840 November 13, 1998
CIPRIANO “EFREN” BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NAVOTAS, METRO MANILA and MIGUELITA DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista and private respondent Miguelita del Rosario were candidates for Mayor of Navotas in the May 11, 1998 elections. Another individual, Edwin “Efren” Bautista, filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. Petitioner filed a petition to declare Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate. The COMELEC granted the petition in a resolution dated April 30, 1998, ordering the cancellation of Edwin Bautista’s certificate of candidacy. Consequently, his name was excluded from the list of candidates. However, due to a motion for reconsideration filed by Edwin Bautista on May 8, 1998, conflicting directives were issued by the Election Officer regarding his inclusion. To address this, the COMELEC Chairman issued a Memorandum directing Boards of Election Inspectors (BEI) to count votes for “Bautista”, “Efren”, and “Efren Bautista” as stray votes but to segregate and tally them separately. On May 13, 1998, the COMELEC denied Edwin Bautista’s motion for reconsideration. During canvassing, the Municipal Board of Canvassers refused to include in petitioner’s valid votes the separately tallied ballots containing “EFREN BAUTISTA”, “EFREN”, “E. BAUTISTA”, and “BAUTISTA”. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare the board’s proceedings illegal, which the COMELEC dismissed, ruling that the board’s duty is limited to canvassing the face of the election returns and that the separately tallied stray votes cannot be included. Petitioner assails this COMELEC order.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Municipal Board of Canvassers’ refusal to include, as part of petitioner’s valid votes, the separately tallied “Bautista stray votes”.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the COMELEC order, and DIRECTED the inclusion of the separately tallied votes for “EFREN BAUTISTA”, “EFREN”, “E. BAUTISTA”, and “BAUTISTA” as part of petitioner’s valid votes. The Court held that the primordial concern is to ascertain the true will of the electorate. It found that Edwin Bautista was validly declared a nuisance candidate to prevent confusion due to name similarity and because he lacked a bona fide intention to run. The Court noted that the electorate was informed of this disqualification. The separately tallied votes, totaling 21,016, could only have been intended for petitioner, as evidenced by the minimal votes (29) received by Edwin Bautista. Invalidating these votes as stray would disenfranchise the voters and subvert their will. Technical rules should not defeat the voter’s intention, which is discoverable from the ballot. The Court concluded that including these votes for petitioner aligns with the legislative intent to prevent voter disenfranchisement.