G.R. No. L-12631; August 22, 1958
RAFAEL I. AMURAO, petitioner, vs. INDALECIO CALANGI, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In the November 8, 1955 elections for mayor of Mabini, Batangas, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Indalecio Calangi as the winner over Rafael I. Amurao by a margin of five votes. Amurao filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, impugning the returns from nine precincts. Calangi filed a counter-protest assailing returns from seven precincts, later withdrawing the counter-protest for Precinct No. 11. The trial court declared Amurao the winner by six votes. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision and declared Calangi the duly elected mayor by a plurality of 74 votes. Amurao filed this petition for review, raising as the only issue the alleged erroneous appreciation of certain ballots by the Court of Appeals. Specifically, the petition contests fifty-six ballots counted by the Court of Appeals for Calangi where his name was not written in the proper space for mayor, but where the appellate court found the voter’s intention to vote for him was manifest.

ISSUE

Whether ballots where the name of a candidate for mayor is not written in the proper space designated for that office, but where the voter’s intention to vote for that candidate is allegedly manifest, should be counted in favor of that candidate.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that for a ballot to be counted for a candidate for a specific office, the candidate’s name must be written in the proper space (encasillado) designated for that office on the ballot. This rule, based on Sections 135 and 149 (13) of the Revised Election Code, is mandatory and admits of no exceptions. The Court rejected the theory of “general misplacement” and held that a name written in a space reserved for another office cannot be counted for the office intended by the voter, but must be considered a stray vote. The Court reviewed its jurisprudence, including Lucero vs. De Guzman, Kempis vs. Bautista, and Pimentel vs. Festejo, to affirm this strict interpretation, which aims to prevent confusion and protect the secrecy of the ballot. The Court disauthorized any contrary dictum in Villavert vs. Fornier. Consequently, the fifty-six ballots in question, where Calangi’s name was not written in the space for mayor, should not have been counted in his favor. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. (Note: The full text provided ends with a dissenting opinion and does not include the final dispositive portion of the main decision, but the ruling as stated is based on the comprehensive legal discussion and conclusion explicitly provided in the majority opinion.)