G.R. No. L-20235; September 30, 1963
Remigio Gabuya, petitioner, vs. Eustaquio M. Dayao, respondent.

FACTS

In the 1959 elections for Mayor of Dimiao, Bohol, Remigio Gabuya was proclaimed winner over Eustaquio Dayao. Dayao filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance of Bohol upheld Gabuya’s proclamation. Dayao appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court and declared him the duly elected mayor. The appellate court invalidated 170 ballots cast for Gabuya, ruling they were marked ballots. These ballots shared a uniform pattern: the name of the first candidate voted for councilor was written with a nickname or a contraction of the Christian name (e.g., “Dan” for Daniel, “Mat” for Mateo), while the other candidates were voted for using only their surnames or surnames with initials.
Gabuya filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court. He does not contest the factual finding regarding the uniform manner of writing on the 170 ballots. His challenge is purely legal, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding this pattern, by itself, constituted marking for identification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the 170 ballots marked and invalid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the 170 ballots were correctly invalidated as marked ballots. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between the mere use of nicknames and their use as an identifying mark. Under Section 149(9) of the Revised Election Code, the use of nicknames does not annul a vote if accompanied by the candidate’s name or surname, except when used as a means to identify the voter.
The Court clarified that the determinative factor for nullifying ballots based on a pattern is the existence of evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) showing the intention to identify the ballot. Here, the Court of Appeals did not rely solely on the uniform pattern on the face of the ballots. It specifically found, based on evidence presented by protestant Dayao, that sample ballots prepared in the identical manner were distributed by Gabuya and his leaders, with instructions to voters to follow them as countersigns. This extrinsic evidence established that the peculiar manner of writing was a deliberate design to identify the ballots, thus violating the secrecy of the ballot. The Supreme Court emphasized that such factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding. Consequently, the ballots were properly invalidated, and Dayao was correctly declared the winner.