G.R. No. L-24468 February 28, 1967
ANTONIO K. BISNAR, protestant-appellee, vs. BRAULIO LAPASA, protestee-appellant.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 election for vice-mayor of Inopacan, Leyte, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Braulio Lapasa the winner by 32 votes (1,293 to 1,261). Antonio K. Bisnar filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Bisnar, declaring him the duly elected vice-mayor with a plurality of 24 votes (1,250 to 1,226). Lapasa appealed directly to the Supreme Court, alleging the trial court erred in: (1) declaring null and void 18 ballots where only the word “Bala” (claimed to be his nickname) was written for vice-mayor; and (2) declaring null and void 50 other ballots voted for him on the ground they were marked.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether ballots containing only the nickname “Bala” for the vice-mayoral candidate are valid; and (2) Whether the 50 other ballots challenged as marked should be invalidated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, with modification, declaring Bisnar the winner by 9 votes.
1. On the 18 ballots containing only “Bala”: The Court upheld their rejection. Section 34 of the Revised Election Code prohibits nicknames in certificates of candidacy, and Section 149(9) allows nicknames only if accompanied by the candidate’s name or surname, unless used to identify the vote. There was no evidence that “Bala” was Lapasa’s nickname, and even if it were, a vote containing only a nickname is invalid unless accompanied by the name or surname. The Court distinguished the case of Abrea vs. Lloren, where ballots with only the nickname “Beloy” were counted, because in that case specific circumstances were present (e.g., the nickname was in the certificate of candidacy, sample ballots used it, it represented 60% of the candidate’s votes, and no objection was interposed), none of which existed here.
2. On the 50 ballots challenged as marked: The Court reviewed each ballot individually, applying the provisions of the Revised Election Code and jurisprudence. It reversed the trial court on 15 ballots, adjudicating them to Lapasa. These included ballots where:
* Words like “opalao” or “coper” were deemed possibly intended for a person, not an identifying mark.
A diagonal line indicated desistance from further voting.
An erroneous initial accompanied a correct surname.
* Words like “Mede,” “Daling,” “Cardo,” “Rudy,” or “Talay” were, absent evidence of intent to identify, considered stray votes that did not invalidate the ballot.
* Words like “Mahal kong Lloren” expressed affection and friendship.
The Court sustained the invalidation of the other ballots, finding they contained identifying marks or irrelevant expressions. These included:
* Words like “engat,” “boy,” “Menong/Minong,” “Have a good time Mr. Pacito,” “I forgot his name,” “Forget me not,” “Rock Beloy,” “Medi Hingasoko,” “Señorito,” “Tse na lang,” and initials like “R.L.” or “A.A.D.” written in a patterned manner or in conspicuous places, indicating a design to identify the ballot.
* The use of “Pausto” before candidates’ names successively was deemed an identifying mark.
After crediting Lapasa with the 15 valid ballots, his total became 1,241 votes. Bisnar’s total remained 1,250 votes. Therefore, Bisnar won by a plurality of 9 votes.