GR L 8354; (August, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8354; August 22, 1955
PAULINO TUMAKAY, ET AL., protestants-appellees, vs. LUIS C. ORBISO, ET AL., protestees. LUIS C. ORBISO, protestee-appellant.
FACTS
In the November 13, 1951 elections, Luis C. Orbiso and Paulino Tumakay were candidates for vice mayor of Medellin, Cebu. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Orbiso elected with 875 votes against Tumakay’s 769 votes. Tumakay filed an election protest before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which later declared Tumakay duly elected with 751 votes over Orbiso’s 694 votes. Orbiso appealed, raising only questions of law. While the appeal was pending, appellee Tumakay filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180), no appeal can be taken from a decision involving the position of vice mayor. The Supreme Court deferred action on this motion. The lower court found that in five precincts, a councilor candidate from Orbiso’s faction, Patricio Tumayao, was voted for with his surname accompanied by various Christian names, nicknames, and other appellations. The court deemed these ballots, numbering around 186, as marked and invalidated them.
ISSUE
Whether the use of nicknames or appellations accompanying a candidate’s name, when used as a means to identify the voter, nullifies only the vote for that candidate or the entire ballot.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied, following the doctrine in Marquez vs. Prodigalidad and Calano vs. Cruz, as the questions raised were purely of law. The Court ruled that the marked ballots nullify the entire ballot, not just the vote for the specific candidate. While paragraph 9 of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code states that the use of nicknames and appellations “does not annul such vote” when used for identification, this provision must yield to the specific mandate of Section 146, which requires inspectors to segregate marked ballots and not count them. The philosophy is to protect the secrecy of the ballot, a cardinal feature of election law. A voter who marks his ballot forfeits his right to vote entirely, as such marks could enable the voter to give information on how he voted to interested persons. Therefore, the whole ballot is invalidated.