G.R. No. UDK-6066 September 30, 1984
ROGELIO CORDERO, petitioner, vs. HON. BETHEL K. MOSCARDON, REGIONAL TRIAL JUDGE, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH XXXV, ILOILO CITY and CONRADO ORRICA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rogelio Cordero and private respondent Conrado Orrica were candidates for Barangay Captain in the May 17, 1982 elections. Orrica was proclaimed winner by a margin of 99 to 95 votes. Cordero filed an election protest. A critical set of nine contested ballots were at issue, where voters wrote either “Cordero” or “Orrica” on the first line designated for councilmen, followed by other names on subsequent lines for councilmen, leaving the line for Barangay Captain blank.
The Municipal Circuit Court, appreciating these ballots, credited the seven votes for Cordero and the two for Orrica to the respective candidates for Barangay Captain. The court found the voters’ intention to vote for them as captain was clear, as they placed the names first in the sequence for councilmen. This adjustment made Cordero the winner, 103 to 101. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed, strictly applying statutory rules that a name written in a space for another office is a stray vote. It reverted to the original tally of 96 for Cordero and 99 for Orrica.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in strictly applying technical ballot appreciation rules to disregard the clear voter intent discernible from the face of the contested ballots.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the Municipal Circuit Court’s decision. The paramount principle in ballot appreciation is to ascertain and give effect to the voter’s will, not to nullify it through technicalities. While Section 155 of the 1978 Election Code provides that a name written in a space for another office is generally considered stray, this rule admits of exceptions when the voter’s intention is unmistakable from the ballot itself.
Here, the intention was discoverable from the face of the ballots. The voters wrote the name of either Cordero or Orrica on the very first line of the councilmen section, followed by other names for the remaining councilmen slots. This pattern demonstrably indicated an intent to vote for that person as the first and foremost official, which, given the ballot layout and the contested election for the single position of Barangay Captain, logically corresponded to that office. To reject these votes as stray would be a mechanical application defeating the electorate’s clear will. The Court, in the interest of substantial justice, upheld a liberal construction to render the ballots effective.