Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Bautista V. Castro Digest By: Shekinah Mae Fortuna Facts

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    Petitioner Bautista and respondent Miguel were candidates for barangay captain in the 1982 election. Bautista was initially proclaimed the winner by two votes, but Miguel filed an election protest. The city court ruled the candidates received the same number of votes, while the CFI declared Miguel the winner. Bautista appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that ballots require the signature of the poll chairman to be valid. It also found respondent court correctly invalidated ballots with writings meant to identify the voter, such as an arrow and the words "and party", or a candidate's name written more than twice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bautista V. Castro Digest By: Shekinah Mae Fortuna Facts

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    106 views1 page
    Petitioner Bautista and respondent Miguel were candidates for barangay captain in the 1982 election. Bautista was initially proclaimed the winner by two votes, but Miguel filed an election protest. The city court ruled the candidates received the same number of votes, while the CFI declared Miguel the winner. Bautista appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that ballots require the signature of the poll chairman to be valid. It also found respondent court correctly invalidated ballots with writings meant to identify the voter, such as an arrow and the words "and party", or a candidate's name written more than twice.

    Original Title

    Bautista vs Castro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Bautista and respondent Miguel were candidates for barangay captain in the 1982 election. Bautista was initially proclaimed the winner by two votes, but Miguel filed an election protest. The city court ruled the candidates received the same number of votes, while the CFI declared Miguel the winner. Bautista appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that ballots require the signature of the poll chairman to be valid. It also found respondent court correctly invalidated ballots with writings meant to identify the voter, such as an arrow and the words "and party", or a candidate's name written more than twice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views1 page

    Bautista V. Castro Digest By: Shekinah Mae Fortuna Facts

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    Petitioner Bautista and respondent Miguel were candidates for barangay captain in the 1982 election. Bautista was initially proclaimed the winner by two votes, but Miguel filed an election protest. The city court ruled the candidates received the same number of votes, while the CFI declared Miguel the winner. Bautista appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that ballots require the signature of the poll chairman to be valid. It also found respondent court correctly invalidated ballots with writings meant to identify the voter, such as an arrow and the words "and party", or a candidate's name written more than twice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BAUTISTA v.

    CASTRO
    GR No. L-61260 | February 17, 1992
    Digest by: Shekinah Mae Fortuna

    FACTS:
    Both petitioner Bautista and respondent Miguel were
    candidates for the position of Barangay Captain of Brgy.
    Teachers Village East, Quezon City in the barangay
    elections held on May 17, 1982. After canvass, Bautista was
    proclaimed as the winner with a plurality of two votes. Miguel
    filed an election protest. The City Court of Quezon City ruled
    that both candidates received the same number of votes.
    Upon appeal, the CFI of Rizal declared Miguel as the winner
    and set aside Bautista’s proclamation. The latter filed a
    petition to the Supreme Court alleging that respondent judge
    committed mistakes in his appreciation of the contested
    ballots.

    Petitioner’s contention: Petitioner Bautista questions the


    reliance by respondent court on the opinion of one Desiderio
    A. Pagui, who was never presented and qualified as an
    expert witness. The report of Pagui allegedly appeared only
    in the records of the case on file with the CFI which was
    attached in the Memorandum for Protestant Miguel.

    Petitioner also argues that respondent court misinterpreted


    and misapplied Section 36(f) of Comelec Resolution No
    1539. It allegedly failed to take into consideration the other
    provisions of said Section 36 of the Resolution.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not a ballot which does not contain the


    signature of the poll chairman be considered a valid ballot.

    2. Whether or not respondent judge acted correctly in its


    appreciation of the contested ballots.

    RULING:

    1. The mandatory requirement of authentication of ballots is


    found on Sec 14 of BP222 and in Sec 36 of COMELEC
    Resolution No. 1539, and the legal consequences for the
    absence of such authentication is stated precisely in Sec
    36(f), and generally in Sec 152 of the 1978 Election Code.

    The law and the rules implementing it leave no room for


    interpretation. The absence of the signature of the Chairman
    of the Board of election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter
    as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity
    of said ballot is fatal. This requirement is mandatory for the
    validity of said ballot.

    2. The presence of an arrow in the contested ballots with the


    words “and party” was meant to identify the voter, and such
    writings were not accidental. As a rule, a voter must write on
    the ballot only the names of candidates voted for the offices
    appearing thereon. Certain exceptions were provided for in
    the Revised Election Code, such as the prefixes “Sr.,” “Mr.,”
    and the like and the suffixes such as “hijo,” “Jr.,” etc. will not
    invalidate the ballot. Initials, nicknames or appellation of
    affection and friendship will not invalidate the ballot, if
    accompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, and
    above all, if they were not used as a means to identify the
    voter.

    Respondent court correctly invalidated the ballot wherein the


    name of the candidate was written seven times. The writing
    of a name more than twice on the ballot is considered to be
    intentional and serves no other purpose than to identify the
    ballot.

    You might also like