AFTERWORDS RULES ON BALLOT

The credibility of the results of any election depends, APPRECIATION

to a large extent, on the confidence of each voter that
hir/her individual choices have counted. A feeling
expressed and felt in the precinct where the voter Governing Principles On Ballot Appreciation
1. Will of Voter is Paramount
casts his/her ballot and later counted. Hence, the role

Not for Sale

2. Ballot is Always Presumed Valid
of the Electoral Board in the success of elections 3. Technical Rules are Liberally Construed, and
cannot be understated. 4. Counting is Public and Uninterrupted

The Office of the Election Officer would like to

Specific Rules on Appreciation of Votes
express our sincerest gratitude and respect to the 1. The Intent Rule
members of the Electoral Board in the municipality of 2. Equity of the Incumbent Rule
Camalig for taking the gargantuan challenge to serve 3. Rule on Primacy of Surnames
this 30 October 2023 Barangay and SK Manual 4. Rules on Married Women
5. Idem Sonans Rule
Elections, upholding democracy by protecting the 6. Rules on the Use Of Nicknames
sovereign will of the people. 7. Rules on the Use Of Initials
8. Rule on the Use of Prefixes
DISCLAIMER: 9. Rule involving Appellations of Affection or Friendship
10. Special CASEs
NOT FOR SALE||EXCLUSIVE FOR ACADEMIC USE
11. Rule on Misplaced Votes
12. Rule on Disqualified Candidates
This handout is a summary taken from the book of Director Dennis 13. Marked Ballots
L. Ausan, COMELEC Region 6, entitled “A Pocket Guide to Ballot 14. Ballots Written By One
Appreciation. This handout shall not be used in any commercial 15. Written By Two or More Persons
means. This is solely for academic use of the members of the 16. Miscellaneous CASEs
Electoral Board in their preparation in the performance of their
duties in administering the casting and counting of votes in the
municipality of Camalig, Albay this 2023 BSKE.
What is Ballot Appreciation? They enjoy the presumption of regularity, and no one can overturn their collegial determination at
It is the act of ascertaining the real intent of the voter to whom he is casting his vote for, on the the polling place. EBs decisions, however, are not binding upon the court in CASE protests are
basis of what is shown on the face of the ballot. filed.

Governing principles on ballot appreciation SPECIFIC RULES ON APPRECIATION OF VOTES

A. The Will of the Voter is Paramount
RULE 1:
“Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”. The INTENT RULE
cardinal objective in ballot appreciation is to discover and give effect to, rather that frustrate, the
intention of the voter if such can be determined with reasonable certainty.
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate, It Shall
B. The Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed Be Appreciated In His Favor. (Par. 1, Section 211, Omnibus Election Code (OEC)

The Ballot is an expression of the will of the voter. It is not required that it should be nicely or CASE 1: Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139489, April 10, 2000
accurately written, or that the name of the candidate voted for should be correctly spelled. It Geukeko v. Pascua, G.R. No. 26243, March 31, 1927
should be read in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the election and the voter, and
the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter if it can be
determined with reasonable certainty. Candidate for Punong Barangay
ALFARO, Renato “Nato”
IN CASE OF DOUBT, all doubts must be resolved in a way to give life and spirit to the popular
mandate freely expressed through the ballot. And, the EBs cannot supplant its own judgment Candidate for Kagawad
what is CLEARLY written on the face of the ballot. HANAY, Alvin “Ben”
To support a conclusion, the vote written on the face of the ballot must sufficiently identify or
determine with reasonable certainty to whom the vote is intended. RULING: The vote “Renato” shall be counted in favor of the candidate Renato Alfaro while the
vote “Hanay” shall be counted in favor of the candidate Alvin Hanay.
As the principle goes, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right
in complex but little understood legalisms. DO NOT USE LEGALIST LANGUAGE. USE NOTE: In this case, it can be determined with reasonable certainty who the votes cast for
ORDINARY LANGUANGE UNDERSTOOD BY ORDINARY PERSON. because there are no other candidates with similar name “Renato” for PB and surname “Hanay”
for Kagawad. The object of ballot appreciation is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of
C. Counting Is Public and Uninterrupted
the voter if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.
Electoral Boards have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction in the counting and appreciation of ballots. Only
the court through an election contest, and NOT the Board of Canvassers can review the
COLLEGIAL DETERMINATION of the EB as regards the appreciation of ballot.

Electoral Boards are to count and appreciate the votes in public without interruption.
LEGAL BASIS: If There Is Another Candidate With The Same First Name
Or Surname, It Shall Be Considered As Stray Vote. (3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Section
211, OEC)
CASE 2: Gonzaga v. Seno, G.R. No. L-20522, April 23, 1963
LEGAL BASIS: Markings Or Words Of Desistance From Voting Found On
Blank Spaces Do Not Invalidate The Ballot. (Par. 21, Section 211, OEC)
CASE 4: Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, July 25, 2006

Candidates for Punong Barangay Candidate for Punong Barangay

CRUZ, Teodoro “Ted” VILLA, Erlinda “Linda”
CRUZ, Uldarico “Toto”
Candidate for Kagawad
Candidates for Kagawad CERCADO, Eugene “Gene”
MARQUEZ, Elena “Elen”
RAMOS, Elena “Inday Lena” RULING: The Ballot is Valid and the vote “VILLA” for PB and “CERCADO” for Kagawad shall be
counted.
Ruling: Both “Cruz” and “Elena” shall be deemed STRAY VOTES.
NOTE: Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed. It is not
NOTE: In this case, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty who the votes cast for required that it should be nicely written. The object of ballot appreciation is to ascertain and carry
because there are other candidates with similar surname “Cruz” for PB and first name “Elena” for into effect the intention of the voter if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.
Kagawad. Thus, the will of the voter cannot be reasonably ascertained.
RULE 2:
LEGAL BASIS: If A Candidate’s Name Is Erased And Another Clearly EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT RULE
Written, Vote Is Valid for The Latter.1 (Par. 9, Sec. 211, OEC) So are
superimpositions. LEGAL BASIS: If There Is Another Candidate With The Same First Name And
Surname, But The Other Candidate Is An Incumbent, The Vote Shall Be Counted
CASE 3: 1 Juliano v. CA, G.R. No. 27477, July 28, 1967 In Favor Of The Incumbent. (2nd Sentence, Par. 2, Section 211, OEC)
2 Mañago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167224, September 21, 2007
CASE 1:
Candidates for Punong Barangay
RULING: The Ballot is valid and the vote “TIU” ENRIQUEZ, Joy
shall be counted for PB. LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)
Candidates for Kagawad
NOTE: The object of ballot appreciation is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the JOCSON, Alberto
voter if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. In this case, the intention of the voter to JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)
replace his/her vote from “Cordero” to “Tiu” is clear from the fact that he/she crossed out (a way
of erasing what was previously written) the surname “Cordero” and replaced it with “Tiu”. The
RULE: The vote “Joy” is counted in favor of Ledesma for PB, and vote “Jocson” infavor of Glenn
Ballot is an expression of the will of the voter. It is not required that it should be nicely written.
for Kagawad. Both are incumbent barangay officials for re-election.
Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed.

NOTE: Under the Equity of Incumbent Rule, in any race, the incumbent should be given
preference by reason of their familiarity. Otherwise, the voter should have clearly indicated if
he/she preferred other candidates.
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman
Candidate And There Is Another Candidate With Such Surname And One Of
Them Is An Incumbent, The Vote Is Counted In Favor Of The Incumbent. (Par. 3,
Section 211, OEC)
CASE 2:
Candidates for Punong Barangay
ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha
ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia (Incumbent)
Candidates for Kagawad
ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES
ARANAS, Rodolfo (Incumbent)
DIAZ, Arnulfo (Incumbent)
RULE: All the votes are counted in favor of all INCUMBENTS. “Arnaldo-Ruiz” for Lydia for PB.
“Aranas” for Rodolfo and “Diaz” for Arnulfo, both for Kagawad. All are incumbent barangay
officials for re-election.
NOTE: Under the Equity of Incumbent Rule, in any race, the incumbent should be given
preference by reason of their familiarity as the person currently occupying the particular position.
Otherwise, the voter should have clearly indicated if he preferred other candidates.
However, if NONE OF THEM ARE INCUMBENT, all votes will be considered stray votes.
Because in this second scenario, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty for whom the
votes are intended. For PB, there are two candidates with surname “Arnaldo-Ruiz”, thus it
cannot be known whether it is for Lydia or Alpha. For Kagawad, it cannot be determined whether
the vote “Aranas” is for Lourdes (as her maiden name) or Rodolfo with the same surname.
Likewise, it cannot be determined whether the vote “Diaz” is for Lourdes (as her married name)
or Arnulfo with the same surname.
LEGAL BASIS: If Written on the Same Line and all of which are Surnames of Two
or More Candidates, one of them an Incumbent who Served for at Least One Year,
the Vote is Counted in favor of the Latter (Par 4, Section 211, OEC).
CASE 3: Katigbak v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 24477, February 28, 1967; Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No.
166542, July 25, 2006
Candidates for Punong Barangay
GUMBAN, Ismael
MAGNO, Paul (incumbent who served for at least a year)
RULING: The vote is counted for Paul Magno, who is an incumbent who served for at least one
year.
NOTE: The Equity of Incumbent Rule also applies when the incumbent did not serve the full
three (3)-year term but serve for at least one (1) year.
Example: Paul Magno was elected as Kagawad, with the highest number of votes. He
succeeded the PB, who died one (1) year before the end of the PB’s term. When Paul Magno
run for PB in the succeeding election, the equity of incumbent rule will apply in his favor because
he already served for one (1) year as PB.
THE EQUITY OF INCUMBENT RULE ONLY APLLIES TO:
1. 2nd Sentence, Par. 2, Section 211, OEC
2. Par. 3, Section 211, OEC
3. Par 4, Section 211, OEC
The equity of incumbent rule should NOT be considered in all other instances.
 RULE 3: LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The First Name Of One Candidate And Surname
PRIMACY OF SURNAMES Of Another, The Vote Shall Be In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 5, Sec. 211, OEC)
CASE 2: Calo v. CA, G.R. No. L-21256, September 30, 1963
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The First Name Of A Candidate But When Read Sounds
Similar To The Surname Of Another Candidate, The Vote Shall Be Appreciated
In Favor Of The Latter (1st Sentence, Par.2, Sec. 211, OEC)
Candidates for Punong Barangay
CASE 1: ROMAN, Pablo “Pabs”
SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”
Candidates for Punong Barangay
TENTATIVA, Benzen “Moi”
VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”

RULING: The vote is counted for ROMAN, Pablo “Pabs” based on Paragraph 5, Section 211 of
the Omnibus Election Code.
NOTE: The vote is counted for VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”.
LEGAL BASIS: If What Is Written Is The First Name Of One Candidate Coupled
This rule will apply even if Benzen Tentativa is an incumbent because the rules in the manner of
With The Surname Of Another Candidate, Vote Is Considered Stray (Par. 6, Sec.
counting votes under Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code particularly described the
circumstances when the equity of incumbent rule and primacy of surnames will apply, 211, OEC)
respectively. Therefore, if the face of ballot as written is not similar to the CASEs wherein the
CASE 3: Corpuz v. Ibay, G.R. No. L-2305, July 8, 1949
equity of incumbent rule and primacy of surnames are applicable, they shall not be used in
determining to whom the vote shall be counted. The general principles as discussed earlier like
The Will of the Voter is Paramount, The Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are
liberally construed shall be used. If still the will of the voter cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty using the specific and general rules in Ballot Appreciation, the votes may be
Candidates for Punong Barangay
considered stray votes.
CORPUZ, Esteban M.
IBAY, Isidro B.
Under Statutory Construction, the following hierarchy shall be observed:
First, apply special rules,
Second, if special rules are not applicable, use general rules.

RULING: “Isidro Corpuz” is a stray vote. Even if one of them is incumbent.

NOTE: What was combined here is the first name of one candidate and surname of another
candidate. It cannot be determined with reasonable certainty for whom the vote is intended. The
equity of incumbent rule will not also apply because this case is not among the specific LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman
circumstances wherein the equity of incumbent rule applies. Remember in Par. 4, Section 211, Candidate And There Is Another Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Is
OEC, what was combined on the same line are Surnames of Two or More Candidates.
Considered Stray. (3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Sec. 211, OEC)

RULE 4: CASE 2:
RULES ON MARRIED WOMEN
Candidates for Punong Barangay
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”
Candidate And There Is No Other Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Shall Be ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids”
Appreciated In Favor Of That Candidate (Par. 1, Sec. 211, OEC)
Candidates for Kagawad
CASE 1: Conui-Omega v. Samson, G.R. No. L-21910, November 11, 1963
ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
Yniguez-Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991
ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy”
DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy”
Candidate for Punong Barangay
ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang” RULE: All votes are stray votes based on the 3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Sec. 211, OEC.

Candidates for Kagawad NOTE: Since there are other Candidates With Similar Surname as either the maiden or married
ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu” surname of a woman candidate, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty for whom the
MARTEL-PORRAS, MAE “Mae” vote is intended.

LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman

RULING: The vote “ARNALDO-RUIZ” is counted for Alpha; “ARANAS” for Lourdes; and
Candidate And There Is Another Candidate With Such Surname And One Of
“PORRAS” for Mae based on Par. 1, Section 211, Omnibus Election Code. Them Is An Incumbent, Vote Counted In Favor Of Incumbent. (Par. 3, Sec. 211,
OEC)
NOTE: However, if there are incumbent the Equity of Incumbent Rule shall apply, the incumbent
should be given preference by reason of their familiarity as the person currently occupying the NOTE: SEE DISCUSSION ON EQUITY OF INCUMBENT.
position. Otherwise, the voter should have clearly indicated if he/she preferred other candidates.
(See as discussed earlier under Par. 3, Section 211, OEC).
 RULE 5: RULE 6:
IDEM SONANS RULE RULES ON THE USE OF NICKNAMES

LEGAL BASIS: If It Is Incorrectly Written But When Read Has A Sound Similar To LEGAL BASIS: If It Is The Nickname Of A Candidate And It Is One By Which He
The Name Or Surname Of A Candidate, Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of Is Generally And Popularly Known In The Locality, It Shall Be Counted In
That Candidate (Par. 7, Sec. 211, OEC) His Favor If There Is No Other Candidate For The Same Office With The
Same Nickname (2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211, OEC)
CASE 1:
Candidate for Punong Barangay CASE 1: Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No.139489, April 10, 2000
PERFECTO, Querubin

Candidates for Kagawad

ARZAGA, Emilio
CECILIO, Aurelio Candidate for Punong Barangay
GLORIA, Ricardo FERRER, Danilo “Danny”
JULIANO, Teodoro`
LONTOC, Jose
MONTEZA, Pablo

RULE: ALL votes are valid. The votes are counted as follow, to wit:
“Ferpexto” for PERFECTO for PB;
“E. Arsada” for ARZAGA, Emilio,
“A. Aulio” for CECILIO, Aurelio;
“Recado” for GLORIA, Ricardo;
“Nonano” for JULIANO, Teodoro;
“Tanloc” for LONTOC, Jose; and
“P. Matileza” for MONTEZA, Pablo, for Kagawad respectively.
NOTE: The Ballot is an expression of the will of the voter. It is not required that it should be
nicely or accurately written, or that the name of the candidate voted for should be correctly
spelled. It should be read in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the election and the
voter, and the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter if it can
be determined with reasonable certainty. This is based on the principles that the Ballot is Always
Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed.
Idem sonans is applicable ONLY to The Name Or Surname Of A Candidate under Par. 7, Sec.
211, OEC. But NOT to nicknames, which is governed by 2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211, OEC.
RULING: The vote “Danny” is counted for FERRER, Danilo based on 2nd Sentence, Par. 13,
Sec. 211, OEC.
NOTE: This is based on the principles that the Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical
Rules are liberally construed. It is not required that it should be nicely or completely or
accurately written.
BUT, where several candidates have the same nickname, and the nickname is unaccompanied
by the name or surname of any of the candidates, the vote should be considered stray because
it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty for whom the vote is intended.
The important element in 2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211, OEC is that the candidate’
registered nickname Is One By Which He/She Is Generally And Popularly Known In The
Locality.
REMEMBER: Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed, thus if
the nickname was incorrectly written but sound the same and no other candidate have the same
nickname, it may be credited in favor of the candidate and may not be considered stray vote.
LEGAL BASIS: If The Vote Is The Registered Nickname Of A Candidate And At CASE 3:
The Same Time One Of The Words Of The Registered Nickname Of Another Candidate for Punong Barangay
LEE, May “Inday May”
Candidate Whose Nickname Is Composed Of Two Or More Words, The Vote Shall
Be Counted In Favor Of The Former. (2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211, OEC).

CASE 2: Olivia Coo v. Comelec, G.R.No. 163187, May 6, 2004 RULE: The vote “Inday” must be counted for May Lee.

NOTE: Nicknames are not limited to one word because Section 74, OEC on the use of nickname
did not qualify the number of words composing the candidate’s nickname.
Candidates for Punong Barangay
NG, Rudy “Toto Rudy” This is based on the principles that the Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are
REYES, Omar “Toto” liberally construed. It is not required that it should be nicely, completely or accurately written.

RULE 7:
RULING: The vote “Toto” is counted for Omar Reyes. RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
NOTE: The nickname “Toto” and “Toto Rudy” are two distinct nicknames, thus the vote “Toto” LEGAL BASIS: If Erroneous Initial Of The First Name, Surname Or Middle
must be counted for Omar Reyes; and must not be considered stray vote. Initial Accompanies The Correct Surname Or First Name Of A Candidate, The
Vote Is Valid (Par. 10, Sec. 211, OEC)
REMEMBER: Idem sonans is applicable ONLY to The Name Or Surname Of A Candidate under
Par. 7, Sec. 211, OEC. But NOT to nicknames, which is governed by 2nd Sentence, Par. 13,
CASE 1: Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R.No.L-37106, June 30, 1975
Sec. 211, OEC.

If the candidate’ registered nickname Is One By Which He/She Is Generally And Popularly
Known In The Locality, even if unaccompanied by his/her name or surname must be credited in Candidate for Punong Barangay
his/her favor under 2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211, OEC. RODRIGUEZ, Teodoro

LEGAL BASIS: If The Nickname Of A Candidate Is Composed Of Two Or More

Words, And The Vote Written Is Any One Of Those Words, And There Is No
Other Candidate With The Same Name Or Nickname, The Vote Is Appreciated
In Favor Of That Candidate. (With Reference To Pars. 1, 7, And 13, Sec. 211) RULING: The vote “D. Rodriguez” is counted for RODRIGUEZ, Teodoro.

NOTE: This is based on the principles that the Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical
Rules are liberally construed. It is not required that it should be nicely, completely or accurately
written for as long as it be reasonably ascertained for whom the vote was intended. The initial
“D” may be incorrect but the same was accompanied by the correct surname of the candidate.
The correct surname of the candidate was sufficient identification of the intent of voter to vote for
RODRIGUEZ, Teodoro.
LEGAL BASIS: If It Contains Initials Only, Vote Considered As Stray Vote (Par. 14,
Sec. 211, OEC)
CASE 2: Villarosa v. HRET, G.R. No. 144129, September 14, 2000
Candidate for Punong Barangay
GUPIT, Mark M. “Macmac”
RULING: The vote “MMG” is a stray vote.
NOTE: In this case, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty for whom the vote was
intended because “MMG” is neither the name, the surname, or the registered nickname of the
candidate. It could mean all other things that have the initials “MMG”.
However, if the initials are accompanied by the either the correct first name or surname of the
candidate and there is no other candidate with same first name or surname, then the surname or
first name as correctly written will be sufficient identification of the intent of the voter to vote for
such candidate. The same is not true for this case because the initials are unaccompanied by
neither the first name nor surname of the candidate.
RULE 8:
RULE ON THE USE OF PREFIXES
LEGAL BASIS: If A Prefix Accompanies The First Name and/or Surname Of
A Candidate Vote Is Valid. (Par.12, Sec. 211, OEC)
CASE: Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R.No. 12083, July 31, 1957
Candidate for Punong Barangay
CASTRO, Leon “Boy”
RULING: The vote “Hon. Leon Castro” is counted for CASTRO, Leon “Boy”.
NOTE: Prefixes such as Hon., Mr., Don, Ginoo, and the like does not invalidate the vote based
on Par.12, Sec. 211, OEC. It simply indicates the respect accorded by the voter for the position
being contested.
The prefixes enumerated in paragraph 12, section 211 OEC (Sr., Mr., Datu, Don, Ginoo, Hon.,
Gob) are just examples and are not exclusive. Thus, expressions which connote respect and
something equivalent to the Tagalog “ka” or the English “Mr.” were considered legitimate.
RULE 10:
SPECIAL CASES
LEGAL BASIS: If Written On Different Lines, All Of Which Are Surnames Of Two
Or More Candidates And For An Office That Allows The Election Of More Than
One And There Are Same Number Of Such Surnames Written As There Are
Candidates With That Surname, Votes Are Considered Valid. (Par. 4, Sec. 211,
OEC)
CASE:
 NOTE: This rule applies only if the candidate’s name is found in two spaces for two different
positions. If his name is found only in one space and for a position of which he is not a
Candidates for Kagawad candidate, determine if the “Neighborhood Rule” applies; otherwise, the vote is stray.
GO, Arnold “Bongbong”
GO, Esther “Ma’am Esther” LEGAL BASIS: If The Number Of Names Written Exceed Those To Be Voted,
GO, Noel “Noel” Only Those Firstly Written Within The Authorized Number Are Deemed Valid. (Par.
18, Sec. 211, OEC)

CASE: Cailles v. Gomez, G.R. No. 17617, December 9, 1921

RULE: The vote “Go” will be apportioned i.e. one vote each for Arnold, Esther, and Noel.
Candidates for Kagawad
NOTE: Here, it can be sufficiently identified that the intention of the voter is to vote for the three
ABAD, Gil “Nonong”
candidates surnamed Go.
CO, Nancy “Nans”
DOLLEDO, Hans “Boy”
But, if the number of surnames written is less than the number of candidates of the same
ELLANGA, Aida “Nang Ayds”
surname, the votes are considered stray vote because it cannot be determined with reasonable
MORENO, William “Bill”
certainty who among the Go the voter intended to vote. However, equity of the incumbent
SOTERO, Eden “Pangga”
applies to surname. Thus, if one of them is an incumbent, the vote will no longer be stray but
TORRE, Jay “Jay”
shall be counted for the incumbent. (2nd sentence, Par. 2, Section 211, OEC).
VILLA, Ma. Teresita “Teray”
LEGAL BASIS: If A Candidate’s Name Appears On A Space For Which He Is A
Candidate And In Another Space On Which He Is Not A Candidate, Valid For
The Office For Which He Is Running And Stray On The Other. (Par. 8, Sec. 211, RULING: The first seven name is valid and will be counted respectively. But, the eighth vote
OEC) “Teray” is a stray vote.

CASE: Juliano v. Sinsuat, G.R. No. L-27477, July 28, 1967 NOTE: Only those written first within the authorized number shall be counted. Voting in excess
Illescas v. CA, G.R. No. L-6853, December 29, 1953 of the authorized number for Kagawad will not invalidate the Ballot, but the excess vote shall be
considered stray vote.

Candidate for Kagawad

Alban, Romeo ”Roming”
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is That Of A Non-candidate, The Vote Shall Be Considered A
RULING: The vote “Alban” for PB is stray, but the vote “Alban” for Kagawad is counted for
Stray Vote (1st Phrase, Par. 19, Sec. 211, OEC)
Romeo Alban for Kagawad.
CASE: Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-37106, June 30, 1975
Monteza v.CA, G.R. No. L-26245, July 25, 1967
 LEGAL BASIS: If What Is Named Are Two Or More Candidates for a Position
Candidates for Punong Barangay for Which The Law Allows The Election Of Only One, The Vote Is Considered
AUSTRIA, Artemio “Toto”
Stray. (Par. 17, Sec. 211, OEC)
SEMOY, Alicia “Gingging"

RULING: The vote “Rex Abalo” is a stray vote based on 1st Phrase, Par. 19, Sec. 211, OEC. CASE: Cailles v. Gomez G.R. No. L-17617, December 9, 1921

LEGAL BASIS: If What Is Written Is The First Name Of A Candidate But With A Candidates for Punong Barangay
Different Surname Or Correct Surname But With A Different First Name, Vote BEDIA, Myla “Maymay”
CALVO, Michael “Mike”
Is Considered Stray. (Par. 15, Sec 211, OEC)
CASE: Protacio v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-21135, November 8, 1963
RULING: The vote “Myla Bedla Michael Calvo” is a stray vote based on Par. 17,
Sec. 211, OEC.
Candidate for Punong Barangay
VILLAVERT, Alberto A. LEGAL BASIS: If It Is Illegible Or Cannot Sufficiently Identify The Candidate For
Whom It Is Intended, Stray Vote. (Par. 14, Sec. 211, OEC)

CASE: Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, July 25, 2006

RULING: The vote “Anacleto Villavert” is a stray vote based on Par. 15, Sec 211, OEC. Candidate for Punong Barangay
LAPUZ, John “Jon”
LEGAL BASIS: If A Name Of A Known Existing Person Who Is A Non-
candidate Accompanies The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate, The Vote Candidates for Kagawad
Is Considered In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 11, Sec. 211, OEC) DOJILLO, Nilo “Calong”
VIDAL, Rodrigo “Jing”
CASE:
RULING: The votes are stray vote under Par. 14, Sec. 211, OEC. The intent of the voter for
Candidates for Punong Barangay whom the votes are intended cannot be sufficiently identified.
JIMENEZ, Ralph “Nonoy”
NADAL, Francisco “Boc”

RULING: The vote “Ralph Recto” will be counted for JIMENEZ, Ralph “Nonoy” based on Par.
11, Sec. 211, OEC.

RULE 11:
RULE ON MISPLACED VOTES
 CASTILLO, Angie “Ging”
LEGAL BASIS: If It Is That Of A Candidate For An Office For Which He Did
Candidates for Kagawad
Not Present Himself, The Vote Shall Be Considered A Stray Vote. (2nd Phrase, AMADOR, Leah “Bing”
Par.19, Sec. 211, OEC) CERCADO, Manuel “Manny”
GONZALES, Leo “Parts”
CASE: Cordia v. Monforte, G.R. No.174620, March 4, 2009 GUMBAN, Daisy “Meg”
MALLADA, Rose “Rose”
Candidate for Punong Barangay ROMULO, Adrian “Bords”
GABITO, Sergio “ Sarge” SABAN, Marie “Mar”
Candidates for Kagawad
DAGANI, Girlie “Paday” RULING: The vote “Castillo” is counted for CASTILLO, Angie “Ging” for PB based on Correct
JACOBA, Andrea “Nene” Sequence Rule as decided by the Supreme Court in the case Cordero v. Moscardon on
PRADO, Marivic “Becbec” September 30, 1984.

LEGAL BASIS: Evident Intent Rule- A Single Or Double Misplacement Of Names

RULING: The vote “Gabito” is a stray vote based on 2nd Phrase, Par.19, Sec. 211, OEC.
REMEMBER: If either the Neighborhood Rule or Correct Sequence Rule is applicable, the vote
will no be a stray vote but will be a valid vote.
Where Such Names Were Preceded Or Followed By The Title Of The Contested
Office
CASE: Bautista v. Castro, G. R. No. 612260, February 17, 1992

Exceptions to the Rule on Misplaced Votes

1. Correct Sequence Rule Candidate for Punong Barangay
2. Evident Intent Rule LAO, Mary “May”
Candidates for Kagawad
3. Neighborhood Rule GO, Eduard “Ed”
TORRES, Irene “Princess”
LEGAL BASIS: Correct Sequence Rule- A General Misplacement Of An Entire
Series Of Names Intended To Be Voted For The Successive Offices Appearing On
RULING: The vote “Punong Barangay Lao” is counted for LAO, Mary “May” for PB based on the
The Ballot Evident Intent Rule as decided by the Supreme Court in the case Bautista v. Castro on February
17, 1992.

LEGAL BASIS: Evident Intent Rule- Where The Voter Wrote After The Candidate’s
CASE: Cordero v. Moscardon, UDK-6066, September 30, 1984
Name A Directional Symbol Indicating The Correct Office For Which The
Candidate for Punong Barangay Misplaced Name Was Intended
 CASE: Villavert v. Fornier, G.R. No. L-3050, October 17, 1949
CASE: Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939
Candidate for Punong Barangay
Candidate for Punong Barangay PO, Mario “Mayok”
Ruiz, Juan “Jun”

Candidates for Kagawad

GO, Eduard “Ed”
TORRES, Irene “Princess”
RULING: The vote “Po” is counted for PO, Mario “Mayok” based on the Neighborhood Rule as
decided by the Supreme Court in the case Villavert v. Fornier on October 17, 1949.
RULING: The vote “Ruiz” is counted for Ruiz, Juan “Jun” for PB based on the Evident Intent
Rule as decided by the Supreme Court in the case Moya v. Del Fiero on November 18, 1939. LEGAL BASIS: Neighborhood Rule- A Single Misplacement of a Name Written in
the Space for An Office Immediately Following that for which the
LEGAL BASIS: Neighborhood Rule- A Single Misplacement of a Name Written off- Candidate Presented Himself
center from the designated space
CASE: Batalla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184268, September 15, 2009
CASE: Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939

Candidate for Punong Barangay

BARON, Angel “Angie”
Candidate for Punong Barangay
LEDONIO, Marlon “Lonlon”

RULING: The vote “Ledonio” is counted for LEDONIO, Marlon “Lonlon” based on the RULING: The vote “Baron” is counted for BARON, Angel “Angie” based on the Neighborhood
Neighborhood Rule as decided by the Supreme Court in the case Moya v. Del Fiero on Rule as decided by the Supreme Court in the case Batalla v. COMELEC on September 15, 2009
November 18, 1939. .

LEGAL BASIS: Neighborhood Rule- A Single Misplacement of a Name Written

Slightly Underneath the Line for the Contested Office or A Single Misplacement of RULE 12:
a Name Written Immediately Above the Title for the Contested Office RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
 1. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has been DISQUALIFIED by final judgment shall
be considered STRAY VOTES based on paragraph 24, Section 211
2. Votes cast in favor of a candidate whose certificate of candidacy
was CANCELLED or DENIED DUE COURSE shall be considered STRAY votes based
on paragraph 19, section 211 for being a non-candidate
3. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has WITHDRAWN shall be
considered STRAY votes based on paragraph 19, Section 211; and
4. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has been declared NUISANCE due to the
same name and/or surname with a bona fide candidate shall not be deemed stray votes
but may be COUNTED in favor of the latter.
RULE 13:
MARKED BALLOTS
MARKED BALLOTS- One which is marked by the voter for the purpose of identifying the ballot
as one that he accomplished. As it violates the sacredness of votes, it results in the invalidation
of the entire ballot.
REQUIREMENTS:
1. The voter must have placed the mark; and
2. The mark was placed deliberately for the purpose of identifying the voter or the ballot.
REMEMBER: Marks made by the voter unintentionally do not invalidate the ballot. Neither do
marks made by some person other than the voter.
Kinds of Marked Ballots
1. Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)
-invalidation may immediately be done by the EB
2. Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)
- requires presentation of evidence aliunde to be invalidated by the regular Court
MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)
1. If the Ballot is Signed by the Voter, it is deemed a Marked Ballot (Legal Basis: Cailles v.
Gomez, G.R. No. L-17617, December 9, 1921 & Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R. No. L-12083,
July 31, 1957
2. If The Names Are Written In Extraordinarily Big Letters, The Ballot Is Considered
Marked (Legal Basis: Cundangan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174392, August 28, 2007)
3. If Names Are Written Twice In A Single Space, Such Are Deemed Marked Ballots (Legal
Basis: Inguito v. CA, G.R. No. L-26883, November 23, 1967& Monteza v. CA, G.R. No.
L-26245, July 25, 1967)
4. If A Candidate’s Name Is Written More Than Twice On A Single Ballot, The Ballot Is
Considered Marked (Legal Basis: Bautista v. Castro, G.R. No. 612260, February 17,
1992 & Katigbak v. Mendoza, G.R. L-24477, February 28, 1967)
5. Irrelevant Remarks, Impertinent Words, and/or Derogatory Expressions Found on
Ballots Render Such Ballots Invalid (Legal Basis: Moraleja v. Relova, G.R. No. L-30828,
October 22, 1971 & Marcos v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019)
REMEMBER: In case of DOUBT, all doubts must be resolved in a way to give life and spirit
to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. And the EBs cannot supplant its own
judgment what is CLEARLY written on the face of the ballot. Go back to the general principle
that The Ballot is Always Presumed Valid & Technical Rules are liberally construed.
RULE 14:
BALLOTS WRITTEN BY ONE
Q. When can there be multiple ballots “Written by One” person?
A. This arises when there are several ballots with similar handwriting in excess of the
number of officially recognized disabled and illiterate voters in a polling place plus the
voter himself.
Q. Are “Written by One” ballots valid?
A. Yes, provided the handwritings thereon are similar to the signature of a register assistor
found in the Minutes of Voting; one ballot by the assistor and for not more than three
illiterate or disabled voters unless the assistor is a member of the Electoral Board.
Otherwise, the ballots should be rejected.
Q. How can one determine that a handwriting is that of one person only?
A. When the writings in the subject ballots are strikingly alike, with presence not only of
class characteristics but also individual characteristics or dents and scratches in
sufficient quantity.
 RULE 15:
WRITTEN BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS

Q. When can we say that the ballot was filled out by two or more persons?
A. When the ballot shows distinct and marked dissimilarities in the writing of the names of
some candidates from the rest.
Q. What are it effects?
A. If the tampered entries were made after the ballot was cast, it is valid. If it bears the
fillings of two or more persons when cast, the ballot is deemed marked, thus, void., 2007],
Q. What is the presumption if there are such dissimilarities found on the ballot?
A. That such dissimilarities were made before the ballot was deposited in the ballot box.
Q. Are all dissimilarities indications of marked ballots?
A. No. It is very rare that two specimens of a person’s handwriting or signature are exactly
alike. Minor and insignificant variations in handwriting are even perceived as indicia of
genuineness rather than falsity.

REMEMBER AGAIN: In case of DOUBT on Marked Ballots, all doubts must be

resolved in a way to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the
ballot. And the EBs cannot supplant its own judgment what is CLEARLY written on the face
of the ballot. Go back to the general principle that The Ballot is Always Presumed Valid &
Technical Rules are liberally construed.

A GENTLE REMINDER:

OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE

Section 262. Other election offenses. - Violation of the provisions, or
pertinent portions, of the following sections of this Code shall
constitute election offenses: Sections xxx 211 xxx.