Appreciation of Ballots 100 2

RULES ON BALLOT
APPRECIATION
What We Need To Know
SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION
A. Governing Principles on Ballot Appreciation
B. Specific Rules on Appreciation of Votes

(Section 211, OEC)
A. Governing Principles On Ballot Appreciation
1. Will of Voter is Paramount

2. Ballot is Always Presumed Valid
3. Technical Rules are Liberally Construed, and
4. Counting is Public and Uninterrupted
B. Specific Rules on Appreciation of Votes
1.The Intent Rule 9. Rule involving Appellations of

2.Equity of the Incumbent Rule Affection or Friendship
3.Rule on Primacy of Surnames 10. Special Cases
4.Rules on Married Women 11. Rule on Misplaced Votes
5.Idem Sonans Rule 12. Rule on Disqualified Candidates
6.Rules on the Use Of 13. Marked Ballots
Nicknames 14. Ballots Written By One
7.Rules on the Use Of Initials 15. Written By Two or More Persons
8.Rule on the Use of Prefixes 16. Miscellaneous Cases
What is Ballot Appreciation?
It is the act of ascertaining the real intent

of the voter to whom he is casting his
vote for, on the basis of what is shown on
the face of the ballot.
Governing principles on ballot appreciation
1. The Will of the Voter is Paramount
The Will of the Voter is Paramount
a. Elections are all about people’s sovereignty
b. Cardinal objective is to give effect to the

choice of voter
c. Results are not subject to the discretion of

candidates
2. The Ballot is Always presumed valid
T h e B a l l o t i s A l w a y s P r e s u m e d Va l i d
a. All doubts shall be resolved in favor of validity

b. No ballot shall be rejected unless for a clear and
sufficient reason
c. Innocent voters should not be prejudiced by
indiscretions of poll workers
3. Technical Rules are liberally construed
Rules are Liberally Construed
a. Technical rules should not frustrate the

determination of the popular will
b. Far better to err in favor of popular

sovereignty
4. Counting is public and uninterrupted
Counting Is Public and Uninterrupted
a. Electoral Boards are to count and appreciate the votes

in public without interruption
b. They enjoy the presumption of regularity, and no one

can overturn their collegial determination at the
polling place
c. Their decisions, however, are not binding upon the

court in case protests are filed
SPECIFIC RULES ON APPRECIATION of votes
RULE 1:
INTENT RULE
RULE 1: INTENT RULE
Case 1
If It Is The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate, It Shall
Be Appreciated In His Favor. (Par. 1, Section 211)
Candidate for Punong Barangay

1. ALFARO, Renato “Nato”

Candidate for Kagawad
2. HANAY, Alvin “Ben”
Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139489, April 10, 2000

Geukeko v. Pascua, G.R. No. 26243, March 31, 1927
RULE 1: INTENT RULE
Case 2
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)
Candidates for Punong Barangay

1. CRUZ, Teodoro “Ted”
2. CRUZ, Uldarico “Toto”

Candidates for Kagawad
3. MARQUEZ, Elena “Elen”
4. RAMOS, Elena “Inday Lena”
Gonzaga v. Seno, G.R. No. L-20522, April 23, 1963

RULE 1: INTENT RULE
Case 3
If A Candidate’s Name Is Erased And Another Clearly Written, Vote Is
Valid for The Latter.1 (Par. 9, Sec. 211) So are superimpositions.2

1. CORDERO, Bethel “Neneng”
2. TIU, Arlene “Inday Dako”
1
Juliano v. CA, G.R. No. 27477, July 28, 1967
2
Mañago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167224, September 21, 2007
RULE 1: INTENT RULE
Case 4
Markings Or Words Of Desistance From Voting Found On
Blank Spaces Do Not Invalidate The Ballot. (Par. 21, Section 211)

1. VILLA, Erlinda “Linda”

2. CERCADO, Eugene “Gene”
Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, July 25, 2006

RULE 2:
EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT RULE
RULE 2: EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT RULE
Case 1
If There Is Another Candidate With The Same First Name And Surname, But
The Other Candidate Is An Incumbent, The Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of
The Incumbent. (2nd Sentence, Par. 2, Section 211)

1. ENRIQUEZ, Joy
2. LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)


3. JOCSON, Alberto
4. JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)

Case 2
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, Section211)
1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha
2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia (Incumbent)
3. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES
4. ARANAS, Rodolfo (Incumbent)
3. DIAZ, Arnulfo (Incumbent)

Case 3
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).

1. GUMBAN, Ismael
2. MAGNO, Paul (incumbent who

served for at least a year)
Katigbak v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 24477, February 28,

1967; Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, July 25, 2006
RULE 3:
PRIMACY OF SURNAMES
RULE 3: PRIMACY OF SURNAMES RULE
Case 1
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)

1. TENTATIVA, Benzen “Moi”
2. VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”

Case 2
If It Is The First Name Of One Candidate And Surname Of Another, The Vote
Shall Be In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 5, Sec. 211)

1. ROMAN, Pablo “Pabs”
2. SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”
Calo v. CA, G.R. No. L-21256, September 30, 1963

Case 3 (Exception)
If What Is Written Is The First Name Of One Candidate Coupled With The Surname Of
Another Candidate, Vote Is Considered Stray (Par. 6, Sec. 211)

1. CORPUZ, Esteban M.
2. IBAY, Isidro B.
Corpuz v. Ibay, G.R. No. L-2305, July 8, 1949

RULE 4:
RULES ON MARRIED WOMEN
RULE 4: RULES ON MARRIED WOMEN
Case 1
No Other Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Shall Be Appreciated In Favor Of That
Candidate (Par. 1, Sec. 211)

1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”


2. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
3. MARTEL-PORRAS, MAE “Mae”
Conui-Omega v. Samson, G.R. No. L-21910, November 11, 1963

Yniguez-Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991
Case 2
If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman Candidate And
There Is Another Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Is
Considered Stray. (3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Sec. 211)

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids”

4. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy”
5. DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy”
Case 3
Another Candidate With Such Surname And One Of Them Is An Incumbent, Vote
Counted In Favor Of Incumbent. (Par. 3, Sec. 211)

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids” (Incumbent)


4. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy” (Incumbent)
5. DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy” (Incumbent)

RULE 5:
IDEM SONANS RULE
RULE 5: IDEM SONANS RULE
Case 1
If It Is Incorrectly Written But When Read Has A Sound Similar To The Name
Or Surname Of A Candidate, Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of
That Candidate (Par. 7, Sec. 211)

1. PERFECTO, Querubin


2. ARZAGA, Emilio
3. CECILIO, Aurelio
4. GLORIA, Ricardo
5. JULIANO, Teodoro`
6. LONTOC, Jose
7. MONTEZA, Pablo
RULE 6:
RULES ON THE USE OF NICKNAMES
RULE 6: RULES ON THE USE OF NICKNAMES
Case 1
If It Is The Nickname Of A Candidate And It Is One By Which He Is Generally And Popularly
Known In The Locality, It Shall Be Counted In His Favor If There Is No Other Candidate For The
Same Office With The Same Nickname (2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211)

1. FERRER, Danilo “Danny”
Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No.139489, April 10, 2000

Case 2
If The Vote Is The Registered Nickname Of A Candidate And At The Same Time One Of The Words
Of The Registered Nickname Of Another 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

1. NG, Rudy “Toto Rudy”
2. REYES, Omar “Toto”
Olivia Coo v. Comelec, G.R.No. 163187, May 6,

2004
Case 3
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)

1. LEE, May “Inday May”
RULE 7:
RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
RULE 7: RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
Case 1
If Erroneous Initial Of The First Name, Surname Or Middle Initial Accompanies The
Correct Surname Or First Name Of A Candidate, The Vote Is Valid (Par. 10, Sec. 211)

1. RODRIGUEZ, Teodoro
Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R.No.L-37106, June 30, 1975

RULE 7: RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
Case 2
If It Contains Initials Only, Vote Considered As Stray Vote (Par. 14, Sec. 211)

1. GUPIT, Mark M. “Macmac”
Villarosa v. HRET, G.R. No. 144129, September 14, 2000

RULE 8:
RULE ON THE USE OF PREFIXES
RULE 8: RULE ON THE USE OF PREFIXES
Case 1
If A Prefix Accompanies The First Name and/or Surname Of A Candidate Vote
Is Valid. (Par.12, Sec. 211)

1. CASTRO, Leon “Boy”
Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R.No. 12083, July 31, 1957

RULE 8: RULES ON THE USE OF PREFIXES
Notes on Prefixes
The prefixes enumerated in paragraph 12, section 211 OEC (Sr.,

Mr., Datu, Don, Ginoo, Hon., Gob) are just examples and are not
1 exclusive. Thus, expressions which connote respect and
something equivalent to the Tagalog “ka” or the English “Mr.”
were considered legitimate.
Prefixes, however, may be utilized as identification marks.

• in every ballot only one is given a prefix, the rest none
2 • in several ballots, different prefixes were given one
candidate
RULE 9:
RULE INVOLVING APPELATIONS OF
AFFECTION OR FRIENDSHIP
RULE 9: RULE INVOLVING APPELATION OF AFFECTION OR
FRIENDSHIP
Case 1
If What Is Written Is The First Name Or Surname Of The Candidate With Nicknames Or Appellations
Of Affection And Friendship, Vote Is Valid Except When They Were Used As Means To Identify The
Voter, In Which Case The Whole Ballot Is Invalidated. (Par. 13, Sec. 211)

1. ANG, Jose “Joe”
Ong v. Comelec. G.R. No. 144197, December 13,

2000
RULE 10:
SPECIAL CASES
RULE 10: SPECIAL CASES
Case 1
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)

1. GO, Arnold “Bongbong”
2. GO, Esther “Ma’am Esther”
3. GO, Noel “Noel”
Case 2
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)

1. Alban, Romeo ”Roming”
Juliano v. Sinsuat, G.R. No. L-27477, July 28, 1967

Illescas v. CA, G.R. No. L-6853, December 29, 1953
Case 3
If The Number Of Names Written Exceed Those To Be Voted, Only Those Firstly Written
Within The Authorized Number Are Deemed Valid. (Par. 18, Sec. 211)

1. ABAD, Gil “Nonong”
2. CO, Nancy “Nans”
3. DOLLEDO, Hans “Boy”
4. ELLANGA, Aida “Nang Ayds”
5. MORENO, William “Bill”
6. SOTERO, Eden “Pangga”
7. TORRE, Jay “Jay”
8. VILLA, Ma. Teresita “Teray”
Cailles v. Gomez, G.R. No. 17617, December 9, 1921

Case 4
If It Is That Of A Non-candidate, The Vote Shall Be Considered A Stray Vote
(1st Phrase, Par. 19, Sec. 211)

1. AUSTRIA, Artemio “Toto”
2. SEMOY, Alicia “Gingging"
Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-37106, June 30,

1975
Monteza v.CA, G.R. No. L-26245, July 25, 1967
Case 5
If What Is Written Is The First Name Of A Candidate But With A Different Surname Or Correct
Surname But With A Different First Name, Vote Is Considered Stray. (Par. 15, Sec 211)

1. VILLAVERT, Alberto A.
Protacio v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-21135, November 8, 1963

Case 6
If A Name Of A Known Existing Person Who Is A Non-candidate Accompanies The First Name Or
Surname Of A Candidate, The Vote Is Considered In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 11, Sec. 211)

1. JIMENEZ, Ralph “Nonoy”
2. NADAL, Francisco “Boc”

Case 7
If What Is Named Are Two Or More Candidates for a Position for Which The Law
Allows The Election Of Only One, The Vote Is Considered Stray. (Par. 17, Sec. 211)

1. BEDIA, Myla “Maymay”
2. CALVO, Michael “Mike”

Cailles v. Gomez G.R. No. L-17617, December 9,

1921
Case 8
If It Is Illegible Or Cannot Sufficiently Identify The Candidate For
Whom It Is Intended, Stray Vote. (Par. 14, Sec. 211)

1. LAPUZ, John “Jon”


2. DOJILLO, Nilo “Calong”
3. VIDAL, Rodrigo “Jing”
Dojillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, July 25, 2006

RULE 11:
RULE ON MISPLACED VOTES
RULE 11: RULE ON MISPLACED VOTES
Case 1
If It Is That Of A Candidate For An Office For Which He Did Not Present Himself, The
Vote Shall Be Considered A Stray Vote. (2nd Phrase, Par.19, Sec. 211)

1. GABITO, Sergio “ Sarge”

2. DAGANI, Girlie “Paday”
3. JACOBA, Andrea “Nene”
4. PRADO, Marivic “Becbec”
Cordia v. Monforte, G.R. No.174620, March 4, 2009

Exceptions to the Rule on Misplaced Votes
1. Correct Sequence Rule
2. Evident Intent Rule
3. Neighborhood Rule
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON MISPLACED
BALLOTS:
1. CORRECT SEQUENCE RULE

RULE 11: MISPLACED VOTES (exception)
1. Correct Sequence Rule – Case 1
A General Misplacement Of An Entire Series Of Names Intended To Be Voted For
The Successive Offices Appearing On The Ballot
1. CASTILLO, Angie “Ging”

2. AMADOR, Leah “Bing”
3. CERCADO, Manuel “Manny”
4. GONZALES, Leo “Parts”
5. GUMBAN, Daisy “Meg”
6. MALLADA, Rose “Rose”
7. ROMULO, Adrian “Bords”
8. SABAN, Marie “Mar”
Cordero v. Moscardon, UDK-6066, September 30, 1984

BALLOTS:
2. EVIDENT INTENT RULE

2. Evident Intent Rule – Case 1
A Single Or Double Misplacement Of Names Where Such Names Were
Preceded Or Followed By The Title Of The Contested Office

1. LAO, Mary “May”


2. GO, Eduard “Ed”
3. TORRES, Irene “Princess”
Bautista v. Castro, G. R. No. 612260, February 17, 1992

2. Evident Intent Rule – Case 2
Where The Voter Wrote After The Candidate’s Name A Directional Symbol Indicating
The Correct Office For Which The Misplaced Name Was Intended

1. Ruiz, Juan “Jun”


2. GO, Eduard “Ed”
3. TORRES, Irene “Princess”
Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939

BALLOTS:
3. NEIGHBORHOOD RULE
3. Neighborhood Rule – Case 1
A Single Misplacement of a Name Written off-center from the designated space

1. LEDONIO, Marlon “Lonlon”
Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written Slightly Underneath the
Line for the Contested Office

PO, Mario “Mayok”

Villavert v. Fornier, G.R. No. L-3050, October 17, 1949

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written Immediately Above the Title
for the Contested Office

1. SINON, Betty “Bet”
Villavert v. Fornier, G.R. No. L-3050, October 17, 1949

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written in the Space for An Office
Immediately Following that for which the Candidate Presented Himself

1. BARON, Angel “Angie”
Batalla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184268, September 15, 2009

3. Neighborhood Rule – Cases 5 and 6
Ranilo A. Velasco v. Commission on Elections and Benigno C. Layesa, Jr., G.R. No. 166931, February 22,
2007
Marife Estomagulangv. Commission on Elections and Antonio Durango, G.R. No. 22801, July 11, 2017
RULE 12:
RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
RULE 12: RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
Case 1
If It Is The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate Disqualified By Final
Judgment, Considered As Stray Vote (Par. 24, Sec. 211)

1. FULLON, Ken “Bords” (Disqualified)
Ticzon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52451, March 31, 1981

RULE 12: RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
A Run Through
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
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS
What is a Marked Ballot?
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.
What are its Elements?

(a) The voter must have placed the mark; and
(b) The mark was placed deliberately for the purpose of identifying the voter or the ballot.
Note: Marks made by the voter unintentionally do not invalidate the ballot. Neither do
marks made by some person other than the voter.
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS
Kinds of Marked Ballots

Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)
1 -invalidation may immediately be done
Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)

2 - requires presentation of evidence aliunde to be invalidated
MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS MB-UM
Case 1
If the Ballot is Signed by the Voter, it is deemed a Marked Ballot

1. IRENEA, Grace


2. AVELINO, Carlo
Cailles v. Gomez, G.R. No. L-17617, December 9, 1921

Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R. No. L-12083, July 31, 1957
Case 2
If The Names Are Written In Extraordinarily Big Letters, The Ballot Is
Considered Marked

1. BARCE, Lito
Cundangan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174392, August 28, 2007

Case 3
If Names Are Written Twice In A Single Space, Such Are Deemed
Marked Ballots

1. CHAVEZ, Mark “Macoy”


2. ANAD, Andrew “Gingging”
3. BANOY, Eleuterio “Primo”
4. CALVAN, Mae “Maymay”
Inguito v. CA, G.R. No. L-26883, November 23, 1967

Monteza v. CA, G.R. No. L-26245, July 25, 1967
Case 4
If A Candidate’s Name Is Written More Than Twice On A Single Ballot,
The Ballot Is Considered Marked

1. NABAR, Porferio “Peryong”
Bautista v. Castro, G.R. No. 612260, February 17, 1992;

Katigbak v. Mendoza, G.R. L-24477, February 28, 1967
Case 5
Irrelevant Remarks, Impertinent Words, and/or Derogatory Expressions
Found on Ballots Render Such Ballots Invalid

1. LIM, Isidro “Sarge”
Moraleja v. Relova, G.R. No. L-30828, October 22, 1971;

Marcos v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, October 15, 2019
OTHER INSTANCES OF MARKED BALLOTS
(UM)
1. Names of candidates are written upside down1;
2. Presence of irrelevant expressions (e.g. ”Have a good time Mr. Pacito”,

“Forget Me Not”, “Tse na Lang”, “Jugador” (Gambler), My Vote is Heartily
Dedicated, etc.)2;
3. Names of candidates were written in ordinary writing except for one which
was written in big Gothic letters3;
1
Jose M. Lontoc v. Gregorio G. Pineda and Teodoro Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-37106, June 30, 1975
2
Jaime T. Torres v. HRET and Ninfa Garin, G.R No. 144491, February 6, 2001; Vicente Ferrer v. Josefin DeAlban, G.R. No. L-12083,
July 31, 1957; Sulpicio Gadon v. Pedro Gadon, G.R. No. 20015, November 30, 1963; Lloren v. CA, G.R. No. L-25907, January 25,
1967
3
Rafael B. Hilao v. Teodulo Bernados, G.R. No. L-7704, December 14, 1954
MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)
INSTANCES OF MARKED BALLOTS DUE TO PATTERN VOTING
1. Appearance of the same names on several ballots on precisely the same space, cast only in one
precinct1
2. Name of one candidate is clearly and markedly indented to the right as to render the ballot easily
distinguishable2
3. Fourteen (14) ballots are marked with the word "Joker”, six (6) with "Alas”, seven (7) with
"Queen”, and seven (7) ballots with the word "Kamatis, all in the number 7 space for Kagawad
4. Fifteen (15) ballots in the same precinct contain the letter "C" after the name "Galido” 4
5. In every ballot only one candidate is given a prefix, the rest none. In several ballots the prefixes
given to one and the same candidate are of different nature 5
6. Candidates surname is accompanied by different first names, nicknames, and appellations 6
1
Mariano B. Delgado v. Angel B. Tiu, et al., G.R. No. L-18027, June 29, 1962
2
Alejandro Sarmiento v. Serafin Quemado, G.R. No. L-18027, June 29, 1962
3
Felomino Villagracia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168296, January 31, 2007
4
Perfecto Galido v. Comelec, G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 1991
5
Jesus Jimenez Sr. v. Margarito Lofranco, G.R. L-21124, November 8, 1963
6
Paulino Tumakay v. Orbiso, G.R. No. L-8354, August 22, 1955
Some Instances Where Ballots are Deemed Valid and Not Marked
1. The names voted for are in very large block letters. The writing could well be the voter’s habitual
one, there being no evidence to show otherwise1;
2. Voters tend to follow the arrangement appearing in the sample ballots distributed by each
candidate. This, standing alone does not render the ballot marked2;
3. The writing of the name of the candidate twice in the space for Mayor would indicate only the
enthusiasm of the voter voting for the said candidate3; and
4. Having voters belonging to the same precinct writing the names of particular candidates in an
identical manner in a ballot is not necessarily invalid.4
1
Santiago A. Silverio v. Pedro Castro and Misael Clamor, G.R. No. L-23827, February 28, 1967
2
Jose Katigbak v. Ricardo Mendoza, G.R. No. L-24477, February 28, 1987.
3
Teodoro Juliano v. Court of Appeals and Datu Mando Sinsuat, G.R. No. L-27477, July 28, 1987
4
Jose Katigbak v. Ricardo Mendoza, supra.
RULE 14:
BALLOTS WRITTEN BY ONE
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.
Written by One
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.
Q. Is there a need for technical examination of ballots?
A. The rule is, the Commission or the Electoral Tribunal may or may not make
the determination without need of calling handwriting experts.
RULE 15:
WRITTEN BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS
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.
Written by Two or More Persons
Q. How do we resolve doubts?
A. When there is doubt as to whether the names were written by two persons, the
doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of the ballot.
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.
RULE 16:
MISCELANEOUS CASES
RULE 16: MISCELANEOUS CASES
Case 1
Use Of Any Type Of Writing Instrument Does Not Invalidate The
Ballot. (Par. 16, Sec. 211)

1. RUIZ, Leopoldo “Polding”


2. BRIONES, Lourdes “Lulu”
3. SALIDO, Daisy, “Nene”
4. SOLIS, Raul “Toto”

Manalo v. Sevilla, G.R. No. L-8515, March 29, 2013

Case 2
The Use Of A Mechanical Process Renders The Ballot Null And Void
(Par. 20, Section 211)

1. RODRIGUEZ, Tomas “Tom”

Case 3
Commas, Dots, Lines Or Hyphens, Traces Of The Letter “T”, “J” And Similar Ones, Unfinished Names,
Different Handwritings, Accidental Flourishes, Strokes, Or Strains Do Not Invalidate The Ballot Unless
Deliberately Done To Identify The Voter. (Par. 22, Section 211)

1. BORJA, Miguel “Miki”


2. JEREOS, Angel “Pards”
Tajanlangit v. Cazeñas, G.R. No. L-18894, June 30, 1962

Ong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000
Case 4
Ballots Written In Arabic, Where Such Is Of General Use,
Are Valid. (Par. 25, Section 211)

1. BAHADUR, Ahwaz
2. SHAZIL, Aalimah

3. BAHARAH, Noralia
4. LAMAH, Haadi
5. SAAHIR, Alyssa
Juliano v. Sinsuat, G.R. No. L-27477, July 28, 1967

Case 5
An Accidental Tearing Or Perforation Does Not Affect The Validity Of The
Ballots. (Par. 26, Section 211)

1. SY, Magdalena “Magdal”


2. ACSAY, Ben “Ben”

Case 6
The Failure To Remove The Detachable Coupon Does Not Annul Such
Ballot. (Par. 27, Section 211)

1. YAP, Joseph
Lucero v. De Guzman, G.R.No. L-20942, April 5, 1924; Pacris v.

Pagalilauan, G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-98-1403, August 14, 2000
IT’S AN ELECTION OFFENSE!
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 9, 18, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129,
132, 134, 135, 145, 148, 150, 152, 172, 173, 174, 178, 180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189,
190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209,
211
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234,
235, 236, 239 and 240.
“you can never make the same mistake twice because the second time
you make it, it’s not a mistake, it’s a choice.”

-anonymous

Appreciation of Ballots 100 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appreciation of Ballots 100 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULES ON BALLOT

A. Governing Principles on Ballot Appreciation

B. Specific Rules on Appreciation of Votes

1. Will of Voter is Paramount

1.The Intent Rule 9. Rule involving Appellations of

It is the act of ascertaining the real intent

a. Elections are all about people’s sovereignty

b. Cardinal objective is to give effect to the

c. Results are not subject to the discretion of

a. All doubts shall be resolved in favor of validity

a. Technical rules should not frustrate the

b. Far better to err in favor of popular

a. Electoral Boards are to count and appreciate the votes

b. They enjoy the presumption of regularity, and no one

c. Their decisions, however, are not binding upon the

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139489, April 10, 2000

Candidates for Punong Barangay​​

Gonzaga v. Seno, G.R. No. L-20522, April 23, 1963

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

2. LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)​

4. JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)​

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia (Incumbent)

Candidates for Kagawad

4. ARANAS, Rodolfo (Incumbent)

3. DIAZ, Arnulfo (Incumbent)

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

2. MAGNO, Paul (incumbent who

Katigbak v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 24477, February 28,

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

2. VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”​

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

2. SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”​

Calo v. CA, G.R. No. L-21256, September 30, 1963​

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

Corpuz v. Ibay, G.R. No. L-2305, July 8, 1949​

Conui-Omega v. Samson, G.R. No. L-21910, November 11, 1963

Candidates for Punong Barangay​

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids” (Incumbent)​

4. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy” (Incumbent)​

5. DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy” (Incumbent)​

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No.139489, April 10, 2000​

Candidates for Punong Barangay ​

2. REYES, Omar “Toto”​

Olivia Coo v. Comelec, G.R.No. 163187, May 6,

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R.No.L-37106, June 30, 1975​

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Villarosa v. HRET, G.R. No. 144129, September 14, 2000​

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R.No. 12083, July 31, 1957​

The prefixes enumerated in paragraph 12, section 211 OEC (Sr.,

Prefixes, however, may be utilized as identification marks.

Candidate for Punong Barangay​

Ong v. Comelec. G.R. No. 144197, December 13,

Candidates for Kagawad​

Candidate for Kagawad​

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Punong Barangay

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)

4. JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”

Calo v. CA, G.R. No. L-21256, September 30, 1963

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Corpuz v. Ibay, G.R. No. L-2305, July 8, 1949

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids” (Incumbent)

4. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy” (Incumbent)

5. DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy” (Incumbent)

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Ferrer v. Comelec, G.R. No.139489, April 10, 2000

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. REYES, Omar “Toto”

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Lontoc v. Pineda, G.R.No.L-37106, June 30, 1975

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Villarosa v. HRET, G.R. No. 144129, September 14, 2000

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Ferrer v. De Alban, G.R.No. 12083, July 31, 1957

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Kagawad

Candidate for Kagawad

Juliano v. Sinsuat, G.R. No. L-27477, July 28, 1967

Candidates for Kagawad

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Protacio v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-21135, November 8, 1963

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Punong Barangay

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

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Kagawad

Cordia v. Monforte, G.R. No.174620, March 4, 2009

Candidates for Kagawad

Cordero v. Moscardon, UDK-6066, September 30, 1984

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Bautista v. Castro, G. R. No. 612260, February 17, 1992

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written off-center from the designated space

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Moya v. Del Fiero, G.R. No. 46863, November 18, 1939

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Villavert v. Fornier, G.R. No. L-3050, October 17, 1949

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Villavert v. Fornier, G.R. No. L-3050, October 17, 1949

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Batalla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184268, September 15, 2009

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Ticzon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52451, March 31, 1981

Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)

If the Ballot is Signed by the Voter, it is deemed a Marked Ballot

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Cundangan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174392, August 28, 2007

Candidate for Kagawad

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Moraleja v. Relova, G.R. No. L-30828, October 22, 1971;

1. Names of candidates are written upside down1;

Q. When can there be multiple ballots “Written by One” person?

Q. Is there a need for technical examination of ballots?

Manalo v. Sevilla, G.R. No. L-8515, March 29, 2013

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Cailles v. Gomez, G.R. No. L-17617, December 9, 1921

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Kagawad