Counting and Appreciation of Ballots 100

COUNTING
OF VOTES
1 The EB shall publicly count on the polling place;
the votes cast and tally the results.
COUNTING OF 2 May re-arrange the physical set-up of the polling

place for counting and any other activity to
accomplish an orderly counting
VOTES TO BE 3 The ballot box and all election documents and
PUBLIC AND paraphernalia shall be within close view of the

watchers and the public
WITHOUT 4 EB shall not adjourn or postpone or delay the

count until it has been fully completed unless
INTERRUPTION ordered otherwise by the Commission

On account of eminent danger of widespread violence, terrorism, disorder or
similar causes of comparable magnitude, the Commission thru the EO may
authorize the EB to count the votes and accomplished ER and other forms
in any other place within a public building in the same city/municipality.
PRELIMINARIES TO THE COUNTING OF VOTES
1 Unlock the padlock, open the ballot box and

take out the ballots from the compartment for
valid ballots
FOR VOTES 2 Segregate the ballots cast for barangay
elections from those cast for the SK elections.
CAST IN THE
After completion of preliminary activities, SK
CLUSTERED 3
ballots shall be placed inside the ballot box ,
lock with one (1) padlock, then proceed to count
PRECINCT the ballots cast for the barangay elections.
After the ballots have been counted, EB shall

4
proceed to count the SK Ballots
Examine the ballots to determine whether there are:
1. Excess ballots – The EB without folding the ballots
5 or exposing their contents, shall count the number of
ballots in the compartment for valid ballots, and
compare the number of ballots inside the ballot box
with the number of voters who actually voted as
reflected in the EDCVL
FOR VOTES - all ballots shall be returned to the compartment for
CAST IN THE valid ballots if there are more ballots than there
are voters who actually voted. The poll clerk, without
seeing the ballots shall publicly draw out as many
CLUSTERED ballots as may to be equal to the excess and write
“Excess ballots” at the back of the ballot without
PRECINCT unfolding them.
- if ballots are found folded together before they

were deposited inside the ballot box, they shall be
considered excess ballots and placed in the
corresponding envelope
5 Examine the ballots to determine whether there are:
2. Ballots with detachable coupons

Coupon shall be removed and deposited in
FOR VOTES the compartment for spoiled ballots. The ballot shall be
included in the pile of valid ballots.
CAST IN THE 3. Ballots with the word “spoiled”

If a ballot with the word “spoiled” is found in
CLUSTERED the compartment for valid ballots, it shall be placed in

the compartment for spoiled ballots.
PRECINCT 4. Marked ballots

The EB shall unfold the ballots and
determine whether there are any marked ballots.
Excess, spoiled and marked ballots shall not be read during the counting
of votes. The envelope containing the excess and marked ballots shall be
signed and sealed by the EBs and deposit in the compartment for valid
ballots
Ballots deposited in the compartment for spoiled
BALLOTS ballots shall be presumed spoiled.
DEPOSITED IN If the EB should find that during the voting, any

valid ballot was erroneously deposited in the
THE compartment, the EB shall open said
compartment after the voting and before the
COMPARTMENT counting of votes for the sole purpose of
drawing out the ballot erroneously deposited.
FOR SPOILED
Such fact shall be recorded in Part C of the
BALLOTS Minutes.
EB shall unfold the ballots and form separate piles of one hundred
(100) ballots each. The Chairperson shall take the ballots of the
first pile one by one and read the names of the candidates voted
for.
In reading the ballots, the EBs shall assume such positions as to

provide the watchers and the public as may be conveniently
accommodated in the polling place, an unimpeded view of the
ballot being read by the Chairperson, of the ER and the tally board
MANNER OF simultaneously being accomplished by the Poll Clerk and Third
Member. The table shall be cleared of all unnecessary writing
COUNTING paraphernalia.
The Poll Clerk and the Third Member shall record each votes in the
OF VOTES ER and Tally Board. Each vote for a candidate shall be recorded in
a vertical line except every fifth vote for the same candidate which
shall be recorded in a diagonal line crossing the previous four
vertical lines.
The same procedure shall be followed with the succeeding piles of
ballots
EB shall record in words and figures, the total votes
obtained by each candidate both in ERs and in the tally
MANNER OF board.
COUNTING The counted ballots shall be placed in an envelope

provided for the purpose, which shall be sealed, signed
OF VOTES and deposited in the compartment for valid ballots.
The Tally Board as accomplished and certified by the EB

After all the ballots have shall not be changed or destroyed , instead, it shall be
been read deposited in the compartment for valid ballots
After completion of the counting of voted for the barangay
elections, the EB shall announce the result of the elections
of barangay officials in the precinct.
MANNER OF
Proceed to unlock the padlock, open the ballot box, take
COUNTING out the ballots for SK elections, placed the accomplished
Barangay ERs and Tally Board inside the ballot box, lock
OF VOTES the same, and proceed with the counting of votes for SK.
After all the ballots have

been read After the counting of votes, in no case shall the Electoral Boards
conduct a revision and recount of the ballots.
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 Nicknames 13. Marked Ballots
7. Rules on the Use Of Initials 14. Ballots Written By One
8. Rule on the Use of Prefixes 15. Written By Two or More Persons
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 wa ys P r e s u m e d V a 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

1. 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

1.MARQUEZ, Elena “Elen”
2.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”
1Juliano
v. CA, G.R. No. 27477, July 28, 1967
2Mañago 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”

1. 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)
1.JOCSON, Alberto
2.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)
1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES
2. 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”
1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”

2. 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)
1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids”

1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
2. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy”
3. 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)
1.ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”
2.ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids” (Incumbent)
1.ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
2.ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy” (Incumbent)
3.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
1. ARZAGA, Emilio
2. CECILIO, Aurelio
3. GLORIA, Ricardo
4. JULIANO, Teodoro`
5. LONTOC, Jose
6. MONTEZA, Pablo
RULE 6:
RULES ON THE USE OF NICKNAMES
RULE 6: RULES ON THE USE OF
NICKNAMES
Case
If It Is The1
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

NICKNAMES
IfCase
The Vote Is2The 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

NICKNAMES
If Case 3 Of A Candidate Is Composed Of Two Or More Words, And The Vote Written Is Any
The Nickname
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.

2 • in every ballot only one is given a prefix, the rest none
• 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”
1.DOJILLO, Nilo “Calong”

2.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”
1.DAGANI, Girlie “Paday”

2.JACOBA, Andrea “Nene”
3.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”

1. AMADOR, Leah “Bing”
2. CERCADO, Manuel “Manny”
3. GONZALES, Leo “Parts”
4. GUMBAN, Daisy “Meg”
5. MALLADA, Rose “Rose”
6. ROMULO, Adrian “Bords”
7. 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”
1.GO, Eduard “Ed”

2.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”
1.GO, Eduard “Ed”

2.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 Estomagulang v. 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
1. 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”
1. ANAD, Andrew “Gingging”

2.BANOY, Eleuterio “Primo”
3.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 JoseM. 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 nature5
6. Candidates surname is accompanied by different first names, nicknames, and appellations6
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
4Perfecto Galido v. Comelec, G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 1991
5Jesus Jimenez Sr. v. Margarito Lofranco, G.R. L-21124, November 8, 1963
6Paulino 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”
1. BRIONES, Lourdes “Lulu”

2. SALIDO, Daisy, “Nene”
3. 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”
1. 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
1. BAHARAH, Noralia
2.LAMAH, Haadi
3.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”
1. 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, 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

Counting and Appreciation of Ballots 100

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

Counting and Appreciation of Ballots 100

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COUNTING

COUNTING OF 2 May re-arrange the physical set-up of the polling

PUBLIC AND paraphernalia shall be within close view of the

WITHOUT 4 EB shall not adjourn or postpone or delay the

INTERRUPTION ordered otherwise by the Commission

1 Unlock the padlock, open the ballot box and

After the ballots have been counted, EB shall

PRECINCT unfolding them.

- if ballots are found folded together before they

5 Examine the ballots to determine whether there are:

2. Ballots with detachable coupons

CAST IN THE 3. Ballots with the word “spoiled”

CLUSTERED the compartment for valid ballots, it shall be placed in

PRECINCT 4. Marked ballots

DEPOSITED IN If the EB should find that during the voting, any

In reading the ballots, the EBs shall assume such positions as to

COUNTING The counted ballots shall be placed in an envelope

The Tally Board as accomplished and certified by the EB

After all the ballots have

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

Candidate for Kagawad

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay

Candidates for Kagawad

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay

1. CORDERO, Bethel “Neneng”

Candidate for Punong Barangay

Candidate for Kagawad

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

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2.LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)

Candidates for Kagawad

2.JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)

Candidates for Punong Barangay

2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia (Incumbent)

Candidates for Kagawad

2. 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

1.TENTATIVA, Benzen “Moi”

2.VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”

Candidates for Punong Barangay

1. ROMAN, Pablo “Pabs”

2. SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”

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