Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Voting marks are markings placed beside the ovals that may
appear to show the intent of the voter to vote for a party, while
identifying marks are those intentionally placed to identify the
ballot or the voter. Ballots containing voting marks may be subject
to claims, while those with identifying marks to objections. “
• In Farin v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-36893, 28 September
1973, it was held that distinction should be made between
marks that were accidentally, carelessly or innocently made,
and those designedly placed thereon by the voter with a view
to possible identification of the ballot, which, therefore,
invalidates it. In the absence of any circumstance showing
that the intention of the voter to mark the ballot is
unmistakable, or of any evidence aliunde to show that
the words were deliberately written to identify the ballot,
the ballot should not be discarded.
II. Jurisprudence
• In Villagracia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168296, January 31,
2006, the invalidated ballots are marked with the words
“Joker” (145 ballots), “Alas” (6 ballots), “Queen” (7
Ballots), and “Kamatis” (7 ballots), all written in the
number 7 slot of the list of kagawad for Sangguniang
Barangay, and appearing only in ballots wherein the
Punong Barangay voted for was petitioner. Clearly, the
marks indicate no other intention than to identify the
ballots; indubitably, these marked ballots and were properly
invalidated.
• The presence of an arrow in the contested ballots with the
words “and party” was meant to identify the voter, and
such writings were not accidental. As a rule, a voter must
write on the ballot only the names of candidates voted for the
offices appearing thereon. Moreover, the court correctly
invalidated the ballot wherein the name of the candidate was
written seven times. The writing of a name more than twice
on the ballot is considered to be intentional and serves no
other purpose than to identify the ballot (Bautista v. Castro,
G.R. No. L-61260, 17 February 1992.)
• In the case of Gadon v. Gadon, 9 SCRA 652, the court held
that the following circumstances were considered in declaring
the ballots affected as marked and invalid: the unexplained
presence of the letters “O.P.” after the name of those
voted for councilors, quite prominent letters written with a
remarkably good hand; the word “Daldo” written on the
blank space opposite the word “councilors”, with no
reasonable explanation for its presence; an impertinent
unnecessary and identifying expression below the last
line for councilors, namely: “My vote is heartily
dedicated”; and, writing a big figure “O”, not the initial of
the candidate.
• However, the use of nicknames and appellations of
affection and friendship, if accompanied by the name of
the candidate, does not annul the ballot except when it is
used to identify the voter. Writing the prefixes “manoy”,
“mandoy”, and “pare enoy” before the names voted for various
positions, where the prefixes are explained to be colloquial
expressions in Visayan which connote respect, equivalent to
the Tagalog “ka” or the English “Mr.”, and; writing the prefix
“Dr.” before the name of candidates who are either a Doctor of
Medicine or a Doctor of Pharmacy.
• It was also upheld in the case of Ong v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
144197, 13 December 2000, wherein the words ANG TINGOG
NG BARANGAY and PARE KO, respectively, were written,
are valid. The phrases were mere appellations of affection and
friendship that do not invalidate the whole ballot.