Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
- versus-
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO,
SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Promulgated:
and BENIGNO C. LAYESA, JR.,
Respondents.
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
CARPIO, J.:
This
is a petition for the writs of certiorari and prohibition to set aside the Resolution[1]
dated 10 February 2003 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division
and the Resolution dated 18 January 2005 of the COMELEC En Banc in an election protest case involving the office of the Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San
Pablo City.
Petitioner Ranilo A. Velasco (petitioner) and respondent Benigno C. Layesa, Jr.
(respondent) were two of the four candidates for Punong
Barangay of Sta. Ana, San Pablo City in the 15 July
2002 barangay elections. After the canvassing of
votes, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed
petitioner winner with 390 votes.
Petitioner’s nearest rival, respondent, received 375 votes.
Claiming
that some votes cast in his favor were erroneously excluded from the
canvassing, respondent filed an election protest in the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, San Pablo City (trial court). Respondent prayed for the revision of
26 ballots from four precincts.[2]
Petitioner
initially moved to dismiss the case but, in an Amended Answer, counterclaimed
for the revision of ballots cast in another precinct.[3]
The Ruling of the Trial
Court
In its Decision dated 23 August 2002,
the trial court declared the election results tied, with petitioner and
respondent each obtaining 390 votes. On the uncontested ballots, the trial
court found that petitioner and respondent received 389 and 375 votes,
respectively. After revision of the contested ballots, the trial court credited
15 more votes to respondent and one more vote to petitioner, thus leaving
petitioner and respondent with 390 votes each. The trial court ordered the
drawing of lots to break the tie and determine the winner.[4]
Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC,
contending that the trial court erred in crediting respondent with 15 more
votes. Petitioner’s appeal was raffled to the COMELEC’s
Second Division.
The Ruling of the COMELEC
Second Division
In its Resolution dated 10 February
2003, the COMELEC Second Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling, applying
in its appreciation of some ballots the “neighborhood rule.”
Petitioner and respondent both sought
reconsideration. In his motion, petitioner limited his objection to five
ballots, namely:
-
Exhibit “9” with the name “JR=LAYESA” written on the left uppermost
portion of the ballot, beside the seal of the Republic of the Philippines, with
the space for Punong Barangay
left unfilled;
-
Exhibits “7,” “8,” and “10” with respondent’s name written on the first
space for Barangay Kagawad,
leaving blank the space for Punong Barangay. Further, in Exhibit “10,” the word “JR.LAYESCharman” is also found on the top right portion of
the ballot, above the instructions to the voter.
-
Exhibit “13” with respondent’s name written above the instructions to
the voter with the space for Punong Barangay left unfilled.
Petitioner contended
that: (1) Exhibit “9” is a stray ballot because the name “JR=LAYESA” was
written by another person and, at any rate, such was written “too far away”
from the space provided for Punong Barangay for the “neighborhood rule” to apply; (2) Exhibit
“13” is also a stray ballot because respondent’s name was not written on the
space provided for Punong Barangay;
(3) Exhibits “7” and “8” were prepared
by only one person; and (4) Exhibit “10” is a marked ballot because
respondent’s name, or that which sounds like it, was written twice.
For his part, respondent contended
that the ballot admitted in evidence as Exhibit “A,” with the word “ANET”
(petitioner’s nickname) written above the space for Punong
Barangay, is a marked ballot. Further, respondent
claimed that the vote cast in the ballot marked Exhibit “4” should be credited
to him as his name is found in the second line for Kagawad.
The Ruling of the COMELEC En Banc
In its
Resolution[5]
dated 18 January 2005, the COMELEC En
Banc denied reconsideration of the Second Division’s ruling. Traversing the
matters petitioner raised in his motion, the COMELEC En Banc held that (1) the
Second Division properly credited respondent with the votes cast for him in
Exhibits “9” and “13” under the “neighborhood rule”; (2) Exhibits “7” and “8”
were not prepared by one person; and (3) Exhibit “10” is not a marked ballot.
On the contentions respondent raised in his motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc ruled that Exhibit “A” is not a marked ballot and that the vote for petitioner was properly credited in his favor under the “neighborhood rule.” The COMELEC En Banc further ruled that Exhibit “4” cannot be credited to respondent as intent to vote for respondent cannot be ascertained.[6]
Hence, this petition
Petitioner
has narrowed the scope of his appeal to three ballots – Exhibits “9,” “10,” and
“13.” Petitioner reiterates his contention below that the votes cast for
respondent in these ballots are stray and should not have been credited to
respondent under the “neighborhood rule.”[7]
The Issue
The issue is whether the COMELEC
correctly credited respondent with the votes cast in the three ballots in
question.
The Ruling
of the Court
The petition is partly meritorious. The vote cast for respondent in Exhibit “10” is valid while those in Exhibits “9” and “13” are stray.
On the Appreciation of Ballots
with Misplaced Votes
The votes contested in this appeal are all misplaced votes,
i.e., votes cast for a candidate for the wrong or, in this case, inexistent
office. In appreciating such votes, the COMELEC applied the “neighborhood
rule.” As used by the Court, this nomenclature, loosely based on a rule of the
same name devised by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET),[8]
refers to an exception[9]
to the rule on appreciation of misplaced votes under Section 211(19) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus
Election Code) which provides:
Any
vote in favor of a person who has not
filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself
shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole
ballot.[10]
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 211(19) is meant to avoid confusion in the minds of
the election officials as to the candidates actually voted for and to stave off
any scheming design to identify the vote of the elector, thus defeating the
secrecy of the ballot which is a cardinal feature of our election laws.[11]
Section 211(19) also enforces Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code which
provides that in preparing the ballot, each voter must “fill his ballot by
writing in the proper place for each office the name of the individual
candidate for whom he desires to vote.”[12]
Excepted from Section 211(19) are ballots with (1) a general
misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for the
successive offices appearing in the ballot;[13]
(2) a single[14]
or double[15]
misplacement of names where such names were preceded or followed by the title
of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the candidate’s name a
directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name
was intended;[16]
and (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a) off-center from the
designated space,[17]
(b) slightly underneath the line for the contested office,[18]
(c) immediately above the title for the contested office,[19]
or (d) in the space for an office immediately following that for which the
candidate presented himself.[20]
In these instances, the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the
candidates for the office for which they presented themselves because the
voters’ intention to so vote is clear from the face of the ballots.[21]
This is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be
appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters’ will.
The Foregoing Rule and
Exceptions
Applied to the Case
Exhibit “10”
In this ballot, the voter wrote respondent’s name
twice − on the upper
right side of the ballot above the instructions to the voter and on the first
line for Sangguniang Barangay
Kagawad, leaving blank the space for Punong Barangay. Both names are
followed by the word “Charman.”
The COMELEC correctly credited respondent with the vote cast
for him in this ballot following the exception to Section 211(19) of ballots
with a single misplaced name followed by the title of the contested office. The
voter’s repetition of respondent’s name
in the first line for Sangguniang Barangay
Kagawad followed by the word “Charman”
renders the vote valid. The voter’s intent to cast his vote for respondent as Punong Barangay or barangay chairman is obvious when he wrote the word “Charman” – which can only stand for “[Barangay]
Chairman” – after respondent’s name.
Exhibits “9” and “13”
As described, the voter in Exhibit “9”
wrote respondent’s name on the left uppermost portion of the ballot, beside
the seal of the Republic of the
The Court
holds that the votes for respondent in these ballots are stray and cannot be
counted in his favor.
Respondent’s
name is not found on or near any of the lines corresponding to the offices of Punong Barangay or Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad – the offices in contention in the
Nor do the
votes in question fall under any of the exceptions to Section 211(19)
enumerated above. Exhibits “9” and “13” are not similar or analogous to ballots
with a general misplacement of a series of names; a single or double
misplacement of names preceded or followed by the title of the contested office
or by a symbol indicating the correct office to which the vote was intended; or
a single misplacement of a name written off-center, under the correct line,
immediately above the name of the contested office, or in the space for an
office immediately following that for which the candidate presented
himself. Indeed, unlike these exceptions
where the voters’ mistake or confusion is evident from the face of the ballot,
Exhibits “9” and “13” present an unusual case of extremes – while respondent’s
name was written way off its proper place, the names of persons who were
presumably candidates for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad were properly
placed, without the slightest deviation, in the first of the seven lines for
that office.
This gives
only two possible impressions. First,
that the voters in these two ballots knew in fact where to write the
candidates’ names, in which case the votes for respondent written way off its
proper place become stray votes. Second, the voters’ manner of voting was a
devise to identify the ballots, which renders the ballots invalid. We adopt the more liberal view – that the
misplaced votes in Exhibits “9” and “13”
are stray votes under Section 211(19), thus, leaving the ballots valid.
Significantly,
the chances of voter confusion generated by the appearance of the ballot are
not as high in the
This Court is ever mindful of the
need, under our republican form of government, to give full expression to the
voters’ will as indicated in the ballots. This explains the numerous exceptions
we have carved out of Section 211(19). However, liberality in ballot appreciation ends
where subversion of the legislature’s will begins. Congress enacted Sections
195 and 211(19) precisely to guard against the extreme irregularity Exhibits
“9” and “13” present. Thus, we here draw the line between permissible
deviations from Sections 195 and 211(19) and flagrant disregard of an elementary rule in voting
under our present electoral system.
Accordingly, the votes in Exhibits
“9” and “13” are deducted from the total number of votes credited to
respondent, leaving a total of 388 votes in his favor. As petitioner’s total
number of votes remains unchanged at 390 votes, he is the duly elected Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana,
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET
ASIDE the Resolution dated
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. with Commissioners Ralph C. Lantion and Mehol K. Sadain, concurring.
[2] Nos. 384-A, 386-A, 387-A, and 387-A-1.
[3] No. 385-A.
[4] Rollo, p. 35. The trial court’s ruling pertinently reads :
The
report of the Revision Committee shows that Protestant garnered three hundred
seventy-five[ ] uncontested votes while protestee
obtained three hundred eighty-nine uncontested votes with a margin of fourteen
(14) votes in favor of the protestee Ranilo A. Velasco.
Since
the main issue at hand is the contested ballots claimed by the parties, the
computation shall be based on the numbers of the uncontested ballots after
revision. The petitioner Protestant Benigno C. Layesa, Jr. who
garnered three hundred seventy-five ballots will be credited with fifteen (15)
valid votes from the contested ballots counted after revision by the
Court. Therefore, protestant has a total
of three hundred ninety (390) votes.
On
the other hand protestee Ranilo
A. Velasco with three hundred eight-nine (389) uncontested ballots should be
credited with one (1) vote claimed from the stray ballot[s]. Hence, a total of three hundred ninety (390)
votes.
In view of all the foregoing[,]
judgment is hereby rendered declaring Protestant Benigno
C. Layesa, Jr. and Protestee
Ranilo A. Velasco tie [sic] for the position of Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San
Pablo City. Pursuant to Section 17, Rule
37 of the COMELEC Rules [of] Procedure to break the tie, the drawing of lots is
set on
[5] Penned by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier with Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and Commissioners Mehol K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Virgilio O. Garcillano, and Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr., concurring.
[6] Rollo, pp.
24-26. The Resolution of
Protestee-Appellant’s assertions and Our corresponding findings
are as follows:
(1) Exhibit “9” – “a) A closer
examination of this ballot will reveal that the writing “JR=LAYESA” written on
the left uppermost part of the ballot and already near the left portion of the
seal of the Republic of the
b) The Second Division was also in error when it
applied the neighborhood [rule] in
this ballot because the alleged vote “JR=LAYESA” on the left uppermost portion
of the ballot was written too far away from the space intended for the position
of Punong Barangay. [x
x x x] Considering that the word “JR=LAYESA” was written on a portion of the
ballot which is too far away from the space of Punong
Barangay, such alleged vote, if not held as written
by another person, should at least be considered as stray vote.”
Our
ruling: The Second Division has correctly applied the
neighborhood rule. As long as the space where the name should be written was
left blank and the name was written above or after said space, the neighborhood
and intent rule applies. The ground that
the name “JR=LAYESA” was written by a
person other than the voter has no merit.
Protestee-appellant raised this ground for the
first time in his motion for reconsideration.
It could not be allowed. He is
deemed estopped to raise it.
(2) Exhibit “13” – “[] It is very clear that the intention of the
voter was to vote only for one (1) candidate and he indeed voted only for one
(1) candidate, i.e., “Volter Estreleado”
for kagawad which he wrote on the first space or line
for the said position. Judging from the
handwriting of the voter, he or she appears to be educated and he never
intended to vote for the position of Punong Barangay. Hence, the
neighborhood or intent rule cannot be applied.”
Our
ruling: We agree with the Second
Division. The neighborhood rule applies.
(3) Exhibits “7 & 8” - “A glaring examination of these two (2)
ballots will convince an unbiased and unprejudiced mind that only one (1)
person prepared this ballot judging from the similarity of the handwriting of
the person who wrote the names in these ballots. No evidence had been presented by the appellee that these two (2) ballots were prepared by an
assistor, hence, the same should be invalidated for having been prepared by one
and the same person.”
Our
ruling: The Second Division is correct. A careful scrutiny of these two ballots would
reveal that two different persons prepared them contrary to protestee-appellant’s
claim that only one person prepared them.
There is a marked difference in the style of the handwritings.
(4) Exhibit “10” – “The
“markings” on this ballot are very clear and apparent. They were placed there to identify the voter
who prepared the ballot. Such markings
are demonstrated by the voter’s writing of the name or words “JR.LAYESCHARMAN” on the right uppermost part of the instructions for filling up
the ballot and repeating such entry, i.e., “JR-X
LAYESA-Charman”
on the first line or space for kagawad. Such unnecessary repetition of the name of
the appellee on the space NOT provided or intended
for the position of Punong barangay
were made with the clear intention of easily identifying the voter.”
Our ruling: It
is not considered as a marked ballot. To
reiterate, “In the absence of evidence to show that the purpose was to
identify the ballot, a single
repetition of the name of a candidate
does not invalidate the whole ballot”.
On
the other hand, protestant-appellee’s motion for
reconsideration, and our corresponding findings are as follows:
1)“The Second Division erred
when it failed to rule that Exhibit “A” is marked by writing “ANET” in extra
bold letters in uppermost portion of the ballot to identify the same.”
Our
ruling: Exhibit “A” could not be considered as marked
ballot considering that the name “ANET” was protestee-appellant’s
registered nickname. The neighborhood
rule likewise applies considering that the space for Punong
barangay was left blank, and “ANET” was written above
said space.
2) “When it ruled as stray vote
Exhibit “4” when the name Layesa is written in the
second line for Kagawad candidates despite the
evidence that voter is semi-illiterate as shown by the handwriting on the
ballot.
Our ruling: We agree with the Second Division. Besides, the neighborhood or intent rule is not applicable because the voter wrote “Layesa” on the second line for kagawad with a kagawad candidate’s name on the first line. If the voter’s intention were to vote for Layesa as barangay chairman, he would not have filled up the first line for kagawad. (Emphasis and capitalization in the original)
[7] Petitioner
also contends, for the first time, that respondent is estopped
from claiming the votes in Exhibits “9,” “10,” and “13” because in respondent’s
petition in the trial court, he only
prayed for the revision of ballots where his name was written “on [the space]
provided for the office of Kagawad or Barangay Councilman.” Not having raised this issue below,
petitioner is barred from raising it here. Further, by failing to object to the
appreciation of these exhibits in the trial court and in the COMELEC, the issue
of the propriety of such appreciation is deemed to have been raised in the
pleadings (Section 5, Rule 10 in relation to Section 4, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure).
[8] The HRET first laid down the
particulars of this rule in Nograles v. Dureza, HRET
Case No. 34, 16 June 1989, 1 HRET Reports 138. The Nograles and
subsequent related rulings were later codified in the HRET’s
“Rules and Rulings on Appreciation of
Ballots” (HRET Rules). Under the HRET Rules, the “neighborhood rule” provides:
A
vote shall be counted in favor of a claimant where his name is found:
a) On any of the lines for Governor,
Vice-Governor, Members of Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Board Member, Mayor, Vice-Mayor
and Members Sangguniang Panlungsod/City
Council provided that:
i. the line for
Representative is blank;
ii. no other name of a congressional candidate
was written on the ballot;
iii. the misplaced vote was not intended as an
identifying mark; and
iv.
there were no intervening votes between the line for Representative and the line on which the
claimant’s name could be found, except when the vote was written on the line
for Governor, in which case, this
requisite is no longer necessary.
b) On the line for President, provided that:
i. the line for
Representative is blank;
ii. no other name of a congressional candidate
was written on the
ballot;
iii. the misplaced vote was not intended as an
identifying mark; and
iv. the
lines for Vice-President, Senators
and Party-List are also blank.
c) On the line for Vice-President, provided
that:
i. the line for
Representative is blank;
ii. no other name of a congressional candidate was
written on the ballot;
iii.
the misplaced vote was not
intended as an identifying mark; and
iv. the lines for Senators and Party-List are
also blank.
d) On lines 1
and 2 for Senators, provided that:
i. the line for Representative is blank;
ii. no other
name of a congressional candidate was written on other
lines
for Senators in the same ballot; and
iii. the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
The HRET also adopted the “Intent Rule,” comprising of two parts (the “Evident Intent Rule” and “Correct Sequence Rule”), which provides:
A)
Evident Intent Rule
Claimed
ballots shall be admitted where the name of the party-claimant appeared on any
line other than that for Representative, and is preceded by the descriptive
title “Congressman” or “Representative,”
or the word “Congressman” or “Representative” was written on a space
immediately followed by the name of a claimant, or with an arrow pointing to
the space for Representative subject to the following conditions:
1) the line for Representative is blank, or has
an entry which is not a congressional
candidate but with an arrow pointing to the appropriate space where the vote
should be;
2) no other name of a
congressional candidate is written on the ballot; and
3)
the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
B) Correct Sequence Rule
1) A
misplaced name of a congressional candidate may be admitted provided it can be
discerned from the sequence of votes or entries that the voter intended to vote
for the congressional candidate named therein, provided that:
a) the line for Representative is blank or
need not be blank if
the voter was not so lettered;
b) no other name of a congressional candidate
was written on the ballot; and
c) the misplaced vote was not intended as an
identifying mark.
2) Where the name of the party claimant appears
below the line or space for Representative/Congressman and is followed by the
name of a gubernatorial candidate or the names of the gubernatorial and
vice-gubernatorial candidates, respectively, subject to the following
conditions:
a) the line for Representative is blank;
b) no other name of a congressional candidate
was written on the ballot;
c) the misplaced vote was not intended as an
identifying mark; and
d) in
case of misplaced names followed by a name of a gubernatorial candidate or by
names of a gubernatorial and a Vice-gubernatorial candidates, respectively, the
lines for Governor and Vice-Governor are also blank.
3) Where the name of the party claimant appears
on other lines, but
a) was preceded by the name of a candidate for
Party-List and followed by the name of a candidate for Governor; or
b) was followed by the name of a candidate for
Governor and a candidate for Vice-Governor provided that:
i. the line for
Representative is blank;
ii.
no other
name of a congressional candidate was written on the ballot; and
iii. the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
The Senate Electoral Tribunal’s Rules on Appreciation of Ballots has adopted the HRET’s “neighborhood rule.”
[9] See Abad
v. Co, G.R. No. 167438,
[10] A related rule pertaining to ballots with repeated names is found in Section 211(8) of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides: “When a name of a candidate appears in a space of the ballot for an office for which he is a candidate and in another space for which he is not a candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for the office for which he is a candidate and the vote for the office for which he is not a candidate shall be considered as stray, except when it is used as a means to identify the voter, in which case, the whole ballot shall be void. x x x”
[11] Amurao v. Calangi, 104 Phil. 347 (1958).
[12] The provision pertinently reads: “Manner of preparing the ballot.− The voter, upon receiving his folded ballot, shall forthwith proceed to one of the empty voting booths and shall there fill his ballot by writing in the proper place for each office the name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote. x x x ”
[13] E.g. Cordero v. Hon. Moscardon, 217 Phil. 392 (1984), where the voter wrote the name of a candidate for Punong Barangay of Gines Interior, Cabatuan, Iloilo on the first line for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad followed by the names of the candidates for that office.
[14] E.g. Farin v. Gonzales, 152 Phil. 598 (1973), where the voter wrote a word (which sounded like the name of a candidate for mayor of Iba, Zambales) on the first line for senators preceded with the word “miyor”; Caraecle v. Court of Appeals and Del Castillo, 94 Phil. 308 (1954), where the voter wrote the name of the candidate for mayor of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur on the fourth line for municipal councilors preceded by the word “mayor,” written in the third line; Coscolluela v. Gaston, 63 Phil. 41 (1936), where three voters wrote the name of a candidate for Governor of Negros Occidental on the space for councilor (two ballots) and provincial board member (one ballot) preceded by the words “gobernador,” “provincial coverno,” and “governador,” respectively.
[15] E.g. Sarmiento v. Quemado, No. L-18027, 29 June 1962, 5 SCRA 438, where the voter wrote the name of a candidate for Vice-Mayor of Laua-an, Antique in the first line for provincial board member preceded by the word “Visi”; Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 (1939), where the voter wrote the name of the candidates for mayor and vice-mayor of Paracule, Camarines Sur on the first and second slots for provincial board members preceded by the words “Prisidinte” and “Bise,” respectively.
[16] E.g. Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 (1939), where the voter, after writing the name of a candidate for mayor in the space for vice-mayor, placed after the name an arrow pointing to the space for mayor.
[17] E.g. Mandac v. Samonte, 54 Phil. 706 (1930), where the voter wrote the name of a candidate for governor of Ilocos Norte “above the line for governor, and nearer that for representative”; Coscolluela v. Gaston, 63 Phil. 41 (1936), where the voter wrote the full name of a candidate for Governor of Negros Occidental on the proper space with the surname slanting downwards and where three other voters wrote the same name “rather outside of the corresponding line.”
[18]
E.g. Sarmiento v. Quemado, No. L-18027,
[19] E.g. Villavert v. Fornier, 84 Phil. 756 (1949).
[20] E.g. Abad v. Co, G.R. No. 167438, 25 July 2006, 496 SCRA 505 and Ferrer v. Commission on Elections, 386 Phil. 431 (2000), where the voter wrote the names of the candidates for Punong Barangay in the first line for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad.
[21] These
exceptions approximate the instances covered by the HRET’s
“neighborhood rule” and “intent rule.”
[22] It cannot be determined from the
records whether these individuals were candidates for Sangguniang
Barangay Kagawad of Sta.
Ana,