What are the instances

when ballots are

considered as
marked?
Report by: Arlene Marie Oñas
I. Brief Discussion
II. Jurisprudence
III. Illustration
IV. Conclusion
I. Brief Discussion
• Omnibus Election Code

“Sec. 208. Marked ballots. - The board of election inspectors shall

then unfold the ballots and determine whether there are any
marked ballots, and, if any be found, they shall be placed in an
envelope labelled "marked ballots" which shall be sealed and
signed by the members of the board of election inspectors and
placed in the compartment for valid ballots and shall not be
counted. A majority vote of the board of election inspectors shall
be sufficient to determine whether any ballot is marked or not.
Non-official ballots which the board of election inspectors
may find, except those which have been used as emergency
ballots, shall be considered as marked ballots.”
• Resolution No. 9164

“Rule 15 Section 6 (h) - Stray ballots refer to ballots with two or

more shades or without any shade in the contested position.
Marked ballots refer to those ballots containing marks
outside the ovals, which marks could either be identifying
marks or voting marks.

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.

• In the case of De Guzman v. Sison, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1629, 26

March 2001, 416 ballots with "X" marks or horizontal or
vertical lines placed over empty spaces after the name of
the last candidate written by the voter are not marked
ballots, as such markings merely indicate desistance of the
voter from voting and do not invalidate the ballots and in the
absence of any showing of an intention to mark the ballot.
In the case of Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, 15 October
1991, there are 170 ballots of Lerias with stickers which had
been rejected. The court held that as long as the stickers were
pasted on a blank space on the ballot, the ballot should be
invalidated under Omnibus Election Code. However, as to the
case at hand, the stickers appeared to have been hastily and
secretly stuck on other parts of the ballots (mostly
diagonally and without any uniform location), this was done
by persons other than the voters themselves, precisely to
invalidate the ballots. It is illogical for a voter to take the trouble
of writing down the names of his candidates, sometimes
laboriously, only to nullify the ballot (and all his votes) by pasting
a sticker on it.
III. Illustration
A ballot is considered marked in any of the following cases:

• The ballot contains irrelevant expressions such as the

existence of a smiley face or any symbol.

• The voter signed the ballot.

• The voter wrote the names of well-known public figures who

are not candidates such as actors, actresses, and national
political figures.
IV. Conclusion
It refers to a distinguishing mark, figure or character which
shows an intention on the part of the voter to distinguish
his particular form from others of its class, and not one that
is common and distinguishable from the other of a
designated class.

To constitute a mark, a distinguishing mark, it must be

placed on a ballot with deliberate intention that is to
identify the ballot after the vote has been made, unless a
statute enumerates certain marks as illegal or
distinguishing regardless of the question of intent.

Marked ballots are invalidated in their entirely, and none of

the votes therein are counted.