Velasco vs. COMELEC

A misplaced vote is stray under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code when the candidate's name is written far from the designated space for the contested office and is not accompanied by the title of the office or a directional symbol indicating the voter's intent.

Petitioner Ranilo A. Velasco and respondent Benigno C. Layesa, Jr. were rival candidates for Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San Pablo City in the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. After the canvassing, petitioner was proclaimed winner with 390 votes against respondent's 375 votes. Respondent filed an election protest in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Pablo City, seeking the revision of 26 ballots from four precincts.

Petitioner Ranilo A. Velasco and respondent Benigno C. Layesa, Jr. were among the four candidates for Punong Barangay of Sta. Ana, San Pablo City in the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. After canvassing, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner the winner with 390 votes, while respondent received 375 votes. Claiming that some votes in his favor were erroneously excluded, respondent filed an election protest in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Pablo City, praying for the revision of 26 ballots from four precincts. Petitioner moved to dismiss but later counterclaimed for the revision of ballots in another precinct.

In its Decision dated 23 August 2002, the trial court declared the election results tied, with both petitioner and respondent obtaining 390 votes each. On uncontested ballots, the trial court found petitioner and respondent with 389 and 375 votes, respectively. After revision of contested ballots, the trial court credited 15 more votes to respondent and one more to petitioner, resulting in a 390-390 tie. The trial court ordered the drawing of lots to break the tie.

Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC, contending that the trial court erred in crediting respondent with 15 more votes. In its Resolution dated 10 February 2003, the COMELEC Second Division affirmed the trial court's ruling, applying the "neighborhood rule" in appreciating some ballots. Both parties sought reconsideration. Petitioner limited his objection to five ballots, arguing that some were stray because respondent's name was written too far from the space for Punong Barangay, while others were marked ballots. Respondent, for his part, contended that one ballot was marked and that another vote should be credited to him.

In its Resolution dated 18 January 2005, the COMELEC En Banc denied reconsideration, holding that the Second Division properly credited respondent with votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" under the "neighborhood rule," that Exhibits "7" and "8" were not prepared by one person, and that Exhibit "10" was not a marked ballot. The COMELEC En Banc also ruled that Exhibit "A" was not a marked ballot and that Exhibit "4" could not be credited to respondent. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, narrowing the scope to three ballots—Exhibits "9," "10," and "13."

• Stray Ballots: Petitioner contended that Exhibit "9" is a stray ballot because the name "JR=LAYESA" was written by another person and was placed too far away from the space for Punong Barangay for the "neighborhood rule" to apply, and that Exhibit "13" is also stray because respondent's name was not written in the space for Punong Barangay.
• Marked Ballot: Petitioner argued that Exhibit "10" is a marked ballot because respondent's name was written twice, which could identify the voter.
• Estoppel: Petitioner contended that respondent is estopped from claiming the votes in Exhibits "9," "10," and "13" because respondent only prayed for the revision of ballots where his name was written on the space for Kagawad or Barangay Councilman.

• Marked Ballot: Respondent contended that Exhibit "A," with the word "ANET" (petitioner's nickname) written above the space for Punong Barangay, is a marked ballot.
• Credit of Vote: Respondent claimed that the vote cast in Exhibit "4" should be credited to him as his name is found in the second line for Kagawad.

• Appreciation of Misplaced Votes: Whether the COMELEC correctly credited respondent with the votes cast in Exhibits "9," "10," and "13" under the "neighborhood rule."
• Marked Ballot: Whether Exhibit "10" is a marked ballot due to the repetition of respondent's name.

• Appreciation of Misplaced Votes: No, in part. The votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code because respondent's name was written far from the designated space and did not fall under any exception. The vote in Exhibit "10" is valid because it was followed by the title of the contested office.
• Marked Ballot: No. Exhibit "10" is not a marked ballot because a single repetition of a candidate's name does not invalidate the whole ballot absent evidence of intent to identify the voter.

• Appreciation of Misplaced Votes: Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code treats votes cast for an office for which the candidate did not present himself as stray. While there are exceptions where misplaced votes are credited due to evident voter intent—such as when the name is preceded or followed by the title of the contested office, or when there is a general misplacement of a series of names—Exhibits "9" and "13" do not fall under any exception. In these ballots, respondent's name was written far from the lines for Punong Barangay or Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad, specifically beside the seal of the Republic of the Philippines and above the instructions to the voter. The voters, however, properly placed the names of candidates for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad in the correct lines, negating any presumption of confusion. In contrast, the vote in Exhibit "10" was valid because the voter wrote respondent's name in the first line for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad followed by the word "Charman," which clearly indicates the intent to vote for respondent as barangay chairman.
• Marked Ballot: The Court applied the rule that a single repetition of a candidate's name does not invalidate the ballot absent evidence that the repetition was intended to identify the voter. In Exhibit "10," the repetition was accompanied by the word "Charman," which clarified the voter's intent to vote for respondent as Punong Barangay rather than serving as an identifying mark.

• Neighborhood Rule — An exception to Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code, loosely based on a rule devised by the HRET, which allows misplaced votes to be credited to a candidate when the voter's intent is clear from the face of the ballot, such as when the name is written off-center, slightly underneath the line, immediately above the title for the contested office, or in the space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate presented himself. The Court applied this rule to uphold the vote in Exhibit "10" but excluded the votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" because the names were written too far from the designated spaces and did not fall under any recognized exception.
• Liberality in Ballot Appreciation — The settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters' will. However, liberality ends where subversion of the legislature's will begins, as when the misplaced vote constitutes a flagrant disregard of elementary voting rules.
• Stray Votes — Under Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code, a vote cast for a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself is considered stray and does not invalidate the whole ballot. The Court held that votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray because respondent's name was written in areas not corresponding to any office.

• "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." — This passage articulates the boundary between liberal appreciation of ballots and strict enforcement of election rules, defining the ratio decidendi for excluding votes that are egregiously misplaced.
• "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." — This explains why the vote in Exhibit "10" was credited, illustrating the application of the exception for a misplaced name followed by the title of the contested office.

• Nograles vs. Dureza, HRET Case No. 34, 16 June 1989, 1 HRET Reports 138 — Origin of the "neighborhood rule" as applied by the HRET, which the Court adopted as a framework for appreciating misplaced votes.
• Abad vs. Co, G.R. No. 167438, 25 July 2006, 496 SCRA 505 — Cited as an example of an exception to Section 211(19) where the voter wrote the names of candidates for Punong Barangay in the first line for Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad.
• Ferrer vs. Commission on Elections, 386 Phil. 431 (2000) — Cited alongside Abad vs. Co as precedent for the exception to the stray vote rule.
• Amurao vs. Calangi, 104 Phil. 347 (1958) — Cited to explain the purpose of Section 211(19) in avoiding confusion and protecting ballot secrecy.

• Section 211(19), Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Provides that 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 shall not invalidate the whole ballot. The Court applied this provision to classify the votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" as stray.
• Section 195, Omnibus Election Code — Provides that 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. The Court cited this to emphasize the legislative intent behind the rule on stray votes.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.