This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Arguing that the aforesaid 19 ballots were not WBTP, Cundangan cites Section 211 (22)[11] of the Omnibus Election Code and Ong v. Commission on Elections,[12] in which we ruled that "the appearance of print and script writings in a single ballot does not necessarily imply that two persons wrote the ballot. The strokes of print and script handwriting would naturally differ but would not automatically mean that two persons prepared the same . . . . In the absence of any deliberate intention to put an identification mark, the ballots must not be rejected."[13] | |||||