Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts:
Petitioner Dumayas and respondent Bernal were rival candidates for the position in
Mayor of Carles, Iloilo in the May 1998 synchronized elections. During the
canvassing by the MBC, petitioner sought the exclusion of election returns for 3
precincts of Barangay Pantalan owing to alleged acts of terrorism, intimidation and
coercion committed in said precincts during the casting and counting of votes. The
MBC denied petitioners objections and proceeded with the canvass which showed
respondent Bernal garnering more votes than the petitioner.
Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC Second Division which excluded election
returns from 3 precincts and directed the MBC to reconvene and finish the canvass
of the remaining or uncontested returns and then, to proclaim the winning
mayoralty candidate. Private respondent Bernal moved for reconsideration of the
decision of the Second Division with the COMELEC en banc.
The MBC proclaim petitioner winner of the election. Private respondent Bernal filed
an urgent motion to declare void petitioners proclamation. The duly proclaimed
Vice-Mayor Betita, and private respondent Bernal filed n action for quo warranto
against petitioner before the RTC of Iloilo. Petitioner filed with COMELEC en banc a
motion to cancel Bernals motion for reconsideration and motion declare void
petitioners proclamation on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed
to have abandoned said motion when he filed quo warranto action.
The COMELEC en banc reversed the decision of the Second Division, annulled the
petitioner Dumayas proclamation; and constituted a new MBC. Respondent Bernal
was proclaimed by the newly-constituted MBC as the duly-elected Mayor of the
Municipality.
Petitioner Dumayas asked the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC en banc
resolution.
Issue: Whether the COMELEC was correct in including in the canvass the election
returns of the contested precincts?
Held: YES. The only evidence presented by the petitioner to prove the alleged
irregularities were the self-serving contracts of his watchers and inspectors. Returns
cannot be excluded on mere allegations that the returns are manufactured or
fictitious when the returns on their face appear to be regular and without any
physical signs of tampering. The election irregularities cited by the petitioner would
require the presentation of evidence which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation
controversy which is summary in nature.
Divinaracia vs COMELEC
Facts:
On May 15, 2007, the Court, by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, introduced the Rules of
Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts involving Elective Municipal
and Barangay Officials, which superseded Rules 35 and 36 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure governing elections protests and quo warranto cases
before the trial courts.[18] Not only was the amount of
the filing fee increased from P300 to P3,000 for each interest;[19] the amount
of filing fee was determined by the Court, not by the Comelec, which was, to
recall, the cause of confusion in Loyola, Miranda and Soller.
the imposition of an appeal fee under Section 9 of Rule 14 thereof, separate
and distinct from, but payable within the same period as, the appeal fee
imposed by the Comelec under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure, as amended by Comelec Resolution No. 02-
0130. Contrary to respondents contention, the Comelec-prescribed
appeal fee was not superseded by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
On the Comelecs application of the doctrine of estoppel by laches, records
show that petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for his and private
respondents non-payment of the appeal fee only after the Comelec
appreciated the contested ballots and ruled in favor of respondent, an issue
which could have been raised with reasonable diligence at the earliest
opportunity. The Court finds the Comelec resolution well-taken.
The doctrine of estoppel by laches is not new in election cases. It has been
applied in at least two cases involving the payment of filing fees
To allow petitioner to espouse his stale defense at such late stage of the
proceedings would run afoul of the basic tenets of fairness. It is of no moment
that petitioner raised the matter in a motion for reconsideration in the same
appellate proceedings in the Comelec, and not before a higher court. It bears
noting that unlike appellate proceedings before the Comelec, a motion for
reconsideration of a trial courts decision in an election protest is a prohibited
pleading,[27] which explains why stale claims of non-payment of filing
fees have always been raised belatedly before the appellate tribunal.In
appellate proceedings before the Comelec, the stage to belatedly raise
a stale claim of non-payment of appeal fees to subvert an adverse
decision is a motion for reconsideration. The Commission thus did not gravely
abuse its discretion when it did not countenance the glaring inequity
presented by such situation.
Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal cases where,
upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole case is thrown
open for review and the appellate court can resolve issues which are not even
set forth in the pleadings. [28] Petitioner having set his eyes only on the issue
of appeal fees, the present petition must be resolved, as it is hereby resolved,
on the basis of such singular ground which, as heretofore discussed, failed to
convince the Court.
En passant, appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents
involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the Comelec, a
specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the
country. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional
infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and
decisions rendered by the Comelec on matters falling within its competence
shall not be interfered with by this Court.
the Comelec declared as marked those ballots containing the words Ruby,
Ruby Lizardo and its variants after finding a discernible pattern in the way
these words were written on the ballots, leading to the conclusion that they
were used to identify the voter. The Comelec found material the following
evidence aliunde: the name Ruby Lizardo referred to a community leader and
political supporter of petitioner; said name and its variants were written on
several ballots in different precints; and the fact that Ruby Lizardo acted as
an assistor in the elections cannot hold water since an assistor cannot assist
in the preparation of the ballots for more than three times. [30] The Comelec
did not invalidate the other ballots for absence of evidence aliunde to prove
that the markings therein were used for the purpose of identifying the
voter. It ruled that circles, crosses and lines (e.g., X marks) placed on spaces
on which the voter has not voted are considered signs to indicate his
desistance from voting and should not invalidate the ballot.
Santos vs Comelec
Facts:
The decision of the trial court in Election Protest No. 1-M(2001) was rendered
on April 2, 2002, or after almost one year of trial and revision of the
questioned ballots. It found petitioner as the candidate with the plurality of
votes. Respondent appealed the said decision to the COMELEC.
o In the meantime, the three-year term of the Office of the Mayor
continued to run.
The will of the electorate, as determined by the trial court in the election
protest, had to be respected and given meaning.
The Municipality of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental, needed the services of a
mayor even while the election protest was pending, and it had to be the
candidate judicially determined to have been chosen by the people.
Between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won
the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to
proclaim, it is the courts decision that should prevail.
Thus, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due
course, instead of dismissing outright, the petition in SPR No. 37-2002 despite
the clear showing that respondent was guilty of forum-shopping; and in
setting aside the trial courts order granting execution pending appeal.
Navarosa vs COMELEC
Facts:
Comelec vs Tagle
Facts:
Ong vs Martinez
Facts:
Defendant was found in violation of section 416 of the Election Law and
sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of P50
it is sufficient to say that the record shows that both Jose E. Desiderio, a
representative of the Department of the Interior, and Major Agdamag of the
Philippine Constabulary, who had been designated to supervise the elections
in the Province of Capiz, testified positively that the defendant was within the
fence surrounding the polling place when Desiderio took possession of the
revolver the defendant was carrying.
This also disposes of that part of the argument under the second assignment
of error based on the theory that the defendant was in a public road, where
he had a right to be, when he was arrested
he latter part of the argument under the second assignment of error is that if
it be conceded that the defendant went inside of the fence, he is
nevertheless not guilty of a violation of the Election Law, because he was
called by a friend and merely approached him to find out what he wanted and
had no interest in the election; that there were many people in the public
road in front of the polling place, and the defendant could not leave his
revolver in his automobile, which he himself was driving, without running the
risk of losing it and thereby incurring in a violation of the law.
The Solicitor-General argues that since the Government does not especially
construct buildings for electoral precincts but merely utilizes whatever
building there may be available, and all election precincts are within fifty
meters from some road, a literal application of the law would be absurd,
because members of the police force or Constabulary in pursuit of a criminal
would be included in that prohibition and could not use the road in question if
they were carrying firearms;
Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guilty
Held YES
The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent
with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded that the
defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in any
other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried his revolver
inside of the fence surrounding the polling place, he committed the act
complained of, and he committed it willfully.
The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete.
o The intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with
the election is not made an essential element of the offense.
o Unless such an offender actually makes use of his revolver, it would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he intended to
intimidate the voters.
Lozano vs COMELEC
Facts:
No clear and convincing proof exists to show that respondent Binay was
indeed engaged in vote buying. The traditional gift-giving of the Municipality
of Makati during the Christmas season is not refuted. That it was
implemented by respondent Binay as OIC Mayor of Makati at that time does
not sufficiently establish that respondent was trying to influence and induce
his constituents to vote for him. This would be stretching the interpretation of
the law too far.
There has to be concrete and direct evidence or, at least, strong
circumstantial evidence to support the charge that respondent was indeed
engaged in vote-buying. We are convinced that the evidence presented, as
swell as the facts obtaining in the case at bar, do not warrant such finding.
Regalado vs COMELEC
Facts:
First. The two elements of the offense prescribed under 261(h) of the
Omnibus Election Code, as amended, are:
o (1) a public officer or employee is transferred or detailed within the
election period as fixed by the COMELEC, and
o (2) the transfer or detail was effected without prior approval of the
COMELEC in accordance with its implementing rules and regulations
a transfer under 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 in fact includes personnel movement
from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency.
Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of
any officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers,
within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission.
As the Solicitor General notes, "the word transfer or detail, as used [above], is
modified by the word whatever. This indicates that any movement of
personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the same office or
agency, during the election is covered by the prohibition."
Second. Petitioner next contends that his order to transfer Barba to
Barangay Sto. Nio was prompted by the lack of health service personnel
therein and that this, in effect, constitutes sufficient justification for his non-
compliance with 261(h)
o It may well be that Barangay Sto. Nio in January 1988 was in need of
health service personnel. Nonetheless, this fact will not excuse the
failure of petitioner to obtain prior approval from the COMELEC for the
movement of personnel in his office.
Indeed, appointing authorities can transfer or detail personnel as the
exigencies of public service require.[19]
However, during election period, as such personnel movement could be used
for electioneering or even to harass subordinates who are of different political
persuasion, 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, prohibits the
same unless approved by the COMELEC.
Lluz vs Comelec
Facts: