This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, private respondent moved for the execution of the trial court's decision pending appeal, citing the following reasons: a) public interest; b) shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and, c) the length of time that the election contest had been pending. Sustaining the aforecited reasons, and the ruling in Ramas v. Commission on Elections,[6] the motion was granted by the trial court in its resolution dated September 26, 2005, thus: | |||||
|
2004-02-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| xxx "in an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes is involved, the best evidence and the most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves." There is no need to present evidence aliunde particularly in this case where the protestee's main arguments in filing his Motion are the alleged "multiple substitution" of ballots and "that the contents of the ballot box had been tampered with and compromised." These matters can be determined by the Commission itself by conducting an examination of the ballots. In Punzalan vs. Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is axiomatic that the COMELEC need not conduct an adversarial proceeding or a hearing to determine the authenticity of ballots or the handwriting found thereon, and neither does it need to solicit the help of handwriting experts in examining or comparing the handwriting.[8] The COMELEC First Division granted Bayron's motion for immediate execution of judgment applying Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which allows discretionary execution of judgment upon good reasons stated in the order. The COMELEC First Division found that the requirements for valid execution pending appeal as set forth in Ramas v. COMELEC[9] were complied with in the case, namely: (1) the will of the electorate is involved; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Ramas v. Commission on Elections,[24] the Court, after reviewing pertinent jurisprudence, summarized the circumstances qualifying as "good reasons" justifying execution pending appeal, thus:In a nutshell, the following constitute "good reasons," and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal: (1) the public interest involved or the will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. | |||||