Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN P. ABELLA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191124 2010-04-27	LUIS A. ASISTIO v. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE NACHURA, J.
From these provisions, the residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the Philippines and at least six (6) months in the place where the person proposes or intends to vote. "Residence," as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally settled to mean "domicile," importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention[32] inferable from a person's acts, activities, and utterances.[33] "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence where, when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return.[34] In the consideration of circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a person must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) that a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.[35]
	GR No. 175320 2009-04-21	PEOPLE OF PHILPPINES v. ERNESTO PEÑA Y SARMIENTO CORONA, J.
The Court of Appeals (CA), on intermediate appellate review,[5] affirmed the RTC decision in toto.[6]
	GR NO. 163776 2007-04-24	REV. FR. NARDO B. CAYAT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
x x x x[15] On 16 April 2004, Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of 12 April 2004 before the COMELEC en banc. Cayat alleged that although the Resolution was promulgated on 12 April 2004, he was notified by telegram only on 13 April 2004. Hence, Cayat posits, he had until 16 April 2004 to move for reconsideration.
	GR No. 158466 2004-06-15	PABLO V. OCAMPO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent the second issue, we revert back to the settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner.[12] This principle has been reiterated in a number our decisions, such as Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC,[13] Abella vs. COMELEC,[14] Benito vs. COMELEC[15] and Domino vs. COMELEC.[16] As a matter of fact, even as early as 1912, it was held that the candidate who lost in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner in the event that the candidate who won is found to be ineligible for the office for which he was elected.[17]