This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Invoking Rosal v. COMELEC,[7] the trial court ruled that Co failed to sufficiently show that the integrity of the contested ballots had been preserved. It then cited the presumption that election returns are genuine, and that the data and information supplied by the board of election inspectors are true and correct.[8] The trial court said:A closer scrutiny of the premise made by the protestant will reveal that he is trying to prove the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots by introducing as evidence the marked difference of the results of the revision and of the results in the election returns. This premise is too presumptuous. The marked difference cannot be used to prove the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots because the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots is precisely what the protestant needs to prove to justify the marked difference in the results. Prudence dictates that the protestant should first explain where this huge discrepancy is coming from before using it as evidence. In other words, the misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots should be proven by other independent evidence. | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the general rule is, if what is being questioned is the correctness of the number of votes for each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence is the ballots themselves. However, this rule applies only if the ballots are available and their integrity has been preserved from the day of elections until revision. When the ballots are unavailable or cannot be produced, then recourse can be made to untampered and unaltered election returns or other election documents as evidence.[8] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Eriguel essentially raises the following two issues: (1) procedurally, whether the Special Second Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its authority when it automatically elevated Dumpit's appeal to the Commission en banc after only one commissioner was left to deal with the case; and (2) substantively, whether the COMELEC en banc's fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without first ascertaining the integrity thereof violated the doctrine enunciated in Rosal v. Commission on Elections. [15] | |||||
|
2010-02-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Peñano presented the testimonies/affidavits of his witnesses - poll watchers who served in Precincts/Clustered Precincts 87A,[5] 90A/90B,[6] 92A/92B[7] and 102A[8]. The witnesses-poll watchers invariably declared that there had been irregularities in the counting of votes, i.e., tallying was done hurriedly; votes actually for Peñano were counted in Varias' favor; ballots for Peñano were declared stray or marked; votes that were obviously written by two persons were still credited to Varias' total; the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of various precincts failed to record all the poll watchers' objections/questions on the tally. | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The most recent case involving interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division is the 2007 case of Rosal v. Commission on Elections.[14] In Rosal, the Court allowed the petition for certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders rendered by a COMELEC Division. It should be emphasized that the Rosal case is unusual because while the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division was pending before this Court, the main case which was meanwhile decided by the COMELEC En Banc was likewise elevated to this Court. Thus, we have a situation where the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC Division and the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc on the main case were consolidated. The issues raised in the petition for certiorari were also raised in the main case and therefore there was actually no need to resolve the petition assailing the interlocutory orders. | |||||