This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On his part, private respondent Pacete asserts that petitioner cannot validly claim the votes cast for Aurelio in view of the rule provided in Section 211 (24) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which cannot be supplanted by Resolution No. 4116. He also cites an annotation on election law,[15] invoking this Court's ruling in Kare v. COMELEC[16] that the aforesaid provision when read together with Section 72, are understood to mean that "any vote cast in favor of a candidate, whose disqualification has already been declared final regardless of the ground therefor, shall be considered stray." | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 968 by Presidential Decree No. 1990[34] has made more explicit that probation only suspends the execution of the sentence under certain conditions set by the trial court, viz: Section 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. | |||||
|
2010-02-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Theoretically, the second placer could receive just one vote. In such a case, it would be absurd to proclaim the totally repudiated candidate as the voters' choice. x x x[12] | |||||