Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISIDRO IDULZA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 189078 2010-03-30	MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Indeed, the ballots in this instance are not the only mute witnesses of the result of the election. The testimony of Elvira as well as the fact that the ballot box was found in the proper place and in the custody of the proper custodian shows that the ballots retained their superior status as evidence as compared to the election return. Thus, the physical count of the ballots as made in the revision should be followed since the election return of this precinct does not reflect the choice of the voters in this precinct,[7] (emphasis provided)
	GR No. 186359 2010-03-05	JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC
The Court does not find merit in petitioner's argument. As stated at the outset, the appreciation of 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. The findings of fact of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and nonreviewable by courts of justice.[32] This principle is applied with greater force when the case concerns the COMELEC, because the framers of the Constitution intended to place the poll body--created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself--on a level higher than statutory administrative organs.[33]
	GR No. 176724 2008-10-06	MAYOR KENNEDY B. BASMALA v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
The COMELEC, in resolving the case, examined the records of the protest, the evidence submitted by the parties, and the pertinent election documents. As it is the specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country, its findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence are final, non-reviewable and binding upon the Court.[16] Furthermore, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC.[17] Let it be reiterated that the Court is not a trier of facts[18] and it will only step in if there is a showing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
	GR NO. 174392 2007-08-28	NELSON CUNDANGAN v. VS.THE COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
We hold that the COMELEC En Banc did not abuse its discretion in invalidating all of the aforesaid contested ballots. In Idulza v. Commission on Elections,[21] we ruled that where the factual findings of a division of the COMELEC, as affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc, are supported by substantial evidence, they are beyond the ken of review by this Court.[22] In the present petition, we have more reason to respect the findings of the COMELEC En Banc with regard to the questioned ballots, considering that the same is consistent not only with the findings of the COMELEC First Division, but also those of the trial court.
	GR NO. 170300 2007-02-09	BARTOLOME BALINGIT v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Balingit wants the Court to consider in his favor the six ballots that Commissioner Sadain opined to be invalid and should not be credited to Yamat, thus giving him an edge of three votes, i.e. 249 as against Yamat's 246, and making him the victor. Suffice it to say that the COMELEC adequately explained the reason for holding these six ballots as valid,[16] and absent any evidence to the contrary, the appreciation of these ballots by the COMELEC, acting as a collegial body, should be upheld.[17]