Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 191938 2010-07-02	ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA v. COMELEC BRION, J.
First, registration as a voter of Aborlan is not sufficient evidence that Mitra has successfully abandoned his domicile of origin.[33]
	GR No. 189078 2010-03-30	MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC BRION, J.
And what is more, the COMELEC, not the NBI, is the agency that has the competence to determine the genuineness of election documents.[19] The determination of whether or not a ballot is authentic and valid should be left to the trial court or electoral tribunal taking cognizance of the election case on the basis of what appears on the face of the ballot.[20] It is established doctrine in this jurisdiction that opinions of handwriting experts are not binding on the court or COMELEC. Hence, it may accept totally or in part or even dispense with the NBI findings and conclusions and conduct its own examinations of the questioned handwriting.[21] Verily, the opinions of handwriting experts, while helpful in the examination of forged documents owing to the technical procedure involved in the analysis, are not binding on the courts.[22] As a logical corollary, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, as the judge must conduct an independent examination on the questioned signature or entry to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[23]
	GR No. 189078 2010-02-11	MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Under these rules, we do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Any COMELEC misstep in this regard generally involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction.[27] In exceptional cases, however, when COMELEC action on the appreciation and evaluation of evidence shows grave abuse of discretion, the Court is more than obliged, as it is then its constitutional duty, to intervene; when grave abuse of discretion is present, resulting errors arising from the grave abuse mutate from error of judgment to one of jurisdiction.[28]
	GR No. 189034 2010-01-11	CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Ensconced in our jurisprudence is the well-founded rule that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative. [30] The prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate. Thus, in certain situations as in the case at bar, final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election day. Otherwise, potential nuisance candidates will continue to put the electoral process into mockery by filing certificates of candidacy at the last minute and delaying resolution of any petition to declare them as nuisance candidates until elections are held and the votes counted and canvassed.
	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.
It must be stressed that the appreciation of contested ballots and 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. It is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Consequently, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court.[23]
	GR NO. 170300 2007-02-09	BARTOLOME BALINGIT v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The appreciation of the contested ballots and 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, as it is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court.[8]