Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIPRIANO 'EFREN' BAUTISTA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 192221 2012-11-13	CASIMIRA S. DELA CRUZ v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On December 6, 2009, petitioner filed a petition[5] to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate on the ground that he filed his certificate of candidacy for the vice-mayoralty position to put the election process in mockery and to cause confusion among voters due to the similarity of his surname with petitioner's surname. Petitioner emphasized that she is considered a very strong candidate for the said position having been elected as member of the SB for three consecutive terms under the ticket of the NPC and obtained the fifth (2001), fourth (2004) and third (2007) highest number of votes. In contrast, Aurelio is an unknown in the political scene with no prior political experience as an elective official and no political party membership. Being a retiree and having no known business, Aurelio has no sufficient source of income but since the 2007 elections petitioner's opponents have been prodding him to run for the same position as petitioner in order to sow confusion and thwart the will of the voters of Bugasong. Petitioner further cited Aurelio's miserable showing in the previous local elections when he ran and garnered only 126 and 6 votes for the positions of SB member (May 2007) and barangay captain of Barangay Maray, Bugasong (November 2007), respectively. Citing Bautista v. COMELEC,[6] petitioner asserted that these circumstances clearly demonstrate Aurelio's lack of a bona fide intention and capability to run for the position of Vice-Mayor, thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
	GR No. 196804 2012-10-09	MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy,[33] there can be no valid substitution of the candidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. It should be clear, too, that a candidate who does not file a valid CoC may not be validly substituted, because a person without a valid CoC is not considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed a CoC is not at all a candidate.[34]
	GR No. 189034 2010-01-11	CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner further alleges that the HRET invalidated ballots for him without stating the legal and factual bases therefor, and on grounds other than the objections raised by private respondent. He contends that the HRET erred in concluding that the ruling in Bautista v. Commission on Elections[13] cannot be applied in view of circumstances which supposedly distinguish the present case from Bautista. Finally, petitioner cites the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura who disagreed with the majority ruling and posited that the final declaration by COMELEC that Edilito C. Martinez was a nuisance candidate and the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy should be deemed effective as of the day of the election.[14]
	GR No. 184268 2009-09-15	ERNESTO BATALLA v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
(b) Ballot 2: Exhibit "B"[33] shows that while the space for Punong Barangay is left blank, the first of the names for kagawad is unreadable and does not sufficiently identify Bataller, since the name written seems to be "tododer" and as such cannot be equated to Teodoro (Bataller), much less, credited to him pursuant to Sec. 211(14)[34] of the Omnibus Election Code, for there is no way of determining the intention of the voter as held in Bautista v. Comelec.[35] Moreover, Batalla maintains that "tododer" cannot also be appreciated under the doctrine of idem sonans in favor of his opponent, as the MCTC erroneously held, for Bataller did not indicate or apply for "tododer" to be recognized as one of the names for which he can be voted, and neither has it been shown that Bataller is known in the barangay as such.
	GR No. 177927 2008-02-15	FLORANTE S. QUIZON v. COMELEC and ROBERTO VILLANUEVA PUNO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As to the alleged irregularity in the filing of the certificate of candidacy, it is important to note that this Court has repeatedly held that provisions of the election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory to give effect to the will of the people.[16] In the instant case, Puno won by an overwhelming number of votes. Technicalities should not be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter, especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, as in this case.[17]
	GR No. 134167 2000-01-20	NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.[34] The right to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. A party can be heard through the pleadings he submits.[35]