This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On 8 March 2010, petitioner filed before us a Supplement to the Petition with a Most Urgent Reiterating Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or a Status Quo Order. Contending that respondent's protest should have been dismissed when no majority vote was obtained after the re-hearing in the case, petitioner argues that: (a) the 4 March 2010 Order and 5 March 2010 Writ of Execution are null and void; (b) no valid decision can be rendered by the COMELEC En Banc without the appreciation of the original ballots; (c) the COMELEC ignored the Court's ruling in the recent case of Corral v. Commission on Elections;[2] and (d) the foregoing circumstances are indicative of the irregularities which attended the adjudication of the case before the Division and En Banc levels of the COMELEC. | |||||
|
2009-09-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Of the seven ballots protested, the trial court appreciated five of them in favor of Bataller by applying the neighborhood and intent rules as enunciated in Ferrer v. Comelec[7] and Velasco v. Commission on Elections,[8] and the application of the doctrine of idem sonans. Consequently, the MCTC found both Batalla and Bataller garnering an equal number of 113 votes each. | |||||
|
2009-03-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Excerpted from Section 211 (19) are ballots with (1) a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for successive offices appearing in the ballot, (2) a single or double misplacement of names where such names were preceded or followed by the title of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the candidate's name a directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name was intended; and (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a) off-center from the designated space, (b) slightly underneath the line for the contested office, (c) immediately above the title for the contested office, or (d) in the space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate presented himself. In these instances, the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the candidates for the office for which they presented themselves because the voters' intention to so vote is clear from the face of the ballots. This is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated with liberality to give effect to the voters' will.[21] (Underscoring and italics supplied) | |||||