This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in De Guzman v. Commission on Elections,[6] the Court held: As regards the 7 ballots cast in favor of De Guzman which were rejected as written-by-one in Precinct 27A Mabini, the COMELEC should have considered the data reflected in the Minutes of Voting Precinct 27A Mabini. It shows the existence of 24 illiterate or physically disabled voters which necessitated voting by assistors pursuant to Section 196 of B.P. Blg. 881 which does not allow an assistor to assist more that three times except the non-party members of the board of election inspectors. There is no showing that the 7 rejected ballots is the same as that appearing in the Minutes of Voting. All of the 7 assailed ballots were cast in favor of De Guzman. Consequently, four ballots should be appreciated in his favor it being reasonably presumed that the identically written ballots were prepared by the assistor, not only for three illiterate or physically disabled voters but also for himself. Hence, added to the 38 votes, De Guzman won the election by 42 votes.[7] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
|||||
| SO ORDERED.[10] | |||||
|
2009-11-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Although as a rule, the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, still when it can be shown that, as in this case, it grossly misread evidence of such nature that compels a different conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse that body's factual findings.[12] | |||||
|
2007-03-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It should be stressed that the COMELEC is the constitutional body which has special knowledge and expertise over election matters. Thus, it is in a better position to rule on questions of fact such as the appreciation of contested ballots, and its findings on such matters are generally accorded great respect, if not finality by the courts. Such findings will only be set aside by the Court upon proof that the COMELEC grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion.[11] Herein petitioner absolutely failed to discharge the required burden of proof. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Since the decision of the Ombudsman suspending respondents for one (1) month is final and unappealable, it follows that the CA had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the same.[31] The Ombudsman was not estopped from asserting in this Court that the CA had no appellate jurisdiction to review and reverse the decision of the Ombudsman via petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This is not to say that decisions of the Ombudsman cannot be questioned. Decisions of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies which are declared by law final and unappealable are subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. When such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings.[32] Thus, the decision of the Ombudsman may be reviewed, modified or reversed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the complaint, or of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[33] | |||||