This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-03-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the Matter of the Petition to Exclude Election Returns contained in Nine (9) Ballot Boxes, Amelita S. Navarro vs. Commission on Election,[5] we held: "While the aforesaid grounds (lack of inner and outer paper seals and lack of signatures of watchers, among others) may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules governing the preparation and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not necessarily affect the authenticity and genuineness of the subject election returns as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds for objection to the election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to support a conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious." Likewise, in Baterina vs. COMELEC,[6] we ruled: "The grounds raised by petitioners for the exclusion of the election returns from the canvassing, as stated in their 'Appeal Memorandum' before the COMELEC x x x refer to the failure to close the entries with the signatures of the election inspectors; lack of inner and out papers seals; canvassing by the BOARD of copies not intended for it; lack of time and date of petitioners' watchers; and lack of authority of person receiving the election returns. | |||||