Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REYNATO BAYTAN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 191771 2010-05-06	LIBERAL PARTY v. COMELEC BRION, J.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the en banc citing Baytan v. Comelec[12] held that the registration of coalitions involves the exercise of its administrative powers and not its quasi-judicial powers; hence, the en banc can directly act on it. It further held that there is no constitutional requirement that a petition for registration of a coalition should be decided first by a division. In Baytan, the Court held that the Constitution merely vests the COMELEC's administrative powers in the "Commission on Elections," while providing that the COMELEC "may sit en banc or in two divisions." Thus, the en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers.
	GR No. 191084 2010-03-25	JOSELITO R. MENDOZA v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
We must re-affirm the rule that no ballot shall be discarded as marked unless its character as such is unmistakable. Distinction should be made between marks that were accidentally, carelessly or innocently made, and those designedly placed thereon by the voter with a view to possible identification of the ballot, which, therefore, invalidates it. In the absence of any circumstance showing that the intention of the voter to mark the ballot is unmistakable, or of any evidence aliunde to show that the words were deliberately written to identify the ballot, the ballot should not be discarded.[10] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 190526 2010-02-17	SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It therefore follows that when the COMELEC is exercising its quasi-judicial powers such as in the present case, the Commission is constitutionally mandated to decide the case first in division, and en banc only upon motion for reconsideration. [17]
	GR No. 158734 2009-10-02	ROBERTO ALBAÑA v. PIO JUDE S. BELO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Baytan v. Commission on Elections,[20] we held: It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC's sound discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELEC's exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law.[21]
	GR NO. 156652 2005-10-13	DR. BENITA F. OSORIO v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with the Court of Appeals. The claims of petitioner that she did not receive and have control of the subject funds, as well as the absence of the elements of the crime of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, are undoubtedly evidentiary matters that are to be ventilated in a full-blown trial and not during the preliminary investigation. The presence and absence of the elements of the crime, which are by their nature evidentiary and defense matters, can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.[16] As earlier pointed out, the established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[17] It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
	GR Nos. 154796-97 2003-10-23	RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution mandates the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by division and upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc.[20] In Baytan v. COMELEC,[21] the Court expounded on the administrative and quasi-judicial powers of the COMELEC. The Court explained:Under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC's administrative powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of Article IX-C. The 1987 Constitution does not prescribe how the COMELEC should exercise its administrative powers, whether en banc or in division. The Constitution merely vests the COMELEC's administrative powers in the "Commission on Elections," while providing that the COMELEC "may sit en banc or in two divisions." Clearly, the COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. Indeed, this has been the practice of the COMELEC both under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.