This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-03-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Ostensibly, petitioner's case before the COMELEC-Cabanatuan was a complaint against the respondents for installing illegal campaign materials outside the common poster areas and near the polling places, which is technically an election offense. When Atty. Ramos of the COMELEC-Cabanatuan and P/Supt. Cruz allegedly failed to act on the matter, petitioner went to the COMELEC. We observe, however, that petitioner, from the start, failed to avail himself of the proper procedure. Rule 34[30] of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure clearly lays down the legal steps in the prosecution of election offenses. In Laurel v. Presiding Judge, RTC-Manila, Br. 10,[31] we applied the aforementioned rule. For purposes of clarity, we enumerate the lapses of petitioner, who, perhaps due to the lack of assistance of a lawyer, failed to follow the rules. | |||||