Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NESTOR B. MAGNO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201043 2014-06-16	REPUBLIC v. DAISY R. YAHON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent expression of legislative will.[17] Statutes must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.[18] However, if several laws cannot be harmonized, the earlier statute must yield to the later enactment. The later law is the latest expression of the legislative will.[19]
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
As an exceptional situation, however, the candidate with the second highest number of votes (second placer) may be validly proclaimed as the winner in the elections should the winning candidate be disqualified by final judgment before the elections, as clearly provided in Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646.[28] The same effect obtains when the electorate is fully aware, in fact and in law and within the realm of notoriety, of the disqualification, yet they still voted for the disqualified candidate. In this situation, the electorate that cast the plurality of votes in favor of the notoriously disqualified candidate is simply deemed to have waived their right to vote.[29]
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
As an exceptional situation, however, the candidate with the second highest number of votes (second placer) may be validly proclaimed as the winner in the elections should the winning candidate be disqualified by final judgment before the elections, as clearly provided in Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646.[28] The same effect obtains when the electorate is fully aware, in fact and in law and within the realm of notoriety, of the disqualification, yet they still voted for the disqualified candidate. In this situation, the electorate that cast the plurality of votes in favor of the notoriously disqualified candidate is simply deemed to have waived their right to vote.[29]
	GR No. 180363 2009-04-28	EDGAR Y. TEVES v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58]
	GR NO. 148862 2005-08-11	RUBIN TAD-Y Y BABOR v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.[75]
	GR No. 158371 2003-12-11	SONIA R. LORENZO v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This case falls squarely within the fifth exception to the general rule, i.e. the proclamation of Lorenzo as Mayor of San Isidro was null and void. As of May 18, 2001, the date on which Lorenzo was proclaimed Mayor-elect of San Isidro, the question as regards Magno's qualifications for said post was still pending, and was raised as an issue before this Court in certiorari proceedings in G.R. No. 147904. The question of Magno's qualifications for the office of Mayor was not resolved until October 4, 2002, when we expressly ruled that Magno was qualified for said post.[7]