This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under Lagumbay, therefore, the doctrine of statistical improbability is applied only where the unique uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of all the candidates of all the opposing parties appear in the election return.[38] The doctrine has no application where there is neither uniformity of tallies nor systematic blanking of the candidates of one party.[39] Thus, the bare fact that a candidate for public office received no votes in one or two precincts, standing alone and without more, cannot adequately support a finding that the subject election returns are statistically improbable. Verily, a zero vote for a particular candidate in the election returns is but one strand in the web of circumstantial evidence that the electoral returns were prepared under duress, force and intimidation.[40] | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case hardly paints a picture of manifest human error or fatigue in the tabulation of the votes of the senatorial candidates in Isabela. It, in fact, discloses a pernicious scheme which would not have been successfully perpetrated without the indispensable cooperation of all members of the PBC and their support staff which included herein petitioners. The latter's protestations in the counter-affidavits that they only tabulated the vote totals of senatorial candidates Tillah and Tolentino are at best convenient and self-serving explanations to justify their exculpation from any wrong-doing. Their claims are, moreover, not substantiated by any of the PBC members. Indeed, as this Court pointedly observed in Velayo v. COMELEC[20] the "self-serving nature of said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court has pronounced, reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits." | |||||