This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 5. The private respondents submit that the Court erred in relying on jurisprudence (Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC[19] and Asistio v. Hon. Trinidad Pe-Aguirre[20]) not applicable to the present case. They additionally argue that our ruling in Velasco v. COMELEC[21] should be applied strictly to the present case. | |||||
|
2010-10-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We cannot give any evidentiary value to this submission for two reasons. First, it was filed only on reconsideration stage and was not an evidence before us when the case was submitted for resolution. Second, even if it had not been filed late, the Certification does not prove anything; it is, on its face, contradictory. On the one hand, it categorically states that there are no existing records of any pineapple plantation in Barangay Isaub, Aborlan, Palawan; on the other hand, it also expressly states that its records are not yet complete since it is "on the process of gathering data on the Master list of Farmers engaged in growing High Value Commercial Crops in Aborlan."[17] Under what law or regulation the certifying office has the obligation to prepare a list of agricultural business interests in Aborlan has not even been alleged. | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Asistio v. Hon. Trinidad Pe-Aguirre,[80] we also had occasion to rule on the residency and right to vote of former Congressman Luis A. Asistio who had been a congressman for Caloocan in 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2004, and, in the words of the Decision, "is known to be among the prominent political families in Caloocan City."[81] We recognized Asistio's position that a mistake had been committed in his residency statement, and concluded that the mistake is not "proof that Asistio has abandoned his domicile in Caloocan City, or that he has established residence outside of Caloocan City." By this recognition, we confirmed that Asistio has not committed any deliberate misrepresentation in his COC. | |||||