Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Election Case Digest

Election Case Digest

|Views: 2,090|Likes:
Published by thesidelinetragedy
usjr law election prelim cases 2nd sem 08
usjr law election prelim cases 2nd sem 08

More info:

Published by: thesidelinetragedy on Nov 25, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





137 SCRA 366
Petitioner Guiao was a candidate for Assemblyman in the May, 1984elections in Pampanga. At seven o'clock in the evening, the Provincial Boardof Canvassers met at the Conference Hall, Provincial Capitol in San Fernando,Pampanga, to canvass the election returns from the voting centers in theprovince. By 11:30 o'clock in the evening of May 16, 1984, the canvass of allelection returns from all the voting centers of Pampanga had beencompleted without any objection raised by anyone to any of the canvassedreturns. Petitioner Guiao garnered 5
place.It was only after the canvass had been completed did Petitioner Guiaosubmit to the Board of Canvassers his written objections to the inclusion inthe canvass of election returns from various voting centers of differentmunicipalities, on grounds that the canvassed returns were incomplete; thatthere was duress, intimidation, falsification, and the canvassed returns wereobviously manufactured; that there were threats, coercion; and thatComelec's copy was not authentic, statistically improbable; and, that personsin Saudi Arabia were made to appear as if they had voted.Notwithstanding delay in the submission of these written objections,the Board of Canvassers nevertheless held a hearing on the same day. TheChairman of the Board of Canvassers, Atty. Manuel Lucero also sent to theCommission on Elections a memorandum, stating and informing that the—Objections were raised after the completion of the canvass and requestingthat the Provincial Board of Canvassers in Pampanga be authorized toproclaim the winning candidate based on the results of the completedcanvass without prejudice to the outcome of the hearing on the objections.
In a resolution dated May 17, 1984, the COMELEC granted the requestof the Chairman of the Provincial Board of Canvassers. The petitioner'sobjections were later dismissed by the Board of Canvassers for failure tosubstantiate the same. It also appears that at said hearing, there waspresented to the Board the request of the petitioner, thru his counsel Atty.Suarez, that subpoena be issued to the members of the Citizens ElectionCommittee from various voting centers enumerated in the written objections.Said request was denied by the Board on the grounds that said petitioner'scounsel should have been ready with his evidence to support his objections,the hearing being summary in nature and also to preclude further delay inthe proclamation of the winning candidates. Petitioner appealed the matterto the COMELEC.Eventually, the COMELEC 1
Division resolved to sustain theproclamation of Assemblyman ABER CANLAS made by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Pampanga in connection with the May 14, 1984 election ashereby AFFIRMED and the appeal of the Petitioner-Appellant BREN GUIAOaccordingly DISMISSED.
Section 54 of Batas Pambansa No. 697 states that any candidate,political party coalition of political parties, contesting the exclusion orinclusion in the canvass of any election returns shall submit their writtenobjections to the Chairman of Canvassers. From the provision of said Section54 it can be inferred that these written objections must be submitted ormanifested in order that it can be reflected in the minutes of canvass duringthe actual canvassing of the election returns, that is, during the secondstage of the proceedings as pointed above since it is only during this stagethat the board determines the inclusion or exclusion of the returns by
opening and examining the returns to verify the authenticity andgenuineness of the same. The summary nature of the proceedings require that the writtenobjections be filed only during this stage because it is only during this stageof the canvass when the inclusion or exclusion of any return is in issue andbeing passed upon by the board. If during this stage, after the board hasexamined the returns and ruled to include them to the canvass with theacquiescence or approval of the representatives of the political parties andwithout any objection representatives of the political parties and without anyobjection written or verbal, from any of the candidates or theirrepresentatives, they are included in the canvass and the parties areestopped from questioning the inclusion of the returns in the canvass andfrom the denying the admissibility of said returns in the canvass and fromdenying the admissibility of said returns for purposes of the canvass afterthe second stage of the canvass. This must be so since at the third stage of the canvass, the inclusion orexclusion of any election return is no longer in issue. The issue in this thirdstage is the correctness or incorrectness of the mathematical computationand tabulation of the total voters received by the candidates as a result of the canvass.Once the correctness of the mathematical computation of the result of the canvass during this stage is determined and as established by the boardof canvassers, the fourth stage remains to be a formality which should not bedelayed by frivolous, imaginary and untimely unsubstantiated objections toelection returns, intended to prevent or hinder the proclamation of thewinning candidates. That these written objections must be submitted during the secondstage, that is during the actual canvassing of the election returns, becomes

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->