ADDALINO

CASE 116
Art. 1, Sec. 6.8 EVIDENCE
Loong vs Comelec 257 SCRA 1

The private respondents filed petitions with the COMELEC regarding the inclusion of the questioned certificates of canvass and that
there was failure of election in said municipality due to massive fraud. After hearing, COMELEC directed the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Sulu to bring to the COMELEC central office the list of voters with voting records used in the elections and the books of
voters for all precincts. Petitioners Loong and Tulawie prayed that the COMELEC inform them as to whether or not it would conduct a
technical examination of CE Forms 1 and 2, which examination, petitioners argued in their motion, has been proscribed in pre-
proclamation controversies by this Court in the landmark case of Dianalan vs. COMELEC.

COMELEC did NOT acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction insofar as the COMELEC order in annulling the
elections in Parang, Sulu on the basis of the results of the technical examination. The COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment
of election results, may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze voters' signatures and
fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.

Martin Case No. 117

Art. 6. Sec. 6.8.EVIDENCE
Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD), et al. v. COMELEC, et al. p.30
*Note: cases 117-119 are the same but with just different rulings on evidence
The petitioner seek to restrain COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections and to declare failure of elections after the elections
and after the early reports of the results favored the administration ticket on the ground of alleged irregularities (delay in the delivery
of election forms to the board of inspectors, lack of security measures in protecting election paraphernalia).

The Court may take judicial notice of the fact during and immediately after the May 11 elections. The Court may take judicial notice
of the fact that during and immediately after the May 11 elections, there was no massive complaints or reports of irregularities.

Martin
Case No. 118
Art. 6. Sec.6.8. EVIDENCE
Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD) v. COMELEC p.31 par. 1
The petitioner seek to restrain COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections and to declare failure of elections on the ground of
alleged irregularities, claiming that the Comelec is a party conspirator to the grand fraud - that the election returns and certificate of
votes were and are still tampered and falsified on a massive scale.

The Supreme Court CANNOT intervene on the functions of the Comelec absent proof that the Comelec have not performed their
functions in good faith and in regularity. The petition failed manifestly to state any ground or basis for discarding the presumption of
good faith and regularity in the performance of public and official functions by the Comelec, the boards of canvassers and the boards
of election inspectors, all composed of public school teachers.

Martin
Case No. 119
Art. 6. Sec.6.8. EVIDENCE
Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD) v. COMELEC p.31 par.2

The petitioner seek to restrain COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections and to declare failure of elections on the ground of
alleged irregularities. At the time the petition was filed, 78,738 of 101,551 precincts were canvassed and special elections for the Sulu
2nd district involving 180,000 votes is yet to be held.

Failure of nationwide election may NOT be declared by the Supreme Court by merely relying on ex parte affidavits, self-serving
petitions and other pleadings based on mere speculations and incomplete tallies from NAMFREL. The evidence submitted by the
petitioners consisted generally only of ex parte affidavits, self-serving petitions and other pleadings filed with the various boards of
canvassers, and mathematical computations based on mere speculations and unofficial and incomplete tallies from NAMFREL, which
is not even an official body for whose acts the Comelec should be held responsible. The whole trouble is that they have not presented
these alleged irregularities to the Comelec for its prior determination, the Supreme Court not being a trier of facts.

AREEJ CASE NO. 120

ART 1 SEC 6.9 PRACTICE TIP
Typoco v. Comelec

Jesus Typoco, (a candidate for the position of Congressman of the Lone District of Camarines Norte) filed with Comelec En Banc a
separate petition for Annulment of Election in several precincts, and alleged that massive fraud and irregularities attended the
preparation of the election returns considering that upon technical examination, 305 election returns were found to have been
prepared in group by one person. Comelec En Banc dimissed the same. Hence, the petition.

COMELEC did NOT committed GAD in not declaring a failure of elections for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte in the May
11, 1998 elections. It can thus readily be seen that the ground invoked by TYPOCO is not proper in a declaration of failure of election.
TYPOCO's relief was for COMELEC to order a recount of the votes cast, on account of the falsified election returns, which is properly
the subject of an election contest.
AREEJ
CASE NO. 121
ART 1 SEC 6.9 PRACTICE TIP
Pasandalan v. Comelec

Bago Pasandalan, candidate for mayor, filed a petition before the Comelec seeking to nullify the election results in 16 precincts,
alleging that while the voting was going on some Cafgu’s stationed near Sultan Gunting Elementary School indiscriminately fired their
firearms causing the voters to panic. Taking advantage of the confusion, supporters of Asum allegedly took the official ballots, filled
them up with the name of Asum and placed them inside the ballot boxes. Comelec dismissed the same because none of the grounds
relied upon by Pasandalan falls under any of the three instances* justifying a declaration of failure of election. Hence, the petition.

Comelec did NOT committed GADALEJ in not annulling the election or declaring a failure of election in the 16 precincts. In the instant
case, it is apparent that the allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds for the nullification of the election. Pasandalan even failed
to substantiate his allegations of terrorism and irregularities. His evidence consisted only of affidavits. Mere self-serving affidavits are
insufficient, more so in this case since the affidavits were all executed by Pasandalan’s own poll watchers.

AREEJ
CASE NO. 122
ART 1 SEC 6.9 PRACTICE TIP
Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD) v. Comelec

In this special civil action for certiorari, the petitioners ask us to restrain the respondent Commission on Elections from canvassing the
senatorial elections just concluded and to declare a failure of such elections on the ground of alleged irregularities in the conduct
thereof, consisting, inter alia, of delay in the delivery of election forms to the boards of inspectors, lack of security measures in
protecting election paraphernalia.

petitioners’ petition should be denied for lack of merit. The evidence submitted by the petitioners consists generally only of ex
parte affidavits, self-serving petitions and other pleadings filed with the various boards of canvassers, and mathematical computations
based on mere speculations and unofficial and incomplete tallies from NAMFREL, which is not even an official body for whose acts the
Commission on Elections should be held responsible.

KARLY CASE NO. 123

Sec. 6.10 – Annulment of Election; p.32, par. 2
VIRGILIO SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-55513 June 19, 1982

On February 1, 1980, Sanchez filed with the Commission on elections a Petition to declare null and void the local elections in San
Fernando due to alleged large scale terrorism. COMELEC granted this petition to annul on the ground of post-election terrorism.
Armando Biliwang who won the mayoralty filed a petition for certiorari.

The COMELEC have the power to annul an entire municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism. In other words, in line
with the plenitude of its powers and its function to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC has the power and prerogative to
annul an election where the will of the voters has been defeated, as wells as to call for a special election where widespread terrorism,
whether before or after election, has been proven resulting in a failure to elect, without need of recourse to the President and the
Batasang Pambansa for the enactment of remedial legislation. (Tipon)

KARLY CASE NO. 124

Sec. 6.10 – Annulment of Election; p. 32 par 3
VIRGILIO SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-55513 June 19, 1982

On February 1, 1980, Sanchez filed with the Commission on elections a Petition to declare null and void the local elections in San
Fernando due to alleged large scale terrorism. COMELEC granted this petition to annul on the ground of post-election terrorism. Mayor
Armando Biliwang instituted, also with this Court, a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, assailing the same COMELEC
Resolution and alleging that said body has no power to annul an entire municipal election.

The COMELEC have the power to annul an entire municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism. The Comelec has the
power to reject returns when in its opinion they were illegal and not authentic. In fact, it has the duty to disallow obviously false or
fabricated returns, as a falsified or spurious return amounts to no return at all. The Commission has the power to annul the election
in the political locality concerned, whether causes occurred before or after the elections.

KARLY CASE NO. 125

Sec. 6.10 – Annulment of Election
Gov. Tupay Loong vs. COMELEC

This is a petition for Certiorari assailing two COMELEC En Banc Resolutions: (1) granting of petition for annulment of the election results
in Parang, Sulu on the ground of statistical improbability and massive fraud and other election irregularities; (2) dismissed petitioners'
own petition for annulment of election results in the 5 other municipalities of Sulu, even after making a finding that "the same badges
of fraud evident from the results of the election based on the certificate of canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Parang,
Sulu, are also evident in the election results of the 5 other Municipalities.”

COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to take cognizance of a petition to annul the election results in other
municipalities of Sulu. The COMELEC arbitrarily and without valid ground dismissed the said petition respecting the aforementioned
five municipalities. The COMELEC commits GAD when, confronted with essentially similar situations, it takes cognizance of a
petition to annul the election results in one municipality yet dismisses a petition to annul the election results in other municipalities.
(Tipon)

Chap
CASE NO. 126
ART. 1. Section 6.11.—Call for continuation of election or special election
Lucero v. Comelec, 234 SCRA 280 (1994)

The canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) for the election of the representative for the 2nd Legislative Dictrict of Northern
Samar credited Jose L. Ong, Jr. with 24,272 votes and Wilmar P. Lucero with 24,068 votes, or a lead by Ong of 204 votes. However, in
Precint No. 13 of Silvino Lobos, the ballots were snatched and no election was held. As a result, the COMELEC issued an order for a
special election in the Precint No. 13.

COMELEC DID NOT acted with grave abuse of discretion in calling for a special election in Precinct No. 13 after one (1) year and ten
(10) months, following the day of the synchronized elections. In the instant case, the delay was not attributable to the poor voters
of Precinct No. 13. The delay was primarily caused by the legal maneuvers of the petitioners which muddled simple issues. Hence, the
holding of a special election in Precinct No. 13 within the next few months may still be considered “reasonably close to the date of
the election not held.”

Chap
CASE NO. 127
ART. 1. Section 6.11.—Call for continuation of election or special election
Borja v. Comelec, 260 SCRA 604 (1996)

Borja lost to Capco for the Mayorship in Pateros. Borja filed before the COMELEC a petition to declare a failure of election and to
nullify the canvass and proclamation made by the Pateros Board of Canvassers based on an alleged force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud and analogous causes. COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, Borja elevated the resolution to the Court.

The contention of Borja is NOT meritorious to warrant a declaration of failure of elections. The COMELEC can call for the holding or
continuation of election by reason of failure of election only when the election is not held, is suspended or results in a failure to
elect. The latter phrase, in turn, must be understood in its literal sense, which is “nobody was elected.” None of these circumstances
is present in the case at bar. At best, the “grounds” cited by Borja are simply events which give rise to the three consequences just
mentioned.
Chap
CASE NO. 128
ART. 1. Section 6.11.—Call for continuation of election or special election
Loong v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 1 (1996)

Private respondent Loong filed a which prayed that the elections in Parang, Sulu, be set aside and annulled on the ground that there
was failure of election in said municipality due to massive fraud. The petition was granted by COMELEC. ALSO, the COMELEC
abandoned the option of a special election since it us just a mere continuance of the elections first held. It maintained that a valid
proclamation may still be had since Parang, Sulu, is just 1 out of the 18 municipalities of Sulu.

The annulment of election is NOT proper. It was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC to have disregarded the
mandate of provisions of the OEC Section 6 in relation to RA 7166 Section 4 and did away with the holding of special elections in
Parang, Sulu. With the annulment of the results of the election in the Municipality of Parang, no proclamation of the winners for the
contested position can be made unless a special election is held.
Gomez
CASE NO. 129
ART. 1. SEC. 6.11. Call for Continuation of Election or Special Election
Hassan v. Comelec

Petitioner Hassan and Private Respondent-Bautan, were both candidates for vice mayor in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur in 1995. However,
due to threats and violence a failure of election was declared in 6 out of 24 precincts. After such, a special election was then scheduled
but was then rescheduled for several occasions because of the failure of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) failure to appear for
the purpose. However, the notice for the scheduling and rescheduling of the special election was given in such a short time.

The COMELEC is NOT correct to give the short notice of the special election. To require the voters to come to the polls on such short
notice was highly impracticable. In a place marred by violence, it was necessary for the voters to be given sufficient time to be notified
of the changes and prepare themselves for the eventuality.

Gomez
CASE NO. 130
ART. 1. SEC. 6.12. Effect of Pre-proclamation controversy
 Loong v. COMELEC

The case started when private respondent-Tan, who was in the same playing field with Loong for the position of Governer in Sulu, filed
a pre-controversial case against Loong. Later, the COMELEC heard the case and said that there was a case but when it was pending
before the COMELEC, the Petitioner filed an injunction to continue with the said case before the COMELEC.

After the dismissal of the pre-controversial case, it would NOT result to the calling of a special election. We must add, however, that
the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes. This is an important consideration for, where the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy ends, there may begin the realm
of a special action for declaration of failure of elections.

Gomez
CASE NO. 131
ART. 1. SEC. 6.13. Fixing Date of Special Elections
Sambarani v. COMELEC

The Petitioners are candidates for the Sangguniang in different barangays in Lanao Del Sur. Later, due to threats and violence, the
COMELEC called for an election failure in some barangays. However, the COMELEC called for the special election beyond the
mandatory 30 days after the cessation of the failure of election.

The COMELEC did NOT acted with grave abuse of discretion for setting the special election beyond the 30 days prescribed by law.
The COMELEC has broad power or authority to fix other dates for special elections to enable the people to exercise their right to
suffrage. The COMELEC may fix other dates for the conduct of special elections when the same cannot be reasonably held within the
period prescribed.

RYLE
CASE NO. 132
ART. 1. SEC. 7.3. COMELEC POWER TO CALL SPECIAL ELECTION
Benito v. COMELEC

Benito and a private respondent are candidates in the mayoralty elections in Calanogas, Lanao del Sur. On the day of elections, 30
armed men interrupted the voting by firing their weapons in Disimban Elementary School, which resulted to the voters panicking and
scrambling to safety. Benito wanted to declare failure of elections in three precincts due to the chaos that ensued, alleging that the
voting did not resume after the incident.

There was NO failure of elections. It is the COMELEC en banc which has the exclusive power to postpone, to declare a failure of
election, or to call a special election. Petitioner avers that a failure of elections must be declared in the precincts in question since the
voting therein was interrupted by the sudden and threatening arrival of armed goons of a rival candidate. He unequivocally states that
there was never any resumption of voting since the ballot boxes and other election materials were taken into custody by the military
and brought to the municipal hall. The same is insufficient.

RYLE
CASE NO. 134
ART. 1. SEC. 12.2. APPLICABILITY
Pendon v. Diasnes

Julito Diasnes the defendant, was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment by the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo in 1932. But the defendant alleged that he had been granted absolute pardon by the Governor General sometime in
1934. Only oral evidence was presented to prove the alleged pardon, as copies of it, as well as the original, were said to have been
unavailable, and the question on which the appellant devotes much space in his brief deals with the admissibility and sufficiency of
this evidence.

A person convicted of a crime against property, who was granted absolute pardon by the President, is NOT entitled to vote. Absolute
pardon for any crime for which one year of imprisonment or more was meted out restores the prisoner to his political rights.

AYEH
CASE NO. 135
ART. 1. Section 12.4.—Moral turpitude
Macalintal v. Comelec

Petitioner Rolando P. Dela Torre via the instant petition for certiorari seeks the nullification of two resolutions issued by COMELEC
allegedly with GADALEJ in a case for disqualification filed against him. The latter held that documentary evidence established that
herein petitioner was found guilty by the MTC for violation of P.D. 1612, (otherwise known as the Anti-fencing Law) in a Decision dated
June 1, 1990.

The crime of fencing involves moral turpitude. COMELEC did not err in disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that the offense of
fencing of which he had been previously convicted by final judgment was one involving moral turpitude. Actual knowledge by the
"fence" of the fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one's rightful property as that
which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are crimes of moral turpitude.

AYEH
 CASE NO. 136
ART. 1. Section 12.4.—Moral turpitude
Villaber v. Comelec (G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001)

In this petition for certiorari, Pablo C. Villaber, seeks the nullification of the resolution issued by the COMELEC declaring Villaber
disqualified as "a candidate for and from holding any elective public office" and canceling his certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC
ruled that a conviction for violation of B.P. BIg. 22 involves moral turpitude following the ruling of this Court en banc in the
administrative case of People vs. Atty. Fe Tuanda.

Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude. In the case at bar, petitioner does not assail the facts and circumstances surrounding
the commission of the crime. In effect, he admits all the elements of the crime for which he was convicted. In In re Vinzon, the term
"moral turpitude" is considered as encompassing "everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals."

AYEH
CASE NO. 137
ART. 1. Section 12.4.—Moral turpitude
Magno v. Comelec

Petition originated from a case filed by private respondent on March 21, 2001 for the disqualification of petitioner Nestor Magno as
mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that petitioner was previously
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery. Petition denied. Petitioner contends that it is Section 40 of RA 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides only a two-year disqualification period is applicable to the
case at bar.

Petitioner was NOT disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001 elections. Although his crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude,
petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881)
must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). Petitioner’s disqualification ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was
therefore under no such disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 elections.

CHAM
Case No. 138
Article I Section 12.5 – Comment
Magno v. COMELEC

Carlos Montes filed a petition for the disqualification of Nestor Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the
May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that the latter was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery.
COMELEC granted the petition and declared Magno disqualified from running for the position of mayor since direct bribery is a crime
involving moral turpitude, citing Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Petitioner should NOT be disqualified. Although his crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude, petitioner nonetheless could not
be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. Petitioner’s disqualification ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was therefore under
no such disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the 2001 elections.