Title
Bautista vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 133840
Decision Date
Nov 13, 1998
The court ruled to include mistakenly classified "stray votes" in the mayoral election to ensure the true will of the electorate and prevent disenfranchisement.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 133840)

Facts:

  • The case involves Cipriano "Efren" Bautista (petitioner) and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), along with the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Navotas and Miguelita Del Rosario (respondents).
  • The events occurred during the local elections on May 11, 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila.
  • Both the petitioner and Edwin "Efren" Bautista filed their certificates of candidacy for Mayor.
  • Edwin Bautista submitted his candidacy just before the deadline on March 27, 1998.
  • On April 1, 1998, the petitioner petitioned COMELEC to declare Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate, which was granted on April 30, 1998.
  • On May 10, 1998, conflicting directives were issued regarding Edwin Bautista's name on the candidate list, causing confusion.
  • The Regional Election Director instructed the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) to tally votes for variations of "Efren Bautista" separately.
  • The Municipal Board of Canvassers refused to include these stray votes in the valid votes for the petitioner.
  • On May 20, 1998, the petitioner filed a petition with COMELEC to declare the canvass proceedings illegal due to the non-inclusion of these votes.
  • COMELEC dismissed the petition on May 28, 1998, ruling that stray votes were not part of the official election returns.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Court ruled that the refusal of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to include the Bautista stray votes did not constitute an illegal proceeding.
  • The Court found no violation of due process in the issuance of the COMELEC's order.
  • The Court concluded tha...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court held that the Municipal Board of Canvassers acted correctly by not including stray votes, as they were not reflected in the official election returns.
  • The Board's duty is to canvass only what is presented in the election returns, and stray votes do not count as valid entries.
  • This ruling is supported by Section 211(4) of the Omnibus Election Code, which states that votes with multiple names on the same line are not counted unless one is an incumbent.
  • Regarding due process, the Court clarified that the right to be heard can be satisfied through written pleadings, and a formal hearing is not always necessar...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.