G.R. No. 133840 - Bautista vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner Cipriano "Efren" Bautista and private respondent Miguelita del Rosario were duly registered candidates for Mayor of Navotas.
Edwin "Efren" Bautista, another candidate with a similar name, filed his certificate of candidacy on the last filing day, March 27, 1997.
Petitioner filed a petition declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate on April 1, 1998.
On April 30, 1998, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declared Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate and cancelled his certificate of candidacy.
Edwin Bautista’s name was initially excluded from the list of candidates distributed to the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI).
On May 8, 1998, Edwin Bautista filed a motion for reconsideration. On May 10, 1998, the Navotas Election Officer issued conflicting directives regarding the inclusion of Edwin Bautista’s name in the certified list of candidates.
Due to confusion, the Regional Election Director instructed BEIs to tally separately votes for variations of the name "Efren Bautista," including "EFREN BAUTISTA," "EFREN," "E. BAUTISTA," and "BAUTISTA."
This instruction was affirmed by a memorandum from the then COMELEC Chairman, directing the creation of separate improvised tally sheets for these "stray votes."
On May 13, 1998, COMELEC denied Edwin Bautista’s motion for reconsideration, affirming his nuisance candidate status.

During canvassing, the Municipal Board of Canvassers refused to include the separately tallied “Bautista stray votes” as part of petitioner’s valid votes.
Petitioner filed a Petition to Declare Illegal the Proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (SPC No. 98-10) on May 20, 1998, challenging this exclusion.
On May 28, 1998, the COMELEC dismissed the petition citing that the Board of Canvassers was limited to canvassing votes appearing on election returns and that stray votes in separate tally sheets were not part of election returns.
The COMELEC specifically referenced Section 211(4) of the Omnibus Election Code on stray votes involving similar surnames, holding they cannot be counted unless one candidate is an incumbent.
Separately, Edwin Bautista filed a certiorari petition contesting his nuisance candidate status, which the Supreme Court dismissed on May 21, 1998, with finality on July 7, 1998.

Utter lack and disregard of due process.
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in excluding the separately tallied votes from petitioner’s valid votes.

Whether or not petitioner was denied due process in the issuance of the COMELEC’s May 28, 1998 order dismissing his petition.
Whether the refusal of the Municipal Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC to include the separately tallied votes as valid votes for petitioner was proper.
Whether the separately tallied votes bearing the name variations of "EFREN BAUTISTA" reflected the true intention of the voters.
What is the effect of the prior declaration of Edwin Bautista as a nuisance candidate on the votes cast under his name or variations thereof?
Whether the exclusion of the "Bautista stray votes" results in disenfranchisement of the voters’ will.