Case Digest (G.R. No. 94173)
Facts:
The case involves Daniel L. Bocobo as the petitioner and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) along with Luisito M. Reyes as the respondents. The events transpired following the gubernatorial elections in the Province of Marinduque held on January 20, 1988, where Reyes emerged victorious over Bocobo by a margin of 3,145 votes. Subsequently, Bocobo filed an election protest with the COMELEC, contesting the results. The First Division of the COMELEC conducted a revision of the ballots from 25% of the contested precincts as indicated by Bocobo. On December 11, 1989, a hearing was scheduled where both parties agreed to submit memoranda instead of engaging in oral arguments. On February 28, 1990, the Third Division of the COMELEC dismissed Bocobo's protest, stating that he failed to demonstrate a trend that would alter the election results based on the revised ballots. The COMELEC concluded that there was no sufficient basis to continue with the revision of the remaining 75% ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 94173)
Facts:
Election Context:
Petitioner Daniel L. Bocobo and private respondent Luisito M. Reyes were candidates for Governor in the Province of Marinduque in the elections held on January 20, 1988. Reyes won with a margin of 3,145 votes over Bocobo.
Election Protest:
Bocobo filed an election protest with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). After the revision of ballots in 25% of the contested precincts, the COMELEC First Division issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the protest should not be dismissed. A hearing was scheduled on December 11, 1989, where the parties agreed to submit memoranda instead of oral arguments.
COMELEC Decision:
On February 28, 1990, the COMELEC Third Division dismissed the protest, stating that Bocobo failed to establish a trend that would alter the election results based on the revised ballots. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this decision on June 24, 1990, denying Bocobo's motion for reconsideration.
Petition to the Supreme Court:
Bocobo filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. He argued that the COMELEC misinterpreted and misapplied the partial determination rule under Rule 20, Section 7 of its Rules of Procedure. He also claimed he was denied due process when certain ballots were admitted without giving him an opportunity to support his objections.
Issue:
Interpretation of the Partial Determination Rule:
Did the COMELEC correctly interpret and apply Rule 20, Section 7 of its Rules of Procedure, which allows for a partial determination of election protests based on a revision of 25% of the contested precincts?Due Process Violation:
Was Bocobo denied due process when the COMELEC admitted certain ballots without giving him an opportunity to substantiate his objections?Necessity of Extrinsic Evidence:
Was extrinsic evidence required to support Bocobo's objections regarding marked, fake, or irregular ballots?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)