G.R. No.

13744 November 29, 1918

JOSE LINO LUNA, petitioner-appellant, vs.
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, respondent-appellant; SERVANDO DE LOS ANGELES, respondent.

FACTS:
An election for the office of governor in the Province of Rizal is held on the 6
th
day of June, 1916 where
petitioner and respondents are candidates thereof. Said election has been closed, the votes cast in the various
municipalities has already been counted and a return has been made by the inspectors to the provincial board of
canvassers, who later proclaimed Respondent Eulogio Rodriguez as the duly elected governor of said province.
Against said proclamation, Petitioner Jose Lino presented a protest in the CFI and a decision has been rendered,
and on appeal, has been set aside and a new trial has been ordered. Anew trial ensued were the court
subsequently held that the ballots cast for the various candidates were the same as indicated in said returns
except those in the Municipality of Taytay and Binangonan, where 50 ballots cast for Rodriguez should not have
been counted for him and ordered that the same be deducted, and a number of votes have been entered after the
closing of the polls and should be reduced from the total votes of Rodriguez, respectively. At the outset, the
record showed that at 6:00 pm, a large number of voters have not yet been able to vote and by agreement
between the candidates present at that time and the inspectors, the polls were kept open in order for the electors
to vote.
The court ordered the provincial board of canvassers to correct its canvass accordingly.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the ballot of an innocent voter, after the hour designated by law, may be considered, for the purpose of
giving such voter an opportunity to vote.
RULING:
Yes, the ballot may be considered there being no fraud committed.
However, in no case should the courts not annul and set aside an election, where fraud is clearly proved. When
the polls are kept open after the hour prescribed by the law for the purpose of defeating the will of the people,
such a violation of the law should result in annulling and setting aside the election of that precinct. No such facts
exist in the present case. Assuming that a number of the votes cast after the hour for closing the polls were
sufficient to change the result of the election, but the result would have been the same had those same voters
been permitted to vote, except for the negligence of the inspectors, during the regular hours for voting. There
seems to be no more reason for annulling the votes cast, after the hour for closing the election, than for annulling
the election for the reason that the inspectors failed to provide the means for voting at the time fixed for opening
the polls in the morning.
The court enunciated that the innocent voters of their right to participate in the affairs of their government for
irregularities committed by the election inspectors, the latter should be proceeded against in a criminal action for
failure, on their part, to comply with the law and be punished in accordance with existing laws.







G.R. No. L-32675 November 3, 1970

ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs.
VICENTE B. FERNANDEZ and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents

FACTS:
Petitioner Estanislao Fernandez files a petition in the COMELEC to strike out the certificate of acceptance of
nomination of Respondent Vicente Fernandez as delegate of the second district of Laguna to the Constitutional
Convention on the grounds that Respondent: (i) is not qualified to be a candidate for delegate in the said district
because he is not a resident thereof; and (ii) has no bona fide intention to run or to win and that his only purpose
is to annul votes with the name Fernandez and to prejudice petitioners candidacy by causing confusion due to
the similarity in their surnames, thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate under
Section 37 of the Revised Election Code.
The COMELEC denies the petition on the ground that the evidence to support a finding that respondent is a
nuisance candidate is inconclusive, respondent being entitled to the benefit of the presumption of good faith.
Meanwhile, the application of Respondent for registration as a voter in the municipality of Mabitac, Laguna was
denied by the Election Registration Board (ERB) which prompts him to file a petition with the CFI of Laguna
praying that the said court order the ERB to include his name in the said municipality. Said court denied the
Respondents petition for inclusion, stating that Respondents attempts to show his intention to establish
residence in said municipality are all futile.
On the Petition at bar, Petitioner avers, among others, that the Respondent lacks the requisite residence
qualification, which is not less than one year immediately prior to his election and that the COMELEC has
jurisdiction to reject and should reject the said certificate because Respondent is a nuisance candidate within
the purview of Section 37 of the Revised Election Code. Respondent, on the other hand, denies that he is a
nuisance candidate and argues, among others, that he intends to go back to the ancestral home of his
forbears which is in Mabitac, Laguna with positive acts such as establishing a house of his own instead of living
with his cousin, Ex-Mayor Cesar Marfal.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondent is a nuisance candidate within the purview of Section 37 of the Revised Election Code.
RULING:
Yes, respondent, under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code, is considered a nuisance candidate.
Under the said provision, the COMELEC, in all cases, may, motu proprio or upon petition of an interested party,
refuse to give due course to a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been presented and
filed to cause confusion among the electors by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by
other means which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which
certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
Assuming that Respondent occasionally visits the Province of Laguna accompanied by animus to reside therein,
he is still short of the one-year period required by law of candidates for the position sought by him. Based on
other circumstances clearly proven in the record, the Court was convinced that Respondent has no other
intention but to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of his and the petitioners surnames, and
that he has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which his certificate of candidacy was filed given the
circumstances that Petitioner has been and is well known and referred to as Fernandez in the second district of
Laguna, has served as congressman for the said district for two terms, and a senator for one term, has
participated in all electoral campaigns in Laguna, and has extensive law practice in the said province, while the
Respondent, on the other hand, is practically unknown in the said district and the greater portion of his vast
business interest which demands his personal attention, dedication and involvement, being located in the Greater
Manila area.


G.R. No. 147571 May 5, 2001
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INCORPORATED (SWS) and KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING
CORPORATION, doing business as MANILA STANDARD, petitioners, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS:
SWS is a private non-stock, non-profit social research institution conducting surveys in various fields, including
economics, politics, demography, and social development, and thereafter processing, analyzing, and publicly
reporting the results thereof. On the other hand, petitioner Kamahalan Publishing Corporation publishes
the Manila Standard, a newspaper of general circulation, which features news- worthy items of information
including election surveys.
SWS brings an action for prohibition to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing Section 5.4 of RA No. 9006 or
otherwise known as the Fair Election Act which provides that Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven
(7) days before an election. It states further that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of
national and local elections and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Petitioner Kamahalan Publishing Corporation on the other hand, states that it intends to publish election survey
results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
Basically, petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior
restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint.
Respondent, on the other hand, COMELEC justifies the restrictions in said Act as necessary to prevent the
manipulation and corruption of the electoral process by unscrupulous and erroneous surveys just before the
election.
ISSUE:
Whether Section 5.4 of RA No. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech,
expression and the press.
RULING:
Yes.
Sec. 5.4 lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press proscribing the publication of
election survey results affecting candidates within the prescribed periods of fifteen (15) days immediately
preceding a national election seven (7) days before a local election.
Article IX-C of the Constitution gives the COMELEC supervisory power to regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of franchise for the operation of media of communication. No presumption of invalidity arises in
respect of exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC for the purpose of
securing equal opportunity among candidates for political office, although such supervision or regulation may
result in some limitation of the rights of free speech and free press.
Contrary to the claim of the Solicitor General, the prohibition imposed by Section 5.4 cannot be justified on the
ground that it is only for a limited period and is only incidental. The prohibition may be for a limited time, but
the curtailment of the right of expression is direct, absolute and substantial.





G.R. No. L-25185 August 30, 1926
SIMEON MANDAC, petitioner-appellee, vs.
DOMINGO J. SAMONTE, respondent-appellant; JUSTO DACUYCUY, intervener-appellant
FACTS:
Petitioner filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, praying for the annulment of the
election of the protestee Domingo J. Samonte, proclaimed governor-elect by the provincial board of Ilocos
Norte, and in his place, to declare the protestant elected to said office on the grounds, among others, that the
provincial board of canvassers failed to adjucdicate several legal votes to the protestant which were cast in his
favor, and on the contrary, adjudicated several illegal and void votes to the protestee.
The protestee filed a demurrer to the motion of protest alleging that: (i) the protestant has no legal capacity to
protest; (ii) that the motion of protest does not contain sufficient dacts to constitute a cause of action; and (iii)
that the motion of protest is ambiguous and uncertain. Said demurrer was overruled by the court which caused
the protestee to file his Answer alleging, among others that the protestant has no legal capacity to file a
protestant, being a disqualified voter.
The trial court found out later that the ballots with erasures on which were written various votes in favor of the
protestant and the protestee were altered and that the marks or small characters found were not from the voters
themselves but by others after the canvas. Accordingly, the trial court declared that no candidate for the office
of provincial governor was legally elected in the two precincts of the municipality of Currimao, and the votes of
said precincts were deducted from the sum of voters received by each and every one of the candidates for the
office of provincial governor.
The protestee appealed alleging that the court erred in admitting evidence in regard to tampering with ballot
boxes of both precincts without previous allegation in the protest that said ballot boxes were illegally opened.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence in view of the fact that the protest did not contain any
allegation that the ballot boxes in question had been tampered with.
RULING:
No, the trial court committed no reversible error in admitting said evidence. When the ballot boxes were opened
and it was found that their contents were such as to indicate, in the opinion of the court, that there was
something wrong, the evidence of tampering has been properly admitted as explanatory of the state of the
contents of the ballot boxes. The act of opening a ballot box and altering its contents is an offense highly
condemnable which is always committed with the utmost secrecy, and the person committing same always try to
cover up their tracks.
The court enunciated that it must be left to the discretion of the trial court to determine when , in view of the
facts revealed by the opening of the boxes, evidence concerning that tampering with the ballot boxes is
admissible as explanatory of the state of the ballots.