EN BANC
G.R. No. 126977 September 12, 1997
ELVIRA B. NAZARENO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDWINA P. MENDOZA, respondents.
Separate Opinions
PUNO, J., concurring:
I write this brief concurring opinion only to dispel the drift of any idea that our decision in the case at bar conflicts with our decision in Lindo v. COMELEC, et al., GR No. 127311 dated June 19, 1997.ℒαwρhi৷ There is no conflict between the two for in the case at bar, the ponente, Mr. Justice Devide, Jr., clearly demonstrated that "the decision of the RTC in EPC No. NC-7 was based on mere photocopies of contested ballots which were never offered in evidence." Necessarily, this Court refused to execute it pending appeal. In Lindo, we did not arrive at this conclusion, and we prudentially ruled that the issue of whether the RTC merely relied on xerox copies of ballots is factual in nature and its resolution should be left with the COMELEC. At the time we decided Lindo, his appeal was already pending with the Second Division of the COMELEC and among the issues he raised was the alleged use of xerox copies of ballots by the trial court. In due time, the said COMELEC division decided Lindo's appeal on its merit by opening the ballot boxes involved in the protest and examining the contested ballots. It ruled that Lindo lost by thirty-two (32) votes to Velasco. This resolution is not yet final as Lindo can still challenge it in the COMELEC en banc and thereafter, thru a petition for certiorari in this Court. Nonetheless, we cite the resolution of the COMELEC 2nd Division as it underscores the decisive difference in facts between the case at bar and Lindo with respect to the alleged use of photocopies of ballots by the trial court.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
|
