Practice question
In a timely cancellation case, the challenger relies on a typographical omission and several statements of occasional absence. The respondent supplies consistent documentary and testimonial evidence of legally sufficient domicile and a COC read as a whole disclosing the correct address. COMELEC ignores the defense record and declares that the omission itself proves deliberate ineligibility. Which review objection is supported by Comafay and Yap-Sulit?
- Every barangay statement is conclusive regardless of contradictions.
- The candidate must prove residence by physical presence every hour of every day.
- A typographical omission is necessarily a legal confession.
- The adjudicator must assess substantial evidence and the required deceptive material representation rather than mechanically treat punctuation or sporadic absence as conclusive.
- The candidate wins solely because the petition was filed before the election.
Legal references
- Comafay v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 279413, January 14, 2026, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70290
- Yap-Sulit v. COMELEC, G.R. No. E-03037, June 3, 2026, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70535
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.