Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > April 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2010 April 9, 1948 - CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

080 Phil 719:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2010. April 9, 1948.]

CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO, PROTACIO LICSI, RUPO REYES, ELIGIO MARCELO, MARIANO CRUZ, Jr., FELICIANO BUENSUCESO, and NESTORIO SAN JOSE, Petitioners, v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, FRANCISCO B. LEGASPI, EMILIANO A. SANTOS, MAXIMO FLORES, EMILIANO CARRUNCHO, Jr., SEVERINO SANGCO, JUAN TALAVERA, and VICTOR RAYOS, Respondents.

Ramon Diokno and Celestino L. de Dios, for Petitioners.

Lorenzo Sumulong and Antonio C. Masaquel, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


ELECTIONS; EVIDENCE; BALLOTS REVISED BY COMMISSIONERS; EXAMINATION BY PARTIES, THEIR ATTORNEYS AND HANDWRITING EXPERTS. — Ballots counted or recounted and revised by commissioners appointed by a Court of First Instance are among the documentary evidence in an election contest. They can be examined by the parties, their attorneys and handwriting experts at any time during the trial or proceedings before the decision, subject to the supervision of the court so as to avoid loss, destruction, or tampering. The parties are not bound by objections made at the revision made by the commissioners, and, at the hearing, they may withdraw said objections or formulate others. Ballots reported by commissioners as uncontested may be objected at the hearing, and parties may call experts to examine them and testify as to their findings. That right should not be denied to any party nor curtailed.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


Petitioners, protestants in election contests involving the positions of mayor, vice-mayor and councilors of Pasig, Rizal Province, pray that respondent judge be ordered (1) to allow petitioners’ handwriting expert to examine protestees’ ballots in nine precincts and (2) that the recount of the votes cast for vice-mayor and councilors in nine other precincts be order without delay.

By resolution of February 12, 1948, Exhibit E-4, respondent judge denied a motion where petitioners prayed that their handwriting expert be allowed to examine the ballots revised by the court’s commissioners, in order to be able to specify the ballots to which they may object as written by two hands and groups of ballots written by the same hand. The denial is based on the theory that the examination by the handwriting expert tantamount to a second revision, which, according to respondent, is not authorized by law.

Ballots counted or recounted and revised by commissioners appointed by a Court of First Instance are among the documentary evidence in an election contest. They can be examined by the parties, their attorneys and handwriting experts at any time during the trial or proceedings before the decision, subject to the supervision of the court so as to avoid loss, destruction, or tampering. The parties are not bound by objections made at the revision made by the commissioners, and, at the hearing, they may withdraw said objections or formulate others. Ballots reported by commissioners as uncontested may be objected at the hearing, and parties may call experts to examine them and testify as to their findings. That right should not be denied to any party nor curtailed. The purpose of utilizing commissioners of revision is to facilitate and expedite the counting of great numbers of ballots, and the selection of large groups of those that may appear objectionable. The law has expressly authorized it as a timesaving device, for the convenience of the court and the parties.

The prompt disposal of election cases, as commanded by the Election Code, will be better served by avoiding controversies on finical matters of procedure and by being more practical in acting upon incidents so that, while offering to litigants all opportunities to present fairly their side, their evidence, and the questions they raise, the court may without any delay determine the truth of controverted facts, and in due time render judgment upholding the freely expressed will of the majority of the electorate.

As prayed for, respondent judge is ordered to allow the handwriting expert of petitioners to examine the ballots revised by the commissioners on revision, with costs in favor of petitioners.

The recounting of votes for vice-mayor and councilors, mentioned in the second prayer of petitioners, having been made and completed on February 23, 1948, as alleged by respondents in their supplemental answer of March 24, 1948, averment not disputed by petitioners, action on said prayer is unnecessary.

Paras, Bengzon, Briones and Padilla, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1762 April 1, 1948 - JOSE FUENTEBELLA v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO

    080 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. L-1584 April 2, 1948 - EMILIA TEOXON contra. FELIX B. PANIS

    080 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. L-612 April 3, 1948 - JOSEFA AGUSTINES v. JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

    080 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-1213 April 6, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO LABITAN VINDUA

    080 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-2092 April 6, 1948 - JUSTO CAMAT v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-301 April 7, 1948 - CARLOS PALANCA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    080 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-554 April 9, 1948 - HAW PIA v. CHINA BANKING CORP.

    080 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-2010 April 9, 1948 - CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO v. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES

    080 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-1882 April 10, 1948 - MATEO RAMOS v. COMELEC

    080 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1414 April 16, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. JOSE DE JESUS

    080 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-1904 April 16, 1948 - C. N. HODGES v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    080 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-1598 April 19, 1948 - NICOLASA SALVO DE PERNIA v. MEYNARDO M. FAROL

    080 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-1939 April 19, 1948 - SIXTO CASIN v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    080 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1220 April 21, 1948 - MATEA RESTAURO v. DOMINGO FABRICA

    080 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-1493 April 21, 1948 - ANTONIA ESPINA v. CATALINA COLINA, ET AL.

    080 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1664 April 21, 1948 - MARIA BONGALA, ET AL. v. JOSE BARBAZA

    080 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-1486 April 26, 1948 - ARIAS MAGONCIA contra. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    080 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-770 April 27, 1948 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. PEDRO O. FRAGANTE

    080 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-254 April 30, 1948 - Carlos Gil v. ROBERTO TOLEDO Y GIL III

    080 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-348 April 30, 1948 - FLORENTINO PASCUA v. JOSE TALENS

    080 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-416 April 30, 1948 - GREGORIO MIGUEL v. VICENTE TOSE

    080 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-578 April 30, 1948 - PRIMITIVO RIVERO v. VICTORIANO RIVERO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-1115 April 30, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. FRANCISCO SEPILLO

    080 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-1248 April 30, 1948 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS contra. DATU ALIMPANG MANTAWAR

    080 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-1276 April 30, 1948 - ROSARIO VALERA v. MARIANO TUASON

    080 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-1543 April 30, 1948 - JULIAN SOGUECO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 829