CIPRIANO RAYMUNDO, PROTACIO LICSIN, RUFO REYES, ELIGIO MARCELO, MARIANO CRUZ, JR., FELICIANO BUENSUCESO, AND NESTORIO SAN JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES, JUDGE OF T…

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.