G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995
JOSE M. BULAONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LUIS VILLAFUERTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong and private respondent Luis R. Villafuerte were candidates for Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed elected. Private respondent filed an election protest alleging fraud and irregularities in 594 precincts. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ordered a revision of ballots, which resulted in a reversal: private respondent received 171,577 votes and petitioner received 170,361 votes. Petitioner then filed a motion for technical examination of election documents, alleging tampering of ballots. The COMELEC granted the motion but limited the examination period. Petitioner requested several extensions. The COMELEC denied a final request for extension on June 7, 1994. During hearings, private respondent offered documentary exhibits. Petitioner mailed his comments/objections from Naga City, but they were not received by the COMELEC by the hearing date of June 20, 1994. The COMELEC admitted the exhibits “for whatever they may be worth.” The COMELEC then ordered petitioner to present his evidence, granting him 15 days to submit affidavits of witnesses and another 15 days to make a formal offer of evidence and submit a memorandum. Petitioner moved to allow his witnesses to examine the ballots before executing affidavits, or alternatively, to allow oral testimonies. The COMELEC denied this motion and his motion for reconsideration of the June 20 order. Petitioner was only able to submit one affidavit by the deadline. He filed this petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the four COMELEC orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections committed a grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying petitioner’s motion for a further extension of time to complete the technical examination of ballots; (2) admitting all of private respondent’s documentary exhibits without considering petitioner’s comments and objections; (3) giving petitioner only 15 days, instead of 45 days, to submit affidavits of his witnesses; and (4) denying petitioner’s motion to allow his witnesses to examine ballots and other election documents before executing their affidavits.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
(1) On the denial of the extension for technical examination: The COMELEC had already granted petitioner ample time (from April 4 to May 4, 1994, and an extension from May 17 to June 10, 1994). The denial of a further extension was within its discretion to prevent delay, especially with the next election less than a year away.
(2) On the admission of private respondent’s exhibits: The exhibits were mainly official revision results, which are official documents of the COMELEC itself. The COMELEC admitted them “for whatever they may be worth,” without ruling on their relevance, and petitioner’s comments were not received by the hearing date as they were mailed from Naga City.
(3) & (4) On the period to submit affidavits and the denial of witness examination: The COMELEC acted within its discretion to expedite the proceedings. Granting petitioner’s requests would have caused further delay. The COMELEC, vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over the contest, must conclude cases promptly. Petitioner was not deprived of his right to present evidence; he was given a period to submit affidavits but failed to do so except for one witness.