GR 190067; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190067, March 9, 2010
REPRESENTATIVE ALVIN S. SANDOVAL (Lone District of Navotas-Malabon), Petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JOSEPHINE VERONIQUE R. LACSON-NOEL, and HON. SPEAKER PROSPERO NOGRALES, Respondents.
FACTS
In the May 2007 elections for the Lone Legislative District of Malabon City-Navotas, Alvin S. Sandoval was proclaimed the winning candidate with 71,490 votes against Josephine Veronique R. Lacson-Noel who obtained 70,331 votes, a margin of 1,159 votes. Lacson-Noel filed an election protest, alleging fraud and irregularities in 623 precincts, and prayed for a recount. Sandoval filed an Answer with a counter-protest, questioning the results in 1,006 precincts. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) ordered the revision of ballots from the protested and counter-protested precincts. The physical count after revision yielded 70,530 votes for Lacson-Noel and 69,939 for Sandoval. During the proceedings, Sandoval filed a Motion for Technical Examination of ballots from 28 precincts, alleging missing padlocks/seals and the presence of fake ballots. The HRET, after hearings, denied this motion. Sandoval also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Present Additional Evidence and to Formally Offer Evidence, which the HRET denied. The HRET subsequently rendered a Decision annulling Sandoval’s proclamation and declaring Lacson-Noel as the duly elected Representative. Sandoval’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Sandoval then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the HRET’s Decision and Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying petitioner’s Motion for Technical Examination; and (2) denying petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to Present Additional Evidence and to Formally Offer Evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET.
1. On the denial of the Motion for Technical Examination: The Court ruled that the HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion. The motion was filed 21 days after the revision of ballots had been concluded. The HRET found that Sandoval failed to present clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim of fake or spurious ballots. His allegations were based on general claims and the purported absence of signatures of BEI chairpersons on the dorsal sides of ballots, which the HRET noted was not a requirement for ballot validity under the Omnibus Election Code. The HRET’s determination that the grounds for the technical examination were insufficient was within its discretion as the sole judge of election contests involving its members.
2. On the denial of the Motion for Extension: The Court ruled that the HRET acted within its sound discretion. Sandoval had already been given ample opportunity to present his evidence over several months. The HRET’s denial was based on its authority to control its proceedings and prevent delay, in line with the principle that election controversies must be resolved speedily to give effect to the will of the electorate. The Court found no arbitrariness in the HRET’s decision to proceed with the case and conclude it within a reasonable time.