GR 31394; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31394 January 23, 1970
EUSEBIO B. MOORE, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NORTHERN SAMAR, RAUL DAZA, and THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF NORTHERN SAMAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eusebio B. Moore and respondent Raul Daza were candidates for Representative of Northern Samar in the November 11, 1969 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed its canvass on November 30, 1969, showing Daza leading by 459 votes. Moore filed petitions with the COMELEC alleging massive fraud and specifically contesting the inclusion of 25 election returns from various precincts. His grounds included: lack of signatures of board members, spurious signatures compared to minutes of voting, entries appearing written by one hand, and mathematically impossible totals. The COMELEC, after a hearing on December 18, 1969, where it physically examined the returns, issued a resolution sustaining the Board’s inclusion of the returns, finding them regular on their face, and directed the Board to desist from proclaiming a winner until December 26, 1969, to allow Moore to seek Supreme Court review. Moore appealed, alleging COMELEC denied him due process by denying his motion for postponement to submit supporting affidavits and committed grave abuse of discretion in its ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion or denied due process in: (1) denying Moore’s motion for postponement of the hearing to submit affidavits; and (2) issuing its resolution which included the contested election returns in the canvass.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC resolution, finding no grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.
1. On the denial of postponement: Moore had sufficient time (20 days from his first petition) to gather affidavits, many of which were sworn to before the hearing. His excuse about lack of plane flights was proven false.
2. On the inclusion of returns: The COMELEC correctly relied on the face of the returns. Specific findings included:
* Missing or allegedly spurious signatures did not invalidate the returns, as they were present on the COMELEC copies and the irregularities were not conclusively proven. Affidavits explained some omissions as inadvertence.
The claim that returns were written by one hand was not sustained upon examination.
A one-vote discrepancy in a precinct total was likely a clerical error and did not prove falsity.
* The consistency between the COMELEC, Provincial Treasurer, and Municipal Treasurer copies indicated genuineness.
* Moore’s affidavits alleging duress were contradicted by counter-affidavits from board members.
The Court dissolved its restraining order and directed the Board to proclaim the winning candidate based on its November 30, 1969 certificate of canvass.