GR L 24439; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24439 August 29, 1966
GOVERNOR HADJI ARSAD SALI, petitioner and appellee, vs. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
In an election protest (Special Remedies No. 81) filed by Benjamin Abubakar against Hadji Arsad Sali for the office of Provincial Governor of Sulu, the court issued an order on September 4, 1964, authorizing Abubakar “to avail himself of the services of handwriting and/or thumbmark experts” to examine the questioned ballots. Acting under this order, Abubakar engaged handwriting and fingerprint experts from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who examined the ballots under court supervision. Subsequently, in October 1964, Sali filed a separate case (Special Remedy No. 92) against Abubakar, the NBI officers, and court clerks to prevent further examination and to declare the NBI’s expert examination null and void. The lower court, without receiving evidence, issued an order on January 20, 1965, holding that the NBI agents and director were without legal authority to conduct the examination, ordering them to desist, making a preliminary injunction permanent, and declaring the entire expert examination proceedings null and void. Abubakar appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the examination of contested ballots by NBI experts, undertaken at the request of a private litigant (Abubakar) under a court order authorizing the use of experts, is illegal and null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and dismissed Sali’s complaint. The Court held that even assuming, without deciding, that the NBI may not extend technical aid to private parties under Republic Act No. 157 , such a premise does not render the examination null and void. The question of whether a public official may be permitted by his superior to examine documents and testify in a case is primarily an administrative matter to be addressed by the concerned administrative superiors, not the judiciary. The examination’s purpose was to assist the court in resolving issues regarding the ballots, and any person, expert or not, may testify on matters within their personal knowledge relevant to a suit, subject to the court’s assessment of credibility and weight. The validity of the examination and the credence to be given to the expert’s conclusions are independent of any administrative irregularity. Therefore, the lower court’s order declaring the examination null and void was erroneous.