BORJA VS COMELECFACTS: Borja and Capco were municipal mayor candidates during the 1995 elections in Pateros. Capco was proclaimed winner. Borja then filed a petition to declare a failure of elections and to nullify the canvass/proclamation. Borjas grounds were the following1. !ac" of notice of date and time of canvass#. $raud%. &iolence or terrorism'. $lying voters and un(ualified )oard of election inspectors*he C+,-!-C -n Banc dismissed the petition in the assailed .esolution/ finding that there were grounds for an election protest. *he % instances were not alleged in Borjas petition. Borja claims that the C+,-!-C en )anc committed a grave a)use of discretion )y deciding on his petition/ claiming that it should have )een heard )y a 0ivision first. 1is )asis was 2rticle 9C of the 1934 Constitution/ which states 5-C.%. *he Commission on -lections may sit en )anc or in two divisions/ and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to e6pedite disposition of election cases/ including pre7proclamation controversies.2ll such election cases shall )e heard and decided in division/ provided that motionsfor reconsideration shall )e decided )y the Commission en )anc.8ISSUE: 9/: the C+,-!-C -n Banc had committed a grave a)use of discretion in dismissing Borjas Petition; f the technical e6amination of the &oters !ist and &oters 2ffidavits was sustained in that case/ it was )ecause even )efore the technical e6amination was conducted/ the Commission already noted certain )adges of fraud just )y loo"ing at the election results of Parang/ 5ulu.8>n the case at )ar/ there is no prima facie case of fraud. >ndeed/ what Balindong wants is a technical e6amination of the signatures so that he can prove fraud. Balindong must find his own evidence rather than fish for it in this manner. *o allow election documents to )e e6amined on a mere hunch or at the whim of a losing candidate without any factual )asis would )e to allow him to trifle with the will of the people.T&e proper re$ed1 i! to file an election prote!t %it& t&e RTC(1e can there show if the illegality of the transfer of the polling place/ as determined )y the C+,-!-C/ in any way affected the result of the voting in the precint and ultimately the result of the election in Pualas/ !anao del 5ur.2rocedre: Filin' of petition for annl$ent of procla$ation tolled t&e period for filin' an electionprote!t(2s his petition was not acted upon )y the ,unicipal Board of Canvassers/ he filed a petition for the annulment of private respondents proclamation in the C+,-!-C. Pursuant to #'3 of the +-C/ the filingof this case for suspension or annulment of the proclamation of *anog suspended the running of the period for filing an election protest.BULAO./ -! COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Aose ,. Bulaong and private respondent !uis .. &illafuerte were candidates for Provincial Bovernor of Camarines 5ur in the elections held on ,ay 11/ 199#/ private respondent )eing/ at the time/ the incum)ent Bovernor. Petitioner was proclaimed elected )y the Provincial Board of canvassers.Private respondent filed an election protest/ alleging fraud and other irregularities in 59' precincts located in 1C municipalities and one city riga City= of Camarines 5ur. 1e prayed that a revision of the )allots and other election documents and their technical e6amination )e ordered/ that the results of the elections )e annulled and that he )e declared the duly elected Bovernor of Camarines 5ur. Petitioner filed his answer denying that any irregularity attended the conduct of the elections.+n motion of private respondent the Commission on -lections ordered the revision of the )allots to )e held in ,anila. Petitioner (uestioned the order )ut this Court upheld the ordered the CommissionDs order. *he revision of )allots then proceeded. *he revision of )allots in 59' precincts resulted in a reversal of the results. Private respondent !uis .. &illafuerte received 141/544 votes/ while petitioner Aose ,. Bulaong received 14C/%?1.Petitioner then filed a motion for the technical e6amination of the election documents alleging that there had )een tampering of the )allots )etween the time the )allot )o6es were )rought to ,anila and the time the revision )egan. 1is motion was granted )y the Commission which limited the period for the e6amination to one month. Petitioner here as"ed several times for the e6tension of the period in which he will su)mit the evidence. 1owever despite several e6tensions/ petitioner again manifested that he was not ready to present his testimonial evidence. 1e as"ed instead to )e allowed to su)mit the affidavits of his witnesses. $or this purpose he as"ed for '5 days from Aune #4/ 199' within which to secure their affidavits.:oting that the ne6t election was less than a year away/ the Commission granted petitioner only 15 dayswithin which to su)mit the affidavits of his witnesses and after that another period of 15 days nspectors of Precinct :o. ?1. Petitioner e6plained that )ecause the witnesses had not )een a)le to see the )allots/ he was not a)le to o)tain their statements. $or this reason he was not ready to su)mit his evidence. 1e reiterated his re(uest for the issuance of su)poenas to his witnesses.*he C+,-!-C/ this time/ denied petitioners motion to allow his witnesses to view/e6amine )allots and other election documents )efore e6ecuting their affidavits.ISSUE: 34. petitioner !&old ,e 'ranted an1 frt&er e0ten!ion!34. t&e ,e!t e-idence of t&e re!lt of t&e election! i! t&e re!lt of t&e re-i!ion of t&e ,allot!HELD:2etitioner &ad ,een 'i-en !fficient ti$e to pro-e &i! alle'ation!( T&e 'rant of frt&er e0ten!ion to &i$ %old ,e incon!i!tent %it& t&e !$$ar1 natre of t&e proceedin'!Petitioner contends that there are Fhuge/ a)normal and une6plained discrepanciesF )etween the election sheets and election returns/ on the one hand/ and the result of the revision of the )allots/ on theother hand/ and that he/ as Faggrieved party/F has a right to show n such a case it is the election returns which must prevail.PetitionerDs contention assumes the very fact in dispute. 9hether the )allots in this case were indeed tampered with/ is a (uestion which the petitioner has to prove. *hat there is a Fhuge discrepancyF )etween the result of the canvass and that of the revision is no proof that the Commission committed a grave a)use of discretion in denying his re(uest for additional time to conduct a technical e6amination ofelection documents and to have his witnesses e6amine the )allots )efore re(uiring them to ma"e their affidavits. $or as already stated/ he was given sufficient time to present proof of tampering or su)stitution of )allots )ut he failed to do so. Petitioner thus )egs the (uestion when he claims that )ecause the )allots have )een tampered with/ the elections returns constitute the )est evidence of the result of the election.2nyway the (uestion whether there has )een su)stitution of )allots and what the actual result of the election is/ will still )e determined )y the Commission when it underta"es its own independent evaluation and appreciation of the contested )allots and election documents. 2s we have held/ handwriting e6perts/ while pro)a)ly useful/ are not indispensa)le in e6amining or comparing handwritingG this can )e done )y the C+,-!-C itself. 2s for the allegedly fa"e )allots/ no )etter authority than the C+,-!-C can determine their authenticity/ having itself ordered and supervised the printing of all the official )allots. 9e cannot overemphasiEe the fact that the Commission on -lections under the Constitution is the agency vested with e6clusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional/ provincial and city officials/ as well as appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective municipal and )arangay officials. Hnless the Commission is shown to have committed a grave a)use of discretion/ its decision and rulings will not )e interfered with )y this Court.HASSA. -! COMELECFACTS: 1assan and private respondent 1assan7Buatan were vice7mayor candidates during the 1995 elections in !anao del 5ure. But due to threats of violence and terrorism in the area/ there was a failure of elections in ? out of the #' precincts in the municipality. -lections were not held in several precincts )ecause of the failure of the B->s to report.*he elections were postponed twice s did not report/ so for the ,ay #9 elections/ the C+,-!-C was forced to appoint police and military personally just so the elections can push through.*he canvass of )oth elections t must )e recalled that elections had to )e set for the third time )ecause no mem)ers of the Board of -lection >nspectors = reported for duty due to impending threats of violence in the area. *his then prompted C+,-!-C to deploy military men to act as su)stitute mem)ers just so elections could )e heldG and to thwart these threats of violence/ the C+,-!-C *eam/ moreover/ decided to transfer the polling places to !iangan -lementary 5chool which was 15 "ilometers away from the polling place. :onetheless/ voting on ,ay #9 had to )e suspended )efore the hour fi6ed )y law for the closing of the voting )ecause of threats of violence/ grenade launching and gunfires.More t&an 8"999 -oter! %ere di!enfranc&i!ed(>t was (uite sweeping and illogical for the C+,-!-C to state that the votes uncast would not have in any way affected the results of the elections. 9hile the difference )etween the two candidates is only #19 out of the votes actually cast/ the C+,-!-C totally ignored the fact that there were more than a thousand registered voters who failed to vote. 2side from Precinct 472 where the )allot )o6 had )een )urned and which had #19 voters/ the C+,-!-C failed to consider the disenfranchisement of a)out 43I of the registered voters in the five n fi6ing the date of the special election/ the C+,-!-C should see to it that f only to ascertain the will of the people and to prevent that will from )eing muted/ itis necessary that a special election )e held in view of the failure of elections in ,adalum/ !anao del 5ur.