ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 133509. August 15, 2000]

AQUILINO PIMENTEL JR., vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court AUG 15 2000.

G.R. No. 133509 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. The Commission on Election, Ligaya Salayon, Antonio Llorente and Reynaldo San Juan.)

The Court (a) NOTED and GRANTED the manifestation and motion dated 26 June 2000 filed by counsel for private respondent Llorente and praying that he be given leave to reply to and refute the arguments of petitioner in his comment and opposition and an extension of fifteen (15) days from 22 June 2000 or until 07 July 2000 within which to file reply; (b) GRANTED the motion dated 07 July 2000 filed by counsel for respondent Antonio M. Llorente for a second extension of ten (10) days from the expiration or until 17 July 2000 within which to file reply and (c) NOTED the aforesaid reply to petitioner's comment and opposition dated 19 July 2000 filed by counsel for private respondent.

Acting on the motions of private respondents Ligaya P. Salayon and Antonio M. Llorente for reconsideration of the decision of February 9, 2000 which granted the petition for certiorari and considering that the basic issues have already been passed. upon and there is no compelling reason to warrant a modification of this Court's decision, the Court Resolved to DENY reconsideration with FINALITY. The grounds relied upon by both private respondents in their separate motions for reconsideration are best ventilated in the trial proper of the criminal cases to be hereafter filed against them by the COMELEC in the proper Regional Trial Court. Furthermore, to hold against petitioner Pimentel his failure to voice out any complaint or objection at the earliest possible level before the Pasig City Board of Canvassers is to "tolerate, if not abet, a massive tampering of votes by allowing the wrongdoer a built-in and sure-fire defense for his exoneration." ¹ Pimentel, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 586, 601 [1998].Lastly, while we adhere to the expertise of the COMELEC on matters pertaining to prosecution of election offenses, including the determination of probable cause thereof during preliminary investigation, the COMELEC is not infallible and this Court will not hesitate to correct acts committed by the said body in grave abuse of discretion. ² Id ., at 603.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE