ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 170702. September 26, 2006]

INGATUN G. ISTARUL v. COMELEC, et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 26, 2006.

G.R. No. 170702 (Ingatun G. Istarul v. COMELEC, et al.)

Before the Court is a letter dated April 17, 2006 of the "Alliance of Concern People's Against Poverty (APAP)" signed by its alleged chairman and four members regarding alleged massive fraud, vote buying and dagdag bawas committed by the administration candidates and supporters in 2004 elections and the alleged Ten Million Peso pay-off to this Court in order to ensure the victory of petitioner.

In the Resolution dated May 2, 2006, the Court directed private respondent to file their Comment on the said letter.

In their Comment, private respondent and his counsel allege that: they have no knowledge on the alleged pay-off; that the letter sender - "Alliance of Concern People's Against Poverty" is non-existent and the alleged five signatories thereon are also fictitious as evidenced by the following documents: a) Certification by the Regional Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the records of the Commission do not show the registration of "Alliance of Concern People's Against Poverty"; b) Certification of the Commission on Elections that the five signatories in the subject letter "were found to be not duly registered as bona fide voters of the Municipality of Tipo-Tipo; c) Certification of the Liga ng mga Barangay that the APAP does not exist nor operate in the Municipality of Tipo-Tipo and that the five signatories who are alleged members thereof "are not known residents of the municipality nor in any barangay composing it. Private respondent submits that the letter of April 17, 2006 is a fabrication to discredit and malign him and Atty. Macalintal.

In the Resolution dated July 11, 2006, the Court directed petitioner to file comment on the letter dated April 17, 2006.

In his Compliance, petitioner denies any knowledge on the matter particularly the insinuation of the alleged pay-off and that he does not know the signatories in the subject letter. Private respondent did not also refute the asseverations of the petitioner.

CONSIDERING that both parties deny the contents of the subject letter, the Court resolved to consider the matter CLOSED.

The Court Notes Without Action the Manifestation of petitioner that he filed by registered mail a Motion to Reconsider the June 16, 2006 Resolution denying the petition and alleging that as a matter of general proposition, a case is not deemed submitted for resolution until the parties shall have filed their last pleadings, the issue or incident subject of his Compliance may yet constitute additional ground to warrant the reconsideration of the June 16, 2006 Resolution, said Motion for Reconsideration having been denied in the Resolution dated August 29, 2006 with finality on the grounds that the basic issues raised therein were already passed upon and no substantial arguments were raised to warrant reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE