STRONG MEMORANDUM VS DISQUALIFICATION OF THICK-FACED PACQUIAO

STRONG MEMORANDUM VS 
DISQUALIFICATION OF 
THICK-FACED PACQUIAO



Being a story of high public interest showing an apparent example of thick-faced arrogance of just trying to brush aside the truth that he is not disqualified by reason of lack of the length of residence, it was decided to share to the public this MEMORANDUM submitted to the Commission on Elections laying out and arguing clearly and without doubt why ROGELIO "ROEL" DAPIDRAN PACQUIAO should be disqualified.


The early parts of the same Memorandum already presented more than half of total picture why Pacquiao must be kicked out of arrogance and greed for power to give lesson to all persons that money must not be looked up to as God.


The same early parts state, as follows:



         "Other grounds advanced for the declaration of nullity of proclamation were presented and stated in the Motion for Declaration of Nullity of Proclamation."
  
            "One of those grounds is the fact that the respondent was not yet a registered voter of Sarangani when he filed his certificate of candidacy on 12 October 2015."
  
"This fact that Pacquiao was not yet a registered voter on 12 October 2015 was beyond question."

 "The computer database of the Sarangani Election Office as well as its hard-copy records can easily be retrieved without the use of legal or judicial discretion and when retrieved will show that Rogelio Dapidran Pacquiao who was born on 17 June 1982 was not registered in Sarangani on the date of 12 October 2015."

 "And with this, the Provincial Election Officer is charged with the knowledge that he cannot accept the certificate of candidacy that is void from the beginning by reason of lack of residency."

"With that knowledge, the provincial election officer was acting without jurisdiction or authority to accept the certificate of candidacy of Pacquiao."

 "To the contrary, the Comelec database will show in one or two minutes, depending on the speed of the signal of the internet, that Pacquiao was registered as a voter of a separate congressional district, particularly in Barangay Apopong in General Santos City that is a part of the First District of South Cotabato."

"Another undisputable proof that can easily be ascertained without resorting to judicial proceedings is the fact that Pacquiao applied for transfer of his voter registration record only on 19 October 2015 (unlike Abraham Khalil Mitra who applied for transfer of voter registration record from Puerto Princesa City to the Municipality of Aborlan on 20 March 2009 or more than a year before the election day on 2010. GR No. 191938)."


SHOULD YOU WISH TO READ THE VERY LONG MEMORANDUM FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION OF ROEL PACQUIAO, HERE IT IS POSTED:

Republic of the Philippines
Commission on Elections
Palacio del Gobernador
General Luna corner Andres Soriano Sts., Manila



MEGIE “JAMBY” RAMOS-ORIG,
                                                Petitioner,


            - versus -                                           SPA No. 16-080 (DC)
                                                                        For:    Petition for Disqualification
Under Rule 25 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure

ROGELIO D. PACQUIAO,
                                    Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x
                                   


Memorandum
with
Reiteration of the Motion to Declare
Proclamation as Null and Void


           
            The complainant, by the undersigned attorney, respectfully files this Memorandum with Reiteration of the Motion to Declare Proclamation as Null and Void in compliance with the order the last hearing on 26 May 2016 submitting simultaneous memoranda in ten (10) days from thereon.



            But before anything else, let the technical and procedural issues be tackled first.



            The respondent argued in his Answer that the instant petition must be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.



            The justification why there is no jurisdiction is that the respondent has already been proclaimed as winner by the Provincial Board of Canvasser of Sarangani Province.



            At any rate, this allegation confirmed that assertion of the petitioner in her Motion for Declaration of Nullity of the Proclamation that respondent Pacquiao had already been proclaimed despite opposition by the petitioner.



            Nevertheless, the argument that the instant disqualification petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction patently lacks merit.



            First, the jurisdiction over issues on the election, returns and qualification of a member of the House of Representatives are vested in the Commission on Elections and stay with the Comelec until the said person was declared the winner in the election, took his or her oath of office, and enters office.



            As of this time of writing, the respondent was already proclaimed as the winner but there is no evidence that he has taken his oath.  And there is also no possibility that the respondent has entered office because the law and the Constitution dictate that the office of all elected candidates begin at the noon of 30 June of the year they were elected.



So that, until there is proof that the respondent entered office, the jurisdiction of this disqualification petition stays with the Comelec.



Considering that little time is left before the House of Representatives starts its office for the new term and that there is a necessity to have sufficient time to deal with issues before the HRET (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal) overtakes and takes over the Comelec, it behooves the Comelec to issue its decision at least with a sufficient time left to deal with issues and, most above all, declare in the soonest possible time that the PROCLAMATION IS NULL and VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.



Else, the whole exercise by the Comelec will be rendered useless and an expense without return of investments.



Hence, the said motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction must be rejected at once and not given due course.





The Motion for Declaration
of Nullity of Proclamation





            It is indispensable for the Comelec to declare first the nullity of the proclamation if only to preserve its jurisdiction over this case. 



Else, the HRET will overtake and take over the case and renders futile, moot and moribund the whole exercise of the Comelec and lawyers.



If the Comelec does not declare the nullity of the proclamation, it will allow respondent Pacquiao to take his oath of office and enter the Office of the Member of the House of Representatives for the Lone District of Sarangani Province and—HRET to acquire jurisdiction.



            Other grounds advanced for the declaration of nullity of proclamation were presented and stated in the Motion for Declaration of Nullity of Proclamation.



            One of those grounds is the fact that the respondent was not yet a registered voter of Sarangani when he filed his certificate of candidacy on 12 October 2015.



This fact that Pacquiao was not yet a registered voter on 12 October 2015 was beyond question.  



The computer database of the Sarangani Election Office as well as its hard-copy records can easily be retrieved without the use of legal or judicial discretion and when retrieved will show that Rogelio Dapidran Pacquiao who was born on 17 June 1982 was not registered in Sarangani on the date of 12 October 2015. 



And with this, the Provincial Election Officer is charged with the knowledge that he cannot accept the certificate of candidacy that is void from the beginning by reason of lack of residency.



With that knowledge, the provincial election officer was acting without jurisdiction or authority to accept the certificate of candidacy of Pacquiao.



To the contrary, the Comelec database will show in one or two minutes, depending on the speed of the signal of the internet, that Pacquiao was registered as a voter of a separate congressional district, particularly in Barangay Apopong in General Santos City that is a part of the First District of South Cotabato.



Another undisputable proof that can easily be ascertained without resorting to judicial proceedings is the fact that Pacquiao applied for transfer of his voter registration record only on 19 October 2015 (unlike Abraham Khalil Mitra who applied for transfer of voter registration record from Puerto Princesa City to the Municipality of Aborlan on 20 March 2009 or more than a year before the election day on 2010. GR No. 191938).



Hence, on the face alone it was clear and without need of judicial or executive discretion to know whether the respondent was a registered voter of Sarangani.



            The presumption of evidence applies that what appears on its face are presumed to be the truth.   To assert contrary to what is shown by the face of the transaction is to prove that the truth is not what meets the eyes and that is to assume a judicial burden or obligation to prove otherwise.



            If on the face alone it showed that Pacquiao was not registered, the Provincial Election Office is obligated by law not to accept the certificate of candidacy of Pacquiao because it is no less than the Constitution that requires that no one can run for congressman without being a registered voter.



And if Pacquiao insisted that the truth is beyond the face, then Pacquiao must take the burden of proving otherwise in order for his candidacy to be accepted.



That should be the rule:  That when a person is not a registered voter then his certificate of candidacy cannot be accepted and to say otherwise to accept the same is NULL and VOID from the beginning.



In the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Sec. 6 or Article VI states:


            “SECTION 6, No person shall be a member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born –citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof, for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election” Underscore provided.



For the Provincial Election Officer to say that he has no discretion to assail the residency of Pacquiao is for him to quibble or to make “palusot” that is one of the reasons why this INDECENCY IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE TRADITION.



Thus, if the person is not a registered voter as shown by the database, he cannot be allowed to file a certificate of candidacy and for that person to insist is for him to file a petition for certiorari before the Comelec.



Moreover, it is a fact that the Provincial Election Officer knew the respondent as an incumbent barangay chairman of a barangay outside Sarangani.   Sarangani and General Santos City are neighbours and formerly belonging to one province called “South Cotabato.”



More, the Pacquiaos are popular in Sarangani and General Santos City (and in fact in the World) and this can be taken of judicial notice by the Comelec.   With that, the Provincial Election Officer cannot say he did not know the respondent.



So that it was incumbent for the same Provincial Election Officer to require Pacquiao to submit proof of resignation from Barangay Apopong other than ascertainment that he was a registered voter.



Further, entries in official records of the Comelec database made in the performance of official duties are prima facie evidence of whether or not Pacquiao was a registered voter of Sarangani.



If the database did not show that Pacquiao was not registered voter, it is the Comelec that has the power to determine whether the certificate of candidacy can be accepted or not and it is not for the Provincial Election Officer to say otherwise.



Hence, the general rule must be that the acceptance of a certificate of candidacy must observe the presumption of evidence as laid down in the Rules of Evidence: That the database must be consulted whether to accept the certificate of candidacy or not.



And because this was not observed by the Provincial Election Officer of Sarangani, the certificate of candidacy of Pacquiao is NULL AND VOID from the beginning.



On this score, it is urged in the strongest terms that the Comelec Second Division must declare the proclamation of the respondent as null and void on the ground that his certificate of candidacy is void from the beginning and the voidness was very clear and unquestionable.



In the same motion, the petitioner recited:



“The petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully moves for the declaration of nullity of the proclamation of Rogelio ‘Ruel’ D. Pacquiao as the winner in the elections for the lone seat of the membership in the House of Representatives in the Province of Sarangani.



“In the morning of 15 May 2016, inside the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani Province, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed the respondent as the duly elected Member of the House of representatives in the province of Sarangani.



“The petitioner was not able to get a copy of the Certificate of Proclamation because of the confusion that reigned due to the euphoria on the part of the victors and their supporters.



“Nevertheless, the petitioner was able to take some shots of the proclamation where the hands of ROGELIO D. PACQUIAO were being raised by the chairman and member of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of the province of Sarangani.  (Note that the photograph showing the chairman of the board of canvasser raising the hands of Pacquiao was attached to the Motion for Declaration of Nullity of the Proclamation.)



“The grounds why the proclamation must be declared null and void are overwhelming and these point to the legal conclusion that THE CANDIDACY OF PACQUIAO is NULL AND VOID FROM THE BEGINNING because he was not a registered voter of Sarangani when he filed his certificate of candidacy and that he lacked residency of one year on the day of his election on 9 May 2016.



“Additionally, no less than the 1987 constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Sec. 6, Article VI mandates that the residency requirement:



 ‘“SECTION 6, No person shall be a member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born–citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof, for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election” Underscore provided.




            “Now, the strongest proof that Mr. Pacquiao did not qualify to the residency period of one year is his IRREVOCAL RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 30 OCTOBER 2015.



“In this letter, Mr. Pacquiao filed his IRREVOCAL RESIGNATION from being the barangay chairman of Barangay Apopong in General Santos City, a place belonging to another district of First District of South Cotabato,



“Residence in a barangay is a continuing qualification for the barangay chairman to stay in his position as barangay chairman.



“So that it can never be legally allowed for Rogelio D. Pacquiao to serve as the barangay chairman of Apopong if it were true that he already transferred residence to Alabel, Sarangani.



“The fact that Mr. Pacquiao never resigned from being a barangay chairman of Apopong for more than one year ago from 8 May 2016 is a conclusive proof that he can never be deemed to have resided in Sarangani province earlier than 30 October 2015.



“A copy of the letter of irrevocable resignation was attached to the petition as ANNEX ‘A’.



“Moreover, it has been established in the records of the Commission on Elections that Pacquiao filed his certificate of candidacy for membership in the House of Representatives on 12 October 2015 when he applied for registration as a voter in Sarangani only on 19 October 2015.



“A copy of the application for transfer of voter’s registration filed by Mr. Pacquiao showing he filed it only on 19 October 2015 is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘F.’



“A copy of the Certificate of Candidacy of Pacquiao is attached to the petition as ANNEX ‘G.’



“All other evidence that are clearly showing that Pacquiao was not yet a resident of Sarangani are the following:



1.     “Deed of Absolute Sale attached to the petition as ANNEX “B” --- certified by the Registry of Deeds of Sarangani and it was notarized allegedly by Atty. Tomas C. Falgui II as Doc. No. 106, Page No. 22, Book No. CDVI, Series of 2014, dated 8 August 2014. 


2.     “Certification attached to the petition as ANNEX “C” -- issued by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Atty. Gerardine A. Jamora-Gayola, certifying that Atty. Tomas C. Falgui II has not yet submitted his notarial documents from August 6, 2014 up to the present.


3.     “Certificate Authorizing the Registration (CAR) attached to the petition as ANNEX “E” -- Showing that it was issued for the same parcel of land referred to the deed of absolute sale only on September 10, 2015 at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, suggesting that if the CAR was given only in 2015, then it is not true that the sale occurred on 8 August 2014.



“MOREOVER, it was very clear that the instant petition for disqualification was still pending and that the Comelec has already given due course thereto yet the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sarangani proceeded with the proclamation and in fact proclaimed Mr. Pacquiao.



“In sum, it is very clear that the candidacy of Pacquiao WAS WITHOUT QUESTION TO BE NULL AND VOID from the time of filing on 12 October 20115.



“That is so because it is clear and convincing or with proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was not a registered voter when he filed his Certificate of Candidacy on 12 October 2015.



“Ergo, there is no other way but to declare the proclamation of respondent Rogelio D. Pacquiao as the duly elected member of the House of Representatives as NULL and VOID from the beginning.



“This problem could have not occurred if the Comelec was quick enough to act on the motion for suspension of proclamation.”




Further Arguments Why Proclamation
Must be Declared Null and Void




            In summary, the proclamation of Mr. Pacquiao is NULL and VOID because it proceeded from the certificate of candidacy that is also NULL and VOID from the beginning.


            No right can be gotten from a null and void Certificate of Candidacy.



And if the Certificate of Candidacy appears void from the very beginning, it must be declared to be so at once.


One kind of a certificate of candidacy that is null and void is the certificate of candidacy THAT WAS CREATED BY MEANS OF FALSIFICATION.


And the instant Certificate of Candidacy is falsified because the one who filled it up falsified the fact that Pacquiao did not have residence of at least one year in the province of Sarangani.


The falsification is clear.


First, he resigned only on 30 October 2016 from the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Apopong in General Santos City.


General Santos City is included in separate congressional district of First District of South Cotabato.  Saranggani is another congressional district.


Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao cannot be allowed to transfer residence outside Barangay Apopong if he stayed as incumbent barangay chairman of Barangay Apopong, General Santos City, because doing so would be committing the felony of USURPATION OF AUTHORITY under the Revised Penal Code.   For the Comelec to allow Pacquiao to change residence without resigning from being the barangay chairman is for the Comelec to conspire in the commission of the felony of Usurpation of Authority.


Hence, it cannot be said and cannot be justified by any principle that it was true or there was some color of truth for Pacquiao to have already changed residence when he did not resign from being the barangay chairman.   That is because, to repeat, allowing him to be a resident of Sarangani while not getting punished with the crime of usurpation of authority for usurping the official powers of the barangay chairman of Apopong cannot be done.


This circumstance differed so much from the circumstance of Abraham Khalil Mitra.  


In the case of Mitra in GR No. 191938, he changed residence when he was a congressman of the congressional district covering the city of Puerto Princesa and Aborlan among other municipalities.   Mitra changed residence to Aborlan which was still part of the district so that Mitra was not committing the crime of usurpation of authority and Mitra did not suffer disqualification as a congressman because he was still a resident of the district, although this time as a resident of Aborlan.


So that it was erroneous for the Second Division of the Comelec to dismiss the Petition of Elson Formoso to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Rogelio Dapidran Pacquiao by just citing the Mitra case.


As it now appears, it is very clear that the irrevocable resignation of Pacquiao dated 30 October 2015 is the hammer that nailed the coffin for Pacquiao’s falsification quest.


Unlike in Mitra that it was allowed for Mitra to change residence without losing residential qualification as congressman, Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao cannot be allowed to change residence without resigning first from being the barangay chairman of Barangay Apopong. 


Pacquiao must resign because allowing him to get away without resigning first from being a chairman would constitute the State conspiring with Pacquiao to commit the felony of usurpation of authority.  There would be acts of usurpation of authority because Pacquiao would have no more authority to act as barangay chairman when he would no longer be a resident of Barangay Apopong.  Remember that residence is a continuing qualification.


For clarity, let the Mitra case be quoted here:


The Antecedents

When his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan was declared cancelled, Mitra was the incumbent Representative of the Second District of Palawan. This district then included, among other territories, the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto Princesa City. He was elected Representative as a domiciliary of Puerto Princesa City, and represented the legislative district for three (3) terms immediately before the elections of 2010.

On March 26, 2007 (or before the end of Mitras second term as Representative), Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a highly urbanized city and thus ceased to be a component city of the Province of Palawan. The direct legal consequence of this new status was the ineligibility of Puerto Princesa City residents from voting for candidates for elective provincial officials.

On March 20, 2009, with the intention of running for the position of Governor, Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voters Registration Record from Precinct No. 03720 of Brgy. Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City, to Sitio Maligaya, Brgy. Isaub, Municipality of Aborlan, Province of Palawan. He subsequently filed his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan.

Soon thereafter, respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr. (the respondents) filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitras COC.  They essentially argued that Mitra remains a resident of Puerto Princesa City who has not yet established residence in Aborlan, and is therefore not qualified to run for Governor of Palawan. Mitra insisted in his Answer that he has successfully abandoned Puerto Princesa City as his domicile of origin, and has established a new domicile in Aborlan since 2008.

The Parties Claims and Evidence

              The respondents petition before the COMELEC claimed that Mitras COC should be cancelled under the following factual premises: (a) Mitra bought, in June 2009, a parcel of land in Aborlan where he began to construct a house, but up to the time of the filing of the petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitras COC, the house had yet to be completed; (b) in the document of sale, Puerto Princesa City was stated as Mitras residence (attached as Annex J of the Respondents Petition before the COMELEC);   (c) Mitras Puerto Princesa City residence was similarly stated in his application for a building permit (attached as Annex K of the Respondents Petition before the COMELEC); and (d) Mitras community tax certificate states that his residence was Puerto Princesa City (attached as Annex M of the Respondents Petition before the COMELEC).   The respondents presented several affidavits attesting to the non-completion of the construction of the house, and asserted that without a fully constructed house, Mitra could not claim residence in Aborlan.

Mitra denied the respondents allegations in his Answer. He claimed that the respondents misled the COMELEC by presenting photographs of his unfinished house on the land he purchased from a certain Rexter Temple. He claimed, on the contrary, that his residence is located inside the premises of the Maligaya Feedmill and Farm (Maligaya Feedmill) which the owner, Carme Caspe, leased to him; and that he purchased a farm and presently has an experimental pineapple plantation and a cock farm. The transfer of his residence, he claimed, began in 2008.

He submitted the following: (a) the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Ricardo Temple; Florame T. Gabrillo, the Punong Barangay of Isaub, Aborlan; Marissa U. Zumarraga, Councilor of Aborlan; Virginia J. Agpao and Elsa M. Dalisay, both Sangguniang Barangay members of Isaub, Aborlan, attesting that Mitra resides in their locality; (b) photographs of the residential portion of the Maligaya Feedmill where he claims to reside, and of his Aborlan experimental pineapple plantation, farm, farmhouse and cock farm;   (c) the lease contract over the Maligaya Feedmill;  (d) the community tax certificate he claims he himself secured, stating that Aborlan is his residence; and (e) an updated identification card issued by the House of Representatives stating that Aborlan is his residence.

To refute Mitras claimed residence in Aborlan specifically, that he resides at the Maligaya Feedmill property the respondents additionally submitted: (a) the affidavits of the 14 Punong Barangays of Aborlan and of six residents of Aborlan, all stating that Mitra is not a resident of Aborlan and has never been seen in that municipality; (b) a Certification from the Barangay Captain of Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City stating that Mitra was a resident of that barangay as of November 16, 2009; (c) the affidavit of Commodore Nicanor Hernandez attesting that Mitra continues to reside in Puerto Princesa City; and (d) 24 affidavits of former employees, workers, Aborlan residents and a customer of the Maligaya Feedmill attesting that they have never seen Mitra during the time he claimed to have lived there and that the area where Mitra supposedly lives is, in fact, the office of the feedmill and is unlivable due to noise and pollution.


Ergo, it is very clear that the proclamation must be null and void and must be declared as such.


            And if it is declared null and void, then Pacquiao cannot be validly allowed to enter the Office of the House of Representatives and be registered in the roll of congressmen.

Main Issue: Disqualification
by lack of residence





            The petitioner hereby re-pleads all the above to form as integral parts of the arguments why Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao must be declared as disqualified.



            In brief, the arguments above established the following:



(1)              Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao was not a registered voter of Sarangani when he filed on 12 October 2015 his certificate of candidacy – see attached EXHIBIT “H” as certified copy of thereof ;



(2)              Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao was still a registered voter of Barangay Apopong that is not within the congressional district of Sarangani – a fact that can be established by the database of the Comelec and a copy of the computer-generated printout of his registration at Apopong is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “K”;



(3)              Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao filed his application for transfer of voter’s registration records from Apopong to Poblacion of Alabel – this can be proved by the records of the Comelec at its Provincial Office in Sarangani that it can take judicial notice of;



(4)              Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao filed his irrevocable letter of resignation (common exhibit as EXHIBIT “A” of the petitioner and EXHIBIT “15” of the respondent) dated 30 October 2015;



(5)              That it was a criminal act or a felony for Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao to abandon residence in Apopong from 2014 up to the time he filed his irrevocable letter of resignation dated 30 October 2015 because he usurped the powers of the barangay chairman of Apopong and as councilor of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of General Santos City because he was also president of the Association of Barangay Chairman of General Santos City;



(6)              That because it was a criminal act under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code to transfer residence without resigning from the barangay chairmanship of Barangay Apopong, then it is a matter of legal conclusion that until he filed his resignation dated 30 October 2015 Pacquiao cannot be deemed or be interpreted to have transferred residence because the Doctrine of In Dubio Pro Reo provides that acts must be interpreted in favor of the person and the one that is in favor of Pacquiao is that he did not abandon residence at Apopong;



(7)              The circumstances in the case of Mitra are far different than Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao in many ways, as follows:



                                                                          i.      Mitra filed his application for transfer for voters registration record more than one year before the election day in 2010 WHILE Pacquiao filed his application for transfer of his voter registration records only on 19 October 2015, much less than one year before the election day on 9 May 2016;



                                                                        ii.      Mitra’s transfer of residence did not disqualify him from continuing in his incumbency as congressman because the new residence is still within the congressional district WHILE Pacquiao’s abandonment of residence at Apopong disqualified him outright to continue to serve as barangay chairman of Barangay Apopong; and



                                                                      iii.      Mitra’s transfer of residence did not violate any law WHILE Pacquiao’s transfer violated the law of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.




Then, in addition to the above, let the deed of sale, the corresponding certificates of titles, certification authorizing authority to register sale of land issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the certification issued by the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, etc, be scrutinized.



So far, all the other documents being claimed by Pacquiao evidencing that he transferred residence already as early as 2014 to Alabel CANNOT DEFEAT THE FACT THAT WITHOUT RESIGNATION FROM BEING THE BARANGAY CHAIRMAN THERE CAN BE NO TRANSFER OF RESIDENCE BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD BE TOLERATING A CRIME of violating Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.



The respondent claimed that he bought the residential property as long as August 6, 2014 and his evidence therefor is EXHIBIT “4” of Pacquiao and EXHIBIT “B” of the petitioner as a common exhibit.



In fact, the same Deed of Absolute Sale shows that it was PURPORTEDLY notarized by Atty. Tomas C. Falgui III as Doc. No. 106, Page No. 21, Book No. CXVI, Series of 2014.



Can this Deed of Absolute Sale be believed in as true?



No.  Why?



That is because the Office of the Clerk of Court of General Santos City RTC issued a Certification dated March 9, 2016 certifying that from August 6, 2014 up to the present Atty. Tomas C. Falgui III did not submit his notarial documents. 



A copy of the Certification issued by Atty. Gerardine A. Jamora-Gayola was marked during the marking of exhibits as EXHIBIT “C” and a copy of the original is attached hereto.   The official receipt issued for paying the certification fee, OR No. 9469195B, dated 3-9-16, as EXHIBIT “C-1.”  


            The import of the fact that the notarial book was not submitted is that there is no presumption that will be created to prove the existence of the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale on August 6, 2014.


            Yes, it is true that Pacquiao managed to secure a Certification from difference attorney as Clerk of Court of the RTC of General Santos City, Atty. Marlon Gay C. Mirabueno.  THIS CANNOT DEFEAT the presumption created by the earlier certification certifying that Atty. Falgui did not submit his notarial book.




That new certificate was dated only as 26 April 2016 and cannot defeat the 9 March 2016 certification showing that Atty. Falgui did not submit his notarial book from 6 August to the present (9 March 2016).



If there is any interpretation from this, it means that the notarial book submitted by Atty. Falgui after 9 March 2016 CANNOT HAVE THE PRESUMPTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REGULARLY MADE AND NOT REGULARY PERFORMED AS TO THE DATE OF SUBMISSION. 


This is the command of Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence, that says:



SEC. 44. Entries in official records.—Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.(38)



            So that it is clear that it cannot be concluded that the deed of absolute sale with Narciso Grafilo cannot be given weight in order to believe in the assertion that it is true that the sale occurred on 6 August 2014.



            In fact, this appears more as a FALSIFICATION CONSPIRACY on the part of Atty. Falgui, Atty. Mirabueno and certain personnel of the records section of the RTC of General Santos City.



            They made it appear that Atty. Falgui submitted his notarial book for August 5, 2014 up to August 15, 2014.



            The rule on submission of notarial books demands that it shall be done EVERY THREE MONTHS AT THE MOST and all months and days covered must be submitted.  In the case of Atty. Falgui, he waited for two  (2) years before submitting his notarial book and when he submitted ATTY. FALGUI SUBMITTED ONLY HIS BOOK FOR ELEVEN (11) DAYS?



            Supporting the conclusion that the date of the deed of absolute sale with Grafilo is the fact that all other three deeds of absolute sale presented by Pacquiao as EXHIBITS “6”, “7” and “8” were not even notarized.  As such, no presumption can be acquired from the lack of notarization.



            Another proofs that support the assertion that Pacquiao falsified the deeds of absolute sale of Pacquiao are the fact that he is super rich and that THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 148-2015000451 WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 21 SEPTEMBER 2015.



            If he were rich because his brother is a billionaire, this means that he had a lot of money to pay for the capital gains tax, the transfer tax, the documentary stamp tax and the registration fees.



            But why it took him until September 21, 2015 to register the transfer to his name?   If anything, this September 21, 2015 is the true date of acquisition of the said residential lot.


           
            As evidence of the date of transfer of registration name in the title, look at EXHIBIT “5” of Pacquiao.



            Another proof that it was only in September 2015 that Pacquiao actually acquired the residential lot of Grafilo is the CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE BIR because it was dated only on SEPTEMBER 21, 2015.



            A certified copy of the Certificate Authorizing Registration is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “E.”
           


            To prove that the petitioner is a registered voter of Sarangani, her VOTER CERTIFICATION issued by Election Officer Violeta B. Alvarado of Kiamba, Sarangani is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “L.”



To support the assertion that it was a crime for Pacquiao to abandon residence from Apopong, a copy of the Complaint Affidavit for Usurpation of Authority filed at the Office of the Ombudsman is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “M” in series.
           


            All other evidence of the respondents, which consist of affidavits, cannot prevail upon the irrevocable resignation and the fact that abandoning his residence from Barangay Apopong is a crime called usurpation of authority under Article 177.




The Prayer


           

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the certificate of candidacy of RUEL D. PACQUIAO be CANCELLED OUTRIGHT FOR BEING NULL AND VOID and WITHOUT BASIS IN LAW and his PROCLAMATION BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.


If the Decision cannot be issued immediately before the entering of office at NOON of 30 June 2016, it is also prayed that the Comelec DECLARE FIRST AS NULL AND VOID the proclamation of the respondent.



Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.  6 June 2016, Manila.



Causing Sabarre Castro Pelagio
Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com, berteni.causing@gmail.com; Telephone No.: +632-3105521



By:



BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, CE
IBP No. 972694/ 04-12-2015 / Manila IV
PTR No. 4889732 / 04-12-2015 / Manila
Roll No. 60944
MCLE No. IV – 0007338 issued 10 August 2012
(Valid from 15 April 2013 until 14 April 2016)
MCLE No. V – 0013036 issued 13 January 2016
(Valid from 15 April 2016 until 14 April 2019)


Cc:
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL
ATTY. ANTONIO CARLOS B. BAUTISTA
13 Cagayan Valley Street, Philamlife Village,
Las Piñas City
Counsel for Rogelio “Roel” Dapidran Pacquiao



RUEL D. PACQUIAO
Lot 24, Block 2, Alpha Village,
Brgy. Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani Province






















x------------------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines                      )
City of Manila                                              )SC



VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION


            I, MEGIE “JAMBY” RAMOS-ORIG, of legal age, a resident of Poblacion Kiamba, Kiamba, Sarangani Province, a registered voter at Precinct 0012A Poblacion Kiamba, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and stated:


1.                 I caused the preparation of the foregoing MEMORANDUM that I read the allegations therein and these are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based on authentic records.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby sign this Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping on 6 June 2016 in the City of Manila.





MEGIE “JAMBY” RAMOS-ORIG
Driver’s License No. L04-06-005902
Expiring on October 15, 2017


            SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on 6 June 2016 in the City of Manila. 

Doc. No.:       ____;
Page No.:      ____;
Book No.:     ____;
Series of 2016.

Post a Comment

Popular Posts