In an order dated April 25, 2005,4 the Second Division ruled that the testimonies of the proposed witnesses were "unnecessary" inasmuch as the Comelec had the authority and wherewithal to determine by itself the ballots’ authenticity and, for that reason, denied the motion and directed petitioner to file forthwith his formal offer of evidence. Asserting his right to present evidence in his defense, petitioner filed on May 6, 2005 a motion for reconsideration of the April 25, 2005 order. In an order dated May 12, 2005, the Second Division denied the motion. On June 4, 2005, petitioner filed an Ad Cautela (sic) Offer of Protestee’s Evidence5 as a precautionary measure against the foreclosure of his right to comply with the Second Division’s April 25, 2005 order. Petitioner’s evidence included: (1) provincial election supervisor Serrano’s report that, at the time he took custody of the ballot boxes, their security seals bore signs of having been tampered with and (2) the affidavits of 157 BEI chairpersons who swore to the effect that the authenticating signatures on certain ballots6 identified and enumerated in their affidavits (that is, signatures purporting to be theirs) were clear forgeries. On June 15, 2005, petitioner filed in this Court a petition for certiorari 7 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (docketed as G.R. No. 1628253) assailing the April 25 and May 12, 2005 orders of the Comelec’s Second Division for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner complained, in substance, that the Second Division had, by these orders, denied him due process by effectively depriving him of a reasonable opportunity to substantiate with competent evidence his contention that the revised ballots were not the same ballots cast and counted during the elections, meaning, the revised ballots were planted inside the ballot boxes after the counting of votes (in place of the genuine ones) pursuant to a fraudulent scheme to manufacture grounds for a successful election protest. Meanwhile, the Second Division continued with the proceedings and, following the submission of the parties’ memoranda, considered EPC No. 2004-61 submitted for resolution. In a resolution8 dated January 23, 2006, the Second Division — then composed of only two sitting members, namely, Presiding Commissioner Mehol Sadain (now retired) and Commissioner Florentino Tuason, Jr. — declared private respondent Imperial the winning candidate for mayor of Legaspi City and ordered petitioner Rosal to vacate said office and turn it over peacefully to private respondent. Commissioner Sadain, who wrote the main opinion, relied on the election return count only in precincts the ballot boxes of which were found to contain fake ballots notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion that genuine but otherwise invalid ballots might have been switched with the ones actually cast in the elections. These numbered a mere 129 precincts. For the rest, he examined, appreciated and counted the ballots themselves, invalidating in the process over 14,000 ballots cast for petitioner for having been written by two persons or for being in groups written by one hand. Commissioner Sadain ended up crediting private respondent with 32,660 valid votes over 30,517 for petitioner. Commissioner Tuason filed a separate concurring opinion9 manifesting disagreement with Commissioner Sadain’s appreciation of certain ballots but arriving at the same practical result. On January 30, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Second Division’s resolution. The motion was denied by the Comelec en banc in a resolution dated May 29, 2006.10 In due time, petitioner came to this Court with a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the Comelec en banc resolution. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 172741 and consolidated with G.R. No. 168253.11