You're currently signed in as:
User

EMMA MONDRAGON v. CA

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2012-02-22
SERENO, J.
The affidavit, which the CA used as the main basis for its Decision, pertained exactly to how the crane's boom had been raised. It is only when a witness makes two sworn statements, and these two statements incur the gravest contradictions, that the court cannot accept both statements as proof.[37]
2000-08-31
QUISUMBING, J.
that it was a certain "Unik" who committed the same, as he stated in Exhibit "14", "I will help the National Bureau of Investigation in the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shooting to death of Peter Paul Aldeguer, in the evening of 10 February 1991 in Brgy. Santiago, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo" considering that when he wrote Exhibit "14", he was assisted by Atty. Jose A. Alegario, as a witness to his submission to protective custody. No such evidence was presented by the defense."[8] After trial, the court rendered its decision convicting appellant of the crimes charged. It decreed as follows: