This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is well settled that matters that were neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal[13] and are barred by estoppel.[14] To allow the contrary would constitute a violation of the other party's right to due process, and is contrary to the principle of fair play. In Ayala Land Incorporation v. Castillo,[15] this Court held that: It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts and arguments belatedly raised would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process. | |||||
|
2014-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court cannot give weight to Ejercito's representation that his signature on the advertising contracts was a forgery. The issue is a belated claim, raised only for the first time in this petition for certiorari. It is a rudimentary principle of law that matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court.[91] It would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice to allow Ejercito to raise an issue that was not brought up before the COMELEC.[92] While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that elementary considerations of due process require that a party be duly apprised of a claim against him before judgment may be rendered.[93] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It is a settled principle of law that no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its consideration.[34] Matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court.[35] | |||||
|
2011-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [A]n affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge.[26] (Emphasis added.) | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that appeals can only raise questions of law or fact that (a) were raised in the court below, and (b) are within the issues framed by the parties therein.[23] An issue which was neither averred in the pleadings nor raised during trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[24] The rule was made for the benefit of the adverse party and the trial court as well. Raising new issues at the appeal level is offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice and is violative of a party's constitutional right to due process of law. Moreover, the trial court should be given a meaningful opportunity to consider and pass upon all the issues, and to avoid or correct any alleged errors before those issues or errors become the basis for an appeal.[25] | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Three justices of the Court have continued to maintain their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray[23] that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed. | |||||
|
2001-11-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To clinch, petitioner likewise assails the validity of RA 7659, the amendatory law of RA 7080, on constitutional grounds. Suffice it to say however that it is now too late in the day for him to resurrect this long dead issue, the same having been eternally consigned by People v. Echegaray[38] to the archives of jurisprudential history. The declaration of this Court therein that RA 7659 is constitutionally valid stands as a declaration of the State, and becomes, by necessary effect, assimilated in the Constitution now as an integral part of it. | |||||
|
2000-07-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Although four members of the court maintain their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray,[20] that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional, they nevertheless submit to the majority ruling that the law is constitutional and the death penalty prescribed thereunder has to be imposed. | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Four members of the Court are steadfast in their adherence to the separate opinion expressed in People vs. Echegaray [27] that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. However, they bow to the majority opinion that the said law is constitutional and thereunder, the imposition of the death penalty is proper. | |||||