This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is understandable that courts with heavy dockets and time constraints, often find themselves with little to spare in the preparation of decisions to the extent most desirable. We have thus pointed out that judges might learn to synthesize and to simplify their pronouncements. Nevertheless, concisely written such as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly express at least in minimum essence its factual and legal bases.[14] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| In People v. Sadiosa,[15] we held:It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the information is sufficient where it clearly states the designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. However, there is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute that was violated by the accused. No law requires that in order that an accused may be convicted, the specific provision penalizing the act charged should be mentioned in the information. What identifies the charge is the actual recital of the facts and not that designated by the fiscal in the preamble thereof. It is not even necessary for the protection of the substantial rights of the accused, nor the effective preparation of his defense, that the accused be informed of the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. He must look to the facts alleged. (Emphasis supplied.) In the case at bar, the information contained the actual recital of facts which sufficiently informed the petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A trial court's omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of law violated, "is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court" [26] as long as the legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision. As the Office of the Solicitor General points out in its Comment [27] to the petition, | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the Court of Appeals did not simply ignore the charge of dishonesty, as the CSC alleges. Rather, the appellate court found that the evidence did not support the charges enumerated, including that of dishonesty. The appellate court appreciated the evidence presented and the facts of the case differently from the CSC. The Court of Appeals discussed at length in its 15-page Decision the factual and legal basis for its verdict of simple misconduct. The appellate court Decision thus sufficiently complied with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires only that a court's decision be clear on why either party prevailed under the law applicable to the facts as proved.[18] The constitutional provision does not require a point-by-point refutation of the CSC's Resolutions so long as the basis for the Court of Appeals' decision modifying the former is clear. | |||||