This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue."[33] The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.[34] In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.[35] And when the court denies the demurrer, the defendant has to present countervailing evidence against the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.[36] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In a plethora of cases, the Court held that when the Rules of Procedure are rigid and strict in application, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend them.[27] The Court finds that the present case is one of the instances where the rigid application of the rule on filing a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari may be suspended to give way to the application of the new rule enunciated in Neypes. | |||||