This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, we find that a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is warranted. New trial is a remedy that seeks to "temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice." Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly discovered evidence.[41] The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.[42] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| refute the evidence presented by respondent does not ipso facto entitle the respondent to a tax refund. It is not the duty of the government to disprove a taxpayer's claim for refund. Rather, the burden of establishing the factual basis of a claim for a refund rests on the taxpayer.[20] | |||||