This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We affirm the Ombudsman's ruling. To a reasonable - as opposed to a suspicious - mind, the circumstances leading to the filing of the complaint against respondent, his arrest following his entrapment, and the results from the laboratory tests are more than adequate to support the conclusion that respondent illegally solicited money from complainants and was caught red-handed receiving the pay-off money. This is clear-cut grave misconduct - corrupt conduct inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituting flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[19] | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners-defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are not duty-bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence introduced and considered in the tribunals below.[17] This is particularly true where the CA has affirmed the trial court's factual findings, as in the present case. These trial court findings, when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and are not open for our review on appeal.[18] | |||||