This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Heirs of Bernardo Ulep v. Ducat,[24] it was written, thus: x x x Being an admission against interest, the documents are the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. The rationale for the rule is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration was true. Thus, it is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not. | |||||
|
2012-01-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| An examination of the petitioners' arguments and the cited indicia of delay would reveal the absence of any allegation that petitioners moved before the Sandiganbayan for the dismissal of the case on account of vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays that attended the proceedings. Following Tello, petitioners are deemed to have waived their right to a speedy disposition of the case. Moreover, delays, if any, prejudiced the Republic as well. What is more, the alleged breach of the right in question was not raised below. As a matter of settled jurisprudence, but subject to equally settled exception, an issue not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[97] The sporting idea forbidding one from pulling surprises underpins this rule. For these reasons, the instant case cannot be dismissed for the alleged violation of petitioners' right to a speedy disposition of the case. | |||||
|
2011-03-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Datoon failed to address these accusations as she was not presented for rebuttal. Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides that admissions of a party may be given in evidence against him or her. Datoon's admission against her interest, as narrated by two credible and neutral witnesses, militates against the credibility of her charges. The presumption is that no person would declare anything against himself unless such declaration were true.[29] | |||||