This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-03-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner was not denied due process on the mere premise that she was not able to submit her affidavit regarding where she allegedly spent the council's money. Due process means that a party has been given the opportunity to be heard.[10] When a party has been afforded a chance to present his or her own side, he cannot feign denial of due process.[11] In this case, the records are evident that petitioner herself participated as the only witness for the defense during the trial. She cannot now claim very belatedly that her constitutional right to due process was violated and that she was denied her day in court. What is repugnant to due process is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard through pleadings or otherwise,[12] which is not the case here. | |||||