This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Under the Rules on Evidence, documents are either public or private. Private documents are those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[49] Section 20 of the same Rule, in turn, provides that before any private document is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.[50] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. "The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."[43] The party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discretion such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense justice.[44] | |||||
|
2011-03-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer[9] is tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would place the accused in double jeopardy.[10] Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[11] For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham thus rendering the assailed judgment void.[12] The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.[13] | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Besides, even assuming that the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence and erroneously substituted the penalty of imprisonment with a fine, these cannot be corrected on an appeal by the prosecution. Given the far-reaching scope of private respondent's right against double jeopardy, an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie.[23] Whatever error may have been committed by the Court of Appeals was merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. It did not affect the intrinsic validity of the decision. For, as long as it acted within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a timely appeal.[24] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Sanvicente v. People,[40] this Court held that given the far-reaching scope of an accused's right against double jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. Respondent People of the Philippines argues, citing the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan[41] that the trial was a sham. We do not agree with the respondent as the trial in the Galman case was considered a mock trial owing to the act of a then authoritarian president who ordered the therein respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and who closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure a predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution of the respondents-accused therein of all the charges.[42] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others."[10] The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him, whether orally or in writing.[11] In Sanvicente v. People,[12] we held that when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being patently hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence.[13] | |||||