This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that "[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." The purpose of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution is to inform the person reading the decision, and especially the parties, of how it was reached by the court after consideration of the pertinent facts and examination of the applicable laws. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. Thus, a decision is adequate if a party desiring to appeal therefrom can assign errors against it.[6] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The sum total of these testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence proves beyond doubt that the victim was a mental retardate at the time she was raped by the appellant. We note that even the defense did not dispute her mental retardation. Thus, we agree with the lower court's findings that AAA was suffering from a mild mental retardation. In People v. Orbita,[46] we held that carnal knowledge of a woman who is so weak in intellect to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent constitutes rape. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The purpose of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution is to inform the person reading the decision, especially the parties, of how it was reached by the court after a consideration of the pertinent facts and an examination of the applicable laws. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, if he believes that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. Thus, a decision is adequate if a party desiring to appeal therefrom can assign errors to it.[29] | |||||