This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it was explained in Da Jose v. Angeles[21] that - | |||||
|
2015-03-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court explained in Da Jose v. Angeles[37] that:Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons: (1) absence of cross-examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence; and (3) absence of oath. Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts within his or her personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed fact, x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2014-08-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the performance of this sacred duty, the JBC itself admits, as stated in the "whereas clauses" of JBC-009, that qualifications such as "competence, integrity, probity and independence are not easily determinable as they are developed and nurtured through the years." Additionally, "it is not possible or advisable to lay down iron-clad rules to determine the fitness of those who aspire to become a Justice, Judge, Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman." Given this realistic situation, there is a need "to promote stability and uniformity in JBC's guiding precepts and principles." A set of uniform criteria had to be established in the ascertainment of "whether one meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and possesses qualities of mind and heart expected of him" and his office. Likewise for the sake of transparency of its proceedings, the JBC had put these criteria in writing, now in the form of JBC-009. True enough, guidelines have been set in the determination of competence,"[20] "probity and independence,"[21] "soundness of physical and mental condition,"[22] and "integrity."[23] | |||||