This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The pro hac vice resolution of this Court on January 15, 2004 allows this Court an unusual, though not unprecedented,[53] task to revisit our own final and executory Decision. It should be stressed that a new trial based on newly discovered evidence may only be granted by the court on motion of the accused, or motu proprio with the consent of the accused (a)t any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final.[54] Furthermore, the affidavits of Mabansag and Delos Reyes cannot be considered newly discovered in that the affiants are the movants' co-accused who were already identified as such during the trial.[55] Nevertheless, the Court, alluding to its power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice require it,[56] and noting the support of the Office of the Solicitor General to Licayan and Lara's motion, voted 8-6 to order the suspension of the Rules of Court itself and remand the case to the trial court for further reception of evidence.[57] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, there is constructive service by registered mail only if there is conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee and that such first notice had been delivered to and received by the addressee. The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster to the effect that not only was notice issued or sent but also on how, when and to whom the delivery was made. The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered.[44] | |||||
|
2001-08-23 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality.[20] Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts.[21] | |||||