Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN JR. v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 179282-83 2010-12-01	MICHAEL SYIACO v. EUGENE ONG NACHURA, J.
The petition focuses on the issue of whether the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner to support the filing of the new estafa cases are newly discovered. The question of whether the pieces of evidence are newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when the evidence was discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.[21]
	GR No. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
Again, in Dinglasan v. Court of Appeals,[41] the Court declared that: After the judgment or final resolution is entered in the entries of judgment, the case shall be laid to rest. x x x
	GR No. 161778 2009-04-07	CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
Even assuming that the remedy of a motion for new trial is allowed, petitioner has yet to establish the fact that the reappearance of the accused Arancillo, who would testify on certain matters, qualified as newly discovered evidence. For the Court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that: (a) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.[30]
	GR No. 164314 2008-09-26	SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES REYES, R.T., J.
In Dinglasan v. Court of Appeals,[63] this Court explained the reason why it is unwise to reckon the period of finality of judgment from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 174698 2008-07-28	AURORA TAMAYO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed, altered or modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries.[34] Nothing further can be done to a final judgment except to execute it.[35] No court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, or modify a judgment which has become final and executory.[36] This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that the judgment of the court must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[37] It is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid to rest.[38]
	GR No. 165471 2008-07-21	EMETERIO O. PASIONA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Again, in Dinglasan v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court declared that:After the judgment or final resolution is entered in the entries of judgment, the case shall be laid to rest. x x x
	GR NO. 172274 2006-11-16	ROMEO D. CABARLO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It should be emphasized that the applicant for new trial has the burden of showing that the new evidence he seeks to present has complied with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial. The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the proferred evidence is in fact a newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence. The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.[14]