Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • 2 Ombudsman v. Ibrahim

    Încărcat de

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    21 vizualizări1 pagină
    An irrigation officer, Ibrahim, was sued by an irrigation association for dishonesty. While Ibrahim cited a Summary of his Obligations in his defense, he did not submit it as evidence. After being convicted, Ibrahim submitted the Summary with his Motion for Reconsideration. The court ruled the Summary was not newly discovered evidence, as it was mentioned previously but not submitted, and so did not meet the criteria to be considered new evidence.

    Descriere originală:

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    An irrigation officer, Ibrahim, was sued by an irrigation association for dishonesty. While Ibrahim cited a Summary of his Obligations in his defense, he did not submit it as evidence. After being convicted, Ibrahim submitted the Summary with his Motion for Reconsideration. The court ruled the Summary was not newly discovered evidence, as it was mentioned previously but not submitted, and so did not meet the criteria to be considered new evidence.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    21 vizualizări1 pagină

    2 Ombudsman v. Ibrahim

    Încărcat de

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    An irrigation officer, Ibrahim, was sued by an irrigation association for dishonesty. While Ibrahim cited a Summary of his Obligations in his defense, he did not submit it as evidence. After being convicted, Ibrahim submitted the Summary with his Motion for Reconsideration. The court ruled the Summary was not newly discovered evidence, as it was mentioned previously but not submitted, and so did not meet the criteria to be considered new evidence.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    Newly Discovered Evidence

    Ombudsman v. Ibrahim

    Facts:

    Ibrahim is an irrigation officer in the National Irrigation Administration. One day, an


    irrigation association, through its president, sued him and several other officers for dishonesty
    in exercising his office. The Ombudsman ordered him to answer the latter’s Complaint. In his
    Counter-Affidavit, he cited the Summary of his Obligations but did not annex it. He and others
    were convicted and the CA affirmed it. He filed his Motion for Reconsideration (MR) and
    annexed the said Summary to prove that there was no shortage of funds and that the
    government was not defrauded or did not suffer any damage. The CA only considered the
    Summary of Obligations as new on the records because Ibrahim only submitted it with his MR.

    Issue:

    Is the annexed Summary of Obligations a newly discovered evidence?

    Ruling:

    No, the annexed Summary of Obligations is not a newly discovered evidence because
    the first requisite under the Berry Rule is absent. It is not discovered after trial because it was
    already mentioned in Ibrahim's Counter-Affidavit. The CA only considered the Summary of
    Obligations new on the records because Ibrahim only submitted it with his Motion for
    Reconsideration.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și