Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    990 Escalano Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    The exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts are: 1) When the conclusion is based on speculation rather than facts 2) When the inference is mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3) When there is grave abuse of discretion 4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of the facts 5) When the findings of fact conflict 6) When there is no evidence cited to support the factual findings 7) When the findings contradict evidence in the record 8) When the Court of Appeals' findings differ from the trial court 9) When the Court of Appeals overlooked relevant undisputed facts 10) When findings go beyond the scope of the case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    990 Escalano Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    25 views1 page
    The exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts are: 1) When the conclusion is based on speculation rather than facts 2) When the inference is mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3) When there is grave abuse of discretion 4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of the facts 5) When the findings of fact conflict 6) When there is no evidence cited to support the factual findings 7) When the findings contradict evidence in the record 8) When the Court of Appeals' findings differ from the trial court 9) When the Court of Appeals overlooked relevant undisputed facts 10) When findings go beyond the scope of the case

    Original Description:

    990 Escalano vs People

    Original Title

    990 Escalano vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts are: 1) When the conclusion is based on speculation rather than facts 2) When the inference is mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3) When there is grave abuse of discretion 4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of the facts 5) When the findings of fact conflict 6) When there is no evidence cited to support the factual findings 7) When the findings contradict evidence in the record 8) When the Court of Appeals' findings differ from the trial court 9) When the Court of Appeals overlooked relevant undisputed facts 10) When findings go beyond the scope of the case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views1 page

    990 Escalano Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    The exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts are: 1) When the conclusion is based on speculation rather than facts 2) When the inference is mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3) When there is grave abuse of discretion 4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of the facts 5) When the findings of fact conflict 6) When there is no evidence cited to support the factual findings 7) When the findings contradict evidence in the record 8) When the Court of Appeals' findings differ from the trial court 9) When the Court of Appeals overlooked relevant undisputed facts 10) When findings go beyond the scope of the case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT NOT A TRIER OF FACTS; EXCEPTION

    Question: Well settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The
    function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of
    law that may have been committed by the lower courts. What are the exception to these
    rules?
    Answer: The exceptions to this rule are:
    (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
    (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
    (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;
    (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
    (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
    (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;
    (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on
    record;
    (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
    (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts
    that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
    (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and
    (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.

    Question: Is the act of shouting invectives against a child constitute child abuse which
    must debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
    being in violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 7610?
    Answer: No. Petitioner had no intention to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
    child. It was rather an act carelessly done out of anger. The crime committed is other
    light threats, wherein the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no
    condition. The circumstances surrounding the incident proved that petitioner's act of
    uttering invectives against the minors AAA, BBB, and CCC was done in the heat of
    anger. Petitioner was merely trying to make private complainants stop throwing ketchup
    sachets at her. However, instead of doing so, private complainants still continued to
    throw ketchup sachets against petitioner, which infuriated the latter causing her to utter
    invectives against private complainants. (Escalano vs People, G. R. No. 226991,
    December 10, 2018, Gesmundo, J.)

    You might also like