First, the nullity of the Resolution is patent on its face. It simply states its conclusions, but does not state the facts on which these conclusions are based. It is an over-simplification of the issues, and violates both the letter and spirit of Article VIII, Section 14, of the Constitution.
It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. (NICOS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JUAN COQUINCO and CARLOS COQUINCO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, at al., G.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992.)
Second, the conclusions into the surrounding circumstances were one-sided and were not supported by all the evidence given during the preliminary investigation. Thus:
With regard to the element of misappropriation or conversion, the complainants were not able to prove this through circumstantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence. All they said was ‘the respondent have lived a luxurious lifestyle’. Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the respondent had embezzled or squandered complainants’ money. It is not incumbent upon the respondent to prove his innocence. The burden of proof rests on the complainants to demonstrate his guilt.
Also, the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor either ignored or disregarded completely the financial statements submitted by the respondent. His reception of evidence is selective. The financial statements, the veracity of which was not questioned, ought to disprove complainants’ wild charge of misappropriation.
Ivan Carlos M. De Araujo is either equally responsible or more responsible. It was he who persuaded the complainants to invest in their companies, for which he received huge commissions. And thereafter, he urged them to complain. Obviously, he wanted to go solo and keep the business to himself.
First, the nullity of the Resolution is patent on its face. It simply states its conclusions, but does not state the facts on which these conclusions are based. It is an over-simplification of the issues, and violates both the letter and spirit of Article VIII, Section 14, of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIt is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. (NICOS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JUAN COQUINCO and CARLOS COQUINCO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, at al., G.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992.)
Second, the conclusions into the surrounding circumstances were one-sided and were not supported by all the evidence given during the preliminary investigation. Thus:
With regard to the element of misappropriation or conversion, the complainants were not able to prove this through circumstantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence. All they said was ‘the respondent have lived a luxurious lifestyle’. Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the respondent had embezzled or squandered complainants’ money. It is not incumbent upon the respondent to prove his innocence. The burden of proof rests on the complainants to demonstrate his guilt.
Also, the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor either ignored or disregarded completely the financial statements submitted by the respondent. His reception of evidence is selective. The financial statements, the veracity of which was not questioned, ought to disprove complainants’ wild charge of misappropriation.
Ivan Carlos M. De Araujo is either equally responsible or more responsible. It was he who persuaded the complainants to invest in their companies, for which he received huge commissions. And thereafter, he urged them to complain. Obviously, he wanted to go solo and keep the business to himself.
see blog at : http://mls4ps.blogspot.com/2015/08/fraud-alert-against-ka-ivan-carlos-m-de.html
ReplyDelete