People v. Arnel Manaloto, Erwin Carreon

 

People v. Arnel Manaloto, Erwin Carreon

CRIM-085

Doctrine:

The Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision.


Facts:

In the instant motion, plaintiff-appellant asks the Court En Bane to take a second look at the error of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 56- Angeles City in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Metropolitan Trail Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 2- Angeles City in deciding the criminal tax cases of accused-appellees. Plaintiff-appellant claims that the RTC Branch 56 erred in denying the Petition for Certiorari flied under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and that Judge Rochelle Santos Manuel gravely abused her discretion in acquitting the accused-appellees. Plaintiff-appellant believes that it has presented sufficient evidence, both documentary and testimonial, to prove all the elements of the crimes charges against both accused-appellee.

Issues:

Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted. 

Held: 

No. The Court En Bane notes that plaintiff-appellant's motion merely

reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for

Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the

Court En Bane in the assailed Decision.  In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et al. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc} the Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action.



No comments:

Post a Comment