Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2017 Pointers in Remedial Law
2017 Pointers in Remedial Law
JURISDICTION
Q. What is Jurisdiction?
A. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case.
Q. What are the kinds of jurisdiction? How does the Court acquire such jurisdiction?
A. (1) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff Acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition, or
initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff; (2) Jurisdiction over the person of the
Defendant Acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant to the court
or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons; (3)
Jurisdiction over the subject matter - conferred by law, an unlike jurisdiction over the parties,
cannot be conferred to the court by voluntary act or mere agreement of the parties; Jurisdiction
over the Issues - determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by
their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the
failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
Sec. 5, Rule 10; (4) Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject
matter of the litigation - acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of
law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter within its
territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real
property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant
1|Page
convert the original jurisdiction of the RTC into appellate jurisdiction is void for being contrary
to the CARL. DARAB adjudicators are only empowered to determine in a preliminary manner
the reasonable compensation to be paid to the landowners.
Q. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate court or an
intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or
settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of
questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. State the exceptions. (Aranas v.
Mercado, J. Bersamin, 2014)
A. First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding the
question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
to final determination of ownership in a separate action. Second, if the interested parties are all
heirs to the estate, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired,
then the probate court is competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends
to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or
exclusive property of the deceased spouse
Q. A filed a case for forcible entry before a first level court of Manila against B praying that
the latter be ejected from a parcel of land situated at the boundary of Manila and Quezon City.
B filed a motion to dismiss claiming venue was improperly laid as the larger part of the real
property is situated in Quezon City. Is B correct?
A. No. Section 1. of Rule 4 states that actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or
interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the
area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. It is also worth pointing
out that B should not have filed a motion to dismiss based on an objection to venue as said
motion is a prohibited motion in an ejectment case under Sec. 13 Rule 70.
Q. What if A filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that resort to conciliation had not been
previously resorted to?
A. The motion to dismiss may be allowed as the rules allow said motion if based on lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and failure to comply with the conciliation
requirement under Section 12, Rule 70. (Sec. 13, Rule 70 in relation to Section 12, Rule 70)
2|Page
Q. What is the rule on jurisdiction over cases involving real property?
A. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts [include] "all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) [outside
Metro Manila or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs.
Q. Suppose an action for reconveyance of real property valued at P19,999.99 is filed before a
Municipal Trial Court, would it be correct to ask for the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter as reconveyance is incapable of pecuniary estimation?
A. No. In several cases, the Court has held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation
of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases
that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein. (San Pedro v.
Asdala, 2009) This means that the jurisdiction over the case will be determined based on the
assessed value of the real property involved.
Q. What is the rule on jurisdiction over money claims and personal property?
A. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property exceeds Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) outside Metro Manila or Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) in Metro Manila, the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction. (Section 19 (8)
of BP 129, as amended - paraphrased)
Q. Rosario filed a suit in the Small Claims Court. The judge ruled in her favor. When can she
ask for execution of the judgment? How can she execute it?
A. Immediately after a Decision is rendered because under Sec. 24 of the 2016 Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, a Decision is final, executory, and unappealable. Meanwhile,
Rosario can ask for the execution of the judgment through a Motion. (Sec. 25, Id.)
Q. Can Fernando, the losing party appeal the ruling of the Small Claims Court?
A. No, because said decision is unappealable. To question the decision, a petition for certiorari
must be filed. Considering that small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, certiorari petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed
before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Mondejar, 2014)
3|Page
Q. What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
A. If a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and
knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their proper
jurisdiction. Note that the courts of law HAVE jurisdiction but will defer to administrative bodies
because of their expertise. This is the essence of the principle of primary jurisdiction under
administrative law. (EuroMed Laboratory v. Province of Batangas, 2006)
CAUSE OF ACTION
PARTIES
4|Page
the necessary bond. Two days later, the Court issued the Writ of Attachment. The Sheriff then
levied upon the equipment, supplies, materials and various other personal property belonging
to Z Corp. Who are real parties in interest? Can C & T claim for damages against arising
from the wrongful attachment of Z Corps assets? (Stronghold Insurance v. Cuenca, J.
Bersamin, March 6, 2013)
A. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states that a real party in interest is one who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to the avails of the suit.
Here, C & T cannot claim for damages as they are not real parties in interest. They were only
stockholders of Z Corp, which had a personality distinct and separate from any or both of them.
Only the corporation is the real party in interest for that purpose.
Q. Can a law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties in the intestate proceedings a quo
file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to protect its own interests?
A. Yes. While the general rule (which limits the availability of the remedy of certiorari under
Rule 65 only to parties in the proceedings before the lower court) must be strictly adhered to, it is
not without exception. In this case, the order of reimbursement was directed to SRMO in its
personal capacitynot in its capacity as counsel for either Remedios or Gerardo. Considering
that the RTC's order of reimbursement is specifically addressed to SRMO and the established
fact that SRMO only received the subject money in its capacity as counsel/agent of Gerardo,
SRMO's interest can hardly be considered as merely incidental. That SRMO is being required to
reimburse from its own coffers money already transmitted to its client is sufficient to give SRMO
direct interest to challenge the RTC's order. Neither can SRMO be considered a total stranger to
the proceedings. (Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. Hon. Norma
Chionlo-Sia, February 2016)
VENUE
Q. True or false. An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of
the real property mortgage may be tried on the place where the main office of the
petitioner (plaintiff) was located. Discuss the concept of venue in civil actions. (BPI Family
Savings Bank v. Sps Tujuico, J. Bersamin, 2015)
A. True. An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
property mortgage is a personal action, for it does not affect title to or possession of real
property, or any interest therein. Thus, petitioner correctly brought the case in the Makati RTC
because Makati was the place where the main office of the petitioner was located.
The venue of an action depends on whether it is a real or a personal action. Under Section
1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or possession of real
property, or an interest therein. A real action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court
having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions. The venue
of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
5|Page
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
PARTS OF A PLEADING
Q. Atty. Santos filed a pleading before the trial court. In the Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping, he signed it on behalf of his client. Atty. Reyes, opposing counsel, moved to dismiss
the case. As the judge, will you grant the Motion to Dismiss?
A. I will grant the Motion to Dismiss. The Court held in a decided case: In this light, the Court
finds that the CA correctly dismissed Andersons Petition for Review on the ground that the
certificate of non-forum shopping attached thereto was signed by Atty. Oliva on her
behalf sans any authority to do so. While the Court notes that Anderson tried to correct this error
by later submitting an SPA and by explaining her failure to execute one prior to the filing of the
petition, this does not automatically denote substantial compliance. It must be remembered that a
defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent correction, and while it is true
that in some cases the Court considered such a belated submission as substantial compliance, it
did so only on sufficient and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal approach while avoiding
the effective negation of the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping. (Anderson v. Ho, 2013)
Q. What are the guidelines with respect to noncompliance with the requirements on or
submission of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping? (Fernandez v.
Villegas, 2014)
A.
6|Page
1. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily
render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or
act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the
Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
2. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge
to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification,
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct.
3. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein,
unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction
thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance
or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
4. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners
in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under
reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners
share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature
of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
with the Rule.
5. Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader,
not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is
unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf.
Q. Who are the corporate officers allowed to sign the verification and certification against
forum shopping?
A. Corporate officers who can sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping
without need of an authorizing board resolution: (1) Chairperson of the board of directors, (2)
President, (3) General Manager or acting general manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5)
Employment Specialists in a labor case. (Mid-Pasig Land Development Corp. v. Tablante,
2010)
Q. Section 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court recognizes only three modes by which the denial
in the answer raises an issue of fact. State these modes. (Fernando Medical Enterprises v.
Wesleyan University, J. Bersamin, January 2016)
A. (1) Defendant specifying each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit
and, whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to
support his denial; (2) Defendant who desires to deny only a part of an averment, and the denial
is done by the defending party specifying so much of the material allegation of ultimate facts as
is true and material and denying only the remainder; (3) Defendant states in the answer that he is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made in the complaint by stating so in the answer
7|Page
Considering that paragraphs no. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint averred matters that the
respondent ought to know or could have easily known, the answer did not specifically deny such
material averments. It is settled that denials based on lack of knowledge or information of
matters clearly known to the pleader, or ought to be known to it, or could have easily been
known by it are insufficient, and constitute ineffective or sham denials.
Q. May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a case without conducting any proceeding without
violating the principle of due process?
A. Yes. Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu
proprio dismiss the claim, namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis
pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription of action.
Q. True or false. Service and filing of pleadings by courier service is a mode provided in the
Rules
A. False. Service and filing of pleadings by courier service is a mode not provided in the Rules.
Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, pleadings may be filed in court either personally
or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the date of receipt. In the second case,
the date of mailing is the date of receipt. In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed
the Notice of Appeal via a private courier, a mode of filing not provided in the Rules. Though not
prohibited by the Rules, we cannot consider the filing of petitioners Notice of Appeal via LBC
timely filed. It is established jurisprudence that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private
letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court; instead,
the date of actual receipt by the court x x x is deemed the date of filing of that
pleading. Records show that the Notice of Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was received
by the court on the 16th day or one day beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the CA correctly
ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda v. Pablo
Miranda, 2013)
SUMMONS
When the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, the rules allow service of summons by
publication. As an exception to the preferred mode of service, service of summons by publication
may only be resorted to when the whereabouts of the defendant are not only unknown, but
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The diligence requirement means that there must be
prior resort to personal service under Section 7 and substituted service under Section 8, and proof
8|Page
that these modes were ineffective before summons by publication may be allowed. This mode
also requires the plaintiff to file a written motion for leave of court to effect service of summons
by publication, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth
the grounds for the application. (Express Padala v. Ocampo, September 6, 2017)
Q. The lack of or defect in the service of summons may be cured by the defendants
subsequent voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction. Cite an example of voluntary
submission.
A. The lack of or defect in the service of summons may be cured by the defendants subsequent
voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction through his filing a responsive pleading such as
an answer. In this case, it is not disputed that QSC filed its Answer despite the defective
summons. Thus, jurisdiction over its person was acquired through voluntary appearance. (Guy v.
Gacott, January 13, 2016)
MOTIONS
Q. Discuss the 3-day notice rule viz-a vis the 10 day setting rule under Sections 4 and 5 of
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
A. When a pleading is filed and served personally, there is no question that the requirements in
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure pose no problem to the party
pleading. Under this mode of service and filing of pleadings, the party pleading is able to ensure
receipt by the other party of his pleading at least three days prior to the date of hearing while
at the same time setting the hearing on a date not later than ten days from the filing of the
pleading. (Palileo v. Planters Development Bank, 2014)
PRE-TRIAL
Q. What is the effect of Defendants failure to appear during the pre-trial despite due
notice?
A. Defendants runs the risk of not being able to dispute the evidence presented ex parte by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff is given the privilege to present his evidence without objection from the
defendant, the likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant
having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present its own evidence. (Metrobank v. FADCOR,
2016)
MODES OF DISCOVERY
Q. S Bank availed of the discovery procedure under Rule 27. In its Motion for Production
and Inspection of Documents, it requested for inspection of all documents pertaining to,
arising from, in connection with or involving the Back-end Services Agreement. If you were
the Judge, would you grant the Motion?
9|Page
A. No. S Banks motion was fatally defective and must be struck down because of its failure to
specify with particularity the documents it required Gateway to produce. S Banks Motion called
for a blanket inspection. S Banks request for inspection of all documents pertaining to, arising
from, in connection with or involving the Back-end Services Agreement was simply too broad
and too generalized in scope. A motion for production and inspection of documents should not
demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous mass of documents. The inspection should be
limited to those documents designated with sufficient particularity in the motion, such that the
adverse party can easily identify the documents he is required to produce. (Solidbank v. Gateway
Electronics Corporation, 2008)
JUDGMENT
A: The doctrine of immutability of judgment states that a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
modification is intended to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Exceptions: (a) the
correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any
party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
judgments rendering execution unjust and inequitable.
A: First of all, the denial of Javellanas motion for reconsideration left nothing more to be done
by the RTC because it confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97. It was clearly a final
order, not an interlocutory one. And, secondly, whether an order is final or interlocutory
determines whether appeal is the correct remedy or not. The Court has held that an appeal from
an order denying a motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment is effectively an
appeal from the final order or judgment itself; and has expressly clarified that the prohibition
against appealing an order denying a motion for reconsideration referred only to a denial of a
motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order.
EXECUTION
10 | P a g e
during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise, the writ of execution will issue upon motion of the
plaintiff.
Q. Esteban is not a party to a case which has become final and executory. He was forewarned
that the sheriff is about to execute the judgment which would adversely affect his substantive
right. What remedy is available to Esteban?
A. Section 16, Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the
remedies of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of
the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent separate action
to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. However, the
person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over levied properties is
not precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim. The right of a third-party
claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. Corollary thereto, before
the court can exercise its supervisory power to direct the release of the property mistakenly
levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner, the claimant must first unmistakably
establish his ownership or right of possession thereon. In Spouses Sy v. Hon. Discaya (260 Phil.
401 [1990]) we declared that for a third-party claim or a terceria to prosper, the claimant must
first sufficiently establish his right on the property. (Villasi v. Garcia 2014)
Q. What are the elements of res judicata? (Sotto v. Palicte, J. Bersamin, 2013)
A. Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action
these elements are present, namely; (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the former
judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the
parties; (3) the former judgment must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be
between the first and subsequent actions (i) identity of parties or at least such as representing the
same interest in both actions; (ii) identity of subject matter, or of the rights asserted and relief
prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and, (iii) identity of causes of action in
both actions such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
Q. Valentino Development Co. moved to dismiss the case filed by Production Bank against it
since the new complaint raises the same issues in a prior case which has become final and
executory. As judge, will you grant the motion?
A. Yes. Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment is binding and conclusive on the
parties. The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that when a right
or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an
opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains
unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. (LZK
Holdings and Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, 2014)
APPEALS
11 | P a g e
adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal
inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity
jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution. (Regulus
Development v. Dela Cruz, 2016)
Q. Distinguish a Final Order from an Interlocutory Order. What is the relevance for the
distinction? (Garrido v. Tortogo et al., J. Bersamin, 2011)
A. The distinction is relevant in deciding whether the order is the proper subject of an appeal, or
of a special civil action for certiorari.
The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes
of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the
latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An
interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and
the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is
interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court
with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory;
otherwise, it is final.
12 | P a g e
A. To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity
to appeal their cases, the Court ruled that a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a
new trial or motion for reconsideration should be given to litigants (Neypes v. CA, 2005)
Q. True or false. The Neypes Doctrine is applicable to Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 as
it is akin to a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. (Fortune Life
Insurance v. COA, J. Bersamin, 2015)
A. False. There is no parity between the petition for review under Rule 42 and the petition
for certiorari under Rule 64.
Petition for Review under Rule 42 Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64
Rule 42 governs an appeal from the Assails a judgment or final order of the
judgment or final order rendered by Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
the Regional Trial Court in the or the Commission on Audit.
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Question of fact, or of law, or of mixed Questions of fact cannot be raised
question of fact and law except to determine whether the
COMELEC or the COA were guilty of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
Aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to Filed within 30 days from notice of the
file the petition for review from receipt judgment or final order or resolution
of the assailed decision or final order, sought to be reviewed. The filing of a
or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration,
motion for new trial or if allowed under the procedural rules of
reconsideration. the Commission concerned, interrupts
the period; hence, should the motion be
denied, the aggrieved party may file the
petition within the remaining period,
which shall not be less than five days in
any event, reckoned from the notice of
denial.
13 | P a g e
fraud or lack of jurisdiction, but extrinsic fraud, to be valid ground, should not have been availed
of, or could not have been availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Moreover, the
remedy under Rule 47 is to be availed of only if the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner. Ostensibly, the respondent could have availed himself of the petition for relief from
judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Hence, his failure to resort to such remedy
precluded him from availing himself of the remedy to annul the judgment based on the
compromise agreement
INJUNCTION
Q: Can the RTC issue Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure or National Resources Development projects of, and public utilities operated
by, the government? How about a CA? (Nerwin Industries v. PNOC-ENERGY, J. Bersamin,
2012)
A. No. Republic Act No. 8975 expressly prohibits any court, except the Supreme Court, from
issuing any temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory
injunction to restrain, prohibit or compel the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials,
or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the Governments direction,
from: (a) acquiring, clearing, and developing the right-of-way, site or location of any National
Government project; (b) bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the National
Government; (c) commencing, prosecuting, executing, implementing, or operating any such
contract or project; (d) terminating or rescinding any such contract or project; and (e)
undertaking or authorizing any other lawful activity necessary for such contract or project.
Accordingly, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that ignores the statutory prohibition and issues a
TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against a
government contract or project acts contrary to law
CERTIORARI
Q. If a decision is rendered with grave abuse of discretion, should there always be resort to a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65?
A. No. The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on
the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court
rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power
in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the
decision (Sawadjaan v. CA, 2005) Besides, the Rules expressly provide: Section 1. Petition for
certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
14 | P a g e
Q. Distinguish a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 from a petition for review under Rule
43.
A. A petition for review is a mode of appeal, while a special civil action for certiorari is an
extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. It is basic remedial law that the
two remedies are distinct, mutually exclusive, and antithetical. The extraordinary remedy of
certiorari is proper if the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and
there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law. A petition for review, on the
other hand, seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court, tribunal, or officer. (Dee
Ping Wee v. Lee Hiong Wee, 2010)
Q. A Real Estate Mortgage (REM) does not contain a power or authority to sell. Neither was
there a special power to sell the property in favor of the mortgagee (creditor) embodied in a
separate instrument attached to the REM. Once the debtor defaults on his loan, can the
creditor proceed to extra-judicial foreclosure? (Sps. Baysa v. Sps. Plantilla, J. Bersamin,
2015)
A. No. To enable the extra judicial foreclosure of the REM, the special power to sell should have
been either inserted in the REM itself or embodied in a separate instrument attached to the REM.
It is not disputed that no special power to sell was either inserted in the REM or attached to the
REM. Hence, the respondent spouses must resort to judicial foreclosure pursuant to the
procedure set forth in Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
PARTITION
15 | P a g e
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Q. P filed an action for Unlawful Detainer against D. MTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
based on its finding that the action involved an essentially boundary dispute that should be
properly resolved in an accion reivindicatoria. On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC and
remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, MTC ultimately dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. Once more, P appealed to the RTC. the RTC ordered the
petitioners to conduct a relocation survey to determine their allegation of encroachment,
and also heard the testimony of the surveyor. Ultimately, RTC rendered its judgment
reversing the MTC decision. Did the RTC ruled correctly? (Manalang v. Bacani, J.
Bersamin, 2015)
A. No. The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing
or trial de novo. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate RTC, which
shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of
origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the
Regional Trial Court.Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the
relocation and verification survey "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" and by hearing the
testimony of the surveyor, for its doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo.
Q. Gabby filed an unlawful detainer case against Ali and won. Ali filed a petition for relief
from judgment before the same MTC that rendered the decision in the unlawful detainer case.
Was Ali correct?
A. No. A Petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in an ejectment case
under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Q. May Ali file his petition for relief from judgment before the RTC?
16 | P a g e
A. No. The RTC has no jurisdiction over the petition. Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
provides:
SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceedings. -
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake
or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the
same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Q: True or False. In a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo, allegation and proof that
the persons subject thereof are missing suffice.
A. False. In Navia v. Padico, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that for the protective writ of
amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough.
It must also be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out
by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization,
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of
said missing persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving
by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation.
Q. Does the issuance of a Hold Departure Order impair one's right to travel and is the
violation of the right to travel covered by the Writ of Amparo?
A. A Hold Departure Order does not automatically impair a person's right to travel. There should
be proof to establish that the right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it
amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no
readily available legal recourse or remedy (Reverend Father Robert Reyes v. CA, 2009).
Q: May a writ of amparo or other reliefs granted by the writ be filed in another court if a
criminal action has been filed or is pending?
A. No. When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be
filed. The writ or any relief available under the writ should be filed by filing in the same court
where the criminal action was pending. (Reverend Father Robert Reyes v. CA, 2009).
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
17 | P a g e
Environmental Cases states that the magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua
non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be contained in the verified
petition. (LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, 2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
18 | P a g e
Q. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of jurisdiction?
A.
1. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter - the offense is one which the court is by law
authorized to take cognizance of;
2. Jurisdiction over the Territory - the offense must have been committed within its
territorial jurisdiction;
3. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused - the person charged with the offense must
have been brought to its presence for trial, by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary
submission to the court.
Q. Are the criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant declared EXTINGUISHED by
his death prior to final judgment?
A. Yes. Despite the recognition of the survival of the civil liability for claims under Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, as well as from sources of obligation other than delict in both
jurisprudence and the Rules, and our subsequent designation of the PAO as the "legal
representative of the estate of the deceased for purposes of representing the estate in the civil
aspect of this case," the current Rules, pursuant to our pronouncement in Bayotas, require the
private offended party, or his heirs, in this case, to institute a separate civil action to pursue their
claims against the estate of the deceased appellant. The independent civil actions in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176, as well as claims from sources of obligation other than delict, are not deemed
instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without
reservation. The separate civil action proceeds independently of the criminal proceedings and
requires only a preponderance of evidence. The civil action which may thereafter be instituted
against the estate or legal representatives of the decedent is taken from the new provisions of
Section 16 of Rule 3 in relation to the rules for prosecuting claims against his estate in Rules 86
and 87. (People of the Philippines vs. Lipata, 2016)
A Certification from the Assistant City Prosecutor to the effect that "the filing of the
Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor." The Court had
already rejected similarly-worded certifications, uniformly holding that despite such
certifications, the Informations were defective as it was shown that the officers filing the same in
19 | P a g e
court either lacked the authority to do so or failed to show that they obtained prior written
authority from any of those authorized officers enumerated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. There must be definite and certain proof that the
Information was approved by either the City Prosecutor or any of the OCP's division chiefs or
review prosecutors. (Quisay vs. People of the Philippines, 2016)
Q. Is the action of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or reversing the finding of prosecutors
be subject to judicial review?
A. Yes. In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence
of an accused. The prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the prosecutor does not perform quasi-judicial
functions. The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does not
make it a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-
judicial proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the
findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. However, even
when an administrative agency does not perform a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
function, the Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial review when there is an allegation of
grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or
modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 2016)
Q. May the Secretary of Justice, even without a pending petition for review, motu proprio
order the conduct of a reinvestigation?
A. Yes. Although the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for review before
the Secretary of Justice can reverse, affirm, or modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor - Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court explicitly
states that the Secretary of Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of the
provincial or city prosecutor or the chief state prosecutor even without a pending petition for
review. This is because the Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over
prosecutors and it is within her authority to affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the resolutions of
her prosecutors. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10071 also gives the Secretary of Justice the
authority to directly act on any "probable miscarriage of justice within the jurisdiction of the
prosecution staff, regional prosecution office, and the provincial prosecutor or the city
prosecutor." Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice may step in and order a reinvestigation even
without a prior motion or petition from a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of
justice. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 2016)
Q. Does a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning the regularity of preliminary
investigation becomes moot after the trial court completes its determination of probable cause
and issues a warrant of arrest?
A. Yes. The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court, any
disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court, he cannot impose his
20 | P a g e
opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before
it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to
dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant
or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused
or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
who reviewed the records of the investigation. When the trial court has already determined,
independently of any finding or recommendation by the prosecutors, that probable cause exists
for the issuance of the warrant of arrest against respondent. Probable cause has been judicially
determined. Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred to the trial court. A petition for
certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary investigation in any other venue has been
rendered moot by the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the conduct of arraignment. The
prudent course of action at this stage would be to proceed to trial. The accused, however, is not
without remedies. He may still file any appropriate action before the trial court or question any
alleged irregularity in the preliminary investigation during pre-trial. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 2016)
Q. What are the distinctions between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts?
A. The distinction between the elements of the offense and the evidence of these elements is
analogous or akin to the difference between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts in civil
cases. Ultimate facts are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the
primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the
defendant, while evidentiary facts are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts.
Applying this analogy to [a case under BP22 or the Bouncing Checks Law], knowledge of
insufficiency of funds is the ultimate fact, or element of the offense that needs to be proved, while
dishonor of the check presented within ninety (90) days is merely the evidentiary fact of such
knowledge. (Bautista v. CA, 2001)
Q. Does it, then, follow, that a motion for bill of particulars cannot be used by an accused to
request that he be furnished with evidence?
A. Yes. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the
prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the bill of particulars matters
of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the elements of the offense charged or
how the people intend to prove any item of factual information included in the bill of particular.
(Enrile v. People, 2015)
21 | P a g e
Q. What is the remedy against a denial of a Motion to Quash?
A. The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea,
go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and
assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. The denial, being an interlocutory order, is not
appealable, and may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari because of the availability of
other remedies in the ordinary course of law. (Enrile vs. Manalastas, 2014)
Q. Is it possible that an action before an administrative body may be the basis to suspend a
criminal case due to a prejudicial question?
A. Yes. The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and a criminal case. Yet,
contrary to San Miguel Properties submission that there could be no prejudicial question to
speak of because no civil action where the prejudicial question arose was pending, the action for
specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the
proceedings determining the charge for the criminal violation of Section 2524 of Presidential
Decree No. 957. This is true simply because the action for specific performance was an
action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB, whose
jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. (San Miguel v. Perez, 2013)
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to
try and resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
A prejudicial question need not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is
enough for the prejudicial question to simply test the sufficiency of the allegations in the
information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a
prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of
22 | P a g e
the crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the Prosecution has
not yet presented a single piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have rested its case. A
challenge to the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a
question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. (San Miguel
Properties, Inc. vs. Perez, 2013)
A. The general rule is x x x that any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense,
shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Hence, from
the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he
can claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights, and he retains his right
to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Once it has been
established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.
As a result, all criminal cases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court are bailable as
matter of right because these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior
to conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or even prior to conviction for an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not
strong.
On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or (2) if the RTC has
imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances
enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as follows:
23 | P a g e
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the
appeal.
Q. What must the trial judge consider in granting bail in favor of an accused charged with a
capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment?
In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to
comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral, to wit:
Q. Can bail be granted based on humanitarian grounds, independent of the legal merits of the
case?
A. Yes. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be
allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite
imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration
during the trial. Granting bail x x x on the foregoing reasons is not unprecedented. The Court has
already held in Dela Rama v. The Peoples Court: x x x [U]nless allowance of bail is forbidden
by law in the particular case, the illness of the prisoner, independently of the merits of the case, is
a circumstance, and the humanity of the law makes it a consideration which should, regardless of
the charge and the stage of the proceeding, influence the court to exercise its discretion to admit
the prisoner to bail;47 x x x [G]ranting provisional liberty to [ill accused] will then enable him to
have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians
in the hospitals of his choice. The grant of bail is proper if it will aid in accuseds adequate
preparation of his defense [and], more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the
trial. (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, J. Bersamin, 2015)
24 | P a g e
NOTE: Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail (as in this case), or
flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court
and this includes the accuseds right to appeal. (People v. Piad, et al., 2016)
Q. Gerry, Ricky and Nikki were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Upon finding probable cause, the Ombudsman directed that a case be filed
against the three accused. During trial, the Ombudsman wanted to grant the request for
immunity sought by Gerry and Ricky so that they may testify against the mastermind of the
corrupt act, Nikki. Is the power of the Ombudsman to grant immunity still subject to the
provisions of the Rules of Court?
A. Yes. RA 6770 provides: Sec. 17. Immunities. x x x. Under such terms and conditions as it may
determine, taking into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the Ombudsman
may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession and production of documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the
truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its
authority, in the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutory
objectives. The immunity granted under this and the immediately preceding paragraph shall not
exempt the witness from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor shall he be
exempt from demotion or removal from office. (Quarto v. Ombudsman, 2011)
Q. What are the requirements for the discharge of an accused as a state witness? What is the
effect of an order granting the discharge of an accused as a state witness?
A. The requirements for the discharge of an accused as a state witness are:
Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. When two or more persons are jointly
charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its
case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that
they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the
court is satisfied that: (ADSuMM)
(a) There is Absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) The is no other Direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be Substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the Most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving Moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence. The effect of the discharge of an accused as a state witness is that of
an acquittal under Section 18 which states: Section 18. Discharge of accused operates as
acquittal. The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the
discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the
accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for the discharge.
25 | P a g e
Q. Where can a party question orders and resolutions of the office of the Ombudsman?
A. It depends. If what the party wishes to question is an order or resolution in an administrative
case, the party may appeal before the CA via Rule 43. If it involves orders and resolutions
involving criminal cases such as determination of probable cause (Baviera v. Zoleta, 2006) or an
order granting immunity to an accused (Quarto v. Ombudsman, 2011) and there is grave abuse
of discretion, the party may question the orders or resolutions before the Supreme Court via Rule
65.
Q: Can the courts interfere in the COMELEC's finding that probable cause exists?
A: Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELECs exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election
laws and to prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law. The established
rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of
the parties evidence. It is for the presentation of only such evidence as may engender a well-
grounded belief that an offense has been committed, and the accused is probably guilty thereof.
Q: After receiving a complaint from PLDT of the illegal activity of X Corporation of using
Mabuhay card and other equipment capable of receiving and transmitting calls from the USA
to the Philippines without these calls passing through the facilities of PLDT, PAOCTF filed
two applications for the issuance of search warrant for Violation of Article 308 of the RPC for
Theft of Telephone Services and for Violation of P.D. 401 for unauthorized installation of
telephone communication. The trial court issued two search warrants for the said violations.
In implementing the search warrants, the police team searched the premises of X Corporation
and seized the articles specified in the search warrants. Subsequently, the prosecutor
conducted a preliminary investigation and found that the officers of X Corporation were
probably guilty thereof. X Corporation and its officers sought to quash the search warrants on
the grounds that there was no probable cause; and that the search warrants were general
warrants and were wrongly implemented. Should the trial court grant the Motion to Quash?
What is probable cause? Are the search warrants in this case in the nature of general
warrants?
A. The court should not grant the Motion to Quash the search warrants on the ground that there
was no probable cause. Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is
such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that
his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be
searched. PLDT was able to produce pieces of evidence that, if taken together, are more than
sufficient to support a finding that probable cause necessary to engender a belief that X
26 | P a g e
Corporation, et al. had probably committed the crime of Theft through illegal activities. Evidence
to show probable cause to issue a search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyond
reasonable doubt which, at this juncture of the criminal case, is not required.
The subject search warrants are not general warrants because the items to be seized were
sufficiently identified and specifically identified by stating their relation to the offenses charged
which are Theft and Violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 through the conduct of illegal ISR
activities. A search warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid, otherwise, it is considered as a general
warrant which is proscribed by both jurisprudence and the 1987 Constitution. In Uy Kheytin v.
Villareal, the Court explained the purpose of the aforementioned requirement for a valid search
warrant, to wit: A Search Warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be
seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant - what articles they
shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made, - that abuses
may not be committed. (HPS Software and Communication v. PLDT, 2012)
EVIDENCE
Note: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the
subject of the inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale
with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best
Evidence Rule does not apply, and the defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other
than the original document. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, J. Bersamin, 2013)
Q. Mr. Cayetano is the custodian of the record of birth of Charie Mae. He executed an
affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the fact of birth of Charie Mae and he attached her
duly-authenticated birth certificate of birth to his affidavit. Must Mr.Cayetano affirm his
affidavit in open court?
A. No. As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides
that entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in
official records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of
requiring the officials attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the
course of his duty. The documents trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of
27 | P a g e
performance of official duty. As such, they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. (Dimaguila v. Monteiro, 2014)
28 | P a g e
Q. What is a double hearsay?
A. An out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement. To be
admissible, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.
Q. The rape victim sought to recant her testimony identifying the accused after the
Prosecution had already filed its Formal Offer of Evidence. The trial court dismissed the
recantations as incredulous and unworthy of belief, and found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. Was the RTC correct in its ruling?
A. Yes. The victims recantation is unreliable. In fact, the RTC noted that the alleged real culprit
had died in 2004, two (2) years before the commission of the rape charges in 2006. The trial
court dismissed the recantations as incredulous and unworthy of belief. In her testimony, AAA
intimated that she was not raped by her father, but was actually raped by her grandfather who
had already passed away. A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. It
is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be
repudiated. It can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or monetary
consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the
relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand. Finally,
denial could not prevail over the victims direct, positive and categorical assertion. Appellants
guilt of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Q. The witness Estao testified as follows: (1) Bolanon had gone to the residence of Estao, his
uncle, to seek help right after being stabbed by Salafranca; (2) Estao had hurriedly dressed up
to bring his nephew to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab; (3) on the way to the
hospital, Estao had asked Bolanon who had stabbed him, and the latter had told Estao that his
assailant had been Salafranca; (4) at the time of the utterance Bolanon had seemed to be
having a hard time breathing, causing Estao to advise him not to talk anymore; (5) about ten
minutes after his admission at the emergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon had expired and
29 | P a g e
had been pronounced dead. Is the testimony of Estao admissible? (People v. Salafranca, J.
Bersamin, 2012)
A. Yes. An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or parricide that meets the
conditions of admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence is admissible
either as a dying declaration or as a part of the res gestae, or both. The above circumstances
qualified the utterance of Bolanon as both a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae,
considering that the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour before his
death and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or
part of the res gestae either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.
On the other hand, a declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and
thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites
concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are
made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The requisites for
admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae concur herein. Surely, when he gave the
identity of the assailant to Estao, Bolanon was referring to a startling occurrence, i.e., his
stabbing by Salafranca. Bolanon was then on board the taxicab that would bring him to the
hospital, and thus had no time to contrive his identification of Salafranca as the assailant. His
utterance about Salafranca having stabbed him was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to
the startling occurrence. The statement was relevant because it identified Salafranca as the
perpetrator.
30 | P a g e
harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in nature, in pursuance of
his duty under the Local Government Code to enforce all laws and ordinances, and to
maintain public order in the barangay.
Q. Can a trial court issue a Temporary Protection Order without hearing without violating the
constitutional guarantee to due process?
A. Yes. Since time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented,
the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the
life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that
the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC
or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur. The scope of reliefs in protection orders is
broadened to ensure that the victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to
curtail access by a perpetrator to the victim. The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be
challenged as violative of the right to due process. It is a constitutional commonplace that the
ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital
public interests. (Tua v. Hon. Mangrobang, 2014)
Q: Does failure to photograph or inventory the seized illegal drugs render them inadmissible
as evidence against the accused? May this failure be raised as a ground for the first time on
appeal?
A. Failure to photograph or inventory the confiscated illegal drugs is not fatal to the prosecution
of the case against the accused. The seized items may still be admitted in evidence as long as the
evidentiary value thereof is preserved. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA9165 reads:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.-The PDEA shall take charge
and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
On the other hand, Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
RA 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:
(a)The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/ or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
31 | P a g e
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items.
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from
complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial
the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers alleged violations of
Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were
instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial
court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and
evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a
party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection.
Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (People vs.
Taculod, 2013)
Q. Can the accused be pronounced guilty of the offense if all the links of the chain of custody
of the drug subject of the illegal sale the corpus delicti are not shown?
A. No. The reason is that the drug presented as evidence at the trial is not shown beyond
reasonable doubt that it was the drug subject of the illegal sale. Chain of Custody means the
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction. The marking upon seizure serves a two-fold function, the first being to give to
succeeding handlers of the specimens a reference, and the second being to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from
the accused until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. (People of the Philippines vs. Alagarme,
2015)
32 | P a g e