58rule 8 Clavecilla vs. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 623
58rule 8 Clavecilla vs. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 623
623
INDEX
ACTIONS
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
624
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
625
APPEALS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
626
ARSON
ATTORNEYS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
627
BILL OF RIGHTS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
6. View that from Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616, 625 (1885),
it may be derived that our own Constitutional guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is an
almost exact copy of the Fourth Amendment, seeks to protect
rights to security of person and property as well as privacy in
one’s home and possessions. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p.
10.
628
7. View that while there has been a shift in focus of the Fourth
Amendment in American jurisdiction, from protection of the
individual from arbitrary and oppressive conduct to protection
of privacy rather that property, the essence of his right in
Philippine jurisdiction has consistently been understood as
respect for one’s personality, property, home privacy. Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
8. View that at bottom, the Bill of Rights (under the 1973
Constitution), during the interregnum from 26 February to 24
March 1986 remained in force and effect not only because it
was so recognized by the 1986 People Power but also because
the new government was bound by international law to respect
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
9. View that the Freedom Constitution made the Bill of Rights in
the 1973 Constitution operable from the incipiency of the
Aquino government. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
10. View that it was unmistakable thrust of the Freedom
Constitution to bestow uninterrupted operability to the Bill of
Rights in the 1973 Constitution. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
p. 10.
11. View that even if it is supposed that the Freedom Constitution
had no retroactive effect or it did not extend the effectivity of
the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution, still there would be
no void in the municipal or domestic law at the time as far as
the observance of the fundamental right is concerned—the Bill
of Rights in the 1973 Constitution would still be in force,
independently of the Freedom Constitution, or at least the
provisions thereof proscribing unreasonable search and seizure
and excluding evidence in violation of the proscription.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
12. The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights
does not concern itself with the relation between a private
individual and another individual. People vs. Hipol, p. 179.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
629
CERTIORARI
COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
630
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
631
11. View that the power to search in England was first used as an
instrument to oppress objectionable publications. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
12. View that from Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616, 625
(1885), it may be derived that our own Constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, which
is an almost exact copy of the Fourth Amendment, seeks to
protect rights to security of person and property as well as
privacy in one’s home and possessions. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
13. View that while there has been a shift in focus of the Fourth
Amendment in American jurisdiction, from protection of the
individual from arbitrary and oppressive conduct to protection
of privacy rather that property, the essence of his right in
Philippine jurisdiction has consistently been understood as
respect for one’s personality, property, home privacy. Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
14. View that invoking natural law because the history, tradition
and moral fiber of a people indubitably show adherence to it is
an altogether different story, for ultimately, in our political and
legal tradition, the people are the source of all government
authority and the courts are their creation—while it may be
argued that the choice of a school of legal thought is a matter of
opinion. history is a fact against which one cannot argue.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
15. View that it could confidently be asserted that the spirit and
letter of the 1935 Constitution, at least insofar as the system of
government and the Bill of Rights were concerned, still
prevailed at the time of the EDSA Revolution. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
16. Although Filipinos have given democracy its own Filipino face,
it is undeniable that our political and legal institutions are
American in origin. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
17. When government not only defaults in its duty but itself
violates the very rights it was established to protect, it forfeits
its authority to demand obedience of the governed and could be
replaced with one to which the people consent, and this highest
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
632
20. View that truly, the drapes of a man’s castle are but an
extension of the drapes on his body that cover the essentials—
in unreasonable searches and seizures, the prying eyes and the
invasive hands of the government prevent the individual from
enjoying his freedom to keep himself and to act undisturbed
within his zone of privacy. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
21. View that a reflective grasp of what it means to be human and
how one should go about performing the functions proper to his
human nature can only be done by the rational person himself
in the confines of his private space—only he himself in his own
quiet time can examine his life knowing that an unexamined
life is not worth living. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
22. View that a revolution is staged only for the most
fundamental of reasons—such as the violation of fundamental
and natural rights—for prudence dictated that “governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient
reasons.” Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
23. View that cannot believe and so hold that the Filipinos during
the one month from February 25 to March 24, 1986 were
stripped naked of all their rights, including their natural rights
as human beings—with the extraordinary circumstances
before, during and after the EDSA Revolution, the Filipinos
simply found themselves without a constitution, but certainly
not without fundamental rights. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
p. 10.
24. View that the 1986 EDSA Revolution was extraordinary, one
that borders the miraculous—it was the first revolution of its
kind in Philippine history, and perhaps even in the history of
this planet—and fittingly, this separate opinion is the first of
its kind in this Court, where history and philosophy are
invoked not as aids in the interpretation of a positive law, but
to recognize a right not written in a papyrus but inheres in
man as man. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
CONTRACTS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
633
CONTRACTS OF CARRIAGE
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
634
COURTS
CRIMINAL LAW
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
635
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DAMAGES
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
of his assigned task, only if it can show that it observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Tugade, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, p. 497.
4. Actual damages to be recoverable, must actually be proved and
supported by receipts. Tugade, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, p. 497.
636
DEATH PENALTY
DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT
EASEMENTS
EJECTMENT
602.
EVIDENCE
637
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
14. When a victim is intimidated, she is gripped with fear for her
physical safety and is cowed into submission, which surely
cannot be equated with consent. People vs. Federico, p. 290.
15. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of
intimidation, offering none at all does not amount to consent to
the sexual assault so as to make the victim’s submission to the
sexual act voluntary. People vs. Federico, p. 290.
16. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits
herself against her will to the rapist’s lust because of fear for
life and personal safety. People vs. Federico, p. 290.
638
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
639
FLIGHT
FORUM SHOPPING
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
640
INJUNCTIONS
INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
nationals, for the law has often fractured this link as and when
it fails in its purpose. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
4. View that at bottom, the Bill of Rights (under the 1973
Constitution), during the interregnum from 26 February to 24
March 1986 remained in force and effect not only because it
was so recognized by the 1986 People Power but also because
the new government was bound by international law to respect
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, p. 10.
INTOXICATION
641
JUDGES
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
642
11. The application for extension of time must be filed before the
expiration of the prescribed period. Re: Request of Judge Sylvia
G. Jurao for Extension of Time to Decide Criminal Case No.
5812 Before the RTC-Brs. 10 & 12, San Jose Antique, p. 464.
12. A judge who falsifies his certificates of service violates Rule
3.09 of the Code of Judicial conduct which requires of a judge
the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity
at all times. Re: Request of Judge Sylvia G. Jurao for Extension
of Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 5812 Before the RTC-Brs.
10 & 12, San Jose Antique, p. 464.
13. A judge is required to dispose of the court’s business promptly
and decide cases within the required periods. Beltran, Jr. vs.
Paderanga, p. 475.
14. Incompetent court management does not help him explain and
gloss over a serious violation of the constitutional right to
speedy disposition of cases which was brought about by his
failure to resolve incidents within the period fixed by law.
Beltran, Jr. vs. Paderanga, p. 475.
15. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or
mismanagement of court personnel. Aguilar vs. How, p. 482.
16. As an administrative officer of the court, a judge should
organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the
prompt and efficient dispatch of business and require at all
times the observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity. Aguilar vs. How, p. 482.
17. For the present charge of gross misconduct to prosper it must
be shown that the judicial act complained of was corrupt, or
inspired by an intention to violate the law, or at least, in
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
JUDGMENTS
643
2. A petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after
the petitioner learns of the judgment and within six months
after entry thereof. Manipor vs. Ricafort, p. 298.
3. There are three requisites for the execution of a judgment
pending appeal: a) a motion must be filed by the prevailing
party with notice to the adverse party; b) there must be good
reasons for execution pending appeal; and c) the good reasons
must be stated in a special order. City of Iligan vs. Principal
Management Group, Inc., p. 554.
4. Normally, execution cannot be obtained until and unless (a) the
judgment has become final and executory; (b) the right of
appeal has been renounced or waived; (c) the period for appeal
has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) having
been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the
case have been returned to the court of ori-gin—in which case,
execution shall issue as a matter of right. City of Iligan vs.
Principal Management Group, Inc., p. 554.
5. Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances that justify
the immediate execution of a judgment, lest it become illusory;
or the prevailing party be unable to enjoy it after the lapse of
time, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may
have no recourse but to delay. City of Iligan vs. Principal
Management Group, Inc., p. 554.
6. The ascertainment of good reasons for execution pending
appeal lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and
the appellate court will not normally disturb such finding. City
of Iligan vs. Principal Management Group, Inc., p. 554.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
JURISDICTION
644
LABOR LAW
LACHES
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY
645
MORTGAGES
OMBUDSMAN
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
646
PLEAS OF GUILTY
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
647
POLITICAL LAW
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
648
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
649
PROPERTY
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
RAPE
650
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
651
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
RES JUDICATA
652
SEARCH WARRANTS
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
653
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The Regional Trial Court of General Santos City or any court for
that matter had no authority to prohibit the Committee from
requiring respondent to appear and testify before it. The
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon, p. 355.
STATUTE OF FRAUD
TREACHERY
654
4. Fact that a victim was able to stab one of his assailants was
held as not negating the presence of treachery. People vs.
Baltazar, p. 542.
5. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is unexpected
and made on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to
repel the attack or avoid it. People vs. Baltazar, p. 542.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
WITNESSES
655
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 33/34
4/20/24, 8:12 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
——o0o——
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb74282054d9915c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 34/34