Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
ATENEO BAR OPERATI ONS 20 0 1
JURISDICTION
JUAN V. PEOPLE
18 Jan.2000
Facts: A et al., were charged before the RTC with an election offense punishable b
i!prison!ent not e"ceeding # ears. The argued that the RTC has no $urisdiction o%er their
cases since the penalt for the offense charged does not e"ceed # ears.
Issue: &hether 'TC or RTC has $urisdiction
e!": RTC has $urisdiction. (ursuant to )ec.*2 +( 12,, as a!ended b )ection 2 of RA -#,1,
the $urisdiction of first.le%el courts. the 'eTC, 'TC, and 'CTC. does not co%er those cri!inal
cases which b specific pro%isions of law are cogni/able b the RTC, regardless of the penalt
prescribed therefore.
PIL. VETERANS BAN# V. CA
18 Jan. 2000
Facts: (0s land was ta1en b 2AR pursuant to the Co!prehensi%e Agrarian Refor! 3aw. (
contended that 2AR ad$udicators ha%e no $urisdiction to deter!ine the $ust co!pensation for the
ta1ing of lands under CAR( because such $urisdiction is %ested in the RTC.
Issue: &hether the 2AR or RTC has $urisdiction
e!": 2AR has $urisdiction. There is nothing contradictor between the 2AR0s pri!ar
$urisdiction o%er 4agrarian refor! !atters5 and e"clusi%e original $urisdiction o%er 4all !atters
in%ol%ing the i!ple!entation of agrarian refor!,5 which includes the deter!ination of 6uestions
of $ust co!pensation, and the RTC0s 4original and e"clusi%e $urisdiction5 o%er all petitions for the
deter!ination of $ust co!pensation to the landowner. 7n accordance with settled principles of
ad!inistrati%e law, pri!ar $urisdiction is %ested in the 2AR as an ad!inistrati%e agenc to
deter!ine in a preli!inar !anner the reasonable co!pensation to be paid for the lands ta1en
under CAR(, but such deter!ination is sub$ect to challenge in the courts.
DUCAT V. CA
20 Jan. 2000
Facts: 2 lost in a ci%il case. There was alread e"ecution of $udg!ent. The trial court denied his
'otion to Annul the 8"ecution )ale, 'otion to Reconsider, and 'otion to 9old in Abeance the
7!ple!entation of the &rit of (ossession. 7nstead of filing a petition for certiorari, 2 presented
before the trial court a 'anifestation and 'otion to )et (ara!eters of Co!putation. The trial
then issued an Alias &rit of (ossession against 2 which he 6uestioned.
Issue: &hether 2 can %alidl 6uestion the court0s authorit to issue the writ
e!": :o. 7t is too late for 2 to 6uestion the sub$ect order of the court. 2 could ha%e ta1en
recourse to the CA but he did not. 7nstead, he !anifested ac6uiescence to the said order b
see1ing para!eters before the trial court. 7f the parties ac6uiesced in sub!itting an issue for
deter!ination b the trial court, the are estopped fro! 6uestioning the $urisdiction of the sa!e
court to pas upon the issue.
LLORENTE V. ANDIGANBA$AN
1, Jan. 2000
1
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: A, a !aor, was charged before the )andiganbaan with %iolation of RA *01,. (ending
the case, Congress enacted RA -,-;, li!iting the $urisdiction of the )andiganbaan. A then
contended that b %irtue of RA -,-;, the )andiganbaan lost $urisdiction o%er his case.
Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan was di%ested of $urisdiction
e!": :o. To deter!ine whether the official is within the e"clusi%e $urisdiction of the
)andiganbaan, reference should be !ade to RA #-;8 and the 7nde" of <ccupational )er%ices,
position Titles, and )alar =rades. A !unicipal !aor is classified under )alar =rade 2-. Thus,
the case against A is within the e"clusi%e $urisdiction of the )andiganbaan.
MAR%UE& V. COMELEC
2; Aug. 1,,,
Facts: 2 won in the )> elections. ( filed an election protest before the 'TC. 2 assailed the
$urisdiction of the 'TC o%er the case.
Issue: &hether the 'TC has $urisdiction
e!": ?es. An contest relating to the election of )> !e!bers @including the Chair!anA B
whether pertaining to their eligibilit or the !anner of their election B is cogni/able b the 'TCs,
'CTCs and 'eTCs. +efore procla!ation, cases concerning eligibilit of )> officers and
!e!bers are cogni/able b the 8lection <fficer as pro%ided in )ec. # of C<'838C Resolution
:o. 282C. After election and procla!ation, the sa!e cases beco!e 6uo warranto cases
cogni/able b 'TCs, 'CTCs and 'eTCs.
SAURA V. SAURA
1 )ept. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a case against 2 with the )8C. ( also filed a ci%il case for the annul!ent of a sale
against 2 before the RTC. 2 filed a !otion to dis!iss based on lac1 of $urisdiction of the trial
court.
Issue: &hether the )8C or the RTC has $urisdiction
e!": The RTC has $urisdiction. Jurisdiction o%er the sub$ect !atter is conferred b law and is
deter!ined b the allegations of the co!plaint. Jurisdiction of the )8C is deter!ined b a
concurrence of 2 ele!ents: @1A the status or relationship of the partiesD and @2A the nature of the
6uestion that is the sub$ect of the contro%ers. 7: this case, the co!plaint for annul!ent of the
sale is an ordinar ci%il action, which is beond the li!ited $urisdiction of the )8C.
BENAVIDE& V. CA
# )ept. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a forcible entr case against 2. 2 argued that he owned the propert. 2 sur!ised
that since the issue of ownership is in%ol%ed and onl in resol%ing it can the issue of possession
be finall settled, the 'TC has no $urisdiction o%er the case.
Issue: &hether the 'TC retains $urisdiction
e!": ?es. Eollowing +. (. 12,, the 'TC now retains $urisdiction o%er e$ect!ent cases e%en if
the 6uestion of possession cannot be resol%ed without passing upon the issue of ownership
pro%ided that such issue of ownership shall be resol%ed onl for the purpose of deter!ining
possession.
2
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
SANCE& V. SANDIGANBA$AN
- )ept. 1,,,
Facts: Court !artial proceedings were initiated against A and + for %iolation of RA *01,. The
<!buds!an also filed a si!ilar case against A and + with the )andiganbaan. A and + filed a
!otion to dis!iss arguing that the )andiganbaan has no $urisdiction o%er their case.
Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan has $urisdiction
e!": :o. 7n %iew of the enact!ent of RA -,-;, appro%ed on *0 'arch 1,,;, the
)andiganbaan 4lost5 its $urisdiction o%er the case pri!aril because the public officials charged
here were officers of the (hil. Ar! below the ran1 of full colonel. The enact!ent of RA -,-;
was precisel to declog the )andiganbaan0s doc1et of 4s!all fr5 cases.
ORGANO V. SANDIGANBA$AN
, )ept. 1,,,
Facts: A et al. were charged with plunder before the )andiganbaan. The assailed the
$urisdiction of the )andiganbaan.
Issue: &hether the )andiganbaan has $urisdiction
e!": :o. :one of the accused occupied positions corresponding to )alar =rade 42-5 or
higher. The )andiganbaan has no $urisdiction o%er the cri!e of plunder unless co!!itted b
public officials and e!ploees occuping the positions with )alar =rade 42-5 or higher, in
relation to their office @pursuant to RA 82C,A.
UNION MOTORS CORPORATION V. NLRC
1# )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: 2 was (0s Assistant to the (resident and Ad!inistrati%e and (ersonnel 'anager. )he
thereafter filed a co!plaint for constructi%eFillegal dis!issal with the :3RC.
Issue: &hether the :3RC has $urisdiction o%er 20s case
e!": :o. The )8C, not the :3RC, has $urisdiction. The records clearl show that 20s position
as Assistant to the (resident and (ersonnel and Ad!inistrati%e 'anager is a corporate office
under the b.laws of (. 7t is clear that the charges filed b 2 against ( arising fro! her ouster as
a corporate officer, is an intra.corporate contro%ers. Eor the )8C to ta1e cogni/ance of a case,
the contro%ers !ust pertain to an of the following relationships: @aA between the corporation,
partnership or association and the public (b) between the corporation, partnership or
association and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers @cA between the corporation,
partnership or association and the state so far as its franchise, per!it, or license to operate is
concernedD and @dA a!ong the stoc1holders, partners, or associates the!sel%es. The instant
case is a dispute between a corporation and one of its officers. As such, 20s co!plaint is sub$ect
to the $urisdiction of the )8C, and not the :3RC.
ANGAT V. REPUBLIC
1C )8(T.1,,,
Facts: ( was a natural born citi/en who lost his citi/enship b naturali/ation in the G). <n
'arch 11, 1,,#, he filed a petition with the RTC to regain his status as a citi/en of the
(hilippines. The court thereafter repatriated (.
Issue: &hether the RTC has $urisdiction o%er repatriation cases
*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!": :o. A petition for repatriation should be filed with the )pecial Co!!ittee on
:aturali/ation and not with the RTC which has no $urisdiction thereo%er. The court0s order was
thereb null and %oid. The )pecial Co!!ittee on :aturali/ation was reacti%ated on June 8,
1,,;, hence, when ( filed his petition on 'arch 11, 1,,#, the Co!!ittee constituted pursuant
to 3<7 :o. 2-0 under (2 :o. -2; @a 2ecree pro%iding for repatriation of Eilipino wo!en who
had lost their (hilippine citi/enship b !arriage to aliens and of natural born EilipinosA was in
place.
DELTAVENTURES V.CABATO
, 'arch 2000
Facts: The :3RC declared 2 guilt of illegal dis!issal and unfair labor practice. A writ of
e"ecution was issued. 2 filed with the RTC a co!plaint for in$unction and da!ages. RTC issued
a TR<. The laborers !o%ed for the dis!issal of the ci%il case on the ground of lac1 of
$urisdiction.
Issue: &hether the RTC had $urisdiction
e!": :o. The RTC has no $urisdiction to act on labor cases or %arious incidents arising
therefro!, including the e"ecution of decisions, awards or orders. The RTC, being a co.e6ual
bod of the :3RC, has no $urisdiction to issue an restraining order or in$unction to en$oin the
e"ecution of an decision of the latter.
ABBOT VS. ON. MAPA$O
G.R. NO. 1'(102 )2000*
Facts+ ( was charged with a cri!e before the )andiganbaan. + %irtue of R.A. -,-; a!ending
(.2. 1#0#, the case was transferred to the RTC. ( filed a !otion to dis!iss which the RTC
denied. ( filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA to re%erse the ruling of the
RTC. The )olicitor =eneral filed a Co!!ent, raising the point that the CA was without
$urisdiction to entertain the petition because $urisdiction was alread %ested in the
)andiganbaan.
Issue+ &hether the )andiganbaan has $urisdiction o%er the petition for certiorari and
prohibition
e!"+ ?es. The $urisdiction of the )andiganbaan was e"panded in RA -,-; to include petitions
for the issuance of writs of !anda!us, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, in$unction, and
other ancillar writs and processes in aid of its appellate $urisdiction.
SIASOCO VS. NARVASA
'1, SCRA 1(( )1---*
Facts+ ( filed with the trial court a co!plaint for specific perfor!ance against subdi%ision
de%elopers to co!pel the latter to e"ecute deeds of absolute sale and to deli%er the certificates
of title to buers.
Issue+ &hether the trial court has $urisdiction o%er such as a co!plaint.
e!"+ :o. Gnder the 8"ecuti%e <rder creating it, the 93GR+ has e"clusi%e $urisdiction to 4hear
and decide cases of unsound real estate business practicesD clai!s in%ol%ing refund filed
against pro$ect owners, de%elopers, dealers, bro1ers, or sales!enD and cases of specific
perfor!ance.5
JOSE OROSA VS. CA
C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
G.R. N.. 1110/0 )2000*
Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision, holding H and ? solidaril liable for da!ages to (. ? filed
with the CA a petition for certiorari to annul the )upple!ental 2ecision. <n the other hand, H
appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA. ?0s petition for certiorari was dis!issed b the CA
Eirst 2i%ision. 'eanwhile, in H0s appeal, the CA 8ighth 2i%ision partiall affir!ed the ruling of the
RTC. ( 6uestions the CA 8ighth 2i%ision0s $urisdiction to re%iew the case since the CA Eirst
2i%ision alread passed upon the law and facts of the sa!e.
Issue+ &hether the CA 8ighth 2i%ision had $urisdiction to re%iew the case
e!"+ ?es. Jurisdiction is si!pl the power or authorit to hear a case. The appellate $urisdiction
of the Court of Appeals to re%iew decisions and orders of lower courts is conferred b
+atas (a!bansa +lg. 12,. 'ore i!portantl, ( cannot now assail the CA0s $urisdiction
after ha%ing acti%el participated in the appeal and after praing for affir!ati%e relief.
SALVADOR DE VERA VS. ON. PELA$O
G.R. N.. 1'0',( )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a cri!inal case against Judge H for 1nowingl rendering un$ust $udg!ent and
!alicious dela in the ad!inistration of $ustice before the <!buds!an. The <!buds!an
referred the case to the )upre!e Court for appropriate action. ( assails the referral of the case
to the )upre!e Court arguing that the <!buds!an, not the )upre!e Court, is the one %ested
with $urisdiction to resol%e whether the cri!e charged was co!!itted b the $udge.
Issue+ &hether the referral of the case to the )upre!e Court is correct
e!"+ ?es. +efore a ci%il or cri!inal action against a $udge for a %iolation of Art. 20C and 20; can
be entertained, there !ust first be 4a final and authoritati%e $udicial declaration5 that the decision
or order in 6uestion is indeed 4un$ust.5 The pronounce!ent !a result fro! either: @aA an action
of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court i!pugning the %alidit of the $udg!entD or @bA an
ad!inistrati%e proceeding in the )upre!e Court against the $udge precisel for pro!ulgating an
un$ust $udg!ent or order. 3i1ewise, the deter!ination of whether a $udge has !aliciousl
delaed the disposition of the case is also an e"clusi%e $udicial function.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
BAIL
LA$OLA V. JUDGE GABO
2# Jan. 2000
Facts: (olice officers A I + were accused of !urder. Judge issued an order allowing the Chief
of (olice to ta1e A I + under his custod instead of placing the! in $ail.
Issue: &hether or not the $udge0s action is proper
e!": :o. 'urder is a capital offense so the $udge should ha%e been !indful that bail couldn0t
be allowed as a !atter of right as pro%ided in Rule 11C section 2.
TOLENTINO V. CAMANO
20 Jan. 2000
;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: A was accused of %iolating the Child Abuse Act. The !a"i!u! penalt for the offense is
reclusion perpetua. The )tate (rosecutor failed to appear at the bail hearings set b the court.
The $udge then granted bail.
Issue: &hether the $udge0s order granting bail was proper
e!": :o. &hen the charge against the accused is for a capital offense, there !ust be a
hearing with the participation of the prosecution and the defense, in order to deter!ine if the
e%idence of guilt is strong and whether bail should therefore be granted. 7n this case, the )tate
(rosecutor was gi%en a nu!ber of opportunities to present e%idence but he was re!iss in the
perfor!ance of his duties. )till, the $udge should not ha%e granted bail based si!pl on the
failure of the prosecution to pro%e that the e%idence of guilt is strong but should ha%e
endea%ored to deter!ine the e"istence of such e%idence.
C121! L1a31!1t4
SAPIERA V. CA
10 )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: The estafa cases filed against A were dis!issed due to insufficienc of e%idence.
Issue: &hether the dis!issal of the cri!inal cases erased A0s ci%il liabilit
e!": :o. The dis!issal of the cri!inal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci%il liabilit
since the dis!issal was due to insufficienc of e%idence and not fro! a declaration fro! the
court that the fact fro! which the ci%il action !ight arise did not e"ist.
COMPROMISE PROIBITED
CUA V. MACAPUGA$
1* Aug. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a co!plaint against 2 for illegal encroach!ent. ( li1ewise filed a cri!inal
co!plaint against the Cit 8ngineer for %iolation of RA *01, and the R(C. 3ater, ( and 2
entered into a co!pro!ise agree!ent, which was appro%ed, b the court. The case between (
and 2 was thereafter dis!issed.
Issue: &hether the co!pro!ise affected the cri!inal case against the cit engineer
e!": :o. 7ndeed, the Ci%il Code not onl defines and authori/es co!pro!ises @Art. 2028A, it in
fact encourages the! in ci%il actions. 9owe%er, the co!pro!ise agree!ent cannot affect the
charges against the cit engineer. The law abhors settle!ent of cri!inal liabilit. 9owe%er, in
this case, the <!buds!an did not find probable cause against the cit engineer so the case
was dis!issed.
De5u66e6 T. E21"e7ce
GUTIB V. CA
1* Aug. 1,,,
Facts: A, +, C, and others were charged with 6ualified theft before the RTC. After the
presentation of the e%idence of the prosecution, A and + filed their separate de!urrers to the
e%idence with prior lea%e of court. The $udge denied A0s de!urrer for lac1 of factual and legal
basis but granted +0s de!urrer.
Issue: &hether A0s de!urrer should also be granted
#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!": ?es. The court, in passing upon the sufficienc of e%idence raised in a de!urrer, is
!erel re6uired to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient e%idence to sustain the
indict!ent or to support a %erdict of guilt. The )upre!e Court found that the prosecution
!iserabl failed to establish b sufficient e%idence the e"istence of the cri!e of 6ualified theft.
Thus, A0s de!urrer to the e%idence should ha%e been granted.
De8.s1t1.7
PEOPLE V. WEBB
1- Aug. 1,,,
Facts: A was accused of rape with ho!icide. 2uring the course of the proceedings in the trial
court, A filed a 'otion to Ta1e Testi!on b <ral 2eposition praing that he be allowed to ta1e
the testi!onies of certain persons in the Gnited )tates. The trial court denied the !otion.
Issue: &hether A0s !otion should ha%e been granted
e!": :o. A deposition, in 1eeping with its nature as a !ode of disco%er, should be ta1en
before and not during trial. 7n fact, rules on cri!inal practiceJparticularl on the defense of alibi,
which is A0s !ain defense in the cri!inal proceedings against hi!Jstates that when a person
intends to rel on such defense, that person !ust !o%e for the ta1ing of the deposition of his
witnesses within the time provided for filing a pre-trial motion.
F17a! O6"e6
BA9ARES V. BALISING
1* 'arch 2000
Facts: A, +, C, 2, and 8 were accused of estafa. The filed a !otion to dis!iss. The trial court
dis!issed the cri!inal case without pre$udice. After !ore than 2 !onths, pri%ate co!plainants
sought the re%i%al of the cri!inal case. &hen the trial court allowed re%i%al of the case, the
accused 6uestioned the order, clai!ing that the prior dis!issal had alread beco!e final and
e"ecutor.
Issue: &hether the said order beca!e final and e"ecutor
e!": ?es. An order dis!issing a case without pre$udice is a final order if no !otion for
reconsideration or appeal therefro! is ti!el filed. The law grants an aggrie%ed part a period of
1; das fro! his receipt of the decision or order to appeal or !o%e to reconsider the sa!e. After
the order of dis!issal of a case without pre$udice has beco!e final, and therefore beco!es
outside the court0s power to a!end and !odif, a part who wishes to reinstate the case has no
other re!ed but to file a new co!plaint.
FORUM SOPPING
PNB:REPUBLIC BAN# V. CA
10 )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: ( as1ed the help of the :+7 to in%estigate on the undeli%ered T.+ills. The :+7 thereafter
filed a cri!inal case before the <ffice of the <!buds!an against 2. )ubse6uentl, ( also filed a
co!plaint against 2 with the RTC.
Issue: &hether there was foru! shopping
e!": :o. A case before the <!buds!an cannot be considered for purposes of deter!ining if
there was foru! shopping. The power of the <!buds!an is onl in%estigator in character and
its resolution cannot constitute a %alid and final $udg!ent because its dut, assu!ing it
deter!ines that there is an actionable cri!inal or non.cri!inal act or o!ission, is to file the
-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
appropriate case before the )andiganbaan. 7t is not et 1nown whether the <!buds!an would
file a case against the culprits.
INFORMATION
VAS%UE& V. CA
1; )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: The 7nfor!ation charging A with libel did not set out the entire news article as published.
Issue: &hether the defect in the 7nfor!ation can be cured b e%idence
e!": ?es. &hile the general rule is that the 7nfor!ation !ust set out the particular defa!ator
words %erbati! and as published and that a state!ent of their substance is insufficient, a defect
in this regard !a be cured b e%idence. 7n this case, the article was presented in e%idence, but
A failed to ob$ect to its introduction. 7nstead, he engaged in the trial of the entire article, not onl
of the portions 6uoted in the 7nfor!ation, and sought to pro%e it to be true. 7n doing so, he
wai%ed ob$ection based on the defect in the 7nfor!ation. Conse6uentl, he cannot raise this
issue at this last stage.
PEOPLE V. ROMAN
1C )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: A raped H thrice on the sa!e afternoon. 9owe%er, the 7nfor!ation charged hi! of onl
one act of rape.
Issue: &hether A can be con%icted of three acts of rape
e!": :o. Although it is not disputed that A had carnal 1nowledge of H thrice on that sa!e
afternoon, since the 7nfor!ation onl charged A of one act of rape, the lower court did not err in
ruling that A can onl be held liable for one act of rape.
Le;a! Pe6s.7a!1t4 O< P612ate C.58!a17a7t T. F1!e A S8ec1a! C121!
Act1.7
PERE& V. AGONO$ RURAL BAN#
, 'arch 2000
Facts: A co!plaint for estafa was filed against A, + and C. The )ecretar of Justice directed the
dis!issal of the co!plaint. (ri%ate co!plainant ( filed a petition for certiorari which was granted
b the CA. A, + and C 6uestioned the CA ruling.
Issue: &hether ( had legal personalit to assail the dis!issal of the cri!inal case
e!": ?es. 7ndeed, it is onl the )olicitor =eneral who !a bring or defend actions on behalf of
the Republic of the (hilippines, or represent the (eople or )tate in cri!inal proceedings
pending in the )upre!e Court or the Court of Appeals. 9owe%er, the pri%ate offended part
retains the right to bring a special ci%il action for certiorari in his own na!e in cri!inal
proceedings, before the courts of law, on the ground of gra%e abuse of discretion a!ounting to
lac1 or e"cess of $urisdiction.
MOTION TO %UAS
DOMINGO V. SANDIGANBA$AN
20 Jan. 2000
8
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: A was accused of %iolating RA *10, before the )andiganbaan. A filed a !otion to
6uash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. 9is !otion was denied.
Issue: &hether the infor!ation should be 6uashed
e!": :o. A !otion to 6uash on the ground that the allegations do not constitute the offense
charged should be resol%ed on the basis of the allegations alone whose truth and %eracit are
hpotheticall ad!itted. 7n this case, the facts alleged in the infor!ation constitute a %iolation of
RA *01, so the !otion to 6uash !ust fail.
PEOPLE V. LOPE&
1, Aug. 1,,,
Facts: A was con%icted of 2ouble 'urder with Erustrated 'urder. A appealed, saing that the
infor!ation filed against hi! was for!all defecti%e, as it charged !ore than one offense in
%iolation of Rule 110 )ec. 1*.
7ssue: &hether the $udg!ent should be re%ersed in %iew of the defecti%e infor!ation
e!": :o. 7ndeed, the infor!ation is for!all defecti%e for it charged !ore than one offense.
9owe%er, because of his failure to file a !otion to 6uash, A is dee!ed to ha%e wai%ed ob$ection
based on the ground of duplicit. The )upre!e Court !erel !odified the $udg!ent finding that
A should be held liable for three separate cri!es.
MARTINE& V. PEOPLE
20 Aug. 1,,,
Facts: A was charged with !al%ersation of public funds before the )andiganbaan. A filed a
!otion to 6uash the infor!ation against hi! alleging that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense. The )andiganbaan denied the !otion to 6uash 4for ob%ious lac1 of !erit.5 A then filed
a petition for certiorari.
Issue: &hether A too1 the proper recourse
e!": :o. The )andiganbaan correctl denied A0s !otion to 6uash. Ero! such denial, the
appropriate re!ed is not appeal or re%iew on certiorari. The re!ed is for the petitioner to go to
trial on the !erits, and if an ad%erse decision is rendered, to appeal therefro! in the !anner
authori/ed b law.
POWER OF SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF TE SECRETAR$ OF JUSTICE
JALANDONI V. DRILON
2 'arch 2000
Facts: A filed a co!plaint for libel against 2. The prosecutor reco!!ended the indict!ent of 2
so an infor!ation for libel was filed with the RTC. 2 appealed to the )ecretar of Justice who
directed the withdrawal of the co!plaint. A sought to nullif the 2<J resolution.
Issue: &hether the )ecretar of Justice co!!itted an error
e!": :o. The )ecretar of Justice has the power to re%iew resolutions or decisions of
pro%incial or cit prosecutors or the Chief )tate (rosecutor upon petition b a proper part.
Gnder the Re%ised Ad!inistrati%e Code, the secretar of $ustice e"ercises the power of direst
control and super%ision o%er said prosecutors. 9e !a thus affir!, nullif, re%erse or !odif
their rulings, as he !a dee! fit.
,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
PRELIMINAR$ INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE V. ARLEE
2; Jan. 2000
Facts: A was accused of raping H. A contended that he was depri%ed of the right to a
preli!inar in%estigation since he was not able to recei%e the subpoenas sent to hi!.
Issue: &hether or not A was depri%ed of his right to preli!inar in%estigation
e!": :o. The presence of the accused is not a condition sine 6ua non to the %alidit of
preli!inar in%estigation. (ursuant to Rule 112 section * @dA, a preli!inar in%estigation was
actuall conducted and the (rosecutor found a pri!a facie case. A also applied for bail and
%oluntaril sub!itted hi!self for arraign!ent, thereb effecti%el wai%ing his right to a
preli!inar in%estigation.
LIANG V. PEOPLE
2/ Ja7. 2000
Facts: A was charged before the 'etropolitan Trial Court @'eTCA with 2 counts of gra%e oral
defa!ation. A was arrested. 9e contended that he was denied the right to preli!inar
in%estigation.
Issue: &hether a preli!inar in%estigation should be gi%en
e!": :o. (reli!inar in%estigation is not a !atter of right in cases cogni/able b the 'eTC.
+eing purel a statutor right, preli!inar in%estigation !a be in%o1ed onl when specificall
granted b law. +esides, the absence of preli!inar in%estigation does not affect the court0s
$urisdiction nor does it i!pair the %alidit of the infor!ation.
WRIT OF INJUNCTION=PROIBITION
DOMINGO V. SANDIGANBA$AN
20 Jan. 2000
Facts: A was accused of %iolating RA *10, before the )andiganbaan. A wished to en$oin the
cri!inal proceedings against hi!.
Issue: &hether granting a writ of in$unction or prohibition to sta a cri!inal proceeding would
be proper
e!": :o. &rits of in$unction and prohibition will not lie to restrain a cri!inal prosecution
because public interest re6uires that cri!inal acts be i!!ediatel in%estigated and prosecuted
for the protection of societ. The writ !a issue onl in specified cases @e.g., to pre%ent the use
of the strong ar! of the law in an oppressi%e !anner and to afford ade6uate protection to
constitutional rightsA. )uch e"ceptions do not obtain in this case.
VALIDIT$ OF JUDGMENT
PEOPLE V. GARCIA
*0 Aug. 1,,,
Facts: Judge 2 con%icted A of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. The decision was
pro!ulgated on 20 Eeb. 1,,#. Judge 20s retire!ent was appro%ed in April 1,,# but the
effecti%el of the retire!ent was !ade retroacti%e to 1# Eeb. 1,,#. + then assailed his
con%iction because it was pro!ulgated C das after Judge 20s retire!ent.
Issue: &hether the decision is %oid
10
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!": :o. Gnder the Rules on Cri!inal (rocedure, a decision is %alid and binding onl if it is
penned and pro!ulgated b the $udge during his incu!benc. A $udg!ent has legal effect onl
when it is rendered: @aA b a court legall constituted and in actual e"ercise of $udicial powersD
and @bA b a $udge legall appointed, dul 6ualified, and actuall acting either de $ure or de facto.
Judge 2 was a de facto $udge in the actual e"ercise of his duties at the ti!e the decision was
pro!ulgated. )uch decision is therefore legal and has a %alid and binding effect.
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
PEOPLE VS. ARMANDO ALICANTE
G.R. NO. 12002>:20 )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with rape co!!itted against his !inor daughter, H. H0s !other, howe%er,
e"ecuted an affida%it of desistance. The trial court con%icted A of rape.
Issue+ &hether the affida%it of desistance is a ground for dis!issal of a cri!inal case.
e!"+ :o. A perusal of the affida%it of desistance re%eals that while H signed the said docu!ent,
the intent to pardon A was onl on the part of H0s !other and not H herself. +esides, the Court
loo1s with disfa%or on affida%its of desistance.
ARRAIGNMENT
AR%UERO VS. MENDO&A
'1, SCRA ,0' )1---*
Facts+ A0s arraign!ent was originall set for August 1; but it was postponed , ti!es before it
was finall held. <n one occasion, A appeared in the scheduled arraign!ent with new lawers
who both as1ed for postpone!ent on the ground that their ser%ices had $ust been engaged and
the needed ti!e to stud the case. The $udge postponed the arraign!ent of A.
Issue+ &hether the postpone!ent of the arraign!ent was proper.
e!"+ :o. The fact that A hired new lawers to represent her does not $ustif the postpone!ent
of the arraign!ent o%er the strong ob$ection of the pri%ate prosecutor. The Rules of Court
pro%ide that 4whene%er a counsel de oficio is assigned b the Court to defend the accused at
the arraign!ent, he shall be gi%en at least 1 hour to consult with the accused as to his plea
before proceeding with the arraign!ent.5 There is no reason wh a different rule should be
applied to a counsel de parte where ser%ices ha%e $ust been engaged b the accused. There
was absolutel no reason wh counsel could not ha%e been re6uired to confer with the accused
within a shorter period to prepare for the arraign!ent.
PEOPLE VS. BONIFACIO DURANGO
G.R. NO. 1',('/:'- )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with rape. 2uring arraign!ent, A entered a plea of not guilt. 2uring the
trial, A0s defense counsel !anifested to the court that A wanted to withdrew his earlier plea of
not guilt and substitute it with a plea of guilt. <n the basis of the !anifestation, A was re.
arraigned, and this ti!e A pleaded guilt. After the prosecution had concluded its presentation,
the RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilt and sentencing hi! to death.
Issue+ &hether the RTC erred in con%icting A despite his i!pro%ident plea of guilt
e!"+ ?es. &hen an accused enters a plea of guilt, the trial court is !andated to see to it that
the e"acting standards laid down b the rules therefore are strictl obser%ed. 7t cannot be said
that when a person pleads guilt to a cri!e there is no chance at all that he could, in fact, be
11
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
innocent. The i!pro%ident plea, followed b an abbre%iated proceeding, with practicall no role
at all plaed b the defense is $ust too !eager to accept as being the standard constitutional
due process at wor1 enough to forfeit hu!an life.
ARREST
PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPI
G.R. NO. 110/02 )2000*
Facts+ A was illegall arrested. 2uring arraign!ent, he entered a plea of not guilt.
Issue+ &hether A %alidl wai%ed their right to raise the infir!it of their arrest.
e!"+ ?es. Gpon entering a plea of not guilt, A %alidl wai%ed his right to raise this infir!it and
assail the legalit of the arrest. An ob$ection in%ol%ing a warrant of arrest or the procedure in
the ac6uisition b the court of the $urisdiction o%er the person of an accused !ust be !ade
before he enters his plea, otherwise the ob$ection is dee!ed wai%ed.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW
GARCIA VS. PEOPLE
'1/ SCRA ('( )1---*
Facts+ The RTC found A guilt of !urder and sentenced hi! to reclusion perpetua. A did not
interpose a ti!el appeal. Thus, the decision beca!e final. ( filed a special ci%il action for
!anda!us to co!pel the RTC to forward the records of the case to the )upre!e Court for
auto!atic re%iew.
Issue+ &hether the )upre!e Court !ust auto!aticall re%iew a trial court0s decision con%icting
an accused of a capital offense and sentencing hi! to reclusion perpetua.
e!"+ :o. 7t is onl in cases where the penalt actuall i!posed is death that the trial court !ust
forward the records of the case to the )upre!e Court for auto!atic re%iew of the con%iction.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS. EDUARDO PAVILLARE
G.R. NO. 12--00 )2000*
Facts+ A, without the assistance of counsel, was identified b the co!plainant in a police.line up
as one of the 1idnappers. 9e was subse6uentl found guilt with 1idnapping for ranso!.
Issue+ &hether the identification !ade b the co!plainant in the police line.up is inad!issible
because A stood up at the line.up without the assistance of counsel.
e!"+ :o. The Constitution prohibits custodial in%estigation conducted without the assistance of
counsel. An e%idence obtained in %iolation of the constitutional !andate is inad!issible in
e%idence. The prohibition howe%er, does not e"tend to a person in a police line.up because that
stage of an in%estigation is not et a part of custodial in%estigation. Custodial in%estigation
co!!ences when a person is ta1en into custod and is singled out as a suspect in the
co!!ission of the cri!e under in%estigation and the police officers begin to as1 6uestions on
the suspect0s participation therein and which tend to elicit an ad!ission. The stage of the
in%estigation wherein a person is as1ed to stand in a police line.up is outside the !antle of
protection of the right to counsel because it in%ol%es a general in6uir into an unsol%ed cri!e
and is purel in%estigator in nature.
PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPI
12
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
G.R. NO. 110/02 )2000*
Facts+ The police in%ited A for 6uestioning. A was as1ed a single 6uestion at the police station
regarding his whereabouts on the da of the cri!e.
Issue+ &hether custodial in%estigation occurred.
e!"+ :o. A was not et singled out as the perpetrator of the cri!e. 9e was !erel in%ited for
6uestioning. The 6uer on A was !erel part of the 4general e"plorator stage5.
PEOPLE VS. JIMM$ OBRERO
G.R. NO. 1221(2 )2000*
Facts+ A is a suspect in a cri!e. 9e was ta1en for custodial in%estigation wherein, with the
assistance of Attorne +., who was also the station co!!ander of the police precinct, he
e"ecuted an e"tra$udicial confession.
Issue+ &hether A0s right to counsel during a custodial in%estigation was %iolated.
e!"+ ?es. The Constitution re6uires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial in%estigations
be co!petent and independent. 9ere, A was assisted b Attorne +., who, though presu!abl
co!petent, cannot be considered an 4independent counsel5 as conte!plated b the law for the
reason that he was station co!!ander of the police precinct at the ti!e he assisted A. The
independent counsel re6uired b the Constitution cannot be a special counsel, public or pri%ate
prosecutor, !unicipal attorne, or counsel of the police whose interest is ad!ittedl ad%erse to
the accused.
DECISION
PEOPLE VS. DOMINADOR ASPIRAS
G.R. NO. 12120' )2000*
FACTS+ A was charged with !urder. Trial ensued. Judge +, who presided at the trial, was
replaced b Judge C. Judge C rendered a decision finding A guilt of !urder.
ISSUE+ &hether the efficac of the decision is i!paired b the fact that its writer onl too1 o%er
fro! a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.
ELD+ :o. Judge C, who too1 o%er the case fro! Judge + had the full record before hi!,
including the transcript of stenographic notes, which he studied. The testi!onies of the
witnesses for the prosecution are found in the transcript of stenographic notes ta1en in the case.
ELIGIO MADRID VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1'0>/' )2000*
Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision con%icting A of the cri!e of ho!icide. The onl discussion
in the decision of the e%idence is in the following sentences: 4Their testi!on con%inced the
Court. <n the other hand, accused0s e%idence bears the indicia of fabrication. 2efense
witnesses fro! their de!eanor, !anner of testifing and e%asi%e answers were far fro!
credible. Ero! the e%idence on record, the Court belie%es and so hold that the prosecution has
satisfactor pro%ed the accused guilt beond reasonable doubt. (rosecution0s witnesses
testified in a straightforward !anner.
Issue+ &hether the RTC satisfied the constitutional standard of clear and distinct articulation of
the facts and law in its decision
1*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. The RTC0s decision, for all its length B 2* pages B contains no analsis of the
e%idence of the parties nor reference to an legal basis in reaching its conclusion. 7t contains
nothing !ore than a su!!ar of the testi!onies of the witnesses of both parties. 7t does not
indicate what the trial court found in the testi!onies of the prosecution witnesses to consider the
sa!e 4straightforward5.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
RESOSO VS. SANDIGANBA$AN
'1- SCRA 2'/ )1---*
Facts+ )e%en infor!ations for falsifications of public docu!ent were filed with the
)andiganbaan against (. Trial proceeded. &ith lea%e of court, ( filed a 2e!urrer to 8%idence
alleging that b e%idence presented b the prosecution itself the guilt of the accused has not
been established beond reasonable doubt, and he is entitled to an ac6uittal. The 2e!urrer to
8%idence was denied. ( filed a petition for certitorari with the )C, challenging the denial of the
de!urrer.
Issue+ &hether the petition should be granted
e!"+ :o. ( would ha%e this Court re%iew the assess!ent !ade b the )andiganbaan on the
sufficienc of the e%idence against hi! at this ti!e of the trial. )uch a re%iew cannot be secured
in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and !anda!us which is not a%ailable to correct !ista1es
in the $udge0s findings and conclusions or to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact.
Although there !a be an error of $udg!ent in dening the de!urrer to e%idence, this cannot be
considered as gra%e abuse of discretion correctible b certiorari, as certiorari does not include
the correction or e%aluation of e%idence.
DOUBLE JEOPARD$
PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO MAGAT
G.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*
Facts+ <n the basis of a %oid plea bargaining, the RTC rendered a $udg!ent con%icting A of the
cri!e of rape. Thereafter, the cases were re%i%ed at co!plainant0s instance on the ground that
the penalt was too light. Trial ensued and the RTC con%icted A of rape and sentenced hi! to
the penalt of death.
Issue+ &hether there has been double $eopard.
e!"+ :o. The $udg!ent rendered b the trial court which was based on a %oid plea bargaining
is also %oid ab initio and can not be considered to ha%e attained finalit for the si!ple reason
that a %oid $udg!ent has no legalit fro! its inception. Thus, since the $udg!ent of con%iction
rendered against A is %oid, double $eopard will not lie.
INFORMATION
PEOPLE VS. FELI?BERTO
G.R. NO. 1'(1'0:'' )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. The infor!ation alleged that he is the stepfather of
the %icti!. The trial court found hi! guilt and sentenced hi! to death.
Issue+ &hether the penalt i!posed on A is correct.
e!"+ :o. Although the rape of a person under 18 ears of age b the co!!on.law spouse of
the %icti!0s !other is punishable b death, this penalt cannot be i!posed on A in these cases
1C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
because this relationship was not what was alleged in the infor!ation. &hat was alleged was
that he is the stepfather of the co!plainants.
PEOPLE VS. BENJAMIN RA&ONABLE
G.R. NO. 12/0/, )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. The 7nfor!ation alleged that the offense was
co!!itted 4so!eti!e in the ear 1,8-5. A was con%icted of rape. <n appeal, he raised the issue
of a defecti%e infor!ation on the ground that it did not state the appro"i!ate ti!e of the
co!!ission of the offense.
Issue+ &hether the said ob$ection !a be !ade for the first ti!e on appeal.
e!"+ :o. 7t behoo%ed the accused to raise the issue of a defecti%e infor!ation, on the ground
that it does not confor! substantiall to the prescribed for!, in a !otion to 6uash said
infor!ation or a !otion for bill of particulars. An accused who fails to ta1e this seasonable step
will be dee!ed to ha%e wai%ed the defect in the said infor!ation. The onl defects in an
infor!ation that are not dee!ed wai%ed are where no offense is charged, lac1 of $urisdiction of
the offense charged, e"tinction of the offense or penalt and double $eopard. Corollaril,
ob$ections as to !atters of for! or substance in the infor!ation cannot be !ade for the first ti!e
on appeal.
PEOPLE VS. EUSEBIO TRA$A
G.R. NO. 12-0,2 )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. The infor!ation did not state the fact of the
!inorit of the %icti!. A was con%icted of rape and sentenced to death.
Issue+ &hether the penalt i!posed on A is correct, considering the fact of the !inorit of the
%icti! was not stated in the 7nfor!ation.
e!"+ The fact of the !inorit of the %icti! was not stated in the 7nfor!ation. <nl the
relationship of the %icti! as the daughter of the offender was alleged therein. The rule is that the
ele!ents of !inorit of the %icti! and her relationship to the offender !ust concur. The failure to
allege one of these ele!ents precludes the i!position of the death penalt.
PEOPLE VS. DOMINICO LICANDA
G.R. NO. 1'(0/( )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. The infor!ation did not allege A0s use of a bladed
weapon in co!!itting rape. A was con%icted of rape and sentenced to death. <ne basis for the
court0s i!position of the death penalt was A0s use of a bladed weapon in co!!itting rape.
Issue+ &hether the penalt i!posed on A is correct, considering that the use of a bladed
weapon b A was not alleged in the infor!ation.
e!"+ :o. A0s use of a bladed weapon in co!!itting rape cannot ser%e as basis for the
i!position of the death penalt. This circu!stance, which under Art. **;, increases the penalt
of reclusion perpetua to death, !ust be so alleged in the 7nfor!ation.
PEOPLE VS. ROSENDO MENDE&
G.R. NO. 1'2,(> )2000*
1;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ A was charged with rape. The co!plaint specificall accused A of rape co!!itted 4b
!eans of force.5 The infor!ation alleged that the carnal intercourse was 4against the will5 or
4without the consent5 of the %icti!.
Issue+ &hether the co!plaint pre%ails in case of %ariance between the %icti!0s co!plaint and
the infor!ation in cri!es against chastit.
e!"+ ?es. 7n case of %ariance between the %icti!0s co!plaint and the infor!ation in cri!es
against chastit, the co!plaint control. Thus, the failure of the infor!ation to state that A raped H
4through force or inti!idation5 is not a fatal o!ission in this case because the co!plaint alleged
the ulti!ate fact that A raped H 4b !eans of force5. )o, at the outset, A could ha%e readil
ascertained that he was being accused rape co!!itted through force, a charge that sufficientl
co!plies with Article **;.
PEOPLE VS. PETRONILLO CASTILLO
G.R. NO. 1'020, )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with rape. The infor!ation alleged that the cri!e occurred 4so!eti!e in
'a 1,,15.
Issue+ &hether the infor!ation is too general in ter!s.
e!"+ :o. The infor!ation charges onl one offense B that co!!itted in 'a 1,,1.7t cannot be
said that A was depri%ed of the opportunit to prepare for his defense. 7t is sufficient if the ti!e
a%erred is near the actual date as the infor!ation of the prosecuting officer will per!it, and since
that was done in this case, it was not shown that the ti!e pro%ed did not surprise or
substantiall pre$udice the defense. +esides, in a rape case, the date or ti!e is not an essential
cri!e and therefore need not be accuratel stated.
MOTION TO %UAS
WILLIAM GARA$GA$ VS. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 1',,0' )2000*
Facts+ The 8"ecuti%e Judge of the RTC of 'anila issued a search warrant authori/ing the
search of A0s house in 3apu.3apu Cit. + %irtue of the warrant, A0s house was searched. A filed
in the RTC of 3apu.3apu Cit a !otion to 6uash the search warrant and to e"clude illegall
sei/ed e%idence.
Issue+ &hether the !otion to 6uash should ha%e been filed with the RTC of 'anila which
issued the warrant.
e!"+ :o. &hen a search warrant is issued b one court, if the cri!inal case b %irtue of the
warrant is raffled off to a branch other than the one which issued the warrant, all incidents
relating to the %alidit of the warrant should be consolidated with the branch tring the cri!inal
case.
PLEA BARGAINING
G.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. Gpon arraign!ent, A pleaded guilt but bargained
for a lesser offense, to which co!plainant0s !other and the prosecutor agreed.
Issue+ &hether the plea bargaining is %alid.
1#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. The onl instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when an
accused pleads guilt to a lesser offense. 9ere, A did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded
guilt to the rape charges and onl bargained for a lesser penalt. 7n short, he did not plea
bargain but !ade conditions on the penalt to be i!posed.
PLEA OF GUILT$
PEOPLE VS. EFREN JABIEN
G.R. NO. 1''0>/:>- )2000*
Facts+ A was charged with the cri!e of rape. 9e pleaded guilt to the sa!e and did not present
e%idence for the defense. The RTC rendered $udg!ent and found A guilt beond reasonable
doubt. 9e was !eted the death penalt
Issue+ &hether the plea of guilt to a capital offense is %alid.
e!"+ ?es. The Rules of Court pro%ide the procedure that the trial court should follow when an
accused pleads guilt to a capital offense. The court shall conduct a searching in6uir into the
%oluntariness and full co!prehension of the conse6uences of his plea and re6uire the
prosecution to pro%e his guilt and precise degree of culpabilit. 9ere, A was neither coerced nor
inti!idated in entering his plea of guilt. Eurther!ore, his guilt was pro%ed b the e%idence
presented b the prosecution.
PROCEDURAL ERRORS
G.R. NO. 1'002> )2000*
Facts+ <n the basis of a %oid plea bargaining, the RTC rendered a $udg!ent con%icting A of the
cri!e of rape. Thereafter, the cases were re%i%ed at co!plainant0s instance on the ground that
the penalt was too light. At his re.arraign!ent, A pleaded not guilt. Trial ensued and the RTC
con%icted A of rape and sentenced hi! to the penalt of death.
Issue+ &hether the procedural errors in the first arraign!ent can be 6uestioned.
e!"+ :o. &hate%er procedural infir!it in the arraign!ent of A was rectified when he was re.
arraigned and entered a new plea. A did not 6uestion the procedural errors in the first
arraign!ent and ha%ing failed to do so, he is dee!ed to ha%e abandoned his right to 6uestion
the sa!e and wai%ed the errors in procedure.
SEARC WARRANTS
#ENNET RO$ SAVAGE VS. JUDGE TA$PIN
G.R. NO. 1'(210 )2000*
Facts+ ( sought nullification of a search warrant issued b respondent court on the ground that
the respondent court has no $urisdiction o%er the offense since it was not delegated as a special
court for 7ntellectual (ropert Rights @7(RA and that the application for search warrant should
ha%e been dis!issed since it was not acco!panied b a certification of non.foru! shopping.
Issue+ &hether the search warrant should be nullified on the said grounds.
e!"+ :o. The authorit to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts. Ad!inistrati%e <rder
:o. 11*.,; !erel specified which court could tr and decide cases in%ol%ing %iolations of 7(R.
7t did not, and could not, %est e"clusi%e $urisdiction with regard to all !atters @including the
issuance of search warrants and other $udicial processesA in an one court. Jurisdiction is
conferred upon courts b substanti%e lawD in this case, +( +lg. 12,, and not b procedural rule.
1-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
&ith respect to the lac1 of a certification of non.foru! shopping, the Rules of Court as
a!ended re6uires such certification onl fro! initiator pleadings, o!itting an !ention of
4applications.5
SUSPENSION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
FIRST PRODUCERS OLDINGS VS. CO
G.R. NO. 1'->,, )2000*
Facts+ H filed a cri!inal co!plaint for estafa and per$ur against A. 7t appears that A refused to
return certificates of shares owned b H and e%en e"ecuted false affida%its of loss despite the
fact that said certificates are e"isting and re!ains in his possession. 2uring the pendenc of the
case, A filed an action for da!ages against H and clai!ed ownership o%er the 6uestioned
certificates. A filed a !otion for suspension of the cri!inal case on the ground of a pre$udicial
6uestion but was denied b the trial court.
Issue+ &hether the !otion for suspension of the cri!inal case should be granted.
e!"+ :o. The peculiar circu!stances of this case clearl show that it was !erel a plo to
dela the resolution of the cri!inal case. The cri!inal action for estafa has been lodged with the
(rosecutor on 'arch 1*. ?et, A filed the ci%il case onl 8 !onths later. The dilator character of
the strateg of respondent is apparent fro! the fact that he could ha%e raised the issue of
ownership in the estafa case. )ignificantl, the ci%il action for reco%er of ci%il liabilit is i!pliedl
instituted with the filing of the cri!inal action. 9ence, A !a in%o1e all defenses pertaining to his
ci%il liabilit in the cri!inal action. 7n fact, there is no law or rule prohibiting hi! fro! airing
e"hausti%el the 6uestion of ownership.
$OUTFUL OFFENDER
PEOPLE VS. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO
G.R. NO. 12,,,0 )2000*
Facts+ (, a outhful offender, who was 18 ears and 11 !onths at the ti!e the cri!e was
co!!itted, was con%icted and placed under the custod of the 2)&2 Rehabilitation Center. 7n
a Einal Report, the Eield <ffice 2irector of the 2)&2 reco!!ended to the Court that his case
be dis!issed and his custod be transferred to his father for his best welfare and interest.
Issue+ &hether the outhful offender should be discharged on the basis of the said
reco!!endation.
e!"+ :o. The said Einal Report and Reco!!endation of the 2)&2 should be referred to the
RTC for its appro"i!ate action and disposition. 7n cases where the 2)&2 reco!!ends the
discharge of a outhful offender, it is the trial court before who! the report and reco!!endation
is sub$ect to $udicial re%iew. Reco!!endation alone is not sufficient the release of a outhful
offender. 7n re%iewing the 2)&20s conclusions but should see1 out concrete, !aterial and
rele%ant facts to confir! that the outhful offender has indeed been refor!ed and is read to re.
enter societ as a producti%e and law.abiding citi/en.
SUMMAR$ PROCEDURE
LUCAS V. JUDGE FABROS
*1 Jan. 2000
Facts: The ci%il case in%ol%ing ( and 2 was dis!issed for failure of ( and his counsel to appear
at the preli!inar conference. 2 then co!plained because the $udge granted (0s !otion for
reconsideration.
18
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Issue: &hether the $udge was in error when she granted the !otion for reconsideration
e!": :o. As a rule, a !otion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under )ec. 1, of the
Re%ised Rules on )u!!ar (rocedure. This rule, howe%er, applies onl where the $udg!ent
sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the !erits. 9ere, the order of dis!issal is not a
$udg!ent on the !erits of the case. 9ence, a !otion for the reconsideration of such order is not
the prohibited pleading conte!plated under )ec. 1, of the rule on )u!!ar (rocedure.
DON TINO REALT$ V. FLORENTINO
10 )ept. 1,,,
Facts: 7n a forcible entr case, 2 was not able to file his answer on ti!e. The 'TC disregarded
his answer and ruled against hi!. 2 appealed the unfa%orable $udg!ent.
Issue: &hether 'TC should ha%e ad!itted 20s answer
e!": :o. Eorcible entr and unlawful detainer cases are su!!ar proceedings designed to
pro%ide for an e"peditious !eans of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of
the propert in%ol%ed. 7t does not ad!it of a dela in the deter!ination thereof. The 'TC0s
decision was in accordance with the rule on )u!!ar (rocedure.
IN RE+ ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. MTJ:--:11/1
11 Aug. 1,,,
Facts: 7n an e$ect!ent case, 20s counsel filed a !otion for inter%ention in behalf of 20s children.
( opposed the !otion because inter%entions are prohibited under )ec. 1, of the Rule on
)u!!ar (rocedure. The $udge too1 C !onths to decide the patentl i!proper !otion for
inter%ention so ( filed a letter.co!plaint against the $udge.
Issue: &hether the $udge0s actions were e"cusable
e!": :o. Considering that the !otion for inter%ention is prohibited in cases co%ered b the
Re%ised Rule on )u!!ar (rocedure, the resolution of the !otion should not ha%e ta1en such
an unreasonabl long period. 2ela in the resol%ing !otions is ine"cusable and cannot be
condoned.
VELA$O V. COMELEC
, 'arch 2000
Facts: ( filed a nu!ber of pre.procla!ation cases against 2. These were dis!issed and 2 was
proclai!ed winner. ( !o%ed for reconsideration without furnishing 2 a cop of the !otion. 2
was also not furnished a cop of the <rder ele%ating the case to the C<'838C en banc. The
C<'838C then annulled the procla!ation of 2.
Issue: &hether the C<'838C proceedings were properl conducted
e!": :o. 7t is true that RA -1## pro%ides for su!!ar proceedings in pre.procla!ation cases
and does not re6uire a trial.tpe hearing. :e%ertheless, su!!ar proceedings cannot be
stretched to !ean e" parte proceedings. )u!!ar si!pl !eans with dispatch, with the least
possible dela. +ut although the proceedings are su!!ar, the ad%erse part !ust at the %er
least be notified so that he can be apprised of the nature and the purpose of the proceeding. 7n
this case, all the proceedings were conducted without the participation of 2. These e" parte
proceedings offend funda!ental fairness and are null and %oid.
1,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ATTACMENT
GARCIA V. JOMOUAD
2# Jan. 2000
Facts: Creditors of 2 attached a (ropert <wnership Certificate in 20s na!e. ( ob$ected to the
le% clai!ing that he !erel lent the certificate to 2 and that 2 e"ecuted a 2eed of Transfer in
fa%or of ( e%en prior to the attach!ent.
Issue: &hether there was proper attach!ent of the shares
e!": ?es. The unrecorded transfer of shares is in%alid as to the attaching or e"ecution
creditors of the assignors. 8ntr in the !inutes of the !eeting of the +oard of 2irectors does not
constitute proper recording of the transfer. The transfer !ust be recorded in the boo1s of the
corporation in order to bind subse6uent attaching or e"ecution creditors.
CERTIORARI=APPEAL
ABBOTT LABORATORIES V. ABBOTT LAB EMPLO$EES
2# Jan. 2000
Facts: The +ureau on 3abor Relations declared 2 to be a legiti!ate labor organi/ation. (
appealed to the )ecretar of 3abor and 8!plo!ent.
Issue: &hether appeal is the proper re!ed
e!": :o. The decisions of the +ureau on 3abor Relations on case brought before it on appeal
fro! the Regional 2irector are final and e"ecutor. The re!ed is to a%ail of the special ci%il
action of certiorari under Rule #;. 8%en if the present action were considered as a petition for
certiorari, it is still ti!e.barred. ( filed the petition after the lapse of !ore than C !onths fro! the
notice of $udg!ent, clearl beond the #0.da period pro%ided under )ec. C of Rule #;.
CONDO SUITE V. NLRC
2/ Ja7. 2000
Facts: 3abor Arbiter dis!issed (0s co!plaint for illegal dis!issal. :3RC re%ersed and ordered
reinstate!ent. 8!ploer 2 filed a petition for certiorari. 9owe%er, + did not i!pute lac1 or
e"cess of $urisdiction nor gra%e abuse of discretion on the part of :3RC.
Issue: &hether the petition for certiorari !a prosper e%en without allegations of lac1 or e"cess
of $urisdiction or gra%e abuse of discretion
e!": :o. Resort to a special ci%il action for certiorari under Rule #; is li!ited to the resolution
of $urisdictional issues, that is, lac1 or e"cess of $urisdiction and gra%e abuse of discretion. The
respondent acts without $urisdiction if he does not ha%e the legal power to deter!ine the case.
There is e"cess of $urisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power to deter!ine
the case, o%ersteps his authorit as deter!ined b law. And there is gra%e abuse of discretion
where the respondent acts in a capricious, whi!sical, arbitrar, or despotic !anner n the
e"ercise of his $udg!ent as to be e6ui%alent to lac1 of $urisdiction. )ince 2 neither assailed the
$urisdiction of the :3RC nor attributes gra%e abuse of discretion, his petition !ust fail.
SMI DEV@T. V. RP
2/ Ja7. 2000
20
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: R( filed a co!plaint for e!inent do!ain against 2 for the purpose of e"propriating 20s
land. ( filed a 'otion to 2is!iss and trial court granted the !otion. R( filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule #; instead of filing an appeal.
Issue: &hether certiorari is the correct re!ed
e!": ?es. 7ndeed, certiorari !a not be resorted to when appeal is a%ailable as a re!ed.
9owe%er, the Court allows the issuance of a writ of certiorari when appeal does not pro%ide a
speed and ade6uate re!ed in the ordinar course of law. The deter!ination as to what
e"actl constitutes a plain, speed, and ade6uate re!ed rests on $udicial discretion and
depends on the particular circu!stances of each case. 7n this case, the public interest in%ol%ed
and the urgenc to pro%ide !edical facilities were enough $ustifications for R(0s resort to
certiorari.
TANG V. CA
11 Fe3. 2000
Facts: (, the ad!inistrator of an estate, sought to fence 2 lots. 2 et al. opposed the issuance of
the fencing per!it clai!ing that the sub$ect lots are street lots. 8%entuall, the fencing per!it
was issued. 2 et al., the neighboring lot owners filed a petition for certiorari with a praer for
preli!inar in$unction.
Issue: &hether 2 et al. !a %alidl a%ail of certiorari
e!": :o. Although )ec. 1 of Rule #; pro%ides that the special ci%il action of certiorari !a be
a%ailed of b a 4person aggrie%ed5 b the orders or decisions of a tribunal, the ter! 4person
aggrie%ed5 is not to be construed to !ean that an person who feels in$ured b the lower court0s
order or decision can 6uestion the said court0s disposition %ia certiorari. The 4person aggrie%ed5
referred to under )ec. 1 of Rule #; pertains to one who was a part in the proceedings before
the lower court. 2 et al. cannot be considered as 4persons aggrie%edD5 the re!ed of certiorari is
not a%ailable to the!.
CONTEMPT
$ASA$ V. RECTO
- )ept. 1,,,
Facts: )8C declared 2 et al. guilt of conte!pt for disobeing a TR< that )8C issued. The CA
set aside the order of the )8C, finding 2 et al. not guilt of conte!pt. )8C appealed the CA0s
re%ersal.
Issue: &hether the )8C can %alidl appeal the CA0s decision
e!": :o. &hether ci%il or cri!inal, conte!pt is still a cri!inal proceeding and an appeal would
not lie fro! the order of dis!issal of, or an e"oneration fro!, a charge of conte!pt. 'oreo%er,
the )8C was rather hast in asserting its power to punish for conte!pt. There was no willful
disobedience of the )8C0s order since it was shown that the CA pre%iousl nullified the TR<.
DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS
PEFIANCO V. MORAL
1, Jan. 2000
Facts: 2 filed a !anda!us and in$unction case see1ing to en$oin the enforce!ent of a decision
which had alread beco!e final. ( filed a 'otion to 2is!iss. The $udge denied the !otion
without stating the basis wh (0s !otion should be denied.
Issue: &hether the $udge0s denial of the !otion was proper
21
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!": :o. Rule 1# !andatoril re6uires that the resolution of a !otion to dis!iss should clearl
and distinctl state the reasons therefor. The rule proscribes the co!!on practice of
perfunctoril dening !otions to dis!iss 4for lac1 of !erit.5 The challenged order of the trial
court falls short of the re6uire!ents stated in Rule 1#.
DESISTANCE
ENOJAS V. JUDGE GACOTT
1, Jan. 2000
Facts: ( filed an ad!inistrati%e case against Judge 2. 3ater on, howe%er, ( withdrew his
co!plaint.
Issue: &hether the case should be dis!issed in %iew of plaintiff0s desistance
e!": :o. &ithdrawal of a co!plaint or subse6uent desistance b the co!plainant in an
ad!inistrati%e case does not necessaril warrant its dis!issal. 2esistance cannot di%est the
court of its $urisdiction to in%estigate and decide the co!plaint against 2 for public interest is at
sta1e.
FORUM SOPPING
CONDO SUITE V. NLRC
28 Jan. 2000
Facts: 3abor Arbiter dis!issed (0s co!plaint for illegal dis!issal. :3RC re%ersed and ordered
reinstate!ent. 8!ploer 2 filed a petition for certiorari. The e"ternal legal counsel of 2
e"ecuted the certification against foru! shopping in the petition.
Issue: &hether there was proper co!pliance with the rule on certification against foru!
shopping
e!": :o. + did not co!pl with the rule since the certification was i!properl e"ecuted b the
e"ternal legal counsel. A certification of non.foru! shopping !ust be e"ecuted b the petitioner
or an of the principal parties and not b counsel unless clothed with a special power of attorne
to do so.
INTERLOCUTOR$ ORDER AND E?ECUTION PENDING APPEAL
DIESEL CONSTRUCTION V. JOLLIBEE FOODS
28 Jan. 2000
Facts: The trial court ruled that ( was entitled to a certain a!ount to be paid b 2. +oth parties
appealed. The CA directed the RTC to issue a writ of e"ecution upon (0s posting of a (10
!illion bond and to sta e"ecution 20s filing of a supersedeas bond of (1; !illion.
Issue: &hether a petition for re%iew under Rule C; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion the CA0s
resolution
e!": :o. Rule C; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion final $udg!ents and not interlocutor
orders of the CA. The assailed resolution is an interlocutor order. 7nterlocutor orders are those
that deter!ine incidental !atters which do not touch on the !erits of the case or put an end to
the proceedings. A petition for certiorari under Rule #; is the proper re!ed to 6uestion the
i!pro%ident order granting e"ecution Kending appeal or a sta of such e"ecution.
BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION V. CA
*1 Jan. 2000
22
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: ( filed a co!plaint for breach of contract, specific perfor!ance, and collection of a su!
of !one against 2. The trial court issued the writ of preli!inar attach!ent. 2 filed a petition
for certiorari so CA re%ersed. ( now assails the CA0s decision.
Issue: &hether CA was correct in allowing due course to 20s petition for certiorari
e!": :o. As a general rule, an interlocutor order is not appealable until after the rendition of
the $udg!ent on the !erits. 9owe%er, certiorari is an appropriate re!ed to assail an
interlocutor order @1A when the tribunal issued such order without or in e"cess of $urisdiction or
with gra%e abuse of discretionD and @2A when the assailed interlocutor order is patentl
erroneous and the re!ed of appeal would not afford ade6uate and e"peditious relief. The
present case does not fall under the e"ceptions because 2 still had recourse to a plain, speed
and ade6uate re!ed, which is the filing of a !otion to fi" the counter.bond.
MACEDA V. DBP
2# Aug. 1,,,
Facts: ( won a case against 2. 2 appealed and the trial court granted e"ecution pending
appeal. 9owe%er, the CA re%ersed and denied e"ecution pending the appeal of the case.
Issue: &hether there are good reasons to $ustif e"ecution pending appeal
e!": :o. )ec. 2, Rule *, applies and his rule is strictl applied against the !o%ant. 8"ecution
pending appeal is usuall not fa%ored because it affects the rights of the parties which are et to
be ascertained on appeal. The * re6uisites are: @1A there !ust be a !otion b the pre%ailing
part with notice to the ad%erse partD @2A there !ust be a good reason for e"ecution pending
appealD and @*A the good reason !ust be stated in a special order. 7n this case, there are no
special, i!portant, or pressing reasons that would $ustif e"ecution pending appeal.
INTERVENTION
FIRESTONE CERAMICS V. CA
2 )ept. 1,,,
Facts: The go%ern!ent filed a case to annul the certificate of title of 2 co%ering forestland. H
wanted to inter%ene belie%ing that if 20s title would be annulled and after declassification of the
forestland to alienable land, then his title o%er a portion of the propert would beco!e %alid. ?
also wanted to inter%ene because the cancellation of 20s title would allegedl pa%e the wa for
his free patent application.
Issue: &hether H and ? should be allowed to inter%ene.
e!": :o. 7nter%ention is not a !atter of right but !a be per!itted b the courts when the
applicant shows that he is 6ualified to inter%ene as pro%ided under )ec. 1 of Rule 1,. The legal
interest of the inter%enor !ust be of direct and i!!ediate character and not !erel contingent
or e"pectant so that he will either gain or lose b the direct operation of the $udg!ent. H and ?
!erel ha%e a collateral interest in the sub$ect !atter of the litigation, thus, allowing inter%ention
would not be $ustified.
JUDGMENT
BALU$OT VS. GUIAO
)epte!ber 28, 1,,,
Facts+ ( filed a case to declare null and %oid a donation of a piece of land against 2. ( clai!ed
ownership of the sa!e. After trial, the court declared the donation %oid and ( the owner of the
land and issued a writ of possession in fa%or of (. 2 now appeals the $udg!ent. <ne of the
2*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
errors assigned was that the court co!!itted gra%e abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of
possession.
Issue+ &hether the writ of possession was issued in e"cess of $urisdiction.
e!"+ ?es.
Judg!ent is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but also those necessaril
included therein or necessar theretoD and, where the ownership of a parcel of land was
decreed in the $udg!ent, the deli%er of the possession of the land should be considered
included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated part0s clai! to the possession thereof is
based on his clai! of ownership. Also, ad$udication of ownership would include the deli%er of
possession if the defeated part has not shown an right to possess the land independentl of
his clai! or ownership which was re$ected. 7n such case, writ of e"ecution would be re6uired if
the defeated part does not surrender the possession of the propert. 9ere, there is no
allegation, !uch less proof, that petitioners ha%e an right to possess the land independent of
their clai! of ownership.
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE
BALAGTAS MULTI:PURPOSE COOPERATIVEA INC. V. CA
1# )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: The CA denied the !otion for reconsideration filed b ( because 4onl the 'otion for
Reconsideration before the :3RC and Einancial )tate!ent of ( were attached but still without
the other !aterial docu!ents !entioned in the petition, such as, @aA co!plaint, @bA position
papers, and @cA resignation letter of pri%ate respondent.5
Issue: &hether the CA erred in not finding sufficient co!pliance on the part of ( with the
re6uire!ents of the Rules of Ci%il (rocedure
e!": ?es. The sub!ission of said financial state!ent together with the !otion for
reconsideration constitutes substantial co!pliance with the re6uire!ents of )ection *, Rule C#.
The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a %er rigid, technical senseD rules of procedure
are used onl to help secure substantial $ustice. 7f a technical and rigid enforce!ent of the rules
is !ade, their ai! would be defeated.
LITIS PENDENTIA
TOURIST DUT$ FREE SOPS V. SANDIGANBA$AN
2# Jan. 2000
Facts: ( filed a case against 2 for recon%eance, re%ersion, and restitution of illegall obtained
assets. C filed another case against ( et al., with the )andiganbaan for specific perfor!ance
and the nullification of the writ of se6uestration.
Issue: &hether the second case should be dis!issed on the ground of litis pendentia or
consolidation with the first case
e!": :o. The re6uisites of litis pendentia are absent in this case @no identit of partiesD no
identit of rights asserted and reliefs praed forA. The cases should be resol%ed independentl
because !erger or consolidation of the two %ia !ere !otion is clearl unwarranted.
MODES OF DISCOVER$
SECURIT$ BAN# V. CA
2; Jan. 2000
2C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: ( filed a case against 2 I 8 to en$oin the e"tra$udicial foreclosure of a !ortgage. The
court granted 80s !otions for production, inspection, coping of docu!ents relating to the
!ortgage. ( ob$ected.
Issue: &hether the court erred in allowing the !odes of disco%er
e!": :o. Courts are gi%en wide latitude in granting !otions for disco%er. Courts should allow
production of docu!ents that are rele%ant to the sub$ect !atter of the action. To enable a part
to intelligentl prepare his defenses and to co!e up with a full deter!ination of the issues
constitute good causes for the grant of !otions for production of docu!ents.
NEW TRIAL
OLAN V. CA
10 )ept. 1,,,
Facts: 2 lost in an e$ect!ent case. The RTC allowed e"ecution pending appeal. 2 filed a
!otion to 6uash the writ of e"ecution and attached thereto the alleged 4newl disco%ered
e%idence.5 The RTC denied the !otion and 2 co!plained because his newl disco%ered
e%idence was not considered b the court.
Issue: &hether the newl disco%ered e%idence should be ad!itted
e!": :o. 2 should ha%e filed a !otion for new trial on the ground of newl disco%ered
e%idence in accordance with Rule *-. 2 also failed to support his clai! affida%its showing that
@aA the e%idence was disco%ered after trialD @bA such e%idence could not ha%e been disco%ered
and produced at the trial with reasonable diligenceD and @cA that it is !aterial and if ad!itted, it
will probabl change the $udg!ent.
PRE:TRIAL AND E?TRINSIC FRAUD
ALARCON V. CA
28 Jan. 2000
Facts: ( filed a case for the nullification of the sale of his land to 2, 8, and E. 2uring pre.trial, all
the parties agreed and !anifested that the docu!ent of sale was %oid so the trial court declared
the docu!ent of sale to be %oid ab initio. 2 filed a petition to annul the decision.
Issue: &hether the petition for annul!ent of the decision would prosper
e!": :o. Eirst, there was no e"trinsic fraud to !erit annul!ent of the decision. Eraud is
regarded as e"trinsic when it pre%ents a part fro! ha%ing a trial or fro! presenting his entire
case to court, or where it operates upon !atters pertaining not to the $udg!ent itself but to the
!anner in which it is procured. Counsel properl represented 2 at all stages of the proceedings
and he was not depri%ed of ha%ing a trial.
)econd, an action based on fraud !ust be filed within C ears fro! disco%er thereof. +
filed the petition , ears fro! the rendition of the assailed $udg!ent.
Einall, pre.trial is !andator. 8ntering into a stipulation of facts or ad!issions of facts
e"pedites trial and relie%es parties and the court of the costs of pro%ing facts that will not be
disputed during trial. )tipulations of facts !ade in the pre.trial hearing are binding on the
parties. +ased on the clear ad!issions !ade b the parties, 2 cannot now clai! that he was
denied his da in court.
PREJUDICIAL %UESTION
CIT$ OF PASIG V. COMELEC
10 )ept. 1,,,
2;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts: C<'838C suspended the plebiscite scheduled for the creation of new barangas in
'unicipalit ( in %iew of the pending boundar dispute between 'unicipalit ( and 'unicipalit
2. 'unicipalit ( ob$ected.
Issue: &hether there is a pre$udicial 6uestion
e!": ?es. The general rule is that a pre$udicial 6uestion conte!plates a ci%il and cri!inal
action and does not co!e into pla when both cases are ci%il. 9owe%er, in the interest of good
order, the )upre!e Court can suspend action on one case pending the final outco!e of another
case closel interrelated or lin1ed to the first e%en if the two are both ci%il cases. The e"ception
applies in this case.
REAL PART$:IN:INTEREST
BORLONGAN V. MADRIDEO
2; Jan. 2000
Facts: ( and 2 occupied H0s lot. ( filed an unlawful detainer case against 2 clai!ing that she is
the sole lessee and that 20s possession was b !ere tolerance of (. H, the owner of the lot,
testified that both ( and 2 were rightful lessees.
Issue: 1. &ho has the burden of proofL
2. &hether ( is the real part.in.interest
e!": 1. ( has the burden of proof. 7n ci%il cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who is
the part asserting the affir!ati%e of an issue. 9owe%er, ( failed to !eet the burden, as she was
unable to substantiate her clai! that she is the sole lessee of the propert.
2. ( is not the real part.in.interest. A 4real part.in.interest5 is one who stands to be
benefited or in$ured b the $udg!ent in the suit or the part entitled to the a%ails of the suit.
)ince ( failed to pro%e that she is the sole lessee of the propert, ( cannot be the real part.in.
interest in the unlawful detainer case.
U$ V. CA
, )ept. 1,,,
Facts: A and + were agents authori/ed to sell a parcel of land. The filed a case in their own
na!e against a third part for breach of contract in%ol%ing the land the were supposed to sell.
The principals of A and + were not pleaded as part.plaintiffs, Thus, their co!plaint was
dis!issed on the ground that the were not the real parties.in.interest.
Issue: &hether A and + can be considered as real parties.in.interest
e!": :o. )ec. 2, Rule * re6uires that e%er action be prosecuted and defended in the na!e of
the real part.in.interest. The agents are not parties to the said contract based on the principles
of agenc. :either are the heirs of the principal, assignees, or beneficiaries of a stipulation
pour autrui. Thus, A and + are not the real parties.in.interest in this case.
RES JUDICATA
GREENFIELD REALT$ CORP. V. CARDAMA
2; Jan. 2000
Facts: ( filed a case against 2. A si!ilar case in%ol%ing the parties had been pre%iousl
dis!issed for the case was a!icabl settled. 2 said the present action is barred b res $udicata.
Issue: &hether res $udicata applies
2#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!": :o. 7ndeed, $udg!ent upon a co!pro!ise agree!ent has the effect of res $udicata.
9owe%er, there is no res $udicata when the cause of action arises fro! the application or
%iolation of the co!pro!ise agree!ent.
VAN NGIA V. RODIGUE&
*1 Jan. 2000
Facts: A, a foreigner, was pre%iousl deported and barred fro! again entering the (hilippines.
9owe%er, A was able to enter the countr again so he was arrested and charged with %iolating
the (hil. 7!!igration Act. A filed a petition for habeas corpus but it was denied. 9is fiancMe filed
another petition for habeas corpus on A0s behalf.
Issue: &hether res $udicata applies
e!": ?es. This is alread the second petition for habeas corpus filed b petitioner before the
courts. There is res $udicata when @1A a $udg!ent had beco!e finalD @2A such $udg!ent was
rendered on the !eritsD @*A such $udg!ent was rendered b a court with $urisdiction o%er the
sub$ect !atter and the partiesD and @CA there is identit of parties, sub$ect !atter, and causes of
action in the pre%ious and subse6uent actions. The present petition alleges the sa!e !atters
and cause of action as the one pre%iousl filed. Clearl, it is barred b res $udicata.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTORIT$ V. CAOIBES
1, Aug. 1,,,
Facts: 7n a ci%il case, 2 filed a 'anifestation and 'otion praing that his answer pre%iousl filed
be treated as his answer to the a!ended co!plaint. 9owe%er, the court considered the !otion
as not filed on the ground of non.co!pliance with )ec. 1* of Rule 1*.
Issue: &hether the court erred in not accepting the !otion
e!": ?es. Although A failed to co!pl with the re6uired proof of ser%ice, it is worth to note
that A Ns 'otion and 'anifestation is not a contentious !otion and therefore, no right of the
ad%erse part would be affected b the ad!ission thereof. The filing of said !otion was not
e%en necessar since the Answer pre%iousl filed b A could ser%e as the Answer to the
A!ended Co!plaint e%en if no !otion to ad!it was filed, as pro%ided in )ec. * of Rule 11.
STA$ING TE IMMEDIATE E?ECUTION OF JUDGMENT
LAPE9A V. PAMARANG
1; Eeb. 2000
Facts: ( won in an unlawful detainer case. A writ of e"ecution was issued and was deli%ered to
sheriff 2 for e"ecution. 9owe%er, sheriff 2 returned the writ 4dul ser%ed but not satisfied.5
Issue: &hether sheriff0s action was proper
e!": :o. To sta the i!!ediate e"ecution of a $udg!ent in an e$ect!ent case while appeal is
pending, the defendant !ust: @aA perfect his appealD @bA file a supersedeas bondD and @cA
periodicall deposit the rentals which beco!e due during the pendenc of the appeal. 'ere
filing of a notice of appeal does not sta e"ecution in an e$ect!ent case. 7t does not appear fro!
sheriff 20s return that the re6uisites were present so as to $ustif his desistance fro!
i!ple!enting the writ of e"ecution.
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
2-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
OBANDO V. FIGUERAS
18 Jan. 2000
Facts: 7n a ci%il case, 2 filed a !otion to dis!iss and this was granted. ( clai!ed that the
!otion to dis!iss is in%alid since at the ti!e of filing, Att. ? no longer represented 2.
Issue: &hether or not Att. ? ceased to be 20s counsel
e!": :o. Representation continues until the court dispenses with the ser%ices of counsel in
accordance with )ec. 2#, Rule 1*8. Counsel !a be %alidl substituted onl if the following
re6uisites are co!plied with: @1A new counsel files a written application for substitutionD @2A the
client0s written consent is obtainedD and @*A the written consent of the lawer to be substituted is
secured, if it can still beD if the written consent can no longer be obtained, then the application
for substitution !ust carr proof that notice of the !otion has been ser%ed on the attorne to be
substituted in the !anner re6uired b the rules.
OBANDO V. FIGUERAS
18 Jan. 2000
Facts: 7n a ci%il case, 2 filed a 'otion to 2is!iss on the ground that ( lost his capacit to sue
during the pendenc of the case. ( assailed the !otion, saing that it was too late since ( had
alread finished presenting his e%idence.
Issue: &hether the !otion to dis!iss should be granted
e!": ?es. The period to file a !otion to dis!iss depends upon the circu!stances of the case.
)ec. 1 of Rule 1# re6uires that, in general, a !otion to dis!iss should be filed within the
regle!entar period for filing a responsi%e pleading. +ut the court allows a defendant to file a
!otion to dis!iss on the ff. grounds: @1A lac1 of $urisdictionD @2A litis pendentiaD @*A lac1 of cause
of actionD and @CA disco%er during trial of e%idence that would constitute a ground for dis!issal.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
BENAVIDE& V. CA
# )ept. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a forcible entr case against 2. ( won. 2 assailed the ruling for he clai!ed that
during the pendenc of the case, ( died and (0s counsel failed to infor! the court thereof. 2
contended that such failure to infor! nullifies the court0s $udg!ent.
Issue: &hether or not 2 is correct
e!": 2 is wrong. The failure of counsel to co!pl with his dut under )ec. 1# Rule * to infor!
the court of the death of his client @and as a conse6uence, no substitution of parties is effectedA
will not in%alidate the proceedings and the $udg!ent thereon if the action sur%i%es the death of
such part. An action for forcible entr, li1e an action for reco%er of real propert, is a real
action and as such sur%i%es the death of (.
SUMMAR$ JUDGMENT
GARCIA V. CA
10 Aug. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a case against 2 for the nullification of the e"tra$udicial foreclosure of !ortgage. (
!o%ed for su!!ar $udg!ent and later on, 2 also !o%ed for su!!ar $udg!ent. The trial court
granted the sa!e. The trial court ruled in fa%or of ( but the CA re%ersed. ( argued that the CA
28
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
co!!itted an error belie%ing that he alone as plaintiff in the trial court is entitled to su!!ar
$udg!ent.
Issue: &hether the (0s reasoning is correct
e!": :o. Gnder Rule *C, either part !a !o%e for su!!ar $udg!ent B the clai!ant b
%irtue of )ec. 1 and the defending part b %irtue of )ec. 2. There was no error on the part of
the court in resorting to su!!ar $udg!ent as praed for b both parties.
SUMMONS
E. B. VILLAROSA V. BENITO
# Aug. 1,,,
Facts: ( filed a case against 2 for breach of contract. 2 is a li!ited partnership. )u!!ons
were ser%ed upon 2 through its +ranch 'anager H. 2 filed a !otion to dis!iss on the ground of
lac1 of $urisdiction o%er its person because su!!ons were i!properl ser%ed. The trial court
denied 20s !otion.
Issue: &hether there was proper ser%ice of su!!ons
e!": :o. The enu!eration of persons @pro%ided under )ec. 11 Rule 1CA upon who!
su!!ons !a be ser%ed to bind a do!estic corporation or partnership is restricted, li!ited, and
e"clusi%e. )er%ice of su!!ons upon persons other than those !entioned in the Rule is
i!proper. The branch !anager is not included in the list so ser%ice of su!!ons upon hi! was
i!proper. Conse6uentl, the court did not ac6uire $urisdiction o%er the person of 2.
WRIT OF E?ECUTION
VOLUNTAD V. DI&ON
2# Aug. 1,,,
Facts: There was a pending case concerning a parcel of land. ( caused the annotation of a
notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title. The notice, howe%er, was pre!aturel cancelled.
7: the !eanti!e, 2 sold the land to H. ( won the case sought to e"ecute the $udg!ent against
H.
Issue: &hether the $udg!ent !a be e"ecuted against H
e!": ?es. A writ of e"ecution !a be issued against a person not a part to the case where
the latter0s re!ed, which he did not a%ail of, was to inter%ene in the case in%ol%ing rights o%er
the parcel of land of which he clai!s to be the %endee. )ince the notice of lis pendens was onl
pre!aturel cancelled, H should ha%e been aware of the pendenc of the case and should ha%e
inter%ened in the suit to protect his alleged rights. 9a%ing failed to do so, H is bound b the
result of the case.
TERR$ V. PEOPLE
1# )8(T. 1,,,
Facts: <n August 1*, 1,-,, the CE7 rendered a decision for which, no appeal was !ade. <n
:o%e!ber 22, 1,-,, a writ of e"ecution was issued against (. 9owe%er, the writ was not ser%ed
on (. <n 2ece!ber ,, 1,8;, the court, issued an alias writ of e"ecution.
Issue: &hether the writ of e"ecution was %alidl issued
e!": :o. The rule is that the court could issue a writ of e"ecution b !otion within fi%e @;A
ears fro! finalit of the decision, which in this case was in 1,-,. A writ of e"ecution issued
2,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
after the e"piration of that period is null and %oid. There is a need for the interested part to file
an independent action for re%i%al of $udg!ent.
ACCION PUBLICIANA
DOMINICA CUTANDA VS. EIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA
G.R. NO. 10-21, )2000*
Facts+ 20s predecessor.in.interest, H, ac6uired possession of a parcel of land in 1,**. 7n 1,88,
( filed a co!plaint against 2 for reco%er of possession of said land.
Issue+ &hether (0s cause of action was barred.
e!"+ ?es. The re!edies of accion publiciana or accion rei%indicatoria !ust be a%ailed of within
10 ears fro! dispossession. 9ence, insofar as 2 is concerned, (0s cause of action was barred
b e"tincti%e prescription, regardless of whether their co!plaint is considered as an accion
publiciana or an accion rei%indicatoria.
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
ARB CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. CA
G.R. NO. 12>,,( )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a Co!plaint for (reli!inar 7n$unction against 2. Thereafter, ( filed a 'otion for
3ea%e to Eile Attached A!ended and )upple!ental Co!plaint. ( sub!itted that it now desired
to pursue a case for )u! of !one and 2a!ages instead of the one pre%iousl filed for
(reli!inar 7n$unction. 2 opposes the 'otion.
Issue+ &hether the A!ended and )upple!ental Co!plaint would substantiall change (0s
cause of action
e!"+ :o. The a!endator allegations are !ere a!plifications of the cause of action if the facts
alleged in the a!ended co!plaint show substantiall the sa!e wrong with respect to the sa!e
transaction, or if what are alleged refer to the sa!e sub$ect !atter but are full and differentl
stated, or where a%er!ents which were i!plied are !ade in e"pressed ter!s, and the sub$ect of
the contro%ers or the liabilit sought to be enforced re!ains the sa!e. 9ere, the original as
well as a!ended and supple!ental co!plaints readil disclose that the a%er!ents contained
therein are al!ost identical.
AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE
BERNARDO MERCADER VS. DBP
G.R. NO. 1'0>-- )2000*
Facts+ 7n its (re.Trial <rder, the RTC li!ited the issues to be resol%ed in the case to three
issues. Thereafter, the plaintiff, (, filed a supple!ental pleading that dealt with a new issue
in%ol%ing a lease.purchase option. 2 opposed the supple!ental pleading
Issue+ &hether the issue in%ol%ing the lease.purchase option was properl raised in the
pleadings
e!"+ ?es. )aid issue was raised in the supple!ental pleading subse6uentl filed b (. As a
supple!ental pleading, it ser%ed to a%er super%ening facts which were then not ripe for $udicial
relief when the original pleading was filed. As such, it was !eant to suppl deficiencies in aid of
the original pleading, and not to dispense with the latter.
*0
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
G.R. NO. 1'0>-- )2000*
Eacts: 2uring the trial, the counsel of 2 participated in the direct and cross.e"a!ination of
witnesses whose testi!onies included an issue not a!ong those appearing in the (re.Trial
<rder. The RTC ruled on the said issue. 2 6uestions the RTC0s inclusion of the said issue in its
ruling.
7ssue: &hether the said issue should be decided b the RTC
9eld: ?es. 2 is estopped fro! 6uestioning the RTC0s inclusion of said issue b its participation
in the direct and cross.e"a!ination of witnesses whose testi!onies included said topic.
G.R. NO. 1'0>-- )2000*
Eacts: 2uring the trial, ( offered e%idence on an issue not alleged in the pleadings. 2 ob$ected
to the introduction of such e%idence.
7ssue: &hether the RTC !a ad!it the e%idence
9eld: ?es. &hen e%idence is offered on a !atter not alleged in the pleadings, the court !a
ad!it it e%en against the ob$ection of the ad%erse part, where the latter fails to satisf the court
that the ad!ission of the e%idence would pre$udice hi! in !aintaining his defense upon the
!erits, and the court !a grant hi! a continuance to enable hi! to !eet the new situation
created b the e%idence. <f course, the court, before allowing the e%idence, as a !atter of
for!alit, should allow an a!end!ent of the pleading.
APPEAL
UNITED AIRLINES VS. U$
'1/ SCRA ,0>
Facts+ The RTC ordered the dis!issal of an action. ( filed a ti!el !otion for reconsideration.
The RTC denied the !otion and ( recei%ed the denial order on 28 )epte!ber. 2 das later, (
filed a notice of appeal. The appellate court ga%e due course to the appeal.
Issue+ &hether the appellate court erred in assu!ing $urisdiction o%er (0s appeal since it is
clear that the notice of appeal was filed out of ti!e.
e!"+ :o. 2ela in the filing of a notice of appeal does not $ustif the dis!issal of the appeal
where the circu!stances of the case show that there is no intent to dela the ad!inistration of
$ustice on the part of appellant0s counsel, or when there are no substantial rights affected, or
when appellant0s counsel co!!itted a !ista1e in the co!putation of the period of appeal, an
error not attributable to negligence or bad faith.
FILIPINA S$ VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1202>' )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullit of her !arriage to 2 on the ground
of pschological incapacit. The RTC denied the petition. <n appeal to the Court of Appeals, (
raised the issue of the lac1 of a !arriage license.
Issue+ &hether ( can raise this issue for the first ti!e on appeal
e!"+ ?es. The general rule is that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first ti!e on appeal.
9owe%er, the obser%ance of this rule !a be rela"ed. Technicalities are not ends in the!sel%es
but e"ist to protect and pro!ote substanti%e rights of litigants. The case at bar re6uires the
*1
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Court to address the issue of the %alidit of the !arriage which ( clai!s is %oid fro! the
beginning for lac1 of !arriage license. (arentheticall, the pertinent facts here are not disputed
and what is re6uired is a declaration of their effects according to e"isting law.
JOSE OROSA VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1110/0 )2000*
Facts+ The RTC dis!issed (0s co!plaint against 2. <n appeal, ( raised for the first ti!e issues
which were not raised in the orginal co!plaint.
Issue+ &hether ( can raise issues for the first ti!e appeal
e!"+ :o. 'eritorious as (0s new argu!ents are, the ca!e too late in the da. +asic is the rule
that !atters not raised in the co!plaint cannot be raised for the first ti!e on appeal.
EDGARDO MANCENIDO VS CA
G.R. NO. 11/>0, )2000*
Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision in fa%or of (. 2 filed a notice of appeal. 9owe%er, 2 ser%ed
the notice of appeal upon (, and not upon (0s counsel of record. The lower court ga%e due
course to such appeal.
Issue+ &hether 2 perfected their appeal
e!"+ :o. The Rules of Court pro%ide that ser%ice of notice when a part is represented b
counsel should be !ade upon counsel, and not upon the part.
EDGARDO MANCENIDO VS. CA
G.R. NO. 11/>0, )2000*
Facts+ 2 filed a notice of appeal in the RTC but failed to ser%e the notice of appeal upon (0s
counsel. ( filed his own notice of appeal. The RTC recalled the order granting 20s appeal and
appro%ed the appeal of (. 2 filed a petition for !anda!us, prohibition and in$unction with the
Court of Appeals with praer that their notice of appeal be gi%en due course. The Court of
Appeals granted the petition for !anda!us and ordered the $udge to ele%ate the original record
of the case to it 4in due course of appeal.5
Issue+ &hether the order of the Court of Appeals was correct
e!"+ ?es. ( did appeal the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals within the regla!entar
period to perfect an appeal. <nce a written notice of appeal is filed, appeal is perfected and the
trial court loses $urisdiction o%er the case, both o%er the record and sub$ect of the case.
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE CO. VS. PABLO BONDAD
G.R. NO. 1'>022 )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a (etition for Re%iew to the )upre!e Court of a decision of the Court of Appeals
in a case in%ol%ing a %ehicular accident. )aid (etition raises 6uestions regarding the cause of
the accident and the persons responsible for it.
Issue+ &hether such 6uestions can be re%iewed b the )upre!e Court
e!"+ :o. )uch 6uestions are factual issues which the )upre!e Court cannot pass upon. As a
rule, the $urisdiction of the Court is li!ited to a re%iew of errors of law allegedl co!!itted b the
appellate court. True, there are instances when this Court !a re%iew factual issues, but ( has
*2
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
failed to de!onstrate wh his case falls under an of the!. There is no contrariet between the
findings of the trial court and those of the CA as to what and who had caused the accident.
SPOUSES JUAN DIA& VS. JOSE DIA&
G.R. NO. 1',//, )2000*
Facts+ 7n his Co!plaint, ( alleged that he was entitled to recei%e (1;,000 as his share in the
sales proceeds of a co.owned propert. 9e thereafter clai!ed that, with his 1nowledge and
without his ob$ection, the sa!e (1;,000.00 was used b his brother. 9a%ing allowed his brother
to use his !one, ( de!anded the return of the present e6ui%alent of his contribution but said
de!and was re$ected.
Issue+ &hether the co!plaint states a cause of action
e!"+ ?es. According to $urisprudence, a co!plaint states a cause of action when it contains the
following ele!ents: @1A the legal right of plaintiff, @2A the correlati%e obligation of the defendant,
and @*A the act or o!ission of the defendant in %iolation of said legal right. 7n the case at bar, the
co!plaint satisfies all the ele!ents of a cause of action.
G.R. NO. 1',//, )2000*
Facts+ ( filed an action for su! of !one with the RTC. 2 filed a !otion to dis!iss, to which the
RTC denied. 'otion for reconsideration was li1ewise denied. 2issatifsied, 2 filed a (etition for
Certiorari and (rohibition with the Court of Appeals. )aid petition was dis!issed on the ground
that a special ci%il action for certiorari is not the appropriate re!ed to 6uestion the denial of
their !otion to dis!iss.
Issue+ &hether a special ci%il action for certiorari is the appropriate re!ed to 6uestion a denial
of a !otion to dis!iss
e!"+ :o. A special ci%il action for certiorari is a re!ed designed for the correction of errors of
$urisdiction and not errors of $udg!ent. To $ustif the grant of such e"traordinar re!ed, the
abuse of discretion !ust be gra%e and patent, and it !ust be shown that discretion was
e"ercised arbitraril or despoticall. 7n this case, no such circu!stances attended the denial of
petitioners0 !otion to dis!iss.
G.R. NO. 1',//, )2000*
Facts+ ( recei%ed on Januar 22 a cop of the RTC, dening reconsideration of its ruling on
their 'otion to dis!iss. ( filed a (etition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on Eebruar #.
2uring the pendenc of (0s (etition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the RTC declared
( in default for failure to file an answer on or before Januar 2-.
Issue+ &hether the order of default is correct
e!"+ ?es. ( had onl fi%e das fro! receipt of the order of the RTC, or until Januar 2-, within
which to file an answer. &hen ( filed their (etition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on
Eebruar #, the were alread in default. 9ence, the filing of said (etition for Certiorari cannot
be considered as ha%ing interrupted the regla!entar period for filing an answer. 'ore
i!portantl, the Rules of Court pro%ide that the petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case unless a te!porar restraining order or writ of preli!inar in$unction has been
issued against the public respondent fro! further proceeding in the case.
**
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
CAUSE OF ACTION
VIEWMASTER VS. ALLEN RO?AS
G.R. NO. 1'',0> )2000*
Facts+ 2 failed to co!pl with his obligation with (. ( filed with the RTC a co!plaint for specific
perfor!ance. The co!plaint was dis!issed on the ground that the co!plaint fails to state a
cause of action
Issue+ &hether the co!plaint states a cause of action.
e!"+ :o. The test of sufficienc of the facts found in the co!plaint as constituting a cause of
action is whether or not ad!itting the facts alleged the court can render a %alid $udg!ent upon
the sa!e in accordance with the praer thereof.
CERTIFICATE OF NON:FORUM SOPPING
MELO VS. CA
'1/ SCRA -( )1---*
Facts+ ( filed a co!plaint for in$unction against 2. 7n turn, 2 !o%ed to dis!iss (0s action on the
ground of failure of 2 to attach a certification of non.foru! shopping to her co!plaint. ( argued
that failure to co!pl with this re6uire!ent can be e"cused b the fact that it is not guilt of
foru! shopping.
Issue+ &hether the failure to co!pl with the re6uire!ent should be e"cused.
e!"+ :o. The re6uire!ent to file a certificate of non.foru! shopping is !andator. 8%er part
filing a co!plaint or an other intitiator pleading is re6uired to swear under oath that he has not
co!!itted nor will he co!!it foru! shopping. <therwise, we would ha%e an absurd situation
where the parties the!sel%es would be the $udge of whether their action constitute a %iolation of
Circular 0C.,C.
BA SAVINGS BAN# VS. ROGER SIA
G.R. NO. 1'121( )2000*
Facts+ Corporation A filed a (etition for Certiorari. The certification on anti.foru! shopping was
signed b Corp. A0s counsel. Corp A. was able to show that its +oard of 2irectors authori/ed its
lawers to sign, e"ecute and deli%er the certificate of non.foru! shopping. The (etition was
denied on the ground that )upre!e Court Re%ised Circular :o. 28.,1 4re6uires that it is the
petitioner, not the counsel, who !ust certif under oath to all of the acts and underta1ings
re6uired therein.5
Issue+ &hether )upre!e Court Re%ised Circular :o. 28.,1 allows a corporation to authori/e its
counsel to e"ecute a certificate of non.foru! shopping for and on its behalf
e!"+ ?es. All acts within the powers of a corporation !a be perfor!ed b agents of its
selection. 9ere, the corporation0s board of directors issued a resolution specificall authori/ing
its lawer to acts as their agents in an action or proceeding before the )upre!e Court. The
re6uire!ent of the Circular cannot be i!posed on artificial persons, li1e corporations, for the
si!ple reason that the cannot personall do the tas1 the!sel%es.
CERTIORARI
RA$MUNDO VS. CA
'1, SCRA (-( )1---*
*C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ ( did not attend the scheduled pre.trial conference because he was awaiting resolution
of a !otion pre%iousl filed. +ecause of his non.appearance, the RTC declared ( as in default
and allowed 2 to present his e%idence e" parte. The RTC rendered a decision ad%erse to (. (
filed with the CA a special ci%il action for certiorari challenging the %alidit of the RTC0s decision
and other proceedings.
Issue+ &hether certiorari here is proper e%en where appeal is a%ailable.
e!"+ ?es. An ordinar appeal is the proper re!ed in 6uestioning a $udg!ent b defaultD
appeal is also the proper re!ed fro! an order dening a petition for relief of $udg!ent. 9ence,
in the nor!al course of e%ents, the CA correctl denied the petition for certiorari before it,
assailing the RTC0s decision b default and denial of the petition for relief, in %iew of the
a%ailabilit of appeal therefro!. 9owe%er, in the e"ceptional circu!stances presented in this
case, appeal see!s to be inade6uateD conse6uentl, e%en if petitioner interposed an appeal,
certiorari lies to correct such a despotic e"ercise of discretion.
NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMIN. VS. CA
'1/ SCRA 2,, )1---*
Facts+ The CA rendered a Resolution dated 28 June. ( recei%ed the said 2ecision on 0C
'arch. Thus ( had until 1, 'arch within which to perfect its appeal but did not do so. &hat it
did was to file an original action for certiorari before the )C, reiterating the issues and
argu!ents it raised before the CA.
Issue+ &hether the action for certiorari was proper.
e!"+ :o. The Resolution of the CA has alread beco!e final and e"ecutor b reason of (0s
failure to appeal. 7nstead of filing this petition for certiorari under Rule #; of the Rules of Court,
( should ha%e filed a ti!el petition for re%iew under Rule C;. There is no doubt that the CA has
$urisdiction o%er the special ci%il action for certiorari under Rule #; filed before it b (.
The appeal fro! a final disposition of the CA is a petition for re%iew under Rule C; and
not a special ci%il action under Rules #; of the 1,,, Rules of Court. Rule C; is clear that
decisions, final order or resolution of the CA in an case, regardless of the nature of the action
or proceedings in%ol%ed, !a be appealed to the )C b filing a petition for re%iew, which would
be but a continuation of the appellate process o%er the original case. Gnder Rule C;, the
regle!entar period to appeal is 1; das fro! notice of $udg!ent or denial of a 'otion for
Reconsideration.
Eor a writ of certiorari under Rule #; to issue, a petitioner !ust show that he has no
plain, speed and ade6uate re!ed in the ordinar course of law against its percei%ed
grie%ance. A re!ed is considered 4plain, speed and ade6uate5 if it will pro!ptl relie%e the
petitioner fro! the in$urious effects of the $udg!ent and the acts of the lower court or agenc.
9ere, appeal was not onl a%ailable but also a speed and ade6uate re!ed.
PAULINO VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 1',0-/ )2000*
Facts+ The RTC rendered a $udg!ent against 2. 2 appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals affir!ed the RTC0s $udg!ent. 'otion for reconsideration was denied. (, the pri%ate
co!plainant, then e"ecuted an affida%it of desistance. 2 filed a (etition for Certiorari before the
)upre!e Court, contending that the re6uisites for the grant of a new trial on the ground of newl
disco%ered e%idence ha%ing been substantiall shown, the Court of Appeals should ha%e
re!anded the case to the RTC for new trial.
Issue+ &hether the Court of Appeals co!!itted error in refusing to grant a new trial
*;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. The re6uisites for newl disco%ered e%idence as a ground for a new trial are: @aA the
e%idence was disco%ered after the trialD @bA such e%idence could not ha%e been disco%ered
and produced at the trial with reasonable diligenceD and @cA that it is !aterial, not !erel
cu!ulati%e, corroborati%e, or i!peaching, and is of such weight that, if ad!itted, will
probabl change the $udg!ent. 7n the case at bar, the Affida%it of 2esistance was
e"ecuted se%eral ears after the Court of Appeals had affir!ed the trial court0s decision
and had denied 20s !otion for reconsideration. 7t is settled that affida%its of desistance
!ade b a witness after the con%iction of the accused deser%e onl scant consideration.
COMPULSOR$ COUNTERCLAIM
SPOUSES CLARO PONCIANO VS. JUDGE PARENTELA
G.R. NO. 1''2/( )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a co!plaint for su! of !one and da!ages against 2. 2 filed their Answer with
co!pulsor counterclai!. ( filed a !otion to stri1e off the counterclai! for failure to co!pl with
Ad!. Circular :o. 0C.,C of the )upre!e Court which re6uires an affida%it of no.foru! shopping
for all initiator pleadings in all courts.
Issue+ &hether a co!pulsor counterclai! should be acco!panied with an affida%it of no.foru!
shopping
e!"+ :o. The language of the circular distinctl suggests that it is pri!aril intended to co%er an
initiator pleading or an incipient application of a part asserting a clai! for relief. The circular
has not been conte!plated to include a 1ind of clai! which, b its %er nature as being au"iliar
to the proceedings in the suit, can onl be appro"i!atel pleaded in the answer and not re!ain
outstanding for independent resolution e"cept b the court where the !ain case is pending.
COURT RULINGS
RUBEN SERRANO VS. NLRC
G.R. NO. 1100(0 )2000*
Facts+ The )C re%ersed the doctrine for!ulated in a pre%ious case and applied a new doctrine
in the instant case. (, reling on the ruling in the pre%ious case, contends that the new doctrine
enunciated in the instant case should onl be applied prospecti%el.
Issue+ &hether a new doctrine should onl be applied prospecti%el.
e!"+ :o. (0s %iew of the principle of prospecti%e application of new $udicial doctrines would turn
the $udicial function into a !ere acade!ic e"ercise with the result that the doctrine laid down
would be no !ore than a dictu! and would depri%e the holding in the case of an force.
DEAT OF A PART$
ANG #E# CEN VS. ANDRADE
'1/ SCRA 11 )1---*
Facts+ The $udge sent copies of the court0s order to 2, who alread died. 20s counsel filed an
ad!inistrati%e case against the $udge on the ground of serious inefficienc for her failure to ta1e
$udicial notice of the death of 2.
Issue+ &hether the $udge erred in failing to ta1e $udicial notice of 20s death.
e!"+ :o. The dut of infor!ing the court of the death of a part is on the counsel of the
deceased. The rules operate on the presu!ption that the attorne for the deceased part is in a
better position than the attorne for the ad%erse part to 1now about the death of his client and
*#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
to infor! the court of the na!es and addresses of his legal representati%e or representati%es.
Thus, the $udge cannot be bla!ed for sending copies of the orders to 2.
EIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA VS. CA
G.R. NO. 11/>,, )2000*
Facts+ The RTC rendered $udg!ent in fa%or of (. 20s counsel recei%ed a cop of the decision
but did not interpose an appeal therefro!. A writ of e"ecution was issued. The 9eirs of ( filed a
!otion to 6uash the writ of e"ecution on the ground that 2 died before the RTC rendered its
decision.
Issue+ &hether the !otion should be granted.
e!"+ :o. 20s counsel failed in his dut to pro!ptl infor! the court of the death of his client, as
the Rules re6uire. As far as the RTC was concerned, until the &rit of 8"ecution was issued, 2
continued to be represented b counsel of record and that upon ser%ice of a cop of the
decision on said counsel, 2 was dee!ed to ha%e been %alidl ser%ed notice of $udg!ent. The
failure of 20s counsel to ser%e notice on the court and the ad%erse parties regarding his client0s
death binds the 9eirs as !uch as 2 hi!self could be bound.
DOC#ET FEES
GABRIEL LA&ARO VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1'00>1 )2000*
Facts+ ( obtained a fa%orable $udg!ent in a ci%il action the filed against 2. Thereafter, 2
appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the appeal was initiall dis!issed for their failure to pa
the re6uired doc1et fees within the prescribed period. Their appeal was later reinstated when
their !otion for reconsideration was granted.
Issue+ &hether the reinstate!ent of 20s appeal is correct
e!"+ :o. The Rules of Court, as a!ended, specificall pro%ides that appellate court doc1et and
other lawful fees should be paid within the period for ta1ing an appeal. )aid rule is not !erel
director. The pa!ent of the doc1et and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both
!andator and $urisdictional. The failure of 2 to confor! with the rules on appeal renders the
$udg!ent final and e"ecutor.
EJECTMENT SUIT OR UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION
EIRS OF FERNANDO VIN&ONS VS. CA
'1, SCRA ,(1 )1---*
Facts+ An e$ect!ent suit was filed b ( against 2 in the 'TC !ore than one ear fro! the
ter!ination of the !onth.to.!onth lease so!e ti!e before April 1,88.
Issue+ &hether the 'TC has $urisdiction o%er the case.
e!"+ :o. This case being one of unlawful detainer, it !ust ha%e been filed within one ear fro!
the date of last de!and with the 'TC. <therwise it is an accion publiciana cogni/able b the
Regional Trial Court. The rule is that the one.ear period pro%ided for in )ection 1, Rule -0 of
the Rules of Court within which a co!plaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted
fro! the last letter of de!and to %acate.
ORO CAM VS. CA
'1- SCRA ((( )1---*
*-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ An e$ect!ent suit was filed. ( is not na!ed a part in the suit but is a co.lessee of the
propert. Judg!entin the e$ect!ent suit was rendered.
Issue+ &hether the $udg!ent binds (.
e!"+ ?es. Judg!ent in an e$ect!ent suit is binding not onl upon the defendants in the suit is
binding not onl upon the defendents in the suit but also against those not !ade parties thereto,
if the are: aA trespassers, s6uatters or agents of the defendant fraudulentl occuping the
propert to frustrate the $udg!entD bA guests or other occupants of the pre!ises with the
per!ission of the defendantD cA transferees pendente liteD dA sublesseeD eA co.lesseeD or fA
!e!bers of the fa!il, relati%es and other pri%ies of the defendant.
ANITA BUCE VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1'>-1' )2000*
Facts+ 2 leased to ( a parcel of land. The lease ter!inated without an agree!ent for renewal
being reached. (, howe%er, still tendered chec1s representing rentals to 2 which the latter
refused to accept. ( filed with the RTC a co!plaint for specific perfor!ance with praer for
consignation. 7n his Answer with counterclai!, 2 did not include a praer for the restoration of
possession of the leased pre!ises. The RTC ordered the e$ect!ent of 2 in its 2ecision.
Issue+ &hether the order of the RTC is correct
e!"+ :o. True, after the lease ter!inated without an agree!ent for renewal being reached, (
beca!e sub$ect to e$ect!ent fro! the pre!ises. 9owe%er, 2 did not include in their Answer with
counterclai! a praer for the restoration of possession of leased pre!ises. :either did the file
with the proper 'TC an unlawful detainer suit against ( after the e"piration of the lease
contract. 'oreo%er, the issue of possession of the lease pre!ises was not a!ong the issues
agreed upon b the parties.
E?ECUTION OF JUDGMENT
VDA. DE SALANGA VS. ON. ALAGAR
G.R. NO. 1'(0/- )2000*
Facts+ The 'TC rendered a decision ad%erse to (. ( appealed the decision all the wa to the
)C. 'eanwhile, e"ecution proceedings were conducted on (s0 propert. Accordingl, a public
auction sale proceeded with 2 e!erging as the highest bidder. Certificates of )ale were issued
to 2. After the )C rendered a decision affir!ing the 'TC0s decision, the RTC re!anded the
case to the 'TC for proceedings on issues in%ol%ing e"ecution of its final $udg!ent.
Issue+ &hether the 'TC can still act on (0s 6uestions regarding the auction sale of its
properties
e!"+ :o. The e"ecution of the 'TC $udg!ent has been partiall satisfied with the issuance of
the Certificates of )ale to 2. Thus it can no longer act on (0s 6uestions regarding the auction
sale of its properties. The 'TC loses $urisdiction o%er a case that has been partiall satisfied.
U$ VS. ON. SANTIAGO
G.R. NO. 1'12'0 )2000*
Facts+ An 'TC decision was appealed to the RTC which affir!ed the said decision. 2 filed a
petition for re%iew with the CA assailing the decision of the RTC. 'eanwhile, ( filed a 'otion for
7ssuance of &rit of 8"ecution (ending Appeal with the RTC. The RTC denied such !otion.
Issue+ &hether the !otion should be granted
*8
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ ?es. <nce the RTC has rendered a decision in its appellate $urisdiction, such decision
shall, under the Rules on Ci%il (rocedure, be i!!ediatel e"ecutor, without pre$udice to an
appeal, %ia a petition for Re%iew, before the Court of Appeals andFor )upre!e Court.
FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS
RI&AL SURET$ VS. CA
G.R. NO. 112'>0 )2000*
Facts+ The RTC !ade certain findings of facts in its decision against (. )aid decision was
affir!ed b the CA. 7n his petition for re%iew on certiorari before the )C, ( wants the Court to re.
e"a!ine so!e factual issues.
Issue+ &hether the )upre!e Court can re%iew the factual findings of the CA
e!"+ :o. Eactual findings b the Court of Appeals are conclusi%e on the parties and not
re%iewable b the )C, and the sa!e carr e%en !ore weight when the CA has affir!ed the
findings of fact arri%ed at b the lower court.
FORUM SOPPING
#ENNET RO$ SAVAGE VS. JUDGE TA$PIN
G.R. NO. 1'( 210 )2000*
Facts+ ( !o%ed to 6uash the search warrant issued b J on the ground that the application for
the search warrant was not acco!panied b a certification of no.foru! shopping.
Issue+ &hether a certification of no. foru! shopping is re6uired in applications for search
warrants
e!"+ :o. The Rules of Court as a!ended re6uire such certification onl fro! initiator
pleadings, o!itting an !ention of 4applications.5
P.E.&.A. VS. ON. VIAN&ON
G.R. NO. 1'1020 )2000*
Facts+ The RTC issued an order against (. ( filed an appeal with the CA. <n appeal, the CA
affir!ed the decision of the RTC and dis!issed the petition for lac1 of !erit. ( filed a (etition for
Certiorari before the )C to 6uestion purel 6uestions of law. 2 alleges ( is guilt of foru!
shopping.
Issue+ &hether ( is guilt of foru! shopping
e!"+ :o. There is foru! shopping whene%er, as a result of an ad%erse decision in one foru!, a
part see1s a fa%orable opinion @other than b appeal or certiorariA in another. Considering that
( is 6uestioning the CA0s ruling b %irtue of a petition for certiorari to this Court on purel
6uestions of law, ( cannot be guilt of foru! shopping. To rule otherwise would render nugator
(0s right to appeal the decision of the CA to the )C on purel 6uestions of law.
MANUEL LE$SONA JR. VS. OFFICE OF TE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. NO. 1'(--0 )2000*
Facts+ 2 co!!itted a breach in his contract with (. ( charged 2 with %iolation of the Anti.=raft
and Corrupt (ractices Act before the <!busd!an. ( also filed a collection case before the RTC
against 2.
*,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Issue+ &hether ( co!!itted foru!.shopping
e!"+ :o. Eoru!.shopping consists of filing !ultiple suits in%ol%ing the sa!e parties for the
sa!e cause of action, either si!ultaneousl or successi%el, for the purpose of obtaining a
fa%orable $udg!ent. 7t is readil apparent that the present charge will not prosper because the
cause of action herein, i.e., %iolation of The Anti.=raft and Corrupt (ractices Acts, is different
fro! the cause of action in the case pending before the trial court which is collection of a su! of
!one plus da!ages.
INDIGENT PART$
TEOFILO MARTINE& VS. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 1'2/,2 )2000*
Facts+ ( filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. 9e also filed a 'otion to 3itigate
as (auper attaching thereto supporting affida%its e"ecuted b ( hi!self and b 2 ostensibl
disinterested persons attesting to (0s eligibilit to a%ail hi!self of this pri%ilege. The CA denied
the !otion and directed ( to re!it the doc1et fees.
Issue+ &hether ( should be allowed to litigate as pauper
e!"+ ?es. ( has co!plied with all the e%identiar re6uire!ents for prosecuting a !otion to
appear in court as a pauper. 9e has e"ecuted an affida%it attesting to the fact that he and his
i!!ediate fa!il do not earn a gross inco!e of !ore than (*,000.00 a !onth, and that their
onl real propert, a hut, cannot be worth !ore than (10,000.00. 9e has also sub!itted a $oint
affida%it e"ecuted b H and ? who generall attested to the sa!e allegations contained in
petitioner0s own affida%it.
JUDGMENT
RI&AL SURET$ VS. CA
G.R. NO. 112'>0 )2000*
Facts+ 7n an appealed case, the CA ruled on 20s insurable interest and co!pensabilit for the
loss of certain ob$ects. The )C affir!ed the CA0s ruling. ( filed a !otion of reconsideration of the
CA0s decision with the CA. The CA reconsidered its decision as regards interest.
Issue+ &hether the rule on conclusi%eness of $udg!ent as regards 20s insurable interest.
e!"+ ?es. The rule on conclusi%eness of $udg!ent precludes the relitigation of a particular fact
or issue in another action between the sa!e parties based on a different clai! or cause of
action. Considering that 20s insurable interest and co!pensabilit for the loss of certain ob$ects
has been settled b the CA and the )C, the sa!e can no longer be relitigated.
INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT VS. NLRC
G.R. NO. 10102' )2000*
Facts+ The 3abor Arbiter @3AA rendered $udg!ent ordering H, ? and O to pa ( a su! of !one.
7n the alias writ of e"ecution issued subse6uentl, the 3A ordered the sheriff to proceed against
H andFor ? and O. H sought to 6uash the writ of e"ecution on the ground that it changed the
tenor of the decision b !a1ing hi! solidaril liable with ? and O.
Issue+ &hether the writ of e"ecution changed the tenor of the decision
e!"+ ?es. A solidar obligation cannot lightl be inferred. There is a soldar liabilit onl when
the obligation e"pressl so states, when the law so pro%ides or when the nature of the obligation
C0
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
so re6uires. 7n the dispositi%e portion of the 3A, the word 4solidar5 does not appear. :or can it
be inferred fro! the fallo that the liabilit of H, ? and O is solidar, thus their liabilit should
!erel be $oint.
#ATARUNGANG PAMBARANGA$
VALENCIDES VERCIDE VS. JUDGE PRISCILLA ERNANDE&
A.M. NO. MTJ:00:12>, )2000*
Facts+ ( filed a case for reco%er of possession of a piece of land against 2. The case was filed
in court without prior referral to the 3upong Tagapa!aapa since the parties do not reside in the
sa!e or ad$acent barangas. :e%ertheless, 2 raised as an affir!ati%e defense the non.referral
of the case to the +aranga and conse6uentl, the $udge dis!issed the case
Issue+ &hether the parties are re6uired to sub!it their dispute in%ol%ing real propert to the
3upong Tagapa!aapa
e!"+ :o. (2 1;08 is clear on this point. &here parties do not reside in the sa!e cit or
!unicipalit or in ad$oining barangas, there is no re6uire!ent for the! to sub!it their dispute
in%ol%ing real propert to the 3upong Tagapa!aapa.
LACES
JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA:MIJARES VS. CA
G.R. NO. 10/-21 )2000*
Facts+ A left a parcel of land to his 8 children. +, one of the heirs, held the propert in trust for
his co.heirs. )e%eral ears after, the other co.heirs disco%ered that their shares had been
purchased b + and sold in fa%or of +0s children. The other children of A filed an action for
partition with annul!ent of docu!ents andFor recon%eance and da!ages against +0s children.
Issue+ &hether the action is alread barred b laches.
e!"+ :o. 3aches is negligience or o!ission to assert a right witin a reasonable ti!e, warranting
the presu!ption that the part entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.
There is no absolute rule on what constitute laches. 7t is a creation of e6uit and applied not
reall to penali/e neglect or sleeping upon one0s rights but rather to a%oid recogni/ing a right
when to do so would result in a clearl ine6uitable situation. 9ere, the other co.heirs could no
be faulted for their failure to file a case since up to the age of !a$orit, the belie%ed and
considered + their co.heir and ad!inistrator. 7t was onl later that the beca!e aware of the
actionable betraal of +.
LIBERALIT$ OF TE RULES
G.R. NO. 1',//, )2000*
Facts+ 7n an action to reco%er a su! of !one, ( was declared in default for his failure to file a
ti!el answer.
Issue+ &hether the order of default should be set aside.
e!"+ ?es. )uits should as !uch as possible be decided on the !erits and not on technicalities.
Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default as default $udg!ents are frowned upon
and not loo1ed upon with fa%or for the !a a!ount to a positi%e and considerable in$ustice to
the defendant. )ince rules of procedure are !ere tools designed to facilitate the attain!ent of
$ustice, it is well recogni/ed that the )upre!e Court is e!powered to suspend its operation, or
C1
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e"cept a particular case fro! its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate
rather than pro!ote the ends of $ustice.
MANDAMUS
PILO MILITANTE VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1000(0 )2000*
Facts+ :9A re%alidated the de!olition clearance to e$ect the s6uatters on (0s land. H, the :9A
(ro$ect 'anager, howe%er, refused to i!ple!ent the clearance to e$ect the s6uatters. ( filed
with the Court of Appeals, a!ong other things, a petition for !anda!us.
Issue+ &hether ( is entitled to a &rit of 'anda!us
e!"+ :o. 7t is incu!bent upon petitioner to show that he has a well.defined, clear and certain
right to warrant the grant of the writ of !anda!us. 9e failed to discharge this burden. The
records show that there is no direct order fro! the :9A =eneral 'anager addressed to H to
e%ict the s6uatters and de!olish the shanties.
Eurther!ore, !anda!us is an e"traordinar re!ed that !a be a%ailed of onl when
there is no plain, speed and ade6uate re!ed in the ordinar course of law. A petition for
!anda!us is pre!ature if there are ad!inistrati%e re!edies a%ailable to the petitioner. 9ere, (
!a see1 another de!olition order fro! the :9A =eneral 'anager this ti!e addressed to H or
the pertinent :9A representati%e.
MOTION TO DISMISS
ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. %UITAIN
'1, SCRA 1,0 )1---*
Facts+ ( filed a co!plaint for e!inent do!ain against 2. 7nstead of filing an answer, 2
countered with a 'otion to 2is!iss, alleging, a!ong other things, that the choice of propert to
be e"propriated was i!proper.
Issue+ &hether the 'otion to 2is!iss should prosper.
e!"+ :o. The issues raised b 2 are affir!ati%e defenses that should be alleged in an answer,
since the re6uire presentation of e%idence aliunde. )ection * of the Rules of Court pro%ides
that 4if a defendant has an ob$ections to the filing of or the allegations in the co!plaint, or an
ob$ection or defense to the ta1ing of his propert,5 he should include the! in his answer.
:aturall, these issues will ha%e to be full %entilated in a full.blown trial and hearing. 2is!issal
of an action upon a !otion to dis!iss constitutes a denial of due process if, fro! a
consideration of the pleadings, it appears that there are issues that cannot be decided without a
trial of the case on the !erits.
VERGARA VS. CA
'1- SCRA '2' )1---*
Facts+ A co!plaint for reco%er of su! of !one with da!ages was filed b 2 against ( before
the RTC. ( filed a !otion to dis!iss the co!plaint on the ground that the co!plaint states no
cause of action. ( reasoned out in said !otion that the co!plaint being a !one clai! against
her deceased husband should be filed in accordance with the procedure laid down in )ection 1,
Rule 8- of the Rules of Court.
Issue+ &hether the co!plaint should be dis!issed for failure to state a cause of action.
e!"+ :o. 3ac1 of cause of action, as a ground for a !otion to dis!iss, !ust appear on the face
of the co!plaint itself, !eaning that it !ust be deter!ined fro! the allegations of the co!plaint
and fro! none other. A perusal of the co!plaint re%eals that it sufficientl alleges an actionable
C2
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
breach of an obligation on the part of (. To sustain a !otion to dis!iss for lac1 of cause of
action, the co!plaint !ust show that the clai! for relief does not e"ist, rather than that a clai!
has been defecti%el stated, or is a!biguous, indefinite or uncertain.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PCI BAN# VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1200'- )2000*
Facts+ The RTC issued an <rder. ( filed a !otion for reconsideration without ser%ing notice of
hearing of the !otion to the other part.
Issue+ &hether the !otion for reconsideration should be granted
e!"+ :o. The Rules of Court re6uire that notice of a !otion shall be ser%ed b the applicant to
all parties concerned at least three sas before the hearing thereof together with a cop of the
!otion, and of an affida%its and other papers acco!paning it, and that the notice shall be
directed to the parties concerned, stating the ti!e and place for hearing the !otion. This
re6uire!ent of notice of hearing e6uall applies to a !otion for reconsideration. A !otion
without notice of hearing is a !ere scrap of paper. A pro for!a !otion for reconsideration does
not suspend the running of the period to appeal.
EIRS OF ANDREA CRISTOBAL VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1',-,- )2000*
Facts+ The CA pro!ulgated its 2ecision on *1 August and a cop thereof was recei%ed b (0s
counsel on , )epte!ber. 7nstead of filing a !otion for reconsideration, ( filed on 1- )epte!ber
a !otion for e"tension of ti!e to file a !otion for reconsideration.
Issue+ &hether the !otion for e"tension of ti!e to file a !otion for reconsideration should be
granted
e!"+ :o. The Rules of Court pro%ides that a part !a file a !otion for reconsideration of a
decision or resolution within 1; das fro! notice thereof, without an e"tension. (, therefore,
had 1; das fro! , )epte!ber or until 2C )epte!ber within which to file their !otion for
reconsideration. 9owe%er, instead of filing the !otion, petitioners filed on 1- )epte!ber a
!otion for e"tension of ti!e to file a !otion for reconsideration, in %iolation of the !andator
pro%ision of the Rules.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS
VIRGILIO FLORA CARA VS. CA
G.R. NO. 120>2, )2000*
Facts+ An ad!inistrati%e case was filed b ( against 2 which resulted in 20s dis!issal. After
e"hausting ad!inistrati%e re!edies, 2 filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and
!anda!us. The grounds raised in the petition in%ol%e an appreciation of the e%idence adduced
against 2 in the ad!inistrati%e case instituted against hi!.
Issue+ &hether the petition for certiorari and !anda!us should be dis!issed.
e!"+ ?es. Certiorari and !anda!us as special ci%il actions are re!edies for the correction of
errors of $urisdiction, not errors of $udg!ent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
FELIPE U$ VS. LAND BAN#
C*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
G.R. N.. 1'>100 )2000*
Facts+ 2 filed in the )upre!e Court in a petition to re%iew the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The )upre!e Court denied the petition for @aA lac1 of certification against foru! shopping, and
@bA lac1 of %erification. Gpon 20s !otion for reconsideration, praing that the
%erificationFcertification be ad!itted to cure the defect of the petition, the )upre!e Court
reinstated the petition.
Issue+ &hether the reinstate!ent of the petition is correct
e!"+ ?es. Perification is si!pl intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the
pleading are true and correct and not the product of the i!agination or a !atter of speculation,
and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court !a order the correction of the pleading if
%erification is lac1ing or act on the pleading although it is not %erified, if the attending
circu!stances are such that strict co!pliance with the rules !a be dispensed with in order that
the ends of $ustice !a thereb be ser%ed.
7n so!e cases, the Court dee!ed the belated filing of the certification as substantial
co!pliance with the re6uire!ent. 7n those cases where the Court e"cused non.co!pliance with
the re6uire!ents, there were special circu!stances or co!pelling reasons !a1ing the strict
application of the rule clearl $ustified. 9ere, the apparent !erits of the substanti%e aspects of
the case should be dee!ed as a 4special circu!stance5 or 4co!pelling reason5 for the
reinstate!ent of the petition.
7n an e%ent, this Court has the power to suspend its own rules when, as in this case,
the ends of $ustice would be ser%ed thereb.
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
MERCUR$ DRUG CORP. VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1'/,01 )2000*
Facts+ An ad%erse $udg!ent was rendered against (. A cop of the $udg!ent was ser%ed on (
through his counsel on 'arch *. <n 'arch 2C, ( actuall learned of the ad%erse decision. (
filed a (etition for Relief fro! Judg!ent on 'a 1;.
Issue+ &hether the (etition for Relief fro! Judg!ent
e!"+ :o. (0s petition for relief, which was filed o%er #0 das fro! notice of their counsel, was
filed out of ti!e. The failure of a part0s counsel to notif hi! on ti!e of the ad%erse $udg!ent to
enable hi! to appeal therefro! is negligence, which is not e"cusable. 9owe%er, notice sent to
counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to infor! hi! of
an ad%erse $udg!ent resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
$udg!ent %alid and regular on its face.
PREJUDICIAL %UESTION
ALFREDO CING VS. CA
G.R. NO. 110/(( )2000*
Facts+ ( was charged before the 'a1ati RTC with 8stafa, in relation to the 4Trust Receipts
3aw.5 Thereafter, ( filed before the 'anila RTC for declaration of nullit of docu!ents and for
da!ages. ( then filed a petition before the 'a1ati RTC for the suspension of the cri!inal
proceedings on the ground of pre$udicial 6uestion in a ci%il action.
Issue+ &hether there is a pre$udicial 6uestion
e!"+ :o. The two essential re6uisites of a pre$udicial 6uestion are: @1A the ci%il action in%ol%es
an issue si!ilar or inti!atel related to the issue raised in the cri!inal actionD and @2A the
resolution of such issue deter!ines whether or not the cri!inal action !a proceed. 7n the case
at bar, the alleged pre$udicial 6uestion in the ci%il case for the declaration of nullit of docu!ents
CC
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
and for da!ages, does not deter!ine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the cri!inal
action for estafa. Assu!ing arguendo that the court hearing the ci%il aspect of the case
ad$udicates that the transaction entered into between the parties was not a trust receipt
agree!ent, nonetheless the guilt of the accused could still be established and his culpabilit
under penal laws deter!ined b other e%idence.
PRESCRIPTION
JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA:MIJARES VS. CA
G.R. NO. 10/-21 )2000*
Facts+ A left a parcel of land to his 8 children. +, one of the heirs, held the propert in trust for
his co.heirs. )e%eral ears after, the other co.heirs disco%ered that their shares had been
purchased b +. The 2eed of )ale was registered in 1,-1. The co.heirs filed an action for
recon%eance of the propert in 1,-;.
Issue+ &hether the action is barred b prescription
e!"+ :o. An action for recon%eance of a parcel of land based on i!plied or constructi%e trust
prescribes in 10 ears, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the propert. 9ere the 6uestioned 2eed of )ale
was registered onl in 1,-1. The co.heirs filed their co!plaint in 1,-;, hence well within the
prescripti%e period.
PROIBITION
PILO MILITANTE VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1000(0 )2000*
Facts+ :9A re%alidated the de!olition clearance to e$ect the s6uatters on (0s land. H, the :9A
(ro$ect 'anager, howe%er, refused to i!ple!ent the clearance to e$ect the s6uatters. ( filed
with the Court of Appeals, a!ong other things, a petition for prohibition.
Issue+ &hether ( is entitled to a &rit of (rohibition
e!"+ :o. (rohibition is a prohibiti%e re!ed. 7t see1s for a $udg!ent ordering the defendant to
desist fro! continuing with the co!!ission of an act percei%ed to be illegal. 7n the case at bar,
petitioner does not pra that H should be ordered to desist fro! relocating the s6uatters. &hat
petitioner challenges is H0s refusal to i!ple!ent the de!olition clearance issued b he
ad!inistrati%e superiors. The re!ed for a refusal to discharge a legal dut is !anda!us, not
prohibition.
REDEMPTION
$SMAEL V. CA
'1/ SCRA 21, )1--*
Facts+ ( obtained $udge!ent in their fa%or for a su! of !one against 2 in 1,80. 2ecision
re!ained une"ecuted. 7n 1,8,, ( filed a case for re%i%al of $udge!ent which was granted b
the RTC. &rit of e"ecution was issued. 20s parcels of land were le%ied on e"ecution. ( bought
the lands in 2; Jul 1,,;, sub$ect to a 1.ear period of rede!ption fro! date of registration of
certificate of sale. <n 1# Jul 1,,#, 2 wrote ( to e"ercise right of rede!ption. ( did not repl.
2 belie%ed that 1.ear period ended on 2; Jul 1,,#. &hen 2 tried to tender pa!ent to (, (
was alwas not a%ailable so 2 consigned the a!ount to the Court on 2# Jul 1,,#. ( clai!s
12.!onth period for rede!ption has alread e"pired on 1, Jul 1,,#. RTC I CA ruled for 2
Issue+ &hen did the 12.!onth period e"pireL
C;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ Considering that 1,,# was a leap ear, the 12.!onth period e"pired on 1, Jul 1,,# @on
the *#0
th
daA. 9owe%er, 2 co!!itted an honest !ista1e on a 6uestion of law because the
certificate of sale stated that the period of rede!ption will e"pire 1.ear fro! the date of
registration @hence, 2; Jul 1,,#A. Eurther, 2 infor!ed ( ga%e notice of intention to e"ercise
right on 1# Jul 1,,# @within 12.!onth periodA. Eurther, 2 tried to tender pa!ent and upon
failure, consigned the a!ount to the Court. The tender of pa!ent !ade on 2; Jul 1,,# is
considered as an affir!ation of ti!el notice to redee!, e%en if such tender was !ade # das
after e"piration of rede!ption period. The rule on rede!ption !ust be liberall construed in
fa%or of the original owner of the propert.
REPUBLIC VS. NLRC
'1/ SCRA (,- )1---*
Facts+ An auction sale was held on )epte!ber 1,,C pursuant to an e"ecution sale. <ne
<ctober 1,,C, the sheriff issued a certificate of sale dul registered to the highest bidder. <n
<ctober 1,,;, the owner tendered to the :3RC cashier in rede!ption of the sub$ect propert
the a!ount paid b the highest bidder plus accrued interests and deposit fee.
Issue+ &hether the period of rede!ption in auction sale on e"ecution under )ec. *0, Rule *, of
1,#C Re%ised Rules of Court is 12 !onths or 1 ear fro! the date of registration of sale with the
Register of 2eeds.
e!"+ 12 !onths, not one ear fro! date of sale. The phrase 4after the sale5 reall !eans after
the date of registration of the certificate of sale. The 6uestion is the co!putation of 412 !onths.5
Appling Art. 1* of the Ci%il Code, 12 !onths consists of *#0 das and not *#; das.
ERLINDA VILLANUEVA VS. ANGEL MALA$A
G.R. NO. -(>10 )2000*
Facts+ H0s propert was le%ied on e"ecution. +ased on a 2eed of )ale, it appears that H
con%eed the propert to O. H died. H0s heirs filed a co!plaint against O for annul!ent of the
2eed of )ale @Ci%il Case 1A. 'eanwhile the propert was sold in a public auction sale. The RTC
ruled that O is H0s successor.in.interest and therefore has a right to redee! the propert
Issue+ &hether O has a right to redee! the propert
e!"+ :o. 7n the first place, O is not a part to the instant case and while his interest in the
propert is being litigated in Ci%il Case 1, it is in that case and not herein that such !atter
should be resol%ed. )econd, in holding O to be H0s successor.in.interest because of his being a
subse6uent %endee to the propert, the RTC in effect ruled upon the %alidit of the 2eed of )ale,
a !atter o%er which it had no $urisdiction to decide and which is properl the sub$ect of the
pending Ci%il Case 1. Third, the RTC based the right to redee! upon the purported transfer of
ownership to O of the propert. The right of rede!ption is e"plicitl conferred b the Rules on the
$udg!ent debtor and his successors.in.interestD it is not conditioned upon ownership of propert
but b %irtue of a writ of e"ecution directed against the $udg!ent debtor.
REAL PART$ IN INTEREST
ADORABLE VS. CA
'1- SCRA 200 )1---*
Facts+ ( is 20s creditor. ( learned that 2 sold his lot to A. ( filed for the annul!ent of the sale
on the ground that the sale was fraudulentl prepared or e"ecuted.
Issue+ &hether ( is the real part in interest.
C#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. As creditors, ( do not ha%e !aterial interest as to allow the! to sue for rescission of
the contract of sale. At the outset, (0s right against 2 is onl a personal right to recei%e pa!ent
for the loanD it is not a real right o%er the lot sub$ect of the deed of sale.
AGUILA VS. CA
'1- SCRA 2(> )1---*
Facts+ ( entered into a deed of sale with 2 Co!pan, a partnership. )ubse6uentl, ( filed a
case against H, one of the partners of 2 co!pan, for the declaration of nullit of a deed of sale.
H contends the action should be dis!issed because he is not the real part in interest
Issue+ &hether the !anager of 2 co!pan is the real part in interest.
e!"+ :o. Rule *, )ec. 2 of the Rules of Court of 1,#C, under which the co!plaint in this case
was filed, pro%ided that 4e%er action !ust be prosecuted and defended in the na!e of the real
part in interest.5 A real part in interest is one who would be benefited or in$ured b the
$udg!ent, or who is entitled to the a%ails of the suit. An decision rendered against a person
who is not a real part in interest in the case cannot be e"ecuted. 9ence, a co!plaint filed
against such a person should be dis!issed for failure to state a cause of action.
Gnder the Ci%il Code, a partnership has a $uridical personalit separate and distinct fro!
that of each of the partners. The partners cannot be held liable for the obligations of the
partnership unless it is shown that the legal fiction is being used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal
purposes.
REPLEVIN
SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS VS. CA
'1/ SCRA (-' )1---*
Facts+ 2 purchased on credit a %ehicle fro! ( e%idenced b a pro!issor note to be paid on
install!ents, secured b a chattel !ortgage o%er the %ehicle. 2 failed to pa so ( de!anded
possession of %ehicle. A, who bought the %ehicle fro! another *
rd
part, filed *
rd
a part clai!
contending absolute ownership o%er the propert.
Issue+ &hether the case for reple%in !a be pursued against A, a third part, without
i!pleading the absconding.!ortgagor, 2.
e!"+ :ot in this case. Rules #0 re6uires that an applicant shows that he 4is the owner of the
propert clai!ed, particularl describing it, or is entitled to the possession. &here the right of
the plaintiff to the possession of the specified propert is so e%ident, the action need onl be
!aintained against hi! who has possession.
Thus, in default of the !ortgagor, the !ortgages is thereb constituted as attorne.in.
fact of the !ortgagor, enabling such !ortgagee to act for and in behalf of the owner. That the *
rd
part is not pri% to the chattel !ortagage should be inconse6uential. + the fact the ob$ect of
reple%in is traced to his possession, one properl can be a defendant in an action for reple%in. 7t
is here assu!ed that plaintiff0s right to possession is not and cannot be disputed. +ut if the right
to possession of plaintiff is put to great doubt, it could be essential to ha%e other persons
in%ol%ed and i!pleaded for a co!plete deter!ination and resolution of the contro%ers. 7n a suit
for reple%in, a clear right of possession !ust be established. )ince the !ortgagee0s right of
possession is conditioned upon the actual fact of default which itself !a be contro%erted, the
inclusion of other parties, li1e the debtor or the !ortgagor hi!self, !a be re6uired to allow full
and conclusi%e deter!ination of the case.
The debtor in this case, being an indispensable part should ha%e been i!pleaded. An
indispensable part is one whose interest will be affected b the court0s action and without
who! no final deter!ination of the case can be had.
RES JUDICATA
C-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
TECSON VS. SANDIGANBA$AN
'1/ SCRA /0 )1---*
Facts+ 2 filed an ad!inistrati%e case against (. 2 also filed a co!plaint with the <!busd!an
for %iolation of the 4Anti.=raft and Corrupt (ractices Act.5 8%entuall, the ad!inistrati%e case
against ( was dis!issed. ( then !o%ed for the dis!issal of the case before the <!buds!an on
the ground of res $udicata.
Issue+ &hether res $udicata applies.
e!"+ :o. Eirst, it !ust be pointed out that res $udicata is a doctrine of ci%il law. 7t thus has no
bearing in the cri!inal proceedings before the )andiganbaan. )econd, a public officer !a be
held ci%ill, cri!inall, and ad!inistrati%el liable for a wrongful doing. Ad!inistrati%e liabilit is
separate and distinct fro! the penal and ci%il liabilities. Thus, the dis!issal of an ad!inistrati%e
case does not necessaril bar the filing of a cri!inal prosecution for the sa!e or si!ilar acts,
which were the sub$ect of the ad!inistrati%e co!plaint.
MATA VS. CA
'1/ SCRA (10 )1---*
Facts+ ( 6uestions the %alidit of a 2eed of )ale in this instant case for recon%eance. The
issue of the %alidit of the said 2eed of )ale, howe%er, had alread been passed upon b the
)C in an earlier case.
Issue+ &hether res $udicata applies.
e!"+ ?es. The doctrine of res $udicata actuall e!braces 2 concepts: @1A 4bar b prior
$udg!ent5 under par @bA of Rule *,, )ec. C-D and @2A 4conclusi%eness of $udg!ent5 under par @cA.
4Conclusi%eness of $udg!ent5 bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues or another
litigation between the sa!e parties on a different clai! or cause of action.
Although the action was instituted b ( in the lower court in this case @action for
recon%eanceA is different fro! the actions he instituted in the earlier cases, the concept of
conclusi%eness of $udg!ent still applies because under this principle, 4the identit of causes of
action is not re6uired but !erel identit of issues.5
ALADIN CRU& VS. CA
G.R. NO. 1',101 )2000*
Facts+ A e"tra$udiciall rescinded its contract with (. ( sued A for specific perfor!ance. The
(asig RTC ruled in fa%or of (. Thereafter, ( instituted a case for rescission of the sa!e contract
with the 'anila RTC. ( filed a !otion to dis!iss in%o1ing res $udicata.
Issue+ &hether there is res $udicata
e!"+ ?es. The test often used in deter!ining whether causes of action are identical is to
ascertain whether the sa!e e%idence which is necessar to sustain the second action would
ha%e been sufficient to authori/e reco%er in the first, e%en if the for!s or nature of the two
actions be different. 9ere the 'anila case for rescission is pre!ised on the clai! of ( that A did
not fulfill their part of the contract. Thus ( ite!i/es all the obligations that A was !andated to do
as proof. 9owe%er this alleged nonperfor!ance on the part of A had alread been passed upon
in the (asig case wherein the RTC categoricall stated that A had substantiall co!plied with
her underta1ing in good faith.
JOSE OROSA VS. CA
G.R. N.. 1110/0 )2000*
C8
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ The RTC rendered a decision, holding H liable to ( for da!ages. A )upple!ental
2ecision was also rendered, !a1ing ? solidaril liable with H. ? filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari to annul the )upple!ental 2ecision. <n the other hand, ? appealed the decision of
the RTC to the CA. ?0s petition for certiorari was dis!issed b the CA Eirst 2i%ision. 'eanwhile,
in H0s appeal, the CA 8ighth 2i%ision partiall affir!ed the ruling of the RTC.
Issue+ &hether the decision of the CA Eirst 2i%ision constitutes res $udicata and thus bars the
CA 8ighth 2i%ision fro! re%iewing the decision of the RTC
e!"+ :o. The two cases in%ol%e different sub$ect !atters, parties and se11 different reliefs. ?0s
petition was for certiorari, alleging that there was gra%e abuse of discretion when the RTC
ad$udged it liable for da!ages without due process. The sub$ect of ?0s petiton was the
)upple!ental 2ecision. <n the other hand, H0s appeal was filed under Rule C; of the Rules of
Court raising errors of law on the part of the RTC. The sub$ect of H0s appeal was the !ain
decision.
RIGT TO LITIGATE
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE CO. VS PABLO SANIDAD
G.R. NO. 1'>022 )2000*
Facts+ H0s car hit and bu!ped ?0s car which was then at a co!plete stop due to a flat tire. 2ue
to the se%ere i!pact, ?0s car swer%ed to the left and collided with O0s car. O filed a co!plaint for
2a!ages against H and ?. The RTC e"culpated ? and ordered O to pa hi! actual, !oral and
e"e!plar da!ages.
Issue+ &hether the order of the RTC is correct
e!"+ ?es. The facts of the case clearl show that O was !oti%ated b bad faith in i!pleading ?.
7ndeed, a person0s right to litigate, as a rule, should not be penali/ed. This right, howe%er, !ust
be e"ercised in good faith.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
MUSNI VS. MORALES
'1, SCRA /, )1---*
Facts+ ( filed a case %s. 2 on <ctober 1,,#. The process ser%er @)A ser%ed the su!!ons onl
on Jul 1,,- or al!ost , !onths after the trial court had issued it. ) ad!itted that there was a
dela but $ustified it b clai!ing it was 4in anticipation of the settle!ent of the parties.5
Issue+ &hether )0s e"cuse is proper.
e!"+ :o. The process ser%er0s tas1 was to ser%e the su!!ons e"peditiousl. 9is dut being
!inisterial, he has no $urisdiction to postpone it at the behest of a part.litigant. 9is refusal to
ser%e the su!!ons i!!ediatel constituted a clear neglect of dut.
MADRIGAL VS. CA
'1- SCRA ''2 )1---*
Facts+ 2 brought a Co!plaint for reco%er of possession with da!ages against (. )u!!ons
could not be ser%ed on ( so the process ser%er resorted to substituted ser%ice of su!!ons. 2
challenges in this (etition for Re%iew on Certiorari the %alidit of the ser%ice of su!!ons. 2
clai!s the substituted ser%ice effected b the process ser%er was i!proper, absent an proof of
i!possibilit of personal ser%ice as re6uired under )ection #, Rule 1C of the Rules of Court.
Issue+ &hether the substituted ser%ice of su!!ons was %alid.
C,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. 7!possibilit of personal ser%ice $ustifing a%ail!ent of substituted ser%ice should be
e"plained in the proof of ser%iceD wh efforts e"erted towards personal ser%ice failed. The
pertinent facts and circu!stances attendant to the ser%ice of su!!ons !ust be stated in the
proof of ser%ice or <fficer0s ReturnD otherwise, the substituted ser%ice cannot be upheld.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
$OLANDA ROSELLO:BENTIR VS. MATEO LEANDA
G.R. NO. 12/--1 )2000*
Facts+ ( entered into a contract of lease of a parcel of land with 2 for a period of 20 ears
starting fro! 1,#8. ( is the lesseeD 2 is the lessor. 7n 1,8,, 2 sold the leased pre!ises to 8. (
6uestioned the sale alleging that it had a right of first refusal. Rebuffed, ( filed a case see1ing
refor!ation of the e"pired contract of lease on the ground that its lawer inad%ertentl o!itted to
incorporate in the contract of lease e"ecuted in 1,#8, the %erbal agree!ent between the parties
that ( has a right of first refusal o%er the leased propert.
Issue+ &hether the action for refor!ation should prosper
e!"+ :o. )ince the purpose of an action for declarator relief is to secure an authoritati%e
state!ent of the rights and obligations of the parties for their guidance in the enforce!ent
thereof, or co!pliance therewith and not to settle issues arising fro! the breach thereof, it !a
be entertained onl before the breach or %iolation of the law or contract to which it refers. 9ere,
( brought the present action for refor!ation after an alleged breach or %iolation of the contract
was alread co!!itted b 2.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
STATE INVESTMENT OUSE INC. VS. CA
'1/ SCRA (0 )1---*
Facts+ ( filed a collection case against 2. 2 filed its Answer and Counterclai! for da!ages. (
entered into a 2eed of Assign!ent with A, transferring to the latter all its rights, interests, clai!s,
and causes of action arising out of the case against 2. A filed a 4'otion for )ubstitution of (art
(laintiff5 in lieu of (. 2 opposed the !otion on the ground that it has a counterclai! against (.
The RTC granted the !otion. The CA, howe%er, ruled that ( should continue to be the plaintiff
and A should be i!pleaded as co.plaintiff.
Issue+ &hether the ruling of the CA is correct.
e!"+ ?es. The order of the RTC authori/ing the substitution of parties failed to ta1e into
account the fact that there is a counterclai! for da!ages contained in 20s case. 8%en assu!ing
that A agreed to assu!e all the obligations of ( in the case, the assign!ent cannot bind or
pre$udice 2 who did not consent to the assign!ent. The counterclai! for actual, !oral and
other da!ages should be pursued and enforced against the real part.in.interest, which is (,
which cannot be discharged fro! the case o%er the opposition of 2.
TEMPORAR$ RESTRAINING ORDER
MARCOS:MANOTOC VS. JUDGE AGCAOILI
A.M. NO. RTJ:-/:1(0, )2000*
Facts+ <n June 18, ( filed a ci%il case for in$unction and for the issuance of a writ of preli!inar
in$unction and TR< against the co!plainant, 2. <n the sa!e date, J, the respondent $udge,
issued a TR< and scheduled the hearing on the application for a preli!inar in$unction on June
2C. 9owe%er, on June 2C, J did not conduct an hearing on the application for a writ of
preli!inar in$unction. 7nstead, he issued an order e"tending the effecti%it of the TR<. 2
;0
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
alleges that the issuance of the TR< and its subse6uent e"tensions constitute a blatant %iolation
of Ad!inistrati%e Circular 20.,;.
Issue+ &hether the $udge %iolated Ad!inistrati%e Circular 20.,;
e!"+ ?es. Eirst, J did not notif 2 that an application for the issuance of a TR< has been filed.
)econd, J did not conduct a su!!ar hearing before granting the TR<. :oteworth is the fact
that the TR< was issued on the sa!e da that the co!plaint was filed. Third, J e"tended the
TR< twice without conducting a su!!ar hearing therefore.
MARCOS:MANOTOC VS. JUDGE AGCAOILI
A.M. NO. RTJ:-/:1(0, )2000*
Facts+ <n June 18, ( filed a ci%il case for in$unction and for the issuance of a writ of preli!inar
in$unction and TR< against the co!plainant, 2. <n the sa!e date, J, the respondent $udge,
issued a TR< and scheduled the hearing on the application for a preli!inar in$unction on June
2C. Responding to 20s allegation that he %iolated the Rules of Court, J answered that he issued
a %alid -2.hour TR<.
Issue+ &hether J issued a %alid -2.hour TR<
e!"+ :o. 9is order did not state that the TR< was effecti%e for -2 hours onl. To the contrar, it
stated that it 4is good until such ti!e that the writ of preli!inar in$unction shall ha%e been
resol%ed.5 :or was it stated that the order was being issued because of e"tre!e urgenc to
$ustif the issuance of a -2.hour TR<. J onl stated in his order that 4the petition appears to be
sufficient in for! and substance.5
WRIT OF POSSESSION
ERLINDA VILLANUEVA VS. ANGEL MALA$A
G.R. NO. -(>10 )2000*
Facts+ H0s propert was le%ied on e"ecution. H died. The propert was sold in a public auction
sale to O. ?, H0s successor.in.interest, pro!ptl e"ercised her right of rede!ption. The RTC,
howe%er, issued a writ of possession e" parte in the e"ecution proceedings against ? and the
occupants of the propert.
Issue+ &hether the writ of possession is %alid
e!"+ :o. A writ of possession !a issue against occupants of a propert sub$ect of e"ecution
who deri%e their right of possession fro! the $udg!ent debtor upon !otion in the e"ecution
proceedings and without need of a separate e$ect!ent action, pro%ided that the occupants are
afforded an opportunit to e"plain the nature of their possession, on which basis the writ of
possession will be denied or granted. 7n this case, the RTC0s granting of the writ of possession
e" parte %iolates the occupants0 right to due process.
EVIDENCE
ALIBI
PEOPLE VS. LACICA
<ctober 12, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of !urdering H because of &0s identification that A was one of the !en
who 1illed H. A presented docu!ents showing that he was in Capi/ at the ti!e of H0s !urder in
Oa!bales.
;1
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Issue+ &hether A should be ac6uitted because of his alibi.
e!"+ :o.
1. The defense of alibi cannot pre%ail o%er A0s positi%e identification b &. )ince A was
introduced to & prior to the !urder, & could not ha%e !ista1en A0s identit.
2. Eor alibi to prosper, the accused !ust pro%e that he was not at the locus delicti when the
offense was co!!itted and that it was phsicall i!possible for hi! to be at the scene of
the cri!e at the pro"i!ate ti!e of its co!!ission. :one of the docu!ents A presented
coincides with the date or e%en the !onth when the incident occurred. Eurther!ore, with all
the !odern !eans of transportation, tra%eling fro! Capi/ to Oa!bales could be done with
facilit.
PEOPLE VS. CULALA
<ctober 1*, 1,,,
Facts+ A was accused of !urdering H. & identified hi! as the 1iller of her son, H. A interposed
denial and alibi that he was at a +ell0s (ub house at the ti!e of the 1illing but he was con%icted.
9e appealed.
Issue+ &hether the appeal should be granted.
e!"+ :o.
Alibi is eas to concoct and cannot pre%ail o%er the positi%e identification b the witnesses who
were not shown to ha%e been ill.!oti%ated to testif against the accused. Thus, in the absence
of proof of i!proper !oti%e on the part of & to i!plicate A in the co!!ission of the !alefaction
sued upon, there is no cause or ground for not gi%ing due weight and probati%e %alue to her
testi!on.
PEOPLE VS. TABUSO
<ctober 2#, 1,,,
Facts+ A was accused of !urdering H. The prosecution clai!ed that A acted as the loo1out
while three others 1illed H. A is blind. Eor his defense, he interposed alibi and denial. A was
con%icted because of the alleged conspirac between A and the three friends. A appealed.
Issue+ &hether the appeal should be granted.
e!"+ ?es.
A0s utterance that 4H is co!ing5 does not auto!aticall !a1e hi! a loo1out. This plus the fact
that he has an ee defect negate the fact that he is a loo1out. Conspirac was not properl
pro%ed. And although alibi and denial are wea1 defenses, the burden of proof in cri!inal cases
lies with the prosecution and A0s guilt was not pro%en beond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. SUELTO
Eebruar 8, 2000
Facts+ A was accused of !urder. 2uring his trial, his friends and fa!il attested to his being in
another place at the ti!e of the co!!ission of the cri!e. 9owe%er, the testi!onies were
inconsistent with one another.
Issue+ &hether such testi!onies should be ta1en in to consideration.
e!"+ :o.
:o credence could be properl accorded to the testi!onies of the witnesses for the defense,
which were inconsistent and plainl contradictor on !aterial points, not to !ention that said
;2
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
witnesses were all fa!il and friends of the accused. Accordingl, the alibi of the accused is
reduced to self.ser%ing e%idence undeser%ing of an weight in law.
PEOPLE VS. ENTILA
Eebruar ,, 2000
Facts+ A was accused of 1idnapping H. A, howe%er, clai!ed that H went with hi! willingl to
escape her horrible life with her guardian. &, a defense witness, corroborated A0s testi!on
that H went with A willingl. The court con%icted A.
Issue+ &hether the court acted properl.
e!"+ :o.
7n con%icting the accused, the trial court relied on the oft.cited rule that denial, li1e alibi, is a
wea1 defense since it is easil fabricated or concocted. &here an accused sets up alibi, or
denial for that !atter, as his line of defense, the courts should not at once loo1 at the sa!e with
war ees for ta1en in the light of all the e%idence on record, it !a be sufficient to re%erse the
outco!e of the case as found b the trial court and thereb rightl set the accused free.
Eurther!ore, the defense of alibi or denial !a assu!e significance or strength when it is a!pl
corroborated b a credible witness, as in the instant case.
AFFIDAVIT
VALEN&UELA VS. BELLOSILLO
Januar 20, 2000
Facts+ ( sued 2, a $udge for gross %iolation of the Code of Judicial 8thics for pressuring his
client to re!o%e hi! as counsel and to replace hi! with another of 20s choice. ( presented his
client0s affida%it in his co!plaint but the client was ne%er called to the stand. The in%estigating
$udge dis!issed the co!plaint.
Issue+ &hether the co!plaint was correctl dis!issed.
e!"+ ?es.
The affida%it of the client cannot be gi%en credence and is inad!issible without the said affiant
placed on the witness stand to gi%e the respondent Judge an opportunit to test the %eracit of
affiant0s allegations. An affida%it is hearsa unless the affiant is present for cross.e"a!ination.
PEOPLE VS. EDGAR CRISPIN
'arch 2, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for !urder. The accused was con%icted of the cri!e
charged. <n appeal, the accused assailed the trial courts0 e"tensi%e reference to the sworn
state!ent of one of the witnesses for the prosecution, ta1en b the police, who clai!ed to
witness the fi%e accused attac1 and 1ill the %icti!. &hile such witness was na!ed in the
7nfor!ation as one of the principal witnesses, he did not appear when subpoenaed to testif.
The accused decried the fact that the trial court ga%e credence to the allegations of the sworn
state!ent despite prosecution0s failure to present the witness, thus depri%ing the accused of his
right to cross.e"a!ine hi!.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in gi%ing great weight to the affida%it of the witness.
e!"+ ?es. An affida%it is hearsa and has wea1 probati%e %alue, unless the affiant is placed on
the witness stand to testif on it. +eing hearsa e%idence, it is inad!issible because the part
against who! it is presented is depri%ed of his right and opportunit to cross.e"a!ine the
person to who! the state!ent or writing is attributed. The right to confront and cross.e"a!ine
the witnesses against hi! is a funda!ental right of e%er accused which !a not be su!!aril
;*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
done awa with. Another reason wh the right to confrontation is so essential is because the trial
$udge0s dut to obser%e and test the credibilit of the affiant can onl be !et b his being
brought in the witness stand. That the affida%it for!ed part of the record of the preli!inar
in%estigation does not $ustif its being treated as e%idence because the record of the preli!inar
in%estigation does not for! part of the record of the case in the RTC. )uch record !ust be
introduced as e%idence during trial, and the trial court is not co!pelled to ta1e $udicial notice of
the sa!e. The prosecution ha%ing failed to present the witness on the stand, his sworn
state!ent was patentl inad!issible and deser%es no consideration at all.
PEOPLE VS. MILLIAM
Januar *1, 2000
Facts+ A was accused of 1illing H. & e"ecuted an affida%it which is inconsistent with his
testi!on in court. The court considered his testi!on and con%icted A. A appeals.
e!"+ ?es.
&hen there is an inconsistenc between the affida%it and the testi!on of a witness in court, the
testi!on co!!ands greater weight. Eor, oftenti!es, affida%its ta1en ex parte are considered
inaccurate as the are prepared b other persons who use their own language in writing the
affiant0s state!ents. <!issions and !isunderstandings b the writer are not infre6uent,
particularl under circu!stances of haste or i!patience. Thus, !ore often than not, affida%its
do not reflect precisel what the declarant wants to i!part. &orse, after the affida%it is
!echanicall read to the affiant, such docu!ent is !erel signed e%en though the affiant does
not full agree with what has been written.
PEOPLE VS. LADITA ET AL
'a 11, 2000
charged. 7n his appeal, the accused contended, a!ong others, that the court erred in con%icting
hi! based on the testi!on of one of the witnesses. 9e contends that in the affida%it of the
witness which was ta1en prior to his testi!on, the latter did not !ention the na!e of the
accused as one of the !urderers. 7t was onl in the witness0 testi!on in open court that the
lattter !entioned the na!e of the accused as one of the perpetrators of the cri!e
Issue+ &hat is the conse6uence of an inconsistenc between the affida%it and the testi!on of
a witnessL
e!"+ Affida%its ta1en e".parte are generall inco!plete and inaccurate and is therefore
considered inferior to testi!on gi%en in open court.
AUTENTICATION
CE%UENA VS. BOLANTE
April #, 2000
Facts+ This is a petition for reco%er of propert. A parcel of land was originall declared for
ta"ation purposes in the na!e of R. 3ater, on the basis of an affida%it, the ta" declaration was
cancelled and subse6uentl declared in the na!e of (. ( instituted an action for reco%er of the
propert. The trial court rendered $udge!ent ordering R to surrender possession tot he heirs of
(. <n appeal. the CA re%ersed the trial court0s finding because the genuineness and due
e"ecution of the affida%it allegedl signed b R had not been sufficientl established.
Issue+ &hether the affida%it is ad!issible as e%idence of ownership of the propert.
;C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ :o. +efore a pri%ate docu!ent offered as authentic can be recei%ed in e%idence, its due
e"ecution and authenticit !ust be pro%ed first. And not all notari/ed docu!ents are e"e!pted
fro! the rule on authentication. Thus, an affida%it does not auto!aticall beco!e a public
docu!ent $ust because it contains a notarial $urat.
Best E21"e7ce Ru!e
PEOPLE VS. BAGO
April #, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for 6ualified theft. The accused was an e!ploee of A Co.
which has a contract with + Co. 9is $ob was to go to + Co. to o%ersee the cutting of the sheets
and ensure their deli%er to A Co. using A Co0s truc1s. <n April 21, 1,,2, the accused loaded
fro! + Co. cold.rolled sheets on a truc1 owned b A Co. At the gate of A Co., he presented two
receipts to the guard co%ering the !aterials, both dated April 21, 1,,2. The guard inspected the
!aterials in the truc1, and finding the! accounted for, he sta!ped the two receipts. Afterwards,
the accused presented a third receipt bearing another date co%ering rolled sheets supposed to
ha%e been long deli%ered to A Co. before that date. The guard, though in doubt, sta!ped the
third receipt but reported the !atter to the Chief )ecurit <fficer. A discreet in%estigation was
conducted. The accused was charged with 6ualified theft. After trial, he was found guilt as
charged. 7n his appeal, the accused argued that the receipt is the best e%idence that should be
gi%en !ore credence than the testi!on of the guard.
Issue+ &hether the +est 8%idence Rule applies in this case.
e!"+ :o. The rule cannot be in%o1ed unless the content of a writing is the sub$ect of $udicial
in6uir, in which case, the best e%idence is the original writing itself. The rule pertains to the
ad!issibilit of secondar e%idence to pro%e the contents of a docu!ent. 7n the case at bar, no
secondar e%idence is offered to pro%e the content of a docu!ent. &hat is being 6uestioned b
the accused is the weight gi%en b the trial court tot he testi!on of the guard o%er the receipt
which on its face shows that the !aterials in 6uestion were deli%ered to A Co0s pre!ises.
Clearl, the best e%idence rule finds no application on this issue.
B1ase" W1t7esses
EMEDES VS. CAA R B B INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CA
<ctober ,, 1,,,
Facts+ The trial court rendered a decision based on the testi!on of 2 in fa%or of 2 and against
(. 2 clai!ed that his 80.ear old step!other who was li%ing with hi! donated the propert to
hi!. ( appealed, clai!ing that 2 was a biased witness.
Issue+ &hether the trial court erred in reling on 20s testi!on.
e!"+ ?es.
1. A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he
has an incenti%e to e"aggerate or gi%e false color to his state!ents, or to suppress or to
per%ert the truth or to state what is false.
2. At the ti!e the case was filed, the 4donor5 was 80 ears old, suffering fro! worsening
phsical infir!ities and co!pletel dependent upon her stepson, 2, for support. 7t is
apparent that 2 could easil influence his step!other to donate the sub$ect propert to hi!.
The trial court should not ha%e gi%en credence to a witness that was ob%iousl biased and
partial to the cause of 2.
*. The rule that the !atter of credibilit lies within the trial court0s pro%ince does not appl when
the witness0 credibilit has been put in serious doubt, such as when there appears on the
record so!e fact or circu!stance of weight and influence, which has been o%erloo1ed or the
significance of which has been !isinterpreted.
;;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
CCa6acte6 .< tCe W1t7ess
PEOPLE VS. DOCENA
Januar 20, 2000
Facts+ H clai!ed that A, her father raped her. The trial court con%icted A. A appealed saing
that the trial court should not ha%e ta1en H0s testi!on into account since H is an obstinate
pre%aricator.
Issue+ &hether the court should ha%e ta1en H0s testi!on into account.
e!"+ ?es.
8%en the !oral character of the %icti! is i!!aterial. Rape is certainl not confined to single
wo!en and children. (rostitutes ha%e also been %icti!s of rape, so ha%e !iddle.aged wo!en,
!arried wo!en, !others and e%en wo!en who are on the fifth !onth of pregnanc. The
records re%eal that H0s testi!on is belie%able, consistent and straightforward.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
PEOPLE VS. GUARIN
<ctober 22, 1,,,
Facts+ A and + as1ed their e!ploer0s per!ission to go out with C, their e!ploer0s brother0s
@HA helper. A, + and C ne%er returned. H was later found dead with his things scattered around
his apart!ent. A, + and C were found with a lot of !one in A0s ho!etown. The were
accused and con%icted of 1illing H. The appealed clai!ing that their guilt was not pro%en
beond reasonable doubt.
Issue+ &hether the accused were rightfull con%icted.
e!"+ ?es.
1. 2irect e%idence is not the onl !atri" wherefro! a trial court !a draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt. Con%iction can be had on the basis of circu!stantial e%idence if the
established circu!stances constitute an unbro1en chain leading to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pro%ing that the accused is the author of the cri!e to the e"clusion of all others.
2. To $ustif con%iction based on circu!stantial e%idence, the following has to be present:
a. There are !ore than one circu!stances
b. Eact on which the inference of guilt is based !ust be pro%ed A:2
c. The co!bination of all the circu!stances is such as to produce a con%iction beond
reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. SANTOS
'a *1, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for !urder. The two accused were con%icted of the cri!e
charged. 7n his appeal, the accused contends, a!ong others, that the court erred in con%icting
hi! and not gi%ing credence to his defense of alibi considering the failure of the prosecution to
present eewitnesses to the actual 1illing of the %icti!.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in con%icting the accused.
e!"+ :o. The failure of the prosecution to present eewitnesses to the actual 1illing of the
%icti! does not ipso facto dispel the accused0s authorship of the felon. 7ndeed, there are cri!es
where there are no eewitnesses at all. 2irect e%idence of the co!!ission of a cri!e is not the
onl !atri" wherefro! a trial court !a draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. Resort to
circu!stantial e%idence is essential when to insist on direct testi!on would result in setting
felons free. Con%iction !a be had e%en on circu!stantial e%idence pro%ided the following
;#
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
re6uisites concur: @1A there is !ore than one circu!stanceD @2A the facts fro! which the
inferences are deri%ed are pro%enD and @*A the co!bination of all the circu!stances is such as
to produce a con%iction beond reasonable doubt.
C6e"131!1t4 .< E21"e7ce
PEOPLE VS. CAPCO
:o%e!ber 2,, 1,,,
Facts+ A was one of the four accused of 1illing H, &0s father. A was con%icted because of &0s
testi!on that he saw A standing outside their store, the scene of the cri!e, fifteen !inutes after
the * other accused were alread gone. Considering the fact that A was the barkada of the
other *, the trial court con%icted A.
Issue+ &hether A was rightfull con%icted.
e!"+ :o.
& said that A was acting as the loo1out of the three other accused. 9owe%er, he also testified
that he saw A standing outside their store fifteen !inutes after the other accused were alread
gone. Eor e%idence to be belie%ed it !ust not onl proceed fro! the !outh of a credible
witness but it !ust be credible itself. The * accused e"ited fro! the store through the sa!e
entr point the too1 getting in B where the supposedl posted A as loo1out. 7ndeed, it is
contrar to hu!an e"perience that so!eone, who is allegedl part of a group that conspired to
rob a store and 1ill its owner, would choose to re!ain at the scene within a considerable period
of ti!e when fro! his %antage point he could naturall see his co!panions escape.
De!a4 17 Re2ea!17; I"e7t1t4 .< O<<e7"e6
PEOPLE VS. MANEGDEG
<ctober 1*, 1,,,
Facts+ H told &, his wife, that A stabbed hi! $ust before H died. )e%eral hours after the
incident, baranga officials ca!e to &0s house but she did not tell the! who stabbed H. 3ater
on, she did point to A as the one who stabbed H. A was accused and con%icted of 1illing H.
Issue+ &hether A was properl con%icted notwithstanding &0s dela in re%ealing the identit of
the offender.
e!"+ ?es.
1. & e"plained that she did not identif the assailant to the police i!!ediatel upon H0s ad%ice
who feared for their safet in the re!ote area where their house is situated.
2. Also, there is no standard beha%ior for a person confronted with a shoc1ing incident,
especiall in%ol%ing a lo%ed one. <ne !a i!!ediatel report the incident to the proper
authorities while another, in fear or a%oiding in%ol%e!ent in a cri!inal in%estigation, !a
1eep to hi!self what he had witnessed. 7t was not incredible nor contrar to hu!an
e"perience for H to ad%ise his wife not to di%ulge the na!e of the assailant until after the
are in a safe place, and for the wife to ta1e heed of the sa!e.
D417; Dec!a6at1.7s
PEOPLE VS. MARAMARA
<ctober 22, 1,,,
Facts+ H died after recei%ing C penetrating stab wounds. 9e was rushed to the hospital and
when as1ed who stabbed hi!, he replied that it was A. A was con%icted because of H0s
state!ent.
Issue+ &hether A was correctl con%icted.
;-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
e!"+ ?es.
1. H0s state!ent certainl 6ualifies as a ding declaration. The fi%e re6uisites were present:
a. 2eath is i!!inent and declarant is conscious of that fact.
b. The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circu!stances of such death
c. The declaration relates to facts which the %icti! is co!petent to testif to
d. The declarant thereafter dies
e. The declaration is offered in a cri!inal case wherein the declarant0s death is the sub$ect
of in6uir.
2. The degree and seriousness of the wounds suffered b H and the fact that his death
super%ened shortl thereafter !a be considered as a substantial e%idence that the
declaration was !ade b hi! with the full reali/ation that he was in a ding condition. H0s
ding declaration ha%ing satisfied all these re6uisites, it !ust be considered as an e%idence
of the highest order because, at the threshold of death, all thoughts of fabrication are stilled.
A %icti!0s utterance after sustaining a !ortal wound !a be considered pure e!anations of
the incident.
PEOPLE VS. NAAG
Januar 20, 2000
Facts+ A was con%icted of 1illing H. <ne of the bases for his con%iction was H0s state!ent
calling his na!e which was o%erheard b &. This state!ent was treated as a ding declaration
b the trial court. A clai!ed that !ere calling out of a na!e is an inco!plete ding declaration
as held in the case of People vs. De Joa since it could not !ean that H was pointing to A as the
assailant.
Issue+ &hether the ding declaration is ad!issible.
e!"+ ?es.
This case is different fro! People vs. De Joa, here, the deceased was saing A0s na!e as she
was running awa wounded fro! A. 7t is clear that H was fleeing fro! A to see1 refuge fro! her
attac1er. The circu!stances in which she was saing A0s na!e !a1e it clear that she was
referring to A as her assailant.
E7t61es 17 O<<1c1a! Rec.6"s D P6..< .< LacE .< Rec.6"
PEOPLE VS. LA&ARO
<ctober 2#, 1,,,
Facts+ A was accused of illegal possession of firear!s. 9is lac1 of license to carr a firear!
was pro%ed b a !ere certification fro! the (:( Eirear!s and 8"plosi%e <ffice that he is not a
licensee of an firear!.
Issue+ &hether A0s guilt was pro%ed beond reasonable doubt.
e!"+ ?es.
1. 8ither the testi!on of a representati%e of, or a certification fro!, the (:( Eirear!s and
8"plosi%e <ffice attesting that a person is not a licensee of an firear! would suffice to
pro%e beond reasonable doubt the second ele!ent of possession of illegal firear!.
2. Also, the rule on hearsa e%idence ad!its of se%eral e"ceptions, one of which is that a
certificate of a custodian that he has diligentl searched for a docu!ent or an entr of a
specified tenor and has been unable to find it ought to be as satisfactor an e%idence of its
non.e"istence in his office as his testi!on on the stand to this effect would be.
EVIDENTIAR$ VALUE OF BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE
EIRS OF CABAIS VS. CA
<ctober 8, 1,,,
;8
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ 7n one case, the T7RA3 C<GRT ruled against ( because it concluded that 2 is the
daughter of A. The trial court relied on the baptis!al certificate presented b 2.
Issue+ &hether trial court correctl relied on the baptis!al certificate in establishing 20s
filiation.
e!"+ :o.
1. A birth certificate, being a public docu!ent, offers pri!a facie e%idence of filiation and a high
degree of proof is needed to o%erthrow the presu!ption of truth contained in such public
docu!ent. <n the contrar, a baptis!al certificate, a pri%ate docu!ent, which, being
hearsa, is not a conclusi%e proof of filiation. 7t does not ha%e the sa!e probati%e %alue as a
record of birth, an official or public docu!ent.
2. A baptis!al certificate, li1e all docu!ents in general, attests the fact leading to its e"ecution
and the date thereof, the ad!inistration of the sacra!ent on the da therein specified, but
not to the %eracit of the state!ents therein contained regarding the 1insfol1 of the person
bapti/ed.
EFt6aGu"1c1a! C.7<ess1.7
PEOPLE VS. CULALA
<ctober 1*, 1,,,
Facts+ A was arrested for Robber with 9o!icide. <ne of the e%idence considered b the court
in con%icting the accused is his e"tra$udicial confession !ade in the presence of the 'unicipal
Attorne.
Issue+ &hether such e"tra$udicial confession is ad!issible in e%idence.
e!"+ :o.
A 'unicipal Attorne cannot be an independent counsel as re6uired b the Constitution. As a
legal officer of the !unicipalit, he pro%ides legal assistance and support to the !aor and the
!unicipalit in carring out the deli%er of basic ser%ices to the people, including the
!aintenance of peace and order. 7t is therefore seriousl doubted whether he can effecti%el
underta1e the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. 9e is no better
than a fiscal or a prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial in%estigations.
Conse6uentl, for being %iolati%e of the Constitution, the e"tra$udicial confession of the accused
is inad!issible.
Pe.8!e VS. Da5as. J.3
'arch ,, 2000
Facts+ Accused, together with four others, were charged and con%icted of the cri!e of
1idnapping with ranso!. <nl the accused appealed.
Issue+ &hether the e"tra.$udicial confession of his co.accused is ad!issible as e%idence
against hi!.
e!"+ As a general rule, an e"tra$udicial confession b an accused !a be gi%en in e%idence
onl against hi!, but not against his co.accused. This rule, howe%er, ad!its of e"ceptions.
&here se%eral e"tra$udicial confessions had been !ade b se%eral persons charged with the
sa!e offense, without the possibilit of collusion a!ong the!, the fact that the state!ents are in
all !aterial respects identical is confor!ator of the confessions of the co.defendants and is
ad!issible against other persons i!plicated therein. )uch confessions are co!!onl 1nown as
interloc1ing confessions. 7n the case at bar, the e"tra$udicial confessions of two of the co.
accused are in the nature of interloc1ing confessions. The were !ade independentl of each
other. The contain si!ilar !aterial details which onl persons in%ol%ed in their cri!inal plot
could ha%e 1nown. Therefore, as an e"ception tot he general rule, these confessions !a
;,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
properl be used in e%idence against herein appellant, being one of se%eral persons i!plicated
therein. 'oreo%er, also as an e"ception to the general rule, the e"tra$udicial confessions !a be
used b wa of circu!stantial e%idence regarding the actual cri!inal participation of the co.
conspirator na!ed in the confession. 7n this regard, apart fro! being tagged b his co.
conspirator as a!ong those in%ol%ed in the 1idnapping, appellant was found in the 1idnappers0
safehouse where the %icti! was planned to be brought, on the sa!e da the cri!e was
co!!itted. Appellant offered no plausible reason for his presence at the safehouse.
Factua! F17"17;s .< T61a! C.u6t
PEOPLE VS. SUELTO
<ctober -, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of parricide. 9e clai!ed that he accidentall shot his wife while
grappling with the gun to pre%ent his wife fro! co!!itting suicide. The trial did not belie%e his
%ersion thus he was con%icted. 9e as1ed the )C to re%erse the ruling.
Issue+ &hether the )C should re%erse the ruling.
e!"+ :o.
The 6uestion of credibilit of witnesses is best left to the assess!ent of the trial court. 7ts
e%aluation of the %eracit and the credibilit of the witnesses0 testi!on is accorded great
respect and finalit in the absence of an indication that it o%erloo1ed certain facts or great
respect and finalit in the absence of an indication that it o%erloo1ed certain facts or
circu!stances of weight and influence, which if reconsidered, would alter the result of the case.
F!1;Ct .< tCe Accuse"
PEOPLE VS. GUARIN
<ctober 22, 1,,,
Facts+ A, + and C were accused of robber with ho!icide. The left the place where the were
wor1ing shortl after the incident and went !issing until the were found in A0s ho!etown with a
lot of !one. The were con%icted. The appealed clai!ing that their guilt was not pro%en
beond reasonable doubt.
Issue+ &hether the were properl con%icted.
e!"+ ?es.
Elight is an e%idence of guilt. 7n this case, the three accused fled fro! the cit where the cri!e
was co!!itted and ne%er went bac1 to wor1. @The court here also considered other
circu!stantial e%idence in con%icting the accused.A
F.65a! O<<e6 O< E21"e7ce
PEOPLE VS. ALICANTE
'a *1, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for rape. The accused was con%icted of se%en counts of
rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalt of death. 9ence, this auto!atic re%iew b the )C.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in appreciating the testi!on of one of the witnesses.
e!"+ <n the issue of the prosecution0s failure to for!all offer in e%idence the testi!on of the
%icti!, the applicable pro%isions are )ections *C and *; of Rule 1*2 of the Rules of Court.
)8C *C. <ffer of e%idence. B The court shall consider no e%idence which has not
been for!all offered. The purpose for which the e%idence is offered !ust be
specified.
#0
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
)8C *;. &hen to !a1e offer. B As regards the testi!on of a witness, the offer
!ust be !ade at the ti!e the witness is called to testif.
Ad!ittedl, the transcripts of the testi!onies re%eal that the prosecution failed to declare the
purpose for which the testi!on of the witness was offered. 9owe%er, this error will not pre%ent
said testi!on fro! being appreciated and !ade part of the e%idence for the prosecution. This
is because counsel for the accused failed to seasonable raise an ob$ection thereto. )aid
ob$ection could ha%e been done at the ti!e when the %icti! was called to the witness stand,
without proper e"planation thereof or at anti!e before the prosecution rested its case.
PEOPLE VS. DE%UITO
'a 12, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for rape. The accused was con%icted of two counts of rape
co!!itted on Jul 1,,#. <n appeal, the accused contended, a!ong others, that the court erred
in con%icting hi! for two counts of rape. 9e based his contention on the prosecutor0s state!ent
that what was being tried was the last rape co!!itted on Jul 1,,#.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in con%icting the accused for two counts of rape.
e!"+ :o. The prosecution offered the %icti!0s testi!on to pro%e that she was se"uall abused
se%eral ti!es b the appellant on or about the !onth of Jul 1,,#. The prosecutor0s state!ent
that what was being tried was the last rape co!!itted in Jul 1,,# is an innocuous error that
did not pre$udice the rights of the appellant. The records show that the %icti! testified that the
accused raped her on the first and last wee1 of Jul 1,,# and the %icti! was cross.e"a!ined on
both incidents. The counsel for appellant did not ob$ect that the %icti! cannot testif on the first
rape as the prosecutor was presenting her onl to pro%e the second rape in Jul 1,,#. The
accused therefore cannot co!plain of surprise. 9e was able to defend hi!self fro! the charge
of the co!plainant.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN RAPE CASES
PEOPLE VS. RE$ES
)epte!ber *0, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of raping H. 9e appealed clai!ing that the court erred in gi%ing !ore
weight to H0s testi!on than his.
Issue+ &hether the )C should grant the appeal.
e!"+ :o.
1. Three guiding principles appl in the re%iew of e%idence in rape cases:
a. An accusation for rape can be !ade with facilitD it is difficult to pro%e but e%en !ore
difficult for the accused, though innocent, to dispro%eD
b. 7n %iew of the intrinsic nature of rape where often, onl two persons are in%ol%ed, the
co!plainant0s testi!on !ust be scrutini/ed with e"tre!e cautionD A:2
c. The prosecution0s e%idence !ust stand or fall on its own !erits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength fro! the wea1ness of the defense.
2. 2octrinal guidelines in scrutini/ing the credibilit of witnesses:
a. The appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a
showing that it had o%erloo1ed, !isunderstood or !isapplied so!e fact or
circu!stances of weight, and substance that would ha%e affected the result of the case.
b. The findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibilit of witnesses are entitled to great
respect and e%en finalit since it had the opportunit to e"a!ine their de!eanor as the
testified on the witness stand A:2
c. A witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and fran1 !anner
and re!ained consistent on cross.e"a!ination is a credible witness.
#1
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
a7"H61t17;
PEOPLE VS. PAGPAGUITAN
)epte!ber 1-, 1,,,
Facts+ The $udge con%icted A for raping H. <ne of errors assigned b A in his appeal is that the
$udge ordered H to write so!ething in open court after A clai!ed that H is his girlfriend and
sub!itted lo%e letters allegedl written b H. The $udge deter!ined that H did not write those
letters. A contended that such conclusion should ha%e been deter!ined b a handwriting e"pert
and not a $udge.
Issue+ &hether the $udge acted properl in co!paring the handwriting hi!self.
e!"+ ?es.
&hen a writing in issue is clai!ed on the one hand and denied upon the other to be the writing
of a particular person, an other writing of that person !a be ad!itted in e%idence for the
purpose of co!parison with the writing in dispute. 7t is also recogni/ed that a co!parison of
writing is a rational !ethod of in%estigationD si!ilarities and dissi!ilarities thus disclosed ha%e
probati%e %alue in the search for truth. Thus, it has been held that, where a co!parison is
per!issible, it !a be !ade b the court, with or without the aid of e"pert witnesses. The court
!a, in the e"ercise of its sound discretion, order a part to write or sign his signature as a basis
for co!parison. Eor, the handwriting of a person is characteristic of the person hi!self. <nce
ad!itted, the genuineness of other offered writings alleged to be the wor1 of the sa!e writer
beco!es a 6uestion for the trier of fact who !a, but need not, be assisted in this tas1 b
e"perts.
I"e7t1<1cat1.7
PEOPLE VS. GA$OMMA
)epte!ber *0, 1,,,
Facts+ A was accused of raping H. H identified A as the rapist through his %oice since it was
dar1 when she was raped. The court con%icted A. A appeals.
Issue+ &hether identification !a be !ade through sound of the %oice of a person.
e!"+ ?es.
The sound of the %oice of a person is an acceptable !eans of identification where it is
established that the witness and the accused 1new each other personall and closel for a
nu!ber of ears. H was a neighbor of AD she was a close friend and pla!ate of A0s daughter.
A e%en ad!itted that H treated hi! as her own uncle. All these pro%e that the %icti! was indeed
fa!iliar with the accused and had been in close contact with hi! for a long period of ti!e before
the incident. )he is therefore !ore than co!petent to recogni/e A b the sound of his %oice.
PEOPLE VS. RA%UI9O
)epte!ber *0, 1,,,
Facts+ A, + and C were accused of 1illing H and ?. H0s son, &, identified the! as the three
!en he saw loitering outside their house $ust before the incident and the three !en running
awa fro! the house after gunshots were fired, carring guns. The court found the! guilt.
The appealed saing that &0s identification was fault since he did not see the! in the act of
actuall shooting H and ?.
Issue+ &hether the were properl con%icted.
e!"+ ?es.
(ositi%e identification pertains essentiall to proof of identit and not per se to that of being an
eewitness to the %er act of the co!!ission of the cri!e. A witness !a identif a suspect or
#2
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
accused in a cri!inal case as the perpetrator of the cri!e as an eewitness to the %er act of
the co!!ission of the cri!e. This constitutes direct e%idence, which the accused here refers to.
There !a, howe%er, be instances where, although a witness !a not ha%e actuall seen the
%er act of co!!ission of a cri!e, he !a still be able to positi%el identif a suspect or
accused as the perpetrator of a cri!e, as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the
persons last seen with the %icti! i!!ediatel before and right after the co!!ission of the
cri!e. This second tpe of positi%e identification for!s part of circu!stantial e%idence, which,
when ta1en together with other pieces of e%idence constituting an unbro1en chain, leads to onl
one fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the cri!e to the
e"clusion of all others.
I7accu6ac1es 17 Test15.74
PEOPLE VS. GALLO
:o%e!ber 1#, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of 1illing H despite disparit between the post.!orte! report and the
testi!onies of the prosecution witnesses on how H was 1illed. 9e appealed.
Issue+ &hether the trial court acted properl in con%icting A.
e!"+ ?es.
The testi!onies of the prosecution witnesses ware ad!ittedl wanting in accurac. +ut his
cannot o%erturn the fact that A was positi%el identified as one of the ar!ed !alefactors who
encircled and attac1ed the %icti!. 9is presence at the locus criminis, not as a !ere passi%e
spectator but as an acti%e participant in the cabal, was ade6uatel established b the
prosecution. 7n fact, the witness was consistent in her testi!on that the ; na!ed assailants
surrounded and ganged up on her husband. 7n the dar1ness of the night, the witnesses could
no ha%e possibl obser%ed e%er single detail of the incident. This is especiall so since the
were !ade to recount an e%ent long past. )uch is the li!itation of hu!an !e!or.
LAC# OF MEDICO:LEGAL REPORT
PEOPLE VS. LASOLA
:o%e!ber 1-, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of raping H, his daughter. The rape was established b the testi!onies
of H and & who was H0s !other and A0s wife. A 6uestions his con%iction because of the lac1 of
a !edico.legal report.
Issue+ &hether A was correctl con%icted despite the absence of the !edico.legal report.
e!"+ ?es.
A !edico.legal report is not indispensable when e%idence other than the sa!e point to the
inescapable guilt of the accused. 7t is !erel corroborati%e e%idence, the absence of which
would not pre%ent the prosecution fro! establishing the fact of rape, which in this case, was
pro%ed not $ust b the lone testi!on of the %icti! but also b another witness in the person of
her !other.
MOTIVE
PEOPLE VS. RENATO
<ctober 11, 1,,,
Facts+ A was accused of 1illing H. 9e was identified b H0s wife who was with H when A 1illed
H. A clai!ed that it was + who 1illed H since + had the !oti%e to 1ill H. H allegedl 1illed +0s
father prior to the incident in 6uestion. The trial court con%icted A.
#*
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Issue+ &hether the trial court acted properl.
e!"+ ?es.
8%en if + had the !oti%e to 1ill H, !oti%e onl beco!es crucial if there is no positi%e
identification of the offender. The positi%e identification of A is weightier than his bare denial.
NeH!4 D1sc.2e6e" E21"e7ce
PAULINO VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLE
April 12, 2000
Facts+ This is a cri!inal prosecution for %iolation of +( +lg. 22. The accused was con%icted of
the cri!e charged. <n appeal, the CA affir!ed the trial court0s $udg!ent.
Issue+ &hether the CA erred when it did not re!and the case for new trial based on newl
disco%ered e%idence.
e!"+ :o. The Court cannot sustain the contention of the accused that pri%ate co!plainant0s
affida%it of desistance is newl disco%ered e%idence which can tip the scales in his fa%or if a new
trial were to be granted. The re6uisites for newl disco%ered e%idence as a ground for a new
trial are: @1A the e%idence was disco%ered after the trialD @2A such e%idence could not ha%e been
disco%ered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligenceD and @*A that it is !aterial, not
!erel cu!ulati%e, corroborati%e, or i!peaching, and is of such weight that, if ad!itted, will
probabl change the $udg!ent. 7n the instant case, pri%ate co!plainant e"ecuted her Affida%it of
2esistance onl on 'a 1C, 1,,8 or si" ears after her testi!on and after the CA had affir!ed
the trial court0s decision and had denied the accused0s !otion for reconsideration. 7t is settled
that affida%its of recantation !ade b a witness after the con%iction of the accused deser%e onl
scant consideration. 'oreo%er, there is nothing in said affida%it, which would support a different
conclusion. The third re6uisite is, therefore, lac1ing.
N.7:F!1;Ct .< tCe Accuse"
PEOPLE VS. COSTELO
<ctober 1*, 1,,,
Facts+ A, + and C were accused of 1illing H. The were con%icted. + clai!ed that he had
nothing to do with the 1illing and his non.flight was proof of that.
Issue+ &hether the innocence of + was pro%ed b his non.flight.
e!"+ :o.
+ contends that his failure to lea%e the pre!ises i!!ediatel after the cri!e was co!!itted is a
strong indication of his innocence. This is incorrect, considering the $urisprudence and all the
pieces of e%idence against +, non.flight is not a conclusi%e proof of innocence and is thus not
enough to e"culpate hi!.
N.7:P6ese7tat1.7 .< a W1t7ess
PEOPLE VS. BARELLANO
2ece!ber 2, 1,,,
Facts+ H was drin1ing tuba together with his buddies ? and O when A shot hi!. At the trial, the
prosecution presented ? as its witness. A was con%icted. A now appeals clai!ing that the court
erred since O was ne%er presented as witness nor had he e"ecuted an affida%it.
Issue+ &hether A was properl con%icted.
e!"+ ?es.
#C
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
A clai!ed that the failure of the prosecution to present O as a witness raises the presu!ption
that if produced his testi!on would not be fa%orable to the prosecution. 9owe%er, as held
in the case of People vs. !ilvestre, the prosecution has the discretion to decide on who to
call as witness during trial and its failure to do so did not gi%e rise to the presu!ption that
4e%idence willfull suppressed would be ad%erse if produced5 since the e%idence was at the
disposal of both parties. Also, O0s testi!on would !erel be corroborati%e of that of the
two eewitnesses. The ad%erse e%identiar presu!ption in%o1ed b A does not appl when
testi!on of the witness not produced would onl be corroborati%e. :o pre$udicial inference
can arise against a part who fails to call a witness where the onl ob$ect of presenting hi!
would be to produce corroborati%e or cu!ulati%e e%idence.
PARAFFIN TESTS
PEOPLE VS. ABALOS
2ece!ber 22, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of !urdering H, who was shot. 9e was con%icted despite the negati%e
result of the paraffin test conducted on hi!. 9e appealed.
Issue+ &hether the accused should be ac6uitted.
e!"+ :o.
A witness was able to identif A as the shooter. Anent the paraffin test, it is true that it produced
a negati%e result but such fact does not "pso facto !erit A0s ac6uittal. The absence of powder
burns in a suspect0s hand is not conclusi%e proof that he has not fired a gun. 7n fact, the traces
of nitrates can easil be re!o%ed b the si!ple act of washing one0s hand.
P.!1ce B!.tte6 E7t61es
PEOPLE VS. SILVA
2ece!ber 2,, 1,,,
Facts+ A, + and C were charged with the !urder of H. The were con%icted because of the
testi!on of &, H0s !other, who allegedl saw the! ganging up on H and shooting hi!. A, +
and C are &0s neighbors. The now appeal clai!ing that &0s identification could not be the
basis of con%iction since she onl 4re%ealed5 their identities three !onths fro! the incident as
e%idence b the police blotter entries wherein the felons were described as 4three unidentified
!alefactors5.
Issue+ &hether A, + and C were properl con%icted.
e!"+ ?es.
(olice blotter entries should not be gi%en undue significance or probati%e %alue for the are
usuall inco!plete and inaccurate, so!eti!es fro! either partial suggestions or for want of
suggestions or in6uires. 8ntries in a police blotter are !erel pri!a facie e%idence of the facts
stated therein but the are not conclusi%e. Also, & has positi%el identified the three accused
as perpetrators in a cri!e co!!itted in broad dalight and within her full %iew.
P6esu58t1.7 O< Sa71t4
PEOPLE VS. RODOLFO VILLAA JR.
April 2-, 2000
Eacts: Accused was charged with !ultiple !urder. +efore the defense could present its
e%idence, howe%er, counsel de oficio !anifested his inabilit to confer with the accused but
!o%ed that a pschiatric e"a!ination of the accused be !ade to deter!ine his !ental
condition. The !otion was granted. After !ore than a !onth of pschiatric e%aluation, the
attending phsicians sub!itted tot he trial court a pschiatric e%aluation report, which stated that
#;
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
accused was suffering fro! 7nsanit or (schosis classified as )chi/ophrenia and that the
accused is at that ti!e inco!petent to stand trial. &hen accused0s status had i!pro%ed enough
for hi! to withstand the rigors of the trial, trial resu!ed, with the accused now raising insanit as
a defense. The trial court con%icted the accused of the cri!e charged.
7ssue: &hether the accused0s defense of insanit was properl pleaded.
9eld: :o. 7t could be that accused was insane at the ti!e he was e"a!ined at the center. +ut, in
all probabilit, such insanit was contracted during the period of his detention pending trial. 9we
was without contact with friends and relati%es !ost of the ti!e. 9e was troubled b his
conscience, the reali/ation of the gra%it of the offenses and the thought of a blea1 future for
hi!. The confluence of these circu!stances !a ha%e conspired to disrupt his !ental
e6uilibriu!. +ut, it !ust be stressed, that an in6uir into the !ental state of accused.appellant
should related to the period i!!ediatel before or an in6uir into the !ental state of the
accused should relate to the period i!!ediatel before or at the precise !o!ent of doing the
act which is the sub$ect of the in6uir, and his !ental condition after that crucial period or during
the trial is inconse6uential for purposes of deter!ining his cri!inal liabilit. 7n fine, the Court
needs !ore concrete e%idence on the !ental condition of the person alleged to be insane at the
ti!e of the perpetration of the cri!es in order that the e"e!pting circu!stance of insanit !a
be appreciated in his fa%or. The accused !iserabl failed to discharge the burden of o%erco!ing
the presu!ption that he co!!itted the cri!es freel, 1nowingl and intelligentl.
RECANTATION
PEOPLE VS. LORETO AMBAN
'arch 1, 2000
Facts+ Accused was charged with ha%ing raped his 12.ear old daughter. 7t appears that shortl
after filing the co!plaint, the %icti! was placed in the custod of an institution run b religious
sisters. Thereafter, the %icti!0s !other was granted custod of the %icti! on the condition that
she would return the %icti! on 2ece!ber -. 9owe%er, once in custod of her daughter, the
!other refused to return her to 2)&2. Eor her part, after testifing for the prosecution on
<ctober 2, the %icti! testified as a witness for the defense on Januar -, the following ear. The
RTC rendered its decision of con%iction. 7t re$ected the %icti!0s recantation and ga%e credence
to her pre%ious testi!on. <n appeal, the accused contended that on the basis of the %icti!0s
recantation, he is entitled to an ac6uittal.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in re$ecting the %icti!0s recantation.
e!"+ :o. 'ere retraction b a prosecution witness does not necessaril %itiate his original
testi!on. 7n this case, the trial court, in gi%ing credence to the %icti!0s testi!on for the
prosecution rather than to her testi!on for the defense, noted that the %icti! was full of
hesitation when she testified as a recanting witness. 7n fact when she was !ade to swear to an
oath before the start of her testi!on, she was as1ed three ti!es before she could sa es. 9er
recanting testi!on was halting, half.hearted and %ague.
RELATIONSIP OF WITNESS
PEOPLE VS. PATALINGUG
:o%e!ber 1#, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of 1illing H because of &0s testi!on. A appealed clai!ing that the trial
court should not ha%e ta1en &0s testi!on into account since & is related to H.
e!"+ ?es.
##
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
The weight of the testi!on of the witness, & is not i!paired or in anwa affected b his
relationship to the %icti!, H, when there is no showing of i!proper !oti%e on the part of the
witnesses.
RELUCTANCE TO TESTIF$
PEOPLE VS. LACICA
<ctober 12, 1,,,
Facts+ A was con%icted of !urdering H because of &0s identification that A was one of the !en
who 1illed H. & was watching fro! his triccle when A and two other !en stabbed H to death.
A contended that & could not be belie%ed since & was reluctant to testif in the first place and
&0s beha%ior in $ust watching the !urder affects &0s credibilit.
Issue+ &hether &0s beha%ior affects his credibilit.
e!"+ :o.
&itnessing a cri!e is an unusual e"perience which elicits different reactions fro! witnesses.
Therefor, no clear cut standard for! of beha%ior can be drawn. The fact that & did not help the
%icti! or report the incident to the police is of no !o!ent. 7t does not !a1e his reaction less
nor!al under the attendant circu!stances. Thus, his reluctance in getting in%ol%ed in the case,
on the face of the threat on his life b the relati%es of the culprits, should not detract fro! the
faith and credit his testi!on deser%es.
RES GESTAE
PEOPLE VS. CARI%UE&
)epte!ber 2-, 1,,,
Facts+ A and + were con%icted of 1illing H, a two.ear old, through !altreat!ent and continuous
beating. <ne of the e%idence considered b the court in con%icting A and + was &0s
state!ent that H told her that A and + beat her repeatedl. A and + clai!ed that &0s
state!ent was hearsa and therefore should not be ad!itted.
Issue+ &hether &0s state!ent is inad!issible.
e!"+ :o.
1. H0s state!ent as to who inflicted the in$uries !a ha%e been hearsa because H could not
be confronted on that, et it was part of the res gestae and therefore, an e"ception to the
hearsa rule.
2. There are three re6uisites for an state!ent to be ad!issible as part of the res gestae:
a. The principal act, the res gestae, !ust be a startling occurrence.
b. The state!ents were !ade before the declarant had ti!e to contri%e or de%ised
A:2
c. The state!ents !ust concern the occurrence in 6uestion and its i!!ediatel attending
circu!stances.
*. 9ere, the startling occurrence was the torture inflicted on H, who pointed to A and + as those
who caused the!. Although so!e ti!e !a ha%e lapsed between the infliction of the
in$uries and the disclosure, it !ust be pointed out that there has been no unifor!it as to the
inter%al of ti!e that should separate the occurrence of the startling e%ent fro! the !a1ing of
the declarations.
Se!<:Se6217; Dec!a6at1.7s
PEOPLE VS. CERVETO
)epte!ber *0, 1,,,
#-
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Facts+ A and + were accused of robber with ho!icide. The police!en who chased after the!
testified in the trial. A and + clai!ed that the were fra!ed and ga%e alibis. The trial court
con%icted the! anwa. The appeal.
Issue+ &hether the court erred in gi%ing !ore credence to the police0s testi!on.
e!"+ :o.
The defenses of denial, fra!e.up and alibi are all inherentl or !ost fre6uentl, wea1 defenses
that are correctl re$ected b trial court. )uch defenses which belong to the sa!e categor
re6uire clear and con%incing e%idence in the face of the presu!ption that police officer acted in
the regular perfor!ance of their official duties. 'ore i!portantl, there is no showing that the
police!en were actuated b i!proper !oti%e when the arrested accused.appellant. Those
defenses are self.ser%ing negati%e e%idence that cannot be gi%en greater weight than the
declarations of credible witnesses who testified on affir!ati%e !atters.
Test15.74 .< S.!e W1t7ess
PEOPLE VS. AVILLANA
'a 12, 2000
charged. 7n this appeal, the accused contended, a!ong others, that the court erred in con%icting
hi! considering that the defense presented three witnesses and the prosecution presented onl
one.
Issue+ &hether an accused !a be con%icted of a cri!e based onl on the testi!on of a sole
witness.
e!"+ ?es. 7t is well.settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not nu!bered, such that the
testi!on of a single, trustworth and credible witness could be sufficient to con%ict an accused.
Cri!inals are con%icted, not on the nu!ber of witnesses against the!, but on the credibilit of
the testi!on of e%en one witness who is able to con%ince the court of the guilt of the accused
beond a shadow of doubt.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
EFt6a:Ju"1c1a! Sett!e5e7t
EIRS OF TEVES VS. CA
<ctober 1*, 1,,,
Facts+ The heirs of A e"ecuted an e"tra$udicial settle!ent of A0s estate which was not
registered. <ne heir who was not satisfied with his share filed a case to declare such
settle!ent ineffecti%e.
Issue+ &hether the e"tra.$udicial settle!ent is binding a!ong the heirs.
e!"+ ?es.
1. The e"tra.$udicial settle!ent is %alid since the following re6uisites concurred:
a. The decedent left no will
b. The decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid
c. The heirs are all of age or if the are !inors, the latter are represented b their
$udicial guardian or legal representati%es
d. The partition was !ade b !eans of a public instru!ent or affida%it dul filed with the
Register of 2eeds.
#8
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
2. The re6uire!ent that a partition be put in a public docu!ent and registered has for its
purpose the protection of creditors and at the sa!e ti!e the protection of the heirs
the!sel%es against the tard clai!s. The ob$ect of the registration is to ser%e as
constructi%e notice to others.
*. 7t follows that the intrinsic %alidit of partition not e"ecuted with the prescribed for!alities
does not co!e into pla when there are no creditors or the rights of the creditors are not
affected. &here no such rights are in%ol%ed, it is co!petent for the heirs of an estate to
enter into an agree!ent for distribution in a !anner and upon a plan different fro! those
pro%ided b law.
9A+8A) C<R(G)
LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGIA VS. RODRIGUE&
Januar *1, 2000
Facts+ A was deported fro! the (hilippines and was barred fro! entering the (hilippines. +ut
he re.entered the countr using an alias. 9e was subse6uentl caught b i!!igration agents
and charged with %iolation of QC;@dA of the (hilippine 7!!igration Act. 9e then filed a petition
for habeas corpus.
Issue+ &hether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted.
e!"+ :o.
The writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his libert
is charged with an offense in the (hilippines. 9ere, A is charged with %iolation of QC;@dA of the
(hilippine 7!!igration Act. 9e is now detained because of said charge and therefore his
petition for release on a writ of habeas corpus is without !erit.
P6.3ate C.u6t
MODINA VS. CA
<ctober 2,, 1,,,
Facts+ ( filed a case for rescission of a sale against 2. The propert in%ol%ed was part of the
estate of 20s first husband and the sale was !ade with prior authorit of the probate court. 2
clai!ed that the trial court has no $urisdiction since the sale was !ade upon prior authorit of
the probate court.
Issue+ &hether the trial court !a rescind a sale !ade upon prior authorit of the probate
court.
e!"+ ?es.
An RTC has $urisdiction o%er a case brought to rescind a sale !ade upon prior authorit of a
(robate Court. This does not constitute an interference or re%iew of the order of a co.e6ual
court since the probate court has no $urisdiction o%er the 6uestion of title to sub$ect properties.
Thus, a separate action !a be brought to deter!ine the 6uestion of ownership.
MALOLES VS. PILLIPS
Januar *1, 2000
Facts+ A, during his lifeti!e, filed a petition for probate of his will in +ranch #1, clai!ing that he
had no co!pulsor heirs and left all his properties to a foundation. 9e na!ed 2 as e"ecutri".
The will was allowed and A subse6uentl died. ( filed a !otion for inter%ention clai!ing to be
A0s nephew while 2 filed a !otion for issuance of letters testa!entar which 2 later withdrew. 2
refiled her !otion with +ranch #;. +ranch #; appointed 2 as special ad!inistrator but later
ordered the transfer of 20s case to +ranch #1. 9owe%er, +ranch #1 re!anded the second case
bac1 to +ranch #;.
#,
REMEDI AL LAW
DI GESTS
Issue+ &hether +ranch #; has $urisdiction.
e!"+ ?es.
After +ranch #1 allowed the will of A, it had nothing else to do e"cept to issue a certificate of
allowance of the will pursuant to Rule -* Q12 of the Rules of Court. After A0s death, insofar as
the %enue of the petition for probate of the will of A is concerned, it does not bar other branches
of the sa!e court fro! ta1ing cogni/ance of the settle!ent of the estate of the testator after his
death. Thus, +ranch #; has $urisdiction.
-0

Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Complete 20 Remedial 20 Digests

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

REMEDI AL LAW

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi