RULE 15-19

People vs. Perez, 397 SCRA 12, February 05, 2003

1. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Leading Questions; General Rule; ExceptionsAs a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the
witness is a child of tender years as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without
prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant
lips.
2. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; The trend in procedural law is to give
wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness.The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the
questioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the
truth, (2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the
child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of
time. Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the
interests of justice.
3. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; The Court has repeatedly stated that it is
highly inconceivable for a child of tender age, to subject herself to public trial, unless she was
motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.The Court has repeatedly stated that it is highly inconceivable for a child of tender age,
inexperienced in the ways of the world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical
examination of her private part, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her familys honor and
reputation, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to seek justice for the wrong committed
against her.
4. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; As the Court has stressed in numerous
cases, when a woman or a child victim says that she has been raped, she in effect says all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.As the Court has stressed in numerous cases, when a woman or a child victim says that she has been
raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.
5. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; Police Line-Up Identification; Moreover,
the Court has held that there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper
identification.Moreover, the Court has held that there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper
identification. Even without a police line-up, there could still be a proper identification as long as the
police did not suggest such identification to the witnesses.

6. Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Child Witnesses; Facts stipulated and evidence admitted
during pre-trial bind the parties.Facts stipulated and evidence admitted during pre-trial bind the parties. Section 4, Rule 118 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC. 4. Pre-trial order.After the pre-trial
conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and
evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and
control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest
injustice. (Emphasis supplied)

Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, 403 SCRA 678 , June 10, 2003
1. Remedial Law; Pre-Trial; The failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same
effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial i.e. the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the
court shall render judgment on the basis thereof; The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for
reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable neglect.Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a
pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, i.e., the plaintiff may
present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The remedy
of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. The motion need not really stress the fact
that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his
defenses is already on record.
2. Remedial Law; Pre-Trial; Pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their nonobservance may result in prejudice to a partys substantive rights.If it were true that petitioner did not understand the import of the April 23, 1997 order directing
him to file a pre-trial brief, he could have inquired from the court or filed a motion for extension of
time to file the brief. Instead, he waited until May 26, 1997, or 14 days from his alleged receipt of
the April 23, 1997 order before he filed a motion asking the court to excuse his failure to file a brief.
Pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their non-observance may result in
prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they should be followed except only for the
most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed.
3. Remedial Law; Pre-Trial; Fact that petitioner was not assisted by a lawyer is not a persuasive reason
to relax the application of the rules.In the instant case, the fact that petitioner was not assisted by a lawyer is not a persuasive reason to
relax the application of the rules. There is nothing in the Constitution which mandates that a party in
a non-criminal proceeding be represented by counsel and that the absence of such representation
amounts to a denial of due process. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.
The legal profession is not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of
its members the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated.

Yao vs. Perello, 414 SCRA 474 , October 24, 2003

1. Courts; Judgments; Writs of Execution; It is a basic precept that the power of the court in the
execution of judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment
debtor.It is a basic precept that the power of the court in the execution of judgments extends only to
properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. The levy by the sheriff on property by
virtue of a writ of attachment may be considered as made under the authority of the court only vis-vis property belonging to the defendant. For indeed, one mans goods shall not be sold for
another mans debts. In the case at bar, the property levied on by the sheriff was clearly not
exclusively owned by Pablito Villarin. It was co-owned by herein private respondent who was a
stranger in the HLURB case. The property relation of spouses Villarin was governed by the regime of
complete separation of property as decreed in the order dated November 10, 1998 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 27, Paraaque City.
2. Actions; Prohibition; Parties; Intervention; Requisites; Nothing in Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court requires the inclusion of a private party as respondent in petitions for prohibition.Consequently, petitioners claim that he had the right to intervene is without basis. Nothing in the
said provision requires the inclusion of a private party as respondent in petitions for prohibition. On
the other hand, to allow intervention, it must be shown that (a) the movant has a legal interest in
the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified, and (b) consideration must be given as to whether the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the
intervenors rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements must
concur as the first is not more important than the second.
3. Actions; Intervention; The motion for intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of
judgment by the trial court.As provided in the Rules of Court, the motion for intervention may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court. Petitioner filed his motion only on April 25, 2002, way
beyond the period set forth in the rules. The court resolution granting private respondents petition
for prohibition and lifting the levy on the subject property was issued on March 22, 2002. By April 6,
2002, after the lapse of 15 days, the said resolution had already become final and executory.
4. Actions; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless
a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to
correct its errors, if any.Besides, the mere fact that petitioner failed to move for the reconsideration of the trial courts
resolution is sufficient cause for the outright dismissal of the instant petition. Certiorari as a special
civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent court
to allow it an opportunity to correct its errors, if any.

Pinlac vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 635 , January 19, 2001

1. An action for annulment of judgment is grounded only on two justifications: (1) extrinsic fraud; and
(2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. All that herein private respondents had to prove was
that the trial court had no jurisdiction; that they were prevented from having a trial or presenting
their case to the trial court by some act or conduct of petitioners; or that they had been denied due
process of law. Thus, the Court of Appeals need only to resolve the issues of lack of jurisdiction,
existence of extrinsic fraud, and denial of due process of law.
2. The action for annulment of judgment cannot and was not a substitute for the lost remedy of
appeal. The very purpose of the action for annulment of judgment was to have the final and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. Whether or not the
assailed Partial Decision based solely on facts and evidence presented by the petitioners is
meritorious is irrelevant and immaterial. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err, nor did it violate the
petitioners right to due process of law, when it refused to consider all the factual issues raised by
petitioners.
3. While the service of summons by publication may have been done with the approval of the trial
court, it does not cure the fatal defect that the Metropolitan Newsweek is not a newspaper of
general circulation in Quezon City. The Rules strictly require that publication must be in a newspaper
of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. The court orders
relied upon by petitioners did not specify the place and the length of time that the summons was to
be published. In the absence of such specification, publication in just any periodical does not satisfy
the strict requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of the court a quo coupled with the
defective publication of the summons rendered the service by publication ineffective. The modes of
service of summons should be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over
the respondents, and failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules regarding the
order of its publication is a fatal defect in the service of summons. It cannot be overemphasized that
the statutory requirements of service of summons, whether personally, by substituted service, or by
publication, must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any mode of service other than that
prescribed by the statute is considered ineffective.