remedial red notes 2015

8/17/2019 Remedial Red Notes 2015

1/59

R E M E D I A L L A W 2005 CENTRALIZED B AR OPERATIONS

MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSSource: U.P. Law Center

EFFECT OF AMENDMENT TO A PLEADING

Ingr an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land filed in the Regional Trial Court, thedefendanDefendant through his lawyer, filed an answer therein admitting the averment in thecomplaint that the land was acquired y the plaintiff through inheritance from his parents, the formerowners thereof.

Susequently, the defendant changed his lawyer and, with leave of court, amended the answer.!n the amended answer, the aovementioned admission no longer appears" instead, the allegedownership of the land y the plaintiff was denied coupled with the allegation that the defendant is theowner of the land for the reason that he ought the same from the plaintiff#s parents during theirlifetime.

$fter trial, the %egional &rial Court rendered a decision upholding the defendant#s ownership of the land.

'n appeal, the plaintiff contended that the defendant is ound y the admission contained inhis original answer.

!s the contention of plaintiff correct( )hy(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, ecause pleadings that have een amended disappear from the record, lose their status aspleadings and cease to e *udicial admissions. )hile they may nonetheless e utili+ed as against thepleader as etra*udicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, e formally offered inevidence. -Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 94)

A!TERNATI"E ANSWER

YES, ecause an admission in the original pleading does not cease to e a *udicial admissionsimply ecause it was deleted in an amended pleading. &he original answer, although replaced y an

amended answer does not cease to e part of a *udicial record, not having een epunged therefrom.-Dissenting opinion in Torres vs. Court of Appeals, 11 SCRA !4)

REMEDIES OF A PARTY DECLARED IN DEFAULT

)hat are the availale remedies of party declared in default:./ 0efore the rendition of *udgment" 12./ $fter *udgment ut efore its finality" and 213./ $fter finality of *udgment( 21

SUGGESTED ANSWER

&he availale remedies of a party declared in default are as follows:

./ 0efore the rendition of *udgment

-a/ he may file a motion to dismiss under oath to set aside the order of default on thegrounds of fraud, accident, mista4e or ecusale negligence and that he has ameritorious defense - Sec. 356 of %ule 7 /" and if reconsideration is denied, he mayfile the special civil action of certiorari for grave ause of discretion tantamountto lac4 or ecess of *urisdiction - Sec. of %ule 89 /" or

-/ he may file a petition for certiorari if he has een illegally declared in derfault e.g.during the pendency of his motion to dismiss or efore the epiration of the timeto answer. - atute v. C$, 28 SC%$ ;8? or >, whichever isapplicale.

3./ $fter finality of the *udgment, there are three ways to assail the *udgment, which are:

-a/ a petition for relied under %ule 3< on the grounds of fraud, accident, mista4eor ecusale negligence"

-/ annulment of *udgment under %ule >; for etrinsic fraud or lac4 of *urisdiction"-c/ certiorari if the *udgment is void on its face or y the *udicial record. -

0alangcad vs. @ustices of the Court of $ppeals, A.%. Bo.


2/59

San Beda Collegeof Law

R E M E D I A L L A W

)hat is the effect of the death of a party upon a pending action(

SUGGESTED ANSWER)hen the claim in a pending action is purely personal, the death of either of the parties

etinguishes the claim and the action is dismissed. )hen the claim is not purely personal and is nottherey etinguished, the party should e sustituted y his heirs or his eecutor or administrator. -Sec. 8 of %ule 3/. !f the action for recovery of money arising from contract, epress or implied, andthe defendant dies efore the entry of final *udgment in the court in which the action was pending atthe time of such death, it shall not e dismissed ut shall instead e allowed to continue until entry of final *udgment. $ favorale *udgment otained y the plaintiff shall e enforced in the mannerprovided in the rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. - Sec. 2? of %ule3/

THIRD PARTY CLAIM; WRIT OF INJUNCTION

nforcing a writ of eecution issued y the Pasig %egional &rial Court in a civil action, thesheriff attached several pieces of machinery and equipment found in defendant#s place of usiness.$ntonio Sadalay filed with the sheriff an affidavit of third=party claim stating that the attachedproperties elong to him, not to the defendant.

-a/ Can Sadalay intervene in the case and as4 the Pasig %&C to resolve his third=party claim(-/ !f Sadalay decides to file a separate action in the %egional &rial Court in a4ati to vindicate

his claim, may he validly otain a writ of in*unction from the a4ati %&C to en*oin the sale ineecution of the levied properties(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a./ NO, Sadalay may not intervene in the case ecause intervention is allowed onlyefore or during the trial of the case. !n this case there is already a final and eecutory*udgment. -Sec. 2, %ule 7" 0ayer Phils. Es. $gana, 83 SC%$ 399/ Fowever, he may as4 the

Pasig %&C to resolve preliminarily whether the sheriff acted rightly or wrongly in levyingeecution on the properties in question. -'ng vs. &ating, >7 SC%$ 289/

./ YES, ecause a *udgment rendered in his favor y the a4ati court declaring him toe the owner of the properties levied on would not constitute interference with the powers orprocesses of the Pasig Court which rendered the *udgment to enforce the eecution. !f that isso, an interlocutory order such as the writ of preliminary in*unction against the sheriff, upon aclaim and prima facie showing of ownership, cannot e considered as such interference.- A"iera vs. CA, 4# SCRA 14$ S% vs. Disca%a, 1&1 SCRA '&)

WRIT OF EXECUTION

Plaintiff sued to recover an unpaid loan and was awarded P333,???.?? y the %&C of anila.Defendant did not appeal within the period allowed y law. Fe died si days after the lapse of theperiod to appeal. orthwith, a petition for the settlement of his estate was properly filed with the %&Cof Pampanga where an inventory of all his assets was filed and correspondingly approved. &hereafter,plaintiff filed a motion for eecution with the anila court, contending therein that the motion waslegally *ustified ecause the defendant died after the *udgment in the anila court had ecome final.%esolve the motion and state your reasons.

. /Under the same set of facts as -a/, a writ of eecution was issued y the anila court uponproper motion three days after the lapse of the period to appeal. &he corresponding levy oneecution was duly effected on defendant#s parcel of land worth P888,???.?? a day efore thedefendant died. )ould it e proper, on motion, to lift the levy on defendant#s property( State

the reasons for your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

-a/ otion for eecution denied.$lthough the defendant died after the *udgment had ecome final and eecutory, it cannot

e enforced y a writ of eecution against the estate of the deceased which is in custodia legis. &he*udgment should e filed as a proven money claim with the %&C of Pampanga. -(aredes vs. o%a, 61SCRA #!')

-/ Bo, since the levy on eecution was duly effected on defendant#s parcel of land a dayefore the defendant died, it was valid. &he land may e sold for the satisfaction of the *udgment andthe surplus shall e accounted for y the sheriff to the corresponding eecutor or administrator. -Sec.

'*c) of Rule 9)

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


3/59


COUNTERCLAIM

G filed an action for damages against & arising from the latter#s tortuous act. H filed his $nswerwith a counterclaim for damages suffered and epenses incurred on account of G#s suit. &hereafter, G

moves to dismiss the case since he lost interest in the case. H did not o*ect. &he court dismissed theaction without pre*udice. H moved the to set the reception of his evidence to prove his counterclaim.!f you were the *udge, how would you resolve the motion( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

! would deny the motion. !nasmuch as H#s counterclaim for damages incurred on account of G#ssuit cannot remain pending for independent ad*udication, H should have o*ected to the dismissal of the complaint. Fis failure to o*ect deprived him of the right to present evidence to prove hiscounterclaim. - Sec. ! of Rule 1'$ +notorio v. Lira, 1! SCRA 69 ).

ADJUDICATION OF CASES WITHOUT TRIAL

Can civil and criminal cases e ad*udicated without trial( plain

SUGGESTED ANSWERCivil Cases may e ad*udicated without trial, such as in the following rules:a./ Summary @udgment./ @udgment on the Pleadingsc./ Summary Procedured./ Sec. 3 of %ule ;

Criminal cases as a rule may not e ad*udicated without trial. Someeceptions are the following:

a./ Plea of guilty./ otion to quash on the ground of doule *eopardy or etinction of criminal action or

liailityc./ otion to dismiss on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy trial.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI; WHEN MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION NOT NECESSARY

!s the failure to file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court as a condition precedentfor the granting of the writ of certiorari or prohiition always fatal( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, ecause there are eceptions, such as the following:a./ &he question of *urisdiction was squarely raised efore and decided y the

respondent court./ Pulic interest is involvedc./ Case of urgencyd./ 'rder is patent nullitye./ !ssue is purely of lawf./ Deprivation of right to due process

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERICE OF SUMMONS

)hen is etra=territorial service of summons proper(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

traterritorial service of summons is proper when the defendant does not reside and is notfound in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or thesu*ect of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien orinterest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in ecludingthe defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has een attached withinthe Philippines. -Sec. ; of %ule >/ !t is also proper when the defendant ordinarily resides within thePhilippines, ut is temporarily out of it. -Sec. 1& of Rule 14)

RES JUDICATA

velyn filed a complaint for a sum of money against @oan ut the complaint was later dismissedfor failure to prosecute Iwithin a reasonale length of time.J &hereafter, velyn filed another caseased on the same facts against @oan. @oan moved to dismiss the same on the ground that the cause of

action therein is arred y a prior *udgment -res *udicata/. velyn opposed the motion claiming that re*udicata has not set in since @oan was not served with summons and the complaint in the first case was

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


4/59



earlier dismissed, so that the trial court never acquired *urisdiction over her person and, consequently,over the case. Fow would you decide the motion of @oan( plain.

SUGGESTD ANSWER&he motion to dismiss is denied. 'ne of the essential requisites of res *udicata is *urisdiction

over the parties. !nasmuch as @oan was not served with the summons in the first case which wasearlier dismissed, the court did not acquire *urisdiction over her person and, hence, the dismissal waswithout pre*udice to the filing of another action against her. -%epulic Planters 0an4 vs. olina,Septemer 2


5/59


personal property involved as certified under oath y the parties concerned and conditionedupon payment of any *ust claim that may e filed within two -2/ years y an heir or otherperson unduly deprived of participation in the estate. &he fact of etra*udicial settlement oradministration shall e pulished in a newspaper of general circulation once a wee4 for three-3/ consecutive wee4s. * Sec.1, Rule '4.)

2./ !f %ene left only one heir, then the heir ma ad*udicate to himself the entire estate y meansof an affidavit of self=ad*udication to e filed also with the register of deeds, together with the otherrequirements aovementioned. -id./

3./ Since the value of %ene#s estate eceed P?,???.??, the remedy is to proceed to underta4e asummary settlement of estates of mall value y filing a petition in court and upon hearing,which shall eheld not less than one -/ month nor more that three -3/ months from the date of the last pulication of a notice which shall e pulished once a wee4 for three -3/ consecutivewee4s in a newspaper of general circulation in the province and after such other notice tointerested persons as the court may direct. &he court may proceed summarily without theappointment of an eecutor or administrator, and without delay, grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any, to estate, and to apportion and divide among them after payment of such dets

of the estate as the court shall then find to e due. &he order of partition if it involves realestate, shall e recorded y the proper register#s office. - Sec.!, rule '4).

AMENDMENT S! SUBSTITUTION OF INFORMATION

)ithin the contet of the rule on Criminal Procedure, distinguish an amendment from asustitution of an information.

SUGGESTED ANSWER$n amendment may e made in sustance and form, without leave of court, at any time

efore an accused pleads, and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, y leave andat the discretion of the court, when the same can e done without pre*udice to the rights of theaccused. Sustitution may e made if it appears at any time efore *udgment that a mista4e has een

made in charging the proper offense, in which case, the court shall dismiss the complaint orinformation upon filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with %ule 7, Sec. ,provided that the accused would not e placed therey in doule *eopardy and may also require thewitnesses to give ail for their appearance at the trial. - Sec. 14, Rule 11$ Tee-anee, /r. vs. ada%ag, !' SCRA 14 /.

STOP AND FRISK SEARCH

)hat is a &erry search - or so called Istop and fris4J /( !s it *ustified under eisting law and*urisprudence( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER$ &erry search is a stop=and=search without a warrant. !t is *ustified when conducted y police

officers on the ases of prior confidential information which were reasonaly corroorated y otherattendant matters. - $niag, @r. vs. Comelec, 23; SC%$ >2> /.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Aeorge was charged with falsification. 'n the date of initial trial, the fiscal moved for thepostponement on the ground that the case had een assigned to a special prosecutor of the D'@ whowas out of town to attend to an urgent case, and who had wires him to request for postponement. &hefiscal manifested that he was not ready for trial ecause he was unfamiliar with the case. &he *udgethen as4ed the accused as well as his counsel whether they were amenale to a postponement. 0othAeorge and his counsel insisted on a trial. &he *udge ordered the case dismissed.

Upon learning thereof, the special prosecutor filed a petition for certiorari under %ule 89 of the

%ules of Court alleging that the dismissal was capricious and deprived the government of due process.Aeorge opposed the petition invo4ing doule *eopardy.a./ !s doule *eopardy a ar to the petition( plain../ Suppose that trial on the merits had in fact proceeded and the trial *udge, finding the evidence to

e insufficient, dismissed the case, would your answer e the same( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a.) NO, ecause this is not an appeal y the prosecution asserting a dismissal to e erroneous. !tis a petition for certiorari which assails the order of dismissal as invalid and a nullity ecauseit was capricious and deprived the Aovernment of due process. Considering that this was thefirst motion for postponement of the trial filed y the fiscal and the ground was meritorious,the *udge gravely aused his discretion in ordering the case dismissed. I8 09*3* %. &+ )"(%

%./%.."( +3 0*3/%&"0%+& +8 09* :".*, 09*3* %. &+ $".%. 8+3 %&)+#%&' +$(* *+"3

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


6/59



".) NO, ecause in such case, the order of dismissal would e valid, even if erroneous, and woulde tantamount to an acquittal.

DISMISSAL ON NOLLE PROSEQUI

)hen a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi can it later e refilled(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

$s a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi efore the accused isplaced on trial and efore he is called on to plead, this is not equivalent to an acquittal and does notar a susequent prosecution for the same offense. * 0alve2 vs. CA, !' SCRA 6 31994 ).

FORMAL OFFER OF EIDENCE

During the pre=trial of a civil case, the partied presented their respective documentaryevidence. $mong the documents mar4ed y the plaintiff was the Deed of $solute Sale of theproperty in litigation - mar4ed as h. ICJ /.

!n the course of the trial on the merita, h. C was identified y the plaintiff, who was cross=eamined thereon y the defendant#s counsel" furthermore, the contents of h.C were read into therecords y the plaintiff.

Fowever, h. C was not among those formally offered in evidence y the plaintiff.ay the trial court consider h. C in the determination of the action( )hy(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

YES, ecause not only was the Deed of $solute Sale mar4ed y the plaintiff as h. C during

the pre=trial, it was identified y the plaintiff in the course of the trial and the plaintiff was cross=eamined thereon y the defendant#s counsel. urthermore, the contents of h.C were read into therecords y the plaintiff. Fence, the trial court could properly consider h.C in the determination of the action even though it was not formally offered in evidence. &his is an eception to the rule thatthe court shall consider no evidence which has not een formally offered. * Sec. # of Rule 1!)

PAST RECOLLECTION REIED

G states on direct eamination that he once 4now the facts eing as4ed ut he cannotrecall them now. )hen handed a written record of the facts, he testifies that the facts are correctlystated, ut that he has never seen the writing efore.

!s the writing admissile as past recollection recorded( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

B', ecause for the written record to e admissile as past recollection recorded, it must haveeen written or recorded y G or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, orimmediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he 4new thatthe same was correctly written or recorded. - Sec. 8 of %ule 32/ 0ut in this case G has never seenthe writing efore.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

a./ Aive three instances when a Philippine court can ta4e *udicial notice of a foreign law../ Fow do you prove a written foreign law(

c./ Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant ut no evidencewas presented to prove the eistence of said law, what is the presumption to e ta4en ythe court as to the wordings of said law(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a./ &he three instances when a Philippine court can ta4e *udicial notice of a foreign law are:./ )hen the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law2./ )hen the foreign law refers to the law of nations - Sec. of %ule 27/3./ )hen it refers to a pulished treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the su*ect of law

if the court ta4es *udicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recogni+ed inhis profession or calling on the su*ect. - Sec. >8, %ule 3?/

./ $ written law may e evidenced y an official pulication thereof of y a copy attested ythe officer having the legal custody of the record, or y his deputy, and accompanied if the

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


7/59


record is not 4ept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. !f the office in which the record ids 4ept is in a foreign country, the certificate may e madey the secretary of the emassy or legation, consul=general, consul, vice=consul, orconsular agent or y any officer in the foreign country in which the record is 4ept, andauthenticated y the seal of his office. - Sec. 2> of %ule 32/

c./ &he presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the same as the local law. &hisis referred to as the doctrine of processual presumption.

HEARSAY RULE

Aerry is eing tried for rape. &he prosecution#s evidence sought to estalish that at aout7:??pm of @anuary 2?, 77>, Aerry went to complainant @une#s house to invite her to watch thefestivities going on at the town pla+a. @une accepted the invitation. Upon reaching the pulic mar4et,which was *ust a stone#s throw away from @une#s house, Aerry forcily dragged @une towards the ananagrove ehind the mar4et where he was ale to have carnal 4nowledge with @une for aout an hour.@une did not immediately do home thereafter, and it was only in the early morning of the following daythat she narrated her ordeal to her daughter Li+a. Li+a testified in court as to what @une revealed toher.

a./ !s the testimony of Li+a hearsay(./ !s it admissile in evidence against the o*ection of the defense(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a./ HS, Li+a#s testimony is hearsay. $ witness can testify to those facts which he 4nows of his personal 4nowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perception ecept asotherwise provided in the rules - Sec. 38 of %ule 3?/.

./ B', it is not admissile in evidence against the o*ection of the defense, ecause it isnot one of the eceptions to the hearsay rule. !t cannot e considered part of the resgestae ecause only statements made y a person while a startling occurrence is ta4ingplace or immediately prior or susequent thereto with respect to the circumstancesthereof, may e given in evidence as part of the res gestae. - Sec. >2 of %ule 3?/ She

narrated her ordeal to her daughter only in the morning of the following day, as shedid not immediately go home after the incident which occurred at 7:?? pm. She couldhave made up the story. She should e placed on the witness stand, not Li+a whose4nowledge of the event is hearsay.

$lternative answer:Li+a#s testimony is admissile in evidence as to the tenor ut not as to the truth of what @une

revealed to her.

DEAD MANS STATUTE

aimo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the estate of deceased @uan, forthe recovery if a car which is part of the latter#s estate. During trialm, aimo presented witness

ariano who testified that he was present when aimo and @uan agreed that the latter would pay arental of P2?,??? for the use of aimo#s car for one month after which @uan should immediatelyreturn the car to aimo. Pedro o*ected to the admission of ariano#s testimony.

!f you were the *udge, would you sustain Pedro#s o*ection( )hy(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, the testimony is admissile in evidence ecause witness ariano who testified as to whataimo and @uan, the deceased person, agreed upon, is not disqualified to testify on the agreement.&hose disqualified are parties to a case, or persons in whose ehalf a case is prosecuted against theadministrator of @uan#s estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to any matter of factoccurring efore @uan#s death. * Sec. ! of Rule 1).

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


8/59



SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES OF SELECTED CASES

CIIL PROCEDURE

LASON ENTERPRISES CORPORATION ).! COURT OF APPEALS=G!R! N+.! 121662-6>! J(< 6, 1???!@

!t is well=settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original one, which is thus deemedwithdrawn and no longer considered part of the record, it does not follow ipso facto that the service of a new summons for amended petitions or complaints is required . 5-ere t-e defendants -ave alread%

appeared "efore t-e trial court "% virtue of a suons on t-e original coplaint, t-e aended coplaint a% "e served upon t-e it-out need of anot-er suons, even if ne causes of action are alleged. After it is ac7uired, a court8s urisdiction continues until t-e case is finall% terinated. Conversel%, -en defendants -ave not %et appeared in court and no suons -as"een validl% served, ne suons for t-e aended coplaint ust "e served on t-e. !t is notthe change of cause of action that gives rise to the need to serve another summons for the amendedcomplaint, ut rather the acquisition of *urisdiction over the persons of the defendants. !f the trialcourt has not yet acquired *urisdiction over them, a new service of summons for the amendedcomplaint is required.

UNITED HOUSING CORPORATION ).! DAYRIT, ET AL!=G!R! N+! 46>22! J"&"3< 22, 1??!@

A udgent upon coproise -ic- is a udgent e"od%ing a coproise agreeententered into "% t-e parties in -ic- t-e% ae reciprocal concessions in order to terinate alitigation alread% instituted is not appeala"le, is iediatel% e:ecutor% and -as t-e effect of res udicata. $ *udgment rendered upon a compromise agreement, not contrary to law or pulic policy orpulic order has all the force and effect of any other *udgment, it eing a *udgment on the merits,hence, conclusive upon the parties and their privies. $s such, it can e enforced y writ of eecution.

BA FINANCE CORPORATION ).! RUFINO CO, ET AL!=G!R! N+! 141! J&* 5, 1??5!@

&he rule is that a compulsory counterclaim cannot Kremain pending for independentad*udication y the court.K &his is ecause a compulsory counterclaim is auiliary to the proceeding inthe original suit and merely derives its *urisdictional support therefrom. T-us, it necessaril% follos

t-at if t-e trial court no longer possesses urisdiction to entertain t-e ain action of t-e case, as-en it disisses t-e sae, t-en t-e copulsor% counterclai "eing ancillar% to t-e principalcontrovers%, ust lieise "e siilarl% disissed since no urisdiction reains for t-e grant of an% relief under t-e counterclai.

or the guidance of 0ench and 0ar, if any of the grounds to dismiss under Sec. 3, %ule ;, of the %ules of Court arises, the proper recourse for a defendant who desires to pursue his compulsorycounterclaim in the same proceeding is not to move for the dismissal of the complaint" instead, heshould only move to have plaintiff declared non=suited on the complaint so that the latter can nolonger present his evidence thereon, and simultaneously move that he e declared as in default on thecompulsory counterclaim, and reserve the right to present evidence e parte on his counterclaim. &hiswill enale defendant who was un*ustly haled to court to prove his compulsory counterclaim, which isintertwined with the complaint, ecause the trial court retains *urisdiction over the complaint and of the whole case. &he non=dismissal of the complaint, the non=suit notwithstanding, provides the asisfor the compulsory counterclaim to remain active and susisting.

HEIRS OF FLORENTINA NUGUID DA! DE HABERER ).! CA=G!R! N+.! L->26?? 0+ L->24?! M"< 26, 1?1!@

)here a party dies in an action that survives, and no order is issued y the court for theappearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the deceased in sustitution of the deceased,and as a matter of fact no such sustitution has ever een effected, the trial held y the court withoutsuch legal representatives or heirs and the *udgment rendered after such trial are null and voidecause the court acquired no *urisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs

upon whom the trial and the *udgment would e inding.

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


9/59


TAN ).! DUMARPA=G!R! N+! 15444! S*0*/$*3 22, 2>!@

&he remedies availale to a defendant declared in default are as follows: -a/ a motion to setaside the order of default under Section 3-/, %ule 7 of the %ules of Court, if the default wasdiscovered efore *udgment could e rendered" -2/ a motion for new trial under Section -a/ of %ule3;, if the default was discovered after *udgment ut while appeal is still availale" -3/ a petition forrelief under %ule 31! J"&"3< 2, 1??6!@

$ demurrer to evidence areviates proceedings, it eing an aid or instrument for theepeditious termination of all action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or triunal mayeither grant or deny. Fowever, whoever avails of it gamles his right to adduce evidence. Pursuant to

the aforequoted provisions of %ule 39, if the defendants motion for *udgment on demurrer to evidenceis granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, *udgment is rendered in favor of theadverse party ecause the movant loses his right to present evidence.

MAYUGA, ET AL! ).! CA, ET AL!=G!R! N+! 125??! A'.0 5, 1??6!@

=:ecution proceedings are not autoaticall% sta%ed "% t-e filing of a petition for relief fro udgent. &he filing of their petition for relief and the susequent appeal from the orderdenying relief stayed the eecution proceedings efore the trial court. Beither are eecutionproceedings stayed y the perfection of the appeal from the order denying relief from *udgment. !nordinary appeals, perfection of an appeal under section 7 of %ule > divests the trial court of *urisdiction over its *udgment and eecution proceedings ecause the *udgment has not yet attained

finality. $n appeal from an order denying relief from *udgment under %ule 3< is different. Fere, the@udgment is already final and eecutory and as aforestated, the only way y which eecution could esuspended is y the issuance of a writ of preliminary in*unction. Bo in*unction was secured ypetitioners.

RODRIGUE ).! PROJECT 6 MARKET SERICE COOPERATIE, INC!=G!R! N+! 4??6! A'.0 25, 1??!@

!n this *urisdiction, the general rule is when a court *udgment or order ecomes final andeecutory, it is the minsterial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of eecution to enforce this*udgment. $ writ of eecution may however e refused on equitale grounds as when there is a changein the situation of the parties that would ma4e eecution inequitale or when certain circumstanceswhich transpired after *udgment ecame final render eecution of *udgment un*ust.

PHILIPPINE NAILS AND WIRES CORPORATIO ).! MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC!=G!R! N+! 1>5?55! F*$3"3< 1>, 25!@

Under the old %ules, specifically Section 2 of %ule 37 of the pre=77; %ules of Court, the trialcourt is granted, upon good reasons, the discretion to order an eecution even efore the epiration of the time to appeal. T-e present Rules also grant t-e trial court t-e discretion to order t-ee:ecution of a udgent or a final order even "efore t-e e:piration of t-e period to appeal, alsoupon good reasons stated in a special order after due -earing. Such discretion, however, is allowedonly while the trial court still has K*urisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the originalrecord, or the record on appeal, as the case may e, at the time of the filing of such motion.K &hemere filing of a ond y the successful party is not a good reason for ordering eecution pendingappeal, as a comination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant of

immediate eecution5"6 the requirement of a ond is imposed merely as an additional factor, no doutfor the protection of the defendants creditor.K

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


10/59



REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC! ).! CA=G!R! N+! 12>12! M"3:9 1, 22!@

irstly, it must e rememered that, in the amended petition of %elon for annulment of *udgment, respondent Paramount was impleaded for the reason that the prayer therein sought thenullification of the new titles issued in the name of respondent Paramount. >nasuc- as a petition for annulent of udgent is classified as an original action t-at can "e filed "efore t-e Court of Appeals, t-e said court can adit, "% a% of an aendent to t-e petition, ne causes of actionintiatel% related to t-e resolution of t-e original petition. Fence, respondent Paramount ecamea necessary party in the petitioners original cause of action see4ing a declaration of the eistence andvalidity of the owners duplicate copy of the su*ect certificate of title in the possession of the latter,and an indispensale party in the action for the declaration of nullity of the titles in the name of respondent Paramount. !ndeed, there can e no complete relief that can e accorded as to thosealready parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim su*ect of the action, if wedo not touch upon the necessary consequence of the nullity of the new duplicate copy of the su*ect

certificate of title. &he %ules of Court compels the inclusion of necessary parties when *urisdiction overthe person of the said necessary party can e otained. Bon=inclusion of a necessary party when thereis an opportunity to include him would mean waiver of the claim against such party.

ANDAYA ).!, ABADIA, ET AL!=G!R! N+! 1>55! D*:*/$*3 24, 1??5!@

@urisdiction over su*ect matter is essential in the sense that erroneous assumption thereof may put at naught whatever proceedings the court might have had. Fence, even on appeal, and even if the parties do not raise the issue of *urisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling thatit has no *urisdiction over the case. !t is elementary that *urisdiction is vested y law and cannot econferred or waived y the parties or even y the *udge. !t is also irrefutale that a court may at anystage of the proceedings dismiss the case for want of *urisdiction. or this matter, the ground of lac4 of

*urisdiction in dismissing a case is not waivale. Fence, the last sentence of Sec. 2, %ule 7, %ules of Court, epressly states: K)henever it appears that the court has no *urisdiction over the su*ectmatter, it shall dismiss the action.K

OFELIA HERRERA-FELIX ).! CA=G!R! N+! 1>5456! A'.0 11, 2>!@

$ voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. $n appearance inwhatever form, without eplicitly o*ecting to the *urisdiction of the court over the person, is asumission to the *urisdiction of the court over the person. )hile the formal method of entering anappearance in a cause pending in the courts is to deliver to the cler4 a written direction ordering himto enter the appearance of the person who suscries it, an appearance may e made y simply filing aformal motion, or plea or answer. &his formal method of appearance is not necessary. Fe may appear

without such formal appearance and thus sumit himself to the *urisdiction of the court. Fe mayappear y presenting a motion, for eample, and unless y such appearance he specifically o*ects tothe *urisdiction of the court, he therey gives his assent to the *urisdiction of the court over hisperson. 5-en t-e appearance is "% otion o"ecting to t-e urisdiction of t-e court over -is person, it ust "e for t-e sole and separate purpose of o"ecting to t-e urisdiction of t-e court.>f -is otion is for an% ot-er purpose t-an to o"ect to t-e urisdiction of t-e court over -is person, -e t-ere"% su"its -iself to t-e urisdiction of t-e court.

REYNALDO HALIMAO ).! ATTYS! DANIEL ILLANUEA "& INOCENCIO PEFIANCO FERRER, JR!=A/! C".* N+! 52! F*$3"3< 1, 1??6!@

'n the other hand, when a motion to dismiss is ased on payment, waiver, aandonment,release, compromise, or other form of etinguishment, the motion to dismiss does not hypothetically,

ut actually, admits the facts alleged in eistence of the oligation or det, only that plaintiff claimsthat the oligation has een satisfied. So that when a motion to dismiss on these grounds is denied,what is left to e proven in the trial is no longer the eistence of the det ut the fact vel non of payment y the defendant.

GARCIA ).! CA "& SPOUSES UY=G!R! N+! 5?2?! J&* 11, 1??2!@

$s for private respondents -defendants/ loss of standing in court, y reason of having eendeclared in default, again we rule that a party in default loses the right to present his defense andeamine or cross=eamine witnesses. !t does not mean that eing declared in default, and thereylosing ones standing, constitutes a waiver of all rights" what is waived only is the right to e heard andto present evidence during the trial while default prevails. $ party in default is still entitled to notice

of final *udgments and orders and proceedings ta4en susequent thereto.

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


11/59


PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ORGANIATION ).! CA=G!R! N+! 1?545! M"3:9 2, 1??!@

lucidating the crucial distinction etween an ordinary action and a special proceeding, Chief @ustice oran states: $ction is the act y which one sues another in a court of *ustice for theenforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceedingis the act y which one see4s to estalish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Fence,action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right y oneagainst another, while the latter is ut a petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact. )here aparty litigant see4s to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an action. )here his purposeis to see4 the appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to estalishthe fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship.

GARCIA ).! LLAMAS=G!R! N+! 1>124! D*:*/$*3 , 25!@

$ summary *udgment is a procedural device designed for the prompt disposition of actions inwhich the pleadings raise only a legal, not a genuine, issue regarding any material fact. Consequently,facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is yet no admission, disavowal orqualification" or specific denials or affirmative defenses are set forth in the answer, ut the issues arefictitious as shown y the pleadings, depositions or admissions. $ summary *udgment may e appliedfor y either a claimant or a defending party.

'n the other hand, under Section of %ule 3> of the %ules of Court, a *udgment on thepleadings is proper when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the materialallegations of the adverse partys pleading. &he essential question is whether there are issuesgenerated y the pleadings. 3< $ *udgment on the pleadings may e sought only y a claimant, who isthe party see4ing to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross=claim" or to otain a declaratoryrelief.

HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIAS ).! HON! FLORENTINO A! FLOR "& JOSE A! MATAWARAN=G!R! N+! L-45>5! M"< 21, 1?!@

!n the guise of a position paper, private respondent filed a otion to Dismiss. )hile this is,indeed, a prohiited pleading -Sec. 95a6, %ule on Summary Procedure/ it should e noted that theotion was filed after an $nswer had already een sumitted within the reglementary period. !nessence, therefore, it is not the pleading prohiited y the %ule on Summary Procedure. )hat the %uleproscries is a otion to Dismiss, which would stop the running of the period to file an $nswer andcause undue delay.

DACOYCOY ).! IAC=G!R! N+! 4>>! A3%( 2, 1??1!@

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriatecourse of action at this stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as inthe courts of first instance -now %&C/, may e waived epressly or impliedly. )here defendant fails tochallenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided y Section > of %ule > of the %ules of Court, and allows the trial to e held and a decision to e rendered, he cannot on appeal or in aspecial action e permitted to challenge elatedly the wrong venue, which is deemed waived.

NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION ).! IAC "& SHIPSIDE INC!=G!R! N+! L-6656! F*$3"3< 2?, 1?!@

&here have een instances where the Court has held that even without the necessaryamendment, the amount proved at the trial may e validly awarded, as in &ua+on v. 0olanos, where we

said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that as4ed for, no amendment to thecomplaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the point on which recoverywas ased. &he appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidencealthough the pleadings were not actually amended. $mendment is also unnecessary when only clericalerrors or non=sustantial matters are involved, as we held in 0an4 of the Philippine !slands v. Laguna. !nCo &iamco v. Dia+, we stressed that the rule on amendment need not e applied rigidly, particularlywhere no surprise or pre*udice is caused the o*ecting party. $nd in the recent case of Bational PowerCorporation v. Court of $ppeals, we held that where there is a variance in the defendants pleadingsand the evidence adduced y it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conformwith the evidence.

S+.*. GO ).! TONG=G!R! N+! 11?>2! N+)*/$*3 24, 25!@

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


12/59



%ule >9 of the %ules of Court specifically states that in all cases, the C$s decisions, final ordersor resolutions M regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved M may e appealed tothis Court through a petition for review, which is *ust a continuation of the appellate process involvingthe original case. 9 'n the other hand, a special civil action under %ule 89 is an independent suitased on the specific grounds provided therein. $s a general rule, certiorari cannot e availed of as asustitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under %ule >9.

DELGADO ).! CA=G!R! N+! 1541! D*:*/$*3 21, 2>!@

&he principle of res *udicata does not apply when the dismissal of the earlier complaint,involving the same plaintiffs, same su*ect matter, same theory and the same defendants, was madewithout pre*udice to its refiling at a future date, or in a different venue, as in this case. &he dismissalof the case without pre*udice indicates the asence of a decision on the merits and leaves the partiesfree to litigate the matter in a susequent action as though the dismissal action had not eencommenced. >n ot-er ords, t-e discontinuance of a case not on t-e erits does not "ar anot-er

action on t-e sae su"ect atter.

YAO KA SIN TRADING ).! CA, ET AL!=G!R! N+! 52! J&* 1, 1??2!@

Under Section , %ule 3 of the %ules of Court, only natural or *uridical persons or entitiesauthori+ed y law may e parties in a civil action. !n @uasing Fardware vs. endo+a, this Court heldthat a single proprietorship is neither a natural person nor a *uridical person under $rticle >> of theCivil Code" it is not an entity authori+ed y law to ring suit in court.

SPOUSES ELANIO C! ONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS=G!R! N+! 1>>1! J(< , 22@

!t ears stressing that the &CC cannot admit the elated certification on the ground that

plaintiffs -respondents/ were not anyway guilty of actual forum shopping. &he distinction etween theprohiition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should y now e too elementaryto e misunderstood. To reiterate, copliance it- t-e certification against foru s-opping isseparate fro and independent of t-e avoidance of t-e act of foru s-opping itself. T-ere is adifference in t-e treatent "eteen failure to copl% it- t-e certification re7uireent and violation of t-e pro-i"ition against foru s-opping not onl% in ters of iposa"le sanctions "utalso in t-e anner of enforcing t-e. T-e forer constitutes sufficient cause for t-e disissalit-out preudice of t-e coplaint or initiator% pleading upon otion and after -earing, -ilet-e latter is a ground for suar% disissal t-ereof and for direct contept. &he rule epresslyrequires that a certification against forum shopping should e attached to or filed simultaneously withthe complaint or other initiatory pleading regardless of whether forum shopping had in fact eencommitted. $ccordingly, in the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer mustfollow as a matter of course.

=/=CT=?T CAS=@ ailure of t-e defendants to allege lac of cetification of non;foru s-oppingis not a aiver of t-eir rig-t to assert t-e defect

)hile not raised in the parties# pleadings, it is necessary to mention that the failure of petitioners# answer filed in the e*ectment case to allege the lac4 of certification of non=forumshopping did not result in the waiver of their right to assert the defect. 'ur decision in Nho v. Court of $ppeals where this Court ruled that y virtue of Sec. , %ule 7, #$$% Rule& of Civil 'rocedure,o*ections of this 4ind are forfeited when not raised in the answerOcomment earlier tended to apetition for special civil action of certiorari, is not controlling. T-e instant case is governed "% t-e1991 Revised Rules on Suar% (rocedure -ere a otion to disiss is generall% proscri"ed e:cept for lac of urisdiction over t-e su"ect atter or failure to copl% it- conciliation proceedings and -ere t-e onl% atters deeed aived for failure to assert in t-e anser are

negative and affirative defenses.Clearly, petitioners were ecused from filing a motion to question the asence of the certificationand, concomitantly, their failure to include the o*ection in their answer did not result in the waiverthereof since the o*ection is neither a negative nor an affirmative defense. &o clarify, non=compliance with the requirement of certification does not give rise to an affirmative defense, i.e., theallegation of new matter y way of confession and avoidance, much less a negative defense since theunderta4ing has nothing to do with the operative facts required to e alleged in an initiatory pleading,such as allegations on the cause of action, ut with a special pre=requisite for admission of thecomplaint for filing in court.

GUMABON S! LARINGR N+! 1>225 NO! 24,217

&hus, the 77; %ules of Civil Procedure now provide that the court may (otu proprio dismiss theclaim when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on the record that:

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/..%5Cmar2002%5C115758.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/..%5Cmar2002%5C115758.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/..%5Cmar2002%5C115758.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/..%5Cmar2002%5C115758.htm


13/59


. the court has no *urisdiction over the su*ect matter"2. there is another cause of action pending etween the same parties for the same cause" or3. where the action is arred y a prior *udgment or y statute of limitations.rom the foregoing, it is clear that a court may not (otu proprio dismiss a case for improper

venue, this ground not eing among those mentioned where the court is authori+ed to do so.!n fact, the applicale rule would e Section , %ule 7 of the 77; %ules of Civil Procedure

providing that Idefenses and o*ections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer aredeemed waived.J urthermore, Section 8, %ule 8 of the 77; %ules now provides that if no motion todismiss has een filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided in this %ule which includes theground that venue is improperly laid -Section 5c6/ may e pleaded as an affirmative defense in theanswer, and in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may e had thereon as if a motion todismiss has een filed. %espondent not having raised improper venue in a motion to dismiss or in hisanswer, he is deemed to have waived the same. )ell=4nown is the asic legal principle that venue iswaivale. ailure of any party to o*ect to the impropriety of venue is deemed a waiver of his right todo so.

BENITO C! SALAAR vs. HON! TOMAS R! ROMAQUIN=G!R! N+! 116! M"< 21, 2>@

&he pleadings of the accused and copies of the orders or resolutions of the trial court are servedon the People of the Philippines through the Provincial Prosecutor. Fowever, in appeals efore theCourt of $ppeals and the Supreme Court either -a/ y writ of error" -/ via petition for review" -c/ onautomatic appeal" or, -d/ in special civil actions where the People of the Philippines is a party, thegeneral rule is that the 'ffice of the Solicitor Aeneral is the sole representative of the People of thePhilippines.

A cop% of t-e petition in suc- action ust "e served on t-e (eople of t-e (-ilippines asandated "% Section , Rule 46 of t-e Rules of Court, t-roug- t-e Bffice of t-e Solicitor 0eneral.T-e service of a cop% of t-e petition on t-e (eople of t-e (-ilippines, t-roug- t-e (rovincial(rosecutor ould "e inefficacious. T-e petitioners failure to -ave a cop% of -is petition served on t-e respondent, t-roug- t-e Bffice of t-e Solicitor 0eneral, s-all "e sufficient ground for t-edisissal of t-e petition as provided in t-e last paragrap- of Section , Rule 46 of t-e Rules of

Court. n deterining t-e sufficienc% of t-e t-ird;part% coplaint, t-e allegations in t-eoriginal coplaint and t-e t-ird;part% coplaint ust "e e:ained. 3!! A t-ird;part% coplaintust allege facts -ic- pria facie s-o t-at t-e defendant is entitled to contri"ution,indenit%, su"rogation or ot-er relief fro t-e t-ird;part% defendant.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE vs. HON! RALPH C! LANTION=G!R! N+! 15?>6! J"&"3< 1, 2@

!n a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding, Section 3,%ule 2 of the %ules of Court guarantees the respondent#s asic due process rights, granting him the

right to e furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting documents, and theright to sumit counter=affidavits and other supporting documents within ten days from receipt

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn15http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn15http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn15http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn22


14/59



thereof. oreover, the respondent shall have the right to eamine all other evidence sumitted y thecomplainant.&hese twin rights may, however, e considered dispensale in certain instances, such as:

./ !n proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, li4e the summaryaatement of a nuisance per &e -$rticle ;?>, Civil Code/, the preventive suspension of a pulicservant facing administrative charges -Section 83, Local Aovernment Code, 0. P. 0lg. 33;/, thepadloc4ing of filthy restaurants or theaters showing oscene movies or li4e estalishmentswhich are immediate threats to pulic health and decency, and the cancellation of a passportof a person sought for criminal prosecution"

2./ )here there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is notprecluded from en*oying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without pre*udice tothe person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquenttapayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee" and

3./ )here the twin rights have previously een offered ut the right to eercise them had noteen claimed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ).! MODESTO TEE "!#!"! ESTOY TEE=G!R! N+.! 1>>6->4! J"&"3< 2, 25!@

&hus, it has een held that term Knarcotics paraphernaliaK is not so wanting in particularity asto create a general warrant. Bor is the description Kany and all narcoticsK and Kall implements,paraphernalia, articles, papers and records pertaining toK the use, possession, or sale of narcotics ordangerous drugs so road as to e unconstitutional. $ search warrant commanding peace officers tosei+e Ka quantity of loose heroinK has een held sufficiently particular.

&ested against the foregoing precedents, the description Kan undetermined amount of mari*uanaK must e held to satisfy the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. Boteworthy,what is to e sei+ed in the instant case is property of a specified character, i.e., mari*uana, an illicitdrug. 0y reason of its character and the circumstances under which it would e found, said article isillegal. $ further description would e unnecessary and ordinarily impossile, ecept as to such

character, the place, and the circumstances. &hus, this Court has held that the description Killegally inpossession of undetermined quantityOamount of dried mari*uana leaves and ethamphetamineFydrochloride -Shau/ and sets of paraphernaliaK particulari+es the things to e sei+ed.

&he search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording, Kundeterminedamount of mari*uana or !ndian hemp,K in our view, has satisfied the Constitutions requirements onparticularity of description. &he description therein is: -/ as specific as the circumstances willordinarily allow" -2/ epresses a conclusion of fact M not of law M y which the peace officers may eguided in ma4ing the search and sei+ure" and -3/ limits the things to e sei+ed to those which eardirect relation to the offense for which the warrant is eing issued. Said warrant imposes a meaningfulrestriction upon the o*ects to e sei+ed y the officers serving the warrant. &hus, it preventseploratory searches, which might e violative of the 0ill of %ights.

PEOPLE S! CABILES

= 2> SCRA 1?? @

Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, notelicited through questioning y the authorities, ut given in an ordianry manner wherey the accusedorally admitted having committed the crime.

ESQUIEL ).! THE SANDIGANBAYAN=G!R! N+! 154254, S*0*/$*3 14, 22@

!n Rodrigo, )r* v&* Sandigan+ayan, inay v&* Sandigan+ayan, and !ayu& v&* Sandigan+ayan, wealready held that municipal mayors fall under the original and eclusive *urisdiction of theSandiganayan. Bor can arangay Captain ar4 $nthony squivel claim that since he is not a municipalmayor, he is outside the Sandiganayan#s *urisdiction. R.A. '9'#, as aended "% R.A. ?o. &!49,

provides t-at it is onl% in cases -ere none of t-e accused are occup%ing positionscorresponding to salar% grade E!' or -ig-er t-at e:clusive original urisdiction s-all "e vested in t-e proper regional trial court, etropolitan trial court, unicipal trial court, and unicipalcircuit court, as t-e case a% "e, pursuant to t-eir respective urisdictions as provided in Fatas(a"ansa Flg. 1!9, as aended. Bote that under the 77 Local Aovernment Code, ayor squivelhas a salary grade of 2;. Since arangay Captain squivel is the co=accused in Criminal Case Bo. 2>;;;of ayor squivel, whose position falls under salary grade 2;, the Sandiganayan committed no graveause of discretion in assuming *urisdiction over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case Bo.2>;;


15/59


grant of t-is aut-orit% does not necessaril% ipl% t-e e:clusion fro its urisdiction of casesinvolving pu"lic officers and eplo%ees cogni2a"le "% ot-er courts. &he eercise y the'mudsman of his primary *urisdiction over cases cogni+ale y the Sandiganayan is not incompatilewith the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed y pulic officersand employees. !ndeed, it must e stressed that the powers granted y the legislature to the'mudsman are very road and encompass all 4inds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non=feasancecommitted y pulic officers and employees during their tenure of office.

SALAAR S! PEOPLE= GR N+! 11?51, S*0*/$*3 25, 25 @

!f demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted y the court, the accused has the right toadduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case , unless the court also declares that the act or omissionfrom which the civil liaility may arise did not eist. >f t-e trial court issues an order or renders udgent not onl% granting t-e deurrer to evidence of t-e accused and ac7uitting -i "ut alsoon t-e civil lia"ilit% of t-e accused to t-e private offended part%, said udgent on t-e civilaspect of t-e case ould "e a nullit% for t-e reason t-at t-e constitutional rig-t of t-e accused to due process is t-ere"% violated . &his is so ecause when the accused files a demurrer to evidence,

the accused has not yet adduced evidence oth on the criminal and civil aspects of the case. &he onlyevidence on record is the evidence for the prosecution. )hat the trial court should do is to issue anorder or partial *udgment granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused" and set thecase for continuation of trial for the petitioner to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case, andfor the private complainant to adduce evidence y way of reuttal after which the parties may adducetheir sur=reuttal evidence as provided for in Section , %ule 7 of the %evised %ules of CriminalProcedure.

CASUPANAN S!LAROYA= GR N+! 1>5?1, A'.0 26, 22 @

Under Section of the present %ule , the independent civil action in $rticles 32, 33, 3> and2;8 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action ut may e filed separately y

the offended party even without reservation. &he commencement of the criminal action does notsuspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. T-esuspension in Section ! of t-e present Rule 111 refers onl% to t-e civil action arising fro t-ecrie, if suc- civil action is reserved or filed "efore t-e coenceent of t-e criinal action.

GABIONA S! CA=GR N+! 1>511, M"3:9 5, 21@

$n amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is alreadycontained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction forthe crime charged is an amendment to form that can e made at any time. @urisprudence allowsamendments to information so long as: -a/ it does not deprive the accused of the right to invo4eprescription" -/ it does not affect or alter the nature of the offense originally charged" -c/ it does not

involve a change in the asic theory of the prosecution so as to require the accused to undergo anymaterial change or modification in his defense" -d/ it does not epose the accused to a charge whichwould call for a higher penalty" and, -9/ it does not cause surprise nor deprive the accused of anopportunity to meet the new averment.

!n the case at ar, it is clear that the questioned amendment is one of form and not of sustance. T-e allegation of tie -en an offense is coitted is a atter of for, unless tie isa aterial ingredient of t-e offense. >t is not even necessar% to state in t-e >nforation t-e precise tie t-e offense as coitted unless tie is a aterial factor . !t is sufficient that theact is alleged to have een committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense wascommitted as the Complaint or !nformation will permit.

LALICAN S! ERGARA=GR N+! 161?, J(< 51, 1??4@

&his Court has consistently defined the proper procedure in case of denial of a motion to quash.&he accused has to enter a plea, go to trial without pre*udice on his part to present the specialdefenses he had invo4ed in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered,to appeal therefrom in the manner authori+ed y law. Certiorari is not t-e proper reed% -ere aotion to 7uas- an inforation is denied. T-at t-e appropriate recourse is to proceed to trialand in case of conviction, to appeal suc- conviction, as ell as t-e denial of t-e otion to 7uas-,is ipelled "% t-e fact t-at a denial of a otion to 7uas- is an interlocutor% procedural aspect-ic- cannot "e appealed nor can it "e t-e su"ect of a petition for certiorari. T-e reedies of appeal and certiorari are utuall% e:clusive and not alternative or successive.

BAYAS S! SANDIGANBAYAN=GR N+.! 1>56?-?1, N+)*/$*3 12,22@

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


16/59



&here is nothing irregular or unlawful in stipulating facts in criminal cases. &he policyencouraging it is consistent with the doctrine of waiver, which recogni+es that K. . . everyone has aright to waive and agree to waive the advantage of a law or rule made solely for the enefit andprotection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can e dispensed with and relinquished withoutinfringing on any pulic right and without detriment to the community at large.K

!n the present case, the @oint Stipulation made y the prosecution and petitioners was a waiverof the right to present evidence on the facts and the documents freely admitted y them. &here couldhave een no impairment of petitioners right to e presumed innocent, right to due process or rightagainst self=incrimination ecause the waiver was voluntary, made with the assistance of counsel and issanctioned y the %ules on Criminal Procedure. 'nce the stipulations are reduced into writing andsigned y the parties and their counsels, they ecome inding on the parties who made them. &heyecome *udicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. ven if placed at a disadvantageousposition, a party may not e allowed to rescind them unilaterally" it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage. !f the accused are allowed to plead guilty under appropriate circumstances, yparity of reasoning, they should li4ewise e allowed to enter into a fair and true pretrial agreementunder appropriate circumstances.

YAP S! CA=GR N+! 1>12?, J&* 6, 21@

!t militates emphasis that petitioner is see4ing ail on appeal. Section #, Rule 114 of t-eRevised Rules of Criinal (rocedure is clear t-at alt-oug- t-e grant of "ail on appeal in non;capital offenses is discretionar%, -en t-e penalt% iposed on t-e convicted accused e:ceeds si: %ears and circustances e:ist t-at point to t-e pro"a"ilit% of flig-t if released on "ail, t-en t-eaccused ust "e denied "ail, or -is "ail previousl% granted s-ould "e cancelled. !n the same vein,the Court has held that the discretion to etend ail during the course of the appeal should eeercised with grave caution and for strong reasons, considering that the accused had een in factconvicted y the trial court .

SALES S! SANDIGANBAYAN=GR N+! 1>52, N+)*/$*3 16, 21@

&he determination of proale cause is a function of the *udge" it is not for the provincialfiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. 'nly the *udge and the *udge alone ma4es this determination" 2.6 &hepreliminary inquiry made y a prosecutor does not ind the *udge. !t merely assists him in ma4ing thedetermination of proale cause. !t is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes,if any, and all other supporting documents ehind the prosecutors certification which are material inassisting the *udge in his determination of proale cause" and 3.6 @udges and prosecutors ali4e shoulddistinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines proale cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should e heldfor trial or e released. ven if the two inquiries e made in one and the same proceeding, there

should e no confusion aout their o*ectives. T-e deterination of pro"a"le cause for purposes of issuing t-e arrant of arrest is ade "% t-e udge. T-e preliinar% investigation proper G-et-er or not t-ere is reasona"le ground to "elieve t-at t-e accused is guilt% of t-e offensec-arged and, t-erefore, -et-er or not -e s-ould "e su"ected to t-e e:pense, rigors and e"arrassent of trial G is t-e function of t-e prosecutor.

ROXAS S, ASQUE=5 SCRA 656@

!n criminal prosecutions, a reinvestigation, li4e an appeal, renders the entire case open for review.

US S! PURGANAN= GR N+! 1>41, S*0*/$*3 2>,22@

&he filing of a petition for etradition does not per se *ustify the issuance of a warrant of arrest against an etraditee. &he petition, in some instances, may not contain sufficient allegationsand proof on the issue of whether the possile etraditee will escape from the *urisdiction of theetraditing court.

)hen the petition for etradition does not provide sufficient asis for the arrest of thepossile etraditee or the grant of ail as in the case at ar, it is discretionary for the etradition courtto call for a hearing to determine the issue.

$n etraditee has the right to apply for ail. &he right is rooted in the due process clause of the Constitution. !t cannot e denied simply ecause of the silence of our etradition treaty and law onthe matter. &he availaility of the right to ail is uttressed y our other treaties recogni+ing civil andpolitical rights and y international norms, customs and practices.

&he etraditee may apply for ail ut its grant depends on the discretion of the etraditing

court. &he court must satisfy itself that the ail will not frustrate the ends of *ustice.

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


17/59


!n deciding whether to grant ail or not to a possile etraditee, the etraditing court mustfollow a higher and stricter standard. &he etraditee must prove y clear and convincing evidence thathe will not flee from the *urisdiction of the etraditing court and will respect all its processes. !n fine,that he will not frustrate the ends of *ustice.

TULIAO S! RAMOS= 2> SCRA 54 @

$ *udge should demand the presentation of the originals of the required documents eforeapproving a ail ond.

PEOPLE S!NARCA =GR N+! 1>, J(< 21, 1??4@

&here is nothing in the %ules which renders invalid a preliminary investigation held withoutdefendants counsel. Bot eing a part of the due process clause ut a right merely created y law,preliminary investigation if held within the statutory limitations cannot e voided. $ppellantsargument, if sustained, would ma4e a moc4ery of criminal procedure, since all that a party has to do to

thwart the validity of the preliminary investigation is for their counsel not to attend the investigation.!t must e emphasi+ed that the preliminary investigation is not the venue for the full eercise of therights of the parties. T-is is -% preliinar% investigation is not considered as a part of trial "uterel% preparator% t-ereto and t-at t-e records t-erein s-all not for part of t-e records of t-ecase in court. (arties a% su"it affidavits "ut -ave no rig-t to e:aine itnesses t-oug- t-e% can propound 7uestions t-roug- t-e investigating officer. >n fact, a preliinar% investigation a% even "e conducted e:;parte in certain cases.

YUSOP S! SANDIGANBAYAN =GR N+! 15?-6, F*$3"3< 22, 21@

&he defenses failure to cross=eamine li+aeth %eglos was occasioned y her superveningdeath. Lac4 of cross=eamination due to the death of the witness does not necessarily render the

deceaseds previous testimony epungile. 0esides, mere opportunity and not actual cross=eaminationis the essence of the right to cross=eamine.

We also find unmeritorious appellants' argument that Elizabeth's testimony, having been taken during the bail hearingsd under Section 8, Rule 11, as amended by !ircular 1"#$, %evidence

SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORP! S! THE SHERIFF OF RTC, QC! E0!"(=GR N+! 1>>5?, N+)*/$*3 25, 21@

&he effect of the quashal of the warrant on the ground that no offense has een committed isto render the evidence otained y virtue of the warrant Kinadmissile for any purpose in anyproceeding,K including the preliminary investigation.

DE LOS SANTOS-REYES S! MONTESA=AM-RTJ ?5-?5, A'.0 4, 1??@

>n satisf%ing -iself of t-e e:istence of pro"a"le cause for t-e issuance of a arrant of arrest, t-e udge, folloing t-e esta"lis-ed doctrine and procedure, s-all eit-er *a) personall% evaluate t-e report and t-e supporting docuents su"itted "% t-e prosecutor regarding t-ee:istence of pro"a"le cause and, on t-e "asis t-ereof, issue a arrant of arrest, or *") if on t-e face of t-e inforation -e finds no pro"a"le cause, -e a% disregard t-e prosecutor8scertification and re7uire t-e su"ission of t-e supporting affidavits of itnesses to aid -i inarriving at a conclusion as to t-e e:istence of pro"a"le cause. -Supreme Court Circular Bo. 2,dated 3? @une 737 577>6./&his procedure is dictated y sound pulic policy" otherwise *udges would e unduly laden with thepreliminary eamination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearingand deciding cases filed efore their courts. At t-is stage of a criinal proceeding, t-e udge is nottased to revie in detail t-e evidence su"itted during t-e preliinar% investigation$ it issufficient t-at -e personall% evaluates t-e report and supporting docuents su"itted "% t-e

prosecution in deterining pro"a"le cause. T-is udicial function does not carr% it- it a otu proprio revie of t-e recoendation of t-e prosecutor in a capital offense t-at no "ail s-all "egranted. Suc- a recoendation is t-e e:clusive prerogative of t-e prosecutor in t-e e:ercise of -is 7uasi;udicial function during t-e preliinar% investigation, -ic- is e:ecutive in nature. !nsuch cases, once the court determines that proale cause eists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the warrant of arrest shall forthwith e issued and it is only after the accused is ta4en into thecustody of the law and deprived of his lierty that, upon proper application for ail, the court on theasis of the evidence adduced y the prosecution at the hearing called for the purpose may, upondetermination that such evidence is not strong, admit the accused to ail.

PEOPLE S! NADERA=GR N+.! 1515>-4, F*$3"3< 2, 2@

Convictions "ased on an iprovident plea of guilt are set aside onl% if suc- plea is t-esole "asis of t-e udgent. !f the trial court relied on sufficient and credile evidence to convict the

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


18/59



accused, the conviction must e sustained, ecause then it is predicated not merely on the guilty pleaof the accused ut on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

PHIL! RABBIT BUS LINES S! PEOPLE= GR N+! 1>445, A3%( >, 2> @

$n appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutional safeguardagainst doule *eopardy and throws the whole case open to a review y the appellate court. &he latteris then called upon to render *udgment as law and *ustice dictate, whether favorale or unfavorale tothe appellant. &his is the ris4 involved when the accused decides to appeal a sentence of conviction.!ndeed, appellate courts have the power to reverse, affirm or modify the *udgment of the lower courtand to increase or reduce the penalty it imposed.

ALONTE S! SAELLANO24 SCRA 2>

$fter the case has een filed in court, any pardon made y the private complainant, whethery sworn statement or on the witness stand, cannot etinguish criminal lialilty.

PEOPLE S! ESCANO5>? SCRA 64>

&he acquittal on appel of certain accused ased on reasonale dout enefits a co=accusedwho did not appel or who withdrew his appeal.

PEOPLE S! MADERAS5 SCRA >

)here the accused escapes from actual custody or flees from constructive custody, the Court

may motu proprio or on appellee#s motion dismiss the appeal for aandonment.

EIDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs! EANGELINE GANENAS % URBANO=G!R! N+! 1>1>! S*0*/$*3 6, 21@

&he alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses refer to minor ortrivial incidents that do not detract from the fact that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto as aresult of the uy=ust operation. &he identities of the leader and the memers of the police team arenonessential matters that have no direct earing upon the actual commission of the offense.5itnesses testif%ing on t-e sae event do not -ave to "e consistent in ever% detail, asdifferences in recollections, viepoints or ipressions are inevita"le. So long as t-e% concur on

t-e aterial points of t-eir respective testionies, slig-t differences in t-ese atters do notdestro% t-e veracit% of t-eir stateents're&u(ption of Regularity in the 'erfor(ance of -fficial Duty

&he testimonies of the police officers with respect to appellant#s participation in the drug=relatedtransaction, which was the su*ect of the operation, carried with it the presumption of regularity inthe performance of official functionsCourts accord credence and full faith to the testimonies of policeauthorities, as they are presumed to e performing their duties regularly, asent any convincing proof to the contrary!n this case, no sufficient reason or valid eplanation was presented to deviate from thispresumption of regularity on their part.

!n almost every case involving a uy=ust operation, the accused put up the defense of frame=up. &he Supreme Court views such claim with disfavor, ecause Iit can easily e feigned andfaricated.

EANGELINE CABRERA ).! PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES "& LUIS GO,=G!R! N+! 161! J(< 2>, 25!@

!n this case, the prosecution failed to adduce in evidence any notice of dishonor of the threepostdated chec4s or any letter of demand sent to and received y the petitioner. &he are testimony of Luis Ao that he sent letters of demand to the petitioner notifying her of the dishonor of her chec4s isutterly insufficient.

or failure of t-e prosecution to s-o t-at notices of dis-onor of t-e t-ree postdated c-ecs ere served on t-e petitioner, or at t-e ver% least, t-at s-e as sent a deand letter notif%ing -er of t-e said dis-onor, t-e pria facie presuption under Section ! of F.(. Flg. !!t-at s-e ne of t-e insufficienc% of funds cannot arise. T-us, t-ere can "e no "asis for esta"lis-ing t-e presence of actual noledge of insufficienc% of funds.K

!n light of such failure, we find and so declare that the prosecution failed to prove eyondreasonale dout all the elements of violation of 0.P. 0lg. 22. Fence, the need to reverse and set aside

S A N B E D A C

O L L E G E O F

L A W

2


19/59


the decisions of oth the Court of $ppeals and the trial court convicting the petitioner of the crime of violation of 0.P. 0lg. 22.

Fowever, we uphold the decision of the C$ affirming the trial courts decision ordering thepetitioner to pay to the private respondent the total face value of the chec4s in the amount of P2?7,;9.>9. )e stress that a chec4 is an evidence of det against the drawer, and although may note intended to e presented, has the same effect as an ordinary chec4, and if passed upon to a thirdperson, will e valid in his hands li4e any other chec4. Fence, the petitioner is oliged to pay to theprivate respondent Luis Ao the said amount of P2?7,;9.>9 with 21 legal interest per annum, from thefiling of the information until the finality of this decision, the sum of which, inclusive of interest, shalle su*ect thereafter to 21 per annum interest until the amount due is fully paid, conformaly to ourruling that when an oligation is reached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e. aloan or forearance of money, the interest due should e that which may have een stipulated inwriting. !n the asence of such stipulation, the rate shall e 21 per annum computed from default,i.e. *udicial or etra*udicial demand. 29 !n this case, the rate of interest was not stipulated in writingy the petitioner, the private respondent and 0oni Co. &hus, the applicale interest rate is 21 perannum.

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOERNMENT PCGG7 ).! =G!R! N+! 15212! F*$3"3< 1, 25!@

!n the face of the $ffidavit and the Supplemental $ffidavit, it is indeed strange how theomudsman could have ruled that there was no testimonial evidence on the said matters. &hat he ruledthus clearly shows that he whimsically opted to disregard those pieces of evidence and thereydemonstrated his capricious and aritrary eercise of *udgment.

&he complainant is required to file affidavits Kas well as other supporting documents toestalish proale cause,K as stated in the %ules of Court:

K-a/ &he complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall e accompanied ythe affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to estalish

proale cause.K&his requirement was fulfilled y the PCAA. &he Supplemental Complaint was accompanied y

the $ffidavits of witnesses as well as y a host of other supporting documents, all of which M ta4entogether M estalished proale cause.

>t s-ould "e noted t-at t-e Rules on =vidence recogni2es different fors of evidence Go"ect, docuentar% or testionial G it-out preference for an% of t-e in particular. 5-ats-ould reall% atter are t-e eig-t and t-e sufficienc% of t-e evidence presented.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ).! CARLITO MARAHAY < MORACA=G!R! N+.! 1262-2?! J"&"3< 2, 25@

)hile the father=daughter relationship of accused=appellant and the victims, ylene and0elinda, remains undisputed, the minority of the victims, though alleged, was not satisfactorily

estalished. !t is the urden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim waselow < years of age when the rape was committed in order to *ustify the imposition of the deathpenalty.

!n the recent case of People vs. anuel Pruna y %amire+ or rman Pruna y %amire+, this Courtlaid down the following guidelines in appreciating age, eit-er as an eleent of t-e crie or as a7ualif%ing circustance@K. &he est evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live irth of such party.K2. !n the asence of a certificate of live irth, similar authentic documents such as aptismalcertificate and school records which show the date of irth of the victim would suffice to prove age.K3. !f the certificate of live irth or authentic document is shown to have een lost or destroyed orotherwise unavailale, the testimony, if clear and credile, of the victims mother or a memer of thefamily either y affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree

such as the eact age or date of irth of the offended party pursuant to Section >?, %ule 3? of the%ules on vidence shall e sufficient under the following circumstances:a. !f the victim is alleged to e elow 3 years of age and what is sought to e proved isthat she is less than ; years old". !f the victim is alleged to e elow ; years of age and what is sought to e proved isthat she is less than 2 years old"c. !f the victim is alleged to e elow 2 years of age and what is sought to e proved isthat she is less than < years old.

K>. !n the asence of a certificate of live irth, authentic document, or the testimony of thevictims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will sufficeprovided that it is epressly and clearly admitted y the accused.K9. !t is the prosecution that has the urden of proving the age of the offended party. &he failureof the accused to o*ect to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not e ta4en against him.

K8. &he trial court should always ma4e a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.K

REDNOTE

SINREME

DIA

L

LAW

1


20/59



&hus, although the defense does not contest the age of the victim, it is still essential that theprosecution present independent proof thereof, pursuant to Bo. 9 of said guidelines. $s a matter of fact, the minority of the victim must e proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.Under Section >>, %ule 3? of the %ules on vidence, a irth certificate is the est evidence of apersons date of irth. !n the instant case, the prosecution did not present the certificates of live irthof oth ylene and 0elinda or other similar authentic documents to prove their ages. Bot even thevictims mother or the victims themselves, or any other relative qualified to testify on mattersrespecting pedigree, were presented y the prosecution to estalish the victims ages at the time thecrimes were committed. Such failure of the prosecution to discharge its urden constrains this Court tohold that the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot e appreciated in these cases.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ).! MARLON MORALDE=G!R! N+! 1516! J"&"3< 16, 25!@

Faving een positively and unmista4aly identified y the complainant as her rapist, theappellants defense of alii cannot prosper. Categorical and consistent positive identification,

a"sent an% s-oing of ill;otive on t-e part of t-e e%eitness testif%ing t-ereon, prevails over t-e defenses of denial and ali"i -ic-, if not su"stantiated "% clear and convincing proof,constitute self;serving evidence undeserving of eig-t in la. $lii, li4e denial, is inherently wea4and easily faricated. or this defense to *ustify an acquittal, the following must e estalished: thepresence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense and thephysical impossiility for him to e at the scene of the crime. &hese requisites have not een met.

HEIRS OF LOURDES SAE SABANPAN ).! ALBERTO C! COMORPOSA=G!R! N+! 124! A'.0 12, 25!@

Pleadings filed via fa machines are not considered originals and are at est eact copies. $ssuch, they are not admissile in evidence, as there is no way of determining whether they are genuineor authentic.

&he Certification, on the other hand, is eing contested for earing a facsimile of the signatureof CB% 'fficer @ose . &agorda. &he facsimile referred to is not the same as that which is alluded to inAarvida. &he one mentioned here refers to a facsimile signature, which is defined as a signatureproduced y mechanical means ut recogni+ed as valid in an4ing, financial, and usiness transactions.

Bote that the CB% officer has not disclaimed the Certification. !n fact, the DB% regionaldirector has ac4nowledged and used it as reference in his 'rder dated $pril 2, 77


21/59


purpose of determining whether appellant is entitled to e released on ail during the pendency of thetrial. Fence, we agree with the 'SA that said findings should not e construed as an immutaleevaluation of the prosecutions evidence. !t is settled that the assessment of the prosecution evidencepresented during ail hearings in capital offenses is preliminary and intended only for the purpose of granting or denying applications for the provisional release of the accused.

TEODORO K! KATIGBAK ).! THE SANDIGANBAYAN=G!R! N+! 1>15! J(< 1, 25!@

$ careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence adduced y the prosecution does not supportthe charge of violation of Section 3, paragraph -e/ of %$ 3?7, as amended, in the instant informationagainst the petitioners. Significantly, the said pieces of documentary evidence were offered only forthe purpose of estalishing the participation and liaility of their co=accused, %oert 0alao, as noted inthe written ormal 'ffer of hiits 39 of the prosecution dated Septemer 22, 77;. &he same wasprepared and signed y $tty. Bicanor E. Eillarosa, counsel of the private complainant, with the writtenapproval of Prosecutor anuel . Corpu+ of the 'ffice of the Special Prosecutor. !n this connection, therule is eplicit that courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it is offered.

&he prosecution relies heavily on BF$ 0oard %esolution Bo. 2>93 dated arch 2, 772 to

estalish the alleged conspiracy etween the petitioners and their co=accused. Fowever, the Court isothered y the uneplained failure of the prosecution to include in its formal offer of ehiits such avery vital piece of evidence in proving the eistence of the alleged conspiracy among the petitioners.

5e ep-asi2e t-at an% evidence a part% desires to su"it for t-e consideration of t-ecourt ust forall% "e offered "% -i. Suc- a foral offer is necessar% "ecause it is t-e dut% of t-e udge to rest -is findings of fact and -is udgent strictl% on t-e evidence offered "% t-e parties at t-e trial$ and no finding of fact can "e sustained if not supported "% suc- evidence.Docuents not regularl% received in evidence during t-e trial ill not "e considered in disposingof t-e issues in an action.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ).! HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN "& FERDINAND E! MARCOS=G!R! N+! 121>! J(< 1, 25!@

erdinand @r.s pronouncements, ta4en in contet and in their entirety, were a confirmation of respondents# recognition of their ownership of the Swiss an4 deposits. $dmissions of a party in histestimony are receivale against him. !f a party, as a witness, delierately concedes a fact, suchconcession has the force of a *udicial admission. !t is apparent from erdinand @r.s testimony that thearcos family agreed to negotiate with the Philippine government in the hope of finally putting an endto the prolems esetting the arcos family regarding the Swiss accounts. &his was doutlessly anac4nowledgment of ownership on their part. &he r

remedial red notes 2015

Documents