VELASCO DOCTRINES

Cases Decided by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
EVIDENCE

RECOLETOS LAW CENTER NOTES

Prepared by: LJC

CIVIL PROCEDURE

1.) LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PAGAYATAN, 644 SCRA 133, GR
NO. 177190, FEBRUARY 23, 2011
ACTIONS; JUDGMENTS; RES JUDICATA Res judicata means a matter
adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment, on the
merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the
rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. The
elements of res judicata are (a) identity of parties or at least such as representing
the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief
prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity in
the two (2) particulars is such that any judgment which may be rendered in the
other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata
in the action under consideration.
2.) CHINGKOE VS. REPUBLIC, 702 SCRA 677, GR. NO. 183608, JULY
31,2013
APPEALS; CERTIOARI - The Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action
of certiorari if appeal by way of a Petition for Review is available, as the
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. Respondents Petition for Certiorari filed before the CA was not the
proper remedy against the assailed Order of the RTC. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, a special civil action for certiorari could only be availed of when a

REMEDIAL LAW

tribunal "acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the

exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction"26
or when it acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal
or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3.) BOTE VS. VELOSO, 686 SCRA 758, GR.NO 194270, DECEMBER 3, 2012
APPEALS; THEORY OF THE CASE; EXCEPTION - An issue which was neither
averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of
fair play, justice and due process; This principle forbids the parties from
changing their theory of the case; Exception In Union Bank of the Philippines
v. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified this provision of the Rules of Court
stating that, "It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred
in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play,
justice and due process." This principle forbids the parties from changing their
theory of the case. The "theory of the case" is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary
as: A comprehensive and orderly mental arrangement of principle and facts,
conceived and constructed for the purpose of securing a judgment or decree of
a court in favor of a litigant; the particular line of reasoning of either party to a
suit, the purpose being to bring together certain facts of the case in a logical
sequence and to correlate them in a way that produces in the decision makers
mind a definite result or conclusion favored by the advocate. Xxx Nevertheless,
such rule admits of an exception as enunciated in Canlas v. Tubil, 601 SCRA 147
(2009), to wit: As a rule, a change of theory cannot be allowed. However, when
the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence
by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in
the new theory, as in this case, the Court may give due course to the petition
and resolve the principal issues raised therein.
4.) MENDOZA VS. VILLAS, 644 SCRA 347, GR. NO. 187256, FEBRUARY 23,
2011
COURT HAS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PETITION FILED
UNDER THE RULE 45 OR 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT - The Court shall
exercise liberality and consider the instant petition as one filed under Rule 45. In
Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowners Association,

REMEDIAL LAW

Inc., 621 SCRA 22 (2010) citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 63
(2000) the Court noted that it has the discretion to determine whether a
petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court: Admittedly, this
Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in
the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari.
5.) PEOPLE VS. PALING, 645 SCRA 627, GR NO. 185390, MARCH 16, 2011
DUE PROCESS - "it is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case in its
entirety to decide it on the basis of the records on hand. "This is because the
judge "can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the
testimonies of witnesses in accordance with their conformity to common
experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not
violate substantive and procedural due process of law." Considering that, in the
instant case, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were
extant and complete, there was no impediment for the judge to decide the
case.
6.) UNITED CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA (UNICAN) vs. NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), 664 SCRA 483, GR NO
187107, JANUARY 31, 2012
HEIRARCHY OF COURTS; EXCEPTION - Evidently, the instant petition should
have been filed with the RTC. However, as an exception to this general rule, the
principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for special and important
reasons. Such reason exists in the instant case involving as it does the
employment of the entire plantilla of NEA, more than 700 employees all told,
who were effectively dismissed from employment in one swift stroke. This to the
mind of the Court entails its attention.
7.) BROWN- ARANETA VS. ARANETA, 707 SCRA 222, GR. NO. 190814,
OCTOBER 9, 2013
INSTANCES WHERE SHOPPING FORUM EXISTS - It has been held that there
is forum shopping (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum,
a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another;
or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files
another before the CA since in such case said party deliberately splits appeals
"in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is

REMEDIAL LAW

dismissed, another case(offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (3)

where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after
failing to obtain it from the original court.
8.) PAREL VS. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO, 644 SCRA 496, G.R. No.
192217, March 2, 2011
EXECUTION INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE
APPEALED - Banaga v. Majaducon, 494 SCRA 153 (2006) however,
enumerates the instances where a writ of execution may be appealed:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making
execution inequitable or unjust;
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from
execution;
4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the
judgment of the court;
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there
remains room for interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently
issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the
wrong part.
9.) SERRANO VS. AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., 690 SCRA 226, GR NO.
197003, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
JUDGMENTS; IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS - a final judgment may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact and law. In Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, We
explained that this principle of the immutability of final judgments is an
important aspect of the administration of justice as it ensures an end to
litigations: Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains
finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be

REMEDIAL LAW

modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is

perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or
by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of
judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and
sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or
orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law;
otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main
role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law
and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies
with finality.
10.) PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED)
VS. REPUBLIC , 663 SCRA 514, GR NO. 177857-58, JANUARY 24, 2012
JURISDICTION; NATURE OF THE ACTION - The ensuing excerpts from
Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, 344 SCRA 838 (2000) are instructive: We cannot
allow her to attack its jurisdiction simply because it rendered a Decision
prejudicial to her position. Participation in all stages of a case before a trial court
effectively estops a party from challenging its jurisdiction. One cannot belatedly
reject or repudiate its decision after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, just
to secure affirmative relief against ones opponent or after failing to obtain such
relief. If, by deed or conduct, a party has induced another to act in a particular
manner, estoppel effectively bars the former from adopting an inconsistent
position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to the
latter.
11.) SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA VS. LINDO, 718 SCRA
321, GR. NO 208232, MARCH 10, 2014
JURISDICTION; NATURE OF ACTION The Supreme Court ruled the
complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The core issue is whether the action filed by petitioners
is one involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein or
one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The course of action embodied in the
complaint by the present petitioners predecessor, is to enforce his right to

REMEDIAL LAW

repurchase the lots he formerly owned pursuant to the right of a free-patent

holder under Sec. 119 of CA 141 or the Public Land Act.
12.) NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP, 722 SCRA 382, GR NO. 195580, APRIL 21,
2014
MOOT AND ACADEMIC; INSTANCES WHERE COURTS CAN DECIDE A
MOOT CASE - a case is said to be moot and/or academic when it "ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value." Thus, the courts
"generally decline jurisdiction over the case or dismiss it on the ground of
mootness."
The "mootness" principle, however, does accept certain exceptions and the
mere raising of an issue of "mootness" will not deter the courts from trying a
case when there is a valid reason to do so. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
(David), 489 SCRA 160 (2006), the Court provided four instances where courts
can decide an otherwise moot case, thus:
1.) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
2.) The exceptional character of the situation and paramount public
interest is involved;
3.) When constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;
and
4.) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
13.) FUNA VS. VILLAR, 670 SCRA 579, GR NO. 192791, APRIL 24, 2012
PARTIES; LOCUS STANDI - The Court has time and again acted liberally on the
locus standi requirements and has accorded certain individuals, not otherwise
directly injured, or with material interest affected, by a Government act, standing
to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at stake. The rule
on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicality in relation to which the
Court, in a catena of cases involving a subject of transcendental import, has
waived, or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned

REMEDIAL LAW

citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit they
may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other
government act.
14.) HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR., 695
SCRA 345, GR NO. 201816, APRIL 8, 2013
PARTIES; NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES - The non-joinder of
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action (Rule 3,
Section 11); The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be
indispensable. - Non-joinder means the "failure to bring a person who is a
necessary party or in this case an indispensable party into a lawsuit." An
indispensable party, on the other hand, is a party-in-interest without whom no
final determination can be had of the action, and who shall be joined either as
plaintiff or defendant. As such, this is properly a non-joinder of indispensable
party, the indispensable parties who were not included in the complaint being
the other heirs of Fian, and not a failure of the complaint to state a cause of
action. Having settled that, Our pronouncement in Pamplona Plantation
Company, Inc. v. Tinghil 450 SCRA 421 (2005) , is instructive as regards the
proper course of action on the part of the courts in cases of non-joinder of
indispensable parties, viz: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding
and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party
or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the
complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to
implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
15.) LBL INDUSTRIES, INC VS, CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, 705 SCRA 688, GR. NO.
201760, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
PARTIES The Supreme Court, in several cases, has recognized the sufficiency
of a Secretary's Certificate as proof of authority for an individual named in it to
represent a corporation in a suit.- In Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB
Leasing and Finance Corp.,14 We held: In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of
Appeals, the petitioner had not attached any proof that its resident manager
was authorized to sign the Verification and the non-forum shopping
Certification, as a consequence of which the Petition was dismissed by the Court
of Appeals. Subsequent to the dismissal, however, the petitioner filed a motion

REMEDIAL LAW

for reconsideration, to which was already attached a Certificate issued by its

board secretary who stated that, prior to the filing of the Petition, the resident
manager had been authorized by the board of directors to file the Petition.
Citing several cases excusing noncompliance with the requirement of a
certificate of non-forum shopping, the Court held that "with more reason should
x x x the instant petition [be allowed,] since petitioner herein did submit a
certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the
signatory was authorized to do so." The Court further said that the subsequent
submission of the Secretary's Certificate, attesting that the signatory to the
certification was authorized to file the action on behalf of petitioner, mitigated
the oversight.
16.)
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS; SPECIAL ADMINISTRATORS; INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER VS. FINAL JUDGMENT The appointment of a special administrator is
an interlocutory or preliminary order to the main case for the grant of letters of
administration in a testate or intestate proceeding. In Philippine Business Bank
vs. Chua, 634 SCRA 635 (2010), the Court stated what an interlocutory order is:
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end
the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their
rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other
things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a
motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x Unlike a 'final judgment or
order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an 'interlocutory order may
not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may
eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.
17.) MANUNGAS VS. LORETO, 655 SCRA 734, GR. NO 193161, AUGUST
22, 2011
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS; REMEDY IN CASE OF APPOINTMENT OF
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR - The Court has considered an appointment of a
special administrator as an interlocutory or preliminary order to the main case for
the grant of letters of administration in a testate or intestate proceeding. In
Ocampo v. Ocampo,[21] the Court succinctly held, The appointment or removal
of special administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be
assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

REMEDIAL LAW

18.) TANTANO VS. ESPINA- CABOVERDE, 702 SCRA 508, GR NO. 203585,
JULY 29, 2013
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; RECEIVERSHIP - Receivership is a harsh remedy to
be granted with utmost circumspection and only in extreme situations. The
doctrinal pronouncement in Velasco & Co. v. Gochico & Co is instructive: The
power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one and should be exercised with
extreme caution and only under circumstances requiring summary relief or
where the court is satisfied that there is imminent danger of loss, lest the injury
thereby caused be far greater than the injury sought to be averted. The court
should consider the consequences to all of the parties and the power should not
be exercised when it is likely to produce irreparable injustice or injury to private
rights or the facts demonstrate that the appointment will injure the interests of
others whose rights are entitled to as much consideration from the court as
those of the complainant
19.) GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. RAMOS, 654 SCRA 256, GR
NO. 193723, JULY 20, 2011
QUESTIONS OF LAW; QUESTIONS OF FACT - For a question to be one of
law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest
solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question
posed is one of fact. It need not be reiterated that this Court is not a trier of
facts. We will defer to the factual findings of the trial court, because petitioner
GMC has not shown any circumstances making this case an exception to the
rule.
20.) SERRANO VS. AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., 690 SCRA 226, GR NO.
197003, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
RES JUDICATA - By the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in
the former suit." To apply this doctrine in the form of a "bar by prior judgment,"
there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action as
between the first case where the first judgment was rendered and the second
case that is sought to be barred.

REMEDIAL LAW

21.) TUJAN-MILITANTE VS. CADA- DEAPERA, 731 SCRA 194, GR NO.

210636, JULY 28, 2014
SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS NOT REQUIRED IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION- be it under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.
As held in Saulo v. Cruz 105 PHIL 315 (1959), a writ of habeas corpus plays a
role somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by
service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent.
22.) BACULI VS. BELEN, 681 SCRA 489, A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2179 SEPTEMBER
24, 2012
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CONTEMPT The formal charge has to be specific
enough to inform the person, against whom contempt proceedings are being
conducted, that he or she must explain to the court; otherwise, he or she will be
cited in contempt. In Calimlim, the Judge issued an Order requiring the
petitioners to explain their failure to bring the accused before the RTC for his
scheduled arraignment. We held in that case that such Order was not yet
sufficient to initiate the contempt proceedings because it did not yet amount to
a show-cause order directing the petitioners to explain why they should not be
cited in contempt. The Order must express this in clear and unambiguous
language.
23.) TUJAN-MILITANTE VS. CADA- DEAPERA, 731 SCRA 194, GR NO.
210636, JULY 28, 2014
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; HABEAS CORPUS - Considering that the writ is
made enforceable within a judicial region, petitions for the issuance of the writ
of habeas corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or
pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may therefore be filed with any
of the proper RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is
sought.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1.) PEOPLE VS. GALLO, 622 SCRA 439, GR NO. 187730, JUNE 29, 2010

REMEDIAL LAW

10

APPEALS - It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the findings of fact of the trial
court are not disturbed on appeal except when it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would
have materially affected the outcome of the case.- This Court accords the trial
courts findings with the probative weight it deserves in the absence of any
compelling reason to discredit the same.
2.) PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, 622 SCRA 524, GR NO. 188601, JUNE 29, 2010
APPEALS; WITNESSES - It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the assessment of
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by
the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first
hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.
This rule admits of exceptions, however, such as when the trial courts findings of
facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when
certain facts of substance and value, likely to change the outcome of the case
have been overlooked by the lower court, or when the assailed decision is based
on a misapprehension of facts. None of these exceptions exists in this case.
3.) QUI VS. PEOPLE, 682 SCRA 94, GR NO. 196161, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
BAIL Under the present rule, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, as here. The Court held: Indeed, pursuant to the "tough on
bail pending appeal" policy, the presence of bail-negating conditions mandates
the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal such that those circumstances
are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where bail is
prohibited. In the exercise of that discretion, the proper courts are to be guided
by the fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should
be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons.
4.) TY VS. DE JEMIL, 638 SCRA 67, GR NO. 182147, DECEMBER 15, 2010
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY - the determination of
probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is, under the doctrine of qualified
political agency, presumably that of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or
reprobated by the latter. - For one, while it is the consistent principle in this
jurisdiction that the determination of probable cause is a function that belongs

REMEDIAL LAW

11

to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may
direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of
the case; such determination is subject to judicial review where it is established
that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. For another, there is
no question that the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who
may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the
formers determination in criminal investigation cases.
5.)
PEOPLE VS. ALFREDO, 638 SCRA 749, GR NO. 188560, DECEMBER
15, 2010
JUDGMENTS - The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the
one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during
trial, but merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment
erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion. As this Court held in People v. Competente, 207 SCRA 591 (1992)
:The circumstance that the Judge who rendered the judgment was not the one
who heard the witnesses, does not detract from the validity of the verdict of
conviction. Even a cursory perusal of the Decision would show that it was based
on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully studied, with
testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as questions from the Court
carefully passed upon.
6.)
SENADOR VS. PEOPLE, 692 SCRA 669, GR NO. 201620, MARCH 6,
2013
PLEADINGS; INFORMATION; MATERIALITY OF THE ERRONEOUS
DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENDED PARTY - the materiality of the erroneous
designation of the offended party would depend on whether or not the subject
matter of the offense was sufficiently described and identified. - the appellant
was charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor, wherein the identity of
the person against whom the defamatory words were directed is a material
element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the person injured is material. On
the contrary, in the instant case, petitioner was charged with estafa, a crime
against property that does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper
designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely
necessary is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the
information. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the offended party in
crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the

REMEDIAL LAW

12

correction of the information, not its dismissal: SEC. 12. Name of the offended
party.The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the
person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or
any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there
is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious
name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown,
the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must
cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the
record. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, the
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on
whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described and
identified.
7.) SALAPUDDIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 691 SCRA 578, GR NO. 184681,
FEBRUARY 25, 2013
PROBABLE CAUSE - The determination of probable cause is, under our criminal
justice system, an executive function that the courts cannot interfere with in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, a violation of the basic
principle of separation of powers will ensue. The Executive Branch, through its
prosecutors, is, thus, given ample latitude to determine the propriety of filing a
criminal charge against a person.
8.) PEOPLE VS. NG YIK BUN, 639 SCRA 88, GR NO. 180452, JANUARY 10,
2011
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS - In People v. Alunday 564 SCRA 135 (2008), we
held that when a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears
the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may
effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view.

REMEDIAL LAW

13

In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused-appellants were

committing the offense of possessing shabu and were in the act of loading them
in a white van when the police officers arrested them. As aptly noted by the
appellate court, the crime was committed in the presence of the police officers
with the contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain view and duly
observed by the arresting officers. And to write finis to the issue of any
irregularity in their warrantless arrest, the Court notes, as it has consistently held,
that accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their objections to their
arrest for not raising the issue before entering their plea.
9.) PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, 622 SCRA 524, GR NO. 188601, JUNE 29, 2010
WITNESSES; TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; AFFIDAVITS - testimonies prevail over
the affidavits previously executed by the witnesses. It is settled that whenever
there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in
court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken
ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost
invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.
EVIDENCE
1.) PEOPLE VS. CIAS, 650 SCRA 326, GR NO. 194379, JUNE 1, 2011
SWEETHEART DEFENSE - the sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense
that must be supported by convincing proof. - The theory that the accused and
AAA were having an illicit affair is unsupported by evidence. As held in People
v. Cabanilla, 635 SCRA 300 (2010) the sweetheart defense is an affirmative
defense that must be supported by convincing proof. In the case at bar,
accused-appellant relied solely on his testimony and that of his wife. He did not
offer any other evidence such as a love letter, a memento, or even a single
photograph to substantiate his claim that they had a romantic relationship.
2.)
PEOPLE VS. ALFREDO, 638 SCRA 749, GR NO. 188560, DECEMBER
15, 2010
ALIBI - it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently
weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is
evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility
than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive

REMEDIAL LAW

14

evidence. Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to

overcome the testimony of AAA, no weight can be given to the alibi of accusedappellant.
3.) MCMP CONSTRUCTION CORP VS. MONARK EQUIPMENT CORP, 739
SCRA 432, GR NO. 201001, NOVEMBER 10, 2014
BEST EVIDENCE RULE; DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - The Best Evidence Rule,
a basic postulate requiring the production of the original document whenever its
contents are the subject of inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court which provides:
"Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
4.) PEOPLE VS. LUCERO, 644 SCRA 457, GR NO. 188705, MARCH 2, 2011
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Direct evidence of the crime is not the only
matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The
rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support
its conclusion of guilt. Here, there are no direct witnesses to the crime. But even
if no one saw the commission of the crime, accused-appellant may still be
pinned down as the perpetrator. As held in Salvador v. People, 559 SCRA 461
(2008): Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial

REMEDIAL LAW

15

court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a
trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts
from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to
circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in
many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the
community.
5.) PEOPLE VS. COMBATE 638 SCRA 797, GR NO. 189301, DECEMBER 15,
2010
DENIALS - Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any
showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter,
prevails over the defense of denial. Accused-appellant was positively and
categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and
accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were
moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the
presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias
stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.
6.) ABBAS VS. ABBAS, 689 SCRA 646, GR NO. 183896, JANUARY 30, 2013
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS; PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY- Under Sec.
3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a disputable presumption that an
official duty has been regularly performed, absent contradiction or other
evidence to the contrary. We held, "The presumption of regularity of official acts
may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a
duty." No such affirmative evidence was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar
was lax in performing her duty of checking the records of their office, thus the
presumption must stand. In fact, proof does exist of a diligent search having
been conducted, as Marriage License No. 996967 was indeed located and
submitted to the court. The fact that the names in said license do not
correspond to those of the parties does not overturn the presumption that the
registrar conducted a diligent search of the records of her office.
7.) MCIAA VS. INOCIAN, G.R. No. 168812, FEBRUARY 9, 2011

Under the rule on the Statute of Frauds, as expressed in Article 1403

of the Civil Code, a contract for the sale or acquisition of real property shall
REMEDIAL LAW

16

be unenforceable unless the same or some note of the contract be in writing

and subscribed by the party charged. Subject to defined exceptions, evidence
of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or secondary
evidence of its contents. MCIAAs invocation of the Statute of Frauds is
misplaced primarily because the statute applies only to executory and not to
completed, executed, or partially consummated contracts

8.) MALAYA INSURANCE CO VS. ALBERTO , 664 SCRA 791, GR NO.

194320, FEBRUARY 1, 2012
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE - Under the rules of evidence, a witness can testify
only to those facts which the witness knows of his or her personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from the witness own perception. Concomitantly, a
witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned from others
either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters. Such
testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of
what the witness has learned. This is known as the hearsay rule.
9.) PUA VS. LO BUN TIONG, 708 SCRA 571, GR NO. 198660, OCTOBER 23,
2013
PRESUMPTIONS - Certainly, in a suit for a recovery of sum of money, as here,
the plaintiff-creditor has the burden of proof to show that defendant had not
paid her the amount of the contracted loan. However, it has also been long
established that where the plaintiff-creditor possesses and submits in evidence
an instrument showing the indebtedness, a presumption that the credit has not
been satisfied arises in her favor. Thus, the defendant is, in appropriate
instances, required to overcome the said presumption and present evidence to
prove the fact of payment so that no judgment will be entered against him.
10.) SALAPUDDIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 691 SCRA 578, GR NO.
184681, FEBRUARY 25, 2013
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS - an extrajudicial
confession is binding only on the confessant. It cannot be admitted against his
or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them. Tamargo v.

REMEDIAL LAW

17

Awingan, 610 SCRA 316 (2010) elaborated on the reason for this rule, viz: On
a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are binding
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and
declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly
unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers;
and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their
acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. The exception provided under
Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the admission of a
conspirator129 requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence
other than the confession.130 In this case, there is a dearth of proof
demonstrating the participation of petitioner in a conspiracy to set off a bomb in
the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman Akbar. Not one of the other
persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation professed that
petitioner was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds.
Instead, the investigating prosecutors did no more than to rely on petitioners
association with these persons to conclude that he was a participant in the
conspiracy, ruling thus: petitioners participation in the forgoing, cannot be
downplayed just because he did not actively take part in the planning. Rather,
despite this, it has hands written all over it. The circumstances, the people and
place used are all, one way or another, associated with him. It cannot be mere
coincidence.
11.) VDA. DE OUANO VS. REPUBLIC, 642 SCRA 384, GR NO. 168770,
FEBRUARY 9, 2011
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENE; STATUTE OF FRAUDS - T he objection on the
admissibility of evidence on the basis of the Statute of Frauds may be waived if
not timely raised. - the objection on the admissibility of evidence on the basis of
the Statute of Frauds may be waived if not timely raised. Records tend to
support the conclusion that Airport Authority did not, as the petitioners posit,
object to the introduction of parol evidence to prove its commitment to allow
the former landowners to repurchase their respective properties upon the
occurrence of certain events.
12.) PEOPLE VS. SOBANGEE, 641 SCRA 164, GR NO. 186120, JANUARY
31, 2011
WITNESSES - Minor variances in the details of the witnesses accounts, more
frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. - The

REMEDIAL LAW

18

trial court explained that the inconsistencies found in the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution were minor and even made their testimonial
evidence more believable and unrehearsed. We agree with the trial and
appellate courts in this respect.
13.) PEOPLE VS. LLANAS, JR., 622 SCRA 602, GR NO. 190616, JUNE 29,
2010
WITNESSES - Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy involving only two
persons and not generally attempted save in secluded places far from prying
eyes. By the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usually commences solely
upon the word of the offended girl herself and conviction invariably turns upon
her credibility, as the Peoples single witness of the actual occurrence.
Accordingly, certain guiding principles have been formulated in resolving rape
cases. Foremost of these: an offended womans testimony hurdling the exacting
test of credibility would suffice to convict. In fine, the credibility of the victim is
always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape. Withal, in passing
upon the credibility of the victim-witness, the highest degree of respect must be
afforded to the evaluation and findings of the trial court.

REMEDIAL LAW

19