2015 de Castro-Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial
2015) Law
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT
A final and executory judgment, under the doctrine of immutability and inalterability, may
no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by the
Supreme Court. However, as rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice, their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
Thus, in the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton
failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, courts
should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss. - PCI Leasing
and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, Doing Business Under the Name and Style
of "A. Milan Trading," and Laura M. Milan, G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010
Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of
the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former
must yield to the latter. - City of Dumaguete, herein represented by City Mayor,
Agustin R. Perdices vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24,
2011
JURISDICTION
In cases where a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, the same COMELEC
Division should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the order. - Eddie T. Panlilio vs.
Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda, G.R. No. 181478, July 15, 2009
As a general rule, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceeding. However, it admits an exception where the party fully participated in the
proceedings. A teacher cannot raise want of jurisdiction when she has availed of the
remedies in the proceedings. - Civil Service Commission vs. Fatima A. Macud, G.R.
No. 177531, September 10, 2009
Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil
actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling
reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the
petition. The Court may suspend or even disregard rules when the demands of justice so
require.
No court, aside from the Supreme Court, may enjoin a national government project unless
the matter is one of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue such that unless the
act complained of is enjoined, grave injustice or irreparable injury would arise. Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Hon. Franco T.
Falcon, In His Capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 71 of the RTC in Pasig
City and BCA International Corporation, G.R. No. 176657, September 1, 2010
Administrative agencies, like the Energy Regulatory Commission, are tribunals of limited
jurisdiction and, as such, could wield only such as are specifically granted to them by the
enabling statutes. In relation thereto is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction involving matters
that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question
involved is also judicial in nature. - BF Homes, Inc. and The Philippine Waterworks and
Construction Corp. vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 171624, December 6,
2010
The rule is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein. Once vested by law, on a particular court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject
Page 1 of 28

2015) Law
matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature
through the enactment of a law. - Bernabe L. Navida et al. vs. Hon. Teodoro A. Dizon,
Jr., G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction. - NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited vs. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon
substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they
decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic,
there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical
use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and
which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. - PLDT Company vs. Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 163037, February 6, 2013
A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC, entitled Resolution Providing Guidelines in the Inventory and
Adjudication of Cases Assigned to Judges who are Promoted or Transferred to Other
Branches in the Same Court Level of the Judicial Hierarchy, actually recognizes that both
the transferred judge and the new judge can decide the case but gives consideration to the
preference of the parties, but the lapses in the observance of the rule by the judge which
was not chosen by the accused does not invalidate the decision due to violation of due
process when the accused was sufficiently given the opportunity to be heard, to defend
himself and to confront his accusers on the offense hurled against him. - People of the
Philippines vs. Giovanni Ocfemia y Chavez, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Petitioner wants this Court to recognize the rights and interests of the residents of Sun
Valley Subdivision but it miserably failed to establish the legal basis, such as its ownership
of the subject roads, which entitles petitioner to the remedy prayed for. As petitioner has
failed to establish that it has any right entitled to the protection of the law, and it also failed
to exhaust administrative remedies by applying for injunctive relief instead of going to the
Mayor as provided by the Local Government Code, the petition must be denied. - New Sun
Valley Homeowners' Association, Inc., vs. Sangguniang Barangay, Barangay Sun
Valley, Paraaque City, et al., G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011
It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court
justifying the dismissal of the complaint. - Addition Hills Mandaluyong Civic & Social
Organization, Inc., vs. Megaworld Properties & Holdings, Inc., Wilfredro I.
Imperial, In His Capacity As Director, NCR and Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board, Department of Natural Resources, G.R. No. 175039, April 18, 2012
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CAUSE OF ACTIONS
A judge is not an active combatant in proceedings where the order he had rendered is being
assailed. As such, he must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions
and the appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. Being a
nominal party to the case, he has no personal interest nor personality therein. Thus, he has
no legal standing to institute a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC Guihulngan, Negros Oriental
vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, Hon. Mehol K. Sadain and Hon. Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.,
The Commissioners of the Second Division, Commission on Elections, Manila; and
Walter J. Aragones, G.R. No. 159117, March 10, 2010
Page 2 of 28

2015) Law
The nature of the cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint. Three
essential elements must be shown to establish a cause of action. In this case, the legal
rights of the petitioner Bank and the correlative legal duty of LCDC have not been
sufficiently established in view of the failure of the Bank's evidence to show the provisions
and conditions that govern its legal relationship. - MBTC Company vs. Ley Construction
and Development Corp, G.R. No.185590, December 03, 2014
PLEADINGS
Initiatory Pleadings
Since the alleged misconduct falls under indirect contempt, proceedings should be initiated
either motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, or by a verified
petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers
involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory
pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. It is clear that private respondent has
missed out on all of the above requirements as he filed only a motion rather than a verified
petition. - Bases Conversion Development Authority vs. Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer of Pampanga, Register of Deeds of Angeles City, Benjamin Poy Lorenzo,
Lavernie Poy Lorenzo, Diosdado De Guzman, Rosemary Eng Tay Tan, Leandro De
Guzman, Benjamin G. Lorenzo, Antonio Manalo, and Socorro De Guzman, G.R.
Nos. 155322-29, June 27, 2012
FAILURE TO FILE AN APPELLANTS BRIEF
Liberality is given to litigants who are worthy of the same, and not to ones who flout the
rules, give explanations to the effect that the counsels are busy with other things, and
expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on the mere self-serving claim that their
case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz
V, Amable C. Aguiluz IX, Cielo C. Aguiluz, Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay
and MCA Holdings and Management Corporation vs. MBf CARD International
Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited. G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012
DEFAULT
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be
obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court
should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and
not the rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No.
166104. June 26, 2008
SUMMONS
A case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served
as it would be difficult to conceive that when the defendant appears before the Court
complaining that he has not been validly summoned, the case against him will immediately
be dismissed. - Spouses German Anunciacion and Ana Ferma Anunciacion and
Gavino G. Conejos vs. Perpetua M. Bocanegra and George M. Bocanegra, G.R. No.
152496, July 30, 2009
The Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the Republic by service of
summons upon the DPWH Region III alone. The applicable rule of procedure in this case is
Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that when the defendant is the
Republic of the Philippines, the service of summons may be effected on the Office of the
Solicitor General. The DPWH and its regional office are simply agents of the Republic, which
is the real party in interest. - Republic of the Philippines represented by the
Department of Public Works and Highways, through the Hon. Secretary,
Page 3 of 28

2015) Law
Hermogenes Ebdane vs. Alberto A. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, September 14,
2011
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
PILTEL filed different actions to different courts thereby declaring it by the court as guilty of
forum shopping. Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and
raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by
some other court, or to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one
court, then in another. - Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. Radiomarine Network,
Inc., G.R. No. 152092, August 4, 2010
Defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. It
also allows courts to dismiss cases motu proprio on any of the enumerated grounds (1) lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4)
prescription provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the
evidence on record. - Heirs of Domingo Valientes vs. Hon. Reinerio (Abraham) B.
Ramas, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 29, 9 th Judicial Region, San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur and Vilma V. Minor, G.R. No. 157852, December 15, 2010
Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the petition for
review on certiorari such material portions of the record as would support the
petition. However, such a requirement was not meant to be an ironclad rule such that the
failure to follow the same would merit the outright dismissal of the petition. In accordance
with Section 7 of Rule 45, the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such
pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods
and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate. - F.A.T. Kee Computer
Systems, Inc. vs. Online Networks International, Inc., G.R. No. 171238, February
2, 2011
It bears stressing that the sanction of dismissal may be imposed even absent any allegation
and proof of the plaintiff's lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the
defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules. The failure of
the plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period
of time will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested in obtaining the relief
prayed for. - Philippine Charter Insurance Corp vs. Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd.,
Owner of the Vessel M/V "Explorer", Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals,
Inc. and Foremost Intl Port Services, Inc., G.R. No. 175409, September 7, 2011
RES JUDICATA
Conclusiveness of judgment, one of the aspects of the concept of res judicata, requires only
the identity of issues and parties, but not of causes of action. Hence, facts and issues
actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case
between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of
action. A case involving an issue of whether or not an instituted civil case was dismissible
due to forum shopping committed by petitioners, which eventually was dismissed based on
that same ground, constitutes as res judicata to a petition with the same issue between the
same parties albeit on a different ground of failure to prosecute. - Ley Construction &
Development Corporation, LC Builders & Developers, Inc., Metro Container
Corporation, Manuel T. Ley, and Janet C. Ley vs. Philippine Commercial &
International Bank, Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court Of Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, and Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig, Metro Manila, G.R. No. 160841, June 23, 2010
Page 4 of 28

2015) Law
Besana filed complaint for illegal dismissal but the court decided that he was not illegally
dismissed. However, he failed to file an appeal which therefore attained finality of the
decision. NEA issued another resolution including his dismissal and he appealed to such
resolution. The court ruled that he is already barred by Res judicata. Res judicata or bar by
prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court
of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it
arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause. The
doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy against re-opening that which has
previously been decided, so as to put the litigation to an end. - Engr. Job Y. Besana, Hon.
Ronaldo B. Zamora et al., vs. Rodson F. Mayor, G.R. No. 153837 July 21, 2010
Literally, res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment." It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties
or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of
concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. - Heirs of
Maximino Derla, namely: Zelda, Juna, Geraldine, Aida, Alma, All Surnamed Derla;
and Sabina Vda. De Derla, all represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Zelda Derla
vs. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda. de Hipolito, Mae D. Hipolito, Roger Zagales,
Francisco Derla, Sr., Jovito Derla, exaltacion pond, and Vina U. Casaway, in her
capacity as the Register Of Deeds of Tagum, Davao Del Norte, G.R. No. 157717,
April 13, 2011
The annulment of the sale of share in the subject property and the legal redemption and the
claim for damages should not be mistaken to be the causes of action, but they were the
remedies and reliefs. The cause of action is the sale of the entire subject property by
Basilia, et al. to Selga spouses without Sony Brars knowledge and consent, hence,
depriving the latter of her rights and interests over her pro-indiviso share in the subject
property as a co-heir and co-owner. Therefore, Civil case before RTC-Branch 56 should be
dismissed, being barred by res judicata. Any error committed by RTC-Branch 55 in the
Decision in Civil Case No. 276 could only be reviewed or corrected on appeal. - Tobias
Selga and Ceferina Garancho Selga vs. Sony Entierro Brar, represented by her
Attorney-in-Fact Marina T. Entierro, G.R. No. 175151, September 21, 2011
A judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based on a compromise
agreement is a judgment on the merits.
Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition
or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. There is substantial identity of
parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party
in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case. - Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation vs. Dolores Hilario, Teresita Hilario, Thelma Hilario Ochoa
Eduardo Hilario, G.R. No. 160446, September 19, 2012
LITIS PENDENCIA
As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining whether causes of
action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain
the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the
forms or nature of the two actions be different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain
both actions, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in
the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. - PNB vs. Gateway
Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485, February 15, 2012
INTERVENTION
Jurisprudence describes intervention as "a remedy by which a third party, not originally
impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect
Page 5 of 28

2015) Law
or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings." "The right to
intervene is not an absolute right; it may only be permitted by the court when the movant
establishes facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing it." - The Board of
Regents of the Mindanao State University represented by its Chairman vs. Abedin
Limpao Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012
Although Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene
may be filed. This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even
beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice.
Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court,
when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before
the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and
executory. - Deogenes O. Rodriguez vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals and Philippine
Chinese Charitable Association, Inc., G.R. No. 184589, June 13, 2013
JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and
executory or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired
finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as
they were not yet in existence at that time. - Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC) and Lapu-Lapu Development &
Housing Corporation (LLDHc), G.R. No. 167000 & 169971, June 8, 2011
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
A demurrer to evidence is defined as an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether
true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa,
G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012
FAILURE TO FILE AN APPELANTS BRIEF
case is meritorious. - MCA-Mbf Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz
and MCA Holdings And Management Corporation vs. MBf Card International
Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012
MODES OF APPEALS
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal to this Court by
way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari should raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth in the petition. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Thus, the
Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the CA only in the presence of any of
the following circumstances: 1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; 2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) there is grave
abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings
of fact are conflicting; 6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual
findings are based; 7) the findings of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on
record; 8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; 9) the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a
Page 6 of 28

2015) Law
different conclusion; 10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and 11)
such findings are contrary to the admission of both parties. - Romulo Tindoy vs. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157106, September 03, 2008
Petitioners assertion in their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their petition that
(a) the foregoing documents/pleadings were not material to the issues they raised and (b)
anyway, the records of the case may be ordered elevated by the CA, cannot excuse them
from failing to comply with the requirement of a petition for review under Rule 43. We
reiterate here that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process as
it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict
compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of
justice. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. Pedro Gabriel et. al. vs. Murmuray Jamias et. al., G.R. No. 156482, September 17,
2008
The Court disagrees with Standard Chartered that the conclusion drawn by the CA from the
evidence based on record is a question of law. This is the opposite definition of a question of
law. Its reliance on the ruling in Commissioner of Immigration vs. Garcia that when the facts
are undisputed, then the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom by the
Court of Appeals is correct is a question of law is misplaced. In the present case, the facts
are disputed. SCBEU claims that there is an existing company practice entitling Standard
Chartereds emplo-yees to outpatient medicine reimbursements and spouses of its male
employees to maternity benefits while the latter argues the contrary. - Standard
Chartered Bank vs. SCBEU, G.R. No. 165550, October 08, 2008
Moreover, it is the Courts advice to lower courts, under exceptional circumstances, to be
cautious about not depriving of a party of the right to appeal and that every party litigant
should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause free from the constraints of technicalities. - Republic of Philippines vs. Heirs of
Evaristo Tiotioen, G.R. No. 167215, Oct 08, 2008
As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of law are brought to this Court since Sec. 5 (2)
(e), Art. VIII of the Constitution includes in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction all
cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on appeals. Rule 43
provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be
sought in the CA instead of this Court. In the case at bar, the question on whether Santos
can retire under RA 660 or RA 8291 is undoubtedly a question of law because it centers on
what law to apply in his case considering that he has previously retired from the
government under a particular statute and that he was re-employed by the government.
Thus, he availed of the proper remedy which is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. - Jose Santos vs. Committee on Claims Settlement, and
GSIS, G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009
The right demand arbitration is predicated on the existence of an agreement to arbitrate
between the parties except when arbitration is expressly required by the law. Also, the party
who demands the right of arbitration must be privy to the agreement upon which he invokes
his right, otherwise, he has no legal personality to pursue a claim. - Ormoc Sugarcane
Planters Association, Inc. (OSPA), Occidental Leyte Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop,
Inc. (OLFAMCA), Unifarm Multi-Purpose Coop, Inc. (UNIFARM) and Ormoc North
District Irrigation Multi-Purpose Coop, Inc. (ONDIMCO), vs. The Court Of Appeals,
Hideco Sugar Milling Co., Inc., and Ormoc Sugar Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 156660,
August 24, 2009
The Supreme Court respects the findings of the Ombudsman because it is an independent
body tasked to investigate complaints against public officials and is meant to be free from
influence from the judiciary.
Page 7 of 28

2015) Law
The decision of the Ombudsman on a complaint involving the finding of probable cause in
criminal cases involving public officials may be reviewed by the Supreme Court via Rule 65
and not Rule 43. Petition for review under Rule 43 as mode of review only applies to
decisions of the Ombusman over administrative cases. - Ernesto Francisco, Jr. vs.
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto et al., G. R. No. 154117, October 2, 2009
There is no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts where a decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) is appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45, raising only questions of law.
Dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.
The owner of the property is not an indispensable party in an action for expropriation.
Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an actionthe
remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to be indispensable
A declaration of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary civil action such as an action for
reconveyance, but must only be made in a special proceeding, for it involves the
establishment of a status or right While the appropriate special proceeding for declaration
of heirship would be the settlement of the estate of the decedent, nonetheless, an action for
quieting of title is also a special proceeding, specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court on declaratory relief and similar remedies. - Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon.
Mamindiara P. Mangotara, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 1, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, and Maria Cristina Fertilizer
Corporation, and the Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010
Under Supreme Court Circular No. 562000, in case a motion for reconsideration of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed has been filed, the 60-day period to file
a petition for certiorari shall be computed from notice of the denial of such motion. - CocaCola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar, G.R. No. 163091, October 6,
2010
It is the inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of
failure of justice without the writ that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Joel R. Umandap and Felicidad D.
Umandap, G.R. No. 166298, November 17, 2010
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed
thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. This rule,
however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is when the findings of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. - Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and
Lydia Sia vs. Development Bank Of The Philippines, Jose To Chip, Patricio Yap and
Roger Balila, G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010
When a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.
Nevertheless,
the
acceptance
of
a
petition
for certiorari, as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court. The provisions of the Rules of Court, which are technical rules,
may be relaxed in certain exceptional situations. Where a rigid application of the rule
that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a manifest failure or
miscarriage of justice, it is within our power to suspend the rules or exempt a particular
case from its operation. - Spouses Ruben and Myrna Leynes vs. Former Tenth
Division of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao
Del Sur, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, and
Spouses Gualberto & Rene Cabahug-Superales, G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011
Page 8 of 28

2015) Law
In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to receive
new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve factual issues. - Spouses Rogelio
Marcelo and Milagros Marcelo vs. LBC Bank, G.R. No. 183575, April 11, 2011
The petition under Rule 45 must not involve the calibration of the probative value of the
evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only
issue that should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn by
the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate. - Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Chief of the Philippine National Police vs. Thi Thu Thuy T. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 175021, June 15, 2011
The appointments made by respondent Loyola could not be considered grave misconduct
and dishonesty. There were vacant positions causead by the creation of positions and these
vacancies should be filled up. There is misconduct if there is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action. In the case, evidence show that respondents Loyolas
did not transgress some definite rule of action. Had there been a transgression in the
creation of positions and appointments, the Civil Service Commission should have so stated
when the appointments were submitted for approval. - Eloisa L. Tolentino vs. Atty. Roy
M. Loyola et al., G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their
strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision
this liberality. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes
its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. - Heirs
of Rodolfo Crisostomo (Euprocinia, Royce and Irish Crisostomo) vs. Rudex
International Development Corporation, G.R. No. 176129, August 24, 2011
The basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of the Supreme Court,
because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review. However, in
exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of questions of fact in order to
resolve legal issues, such as when there was palpable error or a grave misapprehension of
facts by the lower court. - Gemma Ong a.k.a. Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts,
while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same 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. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the
appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. - Felimon
Manguiob vs. Judge Paul T. Arcangel, RTC, Branch 12, Davao City and Alejandra
Velasco, G.R. No. 152262, February 15, 2012
Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive
of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. Spouses Jesus Dycoco and Joela E. Dycoco vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals,
Nelly Siapno-Sanchez and Inocencio Berma, G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013
Time and again the Supreme Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a natural
right nor a part of due process. Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the
reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of
Page 9 of 28

2015) Law
exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation. - Rhodora Prieto vs.
Alpadi Development Corporation, G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013
It is already a well-established rule that the Court, in the exercise of its power of review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark on a
re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the
case, considering that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and
binding on the Court.
This rule, however, admits of exceptions as recognized by jurisprudence, to wit: (1) [W]hen
the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse
of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when
the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs
are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when
the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. - Republic of the
Philippines Bureau of Forest Development vs. Vicente Roxas and the Register of
Deeds of Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. 157988, December 11, 2013
The accused, arrested through a buy-bust operation of the police, is questioning the non
compliance with the rule on chain of custody of seized illegal drugs but the accused only
raised such objection on appeal at the CA. SC ruled that objection to evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence
offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise
the question for the first time on appeal. - People of the Philippines vs. Joselito
Morate y Tarnate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014
A question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. This petition of the union now before this Court is a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is
evidentiary. The crucial question of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to
bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case, and good faith or
bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. The issue of whether there was already
deadlock between the union and the company is likewise a question of fact. - Tabangao
Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation,
G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
PERIOD TO APPEAL
Jurisprudence has settled the fresh period rule, according to which, an ordinary appeal
from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to the Court of Appeals, under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen (15) days either from receipt of the original
judgment of the trial court or from receipt of the final order of the trial court dismissing or
denying the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Ermelinda C. Manaloto,
Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcilla, Lourdes J. Catalan, Ethelinda J. Holt,
Bienvenido R. Jongco, Artemio R. Jongco, Jr. and Joel Jongco vs. Ismael Veloso III,
G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010
EFFECT OF DEATH PENDING APPEAL
Page 10 of 28

2015) Law
The death of an accused pending his appeal extinguished not only his criminal liabilities but
also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on the crime committed. - People of
the Philippines vs. Domingo Paniterce, G.R. No. 186382, April 5, 2010
The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability,
as well as his civil liability ex delicto. - People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio
Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECTS OF JUDGEMENTS
Respondent sheriff departed from the procedure prescribed by the Rules in the collection of
payment for sheriffs expenses in implementing a writ of execution. Respondent as an
officer of the court should have shown a high degree of professionalism in the performance
of his duties. Instead, he failed to comply with his duties under the law and to observe
proper procedure dictated by the rules. - Jorge Q. Go vs. Vinez A. Hortaleza, A.M. No.
P051971. June 26, 2008
It is also wellsettled that the court is authorized to modify or alter a judgment after the
same has become executory, whenever the circumstances transpire rendering itsexecution
unjust and equitable. - California Bus Lines, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et.al, G.R.
No. 145408, August 20, 2008
It is settled that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.
The judgment may no longer be 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. - Government Service Insurance System vs. The Regional
Trial Court Of Pasig City, Branch 71, Cresenciano Rabello, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTCBranch 71, Pasig City; and Eduardo M. Santiago, substituted by his widow,
Rosario Enriquez Vda. De Santiago, G.R. No. 175393, December 18 2009
It is settled that a writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular
of the judgment promulgated. Execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of
validity. It must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive
portion of the decision. - University Physicians Services, Incorporated vs. Marian
Clinics, Inc. and Dr. Lourdes Mabanta, G.R. No. 152303, September 1, 2010
Sheriff Pascua totally ignored the established procedural rules laid down under Section 9,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court when he did not give Juanito the opportunity to either pay his
obligation under in cash, certified bank check, or any other mode of payment acceptable to
Panganiban; or to choose which of his property may be levied upon to satisfy the same
judgment, Sheriff Pascua immediately levied upon the vehicle that belonged to Juanitos
wife, Yolanda. - Yolanda Leachon Corpuz vs. Sergio V. Pascua, Sheriff III. Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Trece Martires City, Cavite, A.M. No. P-11-2972, September
28, 2011
To justify the stay of immediate execution, the supervening events must have a direct effect
on the matter already litigated and settled. Or, the supervening events must create a
substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a
final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate
execution in the interest of justice. - Spouses Jesse Cachopero and Bema Cachopero
vs. Rachel Celestial, G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012
Section 21, Rule 70 provides that the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases appealed to it
shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the perfection of an appeal to a
higher court. To avoid such immediate execution, the defendant may appeal said judgment
to the CA and therein apply for a writ of preliminary injunction. In this case, the decisions of
the MTCC, of the RTC, and of the CA, unanimously recognized the right of the ATO to
Page 11 of 28

2015) Law
possession of the property and the corresponding obligation of Miaque to immediately
vacate the subject premises. This means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals
all ruled that Miaque does not have any right to continue in possession of the said premises.
It is therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement that Miaque "appears to have a clear
legal right to hold on to the premises leased by him from ATO at least until such time when
he shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of judgment caused to be
issued by the MTCC. - Air Transportation Office (ATO) vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals
(Nineteenth Division) and Bernie G. Miaque, G.R. No. 173616, June 25, 2014
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Preliminary Injunction
The doctrine of non-interference is premised on the principle that a judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable
injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly adjudicated and to be
entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to establish (a) a right in esse or
a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) a violation of that right; (c) that there is
an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Jimmy T. Go vs. The Clerk of Court And Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros
Occidental, Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr., and Sheriff Dioscoro F. Caponpon, Jr. and
Multi-Luck Corporation, G.R. No. 154623, March 13, 2009
Although as a general rule, a court should not by means of a preliminary injunction, transfer
property in litigation from the possession of one party to another, this rule admits of some
exceptions. For example, when there is a clear finding of ownership and possession of the
land or unless the subject property is covered by a torrens title pointing to one of the parties
as the undisputed owner. In the case at bar, the intervenors Valdez and Malvar have
established a clear and legal right of ownership and possession and the alleged TCT of the
defendants spouses dela Rosa is non-existent. - Sps. Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa & Cristeta
Dela Rosa vs. Heirs of Juan Valdez and Spouses Potenciano Malvar and Lourdes
Malvar, G.R. No. 159101, July 27, 2011
Writ of injunction would issue: [U]pon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the
existence of a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said right. In the
absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the
complainants right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. BP Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Burmah Castrol Philippines, Inc.) vs. Clark Trading
Corporation, G.R. No. 175284, September 19, 2012
For the writ to issue, two requisites must be present, namely, the existence of the right to
be protected, and that the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative
of said right. A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be
granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court
taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the
requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. In the
absence of the same, and where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within
the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been
rendered in grave abuse of discretion.
The determination of the completeness or sufficiency of the form of the petition, including
the relevant and pertinent documents which have to be attached to it, is largely left to the
discretion of the court taking cognizance of the petition, in this case the Court of Appeals. If
Page 12 of 28

2015) Law
the petition is insufficient in form and substance, the same may be forthwith dismissed
without further proceedings. That is the import of Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions
of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may
require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition.
Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. - Palm Tree Estates, Inc. and Belle Air
Golf and Country Club, Inc., vs. Philippine Bank, G.R. No. 159370, October 3,
2012
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the
face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary
for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. In this connection, a writ of
preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicants
showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists
prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be
proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury. - Solid
Builders, Inc. and Medina Foods Industries, Inc. vs. China Banking Corp, G.R. No.
179665, April 3, 2013
STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER
A status quo order is merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and
uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, not to provide mandatory or
injunctive relief. In this case, it cannot be applied when the respondent was already
removed prior to the filing of the case. - Bro. Bernard Oca, et al., vs. Laurita Custodio,
G.R. No. 174996, December 03, 2014
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

DECLARATORY RELIEFS
Petitioners Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo assailed via Declaratory Relief under Rule
63 of the Rules of Court, the orders of the trial courts denying their motions to suspend
proceedings. This recourse by petitioners, unfortunately, cannot be countenanced since a
court order is not one of those subjects to be examined under Rule 63. A petition for
declaratory relief cannot properly have a court decision as its subject matter. - Erlinda
Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo vs. Hon. Judge Belen B. Ortiz, G.R. No. 137794,
August 11, 2010
PROHIBITION
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be
obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court
should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and
not the rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No.
166104. June 26, 2008
Before resorting to the remedy of prohibition, there should be "no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." - Spouses Alvin Guerrero
and Mercury M. Guerrero vs. Hon. Lorna Navarro Domingo, G.R. No. 156142,
March 23, 2011
MANDAMUS
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but
not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. The legal right to the performance of
Page 13 of 28

2015) Law
the particular act sought to be compelled must be clear and complete. Otherwise, where the
right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, mandamus cannot issue.
Thus, the issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial
duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel
of land. - Fidela R. Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice, The Administrator, Land
Registration Authority, The Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and Senator
Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
Service of Notice of Sale
The written notice of sale to the judgment obligor need not be personally served on the
judgment obligor himself as it may be served on his counsel, or by leaving the notice in his
office with his clerk or a person having charge thereof. - Sps. Elizabeth S. Tagle &
Ernesto R. Tagle vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps.
Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and Sheriff Carol Bulacan, G.R. No. 162738,
July 8, 2009
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
It is settled that for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must concur,
namely: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease
and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods
specified in Section 2, particularly, 15 days in the case of land and 5 days in the case of
buildings. - Charles Limbauan vs. Faustino Acosta, G.R. No. 148606. June 30, 2008
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
Although matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in a
special proceeding, it would be more practical to dispense with a separate special
proceeding for the determination of the status of the parties if it appears that there is only
one property being claimed by the contending parties. - Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs.
Court Of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009
GUARDIANSHIP
A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who, though of
sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes, are incapable
of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid are considered as
incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo
Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012
WRIT OF AMPARO
The constitutional right to travel is not covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The Writ
of Amparo covers the right to life, liberty, and security. A persons right to travel is subject
to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of
justice. - Reverend Father Robert Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, Secretary Raul M.
Gonzales, in his capacity as the Secretary of Justice, and Commissioner Marcelino
C. Libanan, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration,
G.R. No. 182161, December 03 2009
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Page 14 of 28

2015) Law
In rape cases, the accused cannot capitalize on the inconsistencies in testimonies of the
witnesses when such inconsistencies cover inconsequential details such as the time or place
of commission because they do not form part of the elements of the offense. He cannot also
bank on the delay of the filing of the offense because it is established in jurisprudence that
the delay is justified due to victims fear of public stigma. - People of the Philippines vs.
Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009
In cases of rape, the discrepancies in the testimony of the victim as to the dates of the
commission of the offense do not negate the finding of guilt. What is material in the offense
is the occurrence of rape and not the date of commission. - People of the Philippines vs.
Alberto Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 30, 2009
The Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the designation of
the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of
the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense. - People of the
Philippines vs. Joseph Asilan y Tabornal, G.R. No. 188322, April 11, 2012
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
In a case of murder, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words
such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances
which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the words qualifying or qualified
by that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant
circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. It is
sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the
accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus
precluding surprises during trial. - People of the Philippines vs. Rene Rosas, G.R. No.
177825, October 24, 2008
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Corollary, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source
of obligation other than delict, in which case an action for recovery therefor may be pursued
but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. - People of the Philippines vs. Jaime
Ayochok y Tauli, G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010
The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability
and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed,
i.e., civil liability ex delicto insenso strictiore. - Dante Hernandez Datu vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 169718, December 13, 2010
Olacos death during the pendency of her appeal, extinguished not only her criminal liability
for qualified theft committed against private complainant Ruben Vinluan, but also her civil
liability, particularly the award for actual damages, solely arising from or based on said
crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Juliet Olaco y Poler, G.R. No. 197042, October
17, 2011
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon
proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the
outcome of another pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues
are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes
on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Where
the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions
Page 15 of 28

2015) Law
raised in the first action are settled the second action should be stayed. - Sta. Lucia Realty
& Development vs. City of Pasig, Municipality of Cainta, Province of Rizal,
Intervenor, G.R. No. 166838, June 15, 2011
ARREST
Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant
issued by a competent judicial authority. Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription
against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions.
On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest
without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person. - People of the
Philippines vs. Nelida Dequina y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc y Japitana & Nora
Jingabo y Cruz, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011
Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants, the
search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said arrests, and the eventual seizure of
the shabu from accused-appellants possession, are also considered unlawful and, thus, the
seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti
for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable. - People of
the Philippines vs. Rolando S. Delos Reyes, alias "Botong," and Raymundo G.
Reyes, alias "Mac-Mac," G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011
The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever
required. When two cases involve same accused, proceedings in one case, such as the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, should not be extended or made applicable to the other.
Moreover, a case which has not been previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa
when required to for conciliation shall be dismissed without prejudice. A motion to dismiss
on the ground of failure to comply with the Lupon requirement is an exception to the
pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. - Gerlie M. Uy and Ma.
Consolacion T. Bascug vs. Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La
Castellana, Negros Occidental, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012
Non-flight does not connote innocence. - People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Mores,
G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise,
the objection is deemed waived. Nevertheless, the illegal arrest of an accused is not
sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after
a trial free from error. - People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No.
190318, November 27, 2013
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Illegal Search and Warrant
In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., this Court held that the quantum of evidence
required to prove probable cause is not the same quantum of evidence needed to establish
proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in a criminal case that may be
subsequently filed. We ruled in this case that the determination of probable cause does not
call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires
after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, probable cause is concerned
with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at
this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a
reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.
Taken together, the aforementioned pieces of evidence are more than sufficient to support a
finding that test calls were indeed made by PLDTs witnesses using Mabuhay card with PIN
Page 16 of 28

2015) Law
code number 332 1479224 and, more importantly, that probable cause necessary to
engender a belief that HPS Corporation, et al. had probably committed the crime of Theft
through illegal ISR activities exists. To reiterate, evidence to show probable cause to issue a
search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt which, at this
juncture of the criminal case, is not required. - HPS Software and Communications
Corp. and Hyman Yap vs. PLDT, G.R. No. 170217 and G.R. No. 170694, December
10, 2012
Where the accused is charged of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and now questioning
the legality of his arrest as the same was done without a valid search warrant and warrant
of arrest, the Court ruled that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto and had
reiterated that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by
jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3)
customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry
search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest,
for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of
arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in
flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. People of the Philippines vs. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304,
January 15, 2014
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA BARGAINING
It is not enough to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea; the court must explain fully to
the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty; that death is a
single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstance
that may have attended the commission of the felony. Thus, the importance of the courts
obligation cannot be overemphasized, for one cannot dispel the possibility that the accused
may have been led to believe that due to his voluntary plea of guilty, he may be imposed a
lesser penalty, which was precisely what happened here. - People of the Philippines vs.
Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Respondent Mayor Henry Barrera was charged for violation of anti graft and corrupt practices
for ousting the vendors in the market however he filed demurrer to evidence. The court
granted demurrer to evidence for elements of such crime was not present in the case
specifically manifest partiality. For an act to be considered as exhibiting manifest
partiality, there must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to
favor one side rather than the other. Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a
disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. Evident
bad faith, on the other hand, is something which does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; It partakes of the
nature of fraud. - People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (4TH Div.) and Henry
Barrera,, G.R. Nos. 153952-71 August 23, 2010
SEARCH WARRANT
The Director of NBI may delegate his duty of signing the authorization to apply for search
warrant to a subordinate. Such delegation of duty shall not make the application or the
resulting search warrant null and void. Furthermore, the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure did not repeal A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC which authorized the Executive Judges and
Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for
search warrants involving dangerous drugs which may be served in places outside their
territorial jurisdiction. - Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla vs. People of the
Philippines and Hon. Omar T. Viola, RTC Judge, Branch 57, Angeles City, G.R. No.
158467, October 16, 2009
Page 17 of 28

2015) Law
Tuan was charged with Illegal possession of dangerous drugs and contended that the
issuance of search warrant was not justified for the Search Warrant did not describe with
particularity the place to be searched. The court ruled that a description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain
and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A
designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement of definiteness. - People of the Philippines vs. Estela Tuan y Baludda,
G.R. No. 176066 August 11, 2010
EVIDENCE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts
have adopted the totality of circumstances test which considers the following factors: (1)
the witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness
degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the
length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the
identification procedure.
It is settled that an out-of-court identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility
of an independent in-court identification and that, even assuming that an out-of-court
identification was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any
flaw that may have attended it. - People of Philippines vs. Gerry Sabangan and Noli
Bornasal, G.R. No. 191722, December 11, 2013
The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to
an arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine. The plain view
doctrine only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. People of the Philippines vs. Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta, G.R. No. 203984,
June 18, 2014
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
This circumstantial evidence constitutes positive identification of Gil as the perpetrator of
the crime charged, to the exclusion of others. She was the person who had the motive to
commit the crime and the series of events following her threat to cause chaos and arson in
her neighbourhood the fire that started in her room, and her actuations and remarks
during, as well as immediately before and after the fire sufficiently points to Gil as the
author of the said crime.
A well-entrenched legal precept, the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given high
respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, will alter
the outcome of the case and the said trial court is in the best position to ascertain and
measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through actual observation of the
witnesses manner of testifying, demeanor and behaviour while in the witness box. - People
of the Philippines vs. Julie Villacorta Gil, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites concur: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 18 of 28

2015) Law
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the
following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. - People of the Philippines vs.
Alfredo Pascual y Ildefonso, G. R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009
The Trial Court correctly convicted the accused of the crime of qualified Carnapping based
on circumstantial evidence, when the combination of circumstances are interwoven in such
a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. - People of the
Philippines vs. Renato Lagat y Gawan A.K.A. Renat Gawan and James Palalay y
Villarosa, G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011
The accused was convicted of rape with homicide. The accused on appeal raised the issue
of the absence of direct evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. In this regard, the
Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence may be resorted to establish the
complicity of the perpetrators crime when these are credible and sufficient, and could lead
to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the complex crime of rape with
homicide. With respect to the appellants contention that the witnesses presented were not
credible, the Court reiterated the jurisprudential principle affording great respect and even
finality to the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially if the factual
findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. - People of the Philippines vs. Bernesto
De La Cruz @ Berning, G.R. No. 183091, June 19, 2013
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which
the facts in issue may be established by inference. It consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to
reason and common experience. - People of Philippines vs. Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo,
Sr., et al., G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014
PRESUMPTIONS
The fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. The
presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. - Vicente Manzano, Jr. vs. Marcelino
Garcia, G.R. No. 179323, November 28, 2011
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (Substantial Evidence)
This Court has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an
administrative finding of fact where the decision of the Ombudsman is not supported by
substantial evidence, but based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, as in the
present case, this Court finds sufficient reason to overturn the same. - Marita C. Bernaldo
vs. The Ombudsman and The Department Of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No.
156286, August 13, 2008
The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. And in
labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. - Wilfredo Y. Antiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or
Masterbulk, Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." Otherwise
stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as
it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in
the complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such
Page 19 of 28

2015) Law
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari
because the Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not
reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized
exceptions. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Arnel A. Bernardo, Attorney V, Bureau Of
Internal Revenue (BIR), G.R. No. 181598, March 6, 2013
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
It is well-settled that a judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. Acts or
facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the
admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Viola
Cahilig et al., vs. Hon. Eustaquio G. Terencio et al., G.R. No. 164470, November
28, 2011
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Although the best evidence rule admits of exceptions and there are instances where the
presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed, such as when the original is lost or
the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of secondary evidence must still
be established. - Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana,
G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009
PAROLE EVIDENCE
A CBA is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which
the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. It covers the whole employment relationship and
prescribes the rights and duties of the parties. If the terms of the CBA are clear and have no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation
shall prevail. However, if the CBA imports ambiguity, then the parties intention as shown by
their conduct, words, actions and deeds prior to, during, and after executing the
agreement, must be ascertained. That there is an apparent ambiguity or a failure to express
the true intention of the parties, especially with regard to the retirement provisions of the
CBA, is evident in the opposing interpretations of the same by the Labor Arbiter and the CA
on one hand and the NLRC on the other. It is settled that the parole evidence rule admits of
exceptions. A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement if he raises as an issue, among others, an intrinsic ambiguity in the
written agreement or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto. - Flavio S. Suarez, Jr., Renato A. De Asis, Francisco G. Adorable, et al., vs.
National Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 150180, October 17, 2008
The Parol Evidence Rule provides that when the terms of the agreement have been reduced
into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement. A party may not modify, explain, or add to the terms
in the two written Deeds of Absolute Quitclaim since he did not put in issue in his pleadings
any of those allowed by the Rules. - Maria Torbela, represented by her heirs, Eulogio
Tosino et al., vs. Spouses Andres T. Rosario et al., G.R. No. 140528, December 7,
2011
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Page 20 of 28

2015) Law
Public Documents
As pointed out by the trial court, the Restructuring Agreement, being notarized, is a public
document enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and
convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption. The spouses
Tiu, who attested before the notary public that the Restructuring Agreement "is their own
free and voluntary act and deed," failed to present sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu, G.R.
Nos. 173090-91, September 7, 2011
Notarized documents (e. g. the notarized Answer to Interrogatories in the case at bar is
proof that Philtrust had been served with Written Interrogatories) are merely proof of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter but is not prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed therefore applies only to the portion wherein the notary public merely
attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the date
mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized documents, we have ruled
that affidavits, being self-serving, must be received with caution. - Philippine Trust
Company (also known as Philtrust Bank) vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals and Forfom
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 150318, November 22, 2010
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers if does not dwell on material
points shall not negate the finding of guilt. Also, the failure on the part of the police officer
to issue an official receipt for the confiscated items is not fatal defect because the issuance
of the same is not an element of the crime of possession of illegal drugs. - People of the
Philippines vs. Randy Magbanua alias Boyung and Wilson Magbanua, G.R. No.
170137, August 27, 2009
Mere inconsistencies as to minor details in the testimony of the witness does not affect his
credibility. It may also strengthen his position as the court abhors memorized statements.
The accused must prove ill motive on the part of the witness, otherwise, his statement
shall be given full credence by the court. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnold
Garchitorena y Camba A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato And Jessie
Garcia y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in
modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of
law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application. Thus, the modern trend of
jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in
part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of
the case. - People of the Philippines vs. Jose Galvez y Blanca, G.R. No. 181827,
February 2, 2011
The RTC observed that AAA was in the custody of the DSWD when she testified for the
prosecution, and was returned to the family of the Aniceto Bulagao during the time when
SHE recanted her testimony. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can
easily
be
obtained
from
witnesses
through
intimidation
or
for
monetary
considerations. Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. It
would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice, simply
because the witness who has given it later on changes his mind for one reason or another. People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011
Despite all these findings, Gemma has posited from the RTC all the way up to the Supreme
Court that she is not the Gemma Ong named and accused in the case. Positive identification
of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an accused is guilty or not. Thus, it
cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party. The defense of
Page 21 of 28

2015) Law
denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive
identification of the accused. - Gemma Ong a.k.a. Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
Delay in making criminal accusations will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if
such delay is satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the positive identification of the
witnesses is more than enough to prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines vs. Noel T. Adallom, G.R. No. 182522, March 7, 2012
Dulay points out that the prosecution failed to present the informant in court, alleging that
the same was necessary to corroborate the testimony of PO1 Guadamor, since it was only
the informant and PO1 Guadamor who witnessed the actual transaction. The Court
disagrees. It is settled that the identity or testimony of the informant is not indispensable in
drugs cases, since his testimony would only corroborate that of the poseur-buyer. The Court
has repeatedly held that it is up to the prosecution to determine who should be presented
as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. After all, the testimony of
a single witness, if trustworthy and reliable, or if credible and positive, would be sufficient to
support a conviction. Moreover, in determining values and credibility of evidence, witnesses
are to be weighed, not numbered. - People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Dulay, G.R.
No. 188345, November 10, 2012
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses, such as his/her
sense of sight, remain functional and allow him/her to make observations about his/her
environment and experiences Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as
he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those observations
known to others. - People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Aleman y Longhas, G.R. No.
181539, July 24, 2013
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing
upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears on the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of
which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended. The reason for this is 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 firsthand and
to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. - People of the
Philippines vs. Salvador C. Daco, G.R. No. 168166, October 10, 2008
The issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial
court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable
evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is
denied to the appellate courts. and absent any substantial reason which would justify the
reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally
bound by the former's findings. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Dominguez,
Jr., alias Sandy, G.R. No. 180914, November 24, 2010
The victim s delay in reporting the rapes does not undermine her credibility. In a long line of
cases, the Court pronounced that the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is
not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. Moreover, Jurisprudence teaches that
between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the
other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive
identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on
the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. People of the Philippines vs. Roger Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012
Page 22 of 28

2015) Law
The purported inconsistency between the testimonies of AAA and her mother BBB merely
refers to a minor detail. The central fact is that Batula, by means of force, threats, and
intimidation, and use of a bolo, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. Whether AAA
was able to name Batula as the perpetrator immediately after the rape or AAA was able to
identify Batula as her rapist at a later time, does not depart from the fact that Batula raped
AAA. We have said time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the
central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening
their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility because they
discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony. - People of the Philippines vs.
Jerry Batula, G.R. No. 181699, November 28, 2012
In People v. Paringit, this Court has declared that not all blows leave marks. Thus, the fact
that the medico-legal officer found no signs of external injuries on AAA, especially on her
face, which supposedly had been slapped several times, does not invalidate her statement
that Mangune slapped her to silence her. But, even granting that there were no extra-genital
injuries on the victim, it had been held that the absence of external signs or physical injuries
does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. The same rule applies even though no
medical certificate is presented in evidence. Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is
not an essential element of the crime This Court, in a long line of cases, has ruled that the
absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape. The doctrine is thus
well- entrenched in our jurisprudence, and the Court of Appeals correctly applied it. People of the Philippines vs. William Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, November 14,
2012
Alleged inconsistencies do not detract from AAAs credibility as a witness. A rape victim is
not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful
that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her memory. Thus, a few inconsistent
remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. We
reiterate the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial
courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People v. Arpon, we stated that when
the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial
courts observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality.
The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness deportment and manner of
testifying. Her furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering
tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath are all useful aids for an
accurate determination of a witness honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can
better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh
conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which,
if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it
had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying
and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. - People of Philippines vs. Felix
Morante, G.R. No. 187732, Nov 28, 2012
Estoya likewise makes much of the inconsistencies between CCCs Sinumpaang Salaysay
and his testimony in open court. Said inconsistencies do not at all damage CCCs credibility
as a witness. It is doctrinally settled that discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a
witness affidavit and testimony in open court do not impair credibility as affidavits are
taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching
inquiries by the investigating officer. We also add that CCC was only 10 years of age when
he executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay and testified in court. It is not difficult to imagine that
CCC was also overwhelmed by the circumstances, young as he was when these all
happened. The important thing is that CCC was consistent in saying that he saw Estoya with
AAA in BBBs house he saw AAA crying and he immediately ran to ask help from their
neighbor, DDD. Moreover, as we pronounced previously herein, AAAs testimony alone
already established the elements of rape committed against her by Estoya. At most, CCCs
Page 23 of 28

2015) Law
testimony on the events that occurred in 2006 is merely corroborative. - People of
Philippines vs. Radby Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012
The issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of witness, which is best
addressed by the trial court, it being in a better position to decide such question, having
heard the witness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses
and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its
observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to determine,
with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which witness to believe. Verily,
findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts
or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as
to materially affect the disposition of the case. - People of the Philippines vs. Welvin
Diu y Kotsesa, and Dennis Dayaon y Tupit, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013
In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony
of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things, as in this case. There is a plethora of cases which tend to disfavor the
accused in a rape case by holding that when a woman declares that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and, where
her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis
thereof. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly declared that it takes a certain amount of
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own
father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself
to a lifetime of shame. - People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No.
175327, April 3, 2013
When the issues revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded
high respect, if not conclusive effect. - People of the Philippines vs. Abel Diaz, G.R. No.
200882, June 13, 2013
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon
the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses credibility.
The testimonies of police officers who conducted the buybust are generally accorded full
faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties.
- People of the Philippines vs. Mercidita T. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 188310, June 13,
2013
Jurisprudence is consistent in reiterating that the trial court is in a better position to adjudge
the credibility of witnesses especially if it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. - People of
the Philippines vs. Gary Vergara y Oriel and Joseph Inocencio y Paulino, G.R. No.
177763, July 3, 2013
Where the ten-year old son of the victim was able to witness the death of his father and was
the lone witness to testify in the case, the Court ruled that when it comes to the matter of
credibility of a witness, settled are the guiding rules some of which are that (1) the appellate
court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it
had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance that would have affected the result of the case, which showing is absent herein;
(2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great
respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness
stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and (3) a witness
who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains
consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.
Page 24 of 28

2015) Law
Furthermore, Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid and
straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth. People of the Philippines vs. Joel Aquino y Cendana, G.R. No. 201092, January 15,
2014
When the accused questions the credibility and demeanor of the victim as witness, the
recognized rule is that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left
to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and
demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his
findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and
conclusive upon this Court." Furthermore, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape
victims testimony are generally expected. Since human memory is fickle and prone to the
stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard
in testing the credibility of a witness. - People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja y
Cruz, G.R. No. 202122
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Estoppel
The mortgagor is already estopped from challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale,
after entering into a Contract of Lease with the buyer over one of the foreclosed properties
the title of the landlord is a conclusive presumption as against the tenant or lessee. Century Savings Bank vs. Spouses Danilo T. Samonte and Rosalinda M. Samonte,
G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010
One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the
representations of another must not have been misled through his own want of reasonable
care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party claiming an estoppel is generally
fatal. If the party conducts himself with careless indifference to means of information
reasonably at hand, or ignores highly suspicious circumstances, he may not invoke the
doctrine of estoppel. - F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. vs. Online Networks
International, Inc.,G.R. No. 171238, February 2, 2011
In the interest of justice and within the sound discretion of the appellate court, a party may
change his legal theory on appeal only 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. None of the above exceptions, however, applies to
the instant case. As regards the first exception, the issue of jurisdiction was never raised at
any point in this case. Anent the second exception, the Court finds that the application of
the same in the case would be improper, as further evidence is needed in order to answer
and/or refute the issue raised in Ramoss new theory. - Ramona Ramos and The Estate
Of Luis T. Ramos vs. Philippine National Bank, Opal Portfolio Investments (SPVAMC), Inc. and Golden Dragon Star Equities, Inc., G.R. No. 178218, December 14,
2011
HEARSAY RULE
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, the hearsay rule does not apply
where only the fact of such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity
thereof is immaterial. - People of the Philippines vs. Jesusa Figueroa y Coronado,
G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012
A witness can testify only on the facts that she knows of his own personal knowledge, or
more precisely, those which are derived from her own perception. A witness may not testify
on what she merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is
considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what she has learned,
read or heard. Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the details of the rape which BBB
Page 25 of 28

2015) Law
merely heard from AAAs narration, we nevertheless find no reason to disturb the findings of
fact of the trial court. - People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Cataytay y Silvano,
G.R. No. 196315, October 22, 2014
DYING DECLARATION
The RTC admitted Aurelios dying declaration to prove the identity of his assailants and the
circumstances that led to his death because it qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule
with the concurrence of all four essential requisites, to wit: One of the most reliable pieces
of evidence for convicting a person is the dying declaration of the victim. Courts accord
credibility of the highest order to such declarations on the truism that no man conscious of
his impending death will still resort to falsehood. The requisites for admitting such
declaration as evidencean exception to the hearsay ruleare four, which must concur, to
wit: a.) the dying declaration must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of
the declarants death b.) at the time it was made the declarant was under a consciousness
of an impending death c.) the declarant was competent as a witness and d.) the
declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the
decedent was the victim. (People v. Sacario, 14 SCRA 468 People v. Almeda, 124 SCRA
487).The four requisites are undoubtedly present in this case. - People of the Philippines
vs. Dante Edjillo and Gervacio Hoyle, Jr., G.R. No. 187732, December 10, 2012
Under the rules, statement made by a person under the consciousness of an impending
death is admissible as evidence of the circumstances of his death. The positive
identification made by the victim before he died, under the consciousness of an impending
death is a strong evidence indicating the liability of herein Rarugal. It is of no moment that
the victim died seven days from the stabbing incident and after receiving adequate care
and treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his death, the punctures in his
lungs, was a consequence of Rarugals stabbing him in the chest. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ramil Rarugal alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603, January 16,
2013
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Cash examination report contains entries made in the performance of official functions and
is, thus, sufficient by itself to establish prima facie the truth of the facts stated therein
without the need of presenting other evidence following the rule laid down by Section 44,
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. - Narciso C. Loguinsa, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146949, February 13, 2009
EXPERT WITNESS
The trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the
documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without necessarily
resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimen of the
questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. - Vicente Manzano, Jr. vs.
Marcelino Garcia , G.R. No. 179323, November 28, 2011
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS
It should be remembered that the declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who are
young and immature deserve full credence. Succinctly, when the offended parties are young
and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence
to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also
the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter
about which they testified were not true. - People of the Philippines vs. Ronaldo
Saludo, G.R. No. 178406, April 6, 2011
Page 26 of 28

2015) Law
case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz
and MCA Holdings And Management Corporation vs. MBf Card International
Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012
Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girlchild
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
indeed committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Pamintuan y Sahagun,
G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013
Testimonies of childvictims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. - People of the Philippines vs.
Ricardo Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013
In rape cases, where the victim was only a child and was able to narrate how the accused
had been raping her since 2003 and describe in great detail the last rape that occurred on
September 12, 2004, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given
full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. - People of the Philippines
vs. Roel Vergara y Clavero, G.R. No. 199226, January 15, 2014
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
While it is a basic procedural rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered, evidence not formally offered may be admitted and considered by
the trial court provided the following requirements are present, viz: first, the same must
have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have
been incorporated in the records of the case. - The Heirs of Romana Saves, et. al. vs.
The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et. al., G.R. No. 152866, October 6, 2010
OBJECTIONS
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the
court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such
objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. - People of the
Philippines vs. Emily Mendoza y Sartin, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party to desires
the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without
such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. - People of the
Philippines vs. Roselito Taculod y Elle, G.R. No. 198108, December 11, 2013
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUGS CASES
Sonny Padua was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous drugs and thereby contended that
the Officer has failed to comply with the process of chain of custody of the drugs and
thereby absolving him to such crime. The court ruled that Non-compliance with the
stipulated procedure of Chain of Custody, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and
Page 27 of 28

2015) Law
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. People of the Philippines vs. Sonny Padua y Reyes, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010
Non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an accused's
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
- People of the Philippines vs. Reynald Dela Cruz y Libantocia, G.R. No. 177324,
March 30, 2011
The failure to conduct an inventory and to photograph the confiscated items in the manner
prescribed under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 cannot be used as a
ground for Arrismas exoneration from the charge against him/her. - People of the
Philippines vs. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011
Marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the
accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the
corpus delict. Marking of the seized drugs serves to separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence. - People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo
Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, January 30, 2013
Consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items
to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the
ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator
(2) immediately upon confiscation. - People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Andy
Somoza y Handaya, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013
Page 28 of 28

2015 de Castro-Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 de Castro-Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial

You might also like