Rule 119 6. People vs.
Marcial
“Trial”
4. People vs. Webb
Deposition
 The testimony of a witness taken upon oral question or
written interrogatories, not in open court, but in
pursuance of a commission to take testimony issued by
a court, or under a general law or court rule on the
subject, and reduced to writing and duly authenticated,
and intended to be used in preparation and upon the trial
of a civil or criminal prosecution.
 A pretrial discovery device by which one party (through
his or her attorney) asks oral questions of the other party
or of a witness for the other party.
 The person who is deposed is called the deponent.
 The deposition is conducted under oath outside of the
court room, usually in one of the lawyer's offices. A
transcript — word for word account — is made of the
deposition.
 A mode of discovery, should be taken before and not
during trial.
The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound
discretion of the trial judge. The deposition taking can not be
based nor can it be denied on flimsy reasons. Discretion has to
be exercised in a reasonable manner and in consonance with
the spirit of the law.
Certiorari as a special civil action
 no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a
court simply because of its alleged misappreciation of
facts and evidence
 may not be used to correct a lower tribunal's evaluation
of the evidence and factual findings
Extra Notes:
Section 6, Rule 113 "Power of the court to stop further evidence.
xxx The court may stop the introduction of further testimony
upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already
so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this
power should be exercised with caution”
5. People vs. Mamarion
(Whether or not the trial court erred in allowing Gale to plead to a
lesser offense in consideration of testifying as a prosecution
witness – NO)
He was not discharged as a State Witness under Sec. 17, Rule
119. He was allowed to change his plea pursuant to the then
prevailing Section 2, Rule 116 “Plea of guilty to a lesser offense”.
It is immaterial that said plea was not made during the pre-trial
stage or that it was made only after the prosecution already
presented several witnesses.
In People vs. Villarama, Jr., case, the trial court allowed the
accused therein to change his plea even after the prosecution
had rested its case, applying Sec. 2, Rule 116.
(Petitioner’ is request for a reverse order of trial as warranted
under Sec. 3(e) of Rule 119, since the respondents expressly
admitted having committed the acts but are interposing an
affirmative defense “lawful defense” –> Trial court correctly
denied the motion)
The request for a reverse order of trial, a matter which under
the rules is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court
Rules of Court, Rule 119, Section 3(e):
When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the
order of trial may be modified.
Republic Act No. 8493, Section 7, likewise states:
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he/she shall
state whether he/she interposes a negative or affirmative
defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt while an
affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require
the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing
evidence.
Circular No. 38-98, Section 3, reads as follows:
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he
may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative
defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused beyong reasonable doubt, while an
affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require
the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing
evidence.
A denial of a motion to reverse the Order of Trial is
interlocutory in nature and, hence, not appealable
7. Maquiran vs. Grageda
The proceedings conducted by respondent abroad are outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. He is the
Presiding Judge of Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court for the
Eleventh Judicial Region, the territorial jurisdiction of which is
limited only to Panabo, Davao del Norte. 12 This Court had not
granted him any authority to conduct the proceedings abroad.
It bears stressing that cases are decided on the basis of evidence
presented before the court, thus it is incumbent upon the party
who is to be benefited by such evidence to produce the same, no
matter how voluminous and burdensome, in accordance with the
rules for the court's appreciation and evaluation.
It is not respondent's duty to secure these documents for the
defendants, as he is the judge in the pending case and not the
counsel of the defendants. Judges in their zeal to search for the
truth should not lose the proper judicial perspective, and should
see to it that in the execution of their duties, they do not overstep
the limitations of their power as laid by the rules of procedure.
8. Estrada vs. People
The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14 (2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that "after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable."
 All of petitioner's protestations that she was denied due
process because neither she nor her counsel received
notices of the trial court's orders are all to naught, as by
the mere fact that she jumped bail and could no longer
 be found, petitioner is considered to have waived her
right to be present at the trial, and she and her counsel
were to be deemed to have received notice.

 Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a

fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
respective sides of the controversy.

9. People vs. Sunga

GR: The testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-
conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-
accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be
regarded as proof to a moral certainty that the latter committed
or participated in the commission of the crime. The testimony
must be substantially corroborated in its material points by
unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be
to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest.

EXCEPTION: Given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward

manner and full of details which, by their nature, could not have
been the result of deliberate afterthought.

DISCHARGE AS A STATE WITNESS

The requirement of "a hearing in support of the discharge" had
been substantially complied with when the trial court, during the
hearings on the bail petition, already received evidence from the
prosecution including sworn statement and also heard in open
court the defense's arguments in opposition thereto. A hearing
did take place but interspersed with the hearings on the bail
petition. So long as the trial court was able to receive evidence
for and against the discharge, its subsequent order granting or
denying the motion for discharge is in order notwithstanding the
lack of actual hearing on said motion.

Extra Notes:
The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that
can be deemed "critical stages" in the criminal process. The
preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody
interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a
preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the
State's processes, oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of
pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution.

10. People vs. Chavez

It is true that an accused cannot be made a hostile witness for the
prosecution, for to do so would compel him to be a witness
against himself. However, he may testify against a co-defendant
where he has agreed to do so, with full knowledge of his right and
the consequences of his acts. It is not necessary that the court
discharges him first as state witness.

There is nothing in the rules that says so. There is a difference

between testifying as state witness and testifying as a co-
accused. In the first, the proposed state witness has to qualify as
a witness for the state, after which he is discharged as an
accused and exempted from prosecution. In the second, the
witness remains an accused and can be made liable should he
be found guilty of the criminal offense. ||| (People v. Chaves, G.R.
No. 131377, [February 11, 2003], 445 PHIL 227-238)

11. Go vs. People

12. Cabarles vs. Maceda
13. People vs. De la Cruz
14. People vs. Monje
15. People vs. De Guzman
16. Yu vs. Presiding Judge, RTC