De Castro-Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law
2015)
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
Page 1 of 48

2015)
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 Regional Trial Court 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 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
Page 2 of 48

2015)
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. - Philippine Long Distance
Telephone 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
Page 3 of 48

2015)
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
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. - Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Ley
Construction and Development Corporation, 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
Page 4 of 48

2015)
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
Page 5 of 48

2015)
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,
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, 9th 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
Page 6 of 48

2015)
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 Corporation vs. Explorer
Maritime Co., Ltd., Owner of the Vessel M/V "Explorer", Wallem Phils.
Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc. and Foremost International 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 7 of 48

2015)
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
Page 8 of 48

2015)
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. Philippine National Bank 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 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
Page 9 of 48

2015)
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
the mere self-serving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-Mbf
Page 10 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 11 of 48

2015)
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.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (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 the Philippines vs. Heirs of
Evaristo Tiotioen, G.R. No. 167215, October 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
Government Service Insurance System (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
Page 12 of 48

2015)
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 Cooperative, Inc.
(OLFAMCA), Unifarm Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (UNIFARM) and
Ormoc North District Irrigation Multi-Purpose Cooperative, 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.
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.
Page 13 of 48

2015)
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. - Coca-Cola 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 CabahugSuperales, G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011
Page 14 of 48

2015)
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
Page 15 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 16 of 48

2015)
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 noncompliance 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
Page 17 of 48

2015)
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
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
Page 18 of 48

2015)
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
Page 19 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 20 of 48

2015)
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.
Page 21 of 48

2015)
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 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 Corporation, 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
Page 22 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 23 of 48

2015)
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
Page 24 of 48

2015)
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

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
Page 25 of 48

2015)
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
Page 26 of 48

2015)
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 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 accusedappellants, 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
Page 27 of 48

2015)
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
Page 28 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 29 of 48

2015)
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. The Hon. 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
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
Page 30 of 48

2015)
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 the 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
Page 31 of 48

2015)
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.
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
Page 32 of 48

2015)
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 the 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
Page 33 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 34 of 48

2015)
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
Public Documents
Page 35 of 48

2015)
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
Page 36 of 48

2015)
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 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
Page 37 of 48

2015)
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
Page 38 of 48

2015)
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
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
Page 39 of 48

2015)
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 the
Philippines vs. Felix Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 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
Page 40 of 48

2015)
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 testimony on the events that occurred in 2006 is
merely corroborative. - People of the 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
Page 41 of 48

2015)
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 buy-bust 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 42 of 48

2015)
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
Page 43 of 48

2015)
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 (SPV-AMC), 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
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
Page 44 of 48

2015)
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
Page 45 of 48

2015)
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
the mere self-serving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF
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 girl-child 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 child-victims 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
Page 46 of 48

2015)
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
Page 47 of 48

2015)
justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and 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 48 of 48

De Castro-Remedial Law

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

De Castro-Remedial Law

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT

In cases where a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, the same

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

It is also wellsettled that the court is authorized to modify or alter a

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

As pointed out by the trial court, the Restructuring Agreement, being

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Remedial Law

También podría gustarte