De Castro-Remedial Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases
(2008-2015)
Law
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT
A final and executory judgment, under the doctrine of immutability and
inalterability, may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which
rendered it or even by the Supreme Court. However, as rules of procedure are mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Thus, in the absence of a
pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to
observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, courts
should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss. - PCI
Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, Doing Business Under the
Name and Style of "A. Milan Trading," and Laura M. Milan, G.R. No.
151215, April 5, 2010
Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent
application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial
justice, the former must yield to the latter. - City of Dumaguete, herein
represented by City Mayor, Agustin R. Perdices vs. Philippine Ports
Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011
JURISDICTION
In cases where a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, the same
COMELEC Division should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the order. Eddie T. Panlilio vs. Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda, G.R. No.
181478, July 15, 2009
As a general rule, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
the proceeding. However, it admits an exception where the party fully participated
in the proceedings. A teacher cannot raise want of jurisdiction when she has availed
of the remedies in the proceedings. - Civil Service Commission vs. Fatima A.
Macud, G.R. No. 177531, September 10, 2009
Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of
special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for
exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly
and specifically raised in the petition. The Court may suspend or even disregard
rules when the demands of justice so require.
No court, aside from the Supreme Court, may enjoin a national government
project unless the matter is one of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue
such that unless the act complained of is enjoined, grave injustice or irreparable
injury would arise. - Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas vs. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, In His Capacity as the Presiding Judge
Page 1 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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
Page 2 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
Petitioner wants this Court to recognize the rights and interests of the residents of
Sun Valley Subdivision but it miserably failed to establish the legal basis, such as its
ownership of the subject roads, which entitles petitioner to the remedy prayed for.
As petitioner has failed to establish that it has any right entitled to the protection of
the law, and it also failed to exhaust administrative remedies by applying for
injunctive relief instead of going to the Mayor as provided by the Local Government
Code, the petition must be denied. - New Sun Valley Homeowners' Association,
Inc., vs. Sangguniang Barangay, Barangay Sun Valley, Paraaque City, et
al., G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011
It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules
of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint. - Addition Hills Mandaluyong
Civic & Social Organization, Inc., vs. Megaworld Properties & Holdings,
Inc., Wilfredro I. Imperial, In His Capacity As Director, NCR and Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board, Department of Natural Resources, G.R.
No. 175039, April 18, 2012
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CAUSE OF ACTIONS
A judge is not an active combatant in proceedings where the order he had rendered
is being assailed. As such, he must leave the opposing parties to contend their
individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without his active
participation. Being a nominal party to the case, he has no personal interest nor
personality therein. Thus, he has no legal standing to institute a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. - Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Acting
Presiding Judge, MTC Guihulngan, Negros Oriental vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion,
Hon. Mehol K. Sadain and Hon. Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., The
Commissioners of the Second Division, Commission on Elections, Manila;
and Walter J. Aragones, G.R. No. 159117, March 10, 2010
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 certified true copies of
documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the
Page 3 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 selfserving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF Countdown Cards
Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz IX, Cielo C.
Aguiluz, Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay and MCA Holdings and
Management Corporation vs. MBf CARD International Limited and MBf
Discount Card Limited. G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012
DEFAULT
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be
obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court
should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and not the
rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No.
166104. June 26, 2008
SUMMONS
A case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully
served as it would be difficult to conceive that when the defendant appears before
the Court complaining that he has not been validly summoned, the case against him
will immediately be dismissed. - Spouses German Anunciacion and Ana Ferma
Anunciacion and Gavino G. Conejos vs. Perpetua M. Bocanegra and George
M. Bocanegra, G.R. No. 152496, July 30, 2009
The Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the Republic by service of
summons upon the DPWH Region III alone. The applicable rule of procedure in this
case is Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that when the
defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, the service of summons may be
effected on the Office of the Solicitor General. The DPWH and its regional office are
simply agents of the Republic, which is the real party in interest. - Republic of the
Philippines represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways,
through the Hon. Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane vs. Alberto A. Domingo,
G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
Page 4 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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
Page 5 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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 proindiviso 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
Page 6 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
Selga vs. Sony Entierro Brar, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Marina T.

Entierro, G.R. No. 175151, September 21, 2011
A judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based on a
compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits.
Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The
addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. There is
substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a
party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not
impleaded in the first case. - Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs.
Dolores Hilario, Teresita Hilario, Thelma Hilario Ochoa Eduardo Hilario,
G.R. No. 160446, September 19, 2012
LITIS PENDENCIA
As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining whether
causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is
necessary to sustain the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a
recovery in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two actions be different. If
the same facts or evidence would sustain both actions, the two actions are
considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the
subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. - 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
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
Page 7 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
things, and expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on the mere selfserving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-Mbf Countdown Cards
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
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
Page 8 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
review under Rule 43. We reiterate here that the right to appeal is neither a natural
right nor a part of due process as it is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Save for
the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined
to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the
right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so
often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. - Pedro Gabriel et. al. vs.
Murmuray Jamias et. al., G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008
The Court disagrees with Standard Chartered that the conclusion drawn by the CA
from the evidence based on record is a question of law. This is the opposite
definition of a question of law. Its reliance on the ruling in Commissioner of
Immigration vs. Garcia that when the facts are undisputed, then the question of
whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom by the Court of Appeals is correct is
a question of law is misplaced. In the present case, the facts are disputed. SCBEU
claims that there is an existing company practice entitling Standard Chartereds
emplo-yees to outpatient medicine reimbursements and spouses of its male
employees to maternity benefits while the latter argues the contrary. - Standard
Chartered Bank vs. 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 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),
Page 9 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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. 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
Page 10 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed
thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. This
rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is when the findings of the
Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. - Cebu Bionic Builders
Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development Bank Of The Philippines, Jose
To Chip, Patricio Yap and Roger Balila, G.R. No. 154366, November 17,
2010
When a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.
Nevertheless,
the
acceptance
of
a
petition
for certiorari, as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to
the sound discretion of the court. The provisions of the Rules of Court, which are
technical rules, may be relaxed in certain exceptional situations. Where a rigid
application of the rule that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, it is within our power to suspend the rules
or exempt a particular case from its operation. - Spouses Ruben and Myrna
Leynes vs. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Branch 1, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, and Spouses Gualberto & Rene
Cabahug-Superales, G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011
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
Page 11 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy,
deserves scant consideration from the courts. - Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo
(Euprocinia, Royce and Irish Crisostomo) vs. Rudex International
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 176129, August 24, 2011
The basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of the Supreme
Court, because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review. However, in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of
questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, such as when there was palpable
error or a grave misapprehension of facts by the lower court. - Gemma
Ong a.k.a. Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not
involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a
review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test
of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such
question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can
determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which
case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. - Felimon Manguiob
vs. Judge Paul T. Arcangel, RTC, Branch 12, Davao City and Alejandra
Velasco, G.R. No. 152262, February 15, 2012
Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most
persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
prescribed procedure. - Spouses Jesus Dycoco and Joela E. Dycoco vs. The
Honorable Court of Appeals, Nelly Siapno-Sanchez and Inocencio Berma,
G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013
Time and again the Supreme Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a
natural right nor a part of due process. Anyone seeking exemption from the
application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving
the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation. Rhodora Prieto vs. Alpadi Development Corporation, G.R. No. 191025, July
31, 2013
It is already a well-established rule that the Court, in the exercise of its power of
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is not a trier of facts and does not
normally embark on a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending
parties during the trial of the case, considering that the findings of facts of the Court
of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.
This rule, however, admits of exceptions as recognized by jurisprudence, to wit: (1)
[W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
Page 12 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
(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 already deadlock between the union and the company is
likewise a question of fact. - Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association
vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
PERIOD TO APPEAL
Jurisprudence has settled the fresh period rule, according to which, an ordinary
appeal from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to the Court of Appeals, under Section 3
of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen (15) days either from
receipt of the original judgment of the trial court or from receipt of the final order of
the trial court dismissing or denying the motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration. Ermelinda C. Manaloto, Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcilla,
Lourdes J. Catalan, Ethelinda J. Holt, Bienvenido R. Jongco, Artemio R.
Jongco, Jr. and Joel Jongco vs. Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, October
6, 2010
EFFECT OF DEATH PENDING APPEAL
Page 13 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
The death of an accused pending his appeal extinguished not only his criminal
liabilities but also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on the crime
committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Paniterce, G.R. No.
186382, April 5, 2010
The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto. - People of the Philippines vs.
Anastacio Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECTS OF JUDGEMENTS
Respondent sheriff departed from the procedure prescribed by the Rules in the
collection of payment for sheriffs expenses in implementing a writ of
execution. Respondent as an officer of the court should have shown a high degree
of professionalism in the performance of his duties. Instead, he failed to comply with
his duties under the law and to observe proper procedure dictated by the rules. Jorge Q. Go vs. Vinez A. Hortaleza, A.M. No. P051971. June 26, 2008
It is also wellsettled that the court is authorized to modify or alter a judgment after
the same has become executory, whenever the circumstances transpire rendering
itsexecution unjust and equitable. - California Bus Lines, Inc., vs. Court of
Appeals, et.al, G.R. No. 145408, August 20, 2008
It is settled that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and
unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of
fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by
the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. - Government Service
Insurance System vs. The Regional Trial Court Of Pasig City, Branch 71,
Cresenciano Rabello, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Branch 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
Page 14 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
To justify the stay of immediate execution, the supervening events must have a
direct effect on the matter already litigated and settled. Or, the supervening events
must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which
would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making
it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice. - Spouses Jesse
Cachopero and Bema Cachopero vs. Rachel Celestial, G.R. No. 146754,
March 21, 2012
Section 21, Rule 70 provides that the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases
appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the
perfection of an appeal to a higher court. To avoid such immediate execution, the
defendant may appeal said judgment to the CA and therein apply for a writ of
preliminary injunction. In this case, the decisions of the MTCC, of the RTC, and of the
CA, unanimously recognized the right of the ATO to possession of the property and
the corresponding obligation of Miaque to immediately vacate the subject premises.
This means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Miaque
does not have any right to continue in possession of the said premises. It is
therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement that Miaque "appears to have a
clear legal right to hold on to the premises leased by him from ATO at least until
such time when he shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of
judgment caused to be issued by the MTCC. - Air Transportation Office (ATO) vs.
Hon. Court Of Appeals (Nineteenth Division) and Bernie G. Miaque, G.R.
No. 173616, June 25, 2014
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Preliminary Injunction
The doctrine of non-interference is premised on the principle that a judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any
court of concurrent jurisdiction.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous
irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly
adjudicated and to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to
establish (a) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) a
violation of that right; (c) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. - Jimmy T. Go vs. The Clerk of
Court And Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental, Ildefonso M.
Villanueva, Jr., and Sheriff Dioscoro F. Caponpon, Jr. and Multi-Luck
Corporation, G.R. No. 154623, March 13, 2009
Although as a general rule, a court should not by means of a preliminary injunction,
transfer property in litigation from the possession of one party to another, this rule
Page 15 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 nonexistent. - Sps. Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa & Cristeta Dela Rosa
vs.
Heirs of
Juan Valdez and Spouses Potenciano Malvar and Lourdes Malvar, G.R. No.
159101, July 27, 2011
Writ of injunction would issue: [U]pon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1)
the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said
right. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent or future rights. Where the complainants right is doubtful or disputed,
injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual
existing right is not a ground for an injunction. - BP Philippines, Inc. (Formerly
Burmah Castrol Philippines, Inc.) vs. Clark Trading Corporation, G.R. No.
175284, September 19, 2012
For the writ to issue, two requisites must be present, namely, the existence of the
right to be protected, and that the facts against which the injunction is to be
directed are violative of said right.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing
substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant
of an injunction are present in the case before it. In the absence of the same, and
where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for
its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been rendered in
grave abuse of discretion.
The determination of the completeness or sufficiency of the form of the petition,
including the relevant and pertinent documents which have to be attached to it, is
largely left to the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the petition, in this
case the Court of Appeals. If 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
Page 16 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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
Page 17 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
complete. Otherwise, where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt

or dispute, mandamus cannot issue. Thus, the issuance by the LRA officials of a
decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that
such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. - Fidela R.
Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice, The Administrator, Land Registration
Authority, The Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and Senator Teofisto T.
Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
Service of Notice of Sale
The written notice of sale to the judgment obligor need not be personally served on
the judgment obligor himself as it may be served on his counsel, or by leaving the
notice in his office with his clerk or a person having charge thereof. - Sps.
Elizabeth S. Tagle & Ernesto R. Tagle vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, RTC,
Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and
Sheriff Carol Bulacan, G.R. No. 162738, July 8, 2009
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
It is settled that for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must
concur, namely: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or to comply with the
conditions of the lease and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and
vacate within the periods specified in Section 2, particularly, 15 days in the case of
land and 5 days in the case of buildings. - Charles Limbauan vs. Faustino
Acosta, G.R. No. 148606. June 30, 2008
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
Although matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in
a special proceeding, it would be more practical to dispense with a separate special
proceeding for the determination of the status of the parties if it appears that there
is only one property being claimed by the contending parties. - Heirs of Teofilo
Gabatan vs. Court Of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March
13, 2009
GUARDIANSHIP
A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who,
though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar
causes, are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without
outside aid are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under
guardianship. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25,
2012
Page 18 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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
Page 19 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
during trial. - People of the Philippines vs. Rene Rosas, G.R. No. 177825,
October 24, 2008
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Corollary, the claim for civil
liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, in which case an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action
and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
amended. - People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Ayochok y Tauli, G.R. No.
175784, August 25, 2010
The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability
and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto insenso strictiore. - Dante Hernandez Datu
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169718, December 13, 2010
Olacos death during the pendency of her appeal, extinguished not only her criminal
liability for qualified theft committed against private complainant Ruben Vinluan,
but also her civil liability, particularly the award for actual damages, solely arising
from or based on said crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Juliet Olaco y
Poler, G.R. No. 197042, October 17, 2011
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion,
upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to
abide the outcome of another pending in another court, especially where the parties
and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control
the disposition of causes on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself,
for counsel, and for litigants. Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot
be properly determined until the questions 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
Page 20 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants,

the search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said arrests, and the
eventual seizure of the shabu from accused-appellants possession, are also
considered unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a
poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti for the crime charged, then the acquittal
of accused-appellants is inevitable. - People of the Philippines vs. Rolando S.
Delos Reyes, alias "Botong," and Raymundo G. Reyes, alias "Mac-Mac,"
G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011
The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required. When two cases involve same accused, proceedings in one
case, such as the issuance of a warrant of arrest, should not be extended or made
applicable to the other.
Moreover, a case which has not been previously referred to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa when required to for conciliation shall be dismissed without
prejudice. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply with the Lupon
requirement is an exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. - Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug vs. Judge
Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental,
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012
Non-flight does not connote innocence. - People of the Philippines vs. Ramil
Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court
acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters
his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Nevertheless, the illegal arrest
of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered
upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. - People of the
Philippines vs. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Illegal Search and Warrant
In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., this Court held that the quantum of
evidence required to prove probable cause is not the same quantum of evidence
needed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in a criminal
case that may be subsequently filed. We ruled in this case that the determination of
probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that
a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words
themselves, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even
moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent
man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. Taken together,
the aforementioned pieces of evidence are more than sufficient to support a finding
that test calls were indeed made by PLDTs witnesses using Mabuhay card with PIN
code number 332 1479224 and, more importantly, that probable cause necessary
Page 21 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
to engender a belief that HPS Corporation, et al. had probably committed the crime
of Theft through illegal ISR activities exists. To reiterate, evidence to show probable
cause to issue a search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyond
reasonable doubt which, at this juncture of the criminal case, is not required. - HPS
Software and Communications Corp. and Hyman Yap vs. PLDT, G.R. No.
170217 and G.R. No. 170694, December 10, 2012
Where the accused is charged of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and now
questioning the legality of his arrest as the same was done without a valid search
warrant and warrant of arrest, the Court ruled that the accused was caught in
flagrante delicto and had reiterated that warrantless searches and seizures have
long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving
vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented
searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a
lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an
arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules
of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante
delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. People of the Philippines vs. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304,
January 15, 2014
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA BARGAINING

It is not enough to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea; the court must explain
fully to the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty; that
death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of any
mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the
felony. Thus, the importance of the courts obligation cannot be overemphasized, for
one cannot dispel the possibility that the accused may have been led to believe that
due to his voluntary plea of guilty, he may be imposed a lesser penalty, which was
precisely what happened here. - People of the Philippines vs. Joselito A. Lopit,
G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Respondent Mayor Henry Barrera was charged for violation of anti graft and corrupt
practices for ousting the vendors in the market however he filed demurrer to
evidence. The court granted demurrer to evidence for elements of such crime was
not present in the case specifically manifest partiality. For an act to be considered as
exhibiting manifest partiality, there must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other. Partiality is
synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they
are wished for rather than as they are. Evident bad faith, on the other hand, is
something which does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
Page 22 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 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
Page 23 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted
incident to an arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine.
The plain view doctrine only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object. - People of the Philippines vs. Medario
Calantiao y Dimalanta, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
This circumstantial evidence constitutes positive identification of Gil as the
perpetrator of the crime charged, to the exclusion of others. She was the person
who had the motive to commit the crime and the series of events following her
threat to cause chaos and arson in her neighbourhood the fire that started in her
room, and her actuations and remarks during, as well as immediately before and
after the fire sufficiently points to Gil as the author of the said crime.
A well-entrenched legal precept, the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration
of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are
given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued,
misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance,
which if considered, will alter the outcome of the case and the said trial court is in
the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of
witnesses through actual observation of the witnesses manner of testifying,
demeanor and behaviour while in the witness box. - People of the Philippines vs.
Julie Villacorta Gil, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites concur:
(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia,
the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting
the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. - People of
the Philippines vs. Alfredo Pascual y Ildefonso, G. R. No. 172326, January
19, 2009
The Trial Court correctly convicted the accused of the crime of qualified Carnapping
based on circumstantial evidence, when the combination of circumstances are
interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato Lagat y Gawan A.K.A. Renat
Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa, G.R. No. 187044, September 14,
2011
Page 24 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 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
Page 25 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally

reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on
the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of
the following recognized exceptions. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Arnel A.
Bernardo, Attorney V, Bureau Of Internal Revenue (BIR), G.R. No. 181598,
March 6, 2013
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
It is well-settled that a judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it.
Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is
shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made. Viola Cahilig et al., vs. Hon. Eustaquio G. Terencio et
al., G.R. No. 164470, November 28, 2011
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Although the best evidence rule admits of exceptions and there are instances where
the presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed, such as when the original
is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of secondary
evidence must still be established. - Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court of
Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009
PAROLE EVIDENCE
A CBA is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases
which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. It covers the whole employment
relationship and prescribes the rights and duties of the parties. If the terms of the
CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the
literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. However, if the CBA imports
ambiguity, then the parties intention as shown by their conduct, words, actions and
deeds prior to, during, and after executing the agreement, must be ascertained.
That there is an apparent ambiguity or a failure to express the true intention of the
parties, especially with regard to the retirement provisions of the CBA, is evident in
the opposing interpretations of the same by the Labor Arbiter and the CA on one
hand and the NLRC on the other. It is settled that the parole evidence rule admits of
exceptions. A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he raises as an issue, among others, an intrinsic ambiguity
in the written agreement or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto. - Flavio S. Suarez, Jr., Renato A. De Asis, Francisco G.
Page 26 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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
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
Page 27 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
witness, otherwise, his statement shall be given full credence by the court. People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena y Camba A.K.A. Junior;
Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato And Jessie Garcia y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605,
August 28, 2009
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely
applied in modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of evidence and is not
a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application.
Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be
believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence
and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. - People of the Philippines
vs. Jose Galvez y Blanca, G.R. No. 181827, February 2, 2011
The RTC observed that AAA was in the custody of the DSWD when she testified for
the prosecution, and was returned to the family of the Aniceto Bulagao during the
time when SHE recanted her testimony. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions,
because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for
monetary considerations. Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a
court of justice, simply because the witness who has given it later on changes his
mind for one reason or another. - People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011
Despite all these findings, Gemma has posited from the RTC all the way up to the
Supreme Court that she is not the Gemma Ong named and accused in the
case. Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an
accused is guilty or not. Thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony
of the offended party. The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the
undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused. - Gemma
Ong a.k.a. Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
Delay in making criminal accusations will not necessarily impair the credibility of a
witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the positive
identification of the witnesses is more than enough to prove the accused guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. - People of the Philippines vs. Noel T. Adallom, G.R.
No. 182522, March 7, 2012
Dulay points out that the prosecution failed to present the informant in court,
alleging that the same was necessary to corroborate the testimony of PO1
Guadamor, since it was only the informant and PO1 Guadamor who witnessed the
actual transaction. The Court disagrees. It is settled that the identity or testimony of
the informant is not indispensable in drugs cases, since his testimony would only
corroborate that of the poseur-buyer. The Court has repeatedly held that it is up to
the prosecution to determine who should be presented as witnesses on the basis of
its own assessment of their necessity. After all, the testimony of a single witness, if
trustworthy and reliable, or if credible and positive, would be sufficient to support a
conviction. Moreover, in determining values and credibility of evidence, witnesses
Page 28 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
are to be weighed, not numbered. - People of the Philippines vs. Catalino

Dulay, G.R. No. 188345, November 10, 2012
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses, such as
his/her sense of sight, remain functional and allow him/her to make observations
about his/her environment and experiences Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a
witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can
make those observations known to others. - People of the Philippines vs. Edwin
Aleman y Longhas, G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in
passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears on the record some
fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended. The reason for
this is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude
under grilling examination. - People of the Philippines vs. Salvador C. Daco,
G.R. No. 168166, October 10, 2008
The issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of
the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while
testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. and absent any
substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments
and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Dominguez, Jr., alias Sandy, G.R. No.
180914, November 24, 2010
The victim s delay in reporting the rapes does not undermine her credibility. In a
long line of cases, the Court pronounced that the failure of the victim to
immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.
Moreover, Jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of
truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled
that the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when
categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. - People of
the Philippines vs. Roger Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012
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
Page 29 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor

details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair
the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such
inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility because they discount the
possibility of their being rehearsed testimony. - People of the Philippines vs.
Jerry Batula, G.R. No. 181699, November 28, 2012
In People v. Paringit, this Court has declared that not all blows leave marks. Thus,
the fact that the medico-legal officer found no signs of external injuries on AAA,
especially on her face, which supposedly had been slapped several times, does not
invalidate her statement that Mangune slapped her to silence her. But, even
granting that there were no extra-genital injuries on the victim, it had been held
that the absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the
commission of the crime of rape. The same rule applies even though no medical
certificate is presented in evidence. Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is
not an essential element of the crime This Court, in a long line of cases, has ruled
that the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape. The
doctrine is thus well- entrenched in our jurisprudence, and the Court of Appeals
correctly applied it. - People of the Philippines vs. William Mangune, G.R. No.
186463, November 14, 2012
Alleged inconsistencies do not detract from AAAs credibility as a witness. A rape
victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so
humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her
memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair
the testimony of the offended party. We reiterate the jurisprudential principle of
affording great respect and even finality to the trial courts assessment of the
credibility of witnesses. In People v. Arpon, we stated that when the decision hinges
on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial courts
observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality.
The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness deportment and manner
of testifying. Her furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or
sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath are all
useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness honesty and sincerity. The
trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being
in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of
substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe
the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were
lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the Court of Appeals. - People of 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 parte and are often incomplete or
inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.
Page 30 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 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,
Page 31 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. - People of the Philippines vs.
Abel Diaz, G.R. No. 200882, June 13, 2013
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not
upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses credibility.
The testimonies of police officers who conducted the buybust are generally
accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the
performance of public duties. - People of the Philippines vs. Mercidita T.
Resurreccion, G.R. No. 188310, June 13, 2013
Jurisprudence is consistent in reiterating that the trial court is in a better position to
adjudge the credibility of witnesses especially if it is affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. - People of the Philippines vs. Gary Vergara y Oriel and Joseph
Inocencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013
Where the ten-year old son of the victim was able to witness the death of his father
and was the lone witness to testify in the case, the Court ruled that when it comes
to the matter of credibility of a witness, settled are the guiding rules some of which
are that (1) the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower
court, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the
result of the case, which showing is absent herein; (2) the findings of the trial court
pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the
opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and,
therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and (3) a witness
who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and
remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.
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,
Page 32 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the
credibility of a witness. - People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz,
G.R. No. 202122
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Estoppel
The mortgagor is already estopped from challenging the validity of the foreclosure
sale, after entering into a Contract of Lease with the buyer over one of the
foreclosed properties the title of the landlord is a conclusive presumption as
against the tenant or lessee. - Century Savings Bank vs. Spouses Danilo T.
Samonte and Rosalinda M. Samonte, G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010
One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled
by the representations of another must not have been misled through his own want
of reasonable care and circumspection. A lack of diligence by a party claiming
an estoppel is generally fatal. If the party conducts himself with careless
indifference to means of information reasonably at hand, or ignores highly
suspicious circumstances, he may not invoke the doctrine of estoppel. - F.A.T. Kee
Computer Systems, Inc. vs. Online Networks International, Inc.,G.R. No.
171238, February 2, 2011
In the interest of justice and within the sound discretion of the appellate court, a
party may change his legal theory on appeal only when the factual bases thereof
would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order
to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory. None of the above
exceptions, however, applies to the instant case. As regards the first exception, the
issue of jurisdiction was never raised at any point in this case. Anent the second
exception, the Court finds that the application of the same in the case would be
improper, as further evidence is needed in order to answer and/or refute the issue
raised in Ramoss new theory. - Ramona Ramos and The Estate Of Luis T.
Ramos vs. Philippine National Bank, Opal Portfolio Investments (SPVAMC), Inc. and Golden Dragon Star Equities, Inc., G.R. No. 178218,
December 14, 2011
HEARSAY RULE
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, the hearsay rule does not
apply where only the fact of such statements were made is relevant, and the truth
or falsity thereof is immaterial. - People of the Philippines vs. Jesusa Figueroa
y Coronado, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012
Page 33 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 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
Page 34 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
Cash examination report contains entries made in the performance of official

functions and is, thus, sufficient by itself to establish prima facie the truth of the
facts stated therein without the need of presenting other evidence following the
rule laid down by Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. - Narciso
C. Loguinsa, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146949, February 13, 2009
EXPERT WITNESS
The trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination
of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without
necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently
existing ones. - Vicente Manzano, Jr. vs. Marcelino Garcia , G.R. No. 179323,
November 28, 2011
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS

It should be remembered that the declarations on the witness stand of rape victims
who are young and immature deserve full credence. Succinctly, when the offended
parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are
inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only
their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they
would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not
true. - People of the Philippines vs. Ronaldo Saludo, G.R. No. 178406, April
6, 2011
things, and expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on the mere selfserving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF Countdown Cards
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
Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and
girlchild says that she has been raped, she says in
show that rape was indeed committed. - People of
Pamintuan y Sahagun, G.R. No. 192239, June 5,
credit, for when a woman or a

effect all that is necessary to
the Philippines vs. Ricardo
2013
Testimonies of childvictims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a
girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ricardo Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013
Page 35 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
In rape cases, where the victim was only a child and was able to narrate how the
accused had been raping her since 2003 and describe in great detail the last rape
that occurred on September 12, 2004, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of
child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if
she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary
to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of
truth and sincerity. - People of the Philippines vs. Roel Vergara y Clavero,
G.R. No. 199226, January 15, 2014
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
While it is a basic procedural rule that the court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered, evidence not formally offered may be admitted and
considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present, viz:
first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. - The
Heirs of Romana Saves, et. al. vs. The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et. al.,
G.R. No. 152866, October 6, 2010
OBJECTIONS
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party
desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on
appeal. - People of the Philippines vs. Emily Mendoza y Sartin, G.R. No.
189327, February 29, 2012
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party to
desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on
appeal. - People of the Philippines vs. Roselito Taculod y Elle, G.R. No.
198108, December 11, 2013
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUGS CASES
Sonny Padua was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous drugs and thereby
contended that the Officer has failed to comply with the process of chain of custody
of the drugs and thereby absolving him to such crime. The court ruled that Noncompliance with the stipulated procedure of Chain of Custody, under justifiable
grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items, for as long as the integrity and 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
Page 36 of 37

(2008-2015)
Law
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 37 of 37

De Castro-Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Castro-Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Selga vs. Sony Entierro Brar, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Marina T.

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Unifarm Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (UNIFARM) and Ormoc North

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

complete. Otherwise, where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants,

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA BARGAINING

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

are to be weighed, not numbered. - People of the Philippines vs. Catalino

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Furthermore, Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Cash examination report contains entries made in the performance of official

RULE ON EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESS

credit, for when a woman or a

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases

is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary

You might also like