Thursday, August 27, 2015

PARAFFIN TEST:

     A NEGATIVE FINDING ON PARAFFIN TEST IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT ONE HAS NOT FIRED A GUN BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO FIRE A GUN AND YET BEAR NO TRACES OF NITRATES OR GUNPOWDER, AS WHEN THE CULPRIT WASHES HIS HANDS OR WEARS GLOVES.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

     As a general rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect. However, exceptions exist, and one such exception concerns a law that is procedural in nature. The reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes of procedure does not create new rights or take away vested rights but only operates in furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation of already existing rights. A statute or rule regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage. All procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, for, verily, no vested right generally attaches to or arises from procedural laws.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

WELL-SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE SUPREME COURT SAVE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:

     1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; 2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record; and 6) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based. Between the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court, the former was concededly in a better position to determine whether or not a witness was telling the truth.

Monday, August 24, 2015

PROHIBITION:

 Prohibition or a "writ of prohibition" is that process by which a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law. As its name indicates, the writ is one that commands the person or tribunal to whom it is directed not to do something which he or she is about to do. The writ is also commonly defined as one to prevent a tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial powers from exercising jurisdiction over matters not within its cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. At common law, prohibition was a remedy used when subordinate courts and inferior tribunals assumed jurisdiction which was not properly theirs.

Prohibition, at common law, was a remedy against encroachment of jurisdiction. Its office was to restrain subordinate courts and inferior judicial tribunals from extending their jurisdiction and, in adopting the remedy, the courts have almost universally preserved its original common-law nature, object and function. Thus, as a rule, its proper function is to prevent courts, or other tribunals, officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they are not vested by law, and confine them to the exercise of those powers legally conferred. However, the function of the writ has been extended by some authorities to cover situations where, even though the lower tribunal has jurisdiction, the superior court deems it necessary and advisable to issue the writ to prevent some palpable and irremediable injustice, and, x x x the office of the remedy in some jurisdictions has been enlarged or restricted by constitutional or statutory provisions. While prohibition has been classified as an equitable remedy, it is generally referred to as a common-law remedy or writ; it is a remedy which is in nature legal, although, x x x its issuance is governed by equitable principles.

Prohibition is not a new concept. It is a remedy of ancient origin. It is even said that it is as old as common law itself. The concept originated in conflicts of jurisdiction between royal courts and those of the church. In our jurisdiction, the rule on prohibition is enshrined in Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that the judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as the law and justice require.

The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

            It is very clear that 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." Thus, jurisprudence teaches that resort to administrative remedies should be had first before judicial intervention can be availed of.


Thursday, August 20, 2015

PERSONAL NOTICE TO THE MORTGAGOR IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS:

      As held by the Supreme Court in Philippine National Bank v. Nepomuceno Productions, Inc., x x x personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary for the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, thus: "The principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is not so much to notify the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place, and terms of the sale. Notices are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of the property. Clearly, the statutory requirements of posting and publication are mandated, not for the mortgagor’s benefit, but for the public or third persons. In fact, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not even necessary, unless stipulated"