WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:

     It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society (Asutilla v. PNB, 225 Phil. 40, 43 (1986). However, it is also true that various decisions of this Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among which are: a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;  c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub[-]judice;  d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; h. Where there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;  j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied;  and] [k.] Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.  (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010, NACHURA, J.)

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF COURTS:

     A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA AND SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BALATASAN, BULALACAO, ORIENTAL MINDORO VS. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS ET AL., G.R. NO. 187256, FEB. 23, 2011, VELASCO, JR., J.)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

     the Supreme Court now has the sole authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) vs. HEIRS OF FERNANDO F. CABALLERO, G.R. Nos. 158090, October 4, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

PRE-TRIAL IS MANDATORY IN CHARACTER:

     The mandatory character of pre-trial is embodied in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and found its way in Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.  x x x x  To further show that the Court is serious in implementing the rules on pre-trial, in Alviola v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ-P-08-1697, February 29, 2008, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of suspension on a judge who merely failed to issue a pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference as mandated by Paragraph 8, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.  x x x Here, respondent judge failed to conduct the pre-trial conference itself.  It is elementary and plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. (NPC VS. ADIONG, A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2060, JULY 27, 2011, VILLARAMA, J.)

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE:

    The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.  The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of Court). The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. (WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS. AMOS FRANCIS, JR., G.R. NO. 194128, DECEMBER 7, 2011, MENDOZA, J.).

THE RULES OF COURT DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM REQUESTING THE COURT TO ALLOW IT TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EVEN AFTER IT HAS RESTED ITS CASE.

   Any such opportunity, however, for the ultimate purpose of the admission of additional evidence is already addressed to the sound discretion of the court.  (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011, Brion, J.)

LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE:

     law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal. (VIOS vs. PANTANGCO, JR., G.R. No. 163103, February 6, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS:

     In determining properties to be levied upon, the Rules require the sheriff to levy only on those “properties of the judgment debtor” which are “not otherwise exempt from execution.”  (Golden Sun Finance Corp. vs. Ricardo Albano, A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011 BRION, J.).

OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS:

     Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts.  Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness.  The testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law.  It has been held of expert testimonies: Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies inaccordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements.  The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.  The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. (Tabao vs. People, G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011, Brion, J.).

TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING:

     Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is an entirely different provision. While a former testimony or deposition appears under the Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, the classification of former testimony or deposition as an admissible hearsay is not universally conceded. (Jovito R. Salonga, Philippine Law of Evidence, p. 540, 2nd ed., 1958.) A fundamental characteristic of hearsay evidence is the adverse party’s lack of opportunity to cross-examine the out-of-court declarant. However, Section 47, Rule 130 explicitly requires, inter alia, for the admissibility of a former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the prior proceeding. This opportunity to cross-examine though is not the ordinary cross-examination (Section 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court) afforded an adverse party in usual trials regarding “matters stated in the direct examination or connected therewith.” Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court contemplates a different kind of cross-examination, whether actual or a mere opportunity, whose adequacy depends on the requisite identity of issues in the former case or proceeding and in the present case where the former testimony or deposition is sought to be introduced.  (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011, Brion, J.).

ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS MADE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER OF THE PHILIPPINES, OR BY A PERSON IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY SPECIALLY ENJOINED BY LAW, ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN STATED” (Rule 130, Sec. 44, Rules of Court).

     In the herein case, although complainant made it appear that she has evidence to prove that there was anomaly in the notarization of the subject documents, she failed to present the same. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved and that as an officer of the court he has performed his duties in accordance with his oath.  The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence (Rizalina M. Gemina vs. Atty. Isidro Madamba, A.C. No. 6689, August 24, 2011, Brion, J.).

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND THE PROBATIVE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE:

     Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue. (RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON, G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011, NACHURA, J.).

ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST:

     The joint affidavits are very solid pieces of evidence in the petitioners' favor.  They constitute admissions against interest made by the respondents under oath.  An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute, (Heirs of Miguel Franco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123924, December 11, 2003) based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true. (Republic vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, September 11, 2007)  It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not. (Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain, G. R. No. 146202, July 14, 2004) Taghoy vs. Tigol, G.R. No. 159665, August 03, 2010, Brion, J.).

ADMISSION BY SILENCE:

     The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood the statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial; (3) that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer; (4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and (5) that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue. It is noteworthy that throughout the entire process, and despite the many opportunities given to respondent, he refused to comment and present his side.  The gravity of the charges and the weight of the evidence against him would have prompted an innocent man to come out and clear his name.  However, he opted to maintain his silence. The respondent’s refusal to face the charges against him head-on is contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first impulse of an innocent man, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his innocence at the first opportune time. For his silence and inaction can easily be misinterpreted as a defiance to the directives issued, or worse, an admission of guilt. Moreover, silence is admission if there was chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges against her).  Besides, assuming without admitting that accused did take flight and left the country, we can conclude that this is a clear indication of guilt. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2005, Per Curiam). 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65:

     As extraordinary writs, both Sections 1 (certiorari) and 3 (mandamus), Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require, as a pre-condition for these remedies, that there be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Erdito Quarto vs. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al, G.R. No. 169042,  October 5, 2011, Brion, J.)

THE COURT IS GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING JURISPRUDENCE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES ON APPEAL:

     First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand.  From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses. (People vs. Conrado Laog y Ramin, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011).  Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded. And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the Court of Appeals concurred with the Regional Trial Court. (People of the Phils. vs. Julieto Sanchez , G.R. No. 197815, February 8, 2012, Brion, J.)

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, TO BE BELIEVED, MUST NOT ONLY COME FROM CREDIBLE LIPS BUT MUST BE CREDIBLE IN SUBSTANCE.

     A story that defies reason and logic and above all runs against the grain of common experience cannot persuade. (People  vs. Rodel Singson, G.R. No. 194719, September 21, 2011, Abad, J.).

WHATEVER IS NOT FOUND IN THE WRITING IS UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED AND ABANDONED.

     The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these documents, (Permanent Savings and Loan Bank vs. Velarde (G.R. No. 140608, September 23, 2004) particularly the Agreement. However, he claims that since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to reflect the parties’ true intention. The petitioner’s argument calls to for the application of the parol evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other than what is contained in the written agreement.  Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.  To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties. (Leoveras vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 169985, June 15, 2011, Brion, J.).

UNDER THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, NO ADDITIONAL OR CONTRADICTORY TERMS TO THIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT CAN BE ADMITTED TO SHOW THAT, AT OR BEFORE THE SIGNING OF THE DOCUMENT, OTHER OR DIFFERENT TERMS WERE ORALLY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES.

     (Sps. Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc., 438 Phil. 168, 192 (2002).  Thus, the terms of the Katibayan should be the prevailing terms of the transaction between the parties, not any oral or side agreement the petitioner alleged. (Dulce Pamintuan vs. People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 172820, June 23, 2010, Brion, J.).

APPEALS:

     objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (People of the Philippines vs. Sitti Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, Brion, J.)

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL BY LACHES:

In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (131 Phil. 556 (1968), the party-litigant actively participated in the proceedings before the lower court and filed pleadings therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an adverse Decision on the merits from the appellate court, did the party-litigant question the lower court’s jurisdiction. Considering the unique facts in that case, the Supreme Court held that estoppel by laches had already precluded the party-litigant from raising the question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, 14 July 2008, 558 SCRA 63, the Supreme Court cautioned that Tijam must be construed as an exception to the general rule and applied only in the most exceptional cases whose factual milieu is similar to that in the latter case (REPUBLIC VS. BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G. R. NO. 162322, MARCH 14, 2012, SERENO, J.). 

APPLICATION OF NEYPES DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES:

     While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court's pronouncement of a "fresh period" to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Judith Yu vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad, G. R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, brion, j.).

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT:

     Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a recourse equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner” (PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY VS. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT, INC., G.R. NO. 176628, MARCH 19, 2012, BRION, J.).

SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT:

The grounds for suspension of arraignment are provided under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 11. Suspension of Arraignment. – Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a)    The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b)   There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

     In Samson v. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 612, the Court explained that while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the afore-cited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.  It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.  (SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD VS. VICTOR ANG, G.R. No. 192898, January 31, 2011, BRION, J.)

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45:

     The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction. the above rule is not ironclad. There are instances in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court, to wit: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made 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) the Court of Appeals goes beyond the issues of the case, and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court (in this case, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC); (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (Nelson B. Gan vs. Galderma Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013, Peralta, J.)

EXCEPTION:

     When the factual findings of the CA conflict with those of the labor authorities, the Court is forced to review the evidence on record. (Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commmission, G.R. No. 197384, January 30, 2013, Brion, J.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION:

     An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. (Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90; Goco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.  157449 April 6, 2010 Brion, J.)

TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES: THE COURT MAY GRANT EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDA, BUT THE NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD FOR DECIDING THE CASE SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED THEREBY.

     No less than the Constitution sets the limits on this all-important aspect in the administration of justice.  It mandates that lower courts have three (3) months or ninety (90) days within which to decide cases or matters submitted to them for resolution. Also, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the Court’s business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed period.  (Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188 January 10, 2011 Brion, J.)

TO AVOID THE OPERATION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, THE RULES OF COURT ALLOWS A PARTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE MODIFYING, EXPLAINING OR ADDING TO THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT IF HE PUTS IN ISSUE IN HIS PLEADING, THE FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.

     The failure of the written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties (Article 1359 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) (MODESTO LEOVERAS VS. CASIMERO VALDEZ, G.R. NO. 169985, JUNE 15, 2011, BRION, J.).

ARRAIGNMENT:

     An arraignment is that stage where, in the mode and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. The accused is formally informed of the charges against him, to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty (Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009, 580 SCRA 279). Section 1(g), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court and the last clause of Section 7 of RA 8493 otherwise known as the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, mean the same thing, that the 30-day period shall be counted from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, which is when the accused appears before the court. The grounds for suspension of arraignment are provided under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court applies suppletorily in matters not provided under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman or the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner failed to show that any of the instances constituting a valid ground for suspension of arraignment obtained in this case. Thus, the Sandiganbayan committed no error when it proceeded with petitioner’s arraignment, as mandated by Section 7 of RA 8493. (BRIG. GEN. (Ret.) JOSE RAMISCAL, JR. VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 172476-99, September 15, 2010, second division, CARPIO, J.).

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL:

   Order granting a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is not governed by Section 8 of Rule 117.  While the provision on provisional dismissal is found within Rule 117 (Motion to Quash), it does not follow that a motion to quash results in a provisional dismissal to which Section 8, Rule 117 applies.  Hence, the time-bar rule does not apply to the dismissal of the information and the case may be re-opened if the trial court finds that the quashal was improper. (LOS BAÑOS vs. PEDRO, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, En Banc, Brion, J.).

PARTIES:

   There is no law which vest juridical or legal personality upon a sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend an action in court.  (ROGER V. NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No.  153788, November 27, 2009, BRION, J.).

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL:

     A case is provisionally dismissed if the following requirements concur: (1) the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for its provisional dismissal; (2) the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and (4) the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case” There are sine quanon requirements in the application of the time-bar rule stated in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117. It also ruled that the time-bar under the foregoing provision is a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part thereof, so that the lapse of the time-bar operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the accused. (LOS BAÑOS vs. PEDRO, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, En Banc, Brion, J.).

EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS:

     general rule: the Rule on Execution by Motion or by Independent Action UNDER SECTION 6, RULE 39 APPLIES ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS AND NOT TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS such as an ex parte petition for the issuance of the writ of possession as it is not in the nature of a civil action. (SPOUSES ERNESTO and VICENTA TOPACIO, vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK, G.R. No. 157644, November 17, 2010, BRION, J.).

A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 IS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY AGAINST AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH.

     The accused should instead go to trial, without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. (LYNDON D. BOISER vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180299, January 31, 2008, NACHURA, J.).

AS A RULE, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND IS NOT APPEALABLE;

     an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. (Santos vs. People, G.R. No. 173176, August 26, 2008) The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial. Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the general rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons. (Galzote vs. Briones G.R. No. 164682 September 14, 2011 Brion, J.)

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DEMANDS THAT UNWAVERING EXACTITUDE BE OBSERVED IN ESTABLISHING THE CORPUS DELICTI - THE BODY OF THE CRIME WHOSE CORE IS THE CONFISCATED ILLICIT DRUG.

     Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would, thus, include a testimony about the every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it was offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the same would admit as to how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. Due to the procedural lapses pointed out above, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused. (People of the Philippines, vs. Erlinda Capuno Y Tison, G.R. No. 185715 January 19, 2011, Brion, J.).

MODES OF APPEAL:

Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides the three modes of appeal, which are as follows: “Section 2.  Modes of appeal. —

(a)     Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.  No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.  In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b)     Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c)     Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45” (emphasis supplied). 

          The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal, the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, the appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme Court and resolves only questions of law (HEIRS OF NICOLAS S. CABIGAS VS. MELBA L. LIMBACO ET AL., G.R. NO. 175291, JULY 27, 2011, BRION, J.).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH:

     Section 3 of Rule 17 enumerates the grounds for the quashal of a complaint or information, as follows: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent (LOS BAÑOS vs. PEDRO, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, En Banc, Brion, J.).

FRESH PERIOD RULE:

   In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633, 644, the Court declared that a party-litigant should be allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, so as to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules of Court and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted.  Furthermore, in Sumiran v. Damaso, G.R. No. 162518, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 450, 455, the Court again emphasized that the ruling in Neypes, being a matter of procedure, must be given retroactive effect and applied even to actions pending in this Court. (RAMON TORRES and JESSIE BELARMINO vs. SPOUSES VIHINZKY ALAMAG and AIDA A. NGOJU, Respondents, G.R. No. 169569, August 3, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

FRESH PERIOD RULE:

   The fresh 15-day period provided for in Neypes applies to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding the wordings of Section 6, Rule 122.  (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. 170979, 9 February 2011, justice brion).

ADMISSION AND CONFESSION:

     Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to Rule 129 and Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. (People vs. Bascugin, G.R. No. 184704, June 30, 2009, Third Division, Velasco, Jr., J.).

MOTION TO QUASH

     A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused assails, before entering his plea, the validity of the criminal complaint or the criminal information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defect apparent on the face of the Information. The motion, as a rule, hypothetically admits the truth of the facts spelled out in the complaint or information. (LOS BAÑOS vs. PEDRO, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, En Banc, Brion, J.).

AS A RULE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY.

   (Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010).  By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. (Tan vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521, January 12, 2011, Brion, J.).

DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE:

     Section 11 of the same Rule also provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when the date of commission is a material element of the offense. The offense may thus be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. (PEOPLE vs. CANARES, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

     a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment," as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. (PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK vs. FELIPE CHUA, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010, BRION, J.).

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE:

   The term prima facie evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts. Prima facie means it is “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.” (Republic of the Philippines, vs. Sandiganbayan Eduardo   M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., April 12, 2011, G.R. No. 166859, Carpio Morales, J.).

FAILURE TO OBJECT BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE RESULTS TO WAIVER OF SUCH OBJECTION:

     In any event, even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any, was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any objection based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellant’s failure to object before arraignment (PEOPLE vs. CANARES, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65:

     Over and above our statutes is the Constitution whose Section 1, Article VIII empowers the  courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of   discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This is an overriding authority that cuts across all branches and instrumentalities of government and is implemented through the petition for certiorari that Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides. (Reyes, Jr., vs. Belisario G.R. No. 154652 August 14, 2009 Brion, J.)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

    The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. (People vs. Arielito Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30, 2011 Brion, J.).

CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

     Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. “Marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. (People vs. Jhon-Jhon Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, Brion, J.).

ALL CRIMINAL ACTIONS COMMENCED BY COMPLAINT OR BY INFORMATION SHALL BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

   ” In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. (Dante La. Jimenez vs. Hon. Edwin Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, Brion, J.)

AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER THAT COMPLETELY DISPOSES OF THE CASE, OR OF A PARTICULAR MATTER THEREIN WHEN DECLARED BY THESE RULES TO BE APPEALABLE.

     No appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;(c) An interlocutory order;(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;(f) An order of execution;(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, crossclaims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Section 1 of Rule 41) (MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 182585, Nov. 27, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

FLIGHT OF AN ACCUSED:

    Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against the accused as having a tendency to establish the accused's guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation determinative of innocence. (People of the Philippines vs. Johbert Amodia Y Baba, G.R. No. 177356, November 20, 2008, Brion, J.).

IN DEFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM, SECTION 6, RULE 110 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (RULES) REQUIRES, THAT THE INFORMATION SHALL STATE THE DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE GIVEN BY THE STATUTE AND THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS IMPUTED WHICH CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

     Additionally, the Rules requires that these acts or omissions and its attendant circumstances “must be stated in ordinary and concise language” and “in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged x  x  x  and for the court to pronounce judgment.” The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison d’etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. (FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 172035, July 4, 2012, BRION, J.).

JUDICIAL NOTICE IS THE COGNIZANCE OF CERTAIN FACTS THAT JUDGES MAY PROPERLY TAKE AND ACT ON WITHOUT PROOF BECAUSE THESE FACTS ARE ALREADY KNOWN TO THEM.

Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed. The foundation for judicial notice may be traced to the civil and canon law maxim, manifesta (or notoria) non indigent probatione. (Jovito R. Salonga, Philippine Law of Evidence, p. 540, 2nd ed., 1958) The taking of judicial notice means that the court will dispense with the traditional form of presentation of evidence. In so doing, the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it would not be disputed.

         The concept of judicial notice is embodied in Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Rule 129 either requires the court to take judicial notice, inter alia, of “the official acts of the x x x judicial departments of the Philippines,” or gives the court the discretion to take judicial notice of matters “ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.” On the other hand, a party-litigant may ask the court to take judicial notice of any matter and the court may allow the parties to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter involved. In the present case, after the petitioner filed its Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice, the respondents were also heard through their corresponding oppositions.  In adjudicating a case on trial, generally, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge. (Manuel V. Moran, 5 Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 ed., p. 409) This rule though admits of exceptions. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011, Brion, J.).

MIRANDA WARNINGS:

   The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation. (PEOPLE VS. ARTURO LARA Y ORBISTA, G.R. NO. 199877, AUGUST 13, 2012, REYES, J).

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES:

     the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, xxx but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.” (People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013, Brion, J.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

     A summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. (PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK vs. FELIPE CHUA, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010, BRION, J.).

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:

     The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In doing so, the prosecution must rest its case on its own merits and cannot merely rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense does  not even need to present any evidence in its behalf; the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted (PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. VS. JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO, G.R. NO. 176350, AUGUST 10, 2011, BRION, J.).

BURDEN OF PROOF IN DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS:

     Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven.  Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense. (Olazo vs. Hon. Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-Sc, December 7, 2010, Brion, J.).

BURDEN OF PROOF IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS:

   In deportation proceedings, the alien bears the burden of proving that he entered the Philippines lawfully. (Immigration Act, Section 37(d).) (The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation vs. Jung Keun Park, G.R. No. 159835, January 21, 2010, Brion, J.)

MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE:

     A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case. (Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr., OMBUDSMAN VS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., G.R. NO. 16467, JULY 27, 2011, BRION, J.).

JUDGMENT:

     The denial of a motion to dismiss, as an interlocutory order, cannot be the subject of an appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered in the main case. (Spouses Eugene L. Lim vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013, Brion, J.)

THE PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:

     Psychological incapacity contemplates “downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations”; not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the celebration of marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of the errant spouse. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013, Brion, J.)

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:

    LABOR CASES: the burden of proving that the termination of a worker’s employment was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer. (Mirant (Philippines) Corporation vs. Danilo A. Sarto, G.R. No. 197598, November 21, 2012, Brion, J.)

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS:

      An Order denying a Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory. (MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No.182585, November 27, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

DISMISSALS:

    an unqualified order is deemed to be a dismissal with prejudice. in other words, Dismissals of actions (under Section 3, rule 17 of the rules of court) which do not expressly state whether they are with or without prejudice are held to be with prejudice. (Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc., vs.Mrs. Leticia B. Magsalin et al., G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012, BRION, J.).

BURDEN OF PROOF IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES:

     It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail (Sultan Pandagaranao A. Ilupa vs. Macalindog S. Abdullah, A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P, June 1, 2011, BRION, J.)

FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS:

   As a rule, judgments are sufficiently served when they are delivered personally, or through registered mail to the counsel of record, or by leaving them in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. (SPOUSES ERNESTO and VICENTA TOPACIO vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK, G.R. No. 157644, November 17, 2010, BRION J.).

THE DEFENSES OF DENIAL, FRAME-UP, AND POLICE EXTORTION ONLY BECOME WEIGHTY WHEN INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES CAST DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

   Besides, the failure of the appellants to file appropriate criminal and administrative cases against the concerned police officers in light of their allegations highly indicates that the appellants’ claims are mere concocted afterthoughts. (People vs. Romeo Dansico, G.R. No. 178060, February 2, 2011, Brion, J.).

PLEADINGS:

   the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are not jurisdictional. (Spouses Eugene L. Lim vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013, Brion, J.)

A YOUNG GIRL WOULD NOT CONCOCT A SORDID TALE OF A CRIME AS SERIOUS AS RAPE AT THE HANDS OF HER VERY OWN FATHER, ALLOW THE EXAMINATION OF HER PRIVATE PART, AND SUBJECT HERSELF TO THE STIGMA AND EMBARRASSMENT OF A PUBLIC TRIAL, IF HER MOTIVE WERE OTHER THAN A FERVENT DESIRE TO SEEK JUSTICE.

     The Supreme Court has consistently held that where no evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a witness to falsely testify against an accused, the testimony deserves faith and credit. Moreover, the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. (People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013, Brion, J.)

ISSUES OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE ARE CONSIDERED EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON STANDING:

    The Court, through Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano (now retired), provided the following instructive guides as determinants in determining whether a matter is of transcendental importance: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.  (CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) vs. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), G.R. No. 174697, July 8, 2010, BRION, J.).

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

   Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: "(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." (People vs. Melanio Galo et al., G.R. No. 187497, October 12, 2011, Brion, J.).

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES:

   where the EJECTMENT suit IS brought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners.  the other co-ownerS are not considered as indispensable parties to the resolution of the case. On the other hand, where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners. (MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE:

The failure of one party to submit his position paper does not bar at all the MTC from issuing a judgment on the ejectment complaint. (TERAÑA vs. DESAGUN, G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

A party alleging a critical fact must support [the] allegation with substantial evidence.” (Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Salvador T. Serna, G.R. No. 172086, December 3, 2012, Brion, J.)

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

     In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Re: Complaint of Concerned Members of Chinese Grocers Association Against Justice Socorro B. Inting of The Court of Appeals, A.M. Oca Ipi No. 10-177-Ca-J,  April 12, 2011, Brion, J.).

RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE:

     If the extension for the filing of pleadings cannot be allowed, it is illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late. to admit a late answer is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to redress. (TERAÑA vs. DESAGUN, G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

SEARCH AND SEIZURE:

      A search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with a specific offense alleged in an application based on the personal knowledge of the applicant and his or her witnesses. (COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILS., INC. (CCBPI), vs. QUINTIN J. GOMEZ, G.R. No. 154491, November 14, 2008, BRION, J.).

JURISDICTION:

   a public official’s resignation does not render moot an administrative case that was filed prior to the official’s resignation. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., G.R. No. 16467, July 27, 2011, BriON, J.).

2012 BAR EXAM PASSERS:

congratulations to our new lawyers! 

1. A JOSE- AGUSTIN, Karren
2. ABASTILLAS, Lemuel
3. ABERIN, Ma. Christine
4. ABES, Royce Nieville
5. ABRENZOSA, Cleofe
6. ABUAN, Ruby Ryza
7. ACEDO, Kristian Josef
8. ACORDA, Jacqueline
9. ACOSTA, Lourdes Mae
10. ACOSTA, JR., Gil
11. ACUÑA, Jose Fidel
12. ADAN, Jan Mari
13. ADAP, Sanawia
14. AGANA, III, Carlos Ivan
15. AGATEP, Pia Augustha
16. AGBAY-ABILAR, Janice
17. AGBON, Ma. Cecelia Esperanza
18. AGOPITAC, Nestle
19. AGUAVIVA, Ava Marie
20. AJES-LAURENTE, Lilibeth
21. ALAMEDA, Abigail
22. ALAWI, JR., Saipal
23. ALBANO, Pia Ursula
24. ALBANO, Ranvylle
25. ALBAS, Dominique
26. ALBINA, Dionel
27. ALBOTRA, Tet Chea
28. ALCANTARA, Austin Claude
29. ALCANTARA, Rickmon Albert
30. ALCERA, II, Hermie
31. ALDOVINO, Marian Mae
32. ALEJANDRE, Pauline
33. ALFELOR, JR., Avelino
34. ALI, JR., Lanang
35. ALIM, Nicolito Jesus
36. ALIVIA, Mikhail Sherard
37. ALMARIO, Ann Therese
38. ALMENDRAL, Chrizellie
39. ALMIREZ, Hanna Maria Nica
40. ALOJADO, Carlo Enrico
41. ALVAREZ, Aila May
42. ALVAREZ, Maria Margarita
43. ALVERO, Marierose
44. AMADOR, Tina Andrea
45. AMAN, Takahiro Kenjie
46. AMARO, Ana Mae
47. AMBROCIO, Ma. Carmencita
48. AMSAN, Munib
49. ANDAWI, Melody
50. ANDRION, Jofre
51. ANG, Kathleen Mae
52. ANG, JR., Rodolfo
53. ANGELES, Raul
54. ANTIGUA, Perseus
55. ANTONIO, Rafael
56. APALISOK, JR., Simplicio
57. APARTE, Frances Margaret
58. APORTADERA, Mario Leonardo Emilio
59. AQUENDE, Joseph Angelo Wesley
60. ARANAS, Kim
61. ARCEO, Irene
62. ARCEO, Mariam
63. ARCEÑO, Jackielyn
64. ARDIENTE, Arnold
65. ARELLANO, May Kristine
66. ARIAS, Michelle
67. ARMENTA, Joshua
68. ARQUIZA, Arbee
69. ARQUIZA, Carlo
70. ARRIBA, Mona Liza
71. ARRIOLA, Roanne
72. ARTICONA, Mercedes
73. ARTICULO, Mark Anthony
74. ARTUGUE, Arianne
75. ARUGAY, Manuel Adrian
76. ASPIRAS, Janice
77. ASUNCION, Mark Anthony
78. ASUNTO, Daisy Ray
79. ATANACIO, John David
80. AUGUSTO, Davemark
81. AUSAN, Anniefair
82. AUSTRIA, Carlo
83. AUTENCIO, Anthony
84. AUZA, Jannycer
85. AVILA, Aldan
86. AVILA, Rachelle Faye
87. BABIERA, Jan Christian
88. BACOLOD, Julse
89. BAGAIPO, Cesar
90. BAGATSING, Lea Margarette
91. BAGUIO, Cindy
92. BAGULAYA, Jose Duke
93. BAILAN, Bai Sittie Saida
94. BAINTO, Neal Vincent
95. BAJAS, Joey
96. BAJETA, Jonathan
97. BAKILAN, Bernard
98. BALAGA, Jo Ann
99. BALANQUIT, Raoul Jann
100. BALAORO, Grace
101. BALBA, Zack Hansel
102. BALDOMERO, Ivan Jeffrey
103. BALDOVINO, Aldwin Kenneth
104. BALDOVINO, Alexander
105. BALDOVINO, Tanya Justine
106. BALILI, Neil Aaron
107. BALMES, Irene
108. BALORO, Joemyl
109. BALTAZAR, Ana Lyn
110. BANAYAT-NAS, Hermilia
111. BANDALAN, Jared Anthony
112. BANGHE, Hannah Jane
113. BANZON, Eva
114. BAPTISTA, Joe Allan
115. BARCELONA, Ralph Karlo
116. BARQUEZ, Ma. Elisa Jonalyn
117. BARRIOS, Angelo
118. BASCUGUIN, Maria Jocelyn
119. BASE, Amerissa
120. BASE, Maria Graciela
121. BAUTISTA, Judy-ann
122. BAUTISTA, Krystel Jehan
123. BAUTISTA, Maria Theresa
124. BAYONA, Phoebe Ann
125. BEBER, Dindo
126. BECHAYDA, JR., Jose
127. BEDURAL, Vladimir
128. BENIGIAN, II, Mardovic Dodge
129. BENITEZ, JR., Arcadio
130. BERAY-DE AUSEN, Penelope
131. BERNARDINO, Ramon Felipe
132. BERNARDO, Donna Ametyst
133. BERNARDO, Nicolo
134. BERNARDO, Pallo Mert
135. BIADO, Nazariel
136. BIDAD, Jonelyn
137. BILANGEL, Judy Ann
138. BILIRAN, Amabelle
139. BINARAO, Romael Meng
140. BIRONDO, Francis Ian
141. BLANCIA, Andrei Marion
142. BONDOC, Hector Jerome
143. BONGHANOY, Al
144. BONILLA, Diana Lutgarda
145. BORBON, Mariven
146. BORDON, Maria Janina Ann
147. BORJA, Ma. Arlene
148. BORROMEO, Gabriel Angelo
149. BOTABARA, Theresa
150. BRACERO, II, Wivino
151. BRAGAT, Junrie
152. BRILLANTES, Roselle Louie
153. BRION, Eden
154. BRIONES, Conrado
155. BRIONES, Gerald
156. BRONCE, Roentgen
157. BUAGÑIN, Venice
158. BUENAVENTURA, Ma. Clarissa Hearty
159. BUENAVENTURA, Roberto Martin
160. BULOTANO, Ronnie
161. BULSECO, Khristine Gail
162. BUSTOS, Adrian Francis
163. CABANTING, Gil Matthew
164. CABANTUD, Racel
165. CABATINGAN, Justine Mae
166. CABI, Romina Aina
167. CABIEDES, Rodrigo
168. CABRERA, Fernando Juan
169. CABRERA, John Patrick
170. CACHAPERO, JR., Oliver
171. CADABUNA, Marvin Jay
172. CADDAWAN-PANCHO, Julaida
173. CAHAYAG, Rommel
174. CAIBAN, Lee Ferdinand
175. CAJUCOM, Oscar Carlo
176. CALAG, Welan
177. CALALANG, Mary Bianca
178. CALAMAY, Cesar Norman
179. CALDERINI, Charmaine
180. CALDERON, Abegail Joan
181. CALINGASAN, Charlene Mae
182. CALMA-CHAN, Gabriela
183. CALUAG, Edmond
184. CALVAN, Myrtle
185. CAMACHO, Gianfrancis
186. CAMACHO, Paolo Francisco
187. CAMAGANACAN, Emelie
188. CAMISO, Aldous Benjamin
189. CAMUA, Mariacarla
190. CANDELARIA, Marissa
191. CANTILLAS, Irish Claire
192. CANTOS, Rj
193. CAPANAS, Jovalie Claire
194. CAPELLAN, Marina Victoria
195. CARANDANG, Ma. Buenafe
196. CARBONELL, Rhea Joy
197. CARDIÑO, Gian Carlo
198. CARDONA, Sarah Jeane
199. CARILLO, Marc Jay
200. CARINGAL-DE CASTRO, Maria Yvet
201. CARLOBOS, Princess Christine
202. CARPIO, Menachem
203. CARTAGENA, Philipp King
204. CASADOR, Angeli Ness
205. CASALS, Detchie
206. CASIBANG, JR., Ruben
207. CASIDSID-PORTENTO, Regina
208. CASIO, Jo Ann Marie
209. CASISON-DUNGCA, Maricel
210. CASTILLO, Beverly
211. CASTILLO, Dante
212. CASTILLO, Mark Erwin
213. CASTRO, Joanne Frances
214. CASTRODES, Kristine Joyce
215. CASUELA, Nathaniel Joseph
216. CATACUTAN, Richard
217. CATACUTAN, JR., Felicisimo
218. CATALAN, Jo-am
219. CATALUÑA-RENEGADO, Catherine
220. CATULONG, Zacharias
221. CAYABAN, Iva Freyritz Erica
222. CAYCO, Natasha
223. CAYCO, Victor Carlo Antonio
224. CAÑARES, Vhincent
225. CAÑETE, Stephen Roy
226. CEDEÑO, Jessa Mary Ann
227. CERIALES, Roni
228. CHAN, Christian
229. CHAN, Clifford
230. CHAN, Jereline
231. CHAVES, Carla Michelle
232. CHING, May Ann
233. CHINTE, Mary Eileen
234. CHU, Kristine Paula
235. CHUA, Sacel Anne
236. CINCO, Abegail Marie
237. CLAUDIO, Joanne Lucille Germaine
238. CLAUDIO, Kristoffer
239. CLAUDIO, Lesley Anne
240. CLEDERA, Kim Debra
241. COMA, Joanne Marie
242. CONCEPCION, Irene Charmaine
243. CONCEPCION, Robin Bryan
244. CONDE, Fiona
245. CONDE, Maricar
246. CONVOCAR, Daniel Luis
247. CORESIS, Ma. Katrina
248. CORPUZ, Danielle Sigfreid
249. CORPUZ, Grazielynne
250. CORRALES, Michael John
251. CORSAME-FUENTES, Gazzelenne
252. COVARRUBIAS, Jose Janello
253. CRISOSTOMO, Jaim Mari
254. CRUZ, Emmanuel Rey
255. CRUZ, Gino Carlo
256. CRUZ, Jennifer Anne Marie
257. CRUZ, Keneth Joyce
258. CRUZ, Niño Martin
259. CRUZ, Roxanne Joan
260. CUARTERO, Dave
261. CUBA, Margareth Kristel
262. CUBERO, Ronald
263. CUBILLAN, Asis
264. CUCHAPIN, Mykedox Knoel
265. CUEVAS, Dyan Marie
266. CUI, Rosabel
267. CURADA, Yul Bernie
268. CURAMMENG, Jessieh Rey
269. CUSTODIO, Daniel Ben
270. DANCE, Kristoffer Lee
271. DAPITON, Roel
272. DAQUIOAG, Florence
273. DE ANDRES, JR., Gabriel
274. DE CHAVEZ, Marc Roby
275. DE CHAVEZ-ALEDO, Sharon
276. DE DUMO, Jilliane Joyce
277. DE GUZMAN, Arjel
278. DE GUZMAN, Michael
279. DE GUZMAN, Robert Josef
280. DE GUZMAN, Steven Michael
281. DE LA CRUZ, Christian
282. DE LEON, Jose
283. DE LOS REYES, Dianne Margarette
284. DE LOS SANTOS, Christian Loren
285. DE MESA, Beverly Elvy
286. DE VERA, Ma. Christine Fel
287. DE VERA, II, Rustico
288. DE VILLA, Rhodora
289. DEJARME, Doreen
290. DEL ROSARIO, Joseph Carl
291. DELA CALZADA, Renato
292. DELA CRUZ, Gerald
293. DELA CRUZ, Glenna Mari
294. DELA CRUZ, Vann Allen
295. DELA CUESTA, Rogie
296. DELA PEÑA, Toni Carla
297. DELOS SANTOS, Lilian
298. DEOMPOC, Mary Khristel
299. DEVERATURDA, Joan Paula
300. DIALINO, Karen
301. DIAZ, Mario Vincent
302. DIESMOS, Angelo Ted
303. DIESTO, Jovian
304. DIGO, Jerry
305. DIMACULANGAN, Roberto Miguel
306. DIMAFELIX, II, Alfredo
307. DIMATATAC, Edwin
308. DIMSON, Caira Joyce
309. DIOKNO, Angelo
310. DISPO, D'lorenz Miro
311. DIZON, Justinne
312. DOCENA, Hans Christian
313. DOGWE-RAMIREZ, Marifi
314. DOMINGO, Frances Yani
315. DOMINGUEZ, Ilyn
316. DONATO, Carol
317. DORIA, Dianne
318. DU, Minister Moises
319. DUAZO, Rose Shayne
320. DUCUSIN, Alejandro
321. DULAY-MARCOS, Vicky Runa
322. DUMAGAT, Maricon
323. DUMALAY, Marichriz
324. DUNUAN, Brionelle La Realesa
325. DY, Frederick
326. ELEAZAR, Armand Dietrich
327. ELGO, Phil Ephraim
328. ELTANAL, Felwin Rau
329. ENAD, Rajiv
330. ENCABO, III, Melchisedech
331. ENCARNACION, Ian
332. ENCARNACION, Mark Francis
333. EPE, Evan
334. ERMINO, Augusto Ceasar
335. ESCALONA, Leo Miguel
336. ESCATRON, Karie
337. ESCOBER, Carlo
338. ESCUETA, Leonard
339. ESMENDA, Alvin
340. ESMERALDA, Patrick
341. ESPARCIA, Janis Louis
342. ESPARRAGO, Sheldon
343. ESPINA, Corin Celeste
344. ESPINOSA, Ron Ely
345. ESPIRITU, Harvey Rhey
346. ESPIRITU, Leah Eloisa
347. ESPIRITU, Paula
348. ESQUIVIAS, Joaquin Pablo
349. ESTIGOY, Karene Maneka
350. ESTRADA-ALCANTARA, Maria Socorro
351. ESTRELLA, Eric
352. EVAN, Noel
353. EVANGELISTA, Carlo Eduardo
354. EX, Doyle
355. EÑANO, Carissa Ann
356. FABUL, Joseph Vincent
357. FAJARDO, Celerina Rose
358. FAJARDO, Idamae
359. FAJARDO, Jan Ale
360. FATALLA, Dave Florenz
361. FEDERIO, Maria Desiree
362. FELICES, Rachel Marie
363. FELICIA, Luz Angela
364. FELIPE, Eduardo
365. FELIX, Peter Anthony Joseph
366. FERIA, Jerome Christopher
367. FERNANDO, Angelo
368. FERRAREN, Ryan
369. FERRER, Rosette
370. FLORES, Raymund Jonas
371. FLORES, Soleil
372. FLORES, II, Lester Jay Alan
373. FOLLO, Dennis
374. FONTANILLA, Viktor Samuel
375. FRAGANTE, Francis
376. FRANCISCO, Jeremiah
377. FRANCISCO, Jose Ma. Jason
378. FULGENCIO, Genesis
379. GABITO, Garry
380. GABOR-TOLENTINO, Joy Marie
381. GADIT, Earl
382. GALANG, John Paul
383. GALICIA, Gene Franco
384. GALLEVO-BAMBO, Majella Theresa
385. GALMAN, Franklin Gerard
386. GALVEZ, Edmund Cyril
387. GALVEZ, Jerico Angelo
388. GAMO, Ciselie Marie
389. GANASI, Dante
390. GANDO, Jovi Louie
391. GARCIA, Jan David
392. GARCIA, Junnar
393. GARCIA, Ron Michael
394. GARCINEZ, Paolo Gonzalo
395. GARRIDO, Kinni Albert
396. GATCHALIAN, Kate Carra
397. GATDULA, Genesis
398. GAYANILO, Brian
399. GENON, Aero Jel
400. GEOCANIGA, Gene Pedmon
401. GERNALE, Jay
402. GERVACIO, Diana
403. GIGANTONE, Maria Riza Lea
404. GILBUENA, Francis Conrad
405. GINGOYON, Laiza Kristel
406. GO, David Michael
407. GO, Marie Michelle
408. GO, Paolo Angelo
409. GOC-ONG, Lara May
410. GODINEZ, Jose Mari
411. GOMEZ, Ace
412. GOMEZ, Joni
413. GOMEZ, Mikhail Josef
414. GONZAGA, Odessa Grace
415. GONZALES, Christian
416. GONZALES, Jenny
417. GONZALES, Kristine Carmela
418. GONZALES, Nil Ryan
419. GORDULA, Xavier Elbert
420. GOYENA, Ma. Flor De Lis
421. GRANADO, Glenbelle
422. GUANGCO, Ma. Veronica
423. GUERRA, Blesscille
424. GUERRERO, Alan Martin
425. GUERRERO, Katrina Elena
426. GUEVARA, Kristine Bernadette
427. GUILLERMO, Maica
428. GUINOMLA, Mohammad Jamaludin
429. GUINTO, Celeni Kristine
430. GUMBAN, Margaret Rose
431. GUMBAN, Vanessa
432. GURREA, Fay Irene
433. GUTIERREZ, Eva Marie
434. GUZMAN, Jeffvince
435. HADLOCON, Fatima Faye
436. HASSANI, Mary Sayeh
437. HEREDIA, Criselda
438. HERMOSURA, Chasmeneth
439. HERNANDEZ, Maria Concepcion
440. HERNANDEZ, Patricia Andrea
441. HILARIO, Dan Raphael
442. HILARIO, Kyndell
443. HINLO, Marco
444. HIPOLITO, Maria Monica
445. HULIGANGA, Lovella May
446. HUMARANG, Jayson
447. HUMILDE, Noemi
448. IBAÑEZ, Jonathan
449. IGNACIO, Christopher John Marcelino
450. ILANO, Jose Angelito
451. IMPERIAL, Ramil
452. IMRAN, Adzlan
453. INCIONG, Jhoan Andrei
454. INDIOLA, Rio Aiko
455. INFANTE, Colleen
456. INGLES, Ignatius Michael
457. INLAO, Charle Magne
458. IRANZO, Kristoffer Edward
459. ISIDRO, Laida May
460. JAAFAR, Faigdar
461. JACOBA, Maria Laviña Rae
462. JARANILLA, David
463. JAVIER, April Rose
464. JAVIER, Carlo Michael
465. JAYME, Joel
466. JOAQUINO, JR., Joseph James
467. JUAN, Vincent
468. JUATCO, Francis
469. JULARBAL, Starr
470. JUSI, Genevieve
471. KALAW, Jenny Kay
472. KATIPUNAN, Andrea
473. KIAMZON, Joyful Josette
474. KING KAY, Catherine Beatrice
475. KO, Patricia
476. KUSAIN-KANSI, Adjuria
477. LA ROSA-MILLARES, Katherine Joy
478. LABADOR, Jed
479. LABIANO, Lester
480. LACAP, Karen Kristi
481. LACEDA, Jovert
482. LACHICA, Lemuel
483. LACNO, Sarah Vanessa
484. LACSON, April Carmela
485. LAGGUI, Marie Hyacinth
486. LAMBINO, Mary Rhauline
487. LAMSEN, Jaenicen
488. LANGIT, Earla Kahlila Mikhaila
489. LANTION, Mell Christopher
490. LANUZO, Ma. Czarina
491. LAO, Michael Stephen
492. LAOHOO, Joyce Elaine
493. LAUROS, Jus
494. LAXAMANA, Aufelene Anne
495. LAYAAN, Geraldine
496. LAZARO, Grace Ann
497. LAZARO, Nicholai Noel
498. LEAL, Lemuel
499. LEDESMA, Leofred Ian
500. LEGASPI, Erwin
501. LEI, John Christopherson
502. LEIDO, Juan Paolo Miguel
503. LELIS, Alexa Marie
504. LENA, Andrew John
505. LEONG-ANUDIN, Leslie Ann
506. LERONA, Lawuel
507. LI, Carlo Martin
508. LIGGAYU, Minehaha
509. LIM, Jhella
510. LIM, Rachelle
511. LIM, Timothy Dalton
512. LIM-MAGTANGGOL, Rachelle
513. LISTONES, Paul
514. LIWAG, Jobelle Joyce
515. LLAMAS, Marvyn
516. LOGROÑO, Princess Jazmine
517. LONDRES, Louie Marie
518. LOPEZ-BALUYUT, Philjoy
519. LORA, Lizette Lou
520. LOTOC, Jeremy
521. LOZADA, Maria Kristile
522. LOZANO, Daphne
523. LU, Antonio Miguel
524. LUCAS, Danjun
525. LUCIANO, Mark Christian
526. LUIB, JR., Ronald
527. LUNA, Myla
528. LUNASCO, Emil
529. MABANTA, Marco Jose Maria
530. MABAZZA, Paolo
531. MACABODBOD, Lou Bryan
532. MACARAEG, Marck Joseph
533. MACARANDANG, Deen Asliah
534. MACARAYAN, Maichel Rick
535. MACHUCA, Jose Maria Angel
536. MADRIDIJO, Marlon
537. MAGCALAS, Felman Gem
538. MAGLINAO, Patrick
539. MALABUYOC, Ichelle
540. MALAGA, Vic Randolf
541. MALALAD, Warren Wesley
542. MALASA, Michelene
543. MALAWANI, Hanaphi
544. MALLANAO, Paul
545. MAMAILAO, Athiena
546. MAMAILAO, Paiza
547. MAMUKID, Michael
548. MANALO, May
549. MANALO, Melchor
550. MANANDEG, Gertrude Gay
551. MANAUIS, JR., Conrado
552. MANCAO, Katrina Michelle
553. MANGSI, Sanchez
554. MANGUBAT, Rex
555. MANIEGO, Catriona Rhiannon
556. MANRIQUE, Bernard
557. MANUEL, Sheila Gene
558. MAQUILAN, Jonathan
559. MARANAN, Maria Carmela
560. MARASIGAN, Nathan
561. MARAÑA, Jonalyn
562. MARCELO, Monica Joy
563. MARCELO, Ronel
564. MARIÑAS, Maria Rosario
565. MARON-MARTIN, Vobbye Jean
566. MAROTO, Ma. Alexandria Ixara
567. MARQUESES, Dan Michael
568. MARQUEZ, JR., Reynaldo
569. MARTIN, Mary Marjorie
570. MARTINEZ, IV, Lorenzo
571. MARTIREZ, Ike
572. MARTY, Frank Edward
573. MASLOG, Ma. Sheryl
574. MATALAM, Jamil Adrian Khalil
575. MATIAS, Serwin
576. MATILDO, JR, Lerdo
577. MAURERA, Katherine
578. MAYUGA, Adrian
579. MAÑEBO, Ferdinand
580. MEDINA, Maria Ana Karina
581. MEJIA, Nina Remedios
582. MEJIA, Venus Amelie
583. MELGAR, III, Josefino
584. MENDOZA, Daniel Angelo
585. MENDOZA, Emaculada Concepcion
586. MENDOZA, Gerardo
587. MENDOZA, Jason
588. MENDOZA, Marychelle
589. MENZON, Anthony
590. MERCADER, Ryan
591. MERIDA, JR., Manuel
592. MILLEZA, Carmel Rosame
593. MILLORA, II, Efren Joe
594. MINA, Iellen Therese
595. MIRANDA-RIMONTE, Ana
596. MIRAVALLES, Samantha
597. MITCHOR, April
598. MONTANO, IV, Julian
599. MONTEMAYOR, Meriam
600. MONTENEGRO, Kutz Melvin
601. MORA, Crisanto
602. MORALES, Armand
603. MORALES, Generick Humprey
604. MORGA, Ryan Calvin
605. MORILLO, Leo Adrian
606. MOTOOMULL-IDULSA, Marian Kanna
607. MUCOY-GRANADOS, Meralie
608. MULI, Katrina
609. MUPAS, Remedios
610. MUTIA, Mohammad Nabil
611. MUÑIZ, Angelo
612. MUÑOZ, Giselle Angelica
613. NAGAÑO, Lord Jayson
614. NAVARRA, Cherrylyn
615. NEJUDNE, Paul
616. NICOLAS, Jerwin
617. NIEMES, Vanessa
618. NIEVES, Jonas
619. NIFRAS, Francis Ariel
620. NOEL, Laura Katrina
621. NOGRALES, Juan Fidel Felipe
622. NONATO, Roselle Jean
623. NOVERAS, Chrsitian
624. NUCUP, Neil
625. NUEVO, Genie Celini
626. NUÑEZ, Jeremie
627. OBIAS, John Dominic
628. OCADO, Allian
629. OCAMPO, Christopher Louie
630. OCAMPO, Gilbert Paolo
631. OCAMPO, Riza Lyn
632. OFANDA, Adonis
633. OLAVERE, Albert
634. OLYMPIA, Abrame-lionel Gamaliel
635. OMOLON, Maila Giselle
636. ONA, Kristel Concepcion
637. ONG, Tracy Anne
638. OPINION, Richard
639. OPOSA, Juan Antonio
640. OPSIMA, Gayle
641. ORAL, Daniel Martin
642. ORATE, Danessa Fayne
643. ORBETA, Frances Grace Allyana
644. ORBITA, Chona
645. ORDOÑEZ, Jaclyn Anne
646. ORTIZ, Edison
647. OSORIO, Rolant Andrie
648. PABLICO, Maria Asuncion
649. PABLICO, My Kristia
650. PACASEM, Ubaida
651. PADER-VILLANUEVA, Carmina Agnes
652. PADILLA, Albert
653. PADILLA JR., Victor
654. PADOGA, Dean Martin
655. PAGADOR, Winston
656. PAGALILAUAN, Edison James
657. PAGLICAWAN, Maria Angelica
658. PALENCIA-UYTENGSU, Maida Joy
659. PALLA, Bartolome
660. PALOMAR, Sunshine
661. PALU-AY, Matias Monico
662. PANA, Melbourne Ziro
663. PANGANIBAN, Victoria
664. PANTIG, Hazel
665. PARADO, Lovely Myrrh
666. PAREJA, Judiel
667. PARUBRUB, Christina
668. PARUNGAO, Ronald
669. PASION, Roseann Claudine
670. PATAUEG, JR., Nicolas
671. PATIÑO, Erica Christel
672. PAVON, Teddy Edmund
673. PAYUMO, Margielyn
674. PAZZIUAGAN, Cheska Ann
675. PEDROSA, JR., Jose Aaron
676. PEGALAN, Ricky Heart
677. PELAEZ, Lawrence Leo
678. PELANDAS, Bryan
679. PELINIO, Norman
680. PELOBELLO, JR., Herminio
681. PERALTA, Romark
682. PERANDOS, Katty Jean Lourdes
683. PERAS, Phoebeth
684. PERDITO, Kristine Jane
685. PEREDO-MILLAN, Cynthia Lyn
686. PEREGRINO-CO, Jaydee
687. PEREZ, Alexander Brian
688. PEREZ, Lilibeth
689. PERNITES, Russel
690. PEÑADA, Joanna May
691. PICZON, Edson
692. PILAR, Sir Achilles
693. PIMENTEL, Joanna Pauline
694. PINILI, Richard
695. PIÑON, Joseph Carlo
696. PLAZA, Leslie Mae
697. PLAZO, Joseph
698. PRADO, Carlos Manuel
699. PRINCIPIO, Pearl Lizza
700. PROCHINA, Mary Avon
701. PUA, Alvin Greg
702. PUA, Moses Eleazar
703. PUERTO, Basil
704. PUGUON, Jener
705. QUESADA, Michael
706. QUEZADA, Peter Paul
707. QUIACHON, Nea Cecille
708. QUIAMBAO, Reinier
709. QUIBO, Grace May
710. QUIBRANZA, Lorraine Anne
711. QUILATES, Donelle Jay
712. QUIMPO, Andro Julio
713. QUINAGORAN, Fidelis Victorino
714. QUINTOS, Beverly Anne
715. QUISUMBING, Julia Francesca
716. RADAZA, Eirah
717. RAFAEL, Marq Azeus
718. RAMEL, Christopher
719. RAMOS, Agatha Kristy
720. RAMOS, Billy James
721. RAMOS, Dave
722. RAMOS, Maridelle
723. RAMOS, Raymond
724. RASO, Karl Vincent
725. RAVELO, Zaide
726. RAYMUNDO, Vir Celito
727. RECIERDO, Mark Francis
728. RECIO, Albee Alliana
729. RECTO, Mark Alvin
730. REMOLACIO, Emmanuel
731. REPOLLO-UY, Alnessa Thea
732. REVALDE, Jeser
733. REVILLA, JR., Rodrigo
734. REYES, Clarisse
735. REYES, Jaymie Ann
736. REYES, Jose Antonio
737. REYES, Maryann Agnes Jertez
738. REYES, Misheil
739. RICAFLANCA, Leizl
740. RICAZA, Michelle Marie
741. RIGODON, Lou Diane
742. RILLERA, Jobert
743. RIVERA, Joonee Randyl
744. ROA-OARDE, Dianne Marie
745. ROBLES, Edgar Michael
746. ROBLES, Sunshine
747. ROCHA, Robert Angelo
748. RODRIGUEZ, Miracle Anne
749. ROJO, Jane Catherine
750. ROLEDA, Danell Lenard
751. ROMEA, George Michael
752. ROMERO, Allan
753. ROMUALDO, Xavier Jesus
754. RONDAL, Jaye Loren
755. ROSALES, Vicente Rafael
756. ROXAS, Juan Paolo
757. RUBINO, Junald
758. RUDAS, Vincent
759. SABADO, Joseph Mario
760. SABAS, Lloyd Francis
761. SABAUPAN, Flor Angela
762. SABORNAY, Ricky
763. SABORNIDO, Noemi
764. SAGARIO, Leo Angelo
765. SAJONIA, Louie
766. SALARZON, Henry Claude Roy
767. SALAZAR, Jerome
768. SALAZAR, Patrick Henry
769. SALCEDO, Anna
770. SALCEDO-PUDPUD, Debbie Love
771. SALEM-INES, Chermibelle
772. SALENDAB, Ayla Herazade
773. SALLIDAO, Eric
774. SALVA, Carlo Emmanuel
775. SALVANI, A.d. Vincent Iv
776. SAMACO, Leo Bernard
777. SAMSON, Martin Luigi
778. SAN DIEGO, JR., Virgilio
779. SAN PEDRO, Leila Grace
780. SANCHEZ, Janer
781. SANCHEZ, Marie Yasmin
782. SANDOVAL, Camhella
783. SANDOVAL, Josephine Grace
784. SANDRINO, Maureen Grace
785. SANGGACALA, Naima
786. SANTAMARIA, Dindo
787. SANTIAGO, Dulce Corazon
788. SANTIAGO, Jefferson
789. SANTIAGO, Philippe Emile
790. SANTOS, Alexander
791. SANTOS, Ana Lorraine
792. SANTOS, Aurelia Beatrice
793. SANTOS, Hanzel
794. SANTOS, Joel
795. SANTOS, Joel
796. SANTOS, Joel Enrico
797. SANTOS, Juan Paolo
798. SANTOS, Karichi
799. SANTOS, Kathleen Mae
800. SANTOS, Melissa Christina
801. SARABOSQUEZ, Justine Keith
802. SARANGAYA, JR., Ismael
803. SARI, Jayson
804. SARONA, JR., Isidro
805. SAYSON, Charlotte Lyza
806. SAZON, Ser Christian
807. SEE, Candice Faye
808. SELLEZA, Suzy Claire
809. SERCADO, Marie Arcie Anne
810. SERENIO, Darlon
811. SERENO, Jose Lorenzo
812. SIA, Emmanuel
813. SIADEN, Nathaniel
814. SIASON-VILLA, Belinda
815. SINGCO, Jamee
816. SINGZON, Maria Eloisa Imelda
817. SIRON, Monica Leonila
818. SISON, Juvin
819. SO, Jelani Carlo
820. SO, Kristina Carmela
821. SOBREPEÑA, Deborah Miriam
822. SOCO, Patrina
823. SOCRATES, Louie
824. SOLEJON, Franie
825. SOLIDON, Ed Rowland
826. SOLIVEN, Jan Vincent
827. SOMOROSTRO, Genaro
828. SORIANO, Raymond Adrian
829. SORIANO, Sarah
830. SORIASO, Louresse Patricia Jane
831. SPALDING, Donn Robert
832. STA. BARBARA, Jesus Erick
833. SUAREZ, Roberto Paolo
834. SUAREZ, Shiela May
835. SULIT, Dioxenos
836. SUMAGAYSAY, Laser Blitz
837. SUMAOY, Dexter Rey
838. SUMIBCAY, Dexter Caesar
839. SUROPIA, Fehma
840. SY, Clarence
841. TABALON, Leonard Lyle
842. TABLADILLO, Stephanie
843. TADIQUE, Roxanne
844. TAGANAS, Olivia
845. TAGUBA, Jezreel Caridad
846. TAGUIAM, Christa Maria
847. TAIB, Najeeb
848. TALLEDO, Harold Christian
849. TAMAYO, Maribel
850. TAMONDONG, Mark Lester
851. TAMONDONG, JR., Eddie
852. TAN, Cheryl Bevin
853. TAN, Maria Theresa
854. TAN, Talitha Renee
855. TANCINCO, Rafael Lorenzo
856. TANCINCO, Roy Shaun
857. TANGCO, Karen Kreez
858. TANSINGCO, Samira Nimfa
859. TANUNTANUM, Erik
860. TAPIA, Mayette
861. TATLONGHARI, Renel
862. TAYHOPON, Kristoffer Ryan
863. TE, Justine
864. TECSON, Janna Mae
865. TEEHANKEE, Ryan Christopher
866. TELAN, John Benedict
867. TINAGAN, James Michael Vincent
868. TING, Camille Sue Mae
869. TIOPIANCO, Francis Paolo
870. TOBIAS, Ana Patricia
871. TOLENTINO, Arc Aldrin
872. TORREFLORES-ALIAN, Connie
873. TORRENTIRA, Rosalio
874. TORRES, Phillip
875. TORRES, Reyjie
876. TRASPORTO, Jose Donel
877. TUGADI, Marifem
878. TUMANDA, Jansyl Lovan
879. TUPAZ, Kristine
880. TUTAAN, Tyrone
881. TY, Evita Grace
882. UBERITA, Joan
883. UDDIN, Zalman
884. URSUA, Melissa Asuncion
885. USON, Adriana Alexis
886. UY, Johan Christian
887. UY, Kim Raisa
888. UY, Rhea
889. VALAQUIO, Ma. Ailyne
890. VALDEZ, Cristina
891. VALDEZ, Maia Chiara Halmen Reina
892. VALDEZ, JR., Edgar
893. VALENCIA, David Evelio
894. VALENTIN, Charmaine
895. VALENTON, Johvie
896. VALERA, Stephen Russel Keith
897. VARGAS, Jacqueline
898. VARGAS, Mona Angela
899. VARON, Iniego Carl
900. VELASCO, Ethelene
901. VELASCO, Lady Ivy Vanity
902. VELOSO, III, Marcelino
903. VENTURA, Mary Grace
904. VENTURA, Ruby Ann
905. VENZUELA, Kristine Ann
906. VERCIDE-LUNA, Jocelyn
907. VERTULFO-ARBOLE, Jovilly Donna
908. VESTIL, Rosalita
909. VICENTE, Nilda
910. VIERNES, JR., Celestino
911. VILLACORTE, Audrey Eunize
912. VILLALOBOS, Melchor
913. VILLALON, Albert Angelo
914. VILLANO, Sheela
915. VILLANUEVA, Carlos Joseph
916. VILLANUEVA, Norliza
917. VILLANUEVA, Ralph Christian
918. VILLANUEVA, Roberto
919. VILLANUEVA, Ronn Michael
920. VILLANUEVA, Tiofilo
921. VILLAR, Viferlyn
922. VIRAY, Joshua
923. VIRTUDAZO, Rilven Christian
924. VIÑAS, Sheiryl
925. WACQUISAN, Ma. Tilde Titina
926. WHITE, Charles Jensen
927. WIEDMER, Patrick Heinz
928. WONG, Joyce Anne
929. YAM, Mark Benjamin
930. YANG, Alarice
931. YANKEE, Jimson
932. YAO, Jacqueline Anne
933. YAP, Cherrylin
934. YAP, Shan Yran
935. YAU, Weny
936. YLADE, Donna Frances
937. YMAS, Priscilla Mae
938. YODICO, II, Rodolfo
939. YOUNG, Michael Wilson
940. YU, Diane Cecilia
941. YU, Stephen
942. ZABALA, Mark Louie
943. ZAFRA, Yolanda
944. ZAMBRANO, Gino Antonio
945. ZAMORAS-VIRTUDAZO, Luz
946. ZAPANTA, Arthur Imanuel
947. ZARAGOZA, Anicka Nicoli
948. ZARENO, Jewelynn Gay
949. ZERNA, Adelaine Faith