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.)