CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

     An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. (Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675,  April 19, 2007, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.).

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE:

     In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. (Maria Lourdes Tamani et al. vs.  Roman Salvador And Filomena Bravo, G.R. No. 171497, April 4, 2011, Peralta, J.).

RENEWAL OF THE ATTACHMENT BOND IS NOT AN INDICATION OF HIS INTENTION TO PROSECUTE.

     The payment of an attachment bond is not the appropriate procedure to settle a legal dispute in court; it could not be considered as a substitute for the submission of necessary pleadings or motions that would lead to prompt action on the case. (Pablo Pua vs. Lourdes L. Deyt, G.R. No. 173336, November 26, 2012, Brion, J.)

WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT:

   As early as in Lazatin v. Twaño, the Supreme Court laid down the rule that where there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well. Either way, the wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment. (Spouses Gregorio and Josefa Yu vs. Ngo Yet, G.R. No. 155868, February 6, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.).

THE SANDIGANBAYAN SHALL EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER FINAL JUDGMENTS, RESOLUTIONS OR ORDERS OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS WHETHER IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OR OF THEIR APPELLATE JURISDICTION:

     Section 2, Rule XI, Part III of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan reads: “SEC. 2. Petition for Review. – Appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a decision of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.”  (Filomena L. Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 188630, Feb. 23, 2011, MENDOZA, J.). 

VENUE IN LIBEL CASES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT IS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IS WHERE HE ACTUALLY RESIDES AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE OR WHERE THE DEFAMATORY ARTICLE WAS PRINTED AND FIRST PUBLISHED:

     In criminal prosecution for libel where defamatory article was posted on a website, an allegation that the defamatory article was first published and accessed in Makati is not sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the Makati RTC.  There is no way of determining the situs of the article’s first printing and publication. The place where the article was first accessed cannot be equated to the first publication. (Bonifacio vs. Regional trial court of Makati, May 5, 2010).

IN ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO, THE ACCUSED IS APPREHENDED AT THE VERY MOMENT HE IS COMMITTING OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT OR HAS JUST COMMITTED AN OFFENSE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.

     Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Suffice it to state that prior justification for intrusion or prior lawful intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto. (MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. , G.R. NO. 191532, AUGUST 15, 2012, MENDOZA, J.)

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION:

     An extra-judicial confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement by a person under custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. An extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the following requisites have been satisfied: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.  The mantle of protection afforded by the above-quoted constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for the investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the offense although not yet in custody.  (PEOPLE vs. REYES, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario).

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:

     Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required quantum of evidence in order to convict an accused.  A judgment of conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty, moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind that it was the accused who committed the crime, failing which the accused must be exonerated. If the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, it unnecessary to still pass on the accused’s defense (People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009, Second Division, Carpio Morales, J.).

HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES:

     In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order (Manalo v. Roldan-Confessor, G.R. No. 102358, 19 November 1992 cited in SHERYL C. DELA CRUZ VS. PAMELA P. MALUNAO, A.M. NO. P-11-3019, MARCH 20, 2012, PER CURIAM)

DISSOLUTION OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT:

The Court holds that the writ of preliminary attachment must be dissolved and, indeed, it must not have been issued in the very first place. While there is merit in private respondent’s position that she, by affidavit, was able to substantiate the allegation of fraud in the same way that the fraud attributable to petitioners was sufficiently alleged in the complaint and, hence, the issuance of the writ would have been justified. Still, the writ of attachment in this case would only prove to be useless and unnecessary under the premises, since the property of the municipality may not, in the event that respondent’s claim is validated, be subjected to writs of execution and garnishment — unless, of course, there has been a corresponding appropriation provided by law (City of Caloocan v. Allarde, and Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-61744, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 56).  x x x x 

            Anent the other issues raised by petitioners relative to the denial of their motion to dissolve the writ of attachment, i.e., unenforceability of the contract and the veracity of private respondent’s allegation of fraud, suffice it to say that these pertain to the merits of the main action. Hence, these issues are not to be taken up in resolving the motion to discharge, lest we run the risk of deciding or prejudging the main case and force a trial on the merits at this stage of the proceedings (Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93262, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 343; GB Inc. v. Sanchez, 98 Phil. 886 (1956) cited in THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN, et al. vs. HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., et. al., G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

ATTACHMENT:

    If the property sought to be attached is in custodia legis, a copy of the writ of attachment shall be filed with the proper court or quasi-judicial agency, and notice of the attachment served upon the custodian of such property. (Rule 57, Section 7(e) of the Rules of Court). x x x x In Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-66321, October 31, 1984, 133 SCRA 141, citing Manila Herald Publishing Co. Inc. v. Ramos, 88 Phil. 84 (1951), the Supreme  Court declared that "property in the custody of the law cannot be interfered with without the custody of the proper court and properly legally attached is property in custodia legis”. x x x x (BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS vs. Executive Judge ENRICO A. LANZANAS, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999 (Formerly  OCA IPI No. 03-1903-RTJ), December 8, 2010, BRION, J.).

GROUNDS FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT:

The circumstances under which a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued are set forth in Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:

(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;

(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;

(c) In an action to recover the possession of personal property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained, or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;

(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;

(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors;

(f) In an action against a party who resides out of the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.

           

    The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (1) to seize the property of the debtor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; or (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f) of the same provision (PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).

PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT:

1.         Attachment is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought for its own sake but rather to enable the attaching party to realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action. (BAC Manufacturing and Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 130, 139). Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. [Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. 1 (7th Ed.), p. 606]

            A writ of preliminary attachment is a species of provisional remedy. As such, it is a collateral proceeding, permitted only in connection with a regular action, and as one of its incidents; one of which is provided for present need, or for the occasion; that is, one adapted to meet a particular exigency [Feria Noche, CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED (2001 Ed.), p. 261). (Golez v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L- 56587, 31 August 1981, 107 SCRA 187,189 cited in SILANGAN TEXTILE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. HON. AVELINO G. DEMETRIA,,G.R. No. 166719, March 12, 2007, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.)

HOT PURSUIT:

     For the warrantless arrest under Section 5 (b) Rule 113 of the rules of Criminal Procedure to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. (ABELITA III vs. DORIA, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009, First Division, Carpio, J.).

JURISDICTION:

     lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal. (Kamarudin K. Ibrahim vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192289, January 08, 2013, Reyes, J.)

VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS:

     Section 5, above, provides three (3) instances when warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. (MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 191532, AUGUST 15, 2012, MENDOZA, J.)

JURISDICTION OVER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES:

     The court which grants or issues a provisional remedy is the court which has jurisdiction over the main action. This includes an inferior court which may grant a provisional remedy in an action pending within its jurisdiction. The provisional remedy is applied for and granted by the court which has jurisdiction over the principal action. 

JURISDICTION:

     Jurisdiction over the nature of the action and its subject matter THEREOF does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an answer or a motion to dismiss. The same rationale applies to an answer with a motion to dismiss (MONTAÑER vs. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT, G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009, First Division, Puno, C.J.).

RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE FRESH PERIOD OF 15 DAYS:

     To standardize the appeal periods and afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Supreme Court ruled in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that litigants must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court.  In Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, the Supreme Court held that thei principle retroactively applies even to cases pending prior to the promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure (ELENA JANE DUARTE VS. MIGUEL SAMUEL, A.E. DURAN, G.R. NO. 173038, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

JURISDICTION: THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH COURT EXERCISES JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS OF PROBATE DEPENDS UPON THE GROSS VALUE OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT.

     Rule 73, Sec. 1 is deemed amended by BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. (Rufina Luy Lim vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124715 , January 24, 2000, BUENA, J.).

ARTICLE 777 OF THE CIVIL CODE DECLARES THAT THE SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS ARE TRANSMITTED FROM THE MOMENT OF DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.

     This status as co-owners, however, does not immediately and necessarily make them stockholders of the corporation. Unless and until there is compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered stockholders of the corporation. (Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008, Brion, J.)

VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES AS MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995:

   There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of R.A. 8042 or otherwise known as Migrant workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended parties) that differs from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. (Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas vs. Rey Salac, G.R. No. 152642, November 13, 2012, Abad, J.)

VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES:

     Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.  It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation.  The right venue must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place (PEOPLE VS. ALEJO TAROY, G.R. NO. 192466, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011, ABAD, J.).