FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS:

     In People vs. Lucena, G.R. No. 137281, April 3, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of a witness may be partly believed or disbelieved, depending on the corroborative evidence and intent on the part of the witness to pervert the truth. The principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law; the rule is not an inflexible one of universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed.  It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness’ testimony based on its inherent credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case. (People vs. Negosa, G.R. No. 142856-57, August 25, 2003, Callejo, Sr., J.).

PROBATE OF A WILL:

     The Supreme Court, without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation involved—the production of the original holographic will—is in the nature of a public or a private duty, ruled that the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by respondent because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and that he seeks the production of the original for purposes of probate. The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not under Sections 1 to 5, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. x x x x Indeed, the grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the sound discretion of the court. There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will, the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of (UY LIAO ENG vs. NIXON LEE, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010, Third Division, Nachura).

COURTS CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS:

     As held in Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, 723-735 (2001), divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country. x x x x  It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative (MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN VS. LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE, G. R. NO. 183622, FEBRUARY 8, 2012, SERENO, J.).

THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT IN EVIDENCE THE REQUIRED PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF THE SEIZED DRUGS AND THE PHOTOGRAPH, AS WELL AS THE ABSENCE OF A MEMBER OF MEDIA OR THE DOJ, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS NOT FATAL AND WILL NOT RENDER AN ACCUSED’S ARREST ILLEGAL OR THE ITEMS SEIZED/CONFISCATED FROM HIM INADMISSIBLE.

It is well-settled that the testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drugs cases carry with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Absent any clear showing that the arresting officers had ill-motive to falsely testify against the petitioner, their testimonies must be respected and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld. (Nelson Valleno vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192050, January 9, 2013, Perez, J.)

THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR SURVEILLANCE OR TEST-BUY DOES NOT AFFECT THE LEGALITY OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION AS THERE IS NO TEXTBOOK METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE SAME.

     The law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other. As aptly held by the CA, peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not. (People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Robelo, G.R. No.184181, November 26, 2012, Del Castillo, J.)

OBJECTIONS AS TO MATTERS OF FORM OR SUBSTANCE IN THE [I]NFORMATION CANNOT BE MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL:

     " It is well to note that appellants failed to raise the issue of the defective Information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information. Their failure to object to the alleged defect before entering their pleas of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the Information. "Objections as to matters of form or substance in the [I]nformation cannot be made for the first time on appeal." Records even show that the Information was accordingly amended during trial to rectify this alleged defect but appellants did not comment thereon (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS ET AL., G.R. NO. 179497, DEL CASTILLO, J.). 

AUTHORITY TO SIGN AND FILE NEW INFORMATION:

     The authority to sign and file the new Informations is properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office was clearly bereft of authority to file the new Informations against petitioner. An Information, when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another The court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information. The Supreme Court held in People v. Hon. Garfin: “It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused and the subject matter thereof. x x x Questions relating to lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. An infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent” x x  x (MIAQUE vs. PATAG, G.R. Nos. 170609-13, January 30, 2009, First Division, Corona, J.).

AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE THAT IS NOT CLEARLY CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION. TO CONVICT HIM OF AN OFFENSE OTHER THAN THAT CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION.

     Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him. (Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, BERSAMIN, J.).

WHAT IS CONTROLLING IN AN INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE THE TITLE OF THE COMPLAINT, NOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED OR THE PARTICULAR LAW OR PART THEREOF ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED, THESE BEING, BY AND LARGE, MERE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR, BUT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND THE PARTICULAR FACTS THEREIN RECITED.

     In addition, the Information need not use the language of the statute in stating the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. What is required is that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged. (People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, Leonardo De Castro, J.) 

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION:

     the purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. x x x In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. (George Miller vs. Secretary Hernando B. Perez, G.R. No. 165412, May 30, 3011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF:

     Rule 63, Section 1 provides: Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.” The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination (COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF SUBIC VS. HYPER MIX FEEDS CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 179579, FEBRUARY 1, 2012, SERENO, J.). 

DECLARATORY RELIEF:

Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute. Corollary is the general rule that such an action must be justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available under the circumstances.

         Decisional law enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, as follows: 1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; 2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; 3) there must have been no breach of the documents in question; 4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are adverse; 5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and 6) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.  (EUFEMIA ALMEDA vs. BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES, INC., G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008, NACHURA, J.).

INTERPLEADER:

Interpleader is a remedy whereby a person, who has property in his possession or an obligation to perform, either wholly or partially, but who claims no interest in the subject, or whose interest, in whole or in part, is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to the property or obligation be reduced to litigate themselves in order to determine finally who’s entitled to the same.

          Otherwise stated, a person against whom conflicting claims are asserted by several claimants over the same subject matter, but who claims no interest whatever therein, may bring an action for interpleader against the several claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Section 1, Rule 62)

CORPUS DELICTI RULE:

     In the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. (People of the Philippines vs. Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010, Perez, J.)

DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF IMPROPER OR IRREGULAR SEIZURE IN REPLEVIN CASES:

     Section 10, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court^, provides that in replevin cases, as in receivership and injunction cases, the damages to be awarded upon the bond “shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted” in accordance with Section 20 of Rule 57. The aforesaid provision essentially allows the application to be filed at any time before the judgment becomes executory.(ADVENT  CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION VS. ROLAND YOUNG, G.R. NO. 183018, AUGUST 3, 2011, CARPIO, J.). 

A WRIT OF REPLEVIN MAY BE SERVED ANYWHERE IN THE PHILIPPINES:

     The jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case should not be confused with its power to issue writs and processes pursuant to and in the exercise of its jurisdiction. (Regalado, F. Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 1, 9^th ed., p. 749)

BAIL:

     Bail is the security given by an accused who is in the custody of the law for his release to guarantee his appearance before any court as may be required. (Section 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court)

CHECK POINTS:

     Searches conducted on checkpoints are valid for as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorist. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search (People vs. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 280).

SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE:

     A warrantless search on a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought" (People vs. Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152, September 3, 2007).

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST:

     every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest: A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action (ALLAN C. GO, vs. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR., J.). 

SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION:

     Splitting a Single Cause of Action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or more different actions (Catalina Chu et al. vs. Sps. Fernando Cunanan & Trinidad Cunanan, G.R. No.  156185, September 12, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION VS. LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION:

     Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. x x x If the allegations of the complaint do not aver the concurrence of the elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Evidently, it is not the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the complaint states no cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss, but lack of cause of action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented (DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG VS. RENATO & MELBA ZAMORA, G.R. NO. 156375, MAY 30, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).

CAUSE OF ACTION:

     A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and whatever law it arises; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff.  If any of these elements is absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (Development Bank of the Phils. vs. Hon. Silverio Q. Castillo & Cristina Trinidad Zarate Romero, G.R. No. 163827, August 17, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

PROBATE PROCEEDING:

     The authority of the probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. Thus, petitioner’s claim of title to the properties forming part of her husband’s estate should be settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts. (Cynthia V. Nittscher vs. Dr. Werner Karl Johann Nittscher et al., G.R. No. 160530, November 20, 2007, QUISUMBING, J.).

A WILL IS AN ACT WHEREBY A PERSON IS PERMITTED, WITH THE FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, TO CONTROL TO A CERTAIN DEGREE THE DISPOSITION OF HIS ESTATE, TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER HIS DEATH:

     A will may either be notarial or holographic. The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. (Lee vs. Tambago, A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008, Corona, J.)