THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY IS NOT AN INITIATORY PLEADING, BUT A MERE CONTINUATION OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL:

     Hence, respondent’s failure to include a certification against forum-shopping in his petition for the issuance of letters testamentary is not a ground for outright dismissal of the said petition. (Nittscher vs. Nittscher, G.R. No. 160530, November 20, 2007, Quisumbing, J.)

CASES WHEN A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED:

Upon a verified application, one or more receivers of property which is the subject of the action may be appointed by the court where the action is pending or by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court or a member thereof in the following cases:

            a.         Applicant has an interest in the property or fund subject of the proceeding and such property is in danger at being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a receiver is appointed;

            b.         In foreclosure of mortgage, when the property is in danger of being dissipated or materially injured, and that its value is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt or that it has been agreed upon by the parties;

            c.         After judgment, to preserve the property during the pendency of an appeal or to dispose of it according to the judgment or to aid execution;

            d.         When appointment of receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering or disposing of the property in litigation (Section 1, Rule 59).

RESOLVING A MOTION TO DISMISS OR WITHDRAWING AN INFORMATION:

     Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no legal standing, and produced no effect whatsoever. This Court must therefore remand the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information anew. (JOSEPH C. CEREZO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.)

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES:

     Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that “burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.” It is then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. (Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012, Perez, J.)

VENUE:

     Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue or include the same as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to have waived his right to object to improper venue (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008, Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J.).

LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE” DISTINGISHED FROM “THE LACK OF PERSONALITY TO SUE”:

     Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation he claims. On the other hand, 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.  The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." While the former refers to a plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action. (Nemencio C. Evangelista vs. Carmelino M. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005, Chico-Nazario, J.)

RETRACTION OF PROSECUTION’S WITNESS TESTIMONY:

     The Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to reject testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made them change their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Here, the affidavit of retraction was precisely executed by AAA in exchange for financial assistance and land (which she never received). (People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 177138, January 26, 2010, Corona, J.)

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE:

     under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the case. Consequently, 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. (SIAO ABA ET AL. VS. ATTY. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., A.C. NO. 7649, DECEMBER 14, 2011, CARPIO, J.).

PROOF OF FORCE OR INTIMIDATION IS NOT NECESSARY, AS A MENTAL RETARDATE IS NOT CAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT TO A SEXUAL ACT. WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN ARE THE FACTS OF SEXUAL CONGRESS BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THE VICTIM, AND THE MENTAL RETARDATION OF THE LATTER.

     (People vs. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008). In People vs. Dalandas, G. R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002 citing People vs. Dumanon, G.R. No. 123096, December 18, 2000, this Court held that mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court. Competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. It has been jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused. (People of the Philippines vs. Rey Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013, Perez, J.)

THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE DURING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A FUNCTION THAT BELONGS TO THE OMBUDSMAN:

     The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.  It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. (M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P.  CAMMAYO G.R. NO. 155307, JUNE 6, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

EVIDENCE OF MENTAL RETARDATION:

     People vs. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002; People vs. Cartuano, G.R. No. 112457-58, March 29, 1996, does not preclude the presentation by the State of proof other than clinical evidence to establish the mental retardation of the victim. For sure, the courts are not entirely dependent on the results of clinical examinations in establishing mental retardation. In People vs. Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999, for instance, the Court took into consideration the fact that the victim was illiterate and unschooled in concluding that she was mentally incapable of assenting to or dissenting from the sexual intercourse. Also, in People vs. Dumanon, (G.R. No. 123096, December 18, 2000), the High Court concurred in the trial court’s observation and conclusion that the victim was a mental retardate based on her physical appearance and on her difficulty to understand and answer the questions during her testimony. (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011, Bersamin, J.).

IMPOTENCE:

     Impotence, as a defense in a prosecution for rape, is both physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony. (People vs. Aliviano, G.R. No. 133985. July 10, 2000, De Leon, Jr., J.).

BLOOD GROUPING TEST:

     Where the issue is admissibility and conclusiveness of blood grouping tests to disprove paternity, rulings have been much more definite in their conclusions. For the past three decades, the use of blood typing in cases of disputed parentage has already become an important legal procedure. There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity — that is, the fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are crossmatched, then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. (Jao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987, Padilla, J.).

PHOTOGRAPHS:

     According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be authenticated or verified first. (Macalinao vs. Ong, G.R. No.146635, December 14, 2005, Tinga, J.)

LIE DETECTOR TEST (POLYGRAPH):

     A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of being monitored by sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling the truth.  The Supreme Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. (People vs. Adoviso, G.R. Nos. 116196-97, 23 June 1999; People vs. Carpo G.R. No. 132676.  April 4, 2001 Per Curiam, citing People vs. Reanzares, G.R. No. 130656, 29 June 2000).

PARAFFIN TEST:

     A negative finding on paraffin test is not a conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun because it is possible for a person to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrates or gunpowder, as when the culprit washes his hands or wears gloves. (People vs. Cerilla, G.R. No.  177147, November 28, 2007, Tinga, J.).

ADMISSIBILITY OF TAPE RECORDING:

     Before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit: (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2)  a showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) identification of the speakers; an (7)  a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.  In one case, it was held that the testimony of the operator of the recording device as regards its operation, his method of operating it, the accuracy of the recordings, and the identities of the persons speaking laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of the recordings. Likewise, a witness' declaration that the sound recording represents a true portrayal of the voices contained therein satisfies the requirement of authentication. The party seeking the introduction in evidence of a tape recording bears the burden of going forth with sufficient evidence to show that the recording is an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded. These requisites were laid down precisely to address the criticism of susceptibility to tampering of tape recordings. Thus, it was held that the establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of a recording provided adequate assurance that proper safeguards were observed for the preservation of the recording and for its protection against tampering. (Cirse Francisco' Choy Torralba vs. People, G. R. No. 153699, August 22, 2005).

EQUIPOSE RULE:

     When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the court must acquit. (People vs. De Guzman Y Danzil, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, Nachura J.)