NOTICE OF DISMISSAL:

   The trial court has no discretion or option to deny a notice of dismissal since dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule 17 is a matter of right. (O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 135803, March 28, 2006, Tinga, J.)

OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS:

     The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. (Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138696, July 7, 2010).

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:

     Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No. 169241, May, 2 2006, 488 SCRA 574, 580).  Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case (Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, 127 (2005); National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58, 64 (2001). The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

COURTS ARE TASKED TO DETERMINE NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. DUE EXECUTION OF THE WILL OR ITS EXTRINSIC VALIDITY PERTAINS TO WHETHER THE TESTATOR, BEING OF SOUND MIND, FREELY EXECUTED THE WILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW:

     The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.  x x x x An essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions upon his/her death. (Antonio B. Baltazar et al. vs. Lorenzo Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

SANDIGANBAYAN:

     Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20, August 15, 2003).

POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING:

     The DNA test availed of by a person already convicted under a final and executory judgment is termed "post-conviction" DNA testing. The Rules on DNA Evidence allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available to (a) prosecution, or (b) to the person convicted by a final and executory judgment provided that the following requirements are met: (a) a biological sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would probably result in the several of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6, Rules on DNA Evidence). The remedy available to the convict if the result of the post-conviction DNA testing is favorable to him includes: (a) filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin; (b) the court shall conduct a hearing and in case the court finds that the petition is meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless his detention is justified for a lawful cause (Section 10, Rules on DNA Evidence).

DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

     The provision provides that where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is made directly to this Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.  On the other hand, a case where the penalty imposed is death will be automatically reviewed by the Court without a need for filing a notice of appeal.  However, People vs. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 modified these rules by providing an intermediate review of the cases by the CA where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death.  Pursuant to Mateo’s ruling, the Court issued A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules governing review of death penalty cases. Also affecting the rules on appeal is the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited, and in lieu thereof, it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death penalty cases are no longer operational. It is a settled rule that substantiated factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on appeal. (People vs. Abon G.R. No. 169245 February 15, 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.)

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:

     A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL V. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL & PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172060, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT:

     Agreements or admissions made during the pre-trial cannot be used against the accused unless they are reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel (Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court).

LEGAL STANDING OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO SEEK REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF STRONG EVIDENCE OF GUILT:

     Actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, are, as a rule summarily dismissed. Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. But in that case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice." It is not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).

CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE:

     From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special Administrator's commission is no less a claim against the estate than a claim that third parties may make. Section 8, Rule 86 of the Rules recognizes this when it provides for "Claim of Executor or Administrator Against an Estate." Under Section 13 of the same Rule, the action of the court on a claim against the estate "is appealable as in ordinary cases." Hence, by the express terms of the Rules, the ruling on the extent of the Special Administrator's commission - effectively, a claim by the special administrator against the estate - is the lower court's last word on the matter and one that is appealable. (ATTY. GEORGE S. BRIONES vs. LILIA J. HENSON-CRUZ, RUBY J. HENSON, and ANTONIO J. HENSON, G.R. No. 159130, August 22, 2008, BRION, J.)

APPEALS:

     It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned (MICHAEL SAN JUAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 177191, MAY 30, 2011, NACHURA, J.)

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION:

     Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The subject Resolutions having been issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the appellate court. (Marcelo G. Ganaden al. vs. Fermin P. Lanag, Sr., et al., G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11 June 1, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

DEMAND IS NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF REPLEVIN ACTION:

For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:

Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond: The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:

(a)      That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;

(b)      That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;

(c)      That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and

(d) The actual market value of the property.

The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action” (emphjasis supplied). 

          The Supreme Court see nothing in these provisions which requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles.  Navarro’s position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore totally unmeritorious. (ROGER V. NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No.  153788, November 27, 2009, BRION, J.).

REQUISITES FOR INTERPLEADER:

                1.         The plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or his claim thereto is not disputed;

           2.         The parties to be interpleaded must have adverse or conflicting claims to the property in possession or custody of the plaintiff.

                3.         The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same.

BY ESCAPING PRISON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT IMPLIEDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL:

     Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital punishment.  Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. (People vs. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996). By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal. (People vs. Francisco Taruc, G.R. No. 185202, February 18, 2009, Chico-Nazario, J.)

OBSCENE MATERIALS OR PORNOGRAPHIC FILES:

     While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was dismissed as there was no concrete and strong evidence pointing to them as the direct source of the subject pornographic materials, it cannot be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks. At the risk of being repetitious, it appears undisputed that the seized computer units belonging to them contained obscene materials or pornographic files. Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection of their supposed property rights. (Nogales vs. People, G.R. No. 191080, November 21, 2011, Mendoza, J.)

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

     New trial is a remedy that seeks to “temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.” Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly discovered evidence. The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown. This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered (MANUEL YBIERNAS ET AL. VS. ESTER TANCO GABALDON ET AL., G.R. NO.178925, JUNE 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.).

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:

   Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be filed within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period renders the subject decision final and executor (MAPAGAY vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).