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. (Torralba vs. People [2005]). 

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

ONE-DAY EXAMINATION OF WITNESS RULE:

     Par. 5(i) of Supreme Court A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC requires that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     the propriety of granting letters testamentary to respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be the subject of a direct appeal to thE SUPREME Court UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT. (REPUBLIC VS. MARCOS II [2009], PERALTA, J.)

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     DELAY IN REPORTING RAPE CASES: Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death threats does not affect the credibility of the complainant, nor can it be taken against her. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. BBB explained that she did not immediately report the abduction, rape and detention of her daughter to the authorities, because Egap threatened to kill AAA, who was then in his custody. Further, BBB testified that, on another occasion, Egap threatened to kill her if she dared to report the matter to the authorities. True enough, when Egap learned that she did what he forbade her to do, he made good his threat and shot her at the back. Thus, BBB's delay in reporting the incident for five months should not be taken against her. (PEOPLE VS. MADSALI [2010], PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty (PEOPLE VS.  RAMOS [2010], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: The Supreme Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.  This deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court (PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE [2010], PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     EQUIPOISE RULE:  Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not suffice to produce a conviction.

     The equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties have already concluded the presentation of their respective evidence (PEOPLE VS. HON. GABO [2010], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence.  Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court is explicit, to wit: Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 

     Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs (OMBUDSMAN VS. ZALDARRIAGA [2010], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence, or that evidence that is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other (REYES VS. CENTURY CANNING CORP. [2010], PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.

While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or when a party is inadvertently left out.

          It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching. (REPUBLIC vs. DR. UY [2013], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

Preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."

A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.

To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been violated and the invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

         An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     AMENDMENTS:   Under Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, an amended complaint supersedes an original one. As a consequence, the original complaint is deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. (Figuracion vs. Libi, G.R. No. 155688, November 28, 2007) In the present case, the Amended Complaint is, thus, treated as an entirely new complaint. As such, respondents had every right to move for the dismissal of the said Amended Complaint. Were it not for the filing of the said Motion, respondents would not have been able to file a petition for certiorari before the CA which, in turn, rendered the presently assailed judgment in their favor. (MERCADO VS. SPS. ESPINA [2012], PERALTA, J.) 

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     LACHES SHOULD BE CLEARLY PRESENT FOR THE SIBONGHANOY DOCTRINE TO APPLY BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED INTIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY IS MERELY AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. (Vda. De Herrera vs. Bernardo [2011] PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     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.  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. 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. (TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION [2010], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     TRUST:     A trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trusts are either express or implied. Express or direct trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by oral declaration in words evincing an intention to create a trust. Implied trusts – also called “trusts by operation of law,” “indirect trusts” and “involuntary trusts” – arise by legal implication based on the presumed intention of the parties or on equitable principles independent of the particular intention of the parties. They are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently of the particular intention of the parties, as being inferred from the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of equity. (ESTATE OF CABACUNGAN VS. LAIGO [2011], PERALTA, J.)

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     execution of the certification against forum shopping by the attorney-in-fact is not a violation of the requirement that the parties must personally sign the same: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:  The writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.

        It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, anddemonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED THE JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE AT LARGE.

         IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present during the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice

JUSTICE PERALTA:

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. (Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000)

A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:

          (a) The legal right of the plaintiff;

          (b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and

          (c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

      If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012], PERALTA, J.)

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs. Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     Quo Warranto: A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such office. In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the subject public office. In other words, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested position.  Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed. It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office (Arquero vs. CA [2011], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

JUSTICE PERALTA:

     Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case:  In People v. Hernandez, the Court held that “delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders” must be read in harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that the “[p]etition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.” The trial court was then correct and acting well within its discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl