ONCE A JUDGMENT ATTAINS
FINALITY, IT BECOMES IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE. IT MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED IN
ANY RESPECT, EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT WHAT IS PERCEIVED TO
BE AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION OF FACT OR LAW, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MODIFICATION
IS ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE COURT RENDERING IT OR BY THIS COURT.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
In Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
153666, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 494, 508-509, the Supreme Court stated that
under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which
must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a
final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior
to the institution of the criminal action.
Clearly, the civil action must precede
the filing of the criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist.
:yellow;mso-highlight:
yellow;mso-ansi-language:EN-PH;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>Clearly, the civil action must precede the filing of the
criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
PROHIBITION:
The standard under Rule 65 for the issuance of
the writ of prohibition is "grave abuse of discretion" and not mere
"abuse of discretion." The difference is not a simple matter of
semantics. The writs governed by Rule 65 – certiorari, mandamus, and
prohibition – are extraordinary remedies designed to correct not mere errors of
judgment (i.e., in the appreciation of facts or interpretation of law) but
errors of jurisdiction (i.e., lack or excess of jurisdiction). Unlike the first
category of errors which the lower tribunal commits in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, the latter class of errors is committed by a lower tribunal
devoid of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for exercising jurisdiction in an
"arbitrary or despotic manner." By conflating "abuse of
discretion" with "grave abuse of discretion," the Court of
Appeals failed to follow the rigorous standard of Rule 65, diluting its office
of correcting only jurisdictional errors.
Monday, September 7, 2015
The
terms "electronic data message"
and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission
cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional
equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as
electronic evidence. When congress drafted the law, it excluded the
earlier forms of technology like telegraph, telex, and telecopy (except computer-generated faxes) when
the law defined electronic data message.
Friday, September 4, 2015
ARREST:
IN THE ISSUANCE
OF A WARRANT OF ARREST, THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR THE JUDGE TO
PERSONALLY DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
The words "personal
determination," was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Soliven
v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 14 November 1988, 167 SCRA 393,
406)
- the exclusive and personal responsibility
of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable cause.
(a) personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest; or
(b) if on the basis thereof, he finds no probable
cause, disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
As a general rule, laws shall have no retroactive
effect. However, exceptions exist, and one such exception concerns a law that
is procedural in nature.
The reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or
modes of procedure does not create new rights or take away vested rights but
only operates in furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation of already
existing rights. A statute or rule regulating the procedure of the courts
will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time
of its passage. All procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that
extent. The retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person
who may feel adversely affected, for, verily, no vested right generally
attaches to or arises from procedural laws.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
WELL-SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE SUPREME COURT SAVE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmise and conjecture; 2) the inference made is manifestly an
error or founded on a mistake; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings of fact are
premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on
record; and 6) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based. Between
the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court, the former was concededly in a better
position to determine whether or not a witness was telling the truth.
Monday, August 24, 2015
PROHIBITION:
Prohibition
or a "writ of prohibition" is that process by which a superior court
prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers, or persons from usurping or
exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law. As its
name indicates, the writ is one that commands the person or tribunal to whom it
is directed not to do something which he or she is about to do. The writ is
also commonly defined as one to prevent a tribunal possessing judicial or
quasi-judicial powers from exercising jurisdiction over matters not within its
cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance.
At common law, prohibition was a remedy used when subordinate courts and
inferior tribunals assumed jurisdiction which was not properly theirs.
Prohibition,
at common law, was a remedy against encroachment of jurisdiction. Its office
was to restrain subordinate courts and inferior judicial tribunals from
extending their jurisdiction and, in adopting the remedy, the courts have
almost universally preserved its original common-law nature, object and
function. Thus, as a rule, its proper function is to prevent courts, or other
tribunals, officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with
which they are not vested by law, and confine them to the exercise of those
powers legally conferred. However, the function of the writ has been extended
by some authorities to cover situations where, even though the lower tribunal
has jurisdiction, the superior court deems it necessary and advisable to issue
the writ to prevent some palpable and irremediable injustice, and, x x x the
office of the remedy in some jurisdictions has been enlarged or restricted by
constitutional or statutory provisions. While prohibition has been classified
as an equitable remedy, it is generally referred to as a common-law remedy or
writ; it is a remedy which is in nature legal, although, x x x its issuance is
governed by equitable principles.
Prohibition
is not a new concept. It is a remedy of ancient origin. It is even said that it
is as old as common law itself. The concept originated in conflicts of
jurisdiction between royal courts and those of the church. In our jurisdiction,
the rule on prohibition is enshrined in Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules on
Civil Procedure, to wit:
Sec.
2. Petition for prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that the judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise
granting such incidental reliefs as the law and justice require.
The
petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto and a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
It is very clear that
before resorting to the remedy of prohibition, there should be "no appeal
or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law." Thus, jurisprudence teaches that resort to administrative remedies should
be had first before judicial intervention can be availed of.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
PERSONAL NOTICE TO THE MORTGAGOR IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS:
As held by the Supreme Court in Philippine National Bank v. Nepomuceno
Productions, Inc., x x x personal notice to the mortgagor is not
necessary for the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, thus: "The
principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is not so
much to notify the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the nature
and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place, and terms of
the sale. Notices are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of the
property. Clearly, the statutory requirements of posting and publication are
mandated, not for the mortgagor’s benefit, but for the public or third persons.
In fact, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings is not even necessary, unless stipulated"
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
THE WRIT OF AMPARO IS NOT A WRIT TO PROTECT CONCERNS THAT ARE PURELY PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL. NEITHER IS IT A WRIT THAT SHALL ISSUE ON AMORPHOUS AND UNCERTAIN GROUNDS:
Consequently, the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo – in line with the extraordinary character
of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands – requires
that every petition for the issuance of
the writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact, to
wit: “(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner; (b)
The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the
threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation; (c) The right to life,
liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat
or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits; (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the
names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together
with any report; (e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of
the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief
prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other just and
equitable reliefs.”
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
NEW STANDARD OF RELAXED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN AMPARO PETITIONS:
In Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009, the
Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to enable
amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the State's
direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair
and proper rule in amparo cases “to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced
in their totality” and “to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under
our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible
evidence adduced.” Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because
it is inadmissible under the rules for as long as it satisfies “the most basic
test of reason – i.e., relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its
consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.”
As emphasized by Justice Arturo D. Brion (Justice Brion) during the deliberations on
this case, in cases of enforced disappearance, the evidence that would
directly establish a violation of the right to life, liberty and security is
indubitably in the State’s possession. The same is not equally true in
cases where the amparo petitioner alleges (as in this case) a threatened
violation of his/her rights since the facts, circumstances and the link between
these that create an actual threat to his/her life are measurably within the
ability of the amparo petitioner to prove. A mere inclusion of one’s name in
the Order Battle List, without more, does not suffice to discharge the burden
to establish actual threat to one’s right to life, liberty and security by
substantial evidence.
In the case of Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, the
Supreme Court ruled that a person's right to security is, in one sense,
“freedom from fear” and that any threat to the rights to life, liberty or
security is an actionable wrong. The term “any threat,” however, cannot be
taken to mean every conceivable threat in the mind that may cause one to fear
for his life, liberty or security. The Court explicated therein that “[f]ear is
a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. In the
words of Justice Brion, in the context of the Amparo rule, only actual threats, as may be
established from all the facts and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a
violation that may be addressed under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. (In The Matter of the Petition for the
Issuance of A Writ of Amparo in Favor of Lilibeth O. Ladaga [2012]).
Friday, August 14, 2015
APPEALS:
The right to appeal is
not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of the law. The
party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the
rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
A NATURAL MOTHER HAS THE CORRESPONDING NATURAL AND LEGAL RIGHT TO THE CUSTODY OF A MINOR. SHE HAS THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OVER THE GRANDMOTHER OF THE SAID MINOR:
The basic issue
for our resolution is who between the mother and grandmother of minor Vincent
should be his guardian. The Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of the
Court of Appeals that respondent, being the natural mother of the minor, has
the preferential right over that of petitioner to be his
guardian. This ruling finds support in Article 211 of the Family
Code. Indeed, being the natural mother of minor Vincent, respondent has the
corresponding natural and legal right to his custody. In Sagala-Eslao
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
116773, January 16, 1997, the
Supreme Court held: “Of considerable
importance is the rule long accepted by the courts that ‘the right of parents
to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incident to
parenthood,’ a right supported by law and sound public policy. The
right is an inherent one, which is not created by the state or decisions of the
courts, but derives from the nature of the parental relationship.”
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF MAY ALSO BE TREATED AS A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS IF THE ISSUE INVOLVED HAS FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS:
In Salvacion
v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 343 Phil. 539 (1997) the Supreme
Court treated the petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus
considering the grave injustice that would result in the interpretation of a
banking law. The Supreme Court similarly brushed aside the procedural
infirmity of the petition for declaratory relief and treated the same as one
for mandamus.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION:
The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its
accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is
based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly
liable.
If the accused, however, is not
found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will
not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action.
This rule more specifically applies
when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil
liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of
which the accused was acquitted.
The civil action based on the delict is extinguished
if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the
accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
THE SUPREME COURT HAS STRICTLY CONSTRUED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPER SERVICE OF PAPERS AND JUDGMENTS.
Both in Heirs
of Delos Santos v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 139167, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 98 and Tuazon v. Molina, No. L-55697, 26
February 1981, 103 SCRA 365, the service of the trial court’s decision at an adjacent
office and the receipt thereof by a person not authorized by the
counsel of record was held ineffective. Likewise, the service of the decision
made at the ground floor instead of at the 9th floor of a
building in the address on record of petitioners counsel, was held invalid in PLDT v. NLRC, No. L-60050, 213
Phil. 362 (1984).
Friday, July 31, 2015
VENUE IN LIBEL CASES:
Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended
by Republic Act No. 4363, libel cases where the complainant is a
private individual is either (1) where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (2) where the
alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.
If the private
complainant opts for the second, the Information (formal indictment) must
specifically state where the libelous article was printed and first
published.
If the libelous
article appears on a website, there is no way of finding out the
location of its printing and first publication.
It is not enough
for the complainant to lay the venue where the article was accessed,
as this will open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other
locations where the website is also accessed or capable of being accessed,
and spawn the very ills the amendment sought to prevent.
Thus, in cases where the libellous article appears on a website,
the private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place of
residence, which will not necessitate finding out exactly where the
libelous matter was printed and first published.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
AN ACTING APPOINTEE HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO AGAINST THE NEW APPOINTEE:
Quo warranto is
a remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office.
Generally, quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the
Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However, under Section 5, Rule 66 of
the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such action if he claims to
be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another. The Supreme
Court stressed that the person
instituting the quo warranto proceedings
in his own behalf must show that he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the
action may be dismissed at any stage. Emphatically, Section
6, Rule 66 requires the petitioner to state in the
petition his right to the public office and the respondent's unlawful
possession of the disputed position. As early as
1905, the Court already held that
for a petition for quo
warranto to be successful,
the suing private individual must show a clear right to the contested office.
His failure to establish this right warrants the dismissal of the suit
for lack of cause of action; 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. Since the petitioner merely holds an
acting appointment (and an expired one at
that), he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present
petition.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Provisional Remedies:
Provisional
remedies are writs and processes
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.
Provisional remedies are
not main actions. They are merely ancillary actions attached to the main or
general action. They are in aid of the principal action and cannot exist
independently of the principal action. The
purpose of provisional remedies is
to preserve or protect the rights or interests of the parties during the
pendency of the principal action.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
WHEN A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR MAY PROSECUTE A CASE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
A private
prosecutor may prosecute the criminal action up to the end of the trial even in
the absence of the public prosecutor if he authorized to do so in writing. This
written authorization shall be given by either the Chief of the Prosecution
Office or the Regional State Prosecutor. The written authorization in order to
be given effect must however, be appointed by the court (Sec. 5, Rule 110,
Rules of court; A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002 effective May 1, 2002). The
written authorization to the private prosecutor shall be given because of
either of the following reasons: (a) the public prosecutor has a heavy work
load or, (b) there is a lack of private prosecutor (sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of
Court; A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002 effective May 1, 2002).
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION RULE:
When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the
complaint are deemed to be hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical
admission, extends not only to the relevant and material facts well pleaded
in the complaint, but also to inferences that may be fairly deduced from them.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
VENUE IN JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE:
For purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the "residence"
of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or
actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal
residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency. Hence, it is possible
that a person may have his residence in one place and domicile in another.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE:
The “Dead Man’s Statute”
provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving
party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted
and unexplained account of the transaction. But before this rule can be successfully
invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: 1. The
witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted; 2. The action is against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of
unsound mind; 3. The
subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against person of unsound mind; and 4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which
occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became
of unsound mind.” Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or
administrator or representatives of the estate that sets up the counterclaim,
the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death
of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the
counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to matters of
fact occurring before the death of the deceased, said action not having been
brought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased.
Friday, July 10, 2015
AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:
It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by
the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings,
as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case in which it is
offered, “no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted
unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such
admission was made.” The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs
submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether
an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
MULTIPLE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, IN ACTIONS FOR PARTITION OF PROPERTY WITH ACCOUNTING, IN THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE:
The rationale behind allowing more than one
appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the
event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to
be final.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
RECRUITMENT CASES:
In illegal recruitment cases, the failure to
present receipts for money that was paid in connection with the recruitment
process will not affect the strength of the evidence presented by the
prosecution as long as the payment can be proved through clear and convincing
testimonies of credible witnesses.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:
Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding
whereby a party is directed either to do a particular act, in which case
it is called a mandatory injunction
or to refrain from doing a particular act, in which case it is called a prohibitory injunction. As a main action, injunction seeks to
permanently enjoin the defendant through a final injunction issued by the court
and contained in the judgment. Two (2)
requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right
to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be
directed are violative of said right. x
x x To authorize a temporary
injunction, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie showing of a
right to the final relief. Preliminary
injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse. These principles are equally relevant to
actions seeking permanent injunction.
Monday, July 6, 2015
CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the
marking of the seized drugs or
other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking
after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital
that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers
of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused
until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.
Friday, July 3, 2015
AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT:
Section 20, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court provides that before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed
or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION:
To be a newspaper of general circulation,
it is enough that it is published for the dissemination of local news and
general information, that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and that it is published at regular intervals. Over and above all
these, the newspaper must be available to the public in general, and not just
to a select few chosen by the publisher. Otherwise, the precise objective of
publishing the notice of sale in the newspaper will not be realized. In fact, to ensure a wide readership of the
newspaper, jurisprudence suggests that the newspaper must also be appealing to
the public in general. The Court has, therefore, held in several cases that the
newspaper must not be devoted solely to the interests, or published for the
entertainment, of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or
religious denomination. The newspaper need not have the largest circulation so
long as it is of general circulation.
As it stands, there is no
distinction as to the publication requirement in extrajudicial foreclosure
sales conducted by a sheriff or a notary public. The key element in
both cases is still general circulation of the newspaper in the place where the
property is located.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
INSTANCES WHERE THE COURTS MAY INTERFERE WITH THE OMBUDSMAN’S INVESTIGATORY POWERS:
(a) To afford protection
to the constitutional rights of the accused; (b) When necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; (d) When the acts
of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (e) Where the prosecution
is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (f) When double jeopardy is
clearly apparent; (g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (h)
Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (i) Where the
charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance.
Monday, June 29, 2015
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF MAY BE TREATED AS A PETITION FOR PROHIBITION:
There are precedents for
treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case
has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for
the public good. The Supreme Court has also held that a
petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of
executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.
Friday, June 26, 2015
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
It is an established
doctrine that injunction will not
lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that
criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
RES JUDICATA:
the previous final judgment denying a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
bars a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground
of lack of marriage license. both petitions actually have the same cause of
action although founded merely on different grounds. hence, a party cannot
evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of
his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:
Normally, execution will
issue as a matter of right only (a)
when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor
has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has
lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the
appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the
court of origin. Execution pending
appeal is the exception to the general rule. As such exception, the court’s discretion in
allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of
good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of
compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment
becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or
damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the
judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an
instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity”.
Monday, June 22, 2015
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
In Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
153666, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 494, 508-509, the Supreme Court stated that
under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which
must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a
final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior
to the institution of the criminal action.
Clearly, the civil action must precede
the filing of the criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist.
Friday, June 19, 2015
GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH:
Section
3 of Rule 17 enumerates the grounds for the quashal of a complaint or
information, as follows: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute
an offense; (b) That the court
trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has
no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so; (e) That it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form; (f)
That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law; (g)
That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which,
if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the
accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY:
No court can
interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the
injunction.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
ARRAIGNMENT:
Procedural due
process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason
for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and
the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him.
It is at this stage that the accused,
for the first time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge that
confronts him.
Arraignment is indispensable in
bringing the accused to court and in notifying him of the nature and cause of
the accusations against him.
The importance of arraignment is based on the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
Monday, June 15, 2015
VICARIOUS APPEAL:
a party's appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a
co-party who failed to appeal; and as against the latter, the judgment will
continue to run its course until it becomes final and executory. To this general rule, however, one
exception stands out: where both parties have a commonality of interests,
the appeal of one is deemed to be the vicarious appeal of the other.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDER:
The first disposes of the subject
matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined,
but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves
something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with
preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the
judgment rendered. The test to ascertain
whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something
to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it
does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT:
where the
defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it under
oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document
will be deemed admitted.
Monday, June 8, 2015
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES:
trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring
parties to avail of DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-Sc, Pars. I.A. 1.2; 2(E)) (Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing vs. Ley
Construction and Development [2006]).
Friday, June 5, 2015
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE:
The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of Court).
The offer of evidence is necessary
because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless
and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for
which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of
probative weight.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE:
Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence “No person may be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.” The above is an adaptation from a similar provision in
Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies only in criminal cases. But those
who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to extend the prohibition to all
kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against
parents and other direct ascendants or descendants. In Emma Lee vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated that
the person who invokes the filial
privilege rule, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee.
The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to
"direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a
common ancestry. A stepdaughter
has no common ancestry by her stepmother.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
THE BURDEN OF PROOF MAY BE ON THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT:
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it. The burden of proof may be
on the plaintiff or the defendant. It
is on the defendant if he alleges an affirmative defense which is not a denial
of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but is one
which, if established, will be a good defense – i.e., an “avoidance” of the claim.
Indeed, “in the final analysis, the party upon whom the ultimate
burden lies is to be determined by the pleadings, not by who is the plaintiff or the defendant.” Burden
of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative
of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the
burden of proof never parts, though in the course of trial, once the plaintiff
makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of
evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert the plaintiff's prima facie
case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff. It is the burden of evidence which shifts
from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of
trial. The term prima facie
evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts. Prima
facie means it is “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption
unless disproved or rebutted”.
Monday, June 1, 2015
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION FOR AN AMPARO OR HABEAS CORPUS DECISION:
Since the right to life, liberty and security
of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of
any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of
delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to
immediately protect. The Rules of Court
only find suppletory application in an amparo
proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural
efficacy of the writ. As it is, the
Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the
life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution
is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by
an amparo proceeding. For summary
proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to
further appeals that may be taken therefrom.
Friday, May 29, 2015
IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE IS PREFERRED OVER THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT:
When the law speaks of "next of
kin", the reference is to those who are entitled, under the
statute of distribution, to the decedent’s property; or one whose
relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate as distributed,
or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an
applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the
decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue
of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
RULE 64:
decisions, orders or
rulings of the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under rule 65 by the aggrieved party.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT RESTS UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
(1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the
probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person;
(3) in
the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath
or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce;
and
(4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and
things to be seized.
Monday, May 25, 2015
RESTRAINING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
It is an established
doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution
because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated
and prosecuted for the protection of society. However,
it is also true that various decisions of this Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among which
are:
a.
To afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused;
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub[-]judice;
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
h. Where there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance;
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and
[k.] Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent
the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)