SECTION
1, RULE 16 OF THE RULES OF COURT REQUIRES THE DEFENDANT TO FILE A MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHIN THE TIME FOR, BUT BEFORE FILING THE ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT OR
PLEADING ASSERTING A CLAIM. Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, on
the other hand, commands the defendant to file his answer within fifteen (15)
days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the trial
court. Once the trial court denies the motion, the defendant should file his
answer within the balance of fifteen (15) days to which he was entitled at the
time of serving his motion, but the remaining period cannot be less than five (5)
days computed from his receipt of the notice of the denial. (TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION vs. TING GUAN TRADING
CORPORATION [2014]).
Monday, February 29, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
PREJUDGMENT OF A CASE:
A writ of preliminary
injunction would become a prejudgment of a case only when it grants the main
prayer in the complaint or responsive pleading, so much so that there is
nothing left for the trial court to try except merely incidental matters. x x x Since Section 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure gives the trial courts sufficient discretion to evaluate the
conflicting claims in an application for a provisional writ which often
involves a factual determination, the appellate courts generally will not
interfere in the absence of manifest abuse of such discretion. (DELA ROSA VS. VALDEZ, [2011]).
Friday, February 19, 2016
GUARDIANSHIP:
A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character,
in which one person, called a "guardian"
acts for another called the "ward"
whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own affairs. A guardianship
is designed to further the ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is
intended to preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render any assistance
that the ward may personally require. It has been stated that while custody
involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not only those
responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as well.
In a guardianship
proceeding, a court may appoint a
qualified guardian if the prospective ward is proven to be a minor or an
incompetent. A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us
that persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind
or other similar causes, are incapable of taking care of themselves and their
property without outside aid are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. (Oropesa
vs. Oropesa [2012]).
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
MEDIATION:
A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards mediation as part of pre-trial
where parties are encouraged to personally attend the proceedings. The personal
non-appearance, however, of a party may be excused only when the
representative, who appears in his behalf, has been duly authorized to enter
into possible amicable settlement or to submit to alternative modes of dispute
resolution. To ensure the attendance of the parties, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA
specifically enumerates the sanctions that the court can impose upon a party
who fails to appear in the proceedings which includes censure, reprimand,
contempt, and even dismissal of the action in relation to Section 5, Rule 18 of
the Rules of Court. The respective lawyers of the parties may attend the proceedings
and, if they do so, they are enjoined to cooperate with the mediator for the
successful amicable settlement of disputes so as to effectively reduce docket
congestion. (Sandoval Shipyards vs.
PMMA [2013]).
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE:
THE AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE PURPORTEDLY EXECUTED BY PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS DOES
NOT EXONERATE ACCUSED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAD
SUCCESSFULLY PROVED HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (PEOPLE VS. OCDEN
[2011]).
Monday, February 15, 2016
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, February 12, 2016
THREE DAY NOTICE RULE:
BY THE VERY WORDS OF RULE 15, SECTION 4 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
THE MOVING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO SERVE MOTIONS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THE
RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE OTHER PARTY AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF
HEARING. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a
surprise and to afford the adverse party a chance to be heard before the motion
is resolved by the trial court. Plainly, the rule does not require that the
court receive the notice three days prior to the hearing date. (Republic vs.
Diaz-Enriquez [2013]).
Thursday, February 11, 2016
ESTOPPEL:
“[U]NDER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, AN
ADMISSION OR REPRESENTATION IS RENDERED CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PERSON MAKING IT,
AND CANNOT BE DENIED OR DISPROVED AS AGAINST THE PERSON RELYING THEREON. A party may not go back on his own acts and
representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In
the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing [to be] true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.”
(SPOUSES MANZANILLA VS. WATERFIELDS
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION [2014]).
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
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. (Republic vs. Estate of Hans Menzi
[2012]).
Friday, February 5, 2016
SUFFICIENCY OF AN INFORMATION:
“[U]nder
Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the
accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the
approximate date, and the place of the offense.” The
rule is that qualifying circumstances
must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the
accused’s constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him. However, accused never claimed that he was
deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against
him due to the insufficiency of the Information.Also an Information which lacks
essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to
object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by
competent evidence presented therein.”
(PEOPLE VS. ASILAN [2012]).
Thursday, February 4, 2016
ARREST IS THE TAKING OF A PERSON INTO CUSTODY THAT HE MAY BE BOUND TO ANSWER FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE:
An
arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by
his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. (SANCHEZ VS. PEOPLE [2014]).
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS
BASICALLY THE DULY RECORDED AUTHORIZED STAGES OF TRANSFER OF CUSTODY OF SEIZED
DANGEROUS DRUGS, FROM THEIR SEIZURE OR CONFISCATION TO RECEIPT IN THE FORENSIC
LABORATORY FOR EXAMINATION TO SAFEKEEPING TO PRESENTATION IN COURT FOR
DESTRUCTION.
The function of the chain of custody
requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed. Thus, the chain of custody requirement
has a two-fold purpose: (1) the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and
(2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. The
law recognizes that, while the presentation of a perfect unbroken chain is
ideal, the realities and variables of actual police operation usually makes an
unbroken chain impossible. With this implied judicial recognition of the
difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement, substantial compliance is
sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers. (PEOPLE VS. MORATE [2014]).
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
AN APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE OPENS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR REVIEW ON ANY QUESTION INCLUDING ONE NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES:
When an accused appeals from the sentence of
the trial court, he or she waives the constitutional safeguard against double
jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court,
which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate.
An appeal confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction to examine the records,
revise the judgment appealed from, increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite
the proper provision of the penal law. The appellate court may, and generally
does, look into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or
substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial
court. (GEROCHE VS. PEOPLE [2014]).
Monday, February 1, 2016
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL:
The
essential requisites of the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 117 of the
Rules, which are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in
the second paragraph thereof, to wit: (1) the prosecution with the express
conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin
perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move
for a provisional dismissal of the case; (2) the offended party is notified of
the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues an
order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and (4) the
public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal
of the case. (WILLIAM CO VS. NEW
PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS [2014]).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)