Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants
or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or
after its commission. These statements
are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false
statement. An important consideration is
whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any
circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance
of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation . For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following
must concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances. Here,
Fallones’ act of forcing himself into Alice is a startling event. And Amalia happened to be just outside his
house when she heard Alice cry out “tama na, tama na!” When Fallones opened the door upon Amalia’s
incessant knocking, Alice came out from behind him, uttering “Amalia,
may napkin na binigay si Romy o.”
The admissibility of Alice’s spontaneous statements rests on the valid
assumption that they were spoken under circumstances where there had been no
chance to contrive. It is difficult to lie in an excited state and the
impulsiveness of the expression is a guaranty of trustworthiness (People
vs. Fallones [2011]).
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
POLICE BLOTTERS:
ALTHOUGH
POLICE BLOTTERS ARE OF LITTLE PROBATIVE VALUE, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS ADMISSIBLE
AND CONSIDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THE FACTS STATED
THEREIN.
Entries in police records made by a police officer in the performance of the
duty especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the fact therein
stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by
other competent evidence. (MCMER
CORPORATION, INC. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [2014]).
ADOPTIVE ADMISSION:
AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION IS A
PARTY’S REACTION TO A STATEMENT OR ACTION BY ANOTHER PERSON WHEN IT IS
REASONABLE TO TREAT THE PARTY’S REACTION AS AN ADMISSION OF SOMETHING
STATED OR IMPLIED BY THE OTHER PERSON. Jones explains that the “basis for
admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from
the ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the
other person had made.” To use the blunt language of Mueller and
Kirkpatrick, “this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common sense.”
In the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when
the armed forces withdrew its support from him as President and
commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask
Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of
“dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner did not object to the
suggested option but simply said he could never leave the
country. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related suggestions
can be taken as an admission by him. (Estrada
vs. Desierto [2001]).
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
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. (Marinduque Mining and
Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [2008]).
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 Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court
supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. 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. In fine, the
appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically
executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary
proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary
proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to
further appeals that may be taken therefrom. (BOAC VS. CADAPAN [2011]).
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
PROBATE PROCEEDING:
The authority of the
probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator, being of sound
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
law. Thus, petitioner’s claim
of title to the properties forming part of her husband’s estate should be
settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts. (Nittscher vs. Dr. Nittscher [2007]).
HABEAS CORPUS IN CUSTODY CASES:
Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is
withheld from a person entitled thereto. Under Article 211 of the Family Code,
respondent Loran and petitioner Marie Antonette have joint parental authority
over their son and consequently joint custody. Further, although the couple
is separated de facto, the issue of custody has yet to be adjudicated by the
court. In the absence of a judicial grant of custody to one parent, both
parents are still entitled to the custody of their child.
Monday, January 25, 2016
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST:
No man shall be affected by any proceeding to
which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment
rendered by the court. In
the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not
against one who did not have his day in court. Only
real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment therein and by
writs of execution issued pursuant thereto.
THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER BE DENIED, OR IF ALREADY APPOINTED, DISCHARGED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(i) When
the opposing party makes it appear in an affidavit that the appointment was
secured without sufficient cause; AND (ii) when the party opposing
files a bond executed to the applicant in an amount fixed by the court.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
STIPULATION ON VENUE:
The exclusive venue of Makati
City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of the
Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent bank
because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which an
extrajudicial foreclosure is not.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
THE PURPOSE OF A RECEIVERSHIP IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MAIN ACTION:
Receivership is also aimed at preservation of,
and at making more secure, existing rights. It cannot be used as an instrument
for the destruction of those rights.
IN GRANTING OR DISMISSING AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE COURT MUST STATE IN ITS ORDER THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW:
This is to enable the appellate court to
determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in resolving, one way or the other,
the plea for injunctive relief. In the absence of proof of a legal right and
the injury sustained by one who seeks an injunctive writ, an order for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified. Thus, where the
right of one who seeks an in junctive writ is doubtful or disputed, a
preliminary injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage
without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for a preliminary
injunction.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
PROBATE OF A WILL:
The Supreme Court, without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the
obligation involved—the production of the original holographic will—is in the
nature of a public or a private duty, ruled that the remedy of mandamus
cannot be availed of by respondent because there lies another plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and that
he seeks the production of the original for purposes of probate. The Rules of
Court, however, does not prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for
the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not under
Sections 1 to 5, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. x x x Indeed, the grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the sound
discretion of the court. There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will, the remedy of
mandamus cannot be availed of.
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST:
The 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that every action
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest,
i.e., the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2).
A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that
the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to
state a cause of action.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
MOTION TO DISCHARGE A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT:
UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE CONTRACT AND THE VERACITY OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT’S ALLEGATION OF FRAUD, PERTAIN TO THE MERITS OF THE MAIN ACTION.
HENCE, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN UP IN RESOLVING THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE,
LEST WE RUN THE RISK OF DECIDING OR PREJUDGING THE MAIN CASE AND FORCE A TRIAL
ON THE MERITS AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT:
It
is well-settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the
land. This principle, commonly known as the doctrine of immutability of
judgment, has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the
administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge
of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the
risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Verily, it
fosters the judicious perception that the rights and obligations of every
litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As such,
it is not regarded as a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside, but
rather, a matter of public policy which must be faithfully complied.
Monday, January 18, 2016
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES:
IN THE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES, PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, FOLLOWED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IN THAT ORDER.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE:
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this constitutional provision originated
from Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule prohibits
the issuance of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing
expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded
as evidence because it is “the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It
ensures that the fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects
are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
Friday, January 15, 2016
AFFIRMATIVE VS. NEGATIVE TESTIMONY:
An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a
negative testimony especially when the former comes from the mouth of a
credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and
always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
EXTRA TERRITORIAL SERVICE:
Under Section 15, Rule 14,
it is apparent that there are only four instances wherein a defendant who is a
non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with summons by
extraterritorial service, to wit: (1) when the action affects the personal
status of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of
which is property, within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien
or an interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such
action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the defendant
non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines. In
these instances, service of summons may be effected by (a) personal service out
of the country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court;
or (c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
PERSONAL ACTION AND REAL ACTIONS:
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are
those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)