A demurrer to evidence is defined as “an
objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or
not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.” The Supreme Court held that a
demurrer to evidence “authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without
the defendant having to submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily
have to do, if plaintiff’s evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief
sought.” (OROPESA VS. OROPESA [2012]).
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
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. (PAHILA-GARRIDO VS.
TORTOGO [2011]).
Monday, March 28, 2016
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
Simply stated, what distinguishes a judgment on the
pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence
of issues in the Answer to the Complaint.
When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not
deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof
and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate. On the other hand, when the
Answer specifically denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts
affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary
judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine.
“A ‘genuine
issue’ means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence,
as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does
not constitute a genuine issue for trial.” (BASBAS VS. SAYSON [2011]).
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
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, 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. (Sunga-Chan
vs. Chua [2001]).
Monday, March 21, 2016
CONFESSIONS TO THE MEDIA:
The accused’s confessions to the
media were properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to
questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating
officer. The Supreme Court held that statements spontaneously made by a
suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are
admissible in evidence. Accused’s argues, however, that the questions posed
to him by the radio broadcaster were vague
for the latter did not specify what crime was being referred to when he
questioned accused. But, as the appellate court posited, accused should have
qualified his answer during the interview if indeed there was a need. Besides,
he had the opportunity to clarify his answer to the interview during the trial.
But, as accused opted not to take the witness stand. (People vs. Hipona [2010]).
Friday, March 18, 2016
JUDGMENT OF AQUITTAL:
A JUDGMENT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED IS FINAL AND IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
UPON ITS PROMULGATION, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY, THE STATE MAY NOT SEEK ITS REVIEW
WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Such acquittal is final and
unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial
court or on appeal at the Court of Appeals.
(PEOPLE VS. BALUNSAT [2010]).
Thursday, March 17, 2016
IN-COURT CONTEMPTS AND OUT-OF-COURT CONTEMPTS:
A distinction between in-court
contempts, which disrupt court proceedings and for which a hearing and
formal presentation of evidence are dispensed with, and out-of-court contempts,
which require normal adversary procedures, is drawn for the purpose of
prescribing what procedures must attend the exercise of a court’s authority to
deal with contempt. The distinction does not limit the ability of courts to
initiate contempt prosecutions to the summary punishment of in-court contempts that interfere with
the judicial process. (LORENZO SHIPPING
CORPORATION VS. DISTRIBUTION BUTTON
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [2011]).
Friday, March 11, 2016
HEARSAY:
Section
36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have
personal knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being
hearsay Since the witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due
execution of the respective extrajudicial confessions of the accused, insofar
as the substance of those confessions is concerned, the testimonies of the
police witnesses are mere hearsay (Melanio Mallari Y Liberato vs. People [2004]).
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST:
Searches
and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a
lawful arrest is “to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the
latter from destroying evidence within reach.” It is therefore a reasonable
exercise of the State’s police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the injury
that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2)
evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of
the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under the control and
within the reach of the arrestee. (PEOPLE
VS. CALANTIAO [2014]).https://www.facebook.com/Villasis-Law-Center-784695934976279/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
Monday, March 7, 2016
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST:
Under Section 13, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (People
vs. Collado, [2013]).
Friday, March 4, 2016
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION:
A preliminary mandatory injunction is more
cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction since, more than its
function of preserving the status
quo between the parties, it also
commands the performance of an act. Accordingly, the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear case, free
from doubt or dispute. When
the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal
right and, therefore, the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction is improper. While it is not required that the right claimed by
applicant, as basis for seeking injunctive relief, be conclusively established,
it is still necessary to show, at least tentatively, that the right exists and
is not vitiated by any substantial challenge or contradiction. (DELA ROSA VS. VALDEZ [2011]).
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
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.
(THE
MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN vs. HON. DUMDUM, JR., [2010]).
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS:
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force
depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons
other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. However, while the
testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for
the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is
clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or
the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity
of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been
made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a
matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is known as
the doctrine of independently relevant
statements. (ESPINELI VS. PEOPLE
[2014]).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)