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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

1. GROUNDS FOR THE GRANTING OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE:

  a.       The necessities of the applicant;

              b.       The resources or means of the adverse party; and

              c.       The terms of payment or mode for providing the support

         d.       If denied, the principal case shall be tried and decided as early as possible (Section 4, Rule 61).

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

ADDITIONAL VENUE IN THE APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT:

   In case of search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF).

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

DEPOSITION:

     there is really nothing objectionable, per se, with A PARTY availing of THE MODES OF DISCOVERY after OPPOSING PARTY has rested his case and prior to THE FORMER’S PRESENTATION of evidence. TO SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT, depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or convenient.

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

RES GESTAE:

   RES GESTAE:  Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.  The test of admissibility of evidence as a part  of  the res gestae  is,  therefore,  whether  the  act,  declaration,  or exclamation, is so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. 

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

PART OF RES GESTAE:

    All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement as part of the res gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a startling event witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question or its immediate attending circumstances. In sum, there are three requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. Clearly, the statement made by the victim identifying his assailants was made immediately after a startling occurrence which is his being stabbed, precluding any chance to concoct a lie.

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

DISTANCE BETWEEN PLACES:

     Judicial notice could be taken of the travel time by car from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City, Metro Manila, because it is capable of unquestionable demonstration, and nowadays is already of public knowledge, especially to commuters. The Supreme Court therefore found no error in the trial court’s finding that it was not impossible for petitioner to be at the scene of the crime, despite his alibi that he was engaged in intelligence work in San Pablo Laguna that same afternoon of October 19, 1990. (Vergara vs. People [2002]).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?fref=nf

ALIBI:

    Well settled is the rule that alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim. Moreover, in order for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the petitioner was somewhere else when the offense was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

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