1.

SWAGMAN DOCTRINE Issue: Whether or not a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the case. Held: NO. A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably, filed by the defendant. Essential elements of Cause of Action are as follows: 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and 3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The curing effect under Section 5, Rule 10 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts (failure to state cause of action). 2. BENCH WARRANT A writ issued directly by a judge to a law-enforcement officer, esp. for the arrest of a person who has been held in contempt, has been indicted, has disobeyed a subpoena, or has failed to appear for a hearing or trial (Black Laws Dictionary). Like a regular arrest warrant, a bench warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to place the named individual under arrest. However, bench warrants differ somewhat from regular warrants in that they are not always associated with criminal charges. A regular warrant is issued when an alleged offender is accused of having broken a law or engaged in criminal behavior. A bench warrant can be issued for civil matters as well as for conduct that occurs within a courtroom. Bench Warrant vs. Regular Warrant A regular warrant is usually issued by an authority of the state, naming specific criminal charges and authorizing police officers to apprehend the individual named in the warrant. A bench warrant is issued by a judge, not by the police, and can be issued for a number of reasons, ranging from failure to answer a court summons to collecting an excessive number of traffic violations.

3. MITTIMUS It is a process issued by the court after conviction to carry out the final judgment, such as commanding a prison warden to hold the accused in accordance with the terms of judgment. In all cases where the records are remanded from the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals to the lower court for execution of judgment, the judge of the lower court concerned shall immediately issue the corresponding mittimus or commitment order of the prisoner immediately after the records are received by the court of origin (CIRCULAR NO. 42-93: ISSUANCE OF MITTIMUS/COMMITMENT ORDER).

4. Contempt

It is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only willful disregard or disobedience of courts orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of court and administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice (Regalado vs. Go, GR No. 167988, Febraury 6, 2007, Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 738, 2009 ed.). Proceedings for contempt are sui generis Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal, but may be resorted to in civil as well as criminal actions, and independently of any action. They are of two classes, the criminal or punitive, and the civil or remedial. A criminal contempt consists in conduct that is directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority and dignity of the court or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act. A civil contempt consists in the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge in a civil case for the benefit of the opposing party therein. It is at times difficult to determine whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. Where the dominant purpose is to enforce compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of a party in whose favor the order runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominant purpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court, and to protect the interests of the general public, the contempt is criminal. Indeed, the criminal proceedings vindicate the dignity of the courts, but the civil proceedings protect, preserve, and enforce the rights of private parties and compel obedience to orders, judgments and decrees made to enforce such rights (Lorenzo Shipping Corporation et al. V. Distribution Button Management association of the Philippines et al., GR 155849, august 31, 2011). Direct Contempt A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so (Sec. 1, Rule 71). Indirect Contempt Committed by a person who does the following acts: 1. Disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court; 2. Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt; and 3. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice (Siy vs, NLRC, GR No. 158971, Aug. 25, 2005). Not committed in the presence of the court. Punished after being charged and heard Constructive contempt

Committed in the presence of or so near a court. Summary in nature Contempt in facie curiae

5. Modes of Discovery Depositions pending action (Rule 23) By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) Preservation of a known testimony against danger of loss or destruction. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) Under the same conditions specified in Sec. 1, Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26)

At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27) Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying of any designated documents or order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28) In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. (2000 Bar Question) 6. SPEEDY TRIAL ACT Vexatious, oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the arraignment violates the constitutional right to speedy trial and speedy case disposition, particularly when the accused is detained. Under such circumstances, MANDAMUS is a proper remedy for relief from prolonged detention. Jurisprudence has set forth the following guidelines: 1.) The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or 2.) When unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. 3.) Balancing test- Used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as: (A) length of the delay (B) reason for the delay (C)the defendants assertion or non-assertion of his right, and (D) prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered. Closely related to the length of delay is the reason or justification of the State for such delay. Different weights should be assigned to different reasons or justifications invoked by the State.

7. WRIT OF AMPARO; 8. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 9. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA ; 10. WRIT OF KALIKASAN HABEAS AMPARO CORPUS Literal interpretation You have the To protect body Governing rule Rule 102 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC Description Writ directed to Remedy available to the person any person whose detaining right to life, liberty, another, and security is HABEAS DATA KALIKASAN It is a Filipino word which means nature in English A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Special remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples

You have the data A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC Remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an

commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.

violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

organization, nongovernmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Coverage Involves the right to liberty of and rightful custody by the aggrieved party. Rights violated There is an actual violation of the aggrieved partys right. Where to file RTC or any judge thereof, CA or any member thereof in instances authorized by law; or SC or any member thereof. RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred; SB or any justice thereof; CA or any justice thereof; SC or any justice thereof. RTC where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner; or with SC, CA or SB when the action concerns public data files or government offices. There is an actual or threatened violation of the aggrieved partys right. There is an actual or threatened violation of the aggrieved partys right. There is an actual or threatened violation of ones right to a healthful and balanced ecology involving environmental damage. Involves the right to life, liberty, and security of the aggrieved party and covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Involves the right to privacy in life, liberty, and security of the aggrieved party and covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

In SC or any stations of the CA.

WRIT OF AMPARO Extralegal killings - These are killings committed without due process of law, legal safeguards or judicial proceedings (Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008). These include the illegal taking of life regardless of the motive, summary and arbitrary executions, salvaging even of suspected criminals, and threats to take the life of persons who are openly critical of erring government officials and the like. Enforced disappearances- An arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individual acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law (Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008). 11. RULE 45 vs. RULE 65 CERTIORARI (RULE 45) Mode of appeal which seeks to review final judgments and orders (Section 2, Rule 41). CERTIORARI (RULE 65) Special civil action; an original action (Rule 65). It may be directed against an interlocutory order or matters where no appeal may be taken from (Section 1, Rule 41) Rule 65 is not part of the appellate process but an independent action. Raises questions of jurisdiction It shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed and in case a MR or motion for new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the 60 day period shall be counted from the notice of denial of said motion Requires as a general rule, a prior MR Does not stay the judgment or order subject of the petition unless enjoined or restrained. The tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions is impleaded as respondent (Section 5 Rule 65).

Rule 45 is but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Raises questions of law It shall be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from

Does not require prior motion for reconsideration Stays the judgment sought to be appealed The parties are the original parties with the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent without impleading the lower court or its judge (Section 4a, Rule 45). Filed with the SC (Section 1, Rule 45).

Filed with the RTC (Section 21, BP 129); With the CA (Section 9, BP 129); With the SC (Section 5 (1) Article

VIII, 1987 Constitution). Applicable to both civil and criminal EXCEPT when penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Petition for Certiorari Action for annulling or modifying the proceedings of ANY tribunal, board, officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. includes such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require Ground: such tribunal, board or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion AND there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Petition for Prohibition Ground: -Proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person whether exercising judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial function 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 Purpose: To command the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or such other incidental relief s as law and justice may require Petition for Mandamus Ground: Any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station OR unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled AND the is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Purpose: To command the respondent immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner AND to pay the damages sustained by petitioner by reason of the wrongful act

12. JURISDICTION It is the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case.

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction (continuity of jurisdiction) Once the jurisdiction has attached, court cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact. Delegated Jurisdiction MTC exercises delegated jurisdiction over Cadastral and Land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00, as may

be delegated by SC. The decision of MTC shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTC. Hence, MTC acting under its delegated jurisdiction may be deemed to be acting as RTC. Therefore, decisions of MTC in Cadastral and Land Registration cases shall be appealable to CA (Rule 41). Special Jurisdiction To hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city. It also includes the authority to hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent RTC judges sit. 13. RES ALIOS INTER ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET 2 Branches: (1) Sec. 26, Rule 130 - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. This principle literally means things done between strangers ought not to injure those wh o are not parties to it. It has two branches: 1. Sec. 26, Rule 130 - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28). Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them. XPN: (1) admission by co-partner, (2) admission by conspirator, (3) admission by privies 2. Sec. 34, Rule 130 - As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he committed the crime charged in the complaint or information. XPN: When such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is usually competent to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. (People vs. Magpayo)

14. KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation and prior recourse thereto is a precondition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices EXCEPT in the following cases: 1. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000.00; 4. Offenses where there is no private offended party; 5. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon; 6. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon; 7. Such other classes of disputes which the President of the Philippines may determine in the interest of justice; and Violations of R.A. 9262, VAWC Act. The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10 days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of settlement has

been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court. Execution shall issue upon the expiration of 10 days from date of settlement or receipt of award.

Preliminary Injunction Subject Matter Personal and real property Particular act(s) Jurisdiction (Court which can grant it) SC, CA, RTC, Family Court, Metropolitan, Municipal SC, CA, RTC, Family Court, Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Who may grant it Courts where action is pending, the CA or the SC Only the Court where the action is pending; Lower (Sec. 2) court, CA or SC provided action is pending in the same court which issues the injunction (Sec. 2) When available At any stage of the action but before entry of final At any stage of the action but before judgment or judgment (Sec. 1) final order (Sec. 1) How applied for File verified application and applicants bond; if application is included in the initiatory pleading, File affidavits and applicants bond (Sec. 3) the adverse party should be served with summons together with a copy of the initiatory pleading and the applicants affidavit and bond (Sec. 4) Purpose(s) 1. To seize the property of the adverse party in advance for the satisfaction of judgment that may be recovered in cases falling under Sec.1, To require a party or a court, agency or a person to Rule 57. refrain from doing a particular act or to require the 2. To enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over performance of a particular act the action by the actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where To prevent future injury and maintain the status personal service of summons on the creditor quo. (Kencht v. CA, G.R. No. 97962, Nov. 17, 1993) cannot be effected. (Quasha v. Juan, G.R. No. L54158, Nov. 19, 1982) Ground(s) 1. GR: In an action for the recovery of a specified 1. That the applicant is entitled to the relief amount or damages against a party who is demanded which consists in restraining the about to depart from the Philippines with commission or continuance of the act intent to defraud his creditors; complained of, or in requiring the performance XPN: of an act for a limited period or perpetually a. moral and exemplary 2. Commission, continuance or non-performance 2. In an action for money or property embezzled of the act during the litigation would probably or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his work injustice to the applicant; or own use by a public officer, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful 3. Party, court, agency or a person is doing, violation of duty; threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act 3. In an action to recover the possession of probably in violation of the rights of the property unjustly or fraudulently taken, applicant respecting the subject of the action detained or converted, when the property has and tending to render the judgment ineffectual

15. ATTACHMENT VS. INJUNCTION Preliminary Attachment

been concealed, removed or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person; 4. In an action against a party who has been guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation or in its performance In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors;

(Sec. 3)

5.

6.

In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication Whether principal or ancillary action Ancillary remedy Principal action/ ancillary remedy Effectivity During the pendency of the case unless earlier During the pendency of the case unless earlier discharged or quashed by the court discharged or quashed by the court Requirement of Hearing GR: Required Not required; may be issued ex parte (2001 Bar Question) XPN: Great or irreparable injury would result / extreme urgency and applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury (Sec. 5) Bond Requirement Bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court to cover the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages that he may sustain by reason of the granting of provisional remedy prayed for, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto (Sec. 4, Rule 57; Sec. 4, Rule 58, Sec. 2, Rule 59)

2 bond requirement for receivership: 1. Filed by the applicant; and Filed by the receiver. Immediately Executory Yes Discharge of Remedy By counter-bond: Party against whom the provisional remedy is availed of may move for the discharge of the provisional remedy granted by filing a counter-bond in an amount equal to that fixed by the court or to the value of the property if with respect to a particular property to secure the payment of any judgment that the adverse party may recover in the action. Counter Bond Filing of counter-bond made only upon showing that the issuance or continuance thereof would cause irreparable damage to the party or person Cash deposit may be made in lieu of the counterenjoined while the applicant can be fully bond (Sec. 12) compensated for such damages as he may suffer; counter-bond alone will not suffice to discharge the injunction (Sec. 6) Other Grounds For Discharge 1. Improper or irregular issuance or enforcement 1. Insufficiency of the application (Sec. 6) No

or insufficiency of bond. (Sec. 13) 2. Other grounds (e.g. applicants bond is Judgment rendered against attaching creditor insufficient/ defective), upon affidavits of the (Sec. 19) party or person enjoined 3. Property attached is exempt from execution (Sec. 2 and 5) 4. Attachment is excessive, but the discharge shall be limited to the excess (Sec. 13). Damages in Case Applicant is Not Entitled Thereto or For Irregularity of the Procurement Of the Provisional Remedy Requisites: 1. Owner of the property attached must file before trial or before perfection of appeal or before judgment becomes executory an application for damages; 2. Party who availed of provisional remedy and his surety must be notified, showing right to damages and amount thereof; and 3. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment of the main case. 2. If the judgment of the appellate court is favorable to the party against whom provisional remedy was effected: Application must be filed with the appellate court before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. Appellate court may allow application to be heard and decided by the trial court. If bond or deposit given by the party availing of the provisional remedy be insufficient or fail to satisfy the award: Adverse party may recover damages in the same action (Sec. 20, Rule 57; Sec. 8, Rule 58; Sec. 9, Rule 59; Sec. 10, Rule 60) . Note: Any award of damages for the wrongful issuance of a provisional remedy should be recovered in the same case. The recovery of damages cannot be had in a separate action.

16. NEYPES DOCTRINE (Fresh Period Rule) The new rule aims to make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution. Hence, a party-litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the final order) denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41, Section 3. 17. JUDITH YU CASE (Fresh Period Rule in Criminal Cases) While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Courts pronouncement of a fresh period to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the following reasons: BP 129, as amended, the substantive law on which the Rules of Court is based, makes no distinction between the periods to appeal in a civil case and in a criminal case. Section 39 of BP 129 categorically states that [t]he period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we (this Court) also ought not to recognize any distinction.

18. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES THAT REQUIRES THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE PROMULGATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO BE VALID While notice must be served on both accused and his counsel, the latters absence during the promulgation of judgment would not affect the validity of the promulgation. Indeed, no substantial right of the accused on the merits was prejudiced by such absence of his counsel when the sentence was pronounced. (Marino B. Icdang Vs. Sandiganbayan , G.R. No. 185960, January 25, 2012)

19. VALLEJO STANDARD The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered by the court in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence. In Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim matched the accuseds DNA profile. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other things, the following data: 1.) how the samples were collected, 2.) how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, 3.) the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests; and 4.) the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence. By 2002, there was no longer any question on the validity of the use of DNA analysis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according official recognition to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conducting DNA analysis. Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order? The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It seeks to ensure that the evidence gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the public. Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states: SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case; (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. This does not mean,

however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established. Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.

20. HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER 1. Hold-Departure Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts; 2. The Regional Trial Courts issuing the Hold-Departure Order shall furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs [DFA] and the Bureau of Immigration [BI] of the Department of Justice with a copy each of the Hold-Departure Order issued within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of issuance and through the fastest available means of transmittal; 4. Whenever [a] the accused has been acquitted; or [b] the case has been dismissed, the judgment of acquittal or the order of dismissal shall include therein the cancellation of the Hold-Departure Order issued. The Court concerned shall furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration with a copy each of the judgment of acquittal promulgated or the order of dismissal issued within twenty-four [24] hours from the time of promulgation/issuance and likewise through the fastest available means of transmittal. All Regional Trial Courts which have furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs with their respective lists of active Hold-Departure Orders included in the said lists and inform the government agencies concerned of the status of the Orders involved (circular 39-97). Cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices (DOJ circular: 41) : Apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual's right to travel. Section 1. Hold Departure Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, under any of the following instances: (a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true copy of the complaint or information and (b) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending. (b) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant, respondent, or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case before an administrative agency of the government. The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true copy of the subpoena or summons issued against the alien and (b) a certified true copy complaint in civil, labor or administrative case where the presence of the alien is required.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a Department of the Government; the head of a constitutional body or commission; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. 21. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION Voir dire is a French phrase meaning "To speak the truth." It may refer to a preliminary examination to ascertain whether he possesses the required qualifications, being sworn to make true answers (People vs. Gaupo). If a party against whom a witness is presented believes that the witness is incompetent or is not aware of his obligation and responsibility to tell the truth and the consequence of him testifying falsely, such party may pray for leave to conduct a voire dire examination on such witness to test his competency. The court may motu proprio conduct the voir dire examination. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that: When a witness is produced, it is a right and privilege accorded to the adverse party to object to his examination on the ground of incompetency to testify. If a party knows before trial that a witness is incompetent, objection must be made before he has given any testimony; if the incompetency appears on the trial, it must be interposed as soon as it becomes apparent.

22. ENGLISH EXCHEQUER RULE Where a court in convicting an accused, improperly admitting certain evidence, he must be given a new trial. a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial." Under Philippine jurisdiction, the HARMLESS ERROR Rule is followed - in dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. (People vs Teehankee) 23. EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION Refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. Proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.