Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
EVIDENCE
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1.) LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PAGAYATAN, 644 SCRA 133, GR
NO. 177190, FEBRUARY 23, 2011
2.) CHINGKOE VS. REPUBLIC, 702 SCRA 677, GR. NO. 183608, JULY
31,2013
APPEALS; CERTIOARI - The Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action
of certiorari if appeal by way of a Petition for Review is available, as the
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive. Respondents Petition for Certiorari filed before the CA was not the
proper remedy against the assailed Order of the RTC. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, a special civil action for certiorari could only be availed of when a
REMEDIAL LAW 1
tribunal "acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the
exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction"26
or when it acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal
or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3.) BOTE VS. VELOSO, 686 SCRA 758, GR.NO 194270, DECEMBER 3, 2012
4.) MENDOZA VS. VILLAS, 644 SCRA 347, GR. NO. 187256, FEBRUARY 23,
2011
REMEDIAL LAW 2
Inc., 621 SCRA 22 (2010) citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 63
(2000) the Court noted that it has the discretion to determine whether a
petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court: Admittedly, this
Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in
the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari.
5.) PEOPLE VS. PALING, 645 SCRA 627, GR NO. 185390, MARCH 16, 2011
DUE PROCESS - "it is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case in its
entirety to decide it on the basis of the records on hand. "This is because the
judge "can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the
testimonies of witnesses in accordance with their conformity to common
experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not
violate substantive and procedural due process of law." Considering that, in the
instant case, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were
extant and complete, there was no impediment for the judge to decide the
case.
7.) BROWN- ARANETA VS. ARANETA, 707 SCRA 222, GR. NO. 190814,
OCTOBER 9, 2013
INSTANCES WHERE SHOPPING FORUM EXISTS - It has been held that there
is forum shopping (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum,
a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another;
or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files
another before the CA since in such case said party deliberately splits appeals
"in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is
REMEDIAL LAW 3
dismissed, another case(offering a similar remedy) would still be open"; or (3)
where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after
failing to obtain it from the original court.
8.) PAREL VS. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO, 644 SCRA 496, G.R. No.
192217, March 2, 2011
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there
remains room for interpretation thereof; or
9.) SERRANO VS. AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., 690 SCRA 226, GR NO.
197003, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
REMEDIAL LAW 4
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or
by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of
judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and
sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or
orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law;
otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main
role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law
and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies
with finality.
REMEDIAL LAW 5
repurchase the lots he formerly owned pursuant to the right of a free-patent
holder under Sec. 119 of CA 141 or the Public Land Act.
12.) NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP, 722 SCRA 382, GR NO. 195580, APRIL 21,
2014
The "mootness" principle, however, does accept certain exceptions and the
mere raising of an issue of "mootness" will not deter the courts from trying a
case when there is a valid reason to do so. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
(David), 489 SCRA 160 (2006), the Court provided four instances where courts
can decide an otherwise moot case, thus:
13.) FUNA VS. VILLAR, 670 SCRA 579, GR NO. 192791, APRIL 24, 2012
PARTIES; LOCUS STANDI - The Court has time and again acted liberally on the
locus standi requirements and has accorded certain individuals, not otherwise
directly injured, or with material interest affected, by a Government act, standing
to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at stake. The rule
on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicality in relation to which the
Court, in a catena of cases involving a subject of transcendental import, has
waived, or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned
REMEDIAL LAW 6
citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit they
may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other
government act.
14.) HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO FIAN, SR., 695
SCRA 345, GR NO. 201816, APRIL 8, 2013
15.) LBL INDUSTRIES, INC VS, CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, 705 SCRA 688, GR. NO.
201760, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
PARTIES The Supreme Court, in several cases, has recognized the sufficiency
of a Secretary's Certificate as proof of authority for an individual named in it to
represent a corporation in a suit.- In Vicar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB
Leasing and Finance Corp.,14 We held: In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of
Appeals, the petitioner had not attached any proof that its resident manager
was authorized to sign the Verification and the non-forum shopping
Certification, as a consequence of which the Petition was dismissed by the Court
of Appeals. Subsequent to the dismissal, however, the petitioner filed a motion
REMEDIAL LAW 7
for reconsideration, to which was already attached a Certificate issued by its
board secretary who stated that, prior to the filing of the Petition, the resident
manager had been authorized by the board of directors to file the Petition.
Citing several cases excusing noncompliance with the requirement of a
certificate of non-forum shopping, the Court held that "with more reason should
x x x the instant petition [be allowed,] since petitioner herein did submit a
certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the
signatory was authorized to do so." The Court further said that the subsequent
submission of the Secretary's Certificate, attesting that the signatory to the
certification was authorized to file the action on behalf of petitioner, mitigated
the oversight.
16.)
17.) MANUNGAS VS. LORETO, 655 SCRA 734, GR. NO 193161, AUGUST
22, 2011
REMEDIAL LAW 8
18.) TANTANO VS. ESPINA- CABOVERDE, 702 SCRA 508, GR NO. 203585,
JULY 29, 2013
20.) SERRANO VS. AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., 690 SCRA 226, GR NO.
197003, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
RES JUDICATA - By the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in
the former suit." To apply this doctrine in the form of a "bar by prior judgment,"
there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action as
between the first case where the first judgment was rendered and the second
case that is sought to be barred.
REMEDIAL LAW 9
21.) TUJAN-MILITANTE VS. CADA- DEAPERA, 731 SCRA 194, GR NO.
210636, JULY 28, 2014
22.) BACULI VS. BELEN, 681 SCRA 489, A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2179 SEPTEMBER
24, 2012
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1.) PEOPLE VS. GALLO, 622 SCRA 439, GR NO. 187730, JUNE 29, 2010
REMEDIAL LAW 10
APPEALS - It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the findings of fact of the trial
court are not disturbed on appeal except when it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would
have materially affected the outcome of the case.- This Court accords the trial
courts findings with the probative weight it deserves in the absence of any
compelling reason to discredit the same.
2.) PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, 622 SCRA 524, GR NO. 188601, JUNE 29, 2010
3.) QUI VS. PEOPLE, 682 SCRA 94, GR NO. 196161, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
BAIL Under the present rule, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, as here. The Court held: Indeed, pursuant to the "tough on
bail pending appeal" policy, the presence of bail-negating conditions mandates
the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal such that those circumstances
are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where bail is
prohibited. In the exercise of that discretion, the proper courts are to be guided
by the fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should
be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons.
4.) TY VS. DE JEMIL, 638 SCRA 67, GR NO. 182147, DECEMBER 15, 2010
REMEDIAL LAW 11
to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may
direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of
the case; such determination is subject to judicial review where it is established
that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. For another, there is
no question that the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who
may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the
formers determination in criminal investigation cases.
5.) PEOPLE VS. ALFREDO, 638 SCRA 749, GR NO. 188560, DECEMBER
15, 2010
JUDGMENTS - The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the
one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during
trial, but merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment
erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion. As this Court held in People v. Competente, 207 SCRA 591 (1992)
:The circumstance that the Judge who rendered the judgment was not the one
who heard the witnesses, does not detract from the validity of the verdict of
conviction. Even a cursory perusal of the Decision would show that it was based
on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully studied, with
testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as questions from the Court
carefully passed upon.
6.) SENADOR VS. PEOPLE, 692 SCRA 669, GR NO. 201620, MARCH 6,
2013
REMEDIAL LAW 12
correction of the information, not its dismissal: SEC. 12. Name of the offended
party.The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the
person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or
any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there
is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious
name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown,
the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must
cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the
record. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, the
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on
whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described and
identified.
7.) SALAPUDDIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 691 SCRA 578, GR NO. 184681,
FEBRUARY 25, 2013
PROBABLE CAUSE - The determination of probable cause is, under our criminal
justice system, an executive function that the courts cannot interfere with in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, a violation of the basic
principle of separation of powers will ensue. The Executive Branch, through its
prosecutors, is, thus, given ample latitude to determine the propriety of filing a
criminal charge against a person.
8.) PEOPLE VS. NG YIK BUN, 639 SCRA 88, GR NO. 180452, JANUARY 10,
2011
REMEDIAL LAW 13
In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused-appellants were
committing the offense of possessing shabu and were in the act of loading them
in a white van when the police officers arrested them. As aptly noted by the
appellate court, the crime was committed in the presence of the police officers
with the contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain view and duly
observed by the arresting officers. And to write finis to the issue of any
irregularity in their warrantless arrest, the Court notes, as it has consistently held,
that accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their objections to their
arrest for not raising the issue before entering their plea.
9.) PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, 622 SCRA 524, GR NO. 188601, JUNE 29, 2010
EVIDENCE
1.) PEOPLE VS. CIAS, 650 SCRA 326, GR NO. 194379, JUNE 1, 2011
2.) PEOPLE VS. ALFREDO, 638 SCRA 749, GR NO. 188560, DECEMBER
15, 2010
ALIBI - it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently
weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is
evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility
than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive
REMEDIAL LAW 14
evidence. Thus, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to
overcome the testimony of AAA, no weight can be given to the alibi of accused-
appellant.
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
4.) PEOPLE VS. LUCERO, 644 SCRA 457, GR NO. 188705, MARCH 2, 2011
REMEDIAL LAW 15
court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a
trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts
from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to
circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in
many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the
community.
5.) PEOPLE VS. COMBATE 638 SCRA 797, GR NO. 189301, DECEMBER 15,
2010
6.) ABBAS VS. ABBAS, 689 SCRA 646, GR NO. 183896, JANUARY 30, 2013
REMEDIAL LAW 16
be unenforceable unless the same or some note of the contract be in writing
and subscribed by the party charged. Subject to defined exceptions, evidence
of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or secondary
evidence of its contents. MCIAAs invocation of the Statute of Frauds is
misplaced primarily because the statute applies only to executory and not to
completed, executed, or partially consummated contracts
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE - Under the rules of evidence, a witness can testify
only to those facts which the witness knows of his or her personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from the witness own perception. Concomitantly, a
witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned from others
either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters. Such
testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of
what the witness has learned. This is known as the hearsay rule.
9.) PUA VS. LO BUN TIONG, 708 SCRA 571, GR NO. 198660, OCTOBER 23,
2013
REMEDIAL LAW 17
Awingan, 610 SCRA 316 (2010) elaborated on the reason for this rule, viz: On
a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are binding
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and
declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly
unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers;
and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their
acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. The exception provided under
Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the admission of a
conspirator129 requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence
other than the confession.130 In this case, there is a dearth of proof
demonstrating the participation of petitioner in a conspiracy to set off a bomb in
the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman Akbar. Not one of the other
persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation professed that
petitioner was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds.
Instead, the investigating prosecutors did no more than to rely on petitioners
association with these persons to conclude that he was a participant in the
conspiracy, ruling thus: petitioners participation in the forgoing, cannot be
downplayed just because he did not actively take part in the planning. Rather,
despite this, it has hands written all over it. The circumstances, the people and
place used are all, one way or another, associated with him. It cannot be mere
coincidence.
11.) VDA. DE OUANO VS. REPUBLIC, 642 SCRA 384, GR NO. 168770,
FEBRUARY 9, 2011
12.) PEOPLE VS. SOBANGEE, 641 SCRA 164, GR NO. 186120, JANUARY
31, 2011
REMEDIAL LAW 18
trial court explained that the inconsistencies found in the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution were minor and even made their testimonial
evidence more believable and unrehearsed. We agree with the trial and
appellate courts in this respect.
13.) PEOPLE VS. LLANAS, JR., 622 SCRA 602, GR NO. 190616, JUNE 29,
2010
REMEDIAL LAW 19