REMEDIAL LAW
As to stay of execution
1. Certiorari under Rule 65 vs. Appeal by Certiorari
under Rule 45
Rule 45 Rule 65
Issues involved
Issues raised or involved Jurisdictional issues
are purely questions of
law
Jurisdiction exercised
Court is in the exercise of Court is exercising its
its appellate jurisdiction original jurisdiction
As to where filed
Brought only to the SC May be filed in the
appropriate court having
jurisdiction over the lower
court, tribunal, board, or
officer
As to pre-conditions
No need for Motion for As a rule, a Motion for
Reconsideration Reconsideration is
required
As to time of filing
Appeal is taken within 15 Petition is filed not later
days from notice of than 60 days from notice
judgment, final order, or of judgment, order, or
resolution, or of denial of resolution sought to be
petitioner‟s motion for assailed. Fresh period rule
new trial or is applicable (Sec. 4).
reconsideration
As to parties
Lower court or judge Tribunal, board, or officer
which rendered the final has to be impleaded as
order appealed from shall nominal party
not be impleaded in the respondent/public
appeal respondent
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Appeal by certioriari stays The challenged
the judgment, final order, proceeding is not stayed
or resolution unless the court issues a
TRO or an injunctive writ
(Sec. 7)
As to stage of proceedings
Appeal by certiorari may Petition for certiorari may
be availed of only after a be availed of during the
final judgment. It seeks to pendency of the case or
review final judgments or even before judgment.
orders. Thus, it may be availed of
against an interlocutory
order.
2. Demurrer to Evidence, Civil Action, Criminal
Action
Civil Case Criminal Case
Need to obtain leave of court
No Yes
Effect if demurrer is denied
He has the right to present If he obtains leave of court
his evidence. and his demurrer is
denied, accused has to the
right to present evidence
in his defense.
If demurrer is granted
Case dismissed without If he obtains leave of court
prejudice to plaintiff‟s and his demurrer is
right to appeal the order granted, he is acquitted
and the prosecution
cannot appeal.
Effect if leave of court to file demurrer is denied
Inapplicable If the accused does not
obtain leave of court and
his demurrer to evidence
is denied, he waives his
right to present evidence
Page 1 of 40

and the case is decided on
the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution.
b. Motion for a bill of particulars
c. Motion for new trial
d. Motion for reconsideration of a judgment

e. Motion for reopening of trial

3. Unlawful Detainer/ Forcible Entry f. Petition for relief from judgment

Forcible entry Unlawful detainer g. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper
Who may file h. Memoranda

i. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or

1. A person who has been deprived of the prohibition against any interlocutory order
possession of any land or building by force, issued by the court
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth
j. Motion to declare defendant in default
2. A lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
against whom the possession of any land or k. Dilatory motion for postponement
building is unlawfully withheld after the
l. Reply
expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or m. Third party complaints
implied
n. Interventions
3. The legal representatives or assigns of any
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
5. Settlement of Estate; Testacy over Intestacy
When to file
DEATH
The action must be filed The action must be filed
within one year from within one year from the
Production of Will
illegal entry date of the last demand
Allowance or Disallowance of
Where to file Will (if testate; Rule 76)

Issuance of Letters Testamentary or

METCs, MTCs, and MCTCs have exclusive original Letters of Administration (Rule 78)
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer: provided, that when, in such cases, the Filing of Claims Against the Estate
(Rule 86)
defendant raises the question of ownership is his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be Payments of Debts of the Estate
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the (Rule 88 and Rule 89)
issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession. Partition and Distribution of
Estate (Rule 90)

CLOSURE
4. Prohibited Pleadings and Submissions in Small
Claims and Summary Procedure

a. Motion to dismiss 6. Writ of Kalikasan and writ of continuing

i. Note: for Summary Procedure - MTD
allowed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter; or
failure to refer case to Lupon for
conciliation
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
mandamus
Writ of Kalikasan
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people‟s organization,
non-governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government
Page 2 of 40
agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right seeks to present to this Court. This relief is outside the
to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or scope of a habeas corpus petition. The petition for
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or habeas corpus must, therefore, fail. [In re: the writ of
omission of a public official or employee, or private habeas corpus for Reynaldo de Villa]
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 8. Administrative correction of First names/
provinces. typographical errors
Writ of continuing mandamus
Rule 108 Correction of
This is a judgment commanding the respondent to do typographical errors
an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully under RA 9048
satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform
Upon good and valid Mistakes that are harmless
the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or
grounds, the following and innocuous, such as a
regulations.
entries in the civil register misspelled name or
It issues when: may be cancelled or misspelled place of birth
corrected: or the like, which is visible
a. Any agency or instrumentality of the to the eye or obvious to
government or officer thereof a. Births the understanding, and
b. Marriage can be corrected or
b. Unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
changed only by reference
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
c. Deaths to other existing record/s:
resulting from an office, trust or station in
provided, however, that
connection with the enforcement or violation of d. Legal separations
no correction must involve
an environmental law rule or regulation or a
e. Judgments of the change of nationality,
right therein, or
annulments of age, status, or sex of the
c. Unlawfully excludes another from the use or marriage petitioner
enjoyment of such right and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the f. Judgments
ordinary course of law. declaring
marriages void
from the
beginning
7. Post Conviction Remedy of Habeas Corpus via Use
of DNA Evidence g. Legitimations
The writ of habeas corpus has very limited availability h. Adoptions
as a post-conviction remedy. Review of a judgment of
conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance of i. Acknowledgment
the writ of habeas corpus only in very specific s of natural
instances, such as when, as a consequence of a judicial children
proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a
j. Naturalization
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;
(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; k. Election, loss, or
or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such recovery of
sentence is void as to such excess. citizenship
In Calvan v. Court of Appeals, the Court summarized l. Civil interdiction
the scope of review allowable in a petition for the
issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. It ruled that the m. Judicial
writ of habeas corpus, although not designed to determination of
interrupt the orderly administration of justice, can be filiation
invoked by the attendance of a special circumstance n. Voluntary
that requires immediate action. emancipation of a
The Court is being asked to reexamine the weight and minor
sufficiency of the evidence in this case, not on its own,
o. Change of name
but in light of the new DNA evidence that the petitioner

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 3 of 40


Any person interested in
any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil
status of person which has
been recorded in the civil
register, may file a verified
petition for the
cancellation or correction
of any entry relating
thereto
May be filed by a person
having direct and personal
interest in the correction of
a clerical or typographical
error in an entry
10. Preliminary Attachment; writ of attachment, writ
of execution pending appeal; writs of possession and
demolition
Preliminary attachment
Purpose Used to have the property of the adverse
party attached as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered

When At the commencement of the action or at

Requires judicial Extra-judicial issued any time before entry of judgment
proceedings

Grounds a. In an action for the recovery of a

for specified amount of money or
9. Jurisdiction : totality rule and claims incapable of issuance damages, other than moral and
pecuniary estimation exemplary, against a party who is
about to depart from the
Totality Rule Philippines with intent to defraud
Where there are several claims or causes of action his creditors;
between the same or different parties, embodied in the
b. In an action for money or
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the property embezzled or
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
fraudulently misapplied or
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of converted to his own use by a
the same or different transactions. [BP 129, Sec. 33(1)]
public officer, or an officer of a
NOTE: In the case of Russell v. Vestil, citing Singsong corporation, or an attorney, factor,
vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Court ruled that: broker, agent, or clerk, in the
course of his employment as such,
[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject or by another person in a
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining violation of duty;
the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it
is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the c. In an action to recover the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, possession of property unjustly or
and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in fraudulently taken, detained or
the courts of first instance would depend on the converted, when the property, or
amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is any part thereof, has been
something other than the right to recover a sum of concealed, removed, or disposed
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, of to prevent its being found or
or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this taken by the applicant or an
Court has considered such actions as cases where the authorized person;
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms d. In an action against a party who
of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of
has been guilty of a fraud in
first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). contracting the debt or incurring
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation the obligation upon which the
are those for specific performance, support, or action is brought, or in the
foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; also performance thereof;
actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, e. In an action against a party who
annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover
has removed or disposed of his
the price paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart property, or is about to do so,
of specific performance.
with intent to defraud his
[Edmund Sia v. Wilfredo Arcenas, G.R. 209672-74, creditors; or
January 14, 2015]
f. In an action against a party who
does not reside and is not found

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 4 of 40

 in the Philippines, or on whom to the adverse judge may not order
summons may be served by party; execution of judgment in
publication. the decision itself. Even if
2. The motion must immediately executory,
be filed in the trial there must be a motion to
Bond Yes or appellate court; that effect and a hearing
required
3. There must be called for that person.
good reason to
justify execution
Discretionary execution v. Execution as a matter of pending appeal
right
4. The good
Discretionary execution Execution as a matter of reason/s must be
right stated in a special
order after due
hearing.
When issued

May issue before the lapse Period to appeal has

of period to appeal, and
even during appeal
Discretionary upon the
court; there is inquiry on
whether there is good
reason for execution,
stated in a special order
after hearing
Who may issue
Note: It is well-settled that orders pertaining to
already lapsed and no
execution of judgments must substantially conform to
appeal is perfected
the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be
executed. As such, it may not vary, or go beyond, the
Ministerial duty of the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Where the
court provided there are execution is not in harmony with the judgment which
no supervening events gives it life and exceeds it, it has no validity. In a case
decided by J. Perlas-Bernabe, the Court ruled that the
Writs of Possession and Demolition granted to the
Plaintiff arose out of a mandamus petition where a writ
of possession is proscribed, hence the writ was null and
void. [Edmund Sia v. Wildredo Arcenas, G.R. Nos. 209672-
74, January 14, 2015]

The court which has Only the court of origin

jurisdiction over the case: can issue the writ of 11. Dismissal of actions; Rule 17, Secs. 2&3; Two
execution. Dismissal Rule
1. May be the trial
court while it has Dismissal Upon Motion of Plaintiff
jurisdiction over
the case and is in  A complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff‟s
possession of instance save upon approval of the court and upon
either the original such terms and conditions as the court deems
record or the proper [Rule 17, Sec. 2]
record on appeal
 General rule: Dismissal is without prejudice
2. The appellate
Exception: Otherwise specified in the order
court after the trial
court has lost Dismissal Due to Fault of Plaintiff
jurisdiction over
the case The complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court‟s own motion if, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff
Procedure for issuance
a. Fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his
evidence in chief on the complaint
1. There must be a While the issuance of the
motion filed by writ is ministerial upon b. Fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
the prevailing the court, execution shall length of time
party with notice issue only on motion. A
c. Fails to comply with the ROC or any court order
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 5 of 40
  General rule: This dismissal shall have the
effect of an adjudication upon the merits
Exception: Otherwise declared by the court
Two Dismissal Rule
Dismissal is without prejudice EXCEPT:
1. Twice dismissed actions
2. Based on or including the same claim
3. In a court of competent jurisdiction
The notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication
upon the merits.
12. Motion to Dismiss: lack of capacity, failure to state
a cause of action; litis pendentia vs. res judicata ( bar
by prior judgment; conclusiveness of judgment)
Lack of Capacity to Sue
The plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue:
1) When he does not possess the necessary
qualification to appear at the trial (e.g. when he
plaintiff is not in the full exercise of his civil rights);
2) When he does not have the character which he
claims, which is a matter of evidence (e.g. when he
is not really a duly appointed administrator of an
estate)
[Recreation and Amusement Association of the
Philippines v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-7922 (1957)]
Lack of legal capacity to sue refers to plaintiff‟s
disability; while lack of legal personality to sue refers to
the fact that the plaintiff is not a real party in interest, in
which case the ground for dismissal would be that the
complaint states no cause of action. [Columbia Pictures,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110318 (1996)]
Failure to State a Cause of Action
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently
avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of
a cause of action:
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. An act or omission on the part of the named
defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant
to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an
action for recovery of damages.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
If the allegations of the complaint do not state the
concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of
failure to state a cause of action.
Litis Pendentia
Requisites:
1. Identity of parties, or at least such as representing
the same interest in both actions;
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. Identity of the two cases such that judgment in one
would amount to Res judicata on the action under
consideration [Film Development Council of the
Philippines v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc., G.R. No.
197937 (2013)]
Res Judicata
Two concepts of res judicata:
a. Bar by prior judgment [Sec. 47(b), Rule 39]
Judgment on the merits in the first case constitutes an
absolute bar to the subsequent action not only as to
every matter which was offered and received to sustain
or defeat the claim or demand, but also to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for
that purpose and to all matters that could have been
adjudged in that case.
Requisites:
1. Former judgment or order must be final
2. The judgment or order must be on the merits
3. The decision must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties
4. There must be, between the two actions, identity
a. Of parties
b. Of subject matter, and
c. Of causes of action
[Topacio v. Banco Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No.
157644 (2010)]
b. Conclusiveness of judgment [Sec. 47(c), Rule 39]
The second action is upon a different claim or demand,
the judgment in the first case operates as an estoppel
only with regard to those issues directly controverted,
upon the determination of which the judgment was
rendered. [Topacio v. Banco Savings and Mortgage Bank,
G.R. No. 157644 (2010)]
Page 6 of 40
The test of identity of cause of action lies not in the
form of the action but on whether or not the same
evidence would support and establish the former and
the present causes of action [DBP v. Pundogar, G.R. No.
96921 (1993)]
14. Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over cases
involving public officers with Salary 26 and under;
When?
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction
in all cases involving:

1. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and

13. Immutability of judgments and hierarchy of courts Corrupt Practices Act),

Immutability of Judgments Violations of Republic Act No. 1379 (An Act

Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any
Under the doctrine of immutability of judgments, a Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired
judgment that has attained finality can no longer be by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing
disturbed. for the Proceedings Therefor),
Exceptions: Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
1. Correction of clerical errors [Filipinas Palmoil Revised Penal Code (Bribery) where one or more of
Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa] the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a
2. Nunc pro tunc entries [Filipinas Palmoil Processing, permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of
Inc. v. Dejapa] the commission of the offense,
3. Whenever circumstances transpire after finality of Committed by:
the decision, rendering its execution unjust and
inequitable [Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank of the I. Official of the executive branch occupying
Phils.] the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified a Grade '27'
4. In cases of special and exceptional nature, when it and higher, of the Compensation and
is necessary in the interest of justice to direct Position Classification Act of 1989
modification in order to harmonize the disposition (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
with the prevailing circumstances [Industrial Timber including:
Corp. v. Ababon, G.R. No.164518]
A. Provincial governors, vice-
5. In case of void judgments [FGU Insurance v. RTC governors, members of the
Makati] sangguniang panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers, assessors,
6. Where there is a strong showing that a grave
engineers, and other provincial
injustice would result from an application of the
department heads;
Rules [Almuete v. People]
B. City mayors, vice-mayors,
7. When there are grounds for annulment of judgment
members of the sangguniang
or petition for relief [Gochan v. Mancao]
panlungsod, city treasurers,
Hierarchy of Courts assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
Where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a
subject matter, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, C. Officials of the diplomatic service
should be observed. Under this doctrine, a case must be occupying the position of consul
filed before the lowest court possible having the and higher;
appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a
special reason which would allow a party a direct resort D. Philippine army and air force
to a higher court. colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank;
A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. E. Officers of the Philippine National
[De Castro v. Carlos] Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those
The SC may disregard the doctrine if warranted by the holding the rank of senior
nature and importance of the issues raised in the superintendent and higher;
interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations.
F. City and provincial prosecutors
and their assistants, and officials
and prosecutors in the Office of the
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 7 of 40
 Ombudsman and special 15. Counterclaim survives despite dismissal of
prosecutor; complaint

G. Presidents, directors or trustees, or The dismissal of the complaint shall be without

managers of government-owned or prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate
controlled corporations, state action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer in the
universities or educational following cases:
institutions or foundations.
1. Dismissal under Sec. 6, Rule 16 – where the
II. Members of Congress and officials thereof defendant does not file motion to dismiss but raises
classified as Grade ‟27‟ and higher under the ground as an affirmative defense
the Compensation and Position
2. Dismissal under Sec. 2, Rule 17 – where the
Classification Act of 1989;
plaintiff files a motion to dismiss the case, after the
III. Members of the judiciary without prejudice defendant had filed a responsive pleading
to the provisions of the Constitution;
3. Dismissal under Sec. 3, Rule 17 – where the
IV. Chairmen and members of the complaint is dismissed due to the fault of the
Constitutional Commissions, without plaintiff
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
16. Res gestae: spontaneous statements during
V. All other national and local officials
startling occurrence and in equivocal acts
classified as Grade ‟27‟ and higher under
the Compensation and Position Statements made by a person while a starting
Classification Act of 1989. occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae.
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance,
section 4 (as amended) in relation to their office
may be received as part of the res gestae
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
Requisites:
connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14-A

4. Petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, Spontaneous Statements Equivocal Acts

habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs
and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and
1. The principal act, the 1. The res gestae or
petitions of similar nature,
res gestae, be a principal act or to be
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in startling occurrence characterized must be
cases filed or which may be filed under Executive equivocal
2. The statements were
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
made before the 2. Such act must be
[Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660] declarant had the material to the issue
opportunity to
The specific inclusion of the officials from (A) to (G) contrive 3. The statements must
constitutes an exception to the general qualification accompany the
relating to officials of the executive branch as 3. The statements must equivocal act.
"occupying the positions of regional refer to the
occurrence in 4. The statements give a
director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 question and its legal significance to
and higher, attending the equivocal act

of the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989. circumstances

In other words, violation of Rep. Act No. 3019

Spontaneous
committed by officials specifically enumerated in (a) to
exclamations may have
(g) regardless of their salary grade.
been made before, during
All other officials below grade 27 shall be under the or immediately after the
jurisdiction of the proper trial courts. startling occurrence
equivocal act
Verbal act must have been
made at the time, and not
after, the equivocal act was
being performed equivocal
act

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 8 of 40

 Parol Evidence:

Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is

intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and
enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
17. Certification of non-forum shopping

The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath
in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
a claim for relief or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
1. That he has not commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
his knowledge, no such other action is pending
2. If there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof,
and
3. If he should learn that the same or a similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within 5 days to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed
[Sec. 5, Rule 7]
GR: When the terms of an agreement (including wills)
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
Exception: Parol evidence can be introduced if a party
puts in issue in his pleadings:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.

*The term "agreement" includes wills.

18. Best evidence vs. Parol evidence; Marital
disqualification vs. Marital privilege
Marital Disqualification vs. Marital Privilege
Best Evidence Rule:
Marital Disqualification Marital Privilege
GR: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
[Sec. 22]
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than [Sec. 24(a)]
the original document itself. [Sec. 3, Rule 130]

Exception: Secondary Evidence may be presented One spouse should be a Neither of the spouses
when: party to the case; need to be a party;
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court without bad Applies only if the Does not cease even after
faith on the part of the offeror; marriage is existing at the the marriage is dissolved;
time the testimony is and
2. When the original is in the custody or under offered; and
the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice; Constitutes a total Prohibition is limited to
prohibition on any testimony on confidential
3. When the original consists of numerous testimony for or against
accounts or other documents which cannot be the spouse of the Communications between
examined in court without great loss of time spouses
and the fact sought to be established from them witness
is only the general result of the whole;

4. When the original is a public record in the

custody of a public officer or is recorded in a 19. Res inter alios acta: two branches
public office.
GR: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another.

First Branch: Admission by a party

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 9 of 40
Elements: [Sec. 34, Rule 130]

1. The act, declaration or omission (ADO)

2. Of a party 20. Amendments of pleadings; non impleading of
3. As to a relevant fact indispensable parties
4. Against his interest
How to amend pleadings:
5. Made out of court (Those made in court are
governed by Sec. 4, Rule 129.) 1. Adding an allegation
6. Offered and presented in court in an admissible 2. Adding the name of any party
manner (e.g. non-hearsay) 3. Striking out an allegation
Exceptions: 4. Striking out the name of any party;
1. Partner‟s or Agent‟s Admission [Sec. 29, 5. Correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or
Rule 130] 6. Correcting a mistaken or inadequate allegation or
a. The act or declaration description in any other respect
b. Of a partner or agent of the party [Sec. 1, Rule 10]
c. Within the scope of his authority
d. During the existence of the
partnership or agency, Amendment as a matter of right:
e. May be given in evidence against A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of
such party right:
f. After the partnership or agency is a. At any time before a responsive pleading is
shown by evidence other than such served, or
act or declaration b. In the case of a reply, at any time within 10
2. Admission by conspirator [Sec. 30, Rule days after it is served
130] [Sec. 2, Rule 10]
a. The act or declaration
b. Of a conspirator
c. Relating to the conspiracy and Amendment by leave of court
during its existence,
Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave
d. May be given in evidence against
of court.
the co-conspirator
e. After the conspiracy is shown by Requisites:
evidence other than such act or
declaration a. Motion for leave of court, accompanied by the
3. Admission by privies [Sec. 31, Rule 130] amended pleading sought to be admitted [Sec. 9, Rule
a. One derives title to property from 15]
another b. Notice is given to the adverse party
b. The act, declaration, or omission of c. Parties are given opportunity to be heard
the latter (the person from whom
title is derived) while holding the Such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that
title in relation to the property the motion was made with intent to delay.
c. is evidence against the former (one [Sec. 3, Rule 10]
who derives title from another)
Formal Amendments
[Sec. 31, Rule 130]
When proper:
Second Branch: Similar acts as evidence 1. Defect in the designation of the parties
General Rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a 2. Other clearly clerical or typographical errors
certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or similar thing at How made:
another time
1. Summarily corrected by the court
Exceptions: Said evidence may be received to prove a
2. At any stage of the action
1. specific intent or knowledge
3. At its initiative or on motion
2. identity
3. plan, system, or scheme 4. No prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse
4. habit party
5. custom or usage and the like
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 10 of 40
 [Sec. 4, Rule 10]
Amendments to Conform to or Authorize
Presentation of Evidence
a. When issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if
they had been raised in the pleadings.
b. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the
evidence and to raise these issues may be made
upon motion of any party at any time, even
after judgment; but failure to amend does not
affect the result of the trial of these issues.
c. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by
the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with
liberality if the presentation of the merits of the
action and the ends of substantial justice will be
subserved thereby.
d. The court may grant a continuance to enable
the amendment to be made
[Sec. 5, Rule 10]
Non impleading of indispensable parties:
Indispensable party:
A real party-in-interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action [Sec. 7, Rule 3]
General rule: joinder of parties is permissive [Sec. 6,
Rule 3]
Exception: joinder of a party becomes compulsory
when the one involved is an indispensable party [Sec. 7,
Rule 3]
Effect:
The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the trial court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present [Moldes v.
Villanueva]
Non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground
for outright dismissal of the action. If the plaintiff
refused to implead an indispensable party despite order
of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for
the plaintiff‟s failure to comply with the order.
[Pamplona Plantation v. Tinghil]
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
21. Meritorious Motion to Quash
The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense
b. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged
c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
d. That the officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so
e. That it does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form
f. That more than one offense is charged
EXCEPT: When a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law
g. That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished
h. That it contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
i. That the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, OR the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent. [Rules of Court, Rule
117, Section 3]
The following grounds are exclusive. [Galzote v. People,
G.R. No. 164682 (2011)]
22. Judicial Affidavit Rule; Offer of Evidence
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Scope and Where Applicable
This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
1. The MeTC, MTC in Cities, MTC, and the MCTC,
and the Shari„a Circuit courts;
NOTE: It shall not apply to small claims cases
under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC;
2. The RTC and the Shari„a District Courts;
3. The Sandiganbayan, CTA, CA and the Shari„a
Appellate Courts;
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by
the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including
the IBP; and
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose
rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the
Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of
procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.
[Sec. 1, JAR]
NOTE: In civil cases (with the exception of small
claims), the application of the JAR is mandatory
regardless of the amount of money claimed.
Page 11 of 40
The judicial affidavit rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years;
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions,
whatever the penalties involved are. [Sec. 9, JAR]
Purpose of the JAR
To decongest the courts of cases and to reduce delays in
the disposition of cases.
Significance
The judicial affidavit shall take the place of direct
testimonies of witnesses.
Contents of a Judicial Affidavit
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in a language
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
1. The name, age, residence or business address, and
occupation of the witness;
2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts
or supervises the examination of the witness and
the place where the examination is being held;
3. A statement that the witness is answering the
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does
so under oath, and that he may face criminal
liability for false testimony or perjury;
4. Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:
a. Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
b. Elicit from him those facts which are
relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and
c. Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court;
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;
and
6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized
by law to administer the same. [Sec. 3, JAR]
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
GR: The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified [Sec. 34, Rule 132]
XPN: Evidence not formally offered may be admissible
when two essential conditions concur:
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
a. The same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and
b. The same must have been incorporated in the
records of the case [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No.
185454 (2011)]
Why Formal Offer is Necessary
Parties are required to inform the courts of the purpose
of introducing their respective exhibits to assist the
latter in ruling on their admissibility in case an
objection thereto is made. Without a formal offer of
evidence, courts are constrained to take no notice of the
evidence even if it has been marked and identified [Star
Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
When Formal Offer is NOT Required
a. In a summary proceeding because it is a proceeding
where there is no full-blown trial;
b. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial
notice of;
c. Documents, affidavits, and depositions used in
rendering a summary judgment;
d. Documents or affidavits used in deciding
quasijudicial or administrative cases
e. Lost objects previously marked, identified,
described in the record, and testified to by witness
who had been subjects of cross-examination in
respect to said objects
f. When duly identified in a testimony duly recorded
and it was incorporated in the records of the case
Waiver of Right to Make Formal Offer
It is deemed waived by a party if it fails to submit
within a considerable period of time its formal offer.
When to Make an Offer
For testimonial evidence: At the time the witness is called
to testify
For documentary and object evidence: After the
presentation of a party‟s testimonial evidence [Sec. 35,
Rule 132]
Manner of Offer
GR: Offer shall be done orally
Exception: Allowed by the court in writing [Sec. 35,
Rule 132]
Page 12 of 40
23. Pre-Trial/Arraignment are Mandatory
Pre-trial in criminal cases is MANDATORY. [Sec. 1,
Rule 118]
The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties, if
counsel for the accused or the prosecutor to enforce the
mandatory character of the pre-trial in criminal cases:
a.Does not appear at the pre-trial conference;
and
b.Does not offer an acceptable excuse for his
lack of cooperation [Sec. 3, Rule 118]
NOTE: The accused is not included because his
constitutional right to remain silent may be violated.
The accused is not required to attend (unless ordered
by the court) and is merely required to sign the written
agreement arrived at in the pre-trial conference, if he
agrees to the contents of such. The complainant is also
not required to appear during pre-trial. It is the
prosecutor who is required to appear at the pre-trial
[People v. Judge Tac-An, G.R. No. 148000 (2003)]
There can be no arraignment or plea in absentia. Under
both the 1964 and 1985 Rules, a defendant must be
present at the arraignment and must personally enter
his plea [Nolasco v. Enrile, G.R. No. L68347 (1985)]
Generally, judgment is void if accused has not been
validly arraigned [Riano 394, 2016 Ed., citing Taglay v.
Daray, G.R. No. 164258, (2012)]
If accused went into trial without being arraigned,
subsequent arraignment will cure the error provided
that the accused was able to present evidence and cross
examine the witnesses of the prosecution during trial.
24. Motion to Lift Order of Default (FAME); Petition
for Relief from Judgment by Default ( FAME)
MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT
Remedies of a Party Declared in Default
1. At any time after discovery of order of default and
before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside
the order of default on the ground that his failure to
answer was due to Fraud, Accident, Mistake, or
Excusable Negligence (FAME) AND that he has a
meritorious defense [Rule 9, Sec 3(b)]
2. If the judgment has already been rendered, but
before such judgment has become final and
executor, file a motion for new trial [Rule 37 Section
1(a)] OR
3. Appeal from the judgment rendered but only the
following limited grounds:
a. The failure of the plaintiff to prove the
material allegations of the complaint;
b. The decision is contrary to law;
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
c. The amount of judgment is excessive or
different in kind from that prayed for. In
these cases, the appellate tribunal should
only consider the pieces of evidence that
were presented by the plaintiff during the
ex parte presentation of evidence. A
defendant who has been declared in default
is precluded from raising any other ground
in his appeal from the judgment by default
since, otherwise, he would then be allowed
to adduce evidence in his defense, which
right he had lost after he was declared in
default. [Otero v. Tan, 2012]
4. If the defendant discovered the default after
judgment has become final and executor, he may file a
petition for relief [Rule 38, Section 2]
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Grounds
Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence (FAME)
Effect of Granting
The judgment, order, or proceeding may be SET ASIDE
Effect of Denial
The order denying a petition for relief is not appealable.
The remedy is Rule 65. [Rule 41, Section 1]
25. Multiple Admissibility vs. Conditional
Admissibility
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two
or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted
for any or all the purposes for which it is offered,
provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its
admissibility therefor [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is
admissible insofar as it satisfies all rules applicable to it
when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some
other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for
another purpose does not exclude it. Thus, a confession
of an accused may not be competent as against his co-
accused, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove
conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being
established by other evidence, nonetheless, the
confession of the accused may be admitted as evidence
of his own guilt [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.]
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be
immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the
other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence
may be received on condition that the other facts will be
Page 13 of 40
proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already
given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
26. Rule 29, Sec. 3(e)
If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party
refuses:
1. To obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule
requiring him to answer designated questions, or
2. To obey an order under Rule 27 to produce any
document or other thing for inspection, copying, or
photographing or to permit it to be done, or to
permit entry upon land or other property or
3. To obey an order made under Rule 28 requiring
him to submit to a physical or mental examination
The court may make such orders in regard to the
refusal as are just, and among others the following:
a. An order that the matters regarding which the
questions were asked, or the character or
description of the thing or land, or the contents
of the paper, or the physical or mental
condition of the party, or any other designated
facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the
claim of the party obtaining the order;
b. An order refusing to allow the disobedient
party to support or oppose designated claims
or defenses or prohibiting him from
introducing in evidence designated documents
or things or items of testimony, or from
introducing evidence of physical or mental
condition;
c. An order striking out pleadings or parts
thereof, or staying further proceedings until the
order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a
judgment by default against the disobedient
party; and
d. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in
addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of
any party or agent of a party for disobeying any
of such orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination.
27. Remedy of accused who fails to attend
promulgation despite notice to counsel
GR: The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the
presence of the accused and any judge of the court in
which it was rendered. [Sec. 6, Rule 120] The proper
clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally
or through his bondsman or warden and counsel,
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the
decision. [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice: The
promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment
in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at
his last known address or thru his counsel. [Sec. 6, Rule
120]
28. Motions: Notice of hearing, 3-Day Notice Rule
GR: Every written motion required to be heard and the
notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a
manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at
least 3 days before the date of hearing, UNLESS the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice
[Sec. 4, Rule 15]
Purpose of the 3-day Notice Rule: To prevent surprise
upon the adverse party and to enable the latter to study
and meet the arguments of the motion
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Ex parte motions
2. Urgent motions
3. Motions agreed upon by the parties to be heard on
shorter notice, or jointly submitted by the parties
4. Motions for summary judgment which must be
served at least 10 days before its hearing
29. Judgment on the pleadings/Summary judgment
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Where there is no ostensible issue at all because of the
failure of the defending party‟s answer to raise an issue,
the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment
on such pleading. [Sec. 1, Rule 34]
Judgment on the pleadings is not proper in the ff.
cases:
a. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
b. Annulment of marriage; and
c. Legal Separation [Sec. 1, Rule 34]
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A judgment which a court may render before trial, but
after both parties have pleaded upon application by one
party supported by affidavits, depositions, or other
documents, with notice upon the adverse party who
may file an opposition supported also by affidavits,
depositions or other documents, should the court find
after summarily hearing both parties with their
respective proofs that there exists no genuine issue
between them.
Page 14 of 40
Summary Judgment is proper when it appears to the determined within the shortest possible time compatible with
court that: the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate
defense he may interpose.”
a. There exists no genuine issue as to any material
fact, except as to the amount of damages, and The right to a speedy trial is explicitly guaranteed by
b. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a Section 14(2) of Article III of the Constitution. The same
matter of law right is echoed and reinforced in Sec. 1(h) of Rule 115 of
the Rules of Court declaring that one of the rights of an
accused at trial is "To have a speedy, impartial and
30. Right to independent and competent counsel; public trial."
inadmissible oral confession during custodial The right to a speedy disposition of cases is provided
interrogation; right to speedy trial/ disposition of for under Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution
cases; double jeopardy
which provides that, "all persons shall have the right to
RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
COUNSEL quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSEL: In determining whether or not the right to the speedy
“Who is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional disposition of cases has been violated, the Court has
rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who laid down the following guidelines:
would be merely giving a routine, peremptory and
1. The length of the delay;
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional
2. The reasons for such delay;
rights.” [People v. Deniega, 251 SCRA 626]
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by
The right to counsel involves more than the mere the accused; and
presence of a lawyer. It means an efficient and decisive 4. The prejudice caused by the delay [Ombudsman
legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154155, August 6, 2008]
representation [People v. Sunga, 399 SCRA 624]
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
An extrajudicial confession executed by a suspect
Conditions
assisted by a counsel who failed to meet the exacting
standards of an independent and competent counsel is a. When:
deemed an un-counseled confession and, therefore,
inadmissible in evidence. [People v. Tomaquin, 435 a) an accused has been convicted or acquitted,
SCRA 23]. or

INADMISSIBLE ORAL CONFESSION DURING b) The case against him dismissed or otherwise
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION terminated without his express consent

The importance of the right to counsel is so vital that b. By a court of competent jurisdiction
under existing law, "In the absence of any lawyer, no
c. Upon a valid complaint or information or other
custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to
person can only be detained by the investigating officer in
sustain a conviction and
accordance with the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code" [Sec. 3[c]), RA. 7438]. After the accused had pleaded to the charge
Republic Act No. 7438 also clearly mandates that a [Section 7, Rule 117]
counsel "shall at all times be allowed to confer privately
with the person arrested, detained or under custodial Effect
investigation x x x" [Sec. 2[b], RA. 7438].
The conviction or acquittal of the accused or the
The purpose of providing counsel to a person under dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
custodial investigation is to curb the uncivilized prosecution:
practice of extracting a confession [People v. Duefias, Jr.,
a. For the offense charged, or
426 SCRA 666]
b. For any attempt to commit the same or frustration
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL/DISPOSITION OF CASES
thereof, or
DEFINITION: “One free from vexatious, capricious and
c. For any offense which necessarily includes or is
oppressive delays, its purpose being to assure that an
necessarily included in the offense charged in the
innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of
former complaint or information [Sec. 7, Rule 117]
a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 15 of 40

GR: There is identity between the two offenses not only
when the second offense is exactly the same as the first,
but also when the second offense is an attempt to or
frustration of or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the first information. [Teehankee Jr. v.
Madayag, G.R. 103102 (1992)]
EXCEPTION: However, the conviction of the accused
shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
a. the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge;
b. the facts constituting the graver charge became
known or were discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or information;
or
c. the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made
without the consent of the prosecutor and of
the offended party except as provided in
section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused
satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he
shall be credited with the same in the event of
conviction for the graver offense. [Sec. 7, Rule 117]
31. Executive and Judicial determination of probable
cause
Executive determination of probable cause
The executive determination of probable cause is one
made during the PI. It is a function that properly
pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
range of discretion to determine whether probable
cause exists for purposes of indictment. Such finding
will not be disturbed by the court unless there is
finding of grave abuse of discretion. [Mendoza v. People]
The PI conducted by the fiscal is terminated upon the
filing of the information in the proper court [Crespo v.
Mogul]
Judicial determination of probable cause
The judicial determination of probable cause is one
made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of
arrest should be issued against the accused [Sec. 2, Art.
III, Constitution]
Note: RTC judges have no power to conduct PI; and
MTC judges cannot conduct PI anymore after A.M. No.
05-8-26-SC eliminated judges of the MTC and MCTC
from those authorized to conduct a PI effective October
3, 2005.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
32. Finding of probable cause in prel. inv. is not
bound by the technical rules of evidence. Thus,
hearsay evidence, provided it is substantiated by
some credible evidence is admissible in the
determination of probable cause. Besides, the Rules
on Evidence under the RoC clearly state that they
apply in "judicial proceedings". Prel. Inv. is only
preliminary and more inquisitorial in nature and not
a full dress trial for the complete introduction of the
parties' evidence.
The technical rules on evidence are not binding on the
fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct
of a preliminary investigation. If by its very nature a
preliminary investigation could be waived by the
accused, the Court finds no compelling justification for
a strict application of the evidentiary rules.
Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in
determining probable cause in a preliminary
investigation because such investigation is merely
preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties.
[Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman]
33. Discharge of an accused as a state witness.
Requisites:
a. Two or more persons are jointly charged with
the commission of any offense.
b. Upon motion of the prosecution before resting
its case
c. After requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support
of the discharge
d. The court is satisfied of the following:
i. Absolute necessity for the testimony of
the accused whose discharge is
requested
He alone has the knowledge of the
crime, and not when his testimony
would simply corroborate or
strengthen the evidence in the hands of
the prosecution [Flores v.
Sandiganbayan]
ii. There is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of
the offense, except the testimony of the
said accused
Page 16 of 40
 iii. The testimony can be substantially
corroborated in its material points
iv. The accused does not appear to be the
most guilty
v. The accused has not, at any time, been
convicted of any offense involving
moral turpitude
[Sec. 17, Rule 119]
e. Petition for discharge is filed before the defense
has offered its evidence [People v. Aniñon]
34. Bail when a matter of right, when discretionary.
Bail as a matter of right:
a. Before or after conviction, but pending appeal, by the
first-level courts;
b. Before conviction by RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment
[Sec. 4, Rule 114]
Bail, when discretionary:
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. [Sec.
5, Rule 114]
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding 6 years, the accused shall be
denied bail or his bail shall be cancelled upon showing
by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of any of
the following:
a. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual
delinquency or commission of a crime
aggravated by reiteration of the accused
b. The accused previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence or violated bail
conditions without valid justification
c. Commission of offense while under probation,
parole or conditional pardon
d. Probability of flight;
e. Undue risk of the commission of another crime
during the pendency of the appeal
[Sec. 5, Rule 114]
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
35. Statute of Non Claims in settlement of estate of
deceased persons.
The statute of non-claims is a rule requiring certain
creditors of a deceased person to present their claims
for examination and allowance within a specified
period; otherwise, they are barred forever. [Secs. 2 and 5,
Rule 86]
36. Warrantless arrests: (a) in flagrante delicto; (b) hot
pursuit
GR: No peace officer or person has the power or
authority to arrest anyone without a warrant except in
those cases expressly authorized by law.
Exceptions:
a. In flagrante delicto [Sec. 5(a), Rule 113]
b. Hot pursuit arrest [Sec. 5(b), Rule 113]
c. Arrest of escaped prisoner [Sec. 5(c), Rule 113]
d. Other lawful warrantless arrests
i. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or
is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him
without a warrant at any time and in
any place within the Philippines [Sec.
13, Rule 113]
ii. For the purpose of surrendering the
accused, the bondsmen may arrest him
or, upon written authority endorsed on
a certified copy of the undertaking,
cause him to be arrested by a police
officer or any other person of suitable
age and discretion [Sec. 23, Rule 114]
iii. An accused released on bail may be
rearrested without the necessity of a
warrant if he attempts to depart from
the Philippines without permission of
the court where the case is pending
[Sec. 23, Rule 114]
In flagrante delicto
A peace officer or a private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested:
1. Has committed
2. Is actually committing, or
3. Is attempting to commit an offense
[Sec. 5(a), Rule 113]
Hot pursuit
Page 17 of 40
A peace officer or a private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person when an offense has just been
committed and the officer or private person has
probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it. [Sec. 5(b), Rule 113]
1. An offense has just been committed. There
must be a large measure of immediacy between
the time the offense was committed and the
time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable
lapse of time between the arrest and the
commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest
must be secured.
2. The person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe, based on personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
37. Searches without warrant: (a) search incident to a
valid warrantless arrest; (b) consented search; (c) plain
view searches
GR: Procurement of a warrant is required before a law
enforcer can validly search or seize the person, house,
papers, or effects of any individual
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Search incident to a lawful arrest
Purpose: to protect the arresting officer from being
harmed by a weapon possibly concealed; to prevent the
person being arrested from destroying evidence within
reach
Legal Effect: Where there is no lawful arrest, the drugs
purportedly seized are rendered inadmissible in
evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous
tree - in other words, there must be a valid search and
seizure pursuant to an equally valid arrest which must
precede the search [People v. Villareal 2013, Omar v.
People 2015].
Limits: [Sec. 13, Rule 126]
1. For dangerous weapons
2. For anything which may have been used in the
commission of an offense; or
3. For anything which constitutes proof in the
commission of an offense
b. Consented search
Occurs when a person gives a law enforcement agent
permission to search in areas in which such person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy - it must be
voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, not
inferred from mere silence or lack of objection
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
To constitute a waiver, it must first appear that:
1. The right exists
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual
or constructive, of the existence of such right
3. The said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right
[People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 482]
The State (i.e. the prosecution and the police) has the
burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that
the necessary consent was obtained and that it was
freely and voluntarily given - a waiver is not presumed
[Valdez v. People, 538 SCRA 611, 614; People v. Cogaed, GR
No. 200334, July 30, 2014].
c. Plain view searches
Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in a position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence.
Effect: There is no legitimate expectation of privacy and
there is no search within the meaning of the
Constitution [United Laboratories v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574,
596-596].
Requisites for application of this doctrine:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or
is in a position from which he can view the
particular area.
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent (i.e. unintentional; must not have
known in advance the location of the evidence;
discovery not anticipated).
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the
item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure (i.e.
probable cause to associate the property with
criminal activity [United Laboratories v. Isip, 461
SCRA 574, 596-596]).
[Abelita III v. Doria, 596 SCRA 220, 228; Zalameda v.
People, 598 SCRA 537, 553-554].
An object inside a closed package is not in plain view,
unless:
1. The package proclaims its contents whether by
distinctive configuration or transparency.
2. The contents are obvious to an observer.
3. The package is such that an experienced observer
could infer from its appearance that it contains the
prohibited article.
[People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 478].
Page 18 of 40
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
Problem I
A (resident of Manila) leased B (resident of Quezon
City)’s condominium unit in Pasig City. A issued
post-dated checks. A was prohibited from sub-leasing
the premises without the prior written consent of B.
The agreement also included a venue stipulation,
stating that the exclusive venue for any litigation that
should arise from or is in relation to the Lease is in
Makati.
B discovered that A had entered into a sub-lease with
C without his written consent. B wrote A demanding
the immediate surrender of the leased premises and
payment of back rentals. A denied the sub-lease,
saying that C is his cousin who is living with him. As
for the rental arrears, A promised to update his
account within a week's time. Despite the lapse of one
(1) month, however, A still failed to pay.
B filed a Complaint for Rescission of the Lease
Agreement, Recovery of Possession and Damages
against A and C before the RTC of Quezon City.
Attached to the Complaint were the Lease Agreement
and B's demand letter to A.
A’s Counsel filed an Entry of Appearance with
Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer' or a
Motion to Dismiss. C filed a Motion to Dismiss
alleging lack of cause of action, insisting there is no
privity between him and B.
The RTC granted A a 15-day extension of this period
to plead, until March 1, 2018. A submitted a Motion to
Dismiss on March 2, 2018, alleging lack of
jurisdiction, first, over his person, considering that
the Sheriff failed to personally serve summons
directly to him, and second, over the subject matter of
the action, as the Complaint partakes of the nature of
a real action and B failed to allege the assessed value
of the subject property. Additionally, A claims that B
failed to pay the correct docket fees based on such
assessed value. The RTC thus failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the case.
B filed a Motion to Declare A in Default due to the
late filing of his Motion to Dismiss. Separately, B
opposed the Motion to Dismiss of C, arguing that C is
an indispensable party without whom no final
determination of the case can be had.
Which court has jurisdiction over the complaint of B?
What is the real nature of the case filed by B?
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have jurisdiction
over the complaint of B, because the real nature of the
case is one for unlawful detainer. [B.P. Blg. 192, Section
19]
The circumstances of the case satisfies all the elements
of unlawful detainer:
a. A previously lawfully possessed the property
by lease;
b. B notified A that his right of possession was
terminated for violating the lease, by sub-
leasing the property to C;
c. A and C remained in possession despite B‟s
notice and deprived B of its enjoyment; and
d. B filed a complaint within one year from his
demand that A and C vacate the property. [Sps.
Erorita v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 195477
Which court is the proper venue for the complaint of
B? Is the venue stipulation in the Lease Agreement
exclusive?
Makati City is the proper venue for the complaint of B.
An exclusive venue stipulation is valid and binding,
provided that: (a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is
exclusive in nature or in intent; (b) it is expressed in
writing by the parties thereto; and (c) it is entered into
before the filing of the suit. [Ley Construction and
Development Corporation, et al. v. Sedano, G.R. No. 222711,
23 August 2017]
Should A be declared in default? What are the
consequences of and remedies from a default
declaration?
Yes, A should be declared in default for failure to file an
Answer within the time allowed therefor. [Rule 9,
Section 1]
The consequences of a judgment of default are as
follows:
a. the court shall proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit
evidence. [Rule 9, Section 3]
b. A party in default shall be entitled to notice of
subsequent proceedings but not to take part
in the trial. [Rule 9, Section 3(a)]
Page 19 of 40
The remedy from a judgment of default is to file a
motion, at any time after notice thereof and before
judgment, to set aside the order of default upon
proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and
that he has a meritorious defense. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)]
Rule on A's Motion to Dismiss. Did the RTC acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over A's
person?
A‟s Motion to Dismiss should be granted for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.
a. No, RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case, which is one for
unlawful detainer. The Municipal Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts have jurisdiction.
b. Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over A’s
person.
A filed his Entry of Appearance with Motion
for Extension of Time to File an Answer or a
Motion to Dismiss. Generally, one who seeks
an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court.[Prudential Bank v. Magdamit, Jr., G.R. No.
183795, 12 November 2014]
Rule on C's Motion to Dismiss. What is the difference
between lack of cause of action and failure to state a
cause of action?
C‟s Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In this case, B
has a cause of action against C. C is occupying the
property owned by B.
The difference between failure to state a cause of action
and a lack of cause of action are as follows:
Failure to State a Cause of Lack of Cause of Action
Action
Insufficiency of the Insufficiency of the factual
allegations in the pleading basis for the action
[Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-
Gran, G.R. No. 197380, 8
October 2014]
Ground for Motion to Raised any time [Naguit
Dismiss under Rule 16, Aquino v. Quiazon, G.R. No.
Sec 1(g) 201248, 11 March 2015]
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Remedy: move for Remedy: demur to the
dismissal of the pleading evidence [Pacañas-
Contreras v. Rovila Water
Supply, Inc., G.R. No.
168979, 2 December 2013]
Is C an indispensable party? Assuming that C's
impleader is improper, is dismissal the right course of
action?
Yes, C is an indispensable party, since his interest will
be affected by the current action.
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
affected by the court‟s action in the litigation, and
without whom no final determination of the case can be
had. [Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, 11 March
2015].
Assuming that C‟s impleader is improper, dismissal is
not the right course of action in this case.
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground
for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or
added by order of the court on motion of any party or
on its own initiative at any stage the action and on such
terms as are just. [Rule 3, Section 11]
Assume that the RTC denied the Motion to Declare A
in Default and B files a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, arguing only a pure
question of law, should the Supreme Court give the
petition due course?
No, the Supreme Court should not give due course to
B‟s petition for certiorari, because it is an improper
remedy. The proper remedy to assail the denial of an
interlocutory order on a pure question of law is under
Rule 45. [Rule 45, Section 1]
Are the Lease Agreement and demand letter
actionable documents? If so, how are they supposed
to be addressed by A in his answer?
The Lease Agreement and demand letter are actionable
documents, as B‟s action in the Complaint for C‟s
alleged improper occupancy is based thereon.
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such
instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
Page 20 of 40
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be
deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may
with like effect be set forth in the pleading. [Rule 8,
Section 7]
Problem II
Rodrigo sued Lourdes for Collection of a Sum of
Money before the MeTC of Manila. Because no
Answer was filed, the MeTC rendered judgment by
default, awarding the amounts prayed for by Rodrigo
in his Complaint. Armed with a writ of execution of
the judgment by default, the MeTC Sheriff seized her
motor vehicle found in her office. Lourdes was
shocked to learn for the very first time that a
judgment had already been rendered against her.
Lourdes filed an Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration and New Trial, alleging that the
Sheriff and Rodrigo colluded to have the wrong
address in the Complaint. Thus, the MeTC failed to
acquire jurisdiction over her person and the judgment
is void.
Rule on the Omnibus Motion of Lourdes.
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Lourdes cannot assail the court‟s jurisdiction over her
by filing a motion for reconsideration of a default
judgment and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, as this is considered as voluntary
submission to the court‟s jurisdiction. One who seeks
affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. This, however, is tempered by
the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party
who makes a special appearance to challenge, among
others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be
considered to have submitted to its authority.
[Philippine Commercial Bank v. Sps. Pi and Dy, G.R. No.
171137, 5 June 2009]
The MeTC set the Omnibus Motion for hearing and
required Rodrigo to file a Comment. Rodrigo argued
that the Omnibus Motion is pro forma because it did
not contain a Notice of Hearing required under Rule
15, and it was addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court,
and not to his counsel. Also, no hearing was set as the
Notice merely stated “submitted for the immediate
consideration of the Honorable Court.” Rule on
Rodrigo’s objection to the motion.
Rodrigo‟s objections to the lack of notice of hearing
in Lourdes‟ Omnibus Motions should be sustained.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Lourdes‟ Omnibus Motion is a motion which could
prejudice the rights of an adverse party, and should
thus be set for hearing. Except for Motions which the
court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of
the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for
hearing by the applicant. [Rule 15, Section 4]
The MeTC denied Lourdes' Omnibus Motion. She
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of
denial. The MeTC denied the motion outright for
being a second motion for Reconsideration.
Was the MeTC correct?
The MeTC was correct in denying Lourdes‟ Second
Motion for Reconsideration. A second motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading which shall not
be allowed except for extraordinarily persuasive
reasons and only after an express leave shall have first
been obtained. [Roasters Philippines, Inc. v. Ga Viola, G.R.
No. 191874, 2 September 2015]
Lourdes filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. She
also filed a Petition for Injunction with application
for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the
denial of her Motion for Reconsideration. She alleged
that it was grave abuse of discretion for the MeTC to
deny her motion outright for being a second Motion
for Reconsideration considering that the Omnibus
Motion sought reconsideration of the judgment by
default, and so the subject matter of the two motions
are different.
Rodrigo moved to dismiss the appeal for being time-
barred, considering that the judgment has long
become final and executory. It was also the incorrect
remedy.
Should the appeal be dismissed?
Lourdes‟ Appeal should be dismissed because it is an
incorrect remedy. The proper remedy from a judgment
of default is to file a Motion to Lift Order of Default. A
party declared in default may, at any time after notice
thereof and before judgment, file a Motion under oath
to set aside the order of default upon proper showing
that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default
may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the
judge may impose in the interest of justice. [Rule 9,
Section 3(b)]
Page 21 of 40
Rodrigo also moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground of forum shopping. Moreover, he posited that
the Order of Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
is not the proper subject of a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65. Rule on Rodrigo's motion.
Rodrigo‟s motion should be denied because there is no
forum shopping in this case. There is forum shopping
"when a party repetitively avails of several judicial
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely
by some other court.” [Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte,
G.R. No. 159691, 17 February 2014]
Lourdes‟ Rule 65 petition did not violate the rules
against forum shopping because she is asking for two
(2) different reliefs in the filing of her Notice of Appeal
and Petition for Injunction.
Moreover, Rodrigo‟s argument that Rule 65 is an
improper remedy is incorrect. A Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail an order
attended by grave abuse of discretion. The exercise of
the power to correct grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the
contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one side.
The Court has the bounden constitutional duty to strike
down grave abuse of discretion whenever and wherever it
is committed. [Macapagal Arroyo v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, 18 April 2017]
The RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Rodrigo moved to dissolve the Writ on the ground
that it is fait accompli, considering that the motor
vehicle of Lourdes had already been levied. Moreover,
Rodrigo pointed out that the judgment by default has
already become immutable and may no longer be
altered. Rule on Rodrigo's motion to dissolve writ.
Rodrigo‟s motion to dissolve the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction should be granted. It was improper for the
RTC to issue the Writ since the act sought to be
enjoined had already been accomplished. Injunction
would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined had
already become fait accompli (meaning, an accomplished
or consummated act) [Sps. Marquez v. Sps. Alindog, G.R.
No. 184045, 22 January2014].
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Rodrigo‟s argument that the judgment of default is
immutable and may no longer be altered is incorrect. If
found void, said judgment can never become final or
immutable. [Imperial v. Armes, G.R. No. 178842, 30
January 2017]
The RTC denied Rodrigo's Motion to Dissolve the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Sheriff thus set
the auction sale of Lourdes' motor vehicle and
required Lourdes to turn over the owner's copies of
the OR and CR of the vehicle, as well as its duplicate
keys. But Lourdes refused to comply. Rodrigo thus
filed a motion with the MeTC to order Lourdes to
comply and it was granted. Despite personal service
of the order on Lourdes, she still refused to comply.
Rodrigo filed a Motion to cite Lourdes in indirect
contempt of court with the MeTC. The MeTC granted
the Motion and issued a warrant for the arrest of
Lourdes. Lourdes moved for reconsideration of the
order citing her in indirect contempt, and prayed for
the warrant of arrest to be quashed. Rule on Lourdes'
motion.
Lourdes‟ Motion for Reconsideration must be granted.
A charge for indirect contempt, if not done motu proprio
by the court, should be in the form of a verified
petition. A citation for indirect contempt may only be
done by the court motu proprio, or otherwise, be
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with
the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil
actions in the court concerned. [Rule 71, Section 4]
Assume that the case had gone to trial. Rodrigo
moved for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum
against Lourdes to be his adverse witness. Lourdes
opposed. Rodrigo did not resort to any of the modes
of discovery prior to trial. Rule on Rodrigo's motion.
Rodrigo‟s motion for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum against Lourdes must be denied, for
failure of Rodrigo to resort to the modes of discoveries.
Unless allowed by the court for good cause shown and
to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to
give a deposition pending appeal. [Rule 25, Section 6]
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who
fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue
Page 22 of 40
which are, or ought to be, within the personal
knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to
present evidence on such facts. [Rule 26, Section 5]
Problem III
In their business venture, Mario was the capitalist and
Luigi was the industrial partner. Luigi demanded to
be paid a monthly salary over and above his share in
the profits. Mario refused on the ground that Luigi's
contribution to the business venture was precisely his
work, hence he is not entitled to be paid for it. Luigi
stopped reporting for work, so Mario had to hire a
replacement Manager to take over.
Mario sued Luigi for breach of contract and damages.
He prayed for the rescission of their joint venture
agreement. Luigi counterclaimed asking for specific
performance, claiming his entitlement to the payment
of salaries for the entire period he worked as
Manager.
What is the nature of Mario's action and where is the
proper venue for it?
Mario‟s action for breach of contract is a civil action
where the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. In specific performance and rescission of
contract cases, the subject matter is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to the
Regional Trial Court. [Sps. Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry
and Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, 20 February 2017].
The venue is either Mario‟s or Luigi‟s place of
residence. Personal actions may be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff. [Rule 4, Section 2]
Assume that in Mario's and Luigi's agreement, they
stipulated: "Any dispute arising from this agreement
shall be filed in the courts of Quezon City." Is Mario's
choice of venue restricted to Quezon City?
Mario‟s choice of venue is not restricted to Quezon
City, seeing as the words “exclusive,” “shall only,” “to
the exclusion of other courts,” were not included in the
venue stipulation. Hence, the venue stipulation cannot
be seen as exclusively limiting the parties‟ choices to
Quezon City.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such
as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other
venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue,
"to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of
similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as
merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place. [Ley Construction
and Development Corporation, et al. v. Sedano, G.R. No.
222711, 23 August 2017]
Mario failed to file a Reply to the Answer with
Counterclaim of Luigi. Luigi filed a Motion to Declare
in Default against Mario praying for judgment on the
pleadings. Mario opposed the motion alleging that he
did not have to file a reply since all the new matters
alleged in the Answer are deemed Controverted.
Should Mario be declared in default?
Yes, Mario should be declared in default for failure to
answer Luigi‟s Counterclaim. Following Rule 9, Section
3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, if a defendant fails to
answer the counterclaim, then upon motion of plaintiff,
the defendant may be declared in default. [Francisco
Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100812,
25 June 1999]
If Mario is declared in default, should judgment on
the pleadings be granted?
No, If Mario is declared in default, judgment on the
pleadings should NOT be granted. Mario‟s failure to
file an Answer to the Counterclaim does not constitute
a failure to tender an issue, nor an admission of the
material allegations of the adverse party's pleading
[Rule 34, Section 1]. Rather, the effect of a declaration of
default is that the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence. [Rule 9,
Section 3]
Problem IV
Batman sued Robin for the collection of a sum of
money. Summons was issued and the Process Server
filed a Return stating that Robin could not be found
at his home address, so summons was served on the
security guard of his subdivision.
Was there a valid substituted service of summons on
Robin?
Page 23 of 40
No, there was no valid substituted service of
summons on Robin. This is not proper substituted
service under Rule 14, Section 7.
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of
the summons at the defendant's residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office
or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof [Rule 14, Section 7]. The
security guard of the subdivision was not competent
to receive the summons on behalf of Robin.
If Robin cannot be located, how may the court acquire
jurisdiction over Robin?
The court may acquire jurisdiction over him through
service of summons, after leave of court is granted, by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and
in such places and for such time as the court may order,
as provided under Rule 14, Section 14.
Enumerate all the remedies, cumulative and
alternative, available to Robin to question the
judgment. Discuss each remedy stating the grounds
on which each may be granted, the period for
availment, and the proper court where it may be filed.
 File a Motion to Lift Order of Default - A
party declared in default may at any time after
notice thereof and before judgment file a
motion under oath to set aside the order of
default upon proper showing that his failure to
answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)]
 Appeal - if judgment had already been
rendered but has not yet become final and
executory, an appeal asserting that the
judgment was contrary to the law or to the
evidence
 Motion for New Trial under Rule 37- if
judgment had already been rendered but has
not yet become final and executory. The same
affidavits as are required in a motion to lift
order of default must be attached.
 Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule
38- If judgment has become final and executor
 Petition for Annulment of Judgment [under
Rule 47] on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or
extrinsic fraud -Should the defaulted defendant
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
fail to file a petition for relief [Sps. Benedit v.
Ong, G.R. No. 205249, 15 October 2014]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Jay was arrested without a warrant for theft of a
mobile phone which he insisted was his. Before he
was subjected to inquest proceeding, he asked for a
preliminary investigation but refused to sign a waiver
of the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code in the presence of his counsel. The inquest
prosecutor must then:
Proceed with the inquest even over objection of Jay‟s
counsel.
When the accused fails to appear at trial despite
notice, the court must immediately:
Cause the bond to be forfeited in favor of the
government and issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused.
As a general rule, the civil liability arising from a
crime is impliedly instituted along with the filing of
the criminal action. What are the exceptions to this
rule?
Under Rule 111, Section 1, the exceptions to this rule are
when the offended party: (a) waives the civil action; (b)
reserves the right to institute it separately; or (c)
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. In
addition to the civil liability arising from crime, the
offended party may also file an independent civil action
under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2716 of the Civil Code,
provided that the offended party cannot twice recover
damages for the same act.
What is a prejudicial question? Give an example of a
case that gives rise to a prejudicial question and
explain what is the consequence when such an issue
arises.
Rule 111, Section 7 states that there is a prejudicial
question when: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
An example of a case involving a prejudicial question is
a civil case instituted to question the election of a
corporation‟s directors and officers, and a subsequent
criminal case filed on behalf of the corporation by the
Page 24 of 40
directors and officers whose election is subject of the
prior civil case.The resolution of the prior civil case is
intimately related to the subsequent criminal action
because said civil case will determine whether the
directors who filed the complaint on behalf of the
corporation were authorized to perform this corporate
actions.
Problem I
As the counsel for Nico Roberto who was wrongfully
booked and placed behind bars (the warrant of arrest
was supposed to be for his brother but was served to
Nico Roberto’s home instead), what remedy/ies will
you resort to?
As counsel for Nico Roberto, I will file an application
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule
102 of the Rules of Court. Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend
to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which
any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. [Rule 102, Section 1]
In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer, the
writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him
to have the body of the person restrained of his liberty
before the court or judge designated in the writ at the
time and place therein specified. In case of
imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer,
the writ shall be directed to an officer, and shall
command him to take and have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
designated in the writ at the time and place therein
specified, and to summon the person by whom he is
restrained then and there to appear before said court or
judge to show the cause of the imprisonment or
restraint. [Rule 102, Section 2]
Problem II
Karl was charged with Malicious Mischief for etching
his initials on the hood of his best friend Carlo's
brand new car with a knifetip. Because Karl
apologized and promised to pay for the damage to
Carlo's car in installments. Carlo and Karl executed an
amicable settlement of the civil aspect of the case
before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit as part
of pre-trial proceedings in the case. For this reason,
Carlo agreed not to testify against Karl anymore.
Upon Karl's counsel's motion, the trial court
dismissed the case on June 25, 2017, but only
provisionally subject to Karl's full compliance with
the settlement terms. On October 8, 2018, Carlo's
counsel, with the conformity of the Public Prosecutor,
filed a Motion to Revive the case due to the non-
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
payment by Karl of the balance of the installments for
the damaged car.
Rule on the Motion to Revive, considering that the
case has both a criminal and civil aspect.
The case against Karl for Malicious Mischief can no
longer be revived on 8 October 2018 considering that
more than one (1) year has passed since the provisional
dismissal of the case on 25 June 2017.
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of
any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1)
year after issuance of the order without the case having
been revived. [Rule 117, Section 8] The penalty for the
charge of Malicious Mischief, if the value of the damage
caused exceeds Php1,000, is arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods. Hence, the case could
have only been revived if it was done one (1) year from
8 October 2018.
However, this dismissal is without prejudice to civil
remedies for the violation of the Compromise
Agreement between Karl and Carlo. Carlo can file a
case for against Karl for violation of the Compromise
Agreement, and to recover the balance of the
installments for the damaged car, seeing as though a
compromise agreement is a contract between the
parties, which if not contrary to law, morals or public
policy, is valid and enforceable between them. [Sps.
Abinujar and Lana v. CA, G.R. No. 104133, 18 April 1995]
Problem III
Candice, Beth, Juls, Idel, and Grace were fed up with
their officemate, Marivic. Marivic has had separate
altercations with each of them and they were
unanimous in their sentiment that Marivic should not
last any longer in their
office. In their social media posts, the 5 gjrls, without
naming Marivic, and referring to her only as "the she
devil," recounted every little story depicting
Marivic as "evil," "despicable," "corrupt,"
"walanghiya" "social climber," and "doble cara" They
also posted a photograph of a woman digitally altered
to cloak her in all black and with her face in shadow,
with the caption "Who is the she devil?" under. They
then invited readers to guess the identity of the
woman in the photograph. Many commented on the
posts of the 5 girls, some guessed at the identity of the
woman in the photograph, others recounted similar
stories, but the majority expressed sympathy for the 5
girls and outrage at the conduct of Marivic. There
were many who angrily threatened Marivic and called
for her resignation. Marivic brought cases against the
5 girls for violations of the Cybercrime Law,
specifically for Cyber Bullying and Cyber Libel,
Page 25 of 40
Conspiracy was alleged against the 5 girls. The
prosecution filed a Motion to Discharge Idel as State
Witness, alleging that Idel was the least guilty since
she never posted anything but was merely tagged by
the 4 other girls in the subject posts. Marivic opposed
the motion on the ground that there was no necessity
for the discharge as the commission of both offenses
were directly evidenced by the social media posts
which were available publicly. Moreover, Idel has
already been previously convicted for Violation of BP
Big. 22.
Rule on the motion.
The prosecution‟s Motion to Discharge Idel as state
witness should be denied.
An accused can only be discharged as state witness,
among others, if the following elements are satisfied:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of
the accused whose discharge is requested
2. The is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused
3. The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty; and
5. Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
Idel was previously convicted for violation of B.P. 22,
which is considered as a crime involving moral
turpitude. [Wilkie v. Atty. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, 24
October 2008] Hence, Idel is not qualified to be
discharged as a state witness.
Assume that the trial court granted the motion and
discharged Idel as a state witness, what is the
prosecution's remedy to question the trial court's
action, and on what ground/ s?
If Idel is discharged as a state witness by the court, the
remedy to question the trial court‟s action is by filing a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA,
following the hierarchy of courts, based on the trial
court‟s grave abuse of discretion.
Assume that the reviewing court found that the trial
court did err in granting the Motion to Discharge Idel
as State Witness. May Idel still be prosecuted as a co-
conspirator of the 4 other girls?
Yes, Idel can still be prosecuted as a co-conspirator of
the 4 other accused if it is found that the court erred in
granting the Motion to Discharge her as state witness.
Since the order discharging Idel as a state witness is
void, she shall not be allowed to testify as a state
witness. Her failure to testify against the other accused
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
will not render her as acquitted.The order indicated in
the preceding section (Rule 119, Section 17) shall
amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and
shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense,
unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his
co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for the discharge. [Rule 119,
Section and 18]
In any case, the order declaring Idel‟s acquittal is
likewise void.
Problem IV
Ding, Zaldy and Jeff got into a Fistfight over the
Ateneo-UP basketball championship game. Because
Ding and Zaldy ganged up on Jeff, Jeff sustained a
blackeye and a bruised jaw. Jeff charged Ding and
Zaldy with Slight Physical Injuries and the 2 were
convicted.
What are the options available to Ding and Zaldy at
this point?
Ding and Zaldy may file an appeal [Rule 122, Section 1],
or a motion for new trial or a motion for
reconsideration [Rule 121, Section 1] with the RTC. The
court shall grant a new trial on any of the following
grounds:
a. The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to
the substantial rights of the accused have been
committed during the trial
b. The new and material evidence has been
discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at the trial and which if introduced
and admitted would probably change the
judgment. [Rule 121, Section 2]
On the other hand, the court shall grant reconsideration
on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment,
which requires no further proceedings. [Rule 121,
Section 3]
Assume that only Ding opted to appeal his conviction,
but the reviewing court affirmed his conviction. What
are the remedies of Ding to seek a reversal of his
conviction?
The remedy of Ding to seek a reversal of his conviction
by the reviewing court would be to file a petition for
review under Rule 42 with the CA.
The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition
for review under Rule 42. [Rule 122, Section 3]
Considering that the Municipal Trial Courts and the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction over a case for Slight Physical Injuries [B.P.
Page 26 of 40
Blg. 192, Section 31], the reviewing court is the RTC, a
conviction of which must be reviewed by the CA.
Assume further that Ding was acquitted on further
review. What would be the effect of such acquittal on
Zaldy?
The acquittal of Ding on appeal would also have the
effect of acquitting Zaldy.
An appeal taken by one or more of several accused
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar
as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter. [Rule 122, Section 11]
Problem V
Georgie Porgie was charged with Plunder before the
Office of the Ombudsman by Miss Muffet. The
Ombudsman furnished Georgie Porgie with a copy of
Miss Muffet‟s Complaint-Affidavit and its annexes, as
well as the Affidavits of her two witnesses, Georgie‟s
own twin sister Georgia and their mother Georgina.
Georgie Pogies‟s counsel Atty. Aesop filed an Omnibus
Motion with the Ombudsman requesting for first,
copies of the counter-affidavits of Georgie Pogie‟s co-
respondents in the Plunder compliant, Tweedledee and
Tweedledum; second, for the examination and
photocopying of the two volumes of the Stock and
Transfer book of the Mother Goose Company Inc.; and,
third, for the setting of a clarificatory hearing. The
Ombudsman denied all prayers in the Omnibus
Motion.
Was the Ombudsman's denial of the Omnibus Motion
correct:
a. On the first prayer for copies of Tweedledee's
and Tweedledum's counter-affidavits?
Yes. In Reyes v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No.
208243, 5 June 2017), and Estrada v. Ombudsman (G.R.
Nos. 212140-41, 21 January 2015), the Supreme Court
ruled that during preliminary investigation, the
Ombudsman is not required to furnish a respondent
with the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. The
Section 4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman A.O. No. 7) refers to are
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, not the
affidavits of the co-respondents. Obviously, the
counter-affidavits of the co-respondents are not part of
the supporting affidavits of the complainant.
b. On the second prayer for the examination and
photocopying of the Stock and Transfer
Book?
Yes. While the respondent shall have the right to
examine the evidence submitted by the complainant
which he may not have been furnished and to copy
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
them at his expense (Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure), Mother Goose Company
Inc.‟s stock and transfer books are not indicated as
evidence submitted by the complainant.
c. On the third prayer to set a clarificatory
hearing?
Yes. Under the Section 4(f) of the Ombudsman‟s A.O.
No. 7, it is the investigating prosecutor‟s discretion to
set and conduct a clarificatory hearing, if upon his
assessment there are facts material to the case which the
investigating officer may need to be clarified on.
George Porgie cannot compel the investigating officer
to conduct a clarificatory hearing, during which the
parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present
but without the right to examine or cross-examine the
witness being questioned, especially in this case where
he failed to show any material fact/s that need/s
clarification.
The Ombudsman denied the motion for
reconsideration of its Order of denial. Georgie Porgie
filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order denying his
motion for reconsideration.
Was the remedy availed of by Georgie Porgie correct?
No. The Ombudsman‟s order denying Georgie Porgie‟s
the motion for reconsideration is not subject to appeal.
The proper remedy is for him to file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying Georgie Porgie‟s Omnibus
Motion.
Consider the facts below for problems VI-VII
Peter Piper was standing at a street corner. Little Boy
Blue, riding a motorcycle, stopped where Peter Piper
stood and started talking to him. Little Boy Blue drew
something from his front pocket and extended his
hand in the act of giving what he had taken from his
pocket to Peter Piper. Police officers suddenly
swarmed the two and brought them to the police
station with their consent. The lead police officer
asked the two to empty their pockets. Two small
sachets of white crystalline substance (later tested and
confirmed to be shabu) were confiscated from Little
Boy Blue, while the pockets of Peter Piper yielded a
tooter and 200 pesos. An officer then advised the two
of their Miranda rights. Little Boy Blue and Peter
Piper were brought right after to the Office of the City
Prosecutor for inquest proceedings. The next day,
Little Boy Blue was charged with Illegal Sale of
shabu, while Peter Piper was charged with Illegal
Possession of drug paraphernalia, both under RA
9166.
Page 27 of 40
Problem VI
Little Boy Blue's counsel filed a Motion to Quash the
Information against him on the ground of illegality of
his arrest and the subsequent seizure of his personal
possessions. The public prosecutor opposed the
motion on the following grounds: (a) illegality of
arrest was not one of the grounds for a motion to
quash; (b) the arrest of Little Boy Blue was a valid
warrantless arrest because he was caught in flagrante
delicto in the act of selling shabu; and, (c) the arrest
was done in "hot pursuit". For his part, Peter Piper
filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation with
Motion to Defer Arraignment. The judge denied Peter
Piper's motions for being baseless.
Rule on each argument of the public prosecutor.
The alleged illegality of the arrest assails the court‟s
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Thus,
contrary to the prosecution‟s claim, the supposed
illegality of the arrest Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper is
a valid ground for a motion to quash under Rule 117,
Section 1(c), which provides that the complaint or
information may be quashed on the ground that “the
court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person
of the accused”.
The arrest of the accused is not a case of a valid case of
a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Based on Rule
113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
"two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or
she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer." [People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 238 (2014)]. In
this case, however, the police officers did not have any
evidence, much less, reason to believe that an offense is
being committed in their presence just because Little
Boy Blue “drew something” from his pocket and
extended his hand as if to hand over something to Peter
Piper.
The arrest of the accused is also not a case of a valid
“hot pursuit” warrantless arrest. Under Rule 113,
Section 5(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a
warrantless arrest may be effected by a police officer or
a private person “when an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it.” Here, there
is no showing that (i) an offense has just been
committed; and (ii) the police officers had probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper
have just committed an offense. Necessarily, the seizure
of the items against them are illegal and inadmissible.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's motion
for a preliminary investigation?
No. Under the A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, such
motion is a meritorious motion. There is no showing
that accused filed the motion beyond the reglementary
period of 5 days from notice. Further, the court should
have at least considered the fact that the warrantless
arrest was based on the police officers‟ claim that Little
Boy Blue “drew something” from his pocket and
extended his hand as if to hand over something to Peter
Piper. In this regard, due process dictates that Little Boy
Blue and Peter Piper‟s side should be heard through the
filing of their counter-affidavits and supporting
evidence.
Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's motion
to defer arraignment?
Yes, as long as the motion for preliminary investigation
has no basis. Under Rule 116, Section 11, arraignment
may be deferred only on the following grounds: (a)
unsound mental condition of the accused; (b) the
existence of a prejudicial questions; and (c) the
pendency of a petition for review before the DOJ or the
Office of the President. It may be argued, however, that
should the court grant accused‟s motion for preliminary
investigation, considering that it is a meritorious
motion under the Revised Guidelines, necessarily the
arraignment may be deferred pending the resolution of
the preliminary investigation ordered by the court
itself.
Problem VII
On motion for reconsideration, the judge granted
Peter Piper's motion for preliminary investigation.
The judge also suspended the proceedings in both the
cases against Peter Piper and Little Boy Blue. It was
only 10 months later that the Office of the City
Prosecutor came out with a Resolution affirming the
finding of probable cause against Peter Piper. The
public prosecutor thus filed a Motion to Set the Cases
for Arraignment. Little Boy Blue opposed the motion
and moved instead for the dismissal of the case
against him on the ground of violation of his right to
speedy trial.
Should the judge grant or deny Little Boy Blue's
motion to dismiss?
The judge should deny the motion. The doctrinal rule is
that in the determination of whether or not that right
has been violated, the factors that may be considered
and balanced are the length of delay, the reasons for
such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right
by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay
(Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438, 31 July 2018).
In this case, the resolution of the Office of the City
Prosecutor, which was issued 10 months after the judge
Page 28 of 40
granted accused‟s motion for preliminary investigation,
does not constitute undue delay, and such delay was
not attributable to the fault of plaintiff.
Problem VIII
Nico was charged with Homicide. His counsel, Atty.
Dirty Harry, filed a Motion for Judicial Determination
of Probable Cause with the RTC of Makati City,
where the Information was filed. To avoid arrest, Nico
went to the RTC of Bulacan, his place of residence,
and posted bail.
As the Makati Court, should the Motion for Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause be granted?
No. Under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, a
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause is
a prohibited motion that shall be denied outright.
Furthermore, considering that Nico already posted bail,
which is tantamount to voluntary surrender, it is futile
for the court to even consider his Motion as it already
acquired jurisdiction over his person (Inocentes v. People,
G.R. No. 205963-64, 7 July 2016, citing Cojuangco, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134307, 21 December 1998, 300
SCRA 367).
As the judge of the Bulacan Court, should you
approve the bail of Nico?
Yes. The general rule is that bail should be posted in the
court where the case is pending. Rule 114, Section 17 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure also provides that if
the accused is arrested in the province, city, or
municipality other than where the case is pending,
accused may apply for or post or bail in the RTC or
MTC of said place as the case may be. While this
pertains to cases where accused is arrested, it should
also cover cases of voluntary surrender, where the State
is relieved of the expense and trouble for accused‟s
search and capture. Besides, the accused has the right to
bail since the crime of homicide is a bailable offense.
Assume that the Bulacan Court did not approve the
bail of Nico. As Atty. Dirty Harry, what should your
next step be towards securing the temporary liberty of
Nico during the pendency of the case?
Have him post bail with the Makati RTC because the
case is pending before the Makati RTC. Upon filing
posting the appropriate bail bond and a written
undertaking, among others, showing compliance with
the requirements of section 2 of this Rule 114, then Nico
shall be discharged from custody (Rule 114, Section 17
and Section 14 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure).
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Problem IX
Arraignment was set by the Makati Court. Atty. Dirty
Harry filed an Omnibus Motion (for Suspension of
Arraignment and to Quash Information) on the
grounds of the pendency of Nico’s Petition for
Review with the Department of Justice and double
jeopardy. Atty. Dirty Harry argues that since the DOJ
has yet to resolve the Petition for Review, the
arraignment should be deferred in order not to render
the review moot. Additionally, he claims that Nico
has been previously charged for the very same offense
before the Bulacan Court, but the case was dismissed
because the situs criminis is in Makati City.
Should suspension of arraignment be granted due to
the pendency of the Petition for Review with the
DOJ?
Yes. Under Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the arraignment shall be
suspended when a petition for review of the resolution
of the prosecutor is pending at either the DOJ or the
Office of the President, provided that the period of
suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office. Nico‟s
pending Petition for Review before the DOJ warrant the
suspension of his arraignment for a period not
exceeding 60 days.
Should the Information be quashed on the ground of
double jeopardy?
No. The Information may not be quashed on the
ground of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches
only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent
court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been
entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused
(Dimayacyac v. CA, G.R. No. 136264, 28 May 2004).
Double jeopardy does not lie on the basis of the Bulacan
Court‟s dismissal. The dismissal, on the ground of situs
criminis, does not create a first jeopardy because (i) it is
not a court of competent jurisdiction since the homicide
occurred in Makati, not in Bulacan; and (ii) there was
no showing that the dismissal was after arraignment
and after a valid plea was entered.
If the ground invoked in a motion to quash is that the
facts charged do not constitute and offense, what is
the proper court action?
The prosecution shall be given by the court an
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The
motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make
the amendment, or the complaint or information still
suffers from the same defect despite the amendment
(Rule 117, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure).
Page 29 of 40
Will the quashal of an Information act as a bar to
another prosecution for the same offense?
No, unless the motion was based on the grounds that
(a) the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished; and (b) the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent (Rule 117,
Section 6, in relation to Section 3, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure).
Problem X
Before the scheduled date of arraignment, Prosecutor
Gadoink filed a Motion to Amend Information to
change the charge to Murder, having received
additional evidence pointing to a premeditated plan
to kill the victim, Serena, and to implead 2 additional
accused, Pico and Jico. Atty. Dirty Harry vehemently
opposed the motion, citing the substantive change
which will result in exposing his client to the
possibility of being meted a higher penalty.
Should the motion to amend be granted?
Yes. A complaint or information may be amended, in
form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused enters his plea (Rule 110, Section 14
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). The
prosecutor filed the motion to amend information
before the arraignment or before the accused entered
his plea. Therefore, the prosecution, without leave of
court, may file a motion to amend the information in
form or in substance.
The Prosecutor accompanied the motion to amend
with a Motion to Discharge Jico as a State Witness.
What conditions should be satisfied in order to justify
the grant of the motion to discharge Jico as State
witness?
The following conditions should be satisfied in order to
justify the grant of the motion to discharge Jico as a
State witness:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of
the accused whose discharge is requested
2. There is no other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said
accused
3. The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted
of any offense involving moral turpitude. (Rule
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
119, Section 17 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure)
Problem XI
Assume that Jico was discharged as a State witness.
He executed an Affidavit narrating in detail the plan
to commit the killing of Serena and its actual
execution. Unfortunately, Jico was unable to testify in
court because he received numerous death threats
which caused him to fear for his life and go into
hiding. The Prosecutor was forced to rest the State’s
case without Jico’s open court testimony.
What will be the legal effect of Jico’s failure to testify
in court?
The same shall not be a bar for future prosecution for
the same offense. The order indicated under Rule 119,
Section 17 shall amount to an acquittal of the
discharged accused and shall be a bar to future
prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused
fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in
accordance with his sworn statement constituting the
basis for his discharge (Rule 119, Section 18 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure).
Problem XII
When asked by COA and the Provincial Governor’s
Office, Dimacabilang denied any knowledge about
the loss of Php20,000.00, claiming the shortage existed
even during the time of his predecessor but he also
proposed a plan to pay for the Php30,000.00 he
admitted to have appropriated for himself through a
salary deduction scheme. After a 2-day custodial
investigation, he was charged with Malversation of
Public Funds by virtue of his extrajudicial confession
admitting to the shortage. A lawyer from the PAO was
present when he actually signed the same.
While the information was filed in court, the court
chose to suspend Dimacabilang’s arraignment
indefinitely, upon motion of the accused, because at
that time, he had filed a Petition for Review with the
Department of Justice. Unfortunately, before the DOJ
resolved to affirm the probable cause finding against
the accused, four years had passed. By that time, the
accused had fully paid the claimed shortage of
Php30,000.00 through the salary deductions scheme.
Based on all the grounds cited, will a motion to
dismiss the case on grounds that his rights to a speedy
trial and custodial investigation have been violated be
granted? Discuss each ground raised and explain your
answer.
Yes. The court erred in suspending the proceedings
indefinitely, despite the express mandate under Rule
116, Section 11 that the period for suspension on the
ground of the pendency of a Petition for Review with
the DOJ shall not exceed sixty (60) days. Notably, it was
Page 30 of 40
plaintiff‟s duty to move for the continuation of the
criminal proceedings after the 60-day period. Hence,
the failure to proceed with the prosecution of
Dimacabilang for four years violated his right to speedy
trial.
The violation of Dimacabilang‟s rights under custodial
investigation, on its own, will not result in the dismissal
of the case. Nevertheless, under Section 12(1) and (3),
Art. III of the Constitution and R.A. No. 7438, the
uncounseled extrajudicial admission he made during
custodial investigation shall be inadmissible in
evidence. The presence of the PAO lawyer during the
signing of the written confession does not cure the
violation of Dimacabilang‟s rights. In People v. Daniego
(G.R. No. 103499, 29 December 1995) the Supreme Court
ruled that the lawyer assisting a person under custodial
investigation should be present “from the beginning to
the end.”
Do you agree with the position of the accused that he
cannot be convicted because the extrajudicial
confession he was forced to sign was inadmissible in
evidence since his custodial investigation was
invalid? Do you also agree that no crime had been
committed because he had paid off the shortage he
was held accountable for? Why or why not?
While Dimacabilang may not be convicted based on his
confession during custodial investigation, the following
admissions may be used against him: (a) in his written
response to the Provincial Governor‟s Office and the
COA, he admitted to have appropriated for himself the
amount of Php30,000.00; and (b) he proposed and
thereafter paid the full amount of Php30,000.00 which
he appropriated for himself. Rule 130, Section 27 states
that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, an
offer of compromised by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. In this
case, the crime of malversation is neither a quasi-
offense nor an offense allowed by law to be
compromised. Hence, these admissions may be used
against Dimacabilang.
Differentiate the following:
1. The right of an accused to testify as a witness in
his own behalf AND the accused’s right to be
exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself
Under Rule 115, Section 1 (d), an accused has the right
to testify as a witness on his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. However, while testifying in his own
behalf, an accused‟s constitutional right against self-
incrimination allows him to refuse to answer a specific
question which has a tendency to incriminate him for a
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
crime. The right against self-incrimination may be
claimed only when the specific question is asked of the
accused.
2. Preliminary investigation conducted by the
prosecutor AND the judicial determination of
probable cause issued by the judge
The former pertains to a determination of whether there
is probable cause to charge a person for a crime by
assessing whether there is enough evidence to support
an Information being filed. The latter pertains to a
determination of whether there is probable cause to
issue a warrant of arrest against a person charged with
a crime.
3. Filing of a separate civil action arising from the
commission of an offense AND filing an
independent civil action under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and
2716 of the Civil Code
These two kinds of civil actions differ on the
consequences of the filing thereof vis-à-vis the criminal
action.
A separate civil action arising from the commission of
an offense which was filed before the criminal action
shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal
action. Meanwhile, after the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been
entered in the criminal action.
On the other hand, an independent civil action filed
pursuant to Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2716 of the Civil Code
may be filed before or after the commencement of the
criminal action. This independent civil action will
proceed regardless of the status of the criminal action,
and shall be proved only by a preponderance of
evidence.
4. Inquest AND preliminary investigation
An inquest is conducted when a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant. It is an informal and
summary investigation conducted by a public
prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether said
person should remain under custody and
correspondingly be charged in court.
A preliminary investigation is conducted after a
complaint for an offense where the penalty prescribed
by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day is filed
with the prosecutor. After the complaint is filed, the
respondent is furnished a copy of the complaint, and is
given a period of time to file his counter-affidavit.
Thereafter, the public prosecutor may require the
complainant to file his reply-affidavit, and the
respondent to file his rejoinder-affidavit.
Page 31 of 40
Hence, unlike an inquest proceeding, a preliminary
investigation is neither informal nor summary in
nature. Moreover, the respondent is neither arrested
nor detained at any time during the preliminary
investigation.
True or False
1. Except where the accused is charged with a capital
offense, he may apply for bail after his
arraignment.
False. Under Rule 114, Section 7, bail shall be denied to
said accused only upon showing by plaintiff during the
bail hearings that evidence of guilt is strong.
2. After the criminal action has been commenced,
the separate civil action arising therefore may be
instituted but the court in its discretion may
suspend the same if a prejudicial question exists.
False. Rule 111, Section 1 states that when a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted therein. Rule 111, Section 2 further
states that after the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been
entered in the criminal action. Hence, no separate civil
action arising from the crime may be instituted.
Moreover, a prejudicial question presupposes that the
civil action was filed before the criminal action.
3. No complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
the prior written authority of the provincial or city
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
True. This is stated under Rule 112, Section 4.
4. When a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant involving an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor who
will inquire from the person if he is willing to be
subjected to a preliminary investigation.
False. Under Rule 112, Section 7, the prosecutor should
inquire from the person arrested of his preference to
undergo preliminary investigation before the filing of
the complaint or information.
5. The reservation of the right to institute separately
the civil action shall be made during the pre-trial
conference under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation.
True. Rule 111, Section 1 states that “the reservation of
the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
made before the prosecution starts presenting its
evidence and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.”
6. Where the civil action has been filed separately
and trial in the criminal case has not yet
commenced, the court may, motu proprio
consolidate the case so that they may be heard
together.
False. Under Rule 111, Section 1, the consolidation
should be upon application with the court trying the
criminal case
7. In the event the Secretary of Justice rules to
reverse the resolution finding probable cause
filed by the provincial or city prosecutor, he will
require the conduct of reinvestigation.
False. Under Rule 112, Section 5, he shall direct the
prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding
information without conducting another preliminary
investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the
complaint or information with notice to the parties.
8. The failure of the accused to appear at trial
without justification and despite due notice shall
be deemed a waiver of the right of the accused to
present evidence.
False. Under Rule 114, Section 2 (c), such shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In
such case, trial may proceed in absentia. The same rule is
stated under Rule 115, Section 1 (c).
9. The accused may waive his presence at trial except
that he must appear at the promulgation of
judgment unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the judge.
True. This is stated under Rule 115, Section 1 (c).
10. The accused may be prosecuted again even if a
motion to quash has been granted unless his
criminal liability has been extinguished or he is
placed in double jeopardy.
True. This is stated under Rule 117, Section 6.
EVIDENCE
Explain the rule on conditional admissibility.
Where the evidence at the time it is offered appears to
be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with
the other facts to be subsequently proved, such
evidence may be received on condition that the other
Page 32 of 40
facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence
will be stricken out.
In the case of Prats Co. v Phoenix Assurance, the court
stated that when the intricacy is impossible for a judge
of first instance to know with any certainty whether the
testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the lawyer offering
the evidence, the court may safely accept the testimony
upon the condition that the proof offered will be
connected later. (Prats Co. v Phoenix Assurance, GR
No. L-28607, 1929)
Explain the rule on 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.
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." [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.
146738. (April 3, 2001)]
True or false. The fact that a law declares a matter
confidential does not necessarily mean that it is
privileged.
True. The (Monetary Board) deliberations may be
confidential but not necessarily absolute and privileged.
[Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 1986)
True or false. A son-in-law may be compelled to
testify against his father-in-law.
False. Both parental and filial privileges are granted to
any person, which privileges against compulsory
testimony he can invoke in any case against any of his
parents, direct ascendants, children or direct
descendants. (Rule 130, Sec 25)
Is blood relationship essential for the parental/filial
privilege
Yes. No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.
Illustrate the distinction between the burden of proof
and burden of evidence.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to
sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of
evidence [Sec. 1, Rule 133] The burden of proof is on the
party who would be defeated if no evidence were given
on either side [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.], the plaintiff
with respect to his complaint, the defendant with
respect to his counterclaim, and the cross-claimant,
with respect to his cross-claim.
In criminal cases:
● For the issuance of warrant of arrest - evidence
of probable cause that there exist a reasonable
ground that the accused has committed an
offense [Algas v. Garrido, A.M.289-MJ, (1974))
● To warrant the filing of an information – if
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial [Sec. 1, Rule 112]
● To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
● To deny bail when discretionary – when the
evidence of guilt is strong
● To accept a plea of guilty to a capital offense –
that the accused voluntarily and fully
comprehended the consequences of his plea
[Sec.3, Rule 116]
● To grant demurrer to evidence – the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction [Sec. 23,
Rule119]
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution [Boac v
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)]
A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e., will
have to be a proponent) if there is any factum
probandum (whether evidentiary or otherwise) that the
adverse party has already established (whether by law,
rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has presented) that
he (the potential proponent) has to overcome. That
factum probandum may, but does not have to be, nor is
limited to a "prima facie presumption." Likewise, a party
will not have any burden of evidence at all if the
adverse party has not established any factum
probanum in the first place. [Prof. Avena]
Page 33 of 40
How do you authenticate an electronic document and Distinguish between best evidence rule and parol
ephemeral communication? evidence rule.

Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone The differences of the Parol Evidence Rule and the Best
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, Evidence Rule are as follows:
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic
forms of communication the evidence of which is not PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
recorded or retained. RULE

Manner of authentication – Before any private electronic Is there an original document?

document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its authenticity must be proved by any of the following Presupposes that the Original writing is not
means: original document (or an available and/or there is a
admissible secondary dispute as to whether said
a. by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
evidence) is available in writing is the original
person purported to have signed the same;
court
b. by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the What does it prohibit?
document;
c. by other evidence showing its integrity and Prohibits the varying Prohibits the introduction
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. terms of a written of substitutionary
agreement evidence in lieu of the
original document
SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A
document electronically notarized in accordance with
Applicable to which documents?
the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
considered as a public document and proved as a
Applies only to contracts Applies to all kinds of
notarial document under the Rules of Court. [Rule 5,
(except wills) documents
Sec 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC.- Re: Rules on Electronic
Evidence.]
Who may invoke?
Distinguish between entries in the course of business
under the Rules of Court and business record rule
Can be invoked only when Can be invoked by any
under the Rules on Electronic Evidence .
the controversy is between party to an action
A: Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence the parties to the written regardless of whether or
the entries in the course of business made by a person agreement, their privies, or not such party has
must already be deceased and unable to testify and thus any party directly affected participated in the writing
the entrant or custodian must have personal knowledge thereby involved
of the facts stated in the entries while under Rule 8 of
the Rules on Electronic Evidence the person who made
the entry need not be dead or unable to testify and
True or false. For an adverse party to be interrogated
personal knowledge of the facts is not required
by leading questions on direct examination, it is not
provided that the mechanics or record-keeping of such
necessary that he must first be declared a hostile or
records are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
unwilling witness
other qualified witnesses. (See Sec 43, Rule 130, Revised
Rules on Evidence and Rule 8, Rules on Electronic True. It is not necessary that the adverse party to be
Evidence). interrogated must first be declared a hostile or
unwilling witness. Under Sec 10, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court on Presentation of Evidence, leading questions
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 34 of 40
are generally not allowed except on the following
circumstances: 1) On cross examination; 2) On
preliminary matters; 3) When there is a difficulty is
getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness
who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; 4) Of an unwilling or
hostile witness; or 5) Of a witness who is an adverse
party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
Explain the sexual abuse shield rule.
In the Rape Shield Rule, the prosecution for rape,
evidence of complainant‟s past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted
unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case [Sec 6,
R.A. 8505]
In the Sexual Abuse Shield Rule, the following
evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
1. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec 30,
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness]
What is the propensity rule?
In criminal cases, the good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in
any reasonable degree the probability or improbability
of the offense charged (Rule 130.51)
Explain the different methods of impeaching a
witness
A witness, according to Rule 132, Sec 11 of the Rules of
Court, may be impeached through contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty, and integrity is bad, or by evidence of
the statements that he has made at other times which is
inconsistent with his present testimony.
Although in general, the party producing the witness
may not impeach him/her, an exception to this rule is
when the witness is declared by the court as unwilling
or hostile. When this happens, the party representing
him may impeach him in all aspects.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
When is the crime of fraud an exception to the
attorney-client privilege?
The general rule under Sec. 24(b) Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court is that all communications between an
attorney and his client is privileged and cannot be
examined without the consent of the client. However, in
People v. Sandiganbayan, the court ruled that the
privilege does not apply when the services of a lawyer
were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to
commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.
Explain briefly the non-discrimination rule under the
E-commerce Act and the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the
equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule?
Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that
in order for an electronic evidence to be regarded as
equivalent of an original document if it‟s a printout or
output readbale by sigh or other means, which is
shown to reflect the data accurately. [Rule 4, AM NO.
01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence].
What is the bursting bubble theory? How does it
relate to the burden of persuasion and burden of
going forward?
The bursting bubble theory states that a presumption
vanished upon the introduction of evidence which
would support a finding of the non-existence of the
presumed fact. This concept is related to the burden of
persuasion because once the presumption is rebutted it
shifts the burden of persuasion so that the non-
contesting party must carry the burden of proof or the
burden of going forward by submitting sufficient
evidence to prove their position.
In the Galman case, how did the Supreme Court
discuss the:
a. Distinction between use and transactional
immunity
The distinction between use and transactional
immunity under the Galman case is that, “use
immunity” prohibits use of witness‟ compelled
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection
with the criminal prosecution of the witness. While
“transactional immunity” grants immunity to the
witness from prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates. (Galman v Pamaran, 138
SCRA 294, GR Nos. L-71208-09 and L-71212-13, 1985)
b. Interplay between the constitutional right
against self-incrimination and immunity
Page 35 of 40

In the Galman case the court ruled that the claim of the
privilege against self-incrimination cannot be used as a
defense to be immune from prosecution because it is
taken away by PD 1886 by offering immunity to the
witness before requiring them to answer. Therefore the
applicability of the immunity granted by PD 1886
cannot be made to depend on a claim of privilege
against self-incrimination which the same law strips
away from the witness. (Galman v Pamaran, 138 SCRA
294, GR Nos. L-71208-09 and L-71212-13, 1985)
Explain the doctrine of multiple admissibility?
The doctrine of multiple admissibility is when the
evidence is relevant and competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or
all purposes for which it is offered, provided that it
satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility [2
Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
Explain the Dead Man’s Statute
In the case of Sunga v Chua, the court explained that the
Dead Man‟s statue or the Survivorship rule 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. However, there
are elements provided for by the court for the rule to be
successfully invoked which are the following:
(1) The witness is a party or assignor of a part to a
case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted
(2) The action 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 a person of unsound mind
(4) His testimony refers to any matter of fact
which occurred before the death to any matter
of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became
unsound mind [Herrera, O., Remedial Law,
Revised Rules on Evidence, Vol. V (1999), pp.308-
309]
Distinguish between the Fyre and Daubert test in
scientific evidence? What do we follow in the
Philippines?
In the case of Herrera v Alba the court distinguished the
Fyre test and the Daubert test. The Fyre test according
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
to the court states that, the scientific principles or
discoveries must have gained general acceptance in its
field before being the source of deductions by the
courts. While the Daubert test states that the
admissibility of scientific evidence depends on certain
factors like; whether the theory has been tested,
whether it has been published and subjected to peer
review, the rate of error, existence of standards, or
whether it is generally accepted. [Herrera v Alba, GR No.
148220, June 15, 2005] The Philippines does not follow
any of the tests it treats both US jurisprudence as only
persuasive and can be used as a guide in weighing
evidence.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
When is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
available?
The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of
illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody
of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto. (Rule 102, Section 1 of the Rules of Court)
When is the privilege of the writ of amparo available?
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available
to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. (Section 1, the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo, A.M. no. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September
2007)
When is the privilege of the writ of habeas data
available?
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security
is violated or threatened by an 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 (Section 1, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A. M.
No. 08-1-16-SC, 22 January 2008).
Discuss the individual’s right to informational
privacy in the use of online social networking sites.
Page 36 of 40

In former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno's speech, The
Common Right to Privacy, where he explained the three
strands of the right to privacy, viz.: (1) locational or
situational privacy; (2) informational privacy; and (3)
decisional privacy. Right to informational privacy is
usually defined as the right of individuals to control
information about themselves.
With the availability of numerous avenues for
information gathering and data sharing nowadays, not
to mention each system's inherent vulnerability to
attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that every
individual's right to control said flow of information
should be protected and that each individual should
have at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in
cyberspace. Several commentators regarding privacy
and social networking sites, however, all agree that
given the millions of OSN users, "[i]n this [Social
Networking] environment, privacy is no longer
grounded in reasonable expectations, but rather in
some theoretical protocol better known as wishful
thinking." (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, G.R. No.
202666, 29 September 2014)
Juan, an American citizen residing in the Philippines,
passed away and left a will, appointing Atty. Cruz
and Atty. Santos as joint executors. Atty. Cruz
however passed away. Atty. Reyes, Atty. Cruz’s law
partner, continued discharging Atty. Cruz’s duties as
joint executor. Juan’s son objected and argued that the
death of Atty. Cruz ended the commission. Atty.
Reyes countered that since he was a law partner of
Atty. Cruz, it is their law partnership that should be
deemed to have been appointed as joint executor of
Juan’s estate. Is Atty. Reyes’ claim correct?
Atty. Reyes‟ claim is incorrect. Section 2, Rule 82 of the
Rules of Court provides one of the modes for replacing
an administrator of an estate upon the death of an
administrator is when an executor or administrator
dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or
administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the
court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no
remaining executor or administrator, administration
may be granted to any suitable person. Only Atty. Cruz
was appointed as an executor and not his law office.
Thus, Atty. Santos will become the sole executor.
(Quasha Ancheta Peña and Nolasco Law Office v. LCN
Construction Corp., G.R. No. 174873, 26 August, 2008)
ABC Bank sought to extrajudicially foreclose a
mortgage constituted on Pedro and Petra’s family
home after the latter defaulted on a loan amounting to
P1M.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
A. Pedro and Petra sought to enjoin the auction sale
of their family home, arguing that it is exempt
from execution. ABC Bank maintained that since
the family home’s value exceeded P5M because of
the recent renovations introduced by Pedro and
Petra using the loan, the exemption cannot apply.
Is the family home exempt from a forced sale?
No, the family home is not exempt from a forced sale
since Pedro and Petra mortgaged the same. Article 155
of the Family Code explicitly provides that the family
home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment except for debts secured by mortgages on
the premises before or after such constitution (Vitug v.
Abuda, G.R. No. 201264, 11 January 2016).
B. The auction proceeded and the family home was
sold to ABC Bank as the highest bidder for the
amount of P5M. Considering that the loan is for
P1M, ABC Bank brought a case for collection of
Sum of Money against Pedro and Petra to recover
the deficiency of P5M.
Petra moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that Pedro has already passed away which means
that ABC Bank shall instead file a claim against
the estate of Pedro per Sec. 6 Rule 86. Is Petra
correct?
No. Petra is mistaken because ABC Bank may proceed
against either Pedro or Petra. The Supreme Court ruled
that in case of the death of one of the solidary debtors,
he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against
the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of
filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. To
require the creditor to proceed against the estate,
making it a condition precedent for any collection
action against the surviving debtors to prosper, would
deprive him of his substantive rights provided by
Article 1216 of the New Civil Code (Philippine National
Bank v. Asuncion, G.R. No. L-46095, 23 November 1977).
Mario and Maria, childless, offered to adopt the child
of Lolita, their kasambahay, in exchange for which,
Lolita asked to be given money to return to her home
province. Upon the birth of the child, they named him
Marianito and declared him the legitimate child of
Mario and Maria in the Certificate of Live Birth.
After Mario passed, Maria married Renato. Maria
filed a petition for the adoption of Marianito. At that
time, Marianito was 15 years old, and her children
with Renato were 7, 9 and 10 years old.
In support of the adoption, Maria submitted the
written consent of Renato and their 10 year old
daughter.
Page 37 of 40
Lolita opposed the petition for adoption. She claimed
that Marianito was forcibly taken away from her and
she was threatened her with physical harm. Maria
countered that even assuming that it was true, Lolita
has abandoned Marianito.
Should the petition be granted? Is it sufficient in form
and substance?
The petition for adoption should be denied.
First, under Section 7 of R.A. No. 8552, or the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998, as a general rule, husband and wife
shall adopt jointly. Here only Maria seeks to adopt
Marianito.
Second, in addition to the consent of the 10-yr-old
legitimate daughter, the separate consent of Marianito, ,
and Lolita, the biological parent, shall be obtained, as
mandated under Section 9(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 8552.
Third, since Lolita‟s alleged abandonment of Marianito
is put in issue, the adoption court must first confront
and resolve the same. In Cang v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
No. 105308, 25 September 1998), the Supreme Court ruled
that the issue of abandonment by the oppositor natural
parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption court
must first confront. Only upon failure of the Lolita to
prove to the satisfaction of the court that she did not
abandon her child may the petition for adoption be
considered on its merits.
Praxedes filed a petition for correction of entries in
her Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, impleading her parents and the Civil
Registrar. She prayed for the correction of the
following entries.
Address each of the followings prayers and rule on
whether the petition should be granted on each
ground.
1. Her first name for “Praxedes” to “Filomena”
because that is the name she has used since birth
and in all her school and other public records.
Besides, Praxedes is a name that she associates
with a bad memory from her childhood.
The prayer for the correction of her name from
“Praxedes” to “Filomena” should be denied. Change of
first name is governed by RA 9048, not Rule 108. In
Silverio v. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, 19 October 2007), the
Supreme Court ruled that the power and authority to
entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned.
The remedy and the proceedings regulating change of
first name are primarily administrative in nature, not
judicial. The change of first name is excluded from the
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an
administrative petition for change of name is first filed
and subsequently denied.
2. Her date of birth from “July 25, 1969” to “June 25,
1969” this being merely a clerical error.
The prayer for the correction of changing date of birth
from “25 July 1969” to “25 June 1969” should be denied.
The correct remedy for correction of clerical or
typographical error regarding mistake in the entry of
day and month in the date of birth is the administrative
remedy under R.A. No. 9048, as amended by R.A. No.
10172.
3. Her gender from “male” to “female” because she
was born and is anatomically female.
The prayer for the correction of changing her gender
from “Male” to “Female” should be denied. The correct
remedy for correction of clerical or typographical error
regarding mistake in the sex of the person is the
administrative remedy under R.A. No. 9048, as
amended by R.A. No. 10172. In this case, Praxedes was
born and is anatomically female, thus there was clearly
a clerical error as to the sex of Praxedes when her
certificate of live birth states her gender to be “Male.”
Therefore, the action should be denied since the correct
remedy is the administrative remedy under R.A. No.
9048, as amended.
4. Her surname from “delos Santos,” the surname of
her father, to “dela Rosa,” the surname of her
mother, because her parents were never married
and her father has refused to support her.
The prayer for the change of surname from “delos
Santos” to “dela Rosa” should be granted. Correction of
entry under Rule 108 is the proper remedy to change
the family name. In fine, when a petition for
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register
involves substantial and controversial alterations
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity
or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict
compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court is mandated (Republic v. Coseteng-
Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, 2 February 2011). Here,
Praxedes strictly complied with Rule 108 as her parents
and the local civil registrar were impleaded in the
action.
5. The Date and Place of Marriage of her parents
from “April 1, 1966” to “Not Married,” because
her parents were never married.
The prayer for the correction of marriage date from “1
April 1966” to “not married” should be granted.
Page 38 of 40
Corrections of entries in the civil register including
those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation,
or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial
alterations. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be
corrected and the true facts established provided the
parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceedings. (Onde v. Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, G.R. No. 197174, 10
September 2014). Here, the parents were impleaded by
Praxedes, thus the appropriate adversary proceedings
were availed, and the court may correct the erroneous
entry.
Candida received a text message from Maximo, a
powerful warlord in their town who has been
obsessively stalking her, stating: “I can no longer
wait. Tomorrow, you will be mine.”
May Candida file a petition for the issuance of a writ
of Amparo against Maximo?
No. Candida may not file a petition for the issuance of a
writ of Amparo against Maximo because her right to
life, liberty and security is not threatened due to
enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killings. The
petition for a writ of amparo covers extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof (Section
1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25
September 2007), which circumstances are not availing in
this case.
Assume that Candida also filed a criminal case
against Maximo for Grave Threats and by virtue of a
warrant issued by the court, Maximo was arrested.
Maximo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
addressed to the Jail Warden directing him to bring
Maximo to court and explain the cause of his
detention. On the date set for hearing, the Jail Warden
appeared and submitted his return of the writ. The
trial court expunged the return and ordered the Jail
Warden to file an answer, under pain of contempt.
Despite lapse of the period given, the Jail Warden did
not file as answer. The trial court rendered a
judgment granting the petition and directing the
release of Maximo.
1. Did the trial court err in issuing the writ to the Jail
Warden, directing him to appear and explain the
cause of Maximo’s detention?
No. The court is correct in issuing the writ to the jail
warden. In case of imprisonment or restraint by an
officer, the writ shall be directed to him, and shall
command him to have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
designated in the writ at the time and place therein
specified (Rule 102, Section 6 of the Rules of Court). The
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION
jail warden is the officer restraining Maximo, and thus,
he is the correct officer to whom the writ is issued.
2. Did the trial court err in requiring an answer and
expunging the return?
Yes. The trial court erred in requiring an answer and
expunging the return. A court or judge authorized to
grant the writ must, when a petition therefor is
presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue,
grant the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon
the clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the seal
of the court; or in case of emergency, the judge may
issue the writ under his own hand, and may deputize
any officer or person to serve it (Rule 102, Section 5 of the
Rules of Court). Further, the Rule 102 requires a return to
be filed, not an answer.
3. Did the trial court err in rendering the judgment
upon non-filing of the answer?
Yes. The court or judge grants the writ and requires the
officer or person having custody of the person allegedly
restrained of liberty to file a return of the writ. A
hearing on the return of the writ is then conducted. The
return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from
that which issued the writ. Should the court issuing the
writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made
returnable, the lower court shall proceed to decide the
petition of habeas corpus (In re Salibo v. Warden (G.R.
No. 197597, 8 April 2015). Here, the court did not
conduct the hearing and proceeded to render judgment
for non-filing of the answer, which is not allowed under
Rule 102. Thus, the court erred in rendering its
judgment.
4. Did the trial court err in granting the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus?
Yes. If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge and that the
court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, the
writ shall not be allowed (Rule 102, Section 4 of the Rules
of Court). Here, Maximo was arrested by virtue of a
valid warrant of arrest, and thus, granting the petition
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is erroneous.
Lam-ang and Urduja were husband and wife. They
obtained a loan from Banco Adarna in the amount of
3million pesos. They secured this loan with a real
estate mortgage on their farm and a chattel mortgage
on their tractor. Due to La Niña, the crops in the
spouses’ farm were destroyed and they failed to meet
their loan amortizations. Worse, their farmhand Juan
Tamad recklessly drove their tractor while intoxicated
and run over the carabao of their neighbor Bantugan,
resulting in the carabao’s untimely demise. Due to
Page 39 of 40
stress over these developments, Lam-ang succumbed
to a heart attack and was survived by Urduja and their
minor twins, Florante and Laura. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Urduja filed a petition for the settlement of the estate Subject Expert Prof. Ramon Esguerra
of Lam-ang with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City Branch 1. She prayed for the issuance of UP LAW CENTER Hannah Georgia Plopinio
Letters of Administration in her favor. The estate AND TRAINING Elisha Ponio
court appointed Urduja as the Administration in her CONVENCTION Ma. Samantha Tacandong
favor. The estate court appointed Urduja as the DIVISION Angelica Tan
administratrix of Lam-ang’s estate.
Samantha Isabelle Vitriolo
Bantugan sued Lam-ang, as owner of the tractor, and Francesca Mikhaela Yazon
Juan Tamad, as Lam-ang’s driver employee, for
damages, in the sum of 1Million pesos, arising from
negligence that resulted in the death of Bantugan’s
carabao. The RTC of Quezon City Branch 3 dismissed
the complaint and directed Bantugan to file his claim
before the estate court.

Was RTC Branch 3 correct in dismissing the

complaint for damages? If your answer is YES, what is
Bantugan’s remedy?

RTC Branch 3 erroneously dismissed the action for

damages. Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
provides that no action upon a claim for the recovery of
money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced
against the executor or administrator; but actions to
recover damages for an injury to person or property,
real or personal, may be commenced against him. The
complaint for damages is based on quasi-delict and
should be filed against Urduja, the administrator
Urduja, and not against the estate.

Assuming that Banco Adarna filed a claim against the

estate of Lam-ang before Branch 1 for the outstanding
balance of the loan, what are its remedies in case it is
unable to collect the full value of its claim?

Banco Adarna will no longer have any remedy in case it

is unable to collect the full value of its claim. Rule 86,
Section 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a creditor
holding a claim against the deceased secured by
mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the
security and prosecute his claim in the manner
provided in Rule 86, and share in the general
distribution of the assets of the estate. Should the
mortgagee choose to abandon the security, then it will
lose its right to foreclose the mortgaged property. In
filing a claim against the estate, Banco Adarna decided
to abandon its security, thus it will no longer have any
remedy if it is unable to collect the full value of its
claim.

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 40 of 40