Pointer

sinRemedi alLaw
BarExams2017
byProfessorVictor
iaV.Loanzon
wi
ththeassi st
anceofAt t
y.SidBauti
sta,
Att
y.RanielDayate,Att
y.PaulaKint
anar
At
ty.Al
lanPami sandAt ty
.ZarahSuarez
 
 
JURI
SDI
CTI
ON

Q.Whati
sJur
isdi
cti
on?
A.Jur
isdi
cti
oni
stheaut
hor
it
ytohearanddet
ermi
neacase.

Q.Whatar et heki ndsofj urisdict ion?Howdoest heCour tacqui r

esuchj uri
sdi cti
on?
A.( 1)Jur i
sdict ionov ert hepl aint i
ff–Acqui redbyt hef ili
ngoft hecompl aint,pet i
ti
on,or
i
nitiat orypl eadi ngbef or et hecour tbyt hepl aintiff;(2)Jur i
sdicti
onov ertheper sonof
theDef endant–Acqui redbyt hev ol
unt aryappear anceorsubmi ssionbyt hedef endant
tot hecour torbycoer ci vepr ocessi ssuedbyt hecour ttohi m,gener al
lybyt heser vi
ce
ofsummons;( 3)Jur isdi ctionov ert hesubj ectmat ter-conf erredbyl aw,anunl i
ke
j
ur i
sdi ctionov ert hepar ties,cannotbeconf erredt ot hecour tbyv ol
untaryactormer e
agr eementoft hepar ties; Jur i
sdi cti
onov ertheI ssues-det erminedandconf erredbyt he
pleadi ngsf i
ledi nt hecasebyt hepar ties,orbyt heiragr eementi napr e-t
rialor deror
stipulat i
on,or ,att imesbyt hei ri mpliedconsentasbyt hef ai
lureofapar t
yt oobj ectto
evidenceonani ssuenotcov er edbyt hepl eadi ngs,aspr ovidedinSec.5,Rul e10;(4)
Jur isdictionov ert her es( ort hepr oper tyort hi ngwhi chi st hesubj ectmat teroft he
l
iti
gat i
on-acqui redbyt heact ualorconst ructivesei zur ebyt hecour toft het hingin
quest i
on,t huspl acing i tin cust odia l
egis,asi n at tachmentorgar nishment ;orby
prov isionofl aw whi chr ecogni zesi nt hecour tt hepowert odealwi ththepr opertyor
subj ectmat t
erwi thi
ni tst er r
itor ialjuri
sdi ct
ion,asi nl andr egistrati
onpr oceedi ngsor
suitsi nv olv
ingci vilst
at usorr eal propertyi nthePhi li
ppi nesofanon- r
esidentdef endant

Q.I
svenuesynonymouswi
thj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A.No.Hon.[ Justi
ce]Fl or
enzD.Regal ado differentiat
ed juri
sdicti
on and venueas
foll
ows: (
a)Jurisdi
ctionistheauthorit
ytohearanddet ermineacase; venueistheplace
wher ethecasei st obehear dort r
ied;(b)Jurisdicti
oni samat terofsubstanti
velaw;
venue,ofpr ocedurallaw;(c)Jur
isdicti
onest abli
shesar elat
ionbet weenthecour tand
thesubjectmat ter
;v enue,arel
ationbetweenpl ainti
ffanddef endant,orpeti
ti
onerand
respondent;and,(d)Jurisdi
cti
onisfixedbyl awandcannotbeconf er
redbythepar t
ies;
venuemaybeconf erredbyt heactoragr eementoft heparties.(Nocum vLuci oTan,
2005)

Q.Tr
ueorFal se:Theadjudicator
soft heDepar
t mentofAgrari
anRefor
m Adjudi
cat
ion
Boar
d( DARAB)have t he or i
ginaland exclusi
ve juri
sdict
ion t
o det
ermine j
ust
compensationunderRepublicActNo.6657( Compr ehensi
veAgrari
anRef
orm Law,or
CARL)?(Landbankv.Suntay,J.Bersamin,
2011)
A.Fal
se.TheRegi
onalTr
ialCourt(RTC)asaSpecialAgr
ari
anCour
thastheor
igi
naland
excl
usi
vejuri
sdi
cti
ontodet er
mi nejustcompensati
onunderRepubl
i
cActNo.6657
1|Page
(Compr ehensiveAgrari
anReform Law,orCARL).Anyeff
ortt
ot ransfersuchjuri
sdi
cti
on
totheadj udicat
orsoftheDepar t
mentofAgr ar
ianRefor
m Adjudicati
onBoar d(DARAB)
andt oconv erttheori
ginalj
uri
sdict
ionoftheRTCi nt
oappell
atej uri
sdict
ionisvoi
df or
beingcont r
ar yt
ot heCARL.DARABadj udi
cator
sareonlyempower edtodetermineina
preli
minarymannert hereasonabl
ecompensat i
ontobepaidtothel andowners.

Q.Thegener alrul eist hatt hej urisdictionoft het r

ialcour t
,eitherasapr obatecour tor
ani ntestatecour t,relat esonl yt omat ter shav ingt odowi tht hepr obat eoft hewi l
l
and/ orset tl
ementoft heest at eofdeceasedper sons,butdoesnotext endt ot he
determi nati
onofquest ionsofowner shipt hatar isedur ingthepr oceedi ngs.St atet he
except i
ons.( Aranasv.Mer cado, J.Ber sami n,2014)
A.Fi rst
,t he 
pr obat ecour tmaypr ov i
sional lypassuponi nani ntestateorat estate
proceedi ngthequest ionofi nclusioni n,orexcl usionf rom,thei nv entoryofapi eceof
proper t
y wi thout pr ejudi ce t of inaldet er mination of owner shipi n a separ ate
acti
on. Second,i
  fthei nter estedpar ti
esar eallheirst otheest ate,ort hequest ioni sone
ofcol l
ationoradv ancement ,ort he partiesconsentt otheassumpt i
onofj uri
sdictionby
thepr obatecour tandt her i
ghtsoft hirdpar tiesar enoti mpaired,thent hepr obatecour t
i
scompet enttor esolvei ssuesonowner ship.Ver il
y,itsjuri
sdicti
onext endst omat ters
i
ncident alorcol lateralt ot heset t
lementanddi stributi
onoft heest ate,suchast he
determi nati
onoft hest at usofeachhei rand  whethert hepr opertyi nt hei nvent or
yi s
conjugal orexcl usivepr oper tyoft hedeceasedspouse

Q.Afil
edacaseforf orci
bleentr
ybeforeafirstl
evelcour
tofManilaagainstBpr
ayi
ng
t
hatthelat
terbeejectedfrom aparcelofl
andsituatedattheboundaryofManil
aand
QuezonCity.Bfi
ledamot iontodismissclaimi
ngvenuewasi mproper
lylai
dasthe
l
argerpar
toftherealpropertyi
ssit
uatedinQuezonCi t
y.I
sBcor r
ect?
A.No.Sect i
on1.ofRul e4st atesthatacti
onsaff
ect
ingt i
tletoorpossessi onofreal
propert
y,ori
nteresttherei
n,shallbecommencedandtriedint hepropercourtwhi
chhas
j
urisdi
cti
onov ert heareawher ei
nther ealpr
oper
tyinvolved, 
orapor tionther
eof,is
si
tuated.Iti
salsowor t
hpointingoutthatBshouldnothav ef i
ledamot iontodismiss
basedonanobj ecti
ont ovenueassai dmot i
onisaprohibitedmot i
oni nanejectment
caseunderSec.13Rul e70.
 
Q.WhatifAfi
ledamotiontodi
smi
ssbasedont
hef
actt
hatr
esor
ttoconci
li
ati
onhad
notbeenpr
evi
ousl
yresort
edto?
A.Themot i
ont odismi
ssmaybeallowedastherul
esall
ow sai
dmot i
onifbasedon
l
ackofj uri
sdict
ionovert
hesubj
ectmatteroft
hecaseandfail
uretocomplywit
hthe
conci
li
ationrequir
ementunderSect
ion12,Rul
e70.(Sec.13,Rule70i nrel
ati
onto
Secti
on12, Rule70) 
 
Q.Whatar
efact
orsdet
ermi
newhi
chcour
thasj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A. 
Civ
ilAct
ion Cr
imi
nalAction
Nat
ureofact
ionandamountofcl
aim Natur
e ofthe off
ense,i mposable
penal
ty,
andt
err
it
ori
aljuri
sdict
ion;

2|Page
 Some cri
minalcases y ou need to
consi
derwho t he Accused is[i.e.
Sandi
ganbayan cases]orwho t he
vi
cti
mi i
s[.
e.Famil
yCour tcases]
 
Q.Whati
sther
uleonj
uri
sdi
cti
onovercasesi
nvol
vi
ngr
ealpr
oper
ty?
A.Theexcl usiveorigi
naljur
isdi
ctionoft hef i
rstlevelcourt
s[ i
ncl
ude]" al
lci
vilacti
ons
whichinvolvetit
leto,orpossessionof ,r ealproperty,oranyinter
esttherei
n wherethe
assessedv alueofthepr opert
yori nt
er estt hereindoesnotexceedTwent yThousand
Pesos( P20,000.
00)[ out
sideMet roMani laor ,incivi
lacti
onsi nMet r
oMani la,where
suchassessedv al
uedoesnotexceedFi ftyThousandPesos( P50,000.00)exclusi
veof
i
nterest
,damagesofwhat everkind,at
tor ney'sfees,l
iti
gati
onexpensesandcost s.
 
Q.Supposeanact i
onf orreconveyanceofrealproper
tyvaluedatP19, 999.99isfil
ed
beforeaMuni cipalTrialCourt
,wouldi tbecor
recttoaskforthedismissaloft hecase
forlackofj ur i
sdict
ion overt hesubj ectmatt
erasr econveyancei si ncapableof
pecuniaryestimat i
on?
 
A.No.  
In sev eralcases,t he Courthas heldt hatact
ions for 
reconveyance ofor
for
 cancell
ationoft it
le 
toorto qui
ettit
le 
overr
ealpropert
yar eactionsthatfallunder
theclassif
icationofcasest hatinvol
ve"ti
tl
eto,orpossessionof,realpropert
y,orany
i
nteresttherein.(SanPedrov.Asdal a,2009)Thismeanst hatthejurisdi
cti
onov erthe
casewi l
lbedet erminedbasedont heassessedvalueoft
her ealpr
oper tyi
nvol
ved.
 
Q.Whati
sther
uleonj
uri
sdi
cti
onovermoneycl
aimsandper
sonalpr
oper
ty?
A.Inal lothercasesinwhicht hedemand,excl
usiv
eofi nterest
s,damagesofwhatever
kind,attor
ney ’
sfees,l
iti
gat
ionexpenses,andcost
sort hev al
ueofthepropert
yexceeds
Threehundr edthousandpesos( P300,000.
00)outsi
deMet roMani l
aorFourhundred
thousandpesos( P400,
000.00)inMet roManil
a,theRegi onalTrialCour
tshallhave
j
ur i
sdicti
on.(Secti
on19( 8)ofBP129, asamended -paraphrased)

Q.Whatisther
uleonsmal
lcl
aimscases?
A.Underthe2016Revi
sedRul
esofPr ocedur
eforSmal
lCl
aimsCases,Smal
lcl
aims
casesar eacti
onsbeforetheMetropol
it
anTr ialCourt
s( MeTCs) ,Muni
cipalTr
ialCourt
s
i
nCi ti
es(MTCCs) ,Munici
palTri
alCourt s(MTCs)andMuni ci
palCircui
tTrialCourt
s
(MCTCs)f orpaymentofmoneywher et hevalueoft heclaim doesnotexceedTwo
Hundr ed Thousand Pesos (P200,
000.00)excl usi
ve ofi nterestand costs.These
actionsarepurelyci
vi
linnaturewheret heclaim orreli
efprayedforbyt heplai
nti
ffi
s
solelyforpaymentorr
eimbursementofsum ofmoney .
 
Q.Rosar
iofil
edasui tint
heSmal lClai
msCour t
.Thejudgeruledinherfavor.When
cansheaskforexecuti
onofthej
udgment ?Howcansheexecuteit?
A.Immedi
atel
yafteraDecisi
onisrender
edbecauseunderSec.24ofthe2016Rev i
sed
Rul
es ofProceduref orSmallClaims Cases,a Deci
sion i
sf i
nal,execut
ory,and
unappeal
able.Meanwhi
l
e,Rosar
iocanaskf
ort
heexecut
ionoft
hej
udgmentt
hrougha
Motion.(
Sec.25,I
d.)

3|Page
Q.CanFer
nando,
thel
osi
ngpar
tyappealt
her
uli
ngoft
heSmal
lCl
aimsCour
t? 
A.No,becausesai ddecisionis unappealable.Toquest ionthedecisi
on,apetit
ionf or
certi
orarimustbefil
ed.
 Consi deri
ngt hatsmal lcl
aimscasesar eexclusi
vel
ywi t
hinthe
j
ur i
sdict
ionoftheMet r
opolit
anTr ialCourts,Muni cipalTrialCour
tsinCiti
es,Municipal
TrialCour t
s,and Muni ci
palCi r
cuitTr i
alCour ts, cer
tior
aripeti
ti
ons assail
i
ng i ts
disposit
ionsshoul
dbef il
edbef oretheircorrespondi ngRegionalTri
alCourt
s.(A.L.Ang
Net work,I
nc.v.Mondejar
, 
2014)

Q.Whati
sthedoct
ri
neofpr
imar
yjur
isdi
cti
on?
 
A.I facasei ssucht hatit
sdet er
minati
onrequir
est heexpertise,speci
ali
zedt r
aini
ng
and knowl edge ofan admi ni
str
ati
ve body,reli
efmustf i
rstbe obt ained in an
admi nist
rativ
epr oceedingbeforeresor
ttothecourtsishadev eni ft
hemat t
ermaywel l
bewi thintheirproperjuri
sdict
ion.Notethatt
hecourtsofl awHAVEj uri
sdi
ctionbutwill
defert oadmi nistr
ati
vebodi esbecauseoft hei
rexper t
ise.Thisi stheessenceoft he
pri
ncipleofpr i
mar yjur i
sdi
cti
onunderadmi ni
str
ati
vel aw.(Eur o–MedLabor at
oryv.
ProvinceofBat angas, 2006)
 
Q.Whati
sthedoct
ri
neofadher
enceofj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A. 
Oncet hecour tacquiresj
uri
sdi
ctionbyv i
rt
ueofav ali
dcompl ai
nt,thatjur
isdi
cti
on
shallcontinueupt ot heendofthecase.Interveningfact swillnotdepri
vethecourtsof
j
urisdict
ion.( Example:whenapubl icofficerr esignsdur ingthependencyofacase
againsthim bef or
et heSandi
ganbayan,t
heSandi ganbay anshoul dnotdismissthecase
becauseoft hispr
incipl
easithadal
readyacqui redj ur
isdicti
on.)
  
 
Q.Whati
sthedoct
ri
neofexhaust
ionofadmi
nist
rat
iver
emedi
es? 
A.Thecour twi l
ldefertotheadministr
ati
veagencybef oretaki
ngcognizanceofthe
case.Otherwisestat
ed,apart
ymustexhaustal lremediesbefor
eadmini
strat
ivebodi
es
befor
ejudicialr
ecourseunl
esscasefall
swithi
nt heexcepti
ons.
 
Q.Whatar
etheexcept
ions?
A.xxx( a)wher etherei sest oppelont hepar tofthepar tyinv okingthedoct ri
ne;( b)
wher et he chal
lenged admi nistr
at i
ve acti s patent l
yi ll
egal,amount i
ng tol ack of
j
urisdict
ion;( c)wher et herei s unr easonabl e delay orof ficialinact i
on t hatwi l
l
i
rretr
ievablyprej
udicet hecompl ainant;(d)wher etheamounti nv olvedisr elat
ivelysmal l
soast omaket her ul
ei mpr acti
calandoppr essi
ve;(e)wher et hequest i
oninv olvedi s
purelylegalandwi l
lultimatelyhav et obedeci dedbyt hecour tsofj ustice;(f)wher e
j
udicialinter
venti
oni sur gent;(g)wheni t
sappl i
cati
onmaycausegr eatandi rrepar able
damage; (
h)wher ethecont r
ov ert
edact sviol
ateduepr ocess; (i)whent heissueofnon-
exhaustionofadmi nistrati
ver emedi eshasbeenr ender edmoot ;(
j)whent her eisno
otherplain,speedyandadequat er emedy ;(k)whenst rongpubl icinterestisi nvolved;
and,(l)i
n quowar ranto proceedings.( SAMELCOI Iv.Seludo, 2012)

CAUSEOFACTI
ON

Q.Howdoyoudet
ermi
net
hesuf
fi
ciencyofacauseofact
ion?
A.
 Thet
esti
swhet
herornotadmi
tt
ingt
hef
act
sal
l
eged,t
hecour
tcoul
drenderav
ali
d
4|Page
ver
dictin accor dance witht he prayeroft he complaint(Misami s Occident
alI I
Cooperati
ve,Inc.vs.David).Tobet akenintoaccountareonlythemat er
ialall
egati
ons
i
nt hecompl ai
nt;extraneousfactsandci r
cumstancesorot hermatterali
undear enot
consi
deredbutt hecour tmayconsi deri
naddi t
iont othecompl ainttheappended
annexesordocument s,otherpleadi
ngsoft heplaint
if
f,oradmissionsint herecords.
(
Zepedav.Chi
naBanki
ngCor
p,2006)

PARTI
ES

Q:M fil
edacol l
ect
ionsuitagainstCandT,shar eholdersofZCor p,whichincludedan
appli
cati
onf orissuanceofWr itofAt t
achment .TheCour tgrantedtheappl i
cation.M
postedthenecessar ybond.Twodaysl at
er,t
heCour tissuedtheWr i
tofAt tachment.
TheSher i
fft henleviedupont heequi pment,suppl ies,mat er
ialsandvar i
ousot her
personalpropertybelongingtoZCor p.Whoar er ealpar t
iesininterest
?CanC&T
clai
mf ordamagesagai nstar
isingfrom thewr ongfulat t
achmentofZCor p’
sasset s?
(Str
ongholdInsurancev.Cuenca, J.Bersamin,Mar ch6, 2013)

A.Section2,Rule3oft heRulesofCourtstat
est hatarealpart
yi ninteresti
sonewho
standstobebenef i
tedorinjuredbythejudgmenti nthesui
t,oronewhoi sentitl
edto
theavailsofthesui
t.Here,
C&Tcannotcl ai
mf ordamagesast heyar enotrealparti
es
i
ni nt
erest.Theywereonlystockhol
dersofZCor p,whichhadaper sonali
tydi
stinctand
separatefrom anyorbothofthem.Onlythecorpor at
ioni
sther ealpar t
yininterestf
or
thatpurpose.

Q.Canal awfi
rm act ingascounself oroneoft hepar ti
esi nthei ntestatepr oceedings
aquof ileapetit
ionf orcer ti
oraribeforetheCour tofAppeal st oprot ectitsown
i
nterests?
A.Yes.Whi l
et hegener alrule(whichl i
mitst heav ail
abi l
i
tyoft her emedyofcer t
iorar
i
underRul e65onl ytopar t
iesinthepr oceedingsbef oret helowercour t)mustbest ri
ctl
y
adheredt o,i
tisnotwi thoutexcept i
on.Int hiscase,t heor derofr eimbur sementwas
dir
ectedt oSRMO i ni tsper sonalcapaci t
y —noti nitscapaci tyascounself orei t
her
Remedi osorGer ardo.Consi deringthattheRTC' sor derofr eimbur sementi sspecifi
call
y
addressedt oSRMO andt heest abli
shedf actt hatSRMO onl yr ecei v
edt hesubject
moneyi nitscapaci tyascounsel /
agentofGer ar do,SRMO' si nterestcanhar dlybe
consideredasmer el
yi ncidental
.ThatSRMOi sbeingr equiredt oreimbur sef rom i
tsown
coffer
smoneyal readyt ransmi t
tedtoi t
sclientissuf f
icienttogi veSRMOdi rectinter
est
tochallengetheRTC' sor der.NeithercanSRMObeconsi deredat otalstrangertot he
proceedings.(SiguionReynaMont ecill
oandOngsi akoLaw Of fi
cesv.Hon.Nor ma
Chi
onl
o-Si
a,Febr
uar
y2016)

VENUE

Q.Trueorfalse.Anactiont or
ecoverthedef i
ciencyaftert
heextraj
udi
cialf
orecl
osure
oftherealpropert
ymor tgagemaybet r
iedont heplacewherethemainofficeofthe
pet
iti
oner(plai
nti
ff)wasl ocat
ed.Discusst heconceptofv enueincivi
lacti
ons.(BPI
Famil
ySav i
ngsBankv .SpsTujuico,J.Bersamin, 2015)
5|Page
A.True.Anacti
ontorecoverthedefi
ciencyaft
ertheext
raj
udici
alforeclosureofthereal
proper
tymortgagei
saper sonalact
ion,fori
tdoesnotaffecttit
letoorpossessi onof
realpr
opert
y,oranyi
nteresttherei
n.Thus,peti
ti
onercorr
ectl
ybr oughtt hecaseinthe
MakatiRTCbecauseMakat iwast heplacewherethemainof f
iceoft hepetit
ionerwas
l
ocated.

Thev enueofanact iondependsonwhet heri ti sar ealoraper sonalact i

on.
UnderSect i
on1,Rul e4oft heRul esofCour t
,ar ealact ionisonet hataff
ectsti
tlet oor
possessionofr ealpr oper
ty,orani nteresttherein.Ar ealactionist obecommenced
andt ri
edint hepropercour thav ingjuri
sdicti
onov ert heareawher eintherealproper t
y
i
nv olv
ed,orapor t
iont hereof ,i
ssi t
uated.I ncont rast,theRul esofCour tdeclaresal l
otheracti
onsasper sonalactions.Thev enueofaper sonalactioni
st hepl
acewher ethe
plaint
if
foranyoft hepr i
ncipalpl ai
ntif
fsr esi
des,orwher ethedef endantoranyoft he
princi
paldefendantsresides, orinthecaseofanonr esidentdefendantwherehemaybe
found,attheelecti
onoft hepl ainti
ff
.

KI
NDSOFPLEADI
NGS

Q.Def inecount erclaim.Howdoy oudeterminei fi

tscompul soryorpermissive?
A.Acount erclai
mi sanycl aim whichadef endingpar t
ymayhav eagainstanopposi ng
party.Acompul sor ycount er
clai
mi sonewhi ch,beingcognizablebytheregul arcourts
ofjust i
ce,ar i
sesoutofori sconnect edwitht hetr
ansact i
onoroccurrenceconst it
uti
ng
the subj ectmat t
eroft he opposing par t
y '
s cl
aim and does notr equi r
ef ori ts
adjudicationt hepr esenceoft hir
dpar ti
esofwhom t hecourtcannotacquir
ej uri
sdict
ion.
Acount erclaimi sper missiveifitdoesnotar iseoutofori snotnecessaril
yconnect ed
witht hesubj ectmat t
eroft heopposi ngparty '
sclaim.Itisessenti
all
yani ndependent
clai
mt hatmaybef iledseparatel
yi nanothercase.(Albav.Mal apaj
o,2016)

PARTSOFAPLEADI
NG

Q.Whati
sfor
um shoppi
ng?(
Sot
tov
.Pal
ict
e,J.Ber
sami
n,2014)
A. 
For um shoppi
ngisanactofmal pr
acti
cebyapar tywhorepeti
ti
vel
yavailsofsev er al
j
udicialremediesindiff
erentcour
ts,si
multaneousl
yorsuccessivel
y,al
lsubst antially
foundedont hesamet r
ansacti
onsandt hesameessentialfact
sandci rcumst ances,
andal lr
aisi
ngsubstanti
all
ythesamei ssuesei t
herpendi
ngi noral r
eadyr esolv ed
adverselybysomeothercourt.

Q.Howisfórum shoppi
ngcommi
tt
ed?(Sot
tov.Pali
cte,
J.Bersami
n,2014)
A.For
um shoppi
ngcanbecommitt
edineit
herofthr
eeway s,
namely:(
1)fi
l
ingmul
ti
ple
casesbasedont hesamecauseofact ionandwi tht
hesamepr ayer
,thepr
eviouscase
nothav i
ngbeenr esolvedyet(li
tispendenti
a);(2)f
il
ingmultiplecasesbasedont he
samecauseofact i
onandt hesamepr ayer
,thepr ev
iouscasehav i
ngbeenf i
nally
resolv
ed( r
esjudicata);or(3)fil
i
ngmul ti
plecasesbasedont hesamecauseofact i
on
butwi t
hdiff
erentprayers(spli
tti
ngofcausesofact i
on,wheret hegroundf
ordismissal
i
sal soeit
herli
ti
spendent iaorresjudi
cata)
.

6|Page
Q.Att
y.Santosfi
ledapleadi
ngbeforethetri
alcourt.I
nt heCerti
ficat
ionofNon-For
um
Shoppi
ng,hesignedi
tonbehalfofhi scl
ient
.Atty.Reyes,opposingcounsel
,movedt o
di
smissthecase.Asthejudge,
willyougranttheMot i
ont oDismiss? 
A.Iwil
lgrantt
heMotiontoDismiss.TheCourtheldinadeci dedcase:“Int
hisl
ight,
the
Cour tfindsthattheCA cor r
ectlydismissedAnder son’
sPet i
tionf orRev iew ont he
groundt hatthecerti
ficateofnon- f
orum shoppi ngat tachedtheretowassi gnedbyAt ty.
Oli
vaonherbehal f
 sans anyaut hori
tytodoso.Whi letheCour tnotest hatAnder son
tr
iedt ocor r
ectthiser rorbylatersubmi tt
inganSPAandbyexpl ai
ningherf ai
lur
et o
execut eonepr i
ort ot hef i
li
ng oft hepet it
ion,t hisdoesnotaut omat icall
ydenot e
substant i
alcompl i
ance.I tmustbe r emember ed t hata def ecti
ve cer t
ifi
cati
on is
generallynotcurablebyi tssubsequentcor r
ection,andwhi l
ei tist r
uet hatinsome
casest heCourtconsider edsuchabel atedsubmi ssionassubst anti
alcompl iance,i
tdid
soonl yonsuf fi
cientandj usti
fi
ablegroundst hatcompel ledal i
beralapproachwhi l
e
avoiding theeffecti
venegat i
on oft hei ntentoft her ul
eon non- forum shoppi ng.
”
(
Ander
sonv.Ho,
 
2013)
 
Q. 
Whatar
ethegui
del
i
neswi
thr
espectt
ononcompl
i
ancewi
tht
her
equi
rement
sonor
submissi
on ofa def ecti
vev erif
icat ion and cer t
if
icati
on agai nstf orum shoppi ng?
(Fer
nandezv.Vi ll
egas, 2014)
A.
1.As t ov er i
fication,non- compl iance t herewi t
h ora def ectt herein does not
necessar i
lyr endert he pl eadi ng f at all
y def ectiv
e.The cour tmay or deri ts
submi ssi onorcor rect i
onoractont hepl eadi ngiftheat tendingci rcumst ances
aresucht hatst r i
ctcompl i
ancewi ththeRul emaybedi spensedwi thi nordert hat
theendsofj usticemaybeser v edt her eby.
2.Verifi
cat i
oni sdeemedsubst antiall
ycompl i
edwi thwhenonewhohasampl e
knowl edget osweart ot het r uthoft heal legati
onsi nt hecompl aintorpet i
tion
signst hev erifi
cat i
on, andwhenmat ter sallegedi nthepet i
tionhav ebeenmadei n
goodf ait
horar et r
ueandcor rect .
3.Ast ocer ti
ficat i
onagai nstf or um shoppi ng, non-compl iancet herewi t
horadef ect
therein,unl ike i nv erificati
on,i s gener ally notcur able by i t
s subsequent
submi ssi onorcor rectiont her eof ,unl esst her eisaneedt or el
axt heRul eont he
ground ofsubst ant i
alcompl iance orpr esence ofspeci alci r
cumst ances or
compel l
ingr easons.
4.Thecer tifi
cat ionagai nstf orum shoppi ngmustbesi gnedbyal lthepl aintiff
sor
petit
ioner si nacase; ot herwi se, thosewhodi dnotsi gnwi l
l bedroppedaspar ti
es
tothecase.Underr easonabl eorj ust ifi
ableci rcumst ances,howev er ,aswhenal l
thepl aint i
ffsorpet i
tioner sshar eacommoni nterestandi nv okeacommon
causeofact ionordef ense,t hesi gnat ureofonl yoneoft hem int hecer tif
ication
againstf or um shoppi ngsubst ant iall
ycompl ieswiththeRul e.
5.Finall
y ,thecer t
ifi
cationagai nstf orum shoppi ngmustbeexecut edbyt hepar ty-
pleader ,notbyhi scounsel .If, howev er ,forr easonabl eorj usti
fiabler easons, the
party-pleaderi sunabl et osi gn,hemustexecut eaSpeci alPowerofAt torney
designat inghi scounsel ofrecor dt osi gnonhi sbehal f.

Q.Whoar
ethecor
por
ateof
fi
cer
sal
lowedt
osi
gnt
hev
eri
fi
cat
ionandcer
ti
fi
cat
ion
7|Page
againstforum shopping?
A.Cor porateoffi
cerswhocansi gnthever
ifi
cati
onandcer ti
fi
cati
onagai nstforum-
shoppingwi t
houtneedofanaut hori
zi
ngboardresolut
ion:(1)Chai
rpersonoft heboard
ofdi r
ectors,(2)Pr esident
,(3)GeneralManageroract i
ng generalmanager ,(4)
PersonnelOf f
icer
,and( 5)Empl
oymentSpecial
ist
si nal aborcase.( Mi
d-PasigLand
Devel
opmentCor
p.v.Tabl
ant
e,2010)

MANNEROFMAKI NGALLEGATIONSI NPLEADINGS

 
Q.Sect
ion10,Rul
e8oft Rul
he  esofCourt 
recogni
zesonlythr
eemodesbywhicht
he
deni
ali
nt heanswerr
aisesanissueoffact.
 St
atethesemodes.(Fer
nandoMedi
cal
Ent
erpr
isesv.Wesl
eyanUni
ver
sit
y,J.Ber
sami
n,Januar
y2016)

A.(1)Def endantspecify i
ngeachmat er
ialallegati
onoff actthet r
uthofwhi chhedoes
notadmi tand,whenev erpr acti
cable,setti
ngf or
ththesubst anceoft hemat tersupon
whichher eliestosuppor thisdenial;(
2)Def endantwhodesi rest odenyonlyapar tofan
averment,andt hedeni alisdonebyt hedef endingpartyspeci f
yingsomuchoft he
materialallegati
onoful ti
mat efactsasi st rueandmat erialanddeny ingonl ythe
remainder;( 3)Def endantst ates i
nt he answert hathe is wi t
houtknowl edge or
i
nformat i
onsuf fi
cienttofor m abeli
efast ot het r
uthofamat er i
alavermentmadei nthe
complaintbyst ati
ngsoi nt heanswer

Consi
deri
ngthatpar
agraphsno.6,7and8oft hecompl ai
ntav err
edmattersthat
the r
espondentoughtt o know orcould hav e easil
yknown,t he answerdid not
speci
fical
lydenysuchmaterialaverment
s.Itissettl
edt hatdenialsbasedonl ackof
knowledgeorinf
ormati
onofmat terscl
ear
lyknownt othepleader,oroughttobeknown
toit
,orcouldhaveeasil
ybeenknownbyi tareinsuffi
cient
,andconst i
tutei
nef
fecti
ve or
sham denial
s.

Q.Mayt het r
ialcourtmot upropri
odismi ssacasewi thoutconduct
inganyproceedi
ng
withoutviolati
ngt heprincipl
eofduepr ocess?
A.Yes.Sect i
on1,Rul e9pr ovi
desf oronlyf ourinstanceswhent hecourtmay mot
  u
propri
o dismisst hecl aim,namel y
:( a)lackofj urisdict
ionoverthesubjectmat t
er;
(b)l
 i
ti
spendent i
a;(c)
 r
esj udi
cata;
and( d)prescri
pti
onofact i
on.
 
FI
LINGANDSERVI
CEOFPLEADI
NGS

Q.Tr ueorf alse.Serv i

ceandf il
ingofpl
eadingsbycour i
erser vi
ceisamodepr ovided
i
nt heRul es
A.Fal se.Servi
ceandf il
ingofpleadi
ngsbycour i
erservi
ceisamodenotpr ovi
dedinthe
Rules.
UnderSect i
on3,  Rul
e13oft heRulesofCour t,pleadi
ngsmaybef il
edincourteit
her
personallyorbyr egisteredmail.Int
hefi
rstcase,thedateoff i
l
ingisthedateofr
eceipt.
Inthesecondcase,t hedat eofmail
ingisthedateofr ecei
pt .I
nt hi
scase,however
,the
counself orpetit
ioner sfil
edtheNoticeofAppealv iaapr i
vatecour i
er,amodeoffili
ng
notpr ovidedint heRul es.Thoughnotprohibi
tedbyt heRul es,wecannotconsiderthe
8|Page
fi
li
ngofpet i
ti
oner
s’Noti
ceofAppealv i
aLBCt imelyfi
led.Iti
sest abli
shedj
urisprudence
that“thedateofdel
iver
yofpl eadingst oapr i
vatelet
ter-
forwardingagencyisnott obe
consideredasthedateoffi
li
ngt hereofincourt”
;inst
ead,“ t
hedat eofactualreceiptby
thecour txxxi sdeemedt hedat eoff il
i
ngoft hatpleading.”
 Recordsshow t hatthe
NoticeofAppealwasmai l
edont he15t hdayandwasr eceivedbyt hecourtonthe16t h
dayoronedaybey ondther eglement aryperi
od.Thus,t heCAcor rect
lyr
uledt hatthe
NoticeofAppealwasf i
l
edoutoft ime.(HeirsofNumer i
anoMi randav.Pabl oMi r
anda,
2013)

SUMMONS

Q.Di
scusstherul
eonser
viceofsummons.
A.Thegeneralr
ulei
nthi
sjuri
sdi
cti
oni
sthatsummonsmustbeser
vedper
sonal
l
yon
thedefendant.Forj ustifi
abler easons,however,othermodesofser vi
ngsummonsmay
beresortedto.Whent hedef endantcannotbeser v
edper sonal
lywi t
hinar easonable
ti
meaf tereff
or tst olocatehi m hav efail
ed,therulesal l
ow summonst obeser v
edby
substi
tutedservice.Subst i
tutedser vi
ceiseffectedbyl eavi
ngcopiesoft hesummonsat
thedefendant'
sr esidencewi thsomeper sonofsui t
ableageanddi screti
onthenr esidi
ng
ther
ein,orbyl eavingt hecopi esatdef endant'
sofficeorr egul
arplaceofbusi nesswith
somecompet entper soni nchar gethereof.

Whent hedef endant'

swher eabout sar eunknown,t her ulesal l
ow ser vi
ceof
summonsbypubl icati
on.Asanexcept iont otheprefer
redmodeofser vi
ce,serviceof
summons bypubl i
cati
on mayonl ybe r esort
ed to when t he wher eabouts oft he
defendantar enotonl yunknown,butcannotbeascer t
ainedbydi l
igentinquir
y .The
dil
igencer equirementmeanst hattheremustbepr iorresorttoper sonalservi
ceunder
Sect i
on7andsubst i
tutedservi
ceunderSect i
on8,andpr ooft hatt hesemodeswer e
i
nef fect
ivebefor esummonsbypubl icati
onmaybeal l
owed. Thismodeal sorequiresthe
plainti
fftof i
leawr itt
enmot ionforl eaveofcour tt oeffectser viceofsummonsby
publ i
cati
on,suppor tedbyaf f
idavi
toft hepl aint
if
forsomeper sononhi sbehalf,setti
ng
forththegr oundsf ortheappli
cati
on.(Expr essPadalav.Ocampo, September6, 2017)

Q.Whathappensi ftheSheri
fff
ail
edt oservethesummons?
A.Failuretoser
vesummonswi l
lmeant hatthecourtfai
ledt
oacquir
ejur
isdi
cti
onover
the person ofthe defendant
.Howev er,the f
il
ing ofa motion f
ornew t r
ialor
reconsider
ati
onistant
amounttov ol
untaryappear
ance.(DePedr
ov.Romasan,2014)

Q.Thel ackofordef ectintheservi

ceofsummonsmaybecur edbyt hedefendant’s
subsequentv ol
untarysubmi ssion t
ot he court
’sjur
isdict
ion.Ci t
e an exampl e of
voluntar
ysubmi ssion.
A.Thel ackofordef ectintheservi
ceofsummonsmaybecur edbyt hedefendant’s
subsequentv ol
untary submissi
on tot he court
’sjur
isdict
ion through hi
sf il
ing a
responsivepleadingsuchasananswer .I
nthiscase,
iti
snotdi sputedthatQSCf i
ledits
Answerdespi tethedefectiv
esummons.Thus, j
uri
sdi
cti
onov erit
sper sonwasacqui r
ed
throughvoluntar
yappear ance.(
Guyv.Gacott,Januar
y13, 2016)

9|Page
 MOTI
ONS

Q.Discusst he3-daynoticeruleviz-avi
sthe10dayset ti
ngrul
eunderSect ions4and5
ofRul e15oft heRulesofCour t.
A.When a pl eading i
sf il
ed and served per
sonal l
y,ther
eisno quest ion t
hatt he
requirementsinSect i
ons4and5ofRul e15oft heRev i
sedRulesofCi vi
lProcedure
poseno pr oblem tothepar typl eadi
ng.Undert hi
smodeofser vi
ceand f i
l
ing of
pleadings,t
hepar typl
eadingisabl etoensurereceiptbytheotherpartyofhispleading
atleastt hr
eeday spri
ort othedat eofhearingwhi l
eatt hesamet imeset ti
ngt he
hearingonadat enotlaterthant endaysf r
om t hef i
li
ngoft hepleading.(Pali
leov.
Pl
ant
ersDevel
opmentBank,
2014)

PRE-
TRI
AL

Q.Whati stheeffectofDef endant’

sfai
luretoappeardur i
ngt hepr e-
tri
aldespitedue
noti
ce?
A.Def endantsrunst her i
skofnotbei ngabletodi sputetheev i
dencepr esented ex
parte 
byPl ai
nti
ff
.Plai
nti
ffisgiventhepri
vil
egetopresenthisevidencewi t
houtobjecti
on
from thedefendant,t
helikeli
hoodbeingt
hatthecourtwill
decidei nfavoroftheplaint
iff
,
thedef endanthavingfor f
eit
edt heopport
unit
ytor ebutorpr esenti t
sownev idence.
(Met r
obankv.FADCOR, 2016)

MODESOFDI
SCOVERY

Q.S Bank av ail

ed oft he di scoveryprocedur e underRul e 27.I ni ts Motion f or
Product ionandI nspectionofDocument s,itrequestedf orinspect i
onofal ldocument s
pertaining to,arising from,i n connect i
on wi th ori nv olv
ing the Back-end Ser vices
Agreement .Ify
ouwer et heJudge, wouldyougr antt heMot ion?
A.No.SBank’ smot i
onwasf atall
ydefecti
veandmustbest ruckdownbecauseofi ts
fai
luret ospeci f
ywi thpar t
iculari
tythedocument si tr equiredGat ewayt opr oduce.S
Bank’sMot ioncal l
edf orabl anketinspection.SBank’ sr equestf orinspectionof“ al
l
document sper t
ainingt o,ar i
singf rom,inconnect i
onwi thori nvolvi
ngt he Back- end
ServicesAgr eement ”
 wassi mpl ytoobroadandt oogener al
izedinscope.Amot ionf or
product i
onandi nspectionofdocument sshoul dnotdemandar ovi
ngi nspecti
onofa
promi scuous mass of document s.The i nspection shoul d be limited t ot hose
document sdesignat edwi t
hsuf f
ici
entparti
cul ar
it
yi nthemot i
on,sucht hattheadv erse
partycan easi lyi dentif
yt he document s he isr equi red t o pr
oduce.( Solidbank v.
GatewayEl ectr
onicsCor poration,2008)

JUDGMENT

Q:Whati
sthedoct
ri
neofi
mmut
abi
li
tyofj
udgment
?Ar
ether
eexcept
i Sof
ons?( iov.
Val
enzuel
a,J.Ber
sami
n,2012)

A:Thedoctr
ineofi
mmutabi
l
ityofj
udgmentst
atest
hatadecisi
onthathasacqui
red
fi
nal
i
tybecomesimmut
ableandunalt
erabl
eandmaynol ongerbemodi f
iedi
nany
10|Page
respectevenifthemodi f
icati
onisint
endedt ocorrecterr
oneousconclusi
onsoffactor
l
aw.Except i
ons:(a)thecor r
ecti
onofcl er
icalerror
s;(b)theso-cal
lednuncprot unc
entri
esthatcausenopr ej
udicetoanypar t
y ;(
c)v oi
djudgments;and( d)whenever
cir
cumst ancestranspi
reafterthefi
nali
tyoft hejudgmentsrenderi
ngexecuti
onunjust
andinequitabl
e.

NEW TRI
ALORRECONSI
DERATI
ON

Q.Plai
ntifffi
ledacompl ai
nt.Def
endant,insteadoff il
inganAnswer ,deci dedtof i
lea
Motiont oDismi ss.TheCour tgrantedtheMot ion.Plainti
ff
,thenf i
ledaMot ionf or
Reconsiderati
on( “
MR” ).However
, t
heCour t
,throughanOr der,deni
edt heMR.Pl ainti
ff
thenfi
ledanappealbef oretheCourtofAppeal s.Defendantnowquest ionstheappeal
onthegr oundt hattheappealisunmeritori
ousconsi deri
ngt hattheOr derdenyingthe
MRi sani nt
erlocutoryOrder
.Doy ouagree?(Josev.Javel lanaetal.
,J.Ber samin,2012)

A:Firstofal l
,thedeni alofJav el
lana’smot i
onf orreconsiderati
onl eftnothingmor eto
bedonebyt heRTCbecausei tconf i
rmedt hedismissalofCi vilCaseNo.79- M-
97.I t
wascl earlyaf i
nalorder,notani nterlocut
oryone.And,secondl y,whet heranor deris
fi
nalorint erl
ocut or
ydetermineswhet herappealisthecorrectremedyornot .TheCour t
hashel dt hatanappealf rom anor derdeny i
ngamot ionf orreconsiderati
onofaf inal
orderorj udgmenti seffecti
vel
yanappealf rom thef i
nalor derorj udgmenti tsel
f;and
hasexpr esslycl ari
fi
edthatthepr ohibit
ionagainstappeali
nganor derdeny ingamot i
on
forreconsi derationreferr
edonl yt oadeni alofamot ionf orr econsiderati
onofan
i
nterl
ocut oryor der.

EXECUTI
ON

Q.Howt
ost
ayt
hei
mmedi
ateexecut
ionoft
hej
udgmenti
nanej
ect
mentcase?
A.Tostaythei
mmedi ateexecuti
onoft hejudgmentinanejectmentcase,def
endant
mustperf
ectanappeal,fi
l
easuper sedeasbond,andperiodi
call
ydeposittherent
als
becomi
ngdueduri
ngt hependencyoft heappeal.Ot
herwi
se,thewritofexecut
ionwil
l
i
ssueuponmoti
onoftheplaint
if
f.

Q.Estebanisnotapar t
yt oacasewhichhasbecomef i
nalandexecut
ory.Hewas
for
ewarnedthatthesheri
ffisaboutt
oexecutethejudgmentwhichwouldadver
sel
y
aff
ecthissubst
anti
veri
ght.Whatremedyi
savail
abl
etoEsteban?
A. Sect i
on16, Rule39speci ficall
ypr ov i
dest hatat hi
rdper sonmayav ailhimsel fofthe
remedi esofei t
her t
ercer i
a,todet ermi newhet herthesheriffhasrightl
yorwr onglytaken
holdoft hepr opertynotbel ongi ngtot he j
udgmentdebt ororobligor,orani ndependent
“separateact ion”t ov indicatehi scl aim ofowner ship and/orpossessi on ov erthe
forecl
osedpr operty.Howev er,theper sonot herthant hej udgmentdebt orwhocl aims
owner ship orr i
ghtov erlev i
ed pr oper ti
esi snotpr ecluded from t aking ot herl egal
remedi estopr osecutehi scl aim.Ther i
ghtofat hir
d-partyclai
mantt of i
leat erceri
ais
foundedonhi st i
tl
eorr i
ghtofpossessi on.Cor oll
aryt heret
o,bef oret hecour tcan
exerciseitssuper visorypowert odi r
ectt her el
easeoft hepropertymi stakenlyl evi
ed
andt her estorati
ont hereoft oi tsright f
ulowner ,thecl ai
mantmustf irstunmi stakably
11|Page
establi
sh hi
s ownershi
p orr i
ghtofpossession t
hereon.In Spouses Sy v.Hon.
Discaya (
260Phil
.401[1990]
)wedecl ar
edthatforathi
rd-par
tyclai
m orat er
ceri
ato
prosper,t
heclai
mantmustfir
stsuf
fi
cient
lyest
abli
shhi
srightonthepropert
y.(Vi
ll
asiv.
Garcia 
2014) 
 
Q.Whatar
etheel
ement
sofr
esj
udi
cat
a?(
Sot
tov.Pal
ict
e,J.Ber
sami
n,2013)
A.Resj udi
cat aexi st
swhenasbet weent heact ionsoughttobedi smi ssedandtheot her
acti
ont heseel ementsar epresent ,namel y;(1)theformerj udgmentmustbef i
nal;(2)
thef or
merj udgmentmusthav ebeenr ender edbyacour thavingj uri
sdi
cti
onoft he
subjectmat terandt hepar ti
es;(3)t hef ormerj udgmentmustbeaj udgmentont he
merits;and( 4)t heremustbebet weent hef i
rstandsubsequentact ions(i
)identi
tyof
part
iesoratl eastsuchasr epresentingthesamei nteresti
nbot hact i
ons;(i
i)i
denti
tyof
subjectmat ter,oroft herightsasser t
edandr eli
efprayedf or
,ther eli
efbeingfounded
onthesamef acts;and,(i
ii
)i denti
tyofcausesofact i
oni nbot hact i
onssucht hatany
j
udgmentt hatmayber ender edint heot heract i
onwi ll
,regardlessofwhi chpartyi s
successful,amountt oresjudicataint heact i
onunderconsi deraton.
i

Q.Valent
inoDevelopmentCo.movedt odi smi
sst hecasef il
edbyProduct
ionBank
agai
nstitsincethenew complaintr
aisesthesamei ssuesi
napr i
orcasewhichhas
becomefinalandexecut
ory.Asjudge,wil
lyougrantthemot i
on?
A.Yes. Underthepr i
ncipleofconclusivenessofj udgmentisbindingandconcl usiveon
theparti
es.Thedoct ri
neof r
 esjudicata byconclusivenessofj
udgmentpost ul
atest hat
whenar i
ghtorfacthasbeenj udi
ciall
yt r
iedanddet er
minedbyacour tofcompet ent
j
urisdi
cti
on,orwhenanoppor tunit
yf orsucht r
ialhasbeengi ven,t hejudgmentoft he
court,
aslongasitr emainsunrev er
sed, shoul
dbeconcl usi
veupont hepar t
iesandt hose
i
n pr i
vit
y witht hem.( LZK Hol dings and Devel opmentCor por at
ion v.Pl anters
DevelopmentBank,  
2014)
 
APPEALS

Q.Differenti
at etheRTC’ sequi t
yjuri
sdi ct
ionfrom appellatej
ur isdi
ction.
A.Theappel latejuri
sdict
ionofcour tsi sconferr
edbyl aw.Theappel latecour tacqui
res
j
urisdict
ionov erthesubj ectmat terandpar t
ieswhenanappeali sper fected.Ont he
otherhand,equi t
yjurisdi
ctionaimst opr ovidecompl etejust
icei ncaseswher eacourt
oflawi sunabl etoadapti tsjudgment stothespecialcircumst ancesofacasebecause
ofar esult
ingl egalinfl
exi
bilit
ywhent helawi sappli
edt oagiv ensituation.Thepur pose
oftheexer ciseofequi tyjuri
sdict
ion,amongot hers,
ist opreventunj ustenrichmentand
toensurer est i
tut
ion.(RegulusDevel opmentv.Del aCr uz,2016)

Di
sti
ngui
shaquest
ionofl
awf
rom aquest
ionoff
act
.
A.Aquest i
onoflawar iseswhent her
ei sdoubtastowhatt helawisonacer tai
nstate
offacts,
whi l
ethereisaquest i
onoff actwhent hedoubtar isesastothetruthorfalsi
ty
oftheallegedfacts.Foraquest i
ont obeoneofl aw,it
sr esol ut
ionmustnoti nvol
vean
examinationofthepr obati
vevalueoftheev i
dencepresent edbyt hel
iti
gants,butmost
solel
yrel
yonwhatt helawpr ov
idesont hegivensetoffacts.

12|Page
Q:Mayt
heSupr
emeCour
tlooki
ntoordet
ermi
nequest
ionsoff
act
?
A.Asagener alrule,theSupr emeCour tmaynotl ookintot hequest i
onsoff actspassed
toi tonanappeal .Howev er,theSupr emeCour tmayr eviewt hef act
ualf i
ndingsoft he
l
owercour tsinthef ollowingi nst ances:( 1)whent hefindingsar egroundedent i
relyon
specul ati
ons,sur mi sesorconj ectures;( 2)when t hei nf erencemadei smani f
est l
y
mi staken,absur dori mpossi ble;( 3)whent herei
sgr aveabuseofdi scr etion;(4)when
thej udgmenti sbasedonami sappr ehensi onoffacts;(5)whent hefindingsoff actar e
conf li
cti
ng; (
6)wheni nmaki ngi tsf i
ndingst heCourtofAppeal swentbey ondt heissues
oft hecase,ori tsf indingsar econt r
aryt ot headmi ssionsofbot ht heappel l
antand
the appellee;(7)whent hef i
ndi ngsar econt r
arytothatoft het ri
alcour t;(8)whent he
fi
ndi ngsar econcl usionswi thoutci t
ationofspeci ficev i
denceonwhi cht heyar ebased;
(9)whent hefactssetf orthi nt hepet it
ionaswel lasi nthepet it
ionersmai nandr eply
briefsarenotdi sputedbyt her espondent ;(10)whent hef indingsoff actar epr emised
ont hesupposedabsenceofev idenceandcont r
adictedbyt heev i
denceonr ecord;or
(11)when t he Cour tofAppeal s mani festlyoverl
ooked cer tainr elevantf acts not
disput ed by t he par ti
es,whi ch,i fpr oper l
y considered,woul djust i
f y a di f
ferent
concl usi
on.

Q.Dist
inguishaFinalOr
derfr
om anI
nter
locut
oryOrder
.Whati
sther
elev
ancef
ort
he
di
sti
nction?(Gar
ri
dov.Tort
ogoetal
.,
J.Bersamin,
2011)

A.Thedi sti
ncti
oni sr elevanti ndecidi
ngwhet hertheor deri sthepropersubjectofan
appeal,orofaspeci al civilactionforcer
  ti
orar i
.
 
Thedi sti
nctionbetweenaf i
nalorderandani nterl
ocutoryor deriswellknown.Thef i
rst
disposesoft hesubj ectmat terinitsenti
retyort erminat esapar ti
cularproceedingor
action,l
eav i
ngnot hingmor et obedoneexceptt oenf orcebyexecut ionwhatt hecour t
hasdet er mined,butt hel atterdoesnotcompl etel
ydi sposeoft hecasebutl eav es
somet hing elseto bedeci ded upon.An i nterl
ocutoryor derdeal swi th pr
eliminary
mat ter
sandt hetr
ialont hemer i
tsisyett
obehel dandt hejudgmentr endered.Thet est
toascer tai
nwhet herornotanor deroraj udgmenti si nterl
ocutoryorf i
nalis:
 doest he
or
derorjudgmentleavesomet hi
ngt obedoneinthetri
alcour
twit
hr especttothe
meri
tsoft
hecase? 
Ifitdoes,
theorderorj
udgmenti
sint
erl
ocut
ory
;ot
herwise,i
tisf
inal
.

Q.Whati
stheNeypesDoct
ri
ne?
A.Tost andardizet
heappealper iodsprovidedintheRulesandt oaffor
dl i
ti
gantsfai
r
opportunitytoappealtheircases,theCourtr ul
edthata f
reshperi
odof15day s 
wit
hin
whicht ofil
et henot
iceofappealint heRegionalTri
alCourt
,count
edfrom recei
ptofthe
orderdismi ssingamotionforanewt ri
alormot i
onforreconsi
der
ati
onshoul dbegiven
toli
ti
gant s(Neypesv.CA, 2005)
 
Q.I
stheNeypesDoct
ri
neappl
icabl
etoadmi
nist
rat
ivecases?
A.No.TheNey pesr uli
ngappli
est ojudi
cialproceedi
ngsonlyast hereasonforsuch
rul
i
ngalsoknownast he"fr
eshperiodrul
e"istostandardi
zetheappealperi
odprov
ided
i
ntheRulesofCourt.Obv i
ousl
y,theseRulescov erj
udici
alpr
oceedingsundert
he1997
RulesofCi
vi
lProcedur Jocsonv.SanMi
e.( guel,March9,2016)
13|Page
Q.Tr
ueorfal
se.TheNeypesDoctri
neisappl
icabl
etoPet
it
ionf
orCert
ior
ariunderRule
64asiti
sakintoaPetit
ionforRevi
ewunderRule42oftheRulesofCourt.(
Fortune
Li
feI
nsur
ancev.COA,J.Bersami
n,2015)
A.False.Ther
eisnopar i
tybet
weent
hepet
it
ionf
orr
evi
ew underRul
e42andt
he
pet
it
ionforcer
  ti
orar
i 
underRul
e64.

Petit
ionf orReviewunderRul e42 Pet iti
onf orCer tiorariunderRul e64
Rule42gov ernsanappeal from the Assailsaj udgmentorf i
nalor derof
j
udgmentorf i
nalorderr enderedby t he Commi ssion on El ections
the Regi onalTr ialCour ti nt he (COMELEC) ,ort heCommi ssionon
exercise of i ts appell
ate Audi t
.
j
urisdict
ion.
Quest i
onoff act,orofl aw,orof Quest ionsoff actcannotber aised
mixedquest i
onoff actandl aw exceptt o det ermi ne whet hert he
COMELECort heCOAwer egui lt
yof
grave abuse of di scretion
amount ing t ol ack orexcess of
j
urisdiction
Aggrievedpar tyisallowed15day s Fil
edwi thi n30day sfrom not iceof
tof i
l
et hepet it
ionf orr evi
ew f r
om t he j udgment or f i
nal or der or
receiptoft heassai l
eddeci si
onor r esolution soughtt o be rev i
ewed.
fi
nalor der,orf rom r ecei
ptoft he Thef il
ingofamot ionf ornewt rial or
denialofamot i
onf ornew t r
ialor reconsi der ation, i
fal l
owedundert he
reconsiderati
on. procedur alr ulesoft heCommi ssion
concer ned,i nter r
upt s the per iod;
hence,shoul dt hemot ionbedeni ed,
the aggr iev ed par ty may f il
et he
petiti
onwi thint her emai ni
ngper iod,
which shal lnotbe l ess than f ive
daysi nanyev ent,reckonedf rom t he
noticeofdeni al.

Q.Canaj udicialcompr omi seagr eementbeassai led byaPet i

ti
onf orCer tior
ari
claiming thatt he compr omi se agr eementwas pat ent l
yunj ust,one- sided,unf air
,
fraudulentandunconsci onabl e?( Chungvs.Huang, J.Ber sami n,2016)
A.No.I fthegr oundoft her espondentt oassailthejudgmentbasedont hecompr omi se
agreementwasext rinsicfraud, hisact i
onshoul dbebr oughtunderRul e47oft heRul es
ofCour t
.UnderSect ion2ofRul e47,t heor i
ginalacti
onf orannul mentmaybebased
onlyonext rinsicfraudorl ackofj urisdict
ion,butext ri
nsicf raud,tobev ali
dgr ound,
shouldnothav ebeenav ai
ledof ,orcoul dnothav ebeenav ail
edofi namot i
onf ornew
tri
alorpet i
tionf orreli
ef.Mor eov er,ther emedyunderRul e47i st obeav ailedofonl yif
the ordinaryr emedi esofnew t ri
al,appeal ,petit
ion forr eli
eforot herappr opr i
ate
remedi esar enol ongerav ail
ablet hr oughnof aultoft hepet it
ioner.Ost ensibly ,the
respondentcoul dhav eav ailedhi msel foft hepet i
tionf orr el
ieffrom judgmentunder

14|Page
Rule38oftheRul
esofCourt
.Hence,
hisf
ail
uretor
esortt
osuchremedypr
ecl
udedhi
m
fr
om avail
i
nghimsel
foftheremedytoannulthej
udgmentbasedonthecompromi
se
agreement

I
NJUNCTI
ON

Q:Cant heRTCi ssueRest r

ai ningOr dersorPr eli
mi naryI nj unctionsi ncasesi nvolving
i
nf r
ast ructureorNat ionalResour cesDev elopmentpr oj
ect sof ,and publ i
cut il
it
ies
operat edby ,thegov er nment ?HowaboutaCA?( Ner winI ndust ri
esv.PNOC- ENERGY,
J.Ber sami n, 2012)
A.No.Republ i
cActNo.8975  expresslypr ohibitsanycour t,exceptt heSupr emeCour t,
fr
om i ssui ng any t empor ar yr estraining or der ( TRO) ,pr el
iminaryi njunct i
on,or
preli
mi nar ymandat oryi njunct iont or estrain,pr ohibitorcompelt heGov er
nment ,orany
ofitssubdi visionsorof fici
al s,oranyper sonorent ity,whet herpubl icorpr i
vat e,acting
undert heGov ernment sdi r
ect ion,from:  
( a)acqui ring,clear i
ng, anddev elopingt her i
ght -
of-way ,siteorl ocationofanyNat i
onalGov ernmentpr oject ; (b)biddingorawar di
ngofa
contractorpr ojectoft heNat ionalGov ernment ;(c)commenci ng,prosecuti
ng, execut i
ng,
i
mpl ement ing,oroper atinganysuchcont ractorpr oject;( d)t erminatingorr escinding
anysuchcont ractorpr oject ;and( e)under takingoraut hor i
zi nganyot herlawf ulactivit
y
necessar yforsuchcont ractorpr oject .
 
Accor dingly,aRegi onalTr i
alCour t( RTC)t hati gnor est hest atutoryprohi biti
onand
i
ssuesaTRO orawr itofpr el
iminar yi njunctionorpr eli
mi narymandat oryi njunction
againstagov ernmentcont ractorpr ojectact scont rarytol aw
 
CERTI
ORARI

Q.Ifadecisi
onisrender
edwi t
hgr aveabuseofdi
scr
eti
on,shoul
dther
eal
waysbe
resor
ttoapeti
ti
onf
orcerti
orar
iunderRul
e65?
A.No.  
Thegener alr ul
ei sthatt her emedyt oobt ainrev ersalormodi ficationoft he
j
udgmentont hemer i
tsi sappeal .Thi sist rueev eni ftheer ror,oroneoft heer rors,
ascribedt ot hecour trender i
ngt hej udgmenti sitsl ackofj urisdicti
onov ert hesubj ect
mat ter,ort heexerciseofpoweri nexcesst her eof,orgr av eabuseofdi scr etioni nthe
fi
ndingsoff actorofl awsetouti nt hedeci sion( Sawadj aanv.CA,2005)Besi des,the
Rulesexpr esslyprov i
de: Secti
on1.  Pet i
ti
onf orcer tiorari
.—Whenanyt r
ibunal ,boar dor
offi
cerexer cisi
ngjudicialorquasi-judicialfunct i
onshasact edwi thoutori nexcessi tsor
hi
sj urisdi
ct i
on,orwi thgr aveabuseofdi scretionamount i
ngt olackorexcessof
j
urisdict i
on,andt her eis noappeal ,oranypl ain,speedy ,andadequat er emedyi nthe
ordinarycour seofl aw,aper sonaggr i
evedt herebymayf i
leav eri
fiedpet it
ioni nthe
propercour t,all
egingt hef actswi thcer taintyandpr ayingt hatj udgmentber endered
annul l
ingormodi fyingt hepr oceedi ngsofsucht ribunal,boar dorof ficer,andgr ant
ing
suchi ncident alr
eli
efsasl awandj ust icemayr equire.

Q.Dist
ingui
shapet
it
ionf
orcer
ti
orar
iunderRul
e65f
rom apet
it
ionf
orr
evi
ew under
Rul
e43.
A.Apet
it
ionf
orr
evi
ewi
samodeofappeal
,whi
l
easpeci
alci
vi
lact
ionf
orcer
ti
orar
iis
15|Page
anextraordinar
yprocessf orthecor recti
onofer ror
sofj ur
isdiction.I
tisbasicremedi al
l
aw t hatt he two remedi es ar e disti
nct,mut ual
ly excl
usiv e,and antit
heti
cal.The
extr
aordinaryremedyofcer ti
orarii
spr operi fthet r
ibunal
,boar d,oroff
icerexercising
j
udici
alorquasi -j
udici
alf uncti
ons act ed wi t
houtori n gr ave abuse ofdi screti
on
amount i
ngt olackorex cessofj uri
sdicti
onandt hereisnoappealoranypl ai
n,speedy ,
andadequat er emedyinl aw.Apet it
ionf orreview,ont heot herhand,seekst ocor rect
err
orsofj udgmentcommi ttedbyt hecour t,tri
bunal,orof fi
cer .(DeePingWeev.Lee
HiongWee, 2010)
 
FORECLOSUREOFREALESTATEMORTGAGE

Q.ARealEstat
eMor tgage(REM)doesnotcont ainapoweroraut hor
it
ytosell
.Neither
wasthereaspecialpowert osellt
hepr opertyi nfavoroft hemor t
gagee(credi
tor)
embodiedinaseparateinst
rumentatt
achedt ot heREM.Oncet hedebtordef
aultson
hi
sloan,canthecreditorproceedtoextra-
judicialforecl
osure?(Sps.Baysav.Sps.
Pl
anti
ll
a,J.Ber
samin,2015)

A.No.Toenabl etheext r
ajudici
alforeclosureoft heREM,t hespecialpowert osell
shoul
dhavebeenei t
herinser
tedintheREM i tsel
forembodi edinaseparateinstrument
att
achedtotheREM.I ti
snotdisputedt hatnospeci alpowertosel
lwasei therinser
ted
i
nt heREM orat t
achedt otheREM.Hence,t her espondentspousesmustr esortto
j
udici
alf
orecl
osurepursuanttotheproceduresetf orthi
nRule68oft heRulesofCour t.

PARTI
TION

Q.Cananact
iont
oresci
ndadonat
ionbej
oinedwi
thanact
ionf
orpar
ti
ti
on?
A.Asagener alr
ule,no.Anacti
onf orparti
ti
oni saspecialciv
ilact
iongov ernedbyRul e
69oft heRul esofCour twhileanact i
onf orr esci
ssi
oni sanor dinaryci v
ilacti
on
governedbyt heor di
naryr
ulesofci vi
lprocedur e.Thev ari
anceinthepr ocedureint he
specialciv
ilacti
onofpar t
it
ionandi nt heor dinarycivi
lacti
onofr escissi
onpr ecl
udes
thei
rj oi
nderi nonecompl aintort hem beingt r
iedinasi ngleproceedingt oav oid
confusionindetermini
ngwhatr ul
esshal l
gov ernt heconductoftheproceedingsaswel l
asint hedeterminati
onofthepr esenceofr equi sit
eelementsofeachpar t
icul
arcause
ofaction.

Q.I
sthef
oregoi
ngr
uleabsol
ute?
A.No.I ftherei snoobj ect i
ontot hei mproperjoinderorthecour tdidnotmot upropri
o
dir
ectasev erance,thent her eexistsnobari nt hesimul t
aneousadj udi
cati
onofal lt
he
erroneouslyjoinedcausesofact i
on.xxx  Itshouldbeemphasi zedt hattheforegoi
ng
rul
eonl yappliesifthecour ttr
yingt hecasehasj uri
sdict
ionov eral lt
hecausesofact i
on
therei
nnot withstandingt hemi sjoinderofthesame.I fthecour ttryingthecasehasno
j
urisdicti
onov erami sjoinedcauseofact ion,thensuchmi sjoinedcauseofact i
on
should be sev er
ed f r
om t he othercauses ofact ion,and i fnotso sev ered,any
adjudicati
onr enderedbyt hecour twi t
hrespectt othesamewoul dbeanul l
it
y.(Adav.
Baylon, 2012)

16|Page
 FORCI
BLEENTRYANDUNLAWFULDETAI
NER

Q.P fi
ledanact ionforUnl
awfulDetai
neragainstD.MTC di
smissedforlackof
j
uri
sdi
ction based onit
sfi
nding t
hattheacti
oni nv
olv
ed anessent
ial
lyboundar
y
disputet hatshoul dbepr operl
yr esol v
edi nanacci onr eivi
ndicatori
a.Onappeal ,t
he
RTCr ev ersedt heMTCandr emandedt hecasef orfurtherpr oceedings.Uponr emand,
MTCul timat elydi smi ssedt hecompl aintforl ackofmer it.Oncemor e,Pappeal edto
theRTC.t heRTCor der edthepet i
tioner stoconductar elocationsur veyt odetermine
theirallegat i
on ofencr oachment ,and al so heardt he testi
monyoft he surveyor.
Ulti
mat ely ,RTCr ender edi t
sjudgmentr eversingtheMTCdeci sion.DidtheRTCr ul
ed
correct
ly ?( Manal angv.Bacani ,J.Ber sami n, 2015)
A.No.TheRTC, i
nanappealoft hej udgmenti nanej ectmentcase, shallnotconducta
reheari
ngort r
ialdenov o.Thej udgmentorf i
nalor dershal lbeappeal abl
et ot he
appropriat eRTC,whi chshal ldecidet hesameont hebasi soft heentirerecordoft he
proceedi ngshadi nt hecour tofor i
ginandsuchmemor andaand/ orbr i
efsasmaybe
submi t
ted byt hepar t
iesorr equi red byt heRegi onalTr i
alCour t.Hence,t heRTC
viol
atedt hef oregoi ngr ulebyor deringt heconductoft her el
ocat i
onandv eri
f i
cati
on
survey"inai dofi tsappel lat
ejurisdiction"andbyhear ingt hetestimonyoft hesurveyor,
forit
sdoi ngsowast antamountt oi tshol dingofat r
ialdenov o.

Q.Ywasadjudgedloseri
nanejectmentcase.Consi
der
ingt
hateject
menti
ssummary
pr
oceedi
ng,
whatr emedyisavai
labl
etoYtopostponetheef
fect
ivi
tyoft
hej
udgment
?
A.Asagener alr ule,aj udgmenti nf av oroft hepl aintiffi n an ej ectmentsui ti s
i
mmedi atelyexecutor yinor dert opr ev entf urtherdamaget ohi m arisingf rom theloss
ofpossessi onoft hepr oper tyinquest i
on.Tost ayt hei mmedi ateexecut ionoft hesai d
j
udgmentwhi letheappeali spendi ngt hef oregoi ngpr ovisionr equi r
est hatt hefoll
owi ng
requisit
es must concur :( 1) the def endant per f
ect s hi s appeal ;( 2) he f iles
a supersedeas bond;and( 3)heper iodi callydeposi tst her ental
swhi chbecomedue
duringt hependencyoft heappeal .Thef ailureoft hedef endantt ocompl ywithanyof
thesecondi ti
onsisagr oundf ortheout rightexecut ionoft hej udgment ,thedut yoft he
cour tint hisrespectbei ng “ mi nisterialand i mper ati
v e.”Hence,i ft he def endant-
appellantperfectedt heappealbutf ai l
edt of i
lea  super sedeas  bond,t heimmedi ate
execut i
on oft he j udgmentwoul d aut omat icallyf ol
low.Conv ersely ,the fili
ng of
a supersedeas bondwi llnotst ayt heexecut ionoft hej udgmenti ftheappeali snot
perfected.Necessar il
yt hen,t he super sedeas  bondshoul dbef il
edwi thint heper i
odf or
theper fect
ionoftheappeal .Inshor t,aj udgmenti nf avoroft hepl ai
ntiffinanej ectment
suitisimmedi atel
yexecut or y,butt hedef endant , t
ost ayi t
si mmedi ateexecut i
on, must:
(1)per fectanappeal ;(2)f il
ea  super sedeas  bond;and( 3)per i
odicallydeposi tt he
rentalsbecomi ngduedur ingt hependencyoft heappeal .
  (
Acbangv.Hon.Luczon,
Jr. 
 2014)

Q.Gabbyfil
edanunlawfuldet
ainercaseagai
nst 
Aliandwon.Al
ifi
ledapet
iti
on
for
 r
eli
effr
om judgmentbefor
et hesameMTCt hatrender
edthedecisi
oni
nthe
unl
awfuldetai
nercase.WasAlicorr
ect?
A.No.APet i
ti
onf
orrel
i
effr
om j
udgmenti
saprohi
bit
edpl
eadi
ngi
nanej
ect
mentcase
under
 Sect
ion13(
4)ofRul
e70oftheRul
esofCour
t.
17|Page
Q.MayAl
ifi
lehi
spet
it
ionf
orr
eli
eff
rom j
udgmentbef
oret
heRTC?
A.No.TheRTChasnoj uri
sdi
ctionov erthepetit
ion. 
Secti
on1, Rul
e38oft heRul
esof
Cour
tprovides:
“SEC.1.Pet
  i
ti
onf orr
elieffrom judgment,orderorotherproceedings.
-Whenaj udgmentorf inalorderisentered,oranyotherproceedi ng
i
st her
eaftert aken againsta par tyin any cour tthrough fraud,
accident
,mi stakeorexcusabl enegl i
gence, 
hemayf i
leapet it
ioni n
suchcour tandi nthesamecasepr ayi
ngt hatthejudgment,orderor
proceedingbesetasi de. ”

Q.Whati
sAl
i’
sremedy?Whatcour
thasj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A.Theremedyistofil
eapeti
ti
onforcert
ior
aribefor
et Agdalv.Car
heRTC.( los,
2010)
*NotethattheCourttr
eat
edthepeti
tionfor 
rel
ieffr
om j
udgmentbefor
etheRTCasa
pet
it
ionforcert
ior
arii
nthi
scase.

WRI
TOFAMPARO

Q:TrueorFal se.InaPet itionfortheIssuanceofaWr i

tofAmpar o,al
legat
ionand
proofthatthepersonssubjectthereofar
emi ssi
ngsuffi
ce.
A.Fal nNav
se.I iav.Padi
co, 2012,t
heSupremeCour trul
edthatf
ortheprot
ecti
vewr i
tof
ampar otoissue,al
legat
ionandpr oofthatthepersonssubj
ectther
eofaremissingare
notenough.I tmustalso be shown and pr oved bysubst antialev i
dence thatt he
disappearancewascar ri
edoutby,orwi t
htheaut hor
izati
on, suppor toracquiescenceof,
theSt ateorapol i
ti
calorgani
zati
on,foll
owedbyar efusalt oacknowl edgethesameor
giveinformationont hef
ateorwher eaboutsofsaidmi ssingper sons, wi
ththei nt
ention
ofremov i
ngthem from t
heprotectionofthelawf orapr olongedper iodoftime.Si mply
put,thepet i
ti
onerinanampar ocasehast hebur denofpr ovingbysubst ant
ialevidence
theindispensableelementofgovernmentparti
cipati
on.

Q.DoestheissuanceofaHol dDepar
tur
eOrderimpai
rone'
sri
ghtt
otr
avelandi
sthe
vi
olat
ionoft
her i
ghttot
ravelcover
edbytheWri
tofAmparo?
A.AHol dDepartureOrderdoesnotautomat icallyimpairaper
son'sri
ghttotr
avel
.There
shoul
dbepr ooft oestabli
shthattherightt
ot ravelwasimpairedinthemannerandt o
theextentt
hatitamount edtoaser i
ousv i
olationofhi sri
ghttoli
fe,l
i
bertyandsecur
it
y,
forwhichther
eexi stsnor eadi
lyavai
lablelegalr ecourseorremedy( Rever
endFather
RobertReyesv.CA, 2009).
 
Q:Mayawritofamparoorotherr
eli
efsgrant
edbyt
hewr
itbef
il
edi
nanot
hercour
tifa
cr
imi
nalact
ionhasbeenfi
ledorispending?
A. No.Whenacri
minalact
ionhasbeencommenced,nosepar atepet i
ti
onf
orthewri
t
shal
lbefi
l
ed.Thewri
toranyrel
i
efavai
labl
eunderthewritshoul
dbef i
ledbyf
il
ingi
nthe
samecourtwher
ethecrimi
nalact
ionwaspending.(ReverendFatherRober
tReyesv.
CA,2009)
.

WRI
TOFKALI
KASAN
18|Page
Q.Whatshoul
dbeall
egedinaPeti
ti
onfortheI
ssuanceofaWri
tofKal
ikasan?
A.I
naWr itofKal
i
kasanpeti
ti
onerhasthebur
dentoprovet
he(1)envir
onmentall
aw,
rul
eorr egul
ationviol
atedorthreatenedt obev i
olat
ed;(2)actoromi ssioncompl ai
ned
of;and(3)theenv i
ronmentaldamageofsuchmagni tudeast oprejudicethelif
e, heal
th
orpropertyofinhabit
antsi
nt woormor eciti
esorprov i
nces.EventheAnnot at
iont othe
Rules of Pr ocedure for Environment al Cases states that t he magni tude of
envir
onment aldamagei sacondi tonsi
i nequanoni napet i
ti
onf ort heissuanceofa
Wr i
tofKal i
kasanandmustbecont ai
nedi nthev eri
fiedpetit
ion.(LNLAr chipelago
Mineral
s,Inc.vs.Agham PartyList,2016)

APPEALSI
NSPECI
ALPROCEEDI
NGS

Q.Int heest atepr oceedi ngsofV,N f i

ledacompl aint-i
n-interventiont oexcl udet he
parapher nalpr opertiesofhi sdeceasedsi sterI(Iisthewi f
eofV)f rom incl usioni nt he
estat
eofV.TheRTCdi smi ssedt hesame.Whati sN’ sr emedy ?(Chi pongianv.Li r
io,J.
Bersami n, 2015)
A.Heshoul df i
lear ecordonappealwi thin30day sf r
om not iceoft hef i
nalor der
dismissingt hecompl ai
nt-in-
interv ention.Thedi smissaloft hepet i
tioner'
si nter vention
constituted" af inaldetermi nationi nt helowercour toft heright soft hepar tyappeal i
ng, "
thatis,hi sr ighti nt hepar apher nalpr opertiesofhi sdeceasedsi ster.Assuch,i tf ell
underpar agraph( c)ofSect i
on1,  
Rul e109,  becausei thadt heef fectofdi sallowi nghi s
clai
m agai nstt heest ateofVi cent e,aswel lasunderpar agr aph( e)ofSect ion1,  supr a,
becausei twasaf i
naldet ermi nat i
oni nt het ri
alcour tofhi si ntervention.Conf ormabl y
witheitherorbot hpar agraphs, whi char ebol dlyunder scoredabov ef oreasi erref erence,
thedismi ssal wast hepr opersubj ectofanappeal induecour sebyv i
rtueofi tsnat ureof
compl etely di sposing ofhi si nterv enti
on.Thus,t he pr opermode ofappeal ing a
j
udgmentorf inalor derinspeci alpr oceedingsi sbyf ili
nganot i
ceofappealandr ecor d
onappeal within30day sf rom not iceofj udgmentorf inal order.

CRI
MINALPROCEDURE

Q.Whati
scr
imi
nalj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A.I
tist
hepoweroft
heSt
atet
otr
yandpuni
shaper
sonf
orav
iol
ati
onofi
tspenal
laws.
 
Q.Whati
sther
uleonj
uri
sdi
cti
onandvenuei
ncr
imi
nalcases?
A.I
ncr i
minalcases,venuei sjur
isdicti
onal.Section15,Rule110oft heRulesofCour t
pr
ovi
des: 
a.Subj ecttoexistingl aws,thecr iminalacti
onshal lbeinsti
tutedandt r
iedint he
courtofthemuni ci
palit
yort erri
tory 
wheret heof f
ensewascommi ttedorwher e
anyofitsessent i
alingredi
entsoccur red;
b.Wher eanof fensei scommi t
tedi nat r
ain,aircr
aft
,orot herpubl icorpr i
vate
vehi
clewhileint hecour seofi t
st r
ip,thecriminalacti
onshal lbeinst i
tutedand
tr
iedinthecour tofanymuni cipali
tyorterr
itorywheresucht r
ain,aircraftorother
vehi
clepasseddur i
ngsuchi tst r
ip,i
ncludi
ngt heplaceofit
sdepar t
ureandar r
ival
;
c.Wher eanoffensei scommi t
tedonboar dav esselinthecourseofi tsv oyage,the
19|Page
 cri
mi nalact
ionshallbeinst
it
utedandt riedint hecour tofthefi
rstpor
tofent r
yor
ofanymuni cipali
tyorterr
it
orywher et hev esselpasseddur i
ngsuchv oyage,
subjecttothegener al
l
yacceptedpr i
nciplesofi nt
ernationall
aw;
d.Crimescommi ttedoutsi
dethePhi li
ppinesbutpuni shableunderArti
cle2oft he
RevisedPenalCodeshal lbecogni zabl
ebyt hecour twher ethecri
minalacti
onis
fi
rstf ed(
i
l t
hecasemustbef i
led,gener al
ly,wher et hecrimeiscommi tt
ed–
excepti
onsareprovi
dedbylawandt herul
essuchasthevenueofact
ionsfor
l
ibelunderAr
t.360oftheRevi
sedPenalCodewhichpr
ovi
desmult
ipl
evenues) 
 
Q.Whatar
ether
equi
sit
esf
oraval
idexer
ciseofj
uri
sdi
cti
on?
A.
1.Juri
sdicti
onov ertheSubj
ectMat t
er-theoffensei
sonewhicht
hecour ti
sbylaw
authori
zedtotakecognizanceof;
2.Juri
sdicti
onov ertheTerr
it
ory-theoffensemusthavebeencommi t
tedwithi
nits
ter
rit
orial
jur
isdicti
on;
3.Juri
sdicti
onov erthePersonoft heAccused -thepersoncharged wit
ht he
off
ensemusthav ebeenbroughttoitspresencef
ortr
ial
,bywarr
antofarrestor
uponhi svol
untarysubmissi
ontot hecourt.

Q.Ar
ethecri
mi nalandcivi
lli
abi
li
ti
esexdel
ict
oofappel
lantdecl
aredEXTI
NGUI
SHED
byhi
sdeat
hpriortofinalj
udgment?
A.Yes.Despi tether ecogni tionoft hesur v
ivaloft heci villi
abil
ityf orclaimsunder
Arti
cles32,33,34and2176oft heCi vilCode,aswel lasf rom sour cesofobl i
gation
otherthandel ictinbot hj urisprudenceandt heRul es,andoursubsequentdesi gnat i
onof
thePAO ast he" legalr epr esentat i
veoft heest ateoft hedeceasedf orpur posesof
representingt heest atei nt heci vilaspectoft hiscase, "thecur rentRul es,pur suantt o
ourpr onouncementi nBay otas,requi rethepr i
v ateof fendedpar ty,orhi shei r
s,int his
case,toi nsti
tuteasepar ateci vi
lact iont opur suet heirclaimsagai nsttheest at eoft he
deceasedappel lant.Thei ndependentci vilactionsi nAr t
icles32,33,34and2176,as
wellascl aimsf r
om sour cesofobl igationot hert handel ict,arenotdeemedi nstituted
withthecr i
minalact ionbutmaybef il
edsepar at el
ybyt heof fendedpar tyevenwi thout
reservati
on.The separ ate ci vi
lact i
on pr oceeds i ndependent ly of t he cr iminal
proceedingsandr equi resonl yapr eponder anceofev idence.Theci vilacti
onwhi chmay
thereaft
erbei nstit
utedagai nsttheest ateorl egalr epresent at
ivesoft hedecedenti s
takenf rom t henew pr ov i
sionsofSect ion16ofRul e3i nr elationt other ulesf or
prosecutingcl ai
msagai nsthi sest atei nRul es86and87.( Peopleoft hePhi l
ippinesvs.
Lipata,2016)

Q.Is“Pabati
dSakdal
”oranI nf ormat i
onf i
ledbyanAssistantCityProsecutor
,sansan
approvaloft
heCityProsecutor ,defecti
veand,theref
ore,subjectt
oquashalpur suant
toSection3(d)
,Rul
e117oft heRul esofCour t?
A.Yes.Secti
on4,Rul
e112oft he2000Rev isedRulesonCriminalProcedurest
atesthat
thefil
ingofacomplai
ntorinf
ormati
onr
equiresapr iorwri
ttenauthor
it
yorapprovalof
thenamedof fi
cerst
herei
nbefor
eacompl aintorinformati
onmaybef il
edbefor
et he
courts.Thus,asageneralrul
e,compl
aintsori nformati
onsf il
edbeforethecourts
withoutthepriorwri
tt
enauthor
it
yorappr ovaloft heforegoingauthori
zedoffi
cers
20|Page
rendersthesamedef ect
iveand,theref
ore,subj
ecttoquashalpur suanttoSecti
on3( d)
,
Rule117oft hesameRul es.Ashel dinPeopleofthePhi l
ippi
nesvs.Gar fi
n,t
hef i
li
ngof
anInformati
onbyanof fi
cerwithouttherequisi
teauthor
itytofi
lethesameconst it
utesa
j
urisdi
cti
onalinf
ir
mitywhichcannotbecur edbysilence,waiver,acqui
escence,orev en
byexpressconsent.Hence,suchgroundmayber aisedatanystageoft heproceedings.

ACertif
icat
ionf r
om t heAssi stantCi t
yProsecutortot heef f
ectthat" thef i
l
ingof
theInfor
mationi swi tht hepr i
oraut horit
yandappr ovaloft heCi tyPr osecutor."The
Courthadalreadyrejectedsi mil
arly-
wor dedcerti
fi
cations,unifor mlyholdingt hatdespite
suchcerti
fi
cations,theI nformationswer edefect
iveasi twasshownt hatt heof f
icers
fi
li
ngthesamei ncour tei t
herlackedt heaut hor
it
ytodosoorf ail
edt oshowt hatt hey
obtai
nedpr i
orwr it
tenaut hori
tyfrom anyoft hoseaut horizedof fi
cersenumer atedi n
Secti
on4,Rul e112oft he2000Rev i
sedRul esofCr i
minalPr ocedure.Ther emustbe
defi
nit
e and cer t
ain pr ooft hatt he Informati
on was appr ov ed by ei thert he City
Prosecut
ororanyoft heOCP' sdiv i
sionchi ef
sorreviewpr osecut ors.(Quisayvs.Peopl e
ofthePhil
ippines,2016)

Q.Istheact
ionoftheSecr etaryofJusti
cei naff
irmi
ngorrever
singthefi
ndi
ngof
pr
osecut
orsbesubj
ecttojudicialr
evi
ew?
A.Yes.I
napr el
i
minar
yi nvesti
gati
on,theprosecut
ordoesnotdeter
minethegui
ltor
i
nnocenceofanaccused.Thepr osecut oronl ydet ermines" whet hert her eissuffi
cient
groundt oengenderawel l-foundedbel ieft hatacr imehasbeencommi tt
edandt he
respondenti spr obablygui ltyt her eof ,and shoul d be hel df ort r
ial.
"Assuch,t he
prosecutordoesnotper form quasi -j
udi cialf uncti
ons.Thef actt hatt heDOJi st he
primarypr osecut ionar m oft heGov ernmentdoesnotmakei taquasi -j
udi ci
aloffi
ceor
agency .Itspr eli
mi naryinv estigationofcasesi snotaquasi -j
udicialpr oceeding.Nor
doest heDOJexer ci
seaquasi -j
udi cialfunct i
onwheni treviewst hef indingsofapubl i
c
prosecutoront hef i
ndingofpr obabl ecausei nanycase.Howev er,ev enwhenan
admi ni
strativ
eagencydoesnotper form aj udicial,
quasi-judici
al,ormi nisteri
alfuncti
on,
theConst itut
ionmandat est heex er ciseofj udici
alrevi
ewwhent herei sanal l
egati
onof
graveabuseofdi scr
etion.Ther ef
or e,anyquest i
ononwhet hertheSecr et aryofJustice
commi ttedgr aveabuseofdi scr etionamount i
ngt olackorexcessofj urisdi
cti
oni n
affi
rming, r
ev ersing,ormodi fyi
ngt her esol ut i
onsofpr osecut or
smaybet hesubjectofa
petit
ionforcer t
iorariunderRul e65oft heRul esofCour t.(DeLi mavs.Reyes, 2016)

Q.Mayt heSecret
aryofJusti
ce,evenwi thoutapendingpeti
ti
onforrevi
ew,motu
pr
oprioordert
heconductofar
einvest
igat
ion?
A.Yes.Al
thought
he2000NPSRul eonAppealr equi
rest
hefi
l
ingofapet
it
ionforr
evi
ew
beforetheSecr etaryofJust i
cecanr everse,affir
m, ormodi f
ytheappealedresoluti
onof
theprovincialorci t
ypr osecutororchi efst
at epr osecutor-Rul
e112,Sect i
on4oft he
RulesofCour texplici
tl
yst at
est hattheSecr etaryofJust cemaymot
i upropri
or ever
se
ormodi fyresolutionsoft hepr ovi
ncialorcitypr osecutororthechiefstat
epr osecut
or
evenwi thoutapendi ngpet i
tionf orrevi
ew.Thi sisbecauset heSecretaryofJust i
ce
exerci
sescont r
olandsuper v
isionov erprosecut orsandi tiswithinheraut hori
tyto
aff
irm,nul l
ify
,r everse,ormodi fyt heresolutionsofherpr osecutor
s.Sect i
on 4 of
Republi
cActNo.10071al sogi vestheSecret aryofJust i
cetheauthori
tytodirectl
yact
21|Page
onany" probablemi scarr
iageofjusti
cewithinthejuri
sdict
ionoftheprosecuti
onst aff
,
regionalpr osecuti
on of f
ice,and the pr
ovinci
alpr osecut
orort he ci
typr osecutor.
"
Accor di
ngly,theSecr etaryofJust i
cemayst epinandor derar ei
nvesti
gati
onev en
withouta pr i
ormot i
on orpet i
ti
on fr
om a par t
yi n orderto prev
entanypr obable
miscar r
iageofj ust
ice.(DeLimavs.Reyes,2016)

Q.Doesapetit
ionforcer
ti
orar
iunderRul e65quest ioni
ngtheregulari
tyofprel
imi
nar
y
i
nvest
igat
ionbecomesmootaf terthetrialcourtcomplet
esitsdeterminat
ionof
pr
obablecauseandissuesawar rantofarrest?
A.Yes.Theruleinthi
sjuri
sdi
ctionist hatonceacompl ai
ntorinformati
oni sfi
l
edin
Cour t
, anydi sposi ti
onoft hecaseast oi tsdismi ssalort heconv i
ctionoracqui t
t aloft he
accusedr estsi nt hesounddi scret ionoft heCour t.Al t
hought hef i
scalr etainst he
dir
ectionandcont roloft hepr osecut ionofcr iminalcasesev enwhi lethecasei sal ready
i
nCour t
, hecannoti mposehi sopi nionont het ri
alcour t.TheCour tisthebestandsol e
j
udgeonwhatt odowi t
ht hecasebef oreit.Thedet ermi nationoft hecasei swi thini ts
exclusivej urisdicti
onandcompet ence.Amot i
ont odi smi sst hecasef il
edbyt hef iscal
shouldbeaddr essedt otheCour twhohast heopt iont ogr antordenyt hesame.I tdoes
notmat teri fthisi sdonebef oreoraf terthear raignmentoft heaccusedort hatt he
mot i
onwasf il
edaf t erar einvest i
gat ionoruponi nstruct i
onsoft heSecr etaryofJust ice
who r ev iewed t he r ecords oft he i nv esti
gat i
on.When t he tr i
alcour thas al ready
determi ned,i ndependent lyofanyf indi ngorr ecommendat ionbyt hepr osecutor s,t hat
probabl ecauseexi stsf ort hei ssuanceoft hewar rantofar r
estagai nstrespondent .
Probabl ecausehasbeenj udiciall
ydet ermined.Jur i
sdictionov ert hecase,t her efor e,
hast ransf erredt ot het ri
alcour t.Apet it
ionf orcer tiorariquest ioningt hev ali
dityoft he
prel
imi nar yinvest i
gat ioninanyot herv enuehasbeenr ender edmootbyt heissuanceof
thewar rantofar restandt heconductofar raignment .Thepr udentcour seofact i
onat
thi
sst agewoul dbet opr oceedt ot rial.Theaccused,howev er,isnotwi thoutremedi es.
Hemayst il
lf i
leanyappr opriateact ionbef oret het rialcour torquest ionanyal leged
i
rregularityint hepr el i
minar yinv estigat iondur ingpr e-trial.(DeLi mavs.Reyes, 2016)

Q.Whatar
ethedi
sti
nct
ionsbet
weenul
ti
mat
efact
sandevi
dent
iar
yfact
s?
A.Thedi stinctionbet weent heelement soft heof fenseandt heev idenceoft hese
element sisanal ogousoraki nt othedifferencebet ween  ult
imatef acts  evi
and  denti
ary
facts 
incivilcases. Ul
  ti
mat ef acts 
aretheessent i
alandsubst antialfact swhichei t
her
formt hebasi soft heprimar yr ightanddut yorwhi chdi rectl
ymakeupt hewr ongfulacts
oromi ssionsoft hedef endant ,whi
leevident i
aryfacts arethosewhi chtendt oprov eor
establi
shsai d ultimatef acts. Applyi
ngt hisanal ogyt o[acaseunderBP22ort he
Bounci ngChecksLaw] ,knowl
  edgeofi nsuf f
ici
encyoff unds 
ist heul ti
matef act,or
elementoft heof fenset hatneedst obepr oved,whiledi shonoroft hecheckpr esented
withinninety( 90)day si
smer elytheevi
dent iaryfact 
ofsuchknowl edge.( Bauti
stav.CA,
2001)
 
Q.Whati
sther
elevanceofsuchdi
sti
nct
ion?
A.Ev
eryelementoft
heoffensemustbeall
egedintheInf
ormat
ion,
 mat
ter
sofevi
dence
– 
asdisti
ngui
shedfr
om t
hef act
sessent
ial
tothenatur
eoftheoff
ense 
–donotneedto
beal
leged.
 
22|Page
 
Q.Doesit,t
hen,fol
low,t
hatamot i
onforbi
llofparticul
arscannotbeusedbyan
accusedt
orequestt
hathebef
urni
shedwit
hevidence?
A.Yes.I tisnotthefunctionoft hebil
ltofurni
shtheaccusedwi t
ht heevidenceofthe
prosecution.Thus,the pr osecutorshallnotbe r equi
red toinclude i
nt he bi
llof
parti
cularsmat t
ersofevidencer el
ati
ngtohowt hepeopleintendtoprovetheelements
oft he of f
ense char
ged orhow t he peopl
ei nt
end to prove anyitem off actual
i
nformat i
oni ncl
udedi
nt hebillofparti
cul
ar Enr
.( i
lev.People,
2015)
 
Q.Whenshoul damot iontoquashbef i
ledinsteadofabillofpart
icul
ars?
A.Iftheinf
ormation doesnotchargeanoffense,thenamot iontoquashisi
nor der.
 
Butifthei nfor
mat i
onchar gesanof f
enseandt heaverment saresovaguet hatthe
accused cannotpr epareto plead orpreparef ortr
ial
,t hen amot i
on forabi llof
parti
cular
si stheproperremedy.  
Thus,amot iont oquashandamot i
onf orabi l
lof
par
ti
cularsaredi
sti
nctandseparat
er emedi
es,
 t
helat
terpresupposi
ngani
nfor
mat
ion
suf
fi
cientinl
awtochargeanoff
ense. 
(Enr
il
ev.Peopl
e,2015)

Q.Whatist
heremedyagainstadeni
alofaMot
iont
oQuash?
A.Theremedyagai
nstthedenialofamoti
ontoquashi
sfort
hemov
antaccusedt
o
enterapl ea,
got otrial
,andshouldthedecisi
onbeadver
se,r
eit
erateonappealfr
om t he
fi
naljudgmentandassi gnaserr
orthedenialoft
hemotiontoquash.Thedenial,being
ani nterl
ocut
oryor der,isnotappealabl
e,andmaynotbet hesubjectofapet i
ti
onf or
certi
or ar
ibecauseoft heavai
labi
li
tyofotherremedi
esintheor di
narycourseofl aw.
(Enril
evs.Manal astas,2014)
 
Q.Howi
sconspi
racyal
l
eged? 
A.Aconspi r
acyi ndi
ctmentneednot ,ofcourse,av erallthecomponent sofconspiracy
oral l
egeallthedet ai
lst hereof,li
kethepar tthateachoft hepar ti
estherei
nhav e
perfor
med,t heev i
dencepr ov i
ngt hecommondesi gnort hef actsconnectingallt he
accusedwi t
honeanot heri nt heweboft heconspi r
acy .Neitheri sitnecessaryt o
describeconspiracywit ht hesamedegr eeofpar ti
culari
tyrequi r
edi ndescribi
nga
substanti
veoffense.
 I
tisenought hattheindictmentcont ai
nsast atementofthef acts
rel
iedupont obeconst itutiveoft heoffenseinor dinaryandconci selanguage,wit
has
muchcer tai
ntyast henat ureoft hecasewi lladmi t
,inamannert hatcanenabl ea
personofcommonunder standingt oknow whati si nt
ended,andwi thsuchprecision
thattheaccusedmaypl eadhi sacqui tt
alorconv icti
ont oasubsequenti ndi
ctment
basedont hesamef acts.( Peoplev.Qui t
long,1998)
 
Q.Whatar
etheel
ement
sofapr
ejudi
cialquest
ion?
A.
 (
a)theprevi
ousl
yinsti
tut
edciv
ilact
ioninvol
vesanissuesimil
arorinti
mat el
yrel
ated
t
ot heissuer
aisedinthesubsequentcrimi
nalacti
on,and( b)theresolut
ionofsuch
i
ssuedetermi
neswhetherornott
hecriminal
actionmayproceed(Sec.7,Rule111).
 
Q.Isitpossi
blethatanacti
onbeforeanadmi ni
str
ati
vebodymaybet
hebasi
sto
suspendacri
minalcaseduet
oaprejudi
cialquesti
on?
A.Yes.Theconceptofapr
ejudi
cialquest
ioni
nvol
vesaci
vi
lact
ionandacr
imi
nalcase.
23|Page
Yet,cont r
arytoSanMi guelPr opert
ies’submi ssi
onthattherecoul dbenopr ejudi
cial
quest i
ont ospeakofbecausenoci vilactionwher etheprej
udicialquestionarosewas
pending, t
he action f orspeci fi
c per f
or mance i nthe HLURB r aises a prejudi
cial
quest i
on t
hatsuf fi
ced t o suspend thepr oceedingsdetermining thechar gef orthe
cri
mi nalviol
ati
onofSect i
on2524ofPr esi denti
alDecr
eeNo.957.Thi sistruesimpl y
becauset heact i
onf orspeci f
icperformancewasanact i
on civ
ilinnat ur
ebutcoul dnot
beinst i
tutedelsewher e exceptintheHLURB,whosej uri
sdicti
onov ertheactionwas
exclusiveandor i
ginal.(SanMi guelv.Per ez, 2013)

A prej
udicialquestioni sunderstoodi nl aw tobet hatwhichar isesinacaset he
resol
uti
onofwhi chisalogicalant
ecedentoft heissueinvol
vedinthecriminalcase,and
thecognizanceofwhi chpertai
nstoanot hert ri
bunal.I
tisdeterminati
veoft hecri
mi nal
case,butthej uri
sdi
ctiontotryandr esolveitislodgedi nanothercourtortri
bunal.I
tis
basedonaf actdist
inctandseparatef r
om t hecrimebuti ssointi
matelyconnectedwi t
h
thecri
met hati tdet
erminestheguiltorinnocenceoft heaccused.

A prej
udicialquest i
onneed notconcl usi
velyresolvet hegui l
tori nnocenceoft he
accused.Itisenoughf orthepr ejudi
cialquest i
ont osi mplyt estthesuffi
ciencyoft he
all
egati
onsi nthei nformationi nordert osust ai
nthef urtherprosecutionofthecr iminal
case.A par tywho r aisesa pr ejudicialquest i
on isdeemed t o havehy potheticall
y
admitt
edt hatal ltheessent i
alelement soft hecr i
mehav ebeenadequat elyallegedi n
theinf
ormat ion,consi deri
ngt hatthePr osecuti
onhasnoty etpresentedasi nglepi ece
ofev i
denceont hei ndict
mentormaynothav er estedi tscase.A chal l
enget ot he
all
egati
onsi nthei nf
or mationont hegr oundofpr ejudi
cial questi
oni si
nef f
ecta
questi
onont hemer i
tsoft hecri
mi nalchar gethroughanon- criminalsui
t.(SanMi guel
Proper
ti
es,I
nc.vs.Per
ez,2013)
 
Q.Whataretheelementsofdoubl
ejeopar
dy?
A. Doublejeopardyonl yapplieswhen:( 1)af ir
stjeopardyatt
ached;(
2)ithasbeen
vali
dlyterminat
ed;and( 3)asecondj eopar
dyisf orthesameof f
enseasinthefir
st.A
fi
rstjeopardyattachesonl yaftertheaccusedhasbeenacqui tt
edorconvict
ed,orthe
casehasbeendi smissedorot her
wisetermi
nat edwithouthi
sexpressconsent
,bya
compet entcourtinav ali
dindictmentforwhicht heaccusedhasenter
edav ali
dplea
duringarrai
gnment .
  
(Ocampov.Hon.Abando, 2014)
 
Q.Whenisbailamat
terofr
ightandwheni
sitdi
scr
eti
onar
y?(
Enr
il
ev.Sandi
ganbayan,
J.Ber
samin,
2015)

A.Thegener alruleisxxx t hat 

anyper son,beforebei ngconv i
ctedofanycr i
mi nal
off
ense, shal
lbebai l
abl e,unl
esshei schargedwi t
hacapi t
alof f
ense, orwithanoffense
punishablewith r
eclusionper petua orli
feimpr i
sonment ,andt heev i
denceofhi sguil
tis
str
ong. Hence,from themomenthei splacedunderar rest,orisdet ainedorrestr
ained
bytheof fi
cer
soft hel aw, hecancl aimt heguaranteeofhi spr ovi
sionalliber
tyunderthe
Bil
lofRights,andher etainshisrighttobai lunl
esshei schar gedwi thacapi t
aloff
ense,
orwi thanof f
ensepuni shablewi t r
h eclusionperpetua orlifeimpr isonment,andt he
evi
denceofhi sgui l
tisst rong.Oncei thasbeenest abl
ishedt hattheev i
denceofguil
tis
24|Page
st
rong,
nor
ightt
obai
lshal
lber
ecogni
zed.
 

Asar esul t
,allcri
minalcaseswi t
hint hecompet enceoft heMet ropol i
tanTr i
alCourt,
Muni cipalTrialCourt
,Muni cipalTr i
alCour tinCi ti
es,orMuni cipalCi r
cui tTrialCourtare
bailabl easmat t
erofr i
ght becauset hesecour tshav enoj uri
sdictiont ot rycapital
offenses,or of fenses puni shabl
e wi th r
eclusion per petua or l if
e i mpr i
sonment .
Likewi se, bai
l i
samat terofr ightpri
ort oconv icti
onbyt heRegi onal Tri
al Cour t(RTC)for
anyof fensenotpuni shabl ebydeat h,r
 eclusionper petua,orl if
ei mpr i
sonment ,oreven
priort o conv i
cti
on foran of fense puni shable bydeat h,r
 eclusion per petua,orl i
fe
i
mpr isonmentwhenev idenceofgui ltisnotst rong.
 
Ont heot herhand, t
hegr antingofbai li
sdi screti
onar y:(1)uponconv i
ctionbyt heRTCof
anof fensenotpuni shablebydeat h,
 reclusionper petua orli
fei mprisonment ; or(2)i
fthe
RTChasi mposedapenal t
yofi mpr i
sonmentex ceedingsixy ears,prov i
dednoneoft he
circumst ancesenumer atedunderpar agraph3ofSect i
on5,Rul e114i spr esent,as
follows:

a.Thathei sar ecidivi

st,quasi-r
ecidi
vi
st,orhabit
ualdelinquent
,orhascommi t
ted
thecrimeaggr avatedbyt hecircumstanceofrei
ter
ation;
b.Thathehaspr eviouslyescapedf rom legalconfi
nement ,evadedsentence,or
viol
atedthecondi ti
onsofhi sbailwit
houtvali
djusti
fi
cat i
on;
c.Thathecommi ttedt heof fensewhi l
eunderpr obation,parol
e,orconditi
onal
pardon;
d.Thatthecircumst ancesofhi scaseindicat
etheprobabi l
it
yoffli
ghti
frel
easedon
bail
;or
e.Thatthereisunduer iskthathemaycommi tanot
hercr imeduringt
hependency
oftheappeal.

Q.Whodet
ermi
neswhet
hert
heevi
denceofgui
lti
sst
rong?
A.Thet ri
alcourt.Forpurposesofadmi ssi
ontobail,
the 
deter
mi nat
ionofwhet herornot
evidenceofgui ltisstrong incr i
minalcasesinvol
vingcapitaloffenses,oroffenses
punishablewit r
h eclusi
onper petua 
orli
feimpri
sonmentlies 
withi
nthedi scr
eti
onoft he
tr
ialcourt
. Enr
( il
ev.Sandi ganbayan,J.Bersami
n,2015)
 
Q.Whatmustt het
ri
alj
udgeconsi
deringrant
ingbai
linf
avorofanaccusedcharged
wit
h a capit
aloff
ense oran of
fense puni
shabl
e by recl
usi
on per
petua orli
fe
i
mpr i
sonment?
Inresolvi
ngbailapplicat
ionsoftheaccusedwhoi schargedwi t
hacapit
aloff
ense,or
anof fensepunishableby r
 ecl
usionperpetua 
orli
feimprisonment
,thetri
aljudgeis
expectedto
complywi tht
hegui deli
nesoutl
inedi Cor
n  tesv.Cat
ral
,
 towi t
:

“I
nal lcases,whetherbai
lisamatterofri
ghtorofdi
scret
ion,not
if
ythe
prosecutoroft heheari
ngoft heappl
icat
ionforbai
lorrequir
ehimt o
submi thisrecommendation(
Secti
on18,Rule114oftheRulesofCourt
,
asamended) ;
25|Page
 1.Wher ebailisamat terofdiscr eti
on,conducta  heari
ng ofthe
applicat i
onforbai lregar dl
essofwhet herornott hepr osecuti
on
refusest opr esentev i
dencet oshowt hattheguiltoftheaccused
i
sst rongf ort hepur poseofenabl ingt hecourtt oexer ci
sei t
s
sounddi scr
et i
on;(Sect i
ons7and8)
2.Deci dewhet hert hegui ltoft heaccusedi sst rongbasedon
the summar yofev idence ofthepr osecution;
and
3.Ift heguiltoft heaccusedi s 
notst r
ong,dischargetheaccused
upont heappr ovaloft hebailbond.( Secti
on19)  
Otherwisepet i
ti
on
shoul dbedeni ed.”(Enr i
lev.Sandiganbayan, J.Ber samin,2015)

Q.Canbai lbegrantedbasedonhumani t
ari
angr ounds,i
ndependentoft
hel egal
merit
softhecase?
A.Yes. 
Bai
lfort
hepr ov
isi
onall
iber
tyoft
heaccused,
 r
egardl
essofthecri
mecharged,
shoul
dbeal l i
owed ndependent
lyofthemer
it
soft hecharge,pr
ovidedhi
sconti
nued
i
ncarcer ati
oniscl earl
yshownt obei njuri
oust ohishealthort oendangerhi slif
e.Indeed,
denyinghi m baildespi t
ei mper il
inghi sheal thandl i
fewouldnotser vethet rueobj ecti
ve
ofprev enti
veincar cerati
ondur ingt het r
ial.Granti
ngbai lxxxont heforegoi ngreasons
i
snotunpr ecedent ed.TheCour thasal r
eadyhel din DelaRamav.ThePeopl e’
sCour t
: 
x
xx [U]nlessallowanceofbai lisf orbi
ddenbyl awi ntheparticularcase,thei l
lnessoft he
pri
soner ,i
ndependent lyoft hemer i
tsoft hecase, isacircumst ance,andt hehumani tyof
thelawmakesi taconsi derationwhi chshoul d,regardl
essoft hechargeandt hest age
ofthepr oceeding,i nf
luencet hecour ttoexer ci
sei t
sdiscretiontoadmi tt hepr i
sonert o
47
bail
;  xxx  [
G]rantingpr ovisionall i
ber t
yt o[il
laccused]wi l
lthenenabl ehi mt ohav ehis
medicalcondi ti
on be pr oper ly addr essed and bet terat tended to by compet ent
physici
ansi nt hehospi talsofhi schoi ce.Thegr antofbai lisproperi fitwi ll
 aidin
accused’ sadequat epr epar ati
onofhi sdef ense[and],mor
  ei mportant
ly,wi llguarantee
hisappear anceincour tforthet rial
. Enr
( i
lev.Sandi ganbayan, J.Bersami n,2015)

NOTE:Onceanaccusedescapesf rom pr
isonorconfinement
,jumpsbail(asi nthi
s
case),orfl
eestoafor
eigncount
ry,
heloseshisstandi
ngincourt
.Unlesshesurrender
s
orsubmi t
stothej
uri
sdi
cti
onofthecourt
,heisdeemedt ohavewaivedanyri
ghttoseek
rel
ieff
r om t
hecour
t–andt hisi
ncl
udestheaccused’sri
ghttoappeal Peopl
.( ev.Piad,
etal.
,2016)

Q.Ger r
y,RickyandNi kkiwerechar gedwi thviolati
onoft heAnt i
-Gr
aftandCor r
upt
PracticesAct .Uponf i
ndingprobablecause,t heOmbudsmandi r
ectedthatacasebe
fi
ledagai nstt hethr eeaccused.Dur ingtri
al,theOmbudsmanwant edt ograntthe
requestf orimmuni t
ysoughtbyGer ryandRi ckysot hattheymayt est
if
yagainstthe
mast ermind oft hecor ruptact,Ni kki.I
st hepoweroft heOmbudsman t o gr
ant
i
mmuni tysti
llsubjectt otheprovisi
onsoft heRul esofCourt?
A.Yes.RA6770pr ovides: 
Sec.17.I
 mmuni t
ies.xxx.Undersucht er
msandcondi ti
ons
asitmaydet ermine, taki
ngi nt
oaccountt heper t
inentprovi
sionsofthe 
RulesofCourt
,
t
heOmbudsmanmaygr anti
mmunit
yf r
om crimi
nalprosecut
iont
oanypersonwhose
t
est
imonyorwhosepossessi
onandproduct
ionofdocumentsorot
herev
idencemaybe

26|Page
necessarytodetermi nethetr
ut hinanyhear ing,inquir
yorproceedingbeingconducted
bytheOmbudsmanorunderi tsaut horit
y,int
heper f
ormanceorint hefur
theranceofit
s
consti
tuti
onalfuncti
onsandst atutoryobject
ives.Thei mmunit
ygr antedundert hi
sand
the i
mmedi atel
ypr eceding paragr aph shal
lnotexemptt he witness f
rom cr i
minal
prosecuti
onforper juryorfalset estimonynorshal lhebeexemptf rom demot i
onor
remov al
from off
ice.(Quart
ov.Ombudsman, 2011)
 
Q.Whataret
her equi
rementsforthedi
schar
geofanaccusedasast at
ewit
ness?
Whati
stheef
fectofanordergr
anti
ngthedi
schar
geofanaccusedasast
atewi
tness?
A.Ther equi rement sf orthedi
schar geofanaccusedasast at
ewi tnessar e:
 
 
Sect i
on17.  Dischar geofaccusedt obest atewi t
ness.—Whent woormor eper sonsare
j
ointlychar gedwi tht hecommi ssionofanyof fense,uponmot ionoft hepr osecuti
on
beforer esting i t
scase,t he cour tmaydi rectone ormor e oft he accused t o be
dischargedwi tht hei rconsentsot hattheymaybewi t
nessesf ort hest atewhen,af t
er
requiri
ng the pr osecut i
on to presentev i
dence and t he swor n statementofeach
proposedst atewi tnessatahear inginsuppor tofthedi schar
ge,t hecour tissat i
sfi
ed
that:(ADSuMM)
(a)Ther eis  Absol utenecessi ty
 forthet estimonyoft heaccusedwhosedi schargei s
requested;
(b)Thei s noot her Di rectevi
dence avail
ablef ortheproperpr osecut i
onoft heof f
ense
commi t
ted, exceptt het est
imonyofsai daccused;
(c)Thet est i
monyofsai daccusedcanbe  Substanti
allycorrobor at
ed  i
nitsmat er
ial
points;
(d)Saidaccused  doesnotappeart obet he Mostgui l
ty;and
(e)Sai daccusedhasnotatanyt i
mebeenconv i
ctedofanyof f
ensei nvolving 
Mor al
turpi
tude.

Evidenceadducedi nsuppor toft hedischargeshal laut

omat i
call
yform partoft
het r
ial.
Ifthecour tdeniesthemot i
onf ordischargeoft heaccusedasst atewitness,hi
sswor n
statementshal lbeinadmissi
bleinev idence.Theef f
ectofthedischar
geofanaccused
asast atewi t
nessist hatofanacqui t
talunderSect ion18whi chstates: 
Secti
on
18. Dischargeofaccusedoper atesasacqui ttal.—Theor derindi
catedinthepreceding
sectionshal lamounttoanacqui tt
aloft hedi schargedaccusedandshal lbeabart o
futurepr osecuti
on 
forthesameof fense,unl
  esst heaccusedf ai
lsorrefusestotestif
y
agai
nsthisco-accusedi
naccordancewi
thhisswornstatementconst
it
uti
ngt
hebasis
fort
hedischar
ge.
 
Q.Wherecanapar t
yquest
ionorder
sandresol
uti
onsoftheoffi
ceoftheOmbudsman?
A.Itdepends.I fwhatt hepar t
ywi shestoquestionisanorderorr esoluti
oninan
administ
rati
vecase, thepartymayappealbeforetheCAv i
aRule43.I
fitinvolvesorders
and resol
utionsi nvolv
ing cri
minalcasessuchasdet er
minati
onofpr obablecause
(Bavi
erav.Zol eta,2006)oranor dergr
anti
ngi mmunit
ytoanaccused( Quartov.
Ombudsman,2011)andt hereisgraveabuseofdiscr
eti
on,t
hepartymayquest i
ont he
order
sorr esoluti
onsbef or
etheSupr emeCourtvi
aRule65.
 
Q:
 Cant
hecour
tsi
nter
fer
eint
heCOMELEC'
sfi
ndi
ngt
hatpr
obabl
ecauseexi
sts?
27|Page
A: General
ly,theCourtwillnoti nter
ferewi thsuchf indingoft heCOMELECabsenta
cl
earshowi ng ofgr ave abuse ofdi scret
ion.Thi s pr i
nciple emanat es from t he
COMELEC’ s excl
usiv
e powert o conductpr eli
mi naryi nvestigation ofal lelection
offensespunishableundert heelecti
onl awsandt opr osecutet hesame, exceptasmay
otherwisebepr ovi
dedbyl aw.Theest abli
shedr uleist hatapr eliminaryinvesti
gationis
nottheoccasi onforthefullandexhaust i
vedisplayoft hepar t
ies’ evidence.Iti
sf orthe
presentati
onofonl ysuchev idenceasmayengenderawel l-
gr oundedbel iefthatan
offensehasbeencommi tted,andt heaccusedi spr obablyguilt
yt her
eof .
 

Q.Whati
sthenat
ureofsear
chwar
rantpr
oceedi
ngs?
A. Asearchwarrantproceedingi
saspeci alcri
minalandj udicialpr
ocessaki nt
oawr it
ofdiscovery.I
tisdesignedbyt heRul
esofCr iminalProcedur etor espondonl ytoan
i
ncidentinthemai ncase,ifonehasalreadybeeni nsti
tuted,ori nanticipati
onthereof.
Sinceitisatmosti nci
dentaltothemaincr i
minalcase,anor dergrantingordeny i
nga
mot i
on t o quash a sear ch warr
ant may be quest i
oned onl y vi
  a 
a petiti
on
forcer
  t
iorar
i 
underRule65.
 
Q: Afterr eceivingacompl aintf rom PLDToft hei ll
egalact ivityofXCor porationof
usingMabuhaycar dandot herequi pmentcapabl eofr eceivingandt ransmi t
ti
ngcal l
s
from t heUSAt ot hePhi l
ippineswi t
houtt hesecal lspassi ngt hrought hef acil
it
iesof
PLDT,PAOCTFf iledt woappl icationsf orthei ssuanceofsear chwar rantforVi olation
ofAr ticl
e308oft heRPCf orThef tofTel ephoneSer vicesandf orVi olationofP. D.401
forunaut horizedi nstallat i
onoft elephonecommuni cati
on.Thet rialcour ti ssuedt wo
sear chwar rantsf ort hesai dvi olati
ons.I ni mplement i
ngt hesear chwar r
ants,t he
policet eam sear chedt hepr emi sesofXCor porationandsei zedt hear ti
clesspeci fied
i
nt he sear ch war rant s.Subsequent ly,t he pr osecut orconduct ed a pr eli
mi nar y
i
nvest i
gationandf oundt hatt heof f
icersofXCor por at
ionwer epr obabl ygui l
tythereof .
XCor porat i
onandi tsof fi
cer ssoughtt oquasht hesear chwar rant sont hegr ounds
thatt herewasnopr obabl ecause;andt hatt hesear chwar rant swer egener alwar rants
andwer ewr onglyi mpl ement ed.Shoul dt het r
ialcour tgrantt heMot i
ont oQuash?
Whati spr obabl ecause?Ar et hesear chwar rantsint hiscasei nt henat ureofgener al
war rants?
A.Thecour tshouldnotgr anttheMot iont oQuasht hesear chwar rantsont hegr ound
thattherewasnopr obabl ecause.Pr obabl ecause,asacondi t i
onf ort hei ssuanceofa
searchwar r
ant,i
ssuchr easonssuppor tedbyf actsandcircumst ancesaswi l
lwarranta
cautiousmant obel i
ev et hathisacti
onandt hemeanst akeni npr osecut ingitarelegall
y
j
ustandpr oper.Itr equi resfactsandci rcumstancest hatwoul dl eadar easonably
prudentmant obel i
ev ethatanof f
ensehasbeencommi t
tedandt hatt heobj ectssought
i
nconnect i
onwi t
ht hatof f
ensear ei nt hepl acetobesear ched.PLDTwasabl eto
producepiecesofev i
dencet hat,i
ftakent ogether
,aremor ethansuf ficienttosuppor ta
fi
ndingthatprobablecausenecessar yt oengenderabel i
efthatXCor por at
ion,etal.had
probablycommi ttedt hecr imeofThef tthroughill
egalact i
v i
ti
es.Ev idencet oshow
probablecauset oi ssueasear chwar rantmustbedi stinguishedf rom pr oofbey ond
reasonabledoubtwhi ch, atthisjunctureoft hecr i
minalcase,isnotr equi red. 
Thesubjectsear chwar r
antsar enotgener alwarrantsbecauset hei t
emst obe
seizedwer esuff
icientlyi denti
fi
edandspeci fi
call
yidenti
fiedbyst ati
ngt heirrel
ati
ont o
28|Page
theof fenseschar gedwhi chareThef tandVi ol
ati
onofPr esidenti
alDecr eeNo.401
thr
ought heconductofi ll
egalI
SRact ivit
ies.Asear chwar rantissuedmustpar ti
cul
arl
y
describethepl acetobesear chedandper sonsort hingst obesei zedi norderf orittobe
val
id,ot herwise,itisconsi der
edasagener alwar rantwhi chi spr oscri
bedbybot h
j
urisprudenceandt he1987Const i
tuti
on.I nUyKhey t i
nv.Vi l
lareal,theCour texpl ai
ned
thepur poseoft heaf orementi
onedr equi rementf orav al
idsear chwar r
ant ,towi t:A
SearchWar rantshouldpar ti
cul
arl
ydescr ibet heplacet obesear chedandt het hi
ngsto
besei zed.Theev identpurposeandi ntentoft hisrequirementi stol i
mi tt
het hingst obe
sei
z edt ot hose,andonl ythose,particularl
ydescr ibedi nthesear chwar rant-what
art
iclestheyshal lseize,totheendt hat“ unreasonablesear chesandsei zures”maynot
bemade,-t hatabusesmaynotbecommi ted.(
t HPSSof twar eandCommuni cati
onv.
PLDT,
2012)

EVI
DENCE

Q.Whati
stheBestEvi
denceRul
e?
A.  
Secti
on3( d)ofRul e130oft heRul esofCour tprovi
dest hatwhent hesubj ectof
i
nquiryist hecont entsofadocument ,noev idenceshal lbeadmi ssibl
eot herthant he
origi
naldocumenti tself
,exceptwhent heoriginalisapubl i
cr ecordint hecustodyofa
publi
cof f
icerori srecordedinapubl icoffi
ce.Sect i
on7oft hesameRul eprovi
dest hat
whent heor iginalofadocumenti sint hecustodyofapubl icof fi
cerori srecordedina
publi
cof f
ice, i
tscont ent
smaybepr ovedbyacer t
if
iedcopyi ssuedbyt hepubl i
cof fi
cer
i
ncust odyt hereof.Section24ofRule132pr ov idesthatther ecordofpubl icdocument s
maybeev idencedbyacopyat testedbyt heof f
icerhavingt hel egalcustodyort he
record.

Not
e:TheBestEv i
denceRuleappliesonlywhenthetermsofawr i
ttendocument
arethesubjectoft heinquir
y.Inanact i
onforquieti
ngoftit
lebasedonthei nexi
stence
ofadeedofsal ewi t
hr i
ghttorepurchasethatpurpor
tedl
ycastacloudont het i
tl
eofa
proper
ty,t
her ef
ore,t heBestEv i
denceRul edoesnotappl y,andthedefendanti snot
precl
udedfrom pr esenti
ngevidenceotherthantheorigi
naldocument
.(HeirsofPr odon
v.Heir
sofAl varez,J.Bersamin,2013)

Q.Mr .Cayetanoisthecust
odianoft herecordofbirt
hofChar
ieMae.Heexecutedan
af
fidavitatt
esti
ng tot hetruthf
ulnessoft hef actofbi
rthofCharieMaeand he
at
tached herdul y-
authent
icated birt
h cert
ifi
cate ofbi
rt
ht o hi
s aff
idavi
t.
 Must
Mr.
Cayet anoaffi
rm hi
saffi
daviti
nopencour t?
A.No.  
Ast othehearsayrule,Secti
on44ofRul e130oftheRulesofCourtsimi
l
arl
y
provi
dest hatentriesi nofficialrecor dsareanexcept iont otherule.Ther uleprovides
thatentr
iesinof f
icialrecordsmadei nt heperfor manceoft hedutyofapubl i
cofficerof
thePhili
ppines,orbyaper soni nt heperformanceofadut yspecial
lyenj
oi nedbyl aw,
areprimaf acieevidenceoft hef act stherei
nst ated.Thenecessi t
yoft hi
sr uleconsists
i
nt heinconv eni
enceanddi ffi
cultyofr equiri
ngt heofficial
’satt
endanceasawi tnesst o
testi
fytot hei nnumer ablet ransactionsi nthecour seofhi sdut y
.Thedocument ’
s
trust
worthinessconsi stsint hepr esumpt i
onofr egul
arityofperfor
manceofof fi
cialduty.
Assuch,t heyar eexcept ionst ot hehear sayrul eandar epri
maf acieevidenceoft he
29|Page
f
act
sst
atedt
her
ein.(
Dimagui
lav.Mont
eir
o,2014)
 
Q.Whati
sthePar
olEvi
denceRul
e?
A.  
The Parol 
EvidenceRuleappl i
est o“ t
hepar tiesandt heirsuccessor si ninterest.”
 
Conv er
sely,ithas no appl ication to a st r
angert o a cont r
act. Forpur poses of
the 
Parol Evi
denceRul e,a per son who cl aimst o bet hebenef i
ciaryofan al leged
sti
pulati
on pour 
aut r
ui 
i
nacont ract(suchaspet iti
oners)maybeconsi der
edapar tyt o
that contract.
 I t has been hel dt hat a t hird par t
y who av ail
s himsel f of a
sti
pulati
on pour 
aut r
ui 
underacont r
actbecomesapar tyt ot hatcont r
act.
 Thi siswhy
underAr ti
cle1311, abenefi
ciaryofast i
pulati
on pour autrui  
isrequiredtocommuni cate
his acceptance t ot he 
obli
gor  bef
orei tsr ev ocati
on.  Mor eover,t o preclude t he
appli
cationof Parol 
Evi
denceRul e,i
tmustbeshownt hat  
“ atleastoneoft hepar t
iest o
thesuitisnotpar tyorapr i
vyofapar tytot hewr i
tt
eni nst rumenti nquestion anddoes
notbaseaclai
m ont
heinst
rumentorassertar
ightor
igi
nat
ingi
nt heinstr
umentorthe
rel
ati
onest
abli
shedt
her
eby.
”  
Abenefi
ciar
yofast i
pul
ati pour
on   autr
ui obvi
ousl
ybases
hi
scl ai
m ont hecontract
. Het hereforecannotclai
mt obeast rangertothecont ract
andr esi
sttheapplicati
onoft he Parol
 Evi
denceRule.Thus,evenassumi ngt hatt he
al
legedoralunder
takingsinvokedbypet iti
onersmaybedeemedst ipul
ati
ons pour 
autrui
,
sti
llpeti
ti
oner
s’clai
m cannotpr osper,becausetheyarebarr
edf rom pr
ov i
ngt hem by
oralevi
denceunderthe Parol
 EvidenceRule.(Hei
rsof 
Pacres 
vs.Heirsof 
Ygoña, 2010)

Q.Canavoi
dcont
ractbeadmi
tt
edasevi denceincourt?
A.Yes.Whi
l
ethet
ermsandprovi
sionsofav oi
dcontractcannotbeenf
orcedsi
ncei
tis
deemedi nexi
stent,i
tdoesnotpr ecludetheadmi ssi
bili
tyofthecontr
actasev i
dencet o
provemat t
ersthatoccurr
edi nthecour seofexecut i
ngthecontract
,i.
e.,
whateachpar t
y
hasgivenintheexecut i
onoft hecont r
act.Evi
denceisadmi ssi
blewheni ti
srelevantto
theissueandi snotexcl udedbyt hel aw oftheser ul
es.Thereisnopr ovi
sionint he
RulesofEv i
dencewhi chexcludest headmi ssi
bil
ityofav oiddocument.TheRul esonly
requi
rethattheev i
denceisrelevantandnotexcl udedbyt heRulesforit
sadmi ssibi
l
ity.
Hence,avoiddocumenti sadmi ssibleasevidencebecauset hepurposeofintroducing
i
tasevi
denceistoascert
ainthet
rut
hrespect
ingamat
teroff
act
,nott
oenf
orcet
he
t
ermsofthedocumenti
tsel
f.(
Tanvs.Hosana,
2016)

Q.Is cir
cumstant
ialevidence suff
ici
entt
o war
ranta convict
ion? (
People ofthe
Phi
li
ppinesvs.Bar
on,J.Bersamin,2016)
A.Yes.UnderRule133,Sect i
on4oft heRul
esofCour
t,Circumstant
ialev
idenceis
suf
fi
cientforconvict
ionif:
(a)Thereismor et
hanonecir
cumstance;
(b)Thef actsfrom whi
chthei
nfer
encesareder
ivedar
epr
oven;and
(c)Thecombi nati
onofal
lthecir
cumstancesi
ssuchastoproduceaconv
ict
ion
beyondr easonabledoubt
.

Q.Whati
stheHear
sayRule?
A.TheHear
sayRul
erender
sinadmi
ssi
bleasev
idenceout
-of
-cour
tst
atement
smadeby
personswhoarenotpr esent
edaswi
tnessesbutareof
fer
edaspr oofofthematt
ers
stated.Thi
srul
eproceedsf r
om t
hebasicrat
ional
eoffai
rness,asthepart
yagai
nst
30|Page
whom i
tispr
esent
edi
sunabl
etocr
oss-
exami
net
heper
sonmaki
ngt
hest
atement
.

Q.Whatisadoublehear
say ?
A.An out -
of-
cour
tstatementof fer
ed as ev
idence contai
ns anot
herout -
of-
cour
t
stat
ement.To be admi ssi
ble,bothlayer
s of 
hearsay 
mustbe f ound separ
atel
y
admissi
ble.

Q.Ther apevicti
m soughtt orecanthertesti
monyidenti
fyi
ngtheaccusedaf terthe
Prosecuti
onhadal r
eadyf i
leditsFormalOfferofEvi
dence.Thetri
alcourtdismissed
therecantat
ionsasincredulousandunwor t
hyofbelief
,andfoundtheaccusedgui lty
beyondreasonabledoubtforthecri
meofr ape.WastheRTCcor r
ectini
tsrul
ing?
A.Yes.Thevicti
m’srecantati
onisunrel
i
abl
e.Infact
,theRTCnotedthattheall
egedr eal
culprithaddi edin2004,t wo( 2)y earsbef orethecommi ssionoft her apechar gesi n
2006.Thet ri
alcourtdismissedt her ecantati
onsasi ncredulousandunwor t
hyofbel ief
.
Inhert esti
mony ,AAAi ntimatedt hatshewasnotr apedbyherf ather,butwasact uall
y
rapedbyhergr andf
atherwhohadal readypassedaway .Ar etractionislookeduponwi th
consi derabledisfavorbyt hecour ts.Itisexceedinglyunr eli
ablef ortherei sal
way st he
probabi li
tythatsuchr ecantationmayl ateronber epudiated.I tcaneasi l
ybeobt ained
from wi tnesses through intimi dation ormonet ar y consider ati
on.Li ke any ot her
testimony ,iti
ssubjectt othetestofcr edibil
it
ybasedont her elevantcircumstancesand,
especi all
y,ont hedemeanoroft hewi tnessont hest and.Finally,denialcouldnotpr evai
l
ov erthev icti
m’sdirect
, posi
ti
v eandcat egori
calasserti
on.Appel lant
’sguiltoft
hecr i
me
char gedwasest abl
ishedbey ondr easonabl edoubt.

Q.I saTr aff

icAcci
dentInvesti
gati
onRepor tadmissi
bleasevidenceincourt
,asan
exception tothe Hearsay Rule? (
DST Mover s Cor
porat
ion vs.Peopl
e’s General
InsuranceCorpor
ati
on,J.Bersamin,2016)
A.No.At raf
fi
cacci
dentinvesti
gati
onreportpr
eparedbyapoliceoffi
cerr
ely
ingsolely
ont heaccountofasupposedey ewi t
nessandnotonhi sorherper sonalknowl edgei s
notev i
dencet hati sadmi ssibleasanexcept iont ot heHearsayRul e.Oneoft he
excepti
onsoft heHear sayRul eispr ovi
dedunderSec.44ofRul e130,i nrelationt o
entri
esinof ficialrecor
d.Pr eciselyasanexcept iont otheHear sayRul e,Rul e130,
Section44doesawaywi tht heneedf orpr esentingaswi tnesst hepubl icoff i
ceror
personper f
ormi ngadut yspeci al
lyenjoinedbyl awwhomadet heent r
y.This,howev er
,
i
sonl ytr
ue,forasl ongthef oll
owi ngrequisit
eshav ebeensatisfi
ed:
a.t hattheentrywasmadebyapubl i
cof fi
cerorbyanot herpersonspeci al
ly
enjoinedbylawt odoso;
b. thati twasmadebyt hepubl i
coffi
ceri ntheper
formanceofhi sdut i
es, or
bysuchot herper soni ntheper f
ormanceofadut yspeci al
lyenjoi
nedby
l
aw; and
c.t hatt hepubli
cof fi
cerorot herpersonhadsuf fi
cientknowl edgeoft he
factsbyhim st ated,whichmusthav ebeenacqui r
edbyhi m personal lyor
throughoffi
cialinformation.

Q.ThewitnessEstaotest
if
iedasfol
lows:(1)Bol
anonhadgonetotheresi
denceof
Est
ao,hi
suncle,toseekhelpri
ghtafterbei
ngstabbedbySal
afr
anca;(
2)Estaohad
31|Page
hurri
edl ydresseduptobri
nghi snephewt othePhi
li
ppineGeneralHospi t
albytaxicab;
(3)ont hewayt ot
hehospit
al,EstaohadaskedBolanonwhohadst abbedhi m,andthe
l
atterhadt oldEstaothathisassailanthadbeenSalafranca;(4)att het i
meoft he
utteranceBol anonhadseemedt obehavi ngahardt i
mebr eathing,causingEstaoto
advisehi m nott otal
kanymor e;(5)aboutt enminutesaf t
erhi sadmi ssi
onatt he
emer gencywar dofthehospital
,Bolanonhadexpir
edandhadbeenpr onounceddead.
Isthet esti
monyofEstaoadmi ssi
ble?(Peopl
ev.Salaf
ranca,J.Bersami n,
2012)

A.Yes.Anant e-mor t
em decl ar ationofavi ctim ofmur der ,homi ci de,orpar ri
ci det hat
meet st he condi tions of admi ssi bil
ity under t he  Rules of Cour t 
and per ti
nent
j
ur i
sprudencei sadmi ssi bleei therasady i
ngdecl ar at i
onorasapar toft he resgest ae,
orbot h.Theabov eci rcumst ancesqual i
fiedt heut ter anceofBol anonasbot hady ing
declarat ionandaspar toft he  resgest ae, consi deringt hatt heCour thasr ecogni zedt hat
thest atementoft hev icti
m anhourbef or ehi sdeat handr i
ghtaf t
ert hehacki ngi ncident
boreal lt heear mar ksei therofady ingdecl arationorpar toft he  resgest ae eitherof
whichwasanexcept i
ont ot hehear sayr ule.
 
A dy ing decl aration,al though gener allyi nadmi ssi bleasev i
denceduet oi ts
hearsaychar act er,maynonet hel essbeadmi ttedwhent hef ol l
owi ngr equi sitesconcur ,
namel y :( a) t hat t he decl ar ation must concer n t he cause and sur r oundi ng
cir
cumst ancesoft hedecl arant sdeat h;(b)t hatatt het imet hedecl arat i
oni smade,t he
declaranti sunderaconsci ousnessofani mpendi ngdeat h;( c)t hatt hedecl aranti s
compet entasawi tness;  
and  (d)t hatt hedecl arationi sof fer edi nacr imi nalcasef or
homi cide, mur der ,orpar ri
ci de, i
nwhi cht hedecl aranti sav ictim.Al lt her equi siteswer e
mether ein.Bol anoncommuni cat edhi sant e-mor tem st at ementt oEst ao,i dent if
ying
Salafrancaast heper sonwhohadst abbedhi m.Att het i
meofhi sst atement ,Bol anon
wasconsci ousofhi simpendi ngdeat h, hav ingsust ainedast abwoundi nt hechestand,
accordi ng t o Est ao,was t hen exper i
enci ng gr eatdi ffi
cul tyi n br eathing.Bol anon
succumbedi nt hehospi talemer gencyr oom af ew mi nut esf rom admi ssion,whi ch
occur redundert hr eehour saf tert hest abbi ng.Ther ei sampl eaut hor ityfort hev i
ewt hat
thedecl arant sbel iefint hei mmi nenceofhi sdeat hcanbeshownbyt hedecl arant sown
statement s orf rom ci r
cumst ant ialev idence,such as t he nat ure ofhi s wounds,
statement smadei nhi spr esence,orbyt heopi nionofhi sphy si cian.Bol anonwoul d
havebeencompet entt ot est ifyont hesubj ectoft hedecl ar ationhadhesur v i
ved.Last ly
,
thedy ingdecl ar ationwasof f eredi nt hiscr imi nalpr osecut ionf ormur deri nwhi ch
Bolanonwast hev i
ct i
m.
 
Ont heot herhand,adecl ar ationoranut terancei sdeemedaspar toft he res
gestae  andt husadmi ssibl ei nev i
denceasanexcept iont ot hehear sayr ulewhent he
foll
owi ngr equi si tesconcur ,t owi t:(a)t hepr incipalact ,the  resgest ae,i sast artl
ing
occur rence;( b)t hest atement sar emadebef oret hedecl aranthadt imet ocont ri
veor
devise;and ( c)t he st atement s mustconcer nt he occur rence i n quest ion and i ts
i
mmedi at el
yat tendi ngci rcumst ances.Ther equi sitesf oradmi ssi bilit
yofadecl aration
aspar toft he r esgest ae  concurher ein.Sur ely,when hegav et hei dent it
yoft he
assailantt o Est ao,  Bolanonwasr efer ri
ngt oast art l
ingoccur rence,  
i.e.,hisst abbi ngby
Salafranca.Bol anonwast henonboar dt het axicabt hatwoul dbr inghi mt ot hehospi tal
,
32|Page
andt hushadnotimet ocontri
vehisi dent
if
icat
ionofSal
afr
ancaast heassail
ant.Hi
s
utter
anceaboutSalafr
ancahav i
ngst abbedhim wasmade inspontanei
tyandonl yi
n
reacti
on to t
he st ar
tl
ing occurr
ence.The st at
ement was rel
evant because i
t
i
dentifi
ed 
Sal
afr
anca astheperpet
rator.

Q.DoesaPr
otect
ionOderi
ssuedbyaBar
angayChai
rmanhaveanyef
fi
cacy?
A.Yes.  TheissuanceofaBPObyt hePunongBarangayor ,i
nhi sunavail
abi
li
ty,byany
avail
ableBar angayKagawad,mer el
yorderst
heperpetratortodesistfr
om (a)causi ng
physicalharmt othewomanorherchi l
d;and(2)t
hreateningt
ocauset hewomanorher
chil
dphy sicalharm.Suchfuncti
onofthePunongBar angayis,thus,pur
elyexecutiv
ei n
nature,i
npur suanceofhisdutyundertheLocalGovernmentCodet o“enfor
ceal ll
aws
andor di
nances,”andto“maintai
npubli
corderint
hebar angay.
” 
 
Q.Canat r
ialcourti
ssueaTempor ar
yProtect
ionOr
derwi
thouthear
ingwi
thout
vi
olat
ingt
heconstit
uti
onalguar
ant
eet
odueprocess?
A.Yes.Si nce“ ti
mei soft heessencei ncasesofVAWCi ff urtherv i
olencei stobe
prev ented,”thecour tisaut hori
zedt oissue  expar te aTPOaf terr affl
ebutbef or
enot i
ce
andhear i
ngwhent hel if
e,limborpr oper tyoft hev i
cti
mi si nj eopardyandt hereis
reasonabl egroundt obel ievethatt heor deri s necessar ytopr ot ectthev i
cti
mf rom the
i
mmedi ateandi mmi nentdangerofVAWCort opr ev entsuchv iolence, whichi saboutto
recur .Thescopeofr eli
efsinpr otecti
onor dersi sbr oadenedt oensur et hatthev i
cti
m or
offendedpar t
yisaf fordedallther emedi esnecessar ytocur tailaccessbyaper petrat
or
tot hev i
cti
m.Thegr antofaTPO  expar te cannot ,therefore,bechal lengedasv iol
ati
ve
oft her ightt o duepr ocess.I tisaconst it
utionalcommonpl acet hatt heor di
nar y
requi rement sofpr oceduralduepr ocessmusty i
eldt othenecessi t
iesofpr otect
ingv i
tal
publ i
ci nterests.(Tuav.Hon.Mangr obang, 2014)
 
Q:Doesf ai
luret
o photogr
aph orinvent
orytheseized i
ll
egaldr
ugsr endert
hem
i
nadmissi
bleasevi
denceagainstt
heaccused?Maythisfai
lur
eberaisedasaground
fort
hefi
rstti
meonappeal?
A.Fai luretophot ogr aphori nvent oryt heconf i
scatedi ll
egaldrugsi snotf atalt othe
prosecut ionofthecaseagai nstt heaccused.Thesei zedi t
emsmayst i
l
lbeadmi ttedin
evidenceasl ongast heev i
dentiar yv al
uet hereofispreserved.Sect ion21,paragr aph1,
ArticleIIofRA9165  reads:
Sec.21.Cust ody and Di sposi ti
on of Conf iscated,Sei zed,and/ orSur render ed
Danger ousDr ugs,Pl antSour cesofDanger ousDr ugs,Cont r
olled Precursorsand
Essent ialChemi cals,I nstr
ument s/Parapher nal
iaand/ orLaborator yEquipment .
-The
PDEAshal lt
akechar geandhav ecust odyofal ldanger ousdrugs,pl antsour cesof
danger ous dr ugs,cont roll
ed pr ecursor s and essent i
alchemi cal
s,as wel las
i
nst rument s/parapher nali
aand/ orl aboratoryequipmentsoconf iscated,sei
zedand/ or
surrender ed,forproperdi spositioni nthef ol
lowingmanner :
 

Theapprehendi
ngt eam havi
nginit
ialcustodyandcont rolofthedr ugsshal l
,
i
mmedi at
elyaft
erseizur
eandconfiscat
ion,physicallyi
nventoryandphotogr aph
thesameinthepresenceoftheaccusedort heper son/sfr
om whom suchi tems
were confi
scat
ed and/or sei
zed,or hi s/her represent
ative or counsel,a
33|Page
 represent
ati
vefrom t hemediaandtheDepar
tmentofJust
ice(
DOJ),andany
electedpubli
coffi
cialwhoshallber
equi
redtosi
gnthecopi
esoftheinvent
ory
andbegi venacopyt hereof
.

Ontheotherhand,
 
Secti
on21(
a),Ar
ti
cleIIoftheI
mplement
ingRul
esandRegul
ati
ons
ofRA9165,whichi
mplement
ssaidprovi
sion,
sti
pul
ates:
 

(a)Theappr ehendi ngof f

icer/
team havi ngi nit
ialcustodyandcont r
oloft hedr ugs
shal l
,i mmedi at ely aftersei zure and conf i
scati
on,physi call
yi nvent ory and
phot ogr apht hesamei nt hepr esenceoft heaccusedort heperson/ sfrom whom
suchi t emswer econf iscatedand/orsei zed,orhi s/herrepresentati
veorcounsel ,
ar epr esent ati
vef r
om t hemedi aandt heDepar tmentofJust i
ce( DOJ) ,andany
electedpubl i
cof fi
cialwhoshal lber equir edt osignthecopi esoft hei nventory
andbegi venacopyt hereof;Provided, thatt hephysicalinventoryandphot ograph
shal lbeconduct edatt hepl acewher et hesear chwar rantisser ved;oratt he
near estpol i
cest at
ionoratt henear estof fi
ceoft heappr ehendingof fi
cer /t
eam,
whi cheveri spr acticable,incaseofwar rantlessseizures;Provided,f urther,that
non- compl i
ancewi tht heser equirement sunderj usti
fi
ablegr ounds,asl ongas
the i nt egrity and t he evi dent i
ary val ue oft he seized i t
ems ar e pr oper l
y
preser vedbyt heappr ehendingof f
icer /
team,shal lnotr endervoi dandi nvalid
suchsei zuresofandcust odyoversai ditems. ”
 

The l aw excuses non- compl i

ance under j ustifi
abl e grounds.Howev er ,what ever
j
ustifiablegr oundsmayexcuset hepol iceoffi
cersi nvolvedinthebuy -
bustoper ati
oni n
thi
scasef rom compl y
ingwi t
hSect ion21wi l
lremai nunknown,becauseappel l
antdi d
notquest iondur i
ngt r
ialt hesaf ekeepingoft hei temssei zedf rom him.I ndeed,t he
pol
iceof fi
cer s’all
egedv iolati
onsofSect i
ons21and86ofRepubl icActNo.9165wer e
notr aisedbef orethetrialcour tbutwer einsteadr aisedf orthefirstti
meonappeal .In
noi nstancedi dappel l
antl eastinti
mat eatt het r
ialcour tthattherewer elapsesi nt he
safekeepi ngofsei zedi t
emst hataffectedtheirintegr i
tyandev i
dent i
aryvalue.Objecti
on
toev idencecannotber aisedf orthef i
rstti
meonappeal ;whenapar tydesiresthecour t
torejectt heev i
denceof fered,hemustsost ateint heform ofobj ecti
on.Wi thoutsuch
obj
ect i
onhecannotr ai
set hequest i
onf orthefir
stt i
meonappeal .(Peoplevs.Tacul od,
2013)

Q.Cant heaccusedbepr onouncedguiltyoftheoffenseifal

lthelinksofthechainof
custodyofthedr ugsubjectoftheil
legalsale–t hecorpusdelict
i–ar enotshown?
A.No.Ther easoni sthatt hedrugpr esentedasev i
denceatt het r
iali
snotshown
beyondr easonabledoubtt hatitwast hedr ugsubjectofthei l
legalsale.“Chai
nof
Custody”meanst hedul
yr ecor
dedaut hori
zedmov ement sandcust odyofseizeddrugs
orcontroll
edchemi cal sorplantsour cesofdanger ousdr ugsorl aborat
oryequipmentof
eachst age,fr
om thet imeofsei zure/confiscati
ontor eceiptintheforensicl
aborator
yto
safekeepingtopr esent at
ionincour tfordest r
ucton.Themar
i kinguponsei zur
eserves
at wo-f
oldf uncti
on,t hef i
rstbeingt ogiv etosucceedi nghandl ersofthespecimensa
refer
ence, andthesecondbei ngt osepar atethemar kedev idencefrom thecorpusofal
l
othersimilarorrelatedev idencef r
om t het i
meofsei zuref r
om theaccusedunt ilt
hei
r
34|Page
di
sposi
ti
onattheendofcriminalproceedi
ngs,
therebyobv
iati
ngswi
tchi
ng,“
plant
ing,
”or
cont
aminat
ionofevdence.(
i PeopleofthePhil
ippi
nesvs.Alagar
me,2015)

35|Page