ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

SYLLABUS: SCHOOL YEAR 2021-2022

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

Covers Civil and Criminal Procedures
By: Henedino M. Brondial

CIVIL PROCEDURE
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective May 1, 2020)

I. JURISDICTION

A. Classes of Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction according to its nature: original, appellate
- Jurisdiction according to its object; corresponding principles
i. over the subject matter
ii. over the persons of the parties
iii. over the “res”
iv. over the issues
v. over the territory

B. Elements of Jurisdiction: subject matter, parties, issues

C. Jurisdiction of Regular Courts

1. Supreme Court
2. Courts of Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
A. Intellectual Property Courts
B. Special Courts
4. Family Courts
5. Metropolitan Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts in cities
Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Courts
6. Sandiganbayan
Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, 653 SCRA (2011)
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
De Lima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA (2017)
7. Court of Tax-Appeals
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, February 4, 2014
CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co. vs. Prov. Of Nueva Ecija
759 CRA 180
8. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals (Sec. 1, Rule 43)
9. Sharia’h Courts: appellate, district, circuit
Lomondot vs. Balindong, 762 SCRA 494
Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong, 814 SCRA (2017)
10.Military Courts. Articles of War
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang, 883 SCRA, Oct. 15, 2018

1
 D. Discuss the concept, description and application of the following:
1. Delegated jurisdiction
2. Special jurisdiction
3. Limited jurisdiction
4. Primary jurisdiction
Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 823 SCRA (2017)
LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)
5. Residual jurisdiction
Dev. Bank of the Phil. Vs. Carpio, 816 SCRA (2017)
o Requisites: trial, judgment, appeal
Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCREA (2016)
6. Epistolary jurisdiction
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, 756 SCRA (2015)
7. Split jurisdiction
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo (2014)
8. Expanded/Extended jurisdiction
Edcel Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA (2018)
9. Equity jurisdiction
Regulus Dev. Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCRA

References:
1. Section 5, Article VIII, 1986 Constitution
2. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
3. B.P. Blg. 129
4. RA 7691
5. RA 8369 (Family Courts Act)
6. SC-AO No. 113-95- Intellectual Property Courts
7. PD 1486; 1606 (Sandiganbayan)
8. RA 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
9. RA 9282 (Court of Tax Appeals)
10. RA 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
11. RA 11054 (Bangsamoro Basic Law, July 2018)

Other Cases On:

Jurisdictional estoppel
1. Duero vs CA – 373 SCRA 11
2. Gonzaga vs CA - 394 SCRA 472
3. Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei, 418 SCRA
4. Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. CA, 699 SCRA
Hierarchy of Courts
5. Agan vs. Piatco, 420 SCRA
6. Liga Ng Mga Barangay vs. Atienza, 420 SCRA
7. St. Mary Crusade Fndtn vs. Riel, 745 SCRA
8. Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction
And Development Co., 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos, 857 SCRA 57 (2017)
Residual Prerogatives
10. Katon vs. Palanca, 437 SCRA 565

2
 Concurrent Jurisdiction:
11. Pat-og vs. CSC, 697 SCRA (2013)

Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: First Sarmiento Property

Holdings, Inc. vs. Phil Bank of Communications, June 19, 2018,
Justice Leonen, en banc (note: for class discussion)

II. RULES 1 to 5

A. Actions: Commencement (Sections 3 and 5, R-1)

Cases:
1. Alday vs. FGU Insurance– 350 SCRA
2. Mercado vs. CA, 569 SCRA
3. Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale de Paris, 460 SCRA
4. Ruby Shelter Builders vs. Formaran, 578 SCRA 283
5. St. Louis University vs. Cobarrubias, 626 SCRA 649 *
6. Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA, June 18, 2014 *
7. Sy-Vargas vs. Estate of Ogsos, 805 SCRA (2016)
8. Camaso vs. TSM Shipping Inc., 807 SCRA (2016)

B. One suit for one action (Sec. 3, R-2)

Splitting a single cause of action (Sec. 4, R-2)
Joinder of Causes of action (S-5. R-2)
Dynamic Builders vs. Presbitero, 755 SCRA 90 (2015)
- No injunction against national govt projects

C. Parties to Civil Actions (S-1, R-3)

Joinder of Parties (S-6, 7, R-3)
Indispensable and Necessary Parties (S-7,8, R-3)
Class Suit (S-12, R-3)
Juana Complex Homeowners Asso. Vs. Fil-Estate,
667 SCRA 440, March, 5 2012
Death or Separation of a Party (S-16,17,18, R-3)
Transfer of Interest (S-19, R-3)
Contractual Money Claims (S-20, R-3)
Cases:
1. Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
2. De Castro vs CA 386 SCRA 301 *
3. Orquiola vs CA – 389 SCRA 461
4. China Banking Corp., vs Oliver – 390 SCRA 263 *
5. David vs. Paragas, Jr. 751 SCRA 648 *
6. Land Bank vs. Cacayuran, 757 SCRA, April 22, 2015 *
7. Lotte Phils. Co. Inc. vs. De la Cruz – 464 SCRA 591
8. Carabeo vs. Dingco, 647 SCRA 200 *
9. De la Cruz vs, Joaquin – 464 SCRA 576
10. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA 1
11. Divinagracia vs. Parilla, 753 SCRA 87
12. Enrique vda de Santiago vs. Vilar, 857 SCRA (2017)

3
 D. Venue of Actions: real actions, personal actions
Cases:
1. Pacific Consultants International Asia vs. Schonfeld - 516 SCRA
2. Biaco vs. Counbtryside Rural bank – 515 SCRA 106
3. BPI Savings Bank vs. Sps. Yujuico – 763 SCRA 486 (7/2015)
4. Planters Dev. Bank vs. Ramos, 840 SCRA (2017)

E. Summary Procedure vs. Small Claims Suit

- What are their salient characteristics
- How to determine if the case is summary or under small claims
- OCA 45-2019: increased amount of small claims to P400,000
Case:
A.L. Ang Network Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA (1/28/14)

- Note: starting Rule 6, note the substantial/formal amendments.

III. RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings (Sections 1-13)

A. Pleadings: Complaint, Answer, Counterclaim, Cross-claim, Reply,
Third-Party Complaint, Counter-counterclaim
- Compulsory vs. Permissive counterclaim
B. Defenses: Negative, Affirmative, Negative Pregnant

Cases:
1. Alba vs. Malapajo – 780 SCRA 534
2. Lim Teck Chuan vs. Uy -752 SCRA 268
3. Metrobank vs. CPR Promotions -760 SCRA 59
4. Valdez vs. Dabon – 775 SCRA 1
5. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan – 406 SCRA 190
6. Caneland Sugar Corp. vs. Alon – 533 SCRA 28

IV. RULE 7: Parts and Contents of a Pleading (Sections 1-6)

A. Parts: Caption, Body, Relief, Date

B. Signature and Address
C. Distinguish Verification and Certification
D. Distinguish Parts from Contents

Cases:
1. Alma Jose vs. Javellana – 664 SCRA 1
2. Medado vs. Heirs of Antonio Consing – 665 SCRA 534
3. COA vs. Paler - 614 SCRA
4. Basan vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. – 749 SCRA 541
5. Uy vs. CA – 770 SCRA 513
6. People vs. Arojado – 774 SCRA 193
7. Powerhouse vs. Rey, 807 SCRA (2016)
8. Board of Investments vs. SR Metals Inc. 882 SCRA 57, 10/2018
9. Heirs of Josefina Gabriel vs. Segundina Cebrero, Nov. 12, 2018

4
V. RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings (Sections 1-13)

A. Allegations in Pleadings: ultimate facts and evidence

B. Actionable documents: how to allege, how to contest)
C. Affirmative defenses in the Answer

Cases:
1. Fernando Medical Enterprises vs. Wesleyan University
781 SCRA 508, January 20, 2016
2. Go Tong Electrical Supply vs. BPI Family Savings Bank
760 SCRA 486
3. Asian Const. & Dev. Corp. vs. CA - 458 SCRA
4. Benguet Exploration Inc. vs. CA – 351 SCRA

VI. RULE 9: Effect of Failure to Plead (Sections 1-3)

A. Effect of Failure to Plead

B. Waiver of defenses and objections
C. Default:
- when to declare
- how to declare
- remedy against Order; remedy against judgment
Cases:
1. BDO vs. Tansipek – 593 SCRA 456
2. Salvador vs. Rabaja – 749 SCRA 654
3. Bitte vs. Jonas – 777 SCRA 489

VII. RULE 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (Sections 1-9)

A. Amendments: a matter of right or a matter of discretion
: formal or substantial
B. Amendments not necessary to conform to the evidence
C. Effects of amendments
D. Supplemental Pleadings
Cases:
1. Yujuico vs. United Resources Asset Mgt. Corp. – 760 SCRA
2. Lisam Enterprises vs. Banco De Oro – 670 SCRA
3. Tiu vs. Phil. Bank of Communications – 596 SCRA 432
4. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. vs. CA -382 SCRA 499

VIII. RULE 11: When to File Responsive Pleadings (Sections 1-11)

- Notes the changes in the periods to file responsive pleadings, particularly in the
Answer and Reply, and what are the reasons therefore; Extension of time to file
responsive pleadings

5
IX. RULE 12: Bill of Particulars (Sections1-6)

- When applied/purpose
- Compliance vs. non-compliance
- The Fresh Period Rule: Fortune Life Ins. Co. Inc. vs. COA
845 SCRA 599, Nov. 21, 2017

X. RULE 13: Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers
(Sections 1-19)

A. Distinguish Filing from Service

B. Manner of Filing; Modes of Service
- Service by electronic means and facsimile
- what is presumptive service
- what is conventional service
- is there still priority in the mode of service?
C. Completeness of Filing/Service
D. Proof of Filing/Service
E. Notice of Lis Pendens
Cases:
1. Palileo vs. Planters Dev. Bank – 738 SCRA
2. Heirs of Numeriano Miranda vs. Miranda – 700 SCRA

XI. RULE 14: Summons (Sections 1-23)

A.What is a Summons; Alias Summons

B.Who issues
C.Who serves
D.To whom served
- to entity without juridical personality (S-7)
- to prisoners (S-8)
- to minors and incompetents (S-10)
- to spouses (S-11)
- to juridical entities: public or private; domestic or foreign
E. Kinds of Summons
a. Service in person (S-5)
b. Substituted (S-6)
c. Extraterritorial (S-17)
1. personal
2. publication
3. any mode
d. Publication (S-16)
F. Proofs of Service (S-21,22)
G. Voluntary Appearance (s-23)
Cases:
1. Valmonte vs CA- 252 SCRA
2. Millenium Ind. & Com. Corp., vs Tan- 326 SCRA

6
 3. E.B. Villarosa vs. Benito – 312 SCRA
4. Santos vs. PNOC Exploration, 566 SCRA 272
5. Mason vs. CA, 413 SCRA
6. Jose vs. Boyon, 414 SCRA
7. Manotoc vs. CA – 499 SCRA 21
8. Ong vs. Co, February 25, 2015
9. Domagas vs. Jensen – 448 SCRA 663
10.Dole Phil. Vs. Quilala – 557 SCRA 433
11.Green Star Express v. Nissin Universal Robina Corp – 761 SCRA
12. Guy vs. Gacott – 780 SCRA 579 (1/13/16)
13. G.V. Florida Transit Inc. vs. Tiara Commercial Corporation
842 SCRA, October 18, 2017
14. Arrieta vs. Arrieta, 866 SCRA 140, Nov. 19, 2018
On voluntary appearance:
1. Sunrise Garden Corp. vs. CA – 771 SCRA 616
2. Tujan-Militante vs. Nustad, 827 SCRA (2017)

XII. RULES 15: Motions (Sections 1-13)

A. Definition
B. Requirements
C. Kinds: litigious; non-litigious
D. Omnibus Motion
E. Prohibited Motions
F. Dismissal with prejudice
Cases:
1. Republic vs. Dimarucut, 857 SCRA (2017)
- what happened to the 3-day notice rule?
2. Acampado vss. Cosmilla, 771 SCRA
3. Laude vs. Gines-Jabalde, 775 SCRA
4. De Guzman vs. Ochoa, 684 SCRA

Note: Rule 16 has been deleted

- Are there no more motions to dismissed?
- What is preclusion of issues/collateral estoppel?
Almagro vs. PAL, 880 SCRA 107

XIII. RULE 17: Dismissal of Actions (Sections 1-4)

A. Dismissal Upon Notice (S-1)
B. Dismissal Upon Motion (S-2)
C. Dismissal due to plaintiff’s fault (S-3)
Cases:
1. Blay vs. Bana, 858 SCRA, 3/7/2018
2. Lim Tech Chuan, 752 SCRA 268
3. Ching vs. Cheng, 737 SCRA

7
XIV. RULE 18: Pre-Trial (Sections 1-10)

A. When conducted
B. Nature and Purpose
C. Notice
D. Effect of failure to appear
E. Pre-trial Brief/Pre-trial Order
F. Mediations
G. Judicial Dispute Resolutions
Note: A.M. No. 03-1-09 Supreme Court effective August 16, 2004 (Guidelines to
be observed by trial courts judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and
use of deposition-discovery measures)

XV. RULE 19: Intervention (Sections 1-4)

- Who may intervene (S-1)
- When to intervene (S-2)
Cases:
1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Sison, 612 SCRA
Compare with Ombudsman vs. Chavez, 700 SCRA
2. Anonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Jalandoni, 636 SCRA
3. Rodriguez vs. CA, 698 SCRA 352
4. Fernandez vs. CA, 691 SCRA 167
5. Yao vs. Perello, 414 SCRA
6. Pinlac vs. CA, 410 SCRA
7. Chipongian vs. Benitez-Lirio -768 SCRA 204

XVI. RULES 20 to 22:

A. Calendar of Cases (Sections 1-2)
B. Subpoena (Sections 1-10)
C. Computation of Time (Sections1-2)

XVII. RULES 23-29: MODES OF DISCOVERY

A. Rule 23: Depositions Pending Actions (Sections 1-29)

a. Use of depositions (S-4)

b. Officers to take depositions (S-10, 11,12)
c. Deposition upon written examination (S-15)
d. Deposition upon written interrogatories (S-25)
e. Effects of errors and irregularities (S-29)
People vs. M.C. Sergio and J. Lacanilao, October 9, 2019
- Rule 23 was applied in a criminal case (Note: for class discussion)
Cases:
1. Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. vs. Reyes, 225 SCRA
2. People vs. Webb, 312 SCRA

8
 3. Vda de Manguerra vs. Risos, 563 SCRA
4. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 623 SCRA
5. Go vs. People, 677 SCRA

B. Rule 24: Depositions Before Actions or Pending Appeal (Sections 1-7)

C. Rule 25: Interrogatories to Parties (Sections 1-6)

Cases:
1. Afulugencia vs. Metro bank,715 SCRA
2. Phil. Health vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, 744 SCRA
- Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories

D. Rule 26: Admission by Adverse Party (Sections 1-5)

- Effect to failure to file and serve request for admission
Case: Duque vs. Yu, 856 SCRA (2017)

E. Rule 27: Production or Inspection of Documents or Things(one Section)

F. Rule 28: Physical and Mental Examination of Persons (Sections 1-4)

G. Rule 29: Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery (Sections 1-6)

XVIII. RULE 30: Trial (Sections 1-9)

A. Schedule of Trial (S-1)
B. Adjournments and Postponement (S-2,3,4)
C. Order of Trial (S-5)
D. Reception of Evidence (S-9)

XIX. RULE 31: Consolidation or Severance (Sections 1-2)

Consolidation (S-1)
Cases: Rep. vs. Heirs of Enrique Oribello, 692 SCRA
Marano vs. Pryce Gases Inc., 755 SCRA
Severance (S-2)
Case: Metrobank vs. Sandoval, 691 SCRA

XX. RULE 32: Trial By Commissioner (Sections 1-13)

- Distinguish from Trial with Assessors

XXI. RULE 33: Demurrer to Evidence ((Sections 1-2)

A. Demurrer to Evidence
- Distinguish between civil and criminal actions
- The similarities and differences between them
Cases:
1. Bernardo vs. CA – 278 SCRA 782 (abandoned?)
2. Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Del Rosario – 335 SCRA 288

9
 3. Cabador vs. People – 602 SCRA 760
4. Claudio vs. Saraza – 768 SCRA 356
5. Felipe vs. MGM Motor Trading Corp. – 771 SCRA 360
6. Republic vs. Gimenez – 778 SCRA 261 (1/11/16)
7. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, July 19, 2016

XXII. RULE 34 & 35: Judgment on the Pleadings (Sections 1-2)

Summary Judgment (Sections 1-6)
Cases:
1. Republic vs. Shell Petroleum Corp. – 777 SCRA393
2. Comglas Corp. vs. Santos Car Check Center – 754 SCRA 481
3. Phil Bank of Communications vs. Go. – 642 SCRA
4. Adolfo vs. Adolfo -753 SCRA 580

XXIII. RULE 36: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof (Sections 1-6)
- When is judgment deemed entered? Effect?
6. Several judgments (S-4)
7. Separate judgments (S-5)
8. Judgments against entities without personality (S-6)
Case: FASAP vs PAL, 858 SCRA (for class discussion)

REMEDIES AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENTS

XXIV. RULE 37: New Trial or Reconsideration

A. New Trial or Reconsideration (R-37)

- Grounds for New Trial (S-1)
- Grounds for Reconsideration (S-1)
- Effects of a Grant or Denial (S-6,7,8)
Cases:
1. Mendezona vs. Ozamis – 376 SCRA
2. People vs. Li Ka Kim – 429 SCRA 169
3. Padilla Rumbaua vs. Rumbaua – 596 SCRA 15
4. Chua vs. People -762 SCRA 523
5. Senit vs. Peo[ple – 778 SCRA 425 (1/11/16)

XXV. RULES 40 – 45 (APPEALS)

A. Appeal from MTC to RTC (R-40)

Perfection of Appeal (S-4)
Docket Fees (S-5)
Appeals from order of dismissal (S-8)
De Vera vs. Santiago, 759 SCRA 431 (2015)

10
 B. Appeal from RTC to CA (R-41)
Modes of Appeal (S-2)
Notice of Appeal vs Record on Appeal (S-5,6)
Perfection of Appeal (S-9)
Heirs of Arturo Garcia vs. Mun. of Iba, 763 SCRA 349
C. Petition for Review from RTC to CA (R-42)
How appeal taken (S-1)
Failure to comply with requirements (S-3)
Perfection of Appeal (S-8)
Maravilla vs. Rios, 767 SCRA 522 (2015)
D. Appeals from QJA to CA (R-43)
Contents of Petition (S-6)
Action on Petition (S-8)
Effect of Appeal (S-12)
Galindez vs. Firmalan, 864 SCRA 282 (June 2018)
E. Ordinary Appealed Cases to the CA (R-44)
Appellants Brief (S-7)
Appellees Brief (S-8)
De los Santos vs. Lucenio, 859 SCRA 449 (March 2018)
F. Appeal by Certiorari (R-45)
Contents of Petition (S-4)
Requirements (S-7)
Mendoza vs. Palugod, 867 SCRA 299 (2018)
Kensonic, Inc. vs. UNI-Line Multi Resources, 864 SCRA 560
G. Dismissal of Appeal (R-50)
Valderama vs. Arguelles, 860 SCRA 188 (2018)
Material Data Rule (S-1)
Fresh period Rule: Fortune Life Insurance vs. COA, 845 SCRA (Nov.
21, 2017)
- Immutability of judgment
In re: Adoption of Karen Herico Licerio, 886 SCRA 318, Nov. 21, 2018
- What is a harmless error?
- How does the CA acquire jurisdiction over the person of the Respondent?

REMEDIES AGAINST EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS

XXVI. RULES 38 and 47

A. Relief from Judgments (R-38)

Petition for Relief from Judgment (S-1)
Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal (S-2)
Time for filing Petition (S-3)
Preliminary Injunction (S-5)
Cases:
1. Mesina vs. Meer – 383 SCRA625
2. The Provincial Government of Aurora
Vs. Marco – 757 SCRA 222

11
 3. Thomasites Center for International Studies
Vs. Rodriguez – 782 SCRA 391 (1/27/16)

B. Annulment of Judgment (R-47)

Coverage. Grounds, Period (S-1,2,3)
Contents (S-4)
Effect (S-7)
Cases:
1. Diona vs. Balanque – 688 SCRA 22
2. Santos vs. Santos – 737 SCRA 637
3. Yuk Lik Ong vs. Co – 752 SCRA 42
3. Lasala vs. National Food Authority – 767 SCRA 430
4. Manguba vs. Morga-Seva -775 SCRA 312
5. Sibal vs. Bquel – 778 SCRA 517 (1/11/16)

XXVII. RULE 39 - EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS

A. Kinds of Execution

1. Matter of right, ministerial (S-1)

2. Discretionary (S-2)
a. stay of discretionary execution (S-3)
b. judgments not stayed by appeal (S-4)
Cases on execution pending appeal:
Banes vs. Banes, 374 SCRA 340
Santos vs. COMELEC, 399 SCRA 611
FEBTC vs. Toh, 404 SCRA
Stronghold Insurance vs. Felix, 508 SCRA
Abenion vs. Shell Petroleum, 816 SCRA (2017)
Ocampo vs. Enriquez, 835 SCRA484 (2017)

B. Mode of Execution
1. By motion (S-6)
Villareal vs. MWSS, 857 SCRA 162
RCBC vs. Sera, 701 SCRA 124
2. By independent action (S-6)
Davis vs. Davis, 858 SCRA 145
Panotes vs. Townhouse Dev. Corp., 512 SCRA

C. Manner of Execution
1. when party is dead (S-7)
2. when judgment is for money (S-6)
3. when judgment is for specific act (S-10)
4. when it is a special judgment (S-11)

12
D. Properties exempt from execution (S-13)
D’Armoured Security Agency vs. Orpia, 461 SCRA 312

E. Third Party Claim (S-16)

PSALM vs. Maunlad Homes, Inc., 817 SCRA (2/8/17)

F. Execution Sale (S-17 to 26)

G. Redemption:
1. The right of redemption vs equity of redemption
2. Who may redeem (S-27)
3. Effects of redemption (S-29)

H. Other remedies to fully satisfy judgment

1. Examination of judgment obligor (S-36)
2. Examination of obligor of judgment-obligor (S-37)
3. Appointment of receiver (S-41)
4. Sale of ascertainable interest (S-42)

I. Judgment: principal vs surety (S-46)

J. Effect of Judgment (S-47)

1. in rem
2. in personam
3. res judicata
City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, 689 SCRA

K. Effect of foreign judgment (S-48)

Fujiki vs. Marinay, 700 SCRA 69
BPI vs. Guevarra, 752 SCRA 342
Sarto vs. People, 856 SCRA 548

13
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ON JURISDICTION

A. Supreme Court:
1. No original Jurisdiction over criminal cases
2. Appellate jurisdiction: a) by petition for review b) by notice of appeal
B. Court of Appeals
1. No original jurisdiction
2. Appellate jurisdiction: a) by notice of appeal b) by petition for review
C. Sandiganbayan (PD 1601; PD 1861; RA 7975, 8249, 10660)

1. Original and exclusive jurisdiction under the ff. guidelines:

a. what offense or crime was committed
a) R.A. 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b) R.A. 1379 – the law on Ill-gotten Wealth
c) Chap. II, Title VII, Bk. 2 of RPC – Bribery
d) Exec. Orders 1, 2, 14, 14-A – PCGG cases
e) Estafa under the Hannah Serana case, 542 SCRA, 1/22/08
f) Falsification under the Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA
b. Who committed the offense/crime
b-1. Public officers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches
of the government with salary grade 27 according to R.A. 6758
The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
Read: Escobal vs. Garchitorena, 422 SCRA
b-2. Private individuals committing the offense/crime with public
officers, Read: People vs. Henry T. Go, March 25, 2014
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA
People vs. Benipayo, 586 SCRA
c. How was the offense/crime committed

Read: Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA

Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA
Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA
Sen. Leila M. De Lima vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero
G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017, 843 SCRA (2017)

Other cases: Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)

Inocentes vs. People, 796 SCRA (2016)
Edgar Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan, 4/14/2005
Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan, 3/11/2005

2. Appellate Jurisdiction
All cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of original or appellate
jurisdiction over cases of public officers with salary grade less than 27
charged with offenses/crimes aforementioned

14
D. Regional Trial Courts
1. Original exclusive: all criminal cases which are not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court. The offense must carry a penalty of more than
six years or prision major
2. Appellate jurisdiction: all criminal cases from the MTC
Note: The ff. offenses are cognizable only by the RTC regardless of the
penalty impossible:
i. Violations of the Omnibus Election Code
ii. Violations of the Intellectual Property Law
iii. Violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
iv. Violations of the Anti- Money Laundering Law
v. Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
vi. Cases of Written Defamations

E. Family Courts (RA 8369)

1. Exclusive original:
a. where a party is a minor at the time of commission
b. violence against women and children
c. child abuse
d. drug cases
F. Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court
1. All violations of city/municipal ordinances
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years
3. Violations of traffic rules and regulations
4. Violations of the Bouncing Check Law
5. Damage to property with fine of not more than P10,000.00
G. Courts of Muslim Mindanao (RA 6734 as amended by 9054)
1. Shari’ah Circuit courts
2. Shari’ah District courts
3. Shari’ah Appellate courts
- All personal, family and property relations cases between muslims residing
in the autonomous region of muslim mindanao
H. What are military courts? Only service-oriented cases…

Note: Read the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)

Read Bonifacio vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 149, 620 SCRA
Read Disini Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, Feb. 18, 2014, 716 SCRA

RULE 11O – Prosecution of Offenses

A. Institution of Criminal Actions (Sec. 1)

- how is criminal action instituted
- when is it deemed instituted
- who is qualified to institute it: a) by complaint, de parte
b) by information, de oficio
Read: Jimenez vs. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151

15
B. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information (Sec. 6)
- name of accused
- name of offended party
- name of offense
- cause of accusation: qualifying and aggravating circumstances
- place of commission
- date of commission
Read: People vs. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272
Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560
People vs. Soria, 685 SCRA 483

C. Amendment vs. Substitution (Sec. 14)

- distinguish
- compare with rule 10
Read: Corpus Jr. vs. Pamular, 879 SCRA 187, Sept. 5, 2018

D. Place where action is to be instituted (Sec. 15)

- venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases
Read: Union Bank vs. People, 667 SCRA 113
E. Intervention of the offended party (Sec. 16); compare with rule 19

RULE 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action

A. Civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted (Sec. 1)

- Exceptions: waiver, reservation, prior institution (WaRP)
- on filing fees; counterclaim, cross-claim, 3rd party complaint
- compare with Secs. 7,8,11 of Rule 6
- peculiar nature of B.P. 22
Read: Solidum vs. People, 718 SCRA 263
Castillo vs. Salvador, July, 2014
Dy vs. People, 800 SCRA 39
B. Suspension of Civil Action (Sec. 2)
- when suspended; consolidated
- what is the Bar Rule in Amparo and Habeas Data
Read: Lim vs. Kou Co Ping, 679 SCRA 114

C. Independent Civil Action (Sec. 3)

- Articles 32,33,34 and 2176
Read: Casupanan vs. Laroya, 388 SCRA 28
Caterpillar, Inc. vs. Samson, 808 SCRA 309 (2016)

D. Effect of death on the Civil Action (Sec. 4)

- compare with Secs. 17, 18, an 20 of Rule 3
Read: People vs. Romero, 306 SCRA 90

E. Prejudicial Question (Secs. 6 and7)

Read: Magistrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125
Pimentel vs. Pimentel, 630 SCRA 436

16
 J.M. Dominguez vs. Liclican, July 28, 2015
Alsons Dev. & Invst. Corp. vs. Heirs of Romeo D. Confessor, 9/19/2018

RULE 112 – Preliminary Investigation

A. Definition/Description
- when a matter of right
- distinguish from Preliminary Examination
Read: Fenequito vs. Vergara, Jr., 677 SCRA 113
Burgundy Realty Corporation vs. Reyes, 687 SCRA 524
B. Who may conduct P. I.
Read: Abanado vs. Bayona, 677 SCRA 595
Heirs of Nestor Tria vs. Obias, 635 SCRA 91
Memorandum Circular No. 58
1. offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
2. new and material issues are raised
3. prescription of offenses not due to lapse in 6 months
4. filed within 30 days from said Notice
C. Procedure in Metro Manila vs. Outside Metro Manila
Read: Uy vs. Javellana, 680 SCRA 13
D. Inquest, what is
- when applied
- waiver of Art. 125 of RPC
Read: People vs. Valencia, 214 SCRA 89
E. Quantum of Evidence
- probable cause vs. prima facie
PCGG vs. Navarro-Gutierrez, 773 SCRA
De Lima vs. Reyes, 779 SCRA

RULE 113 - Arrest

A. Definition
- how made; when; time, method
- who may arrest

B. Warrantless Arrests (Sec. 5)

a. in flagrante delicto rule
b. hot pursuit rule
c. “escape” rule
d. “absconding” rule (sec. 23, par. 2, rule 114
Procedure: delivery to the nearest police station/precinct
Read: Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421
Antiquera vs. People, 712 SCRA, 12/11/2013
People vs. Vasquez, 714 SCRA, 1/15/2014
Read: RA 7438 – The Rights of Persons Arrested

17
RULE 114 - Bail

A. Definition/Description

B. Conditions/Requirements
- effective upon approval and shall remain in force at all stages of the
proceedings until promulgation of judgment by the RTC
- when appearance is required

C. When:
- bail is a matter of right; a matter of discretion;
- bail as a constitutional right

D. Kinds:
a. corporate surety
b. property bond
c. cash bond
d. recognizance: is an obligation of record entered into before some court
or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some
particular act particularly the appearance of the accused for trial

E. Amount of bail; guidelines

F. Where to file bail

- RTC; MTC exercising special jurisdiction

G. Forfeiture vs. Cancellation of Bail

- forfeiture: failure to appear; jumping bail
- cancellation: death; conviction; acquittal; dismissal

Read: 1. Zuno vs. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382

2. Govt of HK Spec. Adm. Region vs. Olalia, 521 SCRA
3. Leviste vs. CA, 615 SCRA 619
4. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, 767 SCRA 282, August 18, 2015
5. Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan, 844 SCRA (2017)
6. Altobano-Ruiz vs. Judge Pichay, 856 SCRA (2018)
- What is the new policy/rule on Hold Departure Order, Watchlist Order?

RULE 115 – Rights of the Accused

- Distinguish the constitutional from statutory rights of the accused

1. Presumption of Innocence, Del Castillo vs. People, 664 SCRA

2. Right to be Heard, Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA
3. Right to Counsel, People vs. Lara, 678 SCRA; People vs. Espiritu, 302
4. Right Against Self-Incrimination, People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216
5. Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial, Villareal vs. People 664 SCRA

18
RULE 116 - Arraignment and Plea

A. What is arraignment
How; When; Where; Why

B. Kinds of Plea:
(a) conditional
(b) unconditional
(c) negative/indirect (refusal to plead)
(d) inverted (pleads guilty with exculpatory evidence)
(e) improvident plea (not knowing fully well)

C. Plea of guilty to a capital offense vs. non-capital offense

- requirements

D. Presentation or Inspection of evidence in prosecution’s possession

- modes of discovery (Rules 23-29)

E. Suspension of arraignment
a) when suffering from unsound mental condition
b) prejudicial question
c) petition for review
d) absence of judicial personnel
Read: 1. People vs. Estomaca – 256 SCRA 421
2. People vs. Pangilinan – 518 SCRA 359
3. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan – 560 SCRA 233
4. People vs. Janjalani -639 SCRA 157

F. Bill of Particulars, Read: Enrile vs. People, August 11, 2015

RULE 117 Motion to Quash

A. Motion to Quash vs. Motion to Dismiss; Grounds

B. When and How to move to quash
C. Effects when motion is granted; denied
D. Remedies against denial/grant of motion

Read: 1. People vs. Lacson – 400 SCRA 267

2. Panaguiton vs. DOJ – 571 SCRA 549
3. People vs. Dumlao – 580 SCRA 409
4. Soriano vs. People – 591 SCRA 244
5. Cerezo vs. People – 650 SCRA 222
6. Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products, 727 SCRA 503,6/30/14
7. People vs. De Leon, 754 SCRA 147

19
RULE 118 Pre-Trial

A. Pre-trial in civil cases vs. Pre-trial in criminal cases. Distinguish

B. Non appearance at the pre-trial; effects
C. The Pre-trial Order; when and how done; effect of lack of Order
Read: Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160, 8/15/2017
A.M. No., 18-13-16-SC, Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases, 4/10/2018

RULE 119 - Trial

A. The Speedy Trial Act/RA 8493 as amended by OCA Circular No. 101-2017
- the time requirement
- exclusions
- remedies
Read: Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, effective September 1, 2017
- Imperial vs. Joson, 635 SCRA 71

B. Order of Trial
- civil vs. criminal cases
- distinguish from Order in presentation of evidence

C. Modes of Discovery in criminal cases

Read: People vs. Maria Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, October 9,
2019. For class discussion. Compare with People vs. Webb, Vda. De Manguerra
vs. Risos and Go vs. People.

D. The “State-Witness” rule; requirements

Read: Jimenez vs. People, 735 SCRA, Sept. 2014
People vs. Dominguez, 856 SCRA 109

E. Mistake in charging the proper offenses; effects

F. Demurrer to Evidence
Read: Cabador vs. People, 602 SCRA
People vs. Tan, 625 SCRA
Rep. vs. De Borja, 814 SCRA 10 (2017)
Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, 823 SCRA (2017)
People vs. Ting, 888 SCRA 426, 12/5/2018
G. Reopening vs. New Trial

RULE 120 - JUDGMENT

1. Nature of judgment in criminal cases vs. civil cases

2. Judgment of conviction vs. judgment of acquittal
3. Judgment for two or more offenses; accused

20
4. Promulgation, modification and entry of judgment
Cases:
1. Llamas vs. CA – 601 SCRA 288
2. People vs. Monteclaros – 589 SCRA 320
3. Hipos Sr. vs. Bay – 581 SCRA 674
4. People vs. Lorenzo – 619 SCRA 389
5. People vs. Baron – 621 SCRA 646
6. Abellana vs. People – 655 SCRA 683
7. People vs. Asis – 629 SCRA 250
8. Basilonia vs. Villaruz, 765 SCRA 489
9. Morillo vs. People, 777 SCRA 207

RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

1. In civil cases vs. criminal cases

2. Grounds; effect
Cases:
1. Estino vs. People – 584 SCRA 304
2. Briones vs. People 588 SCRA 345
3. Saludaga vs. Sandiganbayan – 619 SCRA 364
4. Lumanog vs. People – 642 SCRA 248
5. Payumo vs.Sandiganbayan – 654 SCRA 277

RULES 122-125 – APPEALS

1. Appeals in Civil cases vs. Appeals in Criminal cases

2. Similarities and differences
Cases:
1. Macapagal vs. People, 717 SCRA 425, 2/26/14
2. People vs. Morales – 616 SCRA 223
3. Quidet vs. People – 618 SCRA 1
4. Balaba vs. People – 593 SCRA 210
5. People vs. Olivo – 594 SCRA 77
6. Guasch vs. Dela Cruz – 589 SCRA 297
7. People vs. Taruc – 579 SCRA 682
8. Tiu vs. People – 586 SCRA 118
9. Colinares vs. People – 662 SCRA 266 (probation law)
10. Villareal vs. People, 743 SCRA (probation law)
11. Dungo vs. People, 761 SCRA 375
12. Manansala vs. People, 777 SCRA 563

RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

1. The constitutional provision on searches and seizures

2. Search Warrant vs. Warrant of Arrest
3. When searches and seizures allowed without warrants

21
4. Motion to Quash

Read: “The constitutional validity of warrantless search and seizure of

prohibited drugs and eventual arrest”. By Jorge Ro Coquia, 610 SCRA 670
Cases:
1. Marimla vs. People, 604 SCRA (2009)
2. People vs. Punzalan, 774 SCRA 653
3. People vs. Nuevas, 516 SCRA (2007)
4. Veridiano vs. People, 826 SCRA (2017)
5. People vs. Cosgafa, 830 SCRA (2017)
6. Miguel vs. People, 833 SCRA (2017)
7. Dimal vs. People, 862 SCRA (2018, plain view doctrine)
8. Reyes vs. People, 865 SCRA (2018)
9. People vs. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020 (J. Caguioa)
“The cases adhering to the doctrine that exclusive reliance on an
unverified, anonymous tip cannot engender probable cause that
permits a warrantless search of a moving vehicle that goes beyond
a visual search…should be the prevailing and controlling line
of jurisprudence.
Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle
on the sole basis of an unverified tip by an anonymous informant? Resounding
NO! Dissent by Justices Lazaro-Javier, Lopez and Carandang)

RULE 127 – PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

1. Relate to Rules 57-61

a. Preliminary Attachment
b. Preliminary Injunction
c. Receivership
d. Replevin
e. Support Pendente Lite

2. What provisional remedies are not applicable in criminal cases

3. Is petition for relief from judgment available in criminal cases?

Yes, according to Hilario vs. People, 551 SCRA 191, April 14, 2008

22
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

S Y L L A B U S
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
SCHOOL YEAR 2021-2022
PROF. HENEDINO M. BRONDIAL

I. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rules 57-61)

A. Preliminary Attachment (R-57)

1. Grounds (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-3)
3. Manner of Attaching (S-5)
4. Discharge of Attachment (S-5,12,13)
5. Third Party Claim (S-14)
6. Claim for damages (S-20)
Cases:
1. Lim Jr. Vs. Lazaro, 700 SCRA
2. Ligon vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 56, 717 SCRSA
3.Mangila vs. CA, 387 SCRA
4. Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA
5. Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee, 545 SCRA
6. Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA
7. Luzon Dev. Bank vs. Krishman, 755 SCRA, April 13, 201,
8. Northern Luzon Island Co. vs. Garcia, 753 SCRA 603
9. Watercraft Venture Corp. vs. Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179
10. Phil. Airconditioning Center vs. RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265

B. Preliminary Injunction (R-58)

1. Definition, Classes (S-1)
2. Grounds (S-3); TRO
3. Requirements (S-4)
4. Damages (S-8)
Cases:
1. Idolor vs. CA, 351 SCRA
2. Gustilo vs. Real, 353 SCRA
3. Lagrosas vs. Bristo-Myers, 565 SCRA
4. Jenosa vs. Delariarte, 630 SCRA
5. Solid Builders Inc. vs. China Bank, 695 SCRA, 4/3/13.
6. Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., 824 SCRA (2017)
7. Novecio vs. Lim, 754 SCRA 111
8. Cayabyab vs. Dimson, 830 SCRA 520
9. Republic vs. Cortez, 769 SCRA 267
10. AMA Land, Inc. vs. Wack-Wack Residents’ Assoc., Inc.
831 SCRA 328 ( requisites for Injunction)
11.Roldan vs. Barrios, (concurrent jurisdiction of Injunction, 4/23/18)

23
 12.Phil. Investment Two Inc. vs. Mendoza, 886 SCRA 197 (2018)
13.Phil. National Construction Corporation vs. Hon. Jesus B. Mupas\
Promulgated November 10, 2020
- What cases/subject matters proscribe injunctive relief?

C. Receivership (R-59)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Power of receiver (S-6)
4. Termination and Compensation (S-8)
Cases:
1. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil Veterans Bank, 440 SCRA
2. Chavez vs. CA, 610 SCRA
3. Koruga vs. Arcenas, 590 SCRA
4. Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, 702 SCRA – 7/29/13
5. Hiteroza vs. Cruzada, 794 SCRA 511 (2016)
6. Banco Filipino vs. BSP, 864 SCRA 32, June 4, 2018

D. Replevin (R-60)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Third Party Claim (S-7)
4. Judgment and Damages (S-9,10)
Cases:
1. Orosa vs. CA, 329 SCRA
2. Smart Communiations vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA
3. Hao vs. Andres, 555 SCRA
4. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA
5. Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA, 6/3/13

E. Support (R-61), relate to Articles 194-208 of Civil Code

1. Application for Support Pendente Lite (S-1)
2. Comment, Hearing, Order (S-2,3,4)
3. Enforcement of Order (S-5)
4. Restitution (S-7)
Cases:
1. De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA
2. People vs. Manahan, 315 SCRA
3. Lim vs. Lim, 604 SCRA
4. Gotardo vs. Buling, 678 SCRA
5. Republic vs. Yahon, 726 SCRA 438
6. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA516
7. Lim-Lua vs. Lua, 697 SCRA
8. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560
9. Abella vs. Cabanero, 836 SCRA 453 (2017)

24
II. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62-71)

A. Interpleader (R-62)
1. What is an action in Interpleader (S-1)
2. Requisites (S-1)
3. Procedure (S-2 to 7)
Cases:
1. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won, 70 SCRA
2. Eternal Gardens vs. IAC, 165 SCRA
3. Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA
4. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 681 SCRA
5. Belo Medical Group, Inc. vs.Jose L. Santos and
Victoria G. Belo, 838 SCRA 142, Aug. 30, 2017

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (R-63)

1. Nature; Kinds (S-1)
2. Parties (S-2)
3. Conversion into ordinary action (S-6)
Cases:
1. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind.,542 SCRA
2. De Borja vs. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na
Mangingisda ng L, M at V., 823 SCRA 550 (2017)
3. Malana vs. Tappa, 600 SCRA
4. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA
5. Sabitsana vs.Muertegui, 703 SCRA (8/5/13)
6. Dept of Finance vs. De la Cruz, Jr., 768 SCRA 73
7. Erice vs. Sison, 846 SCRA (2017)
8. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Standard
Insurance Co. Inc., 885 SCRA 69, Nov. 7, 2018

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (R-
64)
- The distinctive nature and procedure of this special civil action
Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC
705 SCRA 340, September 10, 2013

D. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65)

1. Certiorari (S-1)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:
1. Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA, 7/31/13
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA, 1/28/14
3. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
4. People vs. Castaneda, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
5. UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA

25
 6. Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA
7. GSIS vs. CA, 867 SCRA (2018)
8. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan SCRA, 868 SCRA (2018)

2. Prohibition (S-2)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:
1. Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 8/7/13
2. Corales vs. Republic, 703 SCRA, 8/27/13
3. Javier vs. Gonzales, 815 SCRA (2017)
4. Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)
3. Mandamus (S-3)
a. grounds
b. requisites
c. procedure; parties and effects
d. damages
Cases:
1. Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay, 581 SCRA 3/17/09
2. Sanchez vs. Lastimosa, 534 SCRA, 9/25/07
3. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, 517 SCRA, 3/7/07
4. Laygo vs. Mun. Mayor of Solano, N.V., 814 SCRA (2017)
5. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
6. Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182

E. Quo Warranto (R-66)

1. Parties (S-1 to 6)
2. Period (S-8)
3. Limitation (S-11)
4. Judgment for Cost (S-12)
Read for class discussion: Republic vs. Sereno, May 11, 2018, 863
SCRA 1
Cases:
1. Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA
2. Calleja vs. Panday, 483 SCRA.
3. Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 621 SCRA
4. Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 SCRA
5. De Castro vs. Carlos, 696 SCRA, 4/16/13
6. Velasco vs. Belmonte, 779 SCRA 81 (1/12/16)

F. Expropriation (R-67)
1. The right of Eminent Domain
-Constitutional provision: “private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation”
- RA 7160: The Local Govt. Code, Sec. 19

26
 2. Who may expropriate
3. Two stages in expropriation
1. determination of public use
2. just compensation
Cases:
1. City of Manila vs. Serrano, 359 SCRA
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA, 436 SCRA
3. Republic vs. Andaya, 524 SCRA
4. Asia’s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA
5. Abad vs. Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA
6. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp., 712 SCRA 550
7. Limkaichong vs. LBP, 799 SCRA 139 (8/2/16)
8. LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

G. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68)

1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Judgment (S-2)
3. Sale of foreclosed property (S-3)
- Equity of Redemption vs. Right of Redemption
4. Deficiency Judgment (S-6)
Read the law on extra-judicial foreclosure: RA 3135, 4118
Cases:
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp., 712 SCRA, 12/2013
2. Marquez vs. Alindog, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
5. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI
Bank, 693 SCRA, March 13, 2013
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC, 695 SCRA (also on injunction)
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc., 760 SCRA 59
9. Roldan vs. Barrios, 862 SCRA 318, April 23, 2018
10. PDBank vs. Lubiya Agro Ind. Corp, 885 SCRA 470
Nov. 14, 2018 (Re: RA 3135)

H. Partition (R-69)
1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Order (S-2)
3. Stages of Partition:
4. Rule of Commissioners (S-3 to 7)
5. The Judgment (S-11)
Cases:
1. Balus vs. Balus, 610 SCRA
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa, 629 SCRA
3. Mangahas vs. Brobio, 634 SCRA
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla, 690 SCRA
5. Agarrado vs. Librando-Agarrado, 864 SCRA 582, June 6, 2018
I. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (R-70)

27
 1. Parties (S-1)
2. Procedure: Summary (S-3 to 15)
3. Judgment (S-17)
4. Immediate Execution (S-19 vs S-21)
- preliminary injunction (S-20)
5. Appeals

Cases:
1. Prov. of Cam. Sur vs. Bodega Glassware, 821 SCRA (2017)
2. Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc., 842 SCRA (2017)
3. Regalado vs. De la Rama vda. De dela Pena, 848 SCRA (2017)
4. Ferrer vs. Rabaca, 632 SCRA
5. CGR Corp. vs. Treyes, 522 SCRA 765
6. Zacarias vs. Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 9/24/14
7. Supapo vs. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211, 4/20/15
9. De Guzman-Fuerte vs. Estomo, 862 SCRA (2018)
10. Iglesia de Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Phil. Inc.
Vs. De la Cruz, 862 SCRA (2018)
11.Emma Buenviaje Nabo v. Felix C. Buenviaje
G.R. No. 224906, Oct. 7, 2020 (On tolerance)

J. Contempt (R-71)
1. Kinds: direct (S-1); indirect (S-3)
2. Procedure (S-4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (S-11)

Cases:
1. Yasay vs. Recto, 313 SCRA
2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258
3. Espanol vs. Formoso, 525 SCRA
4. Marantan vs. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164, 2/2014
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 717 SCRA
6. Tormis vs. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505, Feb. 4, 2015
7. Oca vs. Custodio, 832 SCRA (2017)
8. Causing vs. De la Rosa, 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Sps. Bayani & Myrna Partoza vs. Lilian Montano & Amelia
Solomon, 866 SCRA 35 (2018)

III. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109)

28
A. Settlement of Estate
1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (R-73)
2. Kinds of settlement
a. Extrajudicial
(1) By Agreement
(2) By self-adjudication
b. Judicial
(1) Summary (R-74)
(2) By Petition (R-75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
(3) By partition (R-69)
3. The Administrator or Executor
(a) Special vs Regular (R-80)
(b) Bonds (R-81)
(c) Powers and Duties (R-84)
(d) Accountability (R-85)
4. Claims Against the Estate (R-86)
5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (R-87)
6. Distribution and Partition (R-90)

Cases:
1. San Luis vs. San Luis, 514 SCRA, February 2007
2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen, 702 SCRA, 7/31/13
3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap, 651 SCRA, June 2011
4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, 683 SCRA, October 2012
5. Lee vs. RTC of Q.C., 423 SCRA, February 2004
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz, 252 SCRA, January 1996
7. Unionbank vs. Santibanez, 452 SCRA, February 2005 (R-86)
8. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC, 706 SCRA 235
9. Pilapil vs. Heirs of M. Briones, 514 SCRA, February 2007
10. Sabidong vs. Solas, 699 SCRA, June 2013
11. Aranas vs. Mercado, 713 SCRA
12. Silverio Sr. vs. Silverio Jr., 733 SCRA 183, (8/13/14)
13. Butiong vs. Plazo, 765 SCRA 227

B. Escheats (R-91)
1. Definition
2. Historical background and legal basis
3. Actions for Revisions (S-5)
Cases:
1. Alvarico vs Sola, 382 SCRA
2. Maltos vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, 770 SCRA 397
3. Narcise vs. Valbueco, Inc. 831 SCRA 319, July 2017
4. Republic vs. Heirs of Menardo Cabrera, 884 SCRA (2017)

C. Guardians and Guardianship (R-92 to 97) as amended by

29
 A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (S-92)

2. Appointment, kinds, Qualifications (S-93)
3. Requirement (S-94)
4. Power and Duties (S-96)
5. Termination (S-97)
Cases:
1. Goyena vs. Ledesma Gustilo, Jan. 13, 2003
2. Caniza vs. CA, Feb. 24, 1997
3. Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, 683 SCRA
4. Oropesa vs. Oropesa, 671 SCRA (4/2012)
5. Abad vs. Biazon, 687 SCRA (12/2012)

D. Trustees (R-98)
1. Parties
2. Kinds/Classes
Cases:
1. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara, 664 SCRA
2. Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Perez, 672 SCRA

E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (R-99-100)

1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552)
2. Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043)
3. Rule of Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July 31, 2002,
effective Aug. 22, 2002)
a. Who may adopt (S-4)
b. Who may be adopted ( S-5)
c. Venue and Jurisdiction S.20)

Cases:
1. Cang vs CA – 296 SCRA 128
2. Vda de Jacob vs CA – 312 SCRA 772
3. Republic of the Phil. Vs Hon. Jose R. Hernandez- 253 SCRA 509
4. Republic vs CA – 255 SCRA 99
5. Reyes vs. Mauricio, 636 SCRA
6. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia, 454 SCRA
7. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim, 588 SCRA 98 (2007)
8. Nery vs. Sampana, 734 SCRA
9. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA
10. Bartolome vs. SSS, 740 SCRA
11. Re: Adoption of Karen Herico Licerio, 886 SCRA 318, Nov. 21, 2018
- On immutability of judgments; exceptions

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102)

30
 4. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1)
5. Requisites for Application (S-3)
6. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4)
7. Preliminary citation vs writ (S-6)
8. The return: when evidence; when plea (S-10,12,13)
Cases:
1. Ilusorio vs Bildner, 332 SCRA 169
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443
3. Lacson vs. Perez, 357 SCRA 756
4. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355
6. Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28, 2014
7. Datukan Malang Salibo vs. The Warden, 755 SCRA 296
8. Padilla vs. Congress of the Phil., 832 SCRA (July 2017)
-0n suspension of privilege during martial law
9. Osorio vs. Navera, 856 SCRA 435, February 267, 2018

H. Change of Name vs. Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended

R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108)

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction
2. Contents of Petition/Grounds
3. Hearing
4. Judgment
5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules
Cases:
1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002
2. Republic vs. Kho – 526 SCRA
3. Petition for Change on Name of Julian Lim
Carulasan Wang – 454 SCRA
4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009)
5. Republic vs. Silverio – 537 SCRA
6. Republic vs. Cagandahan –565 SCRA
7. Republic vs. Uy – 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)
8. Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013
9. People vs, Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014
10. Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, 734 SCRA, Sept. 2014
11. Almojuela vs. Republic, 801 SCRA 399
12. Gan vs. Republic, 803 SCRA 204
13. Chua vs. Republic, 845 SCRA 407, Nov. 2017

I. Prerogative Writs

31
A. Writ of Amparo

Cases:
1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA
2. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Asso., 554 SCRA
3. Castillo vs. Cruz, 605 SCRA
4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA
5. Roxas vs. GMA, 630 SCRA
6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014
7. Republic vs. Cayanan, 844 SCRA 183 (2017)
8. Gadian vs. Librado, 841 SCRA (2017)
- Amparo Writ is both preventive and curative
9. Lucena vs. Ilago, G.R. No. 252120, Sept. 15, 2020

B. Writ of Habeas Data

Cases:
1. Caram vs. Segui, August 5, 2014
2. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Therese College, Sept. 29, 2014
3. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA
4. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59

C. Writ of Kalikasan

Cases:
1. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus).
2. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39 (Writ of Kalikasan)
3. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102
4. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes et Al., 756 SCRA 513,
April 21, 2015
5.West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA
6. Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission, 819 SCRA 543
March 7, 2017

32
IV. E V I D E N C E (Rules 128-133)
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC effective May 1, 2020)*

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
(Rule 128, Sections 1-4: General Provisions)

1. Definition/Meaning and Scope of E.

2. Kinds and Classifications of E.
3. Axioms of Admissibility
a. Relevancy
b. Competency
c. Authenticity
d. Offer
4. Kinds of admissibility
a. conditional
b. multiple
c. curative

Cases:
1. Ong Chia vs. Republic, 328 SCRA
- on naturalization
2. Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA
- on privacy of communication & correspondence
3. People vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA
- on the right against self-incrimination (DNA)
4. Tating vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA
- on admissibility, weight and sufficiency of evidence
5. People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA
- multiple admissibility
6. SCC Chemicals Corp. vs. CA, 353 SCRA
- curative admissibility (hearsay evidence admissible
when not objected)

Sec. 3 inserted the words “the Constitution” *

B. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

(Rule 129, Sections 1-4))

1. Judicial Notice
a. mandatory and discretionary
b. when to take judicial notice
2. Judicial Admissions
a. when is there judicial admissions
Cases:
1. LBP vs. Banal, 434 SCRA
- contents of the records of other cases

33
 2. People vs. Kulais, 292 SCRA
- of testimonies in other cases
3. Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA
- admissibility of foreign laws
4. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, 700 SCRA
- admissibility of foreign laws/official records
5. People vs. Baharan, 639 SCRA
- admissibility of extrajudicial confession/plea of guilty
6. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA
- exception to admissibility of testimonies in other cases
7. Ligtas vs. People, 767 SCRA 1
- admissibility of decisions and records in other cases
8. Juan vs. Juan, 837 SCRA, Aug. 24, 2017
- website article is not of judicial notice

Amended Sections 1, 3 and 4 by inserting certain words *

C. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
(Rule 130, Sections 1-54)

1. Object/Real Evidence (Section 1)

Cases:
1. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA
-how to establish paternity and filiation
2. People vs. Mercury de la Curz, 802 SCRA, Sept. 7, 2016
3. People vs. Manuel De la Rosa, Dec. 13, 2017
4. People vs. Lazaro, 886 SCRA,Nov. 21, 2018
5. People vs. Emmanuel Oliva, January 7, 2019
- on chain of custody rule
6. People vs. John Orcullo y Susa, July 8, 2019

2. Documentary Evidence (Sections 2-10)

Cases:
1. St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. vs. LWV Const. Corp. 847 SCRA
2. People vs. Vibar, 858 SCRA
- on admissibility of private documents

a. The Best Evidence Rule, NOW Original Document Rule

Cases:
1. MCMP Const. vs. Monark, Nove. 10, 2014
2. Loon vs. Power Master, Inc., 712 SCRA
3. Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, 714 SCRA
4. Republic vs. Mupas, 769 SCRA
5. Robinol vs. Bassig, 845 SCRA

b. Secondary Evidence

34
 c. Parole Evidence
Cases:
1. Leoveras vs. Valdez, 652 SCRA
2. Paras vs. Kimwa Const., 755 SCRA
3. PNB vs. Pasimio, 769 SCRA
4. Mancol vs. DBP, 846 SCRA
Amendments are found in Sections 2, 3, 3(b), 3(c), 4 (a)(b)(c), 7 {9 is now 10}

d. Electronic Evidence
- A.M. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence
- R.A. 8792, E-Commerce Law
Cases:
1. Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, 408 SCRA
2. Torres vs. PAGCOR, 661 SCRA
3. Ang vs. Republic,618 SCRA
4. People vs. Enojas
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, June 4, 2014
6. Bartolome vs. Maranan, 740 SCRA
7. BBB vs. AAA, 750 SCRA
8. Astorga & Repol Law Offices vs.
Villanueva, 751 SCRA

Section 4 of Rule 130 incorporated Electronic Evidence rule

Sections 11-20 remain: Interpretation of Documents

3. Testimonial Evidence (Sections 21-54)

a. Qualifications: “one who can perceive and perceiving can

make known his perception”
i. ability to observe/perceive
ii. ability to recall/remember
iii. ability to relate/communicate

b. Disqualifications:
Case: Marcos vs. Heirs of Andres Navarro, 700 SCRA
Note: mental incapacity or immaturity in Section 21 has been deleted.
Is it no longer a disqualification?
Case: People vs. Golimlim, 427 SCRA
People vs. Golidan, 850 SCRA 579, Jan.2018
i. marital disqualification (Sec. 23)
Cases:
1 Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA.
2.People vs. Castaneda, 88 SCRA
ii. privileged communication (Sec. 24)
Cases:
1. Chan vs. Chan, 702 SCRA
2. Lacurom vs. Jacoba, 484 SCRA
3. Samala vs. Valencia, 514 SCRA

35
 4. Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera,725 SCRA

iii. death or insanity/dead man’s statute (Section 39)

Cases:
1. Razon vs. CA, 207 SCRA
2. Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA
3. Bordalba vs. CA, 374 SCRA
Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrines laid down in Senate of the
Philippines vs. Ermita (488 SCRA) and Neri vs. Senate Committees (435 SCRA)

c. Testimonial Privilege
i. Parental and filial privilege (Section 25)
ii. Privilege relating to trade secrets (Section 26)

d. Admission of a Party (Section 27)

- by third parties (S-29)
- by partners (S-30)
- by conspirators (S-31)
- by privies (S-32)
- by silence (S-33)
Cases:
1. Constantino vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr.
706 SCRA
2. Cambe vs. Ombudsman, 812 SCRA Dec. 6, 2016
3. Ocampo vs. Ocampo, 830 SCRA

e. Offer of Compromise (Section 28)

f. Confessions (Section 34)

- judicial vs. extra-judicial
Cases:
a. People vs. Dacanay, 807 SCRA, (2016)
b. People vs. Opiniano, 832 (2017)
c. Cruz vs. People, 846 SCRA

g. Previous Conduct (Section 35)

Cases:
1. People vs. Santos, 221 SCRA 715
2. People vs. Nardo, 353 SCRA 339
3. RP vs. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361

h. Hearsay Evidence Rule (Sections 37-49)

Cases: Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA
People vs. Aguirre, 845 (independently relevant statement)
i. Exceptions:
i. Dying Declaration: Pp vs. Calinawan, 817 SCRA 424
ii. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind
iii. Declaration against interest: Pp vs. Bernal, 274 SCRA

36
 iv Declaration about pedigree: Tizon vs. CA, 276 SCRA
v. Family Reputation or tradition: Jison vs. CA, 286 SCRA
vi. Common reputation
vii. Res gestae: Pp vs. Dimapilit, 836 SCRA;Pp vs. Mercado,
883 SCRA, Oct. 2018
viii. Records of regularly conducted business activity
(formerly, entries in the course of business)
Phil. Airlines vs Ramos, 207 SCRA 461
ix. Entries in Official Records: Pp vs. Corpuz, 856 SCRA 610;
Sabili vs. COMELEC, 670 SCRA; Cercado-Siga, 752 SCRA
x. Commercial lists: Meralco vs. Quisumbing, 336 SCRA
xi. Learned treatises
xii. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding: Pp vs.
Ortiz-Miyako, 279 SCRA; Go vs. People, 677 SCRA
xiii. Child Witness Rule: People vs. Ibanez, 706 SCRA
People vs. Esugon, 759
xiv. Residual exception (Section 50)

j. Opinion Rule Sections 51-53)

i. Expert Witness: Lavarez vs. Guevarra, 822 SCRA 130
Avelino vs. People, 701 SCRA
ii. Ordinary Witness: Pp vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA

k. Character Evidence (Section 54)

People vs. Deopita, 436 SCRA 794

D. BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS

(Rule 131, Sections 1-6)

1. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence

Case: FEBTC vs. Chante, 707 SCRA

2. Presumptions
a. Conclusive presumptions
i. Ibaan Rural bank vs. CA, 321 SCRA
ii. Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, 401 SCRA
iii. University of Mindanao vs. PSP, 778 SCRA (1/11/16)
b. Disputable presumptions
i. Rosaroso vs. Soria, 699 SCRA
ii. Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada, 712 SCRA
iii.Uy vs. Lacsamana, 767 SCRA
iv. Diaz vs. People, 776 SCRA 43

- suppression of testimony: People vs. Padrigone, 382 SCRA

Metrobank vs. CA, 333 SCRA
- official duty: De los Santos vs. COA, 703 SCRA; Pp vs. Barte, 819 SCRA

37
 People vs. Candidia, 707 SCRA
- cohabitation: People vs. Edualino, 271 SCRA

- survivorship; absence

3. Legitimacy or Illegitimacy (Section 4)

4. Presumptions in civil actions/criminal actions (Sections 5 & 6)

E. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
(Rule 132, Sections 1-40)

1. Examination of Witnesses (Sections 1-18)

- Order of Presentation of Evidence. People vs Fabre, 385 SCRA
- Leading and Misleading Questions. People vs. Perez, 397 SCRA
- Impeachment. People vs. Castellano, 400 SCRA
- Reference to Memorandum
- Present Memory Revived, People vs. Plasencia, 249 SCRA
- Past Recollection Recorded, Canque vs. CA, 305 SCRA

Note: Former Section 14 transposed to Section 54 of 130

2. Authentication and Proof of Documents (Sections 19-33)

- Classes of Documents
- Public Documents
Cases: 1. Iwasawa vs. Gangan, 705 SCRA
2. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance, 702 SCRA
- Private Documents
- Offer of Evidence. Aludos vs. Suerte, 673 SCRA; Westmont
Investment Corporation vs. Francia, Jr., 661 SCRA

(What is the Apostille Convention?)

3. Offer and Objection (Sections 34-40)

-Tender of Excluded Evidence
Fortune Tabacco Corp. vs. Com of Int. Rev.,761 SCRA 173
Amoquis vs. Ballado, 878 SCRA, Aug. 20, 2018

F. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

(Rule 133, Sections 1-8)

The Hierarchy of Evidence:

i. Overwhelming Evidence

38
 ii. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. “ That degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind”
1. People vs. Caliso – 659 SCRA
2. People vs. Patentes – 716 SCRA
3. People vs. Arcenal – 821 SCRA 549
4. People vs. Alboka – 856 SCRA 252

iii. Clear and Convincing

1. Supreme Court vs. Delgado – 658 SCRA
2. Govt of Hongkong Special Adm. Region
Vs. Olalia, Jr. – 521 SCRA
3. People vs. Fontanilla – 664 SCRA
4. People vs. Cabiles, 827 SCRA

iv. Preponderance of Evidence

1. PCIB vs. Balmaceda – 658 SCRA

2. De la Llana vs. Biong – 711 SCRAi
3..Canlao vs. People – 659 SCRA (equipoise doctrine)

v. Substantial Evidence

1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Reyes – 658 SCRA

2. Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank – 711 SCRA

vi. Prima facie evidence

1. Lucas vs. Lucas – 650 SCRA

2. Estate of Marcos vs. Republic – 814 SCRA 600
3. Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller – 815 SCRA 285

vii. Probable Cause

1. PNB vs. Tria - 671 SCRA

2. Del Castillo vs. People – 664 SCRA

viii. Iota of Evidence (circumstantial)

1.. People vs. Anticamara – 651 SCRA
2 . People vs. Deocampo 666 SCRA
3. Celedonio vs. People, 761 SCRA 363
4. Bacerra vs. People, 828 SCRA 525

By: Henedino M. Brondial, Sr.

Chair, Remedial Law Department
Arellano University School of Law

39
 PRAYER BEFORE CLASS

ALMIGHTY GOD AND LOVING FATHER, WE STAND BEFORE YOU

IMPLORING YOUR GUIDANCE IN CONDUCTING THIS CLASS TODAY.

HELP ME TO ALWAYS ACT FAIRLY AND JUSTLY COUPLED WITH

MERCIFUL UNDERSTANDING AND COMPASSION. GUIDE ME TO

ENFORCE DISCIPLINE AND NEVER TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST ANY

STUDENT. KEEP ME FROM ABUSING MY AUTHORITY AND TEACH ME TO

EXERCISE IT WITH CONVICTION.

DEAR LORD, YOU HAVE CHOSEN THESE STUDENTS TO BE YOUR

INSTRUMENTS IN PROMOTING JUSTICE, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.

ENLIGHTEN THEIR MINDS; STRENGTHEN THEIR SPIRITS; FILL THEIR

HEARTS WITH COURGAGE AND DETERMINATION. GRANT THEM YOUR

WISDOM AND ASSISTANCE IN ALL THEIR ACTIONS AND DECISIONS,

SPECIALLY IN THEIR STUDY OF LAW. TO YOU, THE SUPREME MASTER

AND PERFECT TEACHER, I COMMEND THEM TO YOUR LOVING CARE.

A M E N.

PRAYER AFTER CLASS

DEAR LORD, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE TASK YOU HAVE

DESIGNED FOR US TODAY. THANK YOU FOR LEADING US THROUGH.
KEEP US ALWAYS MEEK AND HUMBLE, KNOWING THAT WITHOUT YOU
WE ARE NOTHING. CONTINUE TO GUIDE US, AND HELP US NOT BE
DISCOURAGED IN OUR SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND
UNDERSTANDING. WE LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING UNDER
YOUR EVER-ABIDING GUIDANCE AND INSPIRATION. KEEP US SAFE AND
SECURE, EVER FREE FROM ANY ARM AND INJURY. A M E N.

40
41