EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8. People of the Philippines Vs. Domingo Arcega y Siguenza

Q: Information was filed against appellant for attempted rape. The RTC found him
guilty. The appellant appealed to the CA. The CA modified the decision from guilty of
rape to guilty of acts of lasciviousness. Did CA err when it modified the conviction of
attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness?
A: No. The CA did not err. In People v. Balunsat, where the CA modified the accused-
appellant's conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, we held that since
the CA had already acquitted the accused of attempted rape, a review of the
downgrading of the crime will violate the respondent's right against double jeopardy.
A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is
final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. A review of the
downgrading of the crime will violate the respondent's right against double jeopardy.

35. Reynaldo Valencia Vibar Vs. People of the Philippines

Q: Appellant was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant appealed the judgment against
him which was denied. In his Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner maintains
that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to
prove all the elements of the crime charged. He insists that none of the prosecution
witnesses testified to seeing the jeepney he was driving actually run over the victim and
that their testimonies are circumstantial at best. Can the court review the facts of a case?

A: Yes. Review of appeals filed before the Court is “not a matter of right, but of sound
judicial discretion[.]’” Only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition as this
Court is not a trier of facts, and factual findings are “final, binding, or conclusive on the
parties and upon this court when supported by substantial evidence.”
However, exceptions to the general rule exist and the Court may pass upon the
findings of fact of the lower courts in the following instances:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
 impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
those of the trial; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised
on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on
record.

36. Central Realty and Development Corporation Vs. Solar Resources, Inc.

Q: Central filed with the RTC of Manila a case for cancellation of adverse claim,
disputing the claim of Solar. The RTC rendered summary judgment dismissing the
complaint. The court ruled that Central’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was
improper. The trial court also rendered summary judgment in the case. It held that a
full-blown trial was no longer necessary where the only issue was the validity of the
adverse claim, hence, there was no need for the court to pass upon the parties’
respective claims of ownership over the property, the same being the subject of another
case. Based on the recitals in the Affidavit of Adverse Claim, it found sufficient basis to
sustain the annotation of Solar’s adverse claim, flowing as it did from the deed of sale it
had with Molina. Can the trial court render summary judgment motu proprio?

A: No. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 35 mentions the need of a motion to move for
Summary Judgment. The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing on the motion
are therefore important because these enable the court to determine if the parties’
pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of or against, the motion are sufficient to
overcome the opposing papers and adequately justify the finding that, as a matter of
law, the claim is clearly meritorious or there is no defense to the action. The non-
observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a
hearing on the said motion warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment.