May facts outside the information be introduced in a motion to quash?

It is clear from Section 2 of Rule 117, Rules of Court, that a motion to quash may be based on
factual and legal grounds, and since extinction of criminal liability and double jeopardy are
retained  
among the grounds for a motion to quash in Section 3 of the new Rule 117, it necessarily follows
that facts outside the information itself may be introduced to prove such grounds.

What are the different classes of evidence?

The lack or absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence
whatsoever for there is another class of evidence which, though insufficient to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases; this is preponderance of evidence. Then too,
there is the "substantial evidence" rule in administrative proceedings which merely requires such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

When is certiorari proper?

Certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of
discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
aribitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.

What are the requisites of litis pendentia to constitute an abatement or dismissal of an

action?

In order to constitute a ground for the abatement or dismissal of an action, litis pendentia must
exhibit the concurrnece of the following requisites: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity in the two cases should be such that
the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other.

Is contempt subject to a separate action?

The contention that a party's complaint for contempt must be the subject of a separate action
would nullify contempt proceedings as means of securing obedience to the lawful processes of a
court-this theory would reward ingenuity and cunning in revising orders which substantially are
the same as the order previously prohibited by the court.

Who should be impleaded in an action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth?

All  persons whether natural or juridical, who stand to lose in favor of the government under a
judgment in such actions for recovery of so-called illegally acquired wealth should be impleaded
as defendants to afford them an opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves in the action.

When is it necessary to file a separate and distinct action for recovery of ownership or
possession of property?

The "proper action", the object of which is for the recovery of ownership or possession of the
property seized by the sheriff, is and should be an entirely separate and distinct action from that
in which execution has issued, if instituted by a stranger to the latter suit.

What is an action?

An action is a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed
by the court or by the law.  The determinative or operative fact which converts a claim into an
"action or suit" is the filing of the same with a "court of justice".  Filed elsewhere, as with some
other body or office not a court of justice, the claim may not be categorized under either term. 

When is an agreement regarding venue of suits restrictive? When is it permissive?

The agreement is restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon
by the parties and merely permissive in that the parties may file their suits not only in the place
agreed upon but also in the places fixed by the rules.

What is the duty of the court when a pleading fails to comply with procedural imperatives?

It is a settled rule that a tribunal may at any time take judicial notice of the records of a case
pending before it,  and satisfy itself that copies of the pleadings filed by the parties are in the
numbers required by its rules. The failure of a pleading to comply with such procedural
imperative set by the court, leaves the latter the discretion either to reject that pleading or order
completion of the number of copies thereof. Where, however, the party whose pleading has been
shunted aside offers to show that it has fully complied with the requirements of the rules and that
the records kept by the tribunal contain inaccurate entries, the latter body should pause and
listen, and give that party a day in court.

What is the nature of judicial bonds?

Judicial bonds are contractual in nature. They constitute a special class of contracts of guaranty
since they are given by virtue of judicial order. Even if the appeal bond is defective, a situation
not true in the present case, as long as it is not void and given in good faith and not for the
purpose of delay, the trial Court may order its amendment. The appeal should not be dismissed
without giving the appellant an opportunity to perfect the bond or to file a new bond.

What are the procedural due process requirements in diclipinary cases of students?

The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it
bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail
proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of
justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is
not, an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy
the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in
writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to
answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be
informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

What is the quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigations?

The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to
"engender a well founded belief" as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's
probable guilt thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive
display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender
a well grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof. 

What is the responsibilty of a government prosecutor in a criminal case?

It is axiomatic that the prosecution of a criminal case is the responsibility of the government
prosecutor and must always be under his control. This is true even if a private prosecutor is
allowed to assist him and actually handles the examination of the witnesses and the introduction
of other evidence. The witnesses, even if they are the complaining witnesses cannot act for the
prosecutor in the handling of the case. They have no personality to move for its dismissal or
revival as they are not even parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to the action. Their
only function is to testify. In a criminal prosecution, the plaintiff is represented by the
government prosecutor, or one acting under his authority, and by no one else.

What are the exceptions to the rule that certiorari will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed?

The rule is that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration
is filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to correct its imputed errors.
There are exceptions to the rule, these are: (1) when the issue raised is purely one of law; (2)
where public interest is involved; (3) in cases of emergency; or (4) where special circumstances
warrant immediate or more direct action.

Does a court have the power to dismiss a petition if it fails to meet procedural
requirements?

A petition must be sufficient in form and substance before further action may be taken thereon
by the court. Lacking such sufficiency, as determined by the court itself, the petition may be
dismissed outright. It cannot be over stressed that the court is not obliged to waste its time on
inadequate pleadings that can only burden its docket and impair the orderly administration of
justice. We ourselves have given short shrift to many a petition for non-compliance with the
procedural requisites, for being unintelligible or clearly without legal basis, or for some other
similar shortcoming.

When is service by registered mail deemed completed? What is the exception?

The general rule is that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt thereof by the
addressee. The exception is where the addressee does not claim his mail within 5 days from the
date of the first notice of the postmaster, in which case the service takes effect upon the
expiration of such period. Inasmuch as the exception refers to only constructive and not actual
service,  such exception must be applied only upon conclusive proof that a first notice was duly
sent by the postmaster to the addressee. 

What would be the best evidence to prove that the notice has been validly sent?

A certification from the postmaster would be the best evidence to prove that the notice has been
validly sent.  The postmaster should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as
to how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was made. Consequently, it cannot be too much
to expect that when the post office makes a certification regarding delivery of registered mail,
such certification should include the data not only as to whether or not the corresponding notices
were issued or sent but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was made.

What are the periods provided by law for a defendant in a replevin suit to demand the
return of his property?

A defendant in a replevin suit, may demand the return of possession of the property replevined
by filing a redelivery bond executed to the plaintiff in double the value of the property as stated
in the plaintiff's affidavit, within the periods specified in Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 60 of the Rules
of Court. Under Section 5, petitioner may "at any time before the delivery of the property to the
plaintiff' require the return of the property; in Section 6, he may do so, "within five (5) days after
the taking of the property by the officer." Both these periods are mandatory in character. 

What is the purpose of defendant's counterbond?

To forestall the possession by the plaintiff of the property our procedural law provides that the
defendant must post a counterbond and must furnish the plaintiff with the copy of the
undertaking. Again, if only for the purpose of emphasis, this is required to protect the plaintiff,
should his action be adjudged meritorious. This procedure was purposely formulated to allow the
defendant to continue possessing the property. Not to require him to post any bond would
likewise, be counter to the objectives and intent sought by the framers of the law.

What is the test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness?

Evidence to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in
addition, be credible in itself. And by this is meant that it shall be natural, reasonable and
probable as to make it easy to believe.  No better test has yet been found to determine the value
of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of
mankind. 

When will the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions not arise?

When there are several related acts supposed to be performed by a public officer or employee in
regard to a particular matter, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions would not arise and be considered as comprehending all the required acts, if the
certification issued by the proper office refers only to some of such acts, particularly in instances
wherein proof of whether or not all of them have been performed is available under the law or
office regulations to the officer making the certification.

What are the factors for the acceptance of the testimony of a witness with regard to the
identity of a malefactor?

Where considerations of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased
against the accused, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally
accepted. This is more so when the witness is the victim or his near relative because these
witnesses usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants.

What is intervention?

Intervention is defined as a "proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted

by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the
complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something
adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a
suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to
pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of
some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.

Can intervention still prosper after the termination of the main action?

No. An intervention has been regarded as "merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the
principal action and not an independent proceeding; an interlocutory proceeding dependent on or
subsidiary to, the case between the original parties." (Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. 1) The
main action having ceased to exist, there is no pending proceeding whereon the intervention may
be based.

Are judgements based on compromise appealable?

A judgment based on a compromise is generally not appealable, as enunciated in the case of

Serrano et al. vs. Reyes et al.  The reason for the rule is that "when both parties enter into an
agreement to end a pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said
agreement, it is only natural to presume that such action constitutes an implicit, as undeniable as
an express, waiver of the right to appeal against said decision.
When does an accused waive his right to object to an information that charges more than
one offense?

When each one of two offenses committed is punishable by two different laws, they cannot be
charged in one information as a complex crime but must be regarded as two separate and distinct
offenses, each one to be the subject of separate informations. When duplicity of offenses exists
in an information the accused must present his objection by filing a motion to quash the
information on the ground of duplicity of offenses. If the accused fails to object and goes to trial
under the information which contains a description of more than one offense, the general rule is
he thereby waives the objection and may be found guilty of and should be sentenced for, as many
offenses as are charged in the information and proved during trial (People v. Medina 59 Phil.
134; People v. Miana 50 Phil. 771). This rule however shall apply only if the accused is formally
arraigned and required to plead on all the offenses as are charged in the information. Otherwise,
the accused cannot be convicted of the offenses with respect to which he was not properly
arraigned.

What is the duty of the fiscal in prosecuting criminal actions?

It must be admitted that Section 1, Rule 110 makes it mandatory on the Fiscal to commence
criminal actions against all persons who appear to be responsible for an offense, but this does not
mean that he has no discretion at all. He still is called on to determine whether the evidence
before him is enough to justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. It is
the prerogative of the Fiscal, on the basis of the evidence gathered by him, in the exercise of such
discretion, to charge the accused to the exclusion of others.

How should a court consider a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4
and 5 of the Rules of Court?

Section 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires that notice of motion be served by the
movant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before its hearing. Section 5 of the same
Rule provides that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time
and place for the hearing of the motion. A motion which does not meet the requirements of
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper which
the clerk has no right to receive and the court has no authority to act upon. Service of copy of a
motion containing notice of the time and place of hearing of said motion is a mandatory
requirement.

Is it the duty of the appellant to prosecute his appeal with reasonable diligence?

A rule long familiar to practitioners in this jurisdiction is that it is the duty of the appellant to
prosecute his appeal with reasonable diligence. He cannot simply fold his arms and say that it is
the duty of the Clerk of Court of First Instance under the provisions of Section 11, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court to transmit the record on appeal to the appellate court. It is appellants duty to
make the Clerk act and, if necessary, procure a court order to compel him to act. He cannot idly
sit by and wait till this is done. He cannot afterwards wash his hands and say that delay in the
transmittal of the record on appeal was not his fault. For indeed, this duty imposed upon him was
precisely to spur on the slothful.

What is the difference between action and cause of action?

A cause of action is the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial
interference in his behalf. An action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one
party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prosecution or
redress of a wrong.
What are the two elements of a cause of action?

The cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and the
defendant's corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate   
person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the
defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is
determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged.

What is the difference between a right of action and a cause of action?

The term right of action is the right to commence and maintain an action. In the law on
pleadings, right of action is distinguished from cause of action in that the former is a remedial
right belonging to some persons, while the latter is a formal statement of the operative facts that
give rise to such remedial right. The former is a matter of right and depends on the substantive
law, while the latter is a matter of statement and is governed by the law of procedure.

When does the right of action accrue and become operative?

The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which
constitute the cause of action have occurred. When there is an invasion of primary rights, then
and not until then does the adjective or remedial law become operative, and under it arise rights
of action. There can be no right of action until there has been a wrong  a violation of a legal
right  and it is then given by the adjective law.

What is the underlying philosophy of res judicata?

The underlying philosophy of the doctrine of res judicata is that parties ought not to be permitted
to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such a trial has been given,
the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties
and those in privity with them in law or estate, (Marapao v. Mendoza, 119 SCRA 97, Sy Cao v.
CA, 132 SCRA 302). It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by
the same parties and their privies over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated. Interest
republicae ut sit finis litium.

What is the distinction between the failure to file a notice of appeal within the
reglementary  period and the failure to file a brief within the period granted by the
appellate court?

The former results in the failure of the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the appealed
decision resulting in its becoming final and executory upon failure of the appellant to move for
reconsideration. The latter simply results in the abandonment of the appeal which could lead to
its dismissal upon failure to move for its reconsideration, in which case the appealed decision
would also become final and executory but prior thereto, the appellate court shall have obtained
jurisdiction of the appealed decision.

Will the contradictions between the affidavit and testimony in open court affect the
credibility of a witness?

The rule has also always been that the contradictions between the contents of an affiant’s
affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness’
credibility because the Supreme Court has long taken judicial notice that affidavits, which are
usually taken ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate. Indeed, a sworn statement taken ex
parte is generally considered to be inferior to a testimony given in open court as the latter is
subject to the test of cross examination.

Is an offer of compromise admissible as evidence?

An offer of compromise is not an admission that anything is due, and is not admissible in
evidence against the person making the offer. However, in criminal cases which are not allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt.

What are the effects of a compromise agreement?

It is axiomatic that a compromise agreement once approved by the court has the force of res
judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery. 
Being in effect the contract between the parties, a compromise agreement cannot be set aside by
the trial court if the parties acted in good faith. In fact, it is immediately executory and not
appealable. 

What is a cause of action and when is a complaint deemed to have a cause of action?

A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.
A complaint is deemed to have stated a cause of action provided it has indicated the following:
(1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act
or the omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right.

When is an arrest without a warrant lawful?

Under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

When may a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, be granted?

A motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, is properly granted where
there is concurrence of the following requisites, namely: a) the evidence had been discovered
after trial; b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; and c) the evidence is material, and not merely
corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably
alter the result (Tumang v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 332).

What is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?

It is an exclusionary rule which states that evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be
used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained. 
When is a party guilty of forum shopping?

A party is guilty of forum shopping when he repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.

What is the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur"?

The doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" holds a defendant liable where the thing which caused the
injury complained of is shown to be under the latter’s management and the accident is such that,
in the ordinary course of things, cannot be expected to happen if those who have its management
or control use proper care.  It affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. It is not a rule of substantive law and, as
such, it does not create an independent ground of liability.  Instead, it is regarded as a mode of
proof, or a mere procedural convenience since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves the
plaintiff of, the burden of producing specific proof of negligence.

What is a summary hearing?

A summary hearing is defined as “such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of evidence for the purposes of bail.  On such hearing, the court does not sit
to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the
evidence for or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what
further evidence may be therein offered and admitted.  The course of inquiry may be left to the
discretion of the court which may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary examination and cross examination”.

What is the best evidence rule and what are some of its exceptions?

The best evidence rule enshrined in the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that “when the
subject of an inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself.” This rule is not without exception.  Some of the exception are
when the original has been lost or destroyed; cannot be produced in court without bad faith on
the part of the offeror; or when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.

What is the principle of in pari delicto non oritur actio and what is the exception to this
general rule?

The principle of in pari delicto non oritur actio denies all recovery to the guilty parties inter se.
It applies to cases where the nullity arises from the illegality of the consideration or the purpose
of the contract. When two persons are equally at fault, the law does not relieve them. The
exception to this general rule is when the principle is invoked with respect to inexistent contracts.

What is probable cause?

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It has been explained as
a reasonable presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded, such  a  state of  facts in the
mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and
positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.  It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there
is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is  believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged, as there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. 

What is the equipoise doctrine?

The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and
the defense are so evenly balanced, the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the
scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavier to
overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused.

How should the Rules of Court and other procedural rules be interpreted and applied?

The Rules of Court must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve, not defeat, substantial
justice as expeditiously as possible.  Procedural rules should be liberally construed in order to
promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding.  Where the rigid application of the rules would
frustrate substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are
justified in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.

When is a dying declaration admissible as evidence?

 A dying declaration is admissible when (a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent, and the
declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would have been
competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in
which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s death.

When is an object "in plain view" for purposes of seizure without a warrant?

A: Jurisprudence is to the effect that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in
plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims
its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are
obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if
the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains
the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to
the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure. (Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002)

Under the Rules of Court, how is the genuineness of a handwriting proved?

A: Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of a handwriting may be
proved: 1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because: (a) he
has seen the person write; or (b) he has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged; 2) by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party, against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to
be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

What is a judicial admission?

A: A judicial admission is a formal statement made either by a party or his or her attorney, in the
course of judicial proceeding which removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.  It is
a voluntary concession of fact by a party or a party’s attorney during such judicial proceedings,
including admissions in pleadings made by a party. It may occur at any point during the litigation
process.  An admission in open court is a judicial admission. A judicial admission binds the
client even if made by his counsel.
What is a summary judgment?

A: A summary judgment is one granted upon motion of a party for an expeditious settlement of
the case, it appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits that there are no
important questions or issues of fact posed and, therefore, the movant is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law.  A motion for summary judgment is premised on the assumption that the issues
presented need not be tried either because these are patently devoid of substance or that there is
no genuine issue as to any pertinent fact.  It is a method sanctioned by the Rules of Court for the
prompt disposition of a civil action where there exists no serious controversy. (Rabaca vs. Velez,
341 SCRA 543 [2000])

What are the requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in criminal

cases?

A: The requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent; and (c) the
surrender was voluntary.  For surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and show the
intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either: (1) because he
acknowledges his guilt; or (2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental
to his search and capture.

What is the rule of res inter alios acta?

A:  Under the rule of res inter alios acta, evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time,
but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the like. 

What is the "plain view doctrine" and what are its requisites?

A:  Under the “plain view” doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has
the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence.  Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following
requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties;  (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

What is Law of the Case?

A:  “Law of the case” has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal.  It is a term
applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the
case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the
case upon subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the
controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the
law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.  As a general rule, a
decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that question
is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.

What is the effect of notarizing a private document?

A:  “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. It converts a private document
into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary
proof of its authenticity and due execution.”  (Sicat v. Ariola, Jr., AC No. 5864, 15 April 2005)