Jan.25-PM-Best Bar Reviewer

#Best_Bar_Reviewer
PROCEDURE AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
REMEDIAL LAW
I.Civil Procedure
• ACTIONS
✓ Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
✓ A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong.
✓ A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
• CAUSE OF ACTION
✓ A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (Sec.2, Rule 2)
✓ A cause of action has three elements, namely:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises
(2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. (Cole v. Vda. De
Gregorio, 116 SCRA 670)
✓ A Stockholder Has No Separate Cause of Action in Derivative Suits
✓ The distinction between individual and class/representative suits on one hand and derivative suits
on the other is crucial. These are not discretionary alternatives. The fact that stockholders suffer
from a wrong done to or involving a corporation does not vest in them a sweeping license to sue
in their own capacity. The recognition of derivative suits as a vehicle for redress distinct from
individual and representative suits is an acknowledgment that certain wrongs may be addressed
only through acts brought for the corporation. Although in most every case of wrong to the
corporation, each stockholder is necessarily affected because the value of his interest therein would
be impaired, this fact of itself is not sufficient to give him an individual cause of action since the
corporation is a person distinct and separate from him, and can and should itself sue the wrongdoer.
(Florete, Jr. vs. Florete, Sr., 781 SCRA 255, G.R. No. 174909, G.R. No. 177275 January 20, 2016, J.
Leonen)
✓ A Compulsory Counterclaim Does Not Require the Presence of Third Parties for its
Adjudication
✓ A compulsory counterclaim is a defendant’s claim for money or other relief which arises out of, or
is necessarily connected with, the subject matter of the complaint. In Spouses Ponciano v. Hon.
Parentela, Jr., 331 SCRA 605 (2000): A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other
relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises
out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of plaintiff’s complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that if it is within the jurisdiction of
the court, and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction, it must be set up therein, and will be barred in the future if not
set up. (Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Development Company, 857 SCRA 549, G.R.
No. 196795 March 7, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a splitting cause of action if two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. (Sec.4, Rule 2).
✓ Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading assert as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party. Under the totality rule, where the claims in all
the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be
the test of jurisdiction.
✓ Under Sec.3(c) of Rule 9, when a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against
several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the
case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.
pg. 1 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

✓ Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other. On
the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is
a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause of
action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the
pleading.
• PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
✓ A Corporation is an Indispensable Party in a Derivative Suit
✓ This court explained in Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 (1998), why it is
a condition sine qua non that the corporation be impleaded as party in derivative suits. Thus: Not
only is the corporation an indispensable party, but it is also the present rule that it must be served
with process. The reason given is that the judgment must be made binding upon the corporation
in order that the corporation may get the benefit of the suit and may not bring a subsequent suit
against the same defendants for the same cause of action. In other words, the corporation must be
joined as party because it is its cause of action that is being litigated and because judgment must
be a res judicata against it. (Villamor, Jr. vs. Umale, 736 SCRA 325, G.R. No. 172881 September 24,
2014, J. Leonen)
✓ While Non-Joinder of Indispensable Party is Not a Ground to Dismiss, Inclusion is
Jurisdictional
✓ The inclusion of an indispensable party is a jurisdictional requirement. While the failure to implead
an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said
party may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at
any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains essential — as it is jurisdictional
— that any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court renders judgment.
This is because the absence of such indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court
null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. (Florete, Jr. vs. Florete, Sr., 781 SCRA 255, G.R. No. 174909, G.R. No. 177275 January 20,
2016, J. Leonen)
✓ The Seller of the Property in an Action for Reconveyance is a Necessary Party
✓ An indispensable party is the party whose legal presence in the proceeding is so necessary that “the
action cannot be finally determined” without him or her because his or her interests in the matter
and in the relief “are so bound up with that of the other parties.” The property owners against
whom the action for reconveyance is filed are indispensable parties. No relief can be had, and the
court cannot render a valid judgment, without them. The property has been sold to respondents
Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel. Thus, they are indispensable parties. However, the sellers of the property
are not indispensable parties. They are at best necessary parties. (Aboitiz vs. Po, 825 SCRA 457,
G.R. No. 208450, G.R. No. 208497 June 5, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ It is axiomatic that a stranger is not bound by a case to which he was not a party; otherwise his
right to due process would be violated.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, in case of a transfer pendente lite, the action may be continued
against the original party and in such a case the judgment is still binding upon the transferee. Here
A is a transferee pendente lite since the property was sold to her during the pendency of the case.
Hence she is bound by the judgment in the action.
✓ Under Rule 3, non-joinder of parties, even indispensable ones, is not a ground for dismissal of an
action. (Sec.11, Rule 3)
✓ The non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground of a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. Ca,
371 SCRA 508)
✓ The SC has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground of a motion to dismiss.
(Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may join causes of action against two or more parties,
alternatively or otherwise, arising from the same transaction and involving a common question of
law or fact. (Sec.5, Rule 2; Sec.6, Rule 3)
✓ Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in the
action. Hence he has a legal interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation and may thus
intervene in the case.

✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a court cannot direct the arrest of a party for disobeying an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination. The court may impose other penalties such
as rendering judgment by default or issuing an order that the physical or mental condition of the
disobedient party shall be taken as established in accordance with the claim of the party the order.
(Sec.3(d) Rule 29)
✓ A party who does not reply to a request for admission is deemed to have admitted the facts subject
thereof. (Sec.2, Rule 26)
• VENUE
✓ Objections to Venue Must Be Brought at the Earliest Opportunity
✓ Venue is “the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be
brought.” In civil cases, venue is a matter of procedural law. A party’s objections to venue must be
brought at the earliest opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise the
objection shall be deemed waived. When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court
cannot motu proprio dismiss the case. (City of Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, 742
SCRA 524, G.R. No. 187583 November 26, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the venue of a real action should be laid in the court having
jurisdiction over the place where the real property is situated. Here the action for reconveyance of
the two parcels of land is a real action since it affects title to or possession of the land involved.
NOTE: same answer if the action is for foreclosure since its also affects title to or possession of the
land involved.
✓ Under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, venue in case of real actions lies with the court having
jurisdiction over the place where the real property is situated. The action is real since it affects title
to or possession of real property.
✓ An action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a real action since it affects title to or possession
of real property.
✓ Resides under Rule 4, means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary (Dangwa Trans.
Co. V. Sarmiento, Jan.31, 1977)
✓ Under the Rule on Venue, the venue of real actions is in the place where the real property is
situated. A real action is one which affects title to or possession over real property.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in personal actions is with the residence of either the
plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiff’s election.
✓ Under the RPC, venue in a civil action for libel also lies in the place where the libelous article was
printed and first published.
✓ The SC held that the requirement that the petition be filed in the area where the actionable neglect
or omission took place relates to venue and not to subject-matter jurisdiction. Since what is
involved is improper venue and not subject-matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to
dismiss outright the petition since venue may be waived. (Dolot v. Paje, Aug.27, 2013)
✓ The SC held that a party is not bound by a venue stipulation where he directly assails on the ground
of forgery the validity of the contracts containing the venue stipulation. The reason is that such a
party cannot be expected to comply with the venue stipulation since his compliance therewith
would mean an implicit recognition of the validity of the contracts he assails. (Briones v. Cash Asia
Credit Corp. Jan.14, 2015)
• PLEADINGS
✓ Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement
of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her claim
or defense, as the case may be. (Section 1, Rule 8)
✓ The SC had an occasion to say that the use of disrespectful, intemperate, manifestly baseless, and
malicious statements by an attorney in his pleadings or motions is a violation of the lawyer’s oath
and a transgression of the canons of professional ethics. (Buenviaje v. Magdamo, 837 SCRA 400)
➢ Complaint
✓ The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The names and
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint for ejectment must be verified. Here the complaint
contained a certification against forum-shopping but this is not the same as a verification in which

the affiant states that he has read the complaint and that the allegations therein are true and correct
of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
✓ Failure to Use the Proper Markings in Amendments of Pleading is Not Fatal
✓ The procedural rule, which requires that amendments to a pleading be indicated with appropriate
marks, has for its purpose the convenience of the Court and the parties. It allows the reader to be
able to immediately see the modifications. However, failure to use the appropriate markings for the
deletions and intercalations will not affect any substantive right. Certainly, its absence cannot cause
the denial of any substantive right. The Sandiganbayan’s view that a motion for leave to amend
should be denied on the basis of the rule on proper markings in an amended pleading displays an
utter lack of understanding of the function of this procedural rule. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
Fourth Division, 805 SCRA 193, G.R. No. 195295 October 5, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ Note: There are few changes in the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, including: (1) amendments
by leave of court shall be refused if the motion was made with intent to confer jurisdiction on the
court or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning; and (2) no amendment of
pleadings is necessary to cause them to conform to evidence.
➢ Answer
✓ An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses.
✓ The court acquired jurisdiction over A’s person when he filed the answer without raising the
ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a voluntary appearance,
such as by filing an answer, is equivalent to service of summons. (Sec.23, Rule 14)
✓ The SC has held that the defendant’s answer even if belatedly filed should be admitted where it
was filed before he was declared in default as default judgments are frowned upon. (Cathay Pacific
Airways v. Romillo, 141 SCRA 451)
✓ Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment. (Sec.5, Rule 6)
✓ Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes
to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in
an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending
party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer. (Sec.10, Rule 6)
➢ Amendment
✓ An amendment is not proper where the purpose is to cure a complaint which fails to state a cause
of action because of prematurity and where there was a timely objection by the defendant.
(Swagman Hotels v. CA, April 8, 2005)
✓ A supplemental complaint should merely aid or reinforce the original cause of action, not change
it or confer one where there was none at the time of the filing of the original complaint. Hence a
supplemental complaint is not proper in this case. (Superclean Services v. CA, 258 SCRA 165)
✓ The SC held that the effect of an amendment is merely to supersede the original complaint but not
the request for admission. (Villuga v. Kelly Hardware & Const. Supply Inc., July 8, 2012)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amendment may be allowed even if it substantially alters
the cause of action provided leave of court is obtained and the amendment is not made with intent
to delay. (Sec.3, Rule 10)
➢ Verification & Certification Against Forum Shopping
✓ Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate
or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following
attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge,
or based on authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations
in the pleading. (Section 4, Rule 7)
✓ Verification is Merely a Formal, Not Jurisdictional, Requirement

✓ For a pleading to be verified, the affiant must attest that he or she has read the pleading and that
the allegations are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge or on authentic records.
Otherwise, the pleading is treated as an unsigned pleading. Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,
352 SCRA 334 (2001), required that the assurance should “not be the product of the imagination or
a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.” However, verification is merely
a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. It will not result in the outright dismissal of the case since
courts may simply order the correction of a defective verification. (Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing, Ltd.,
Co., 850 SCRA 372, G.R. No. 207354 January 10, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ When Petitioners Share a Common Interest, the Signature of One Petitioner is Enough
✓ Here, there were around 200 petitioners in the two (2) environmental cases on appeal before this
Court; yet, only 30 petitioners signed the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.
However, contrary to private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center
Management Corporation’s assertions, the failure of all petitioners to sign the document is not a
sufficient ground for the Petition’s outright dismissal. Jurisprudence confirms that petitioners
substantially complied with the verification requirement. The 30 signatories provided the
guarantee that: (1) they had ample knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in the Petition; and
(2) the Petition was made in good faith. For the certification against forum shopping, Altres stated
the general rule that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case. Nonetheless,
there is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1)
petitioner in the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial
compliance rule. Here, petitioners all share a common interest, which is to declare the cutting or
earth-balling of the trees affected by the Expansion Project illegal. Hence, the signature of 30
petitioners to the certification against forum shopping amounts to substantial compliance with the
requirement under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.(Cordillera Global Network vs. Paje, 901 SCRA 261,
G.R. No. 215988 April 10, 2019, J. Leonen)
✓ The motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification should be denied. The SC has held
that a lawyer may verify a pleading in behalf of the client. Moreover a verification is merely a
formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. The court should not dismiss the case but merely
require the party concerned to rectify the defect.
✓ The motion to dismiss on the ground of defective certification against forum-shopping should
likewise be denied. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature
of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the
Rule. (Jacinto v. Gumaru, June 2, 2014)
✓ The SC has held that the requirement of consular certification applies only to foreign official
records and not to a notarial document. Hence, the verification and the certification of non-forum
shopping notarized abroad does not need a consular certification for it to be admitted in evidence.
(See Tujan-Militante v. Nustad, June 19, 2017)
✓ The SC has held that the test to determine whether there is forum-shopping is whether the second
action may be barred by res judicata or lis pendens. Here the second action is based on quasi-delict
which is an independent civil action separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless
imprudence. Hence there is no res judicata or lis pendens and thus no forum-shopping. There is no
lis pendens since the action for damages is one for quasi-delict which is an independent civil action
separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence.
✓ Forum shopping applies where two or more initiatory pleadings were filed by the same party. This
is discernible from the use of the phrase “commenced any action or filed any claim” in Section 5,
Rule 7.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a certification against forum shopping is required only for
initiatory pleadings or petitions. (Sec.5, Rule 7)
✓ Willful and Deliberate Forum Shopping is a Ground for Summary Dismissal of the Case
✓ It is incorrect to say that the present Petition is merely the latest development in the linear and
logical progression of the claims that petitioner initially asserted in his March 11, 1987 letters to
Atty. Pitargue. For one, petitioner admits that the present Petition was filed while the claims he
lodged before former Secretary Teves and former Treasurer Tan were still pending resolution.
Ahead of his claims before them, as well as those before President Macapagal-Arroyo and

Commissioner Buñag, petitioner interjected himself in at least two (2) cases being tried in the
Sandiganbayan. A review of this Court’s own resolutions also reveals that he had filed before this
Court another petition for mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 202556, which this Court dismissed in
its September 12, 2012 Resolution. Similarly, a cursory search for past news reports reveals that
the Commission on Audit has denied petitioner’s claim for an informer’s reward. Clearly then,
petitioner has engaged in willful and deliberate forum- shopping. Consistent with Rule 7, Section
5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, this is another reason for dismissing the present Petition.
(Lihaylihay vs. Tan, 872 SCRA 277, G.R. No. 192223 July 23, 2018, J. Leonen)
➢ Default
✓ A Party Declared in Default is Still Entitled to Notice of Subsequent Proceedings
✓ Pursuant to Rule 9, Section 3, a court may proceed to render judgment as the pleading may warrant
should a defendant fail to timely file his or her answer. However, a court may decline from
immediately rendering judgment and instead require the plaintiff to present evidence. Per Rule 9,
Section 3(a), a party declared to be in default shall nevertheless be “entitled to notice of subsequent
proceedings,” although he or she may no longer take part in the trial. As explained in Spouses Delos
Santos v. Carpio, 501 SCRA 390 (2006), “there are three requirements which must be complied with
by the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default: (1) the claiming
party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default; (2) the defending
party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default; and (3) the claiming party must
prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule.”
(Manuel vs. Ong, 738 SCRA 489, G.R. No. 205249 October 15, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Affidavit of Merit is Not Necessary to Lift Order of Default in Some Instances
✓ Certainly, there is jurisprudence to the effect that an affidavit of merit is not necessary “where a
motion to lift an order of default is grounded on the very root of the proceedings such as where the
court has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendants.” Similarly, there is jurisprudence stating
that “when a motion to lift an order of default contains the reasons for the failure to answer as well
as the facts constituting the prospective defense of the defendant and it is sworn to by said
defendant, neither a formal verification nor a separate affidavit of merit is necessary.” However, in
this case, the Spouses Manuel failed not only in attaching an affidavit of merit but also in making
their motion under oath. They are, therefore, left without any alternative on which to rest. Their
motion is utterly ineffectual. (Manuel vs. Ong, 738 SCRA 489, G.R. No. 205249 October 15, 2014, J.
Leonen)
✓ Note: There is practically no change in the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure on default, except
the provision on failure to answer in annulment or declaration of nullity cases, wherein the court
shall order the Solicitor General or his/her deputized public prosecutor to intervene for the State.
➢ Bill of Particulars
✓ The judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in acting on the motion for bill of particulars without
waiting for the hearing set for the motion. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may either
deny or grant the motion for a bill of particulars outright or allow the parties the opportunity to
be heard. (Sec.2, Rule 12)
✓ The trial judge can dismiss the case if the plaintiff does not comply with the order to file and serve
the bill of particulars. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a court can dismiss the complaint upon
motion or at its own initiative if the plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court. (Sec.3, Rule
17; Virata v. Sandiganbayan, May 27, 1997)
✓ Even if the Information suffers from vagueness, the proper remedy may still not be a motion to
quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. (De Lima v. Guerrero, 843 SCRA 1)
➢ Counterclaim
✓ A’s counterclaim may be prosecuted in the same or in a separate action pursuant Sec.6, Rule 16
which provides that the dismissal of the action shall be without prejudice to the defendant
prosecuting his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.
✓ The compulsory counterclaim will be barred if it was not set up in the answer pursuant to Sec.2
Rule 9. A counterclaim cannot be set up in a motion to dismiss. (Financial Bldg. Corp. v. Forbes Park
Assoc. Inc., 338 SCRA 346)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, if the counterclaim was pleaded by the Defendant before
service upon him of the Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. (Sec.2, Rule 17)

• SUMMONS
✓ Tender of Summons is Still Personal Service
✓ Jurisdiction over the persons of both defendants in Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582 — the Spouses
Benedict and Sandra Manuel — was validly acquired. This is so because personal service of
summons, via tender to petitioner Sandra Manuel, was made by Sheriff Joselito Sales on March 16,
2010. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SEC. 6. Service in person
on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to
the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Tendering
summons is itself a means of personal service as it is contained in Rule 14, Section 6. Personal
service, as provided by Rule 14, Section 6, is distinguished from its alternative — substituted
service — as provided by Rule 14, Section 7. The Spouses Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed
variance of address. Personal service of summons has nothing to do with the location where
summons is served. A defendant’s address is inconsequential. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally handing the summons to the defendant
(albeit tender is sufficient should the defendant refuse to receive and sign). (Manuel vs. Ong, 738
SCRA 489, G.R. No. 205249 October 15, 2014, J. Leonen) NOTE: Now Sec.5, Rule 14
✓ The Cooperative Code Should Follow the Service of Summons under the Rules of Court
✓ On matters relating to procedures in court, it shall be the Rules of Procedure that will govern.
Proper court procedures shall be determined by the Rules as promulgated by this court. Service of
notices and summons on interested parties in a civil, criminal, or special proceeding is court
procedure. Hence, it shall be governed by the Rules of Procedure. The Cooperative Code provisions
may govern matters relating to cooperatives’ activities as administered by the Cooperative
Development Authority. However, they are not procedural rules that will govern court processes.
A Cooperative Code provision requiring cooperatives to have an official address to which all notices
and communications shall be sent cannot take the place of the rules on summons under the Rules
of Court concerning a court proceeding. This is not to say that the notices cannot be sent to
cooperatives in accordance with the Cooperative Code. Notices may be sent to a cooperative’s
official address. However, service of notices sent to the official address in accordance with the
Cooperative Code may not be used as a defense for violations of procedures, especially when such
violation affects another party’s rights. (Cathay Metal Corporation vs. Laguna West Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc., 728 SCRA 482, G.R. No. 172204 July 2, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Filing of an Answer is Considered Voluntary Appearance and Vests the Court with
Jurisdiction
✓ Respondent Guansing revealed that he was properly informed of the contents of petitioner’s action
against him when he filed his Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal. Respondent
Guansing, who actively participated in the proceedings, cannot impugn the court’s jurisdiction. To
reiterate, a long line of cases has established that the filing of an answer, among other pleadings,
is considered voluntary appearance and vests the court with jurisdiction over the person. The rules
are clear: the filing of an answer and other pleadings is considered voluntary appearance.
Respondent Guansing’s actions lead to no other conclusion other than he voluntarily appeared and
submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction. (People’s General Insurance Corporation vs. Guansing,
885 SCRA 444, G.R. No. 204759 November 14, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ Note: There are a number of significant changes in the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure on
summons, including: (1) power of the court to dismiss the complaint even before directing the
issuance of summons; (2) authority of the plaintiff to serve the summons; (3) new provision on
validity of summons; (4) service on spouses; (5) what constitutes “reasonable time” for substituted
service including the grounds thereof; (6) additional persons authorized to receive for private
juridical entities; (7) deputization of defendant’s counsel to serve summons improperly served; and
(8) revisions on service of summons on foreign private juridical entities.
✓ Service of summons is not the only mode through which a court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant; When a party appears before the court without qualification, he or she is
deemed to have waived his or her objection regarding lack of jurisdiction due to improper service
of summons. (GV Florida Transport v. Tiara Comm. Corp, 842 SCRA 576)

✓ In case of improper service of summons, courts should not automatically dismiss the complaint by
reason of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The remedy is to issue alias summons
and ensure it is properly served. (GV Florida Transport v. Tiara Comm. Corp, 842 SCRA 576)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, extraterritorial service, which includes service by publication,
may be availed of in actions the subject of which is property within the Philippines in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest or in which the relief demanded consists in excluding the
defendant from any interest therein. (Sec.15, Rule 14) Note: Now, Sec.17, Rule 14
✓ On extraterritorial service of summons, it is required that a copy of the summons and order be sent
to the defendant’s last known address by registered mail. Here no copy of the summons and the
order was sent to the defendant last known address by registered mail. The fact that the defendant
read a copy of the newspaper would not constitute a valid service of summons in the absence of a
specific court order directing that the service upon the defendant of a copy of the newspaper would
constitute a sufficient service. Evan assuming that a valid extraterritorial service was made in
accordance with the Rules, such would not confer jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but
only over the res, that is the property in the Philippines subject of partition.
✓ The SC held that there was a valid substituted service of summons since the defendant was engaged
in deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice. Here the defendant was also engaged
in deception since he temporarily stayed in another city to avoid service of summons and his
caretaker falsely said he no longer resides in the house. (Sagana v. Francisco, Oct. 2, 2009)
✓ The SC has held that in order that there will be valid substituted service of summons, the sheriff
must have exerted diligent efforts to effect personal service of summons within a reasonable time.
✓ The requirement for a valid substituted service of summons are:
Section 6: . Substituted service. – If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
personally after at least three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effected:
(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to a person at
least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;
(b) By leaving copies of the summons at [the] defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person
includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences
for the defendant;
(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners’
association or condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge
of the community or the building where the defendant may be found; and
(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if
allowed by the court. (7a)
✓ The SC has held that there must be diligent efforts to personally serve the summons within a
reasonable time before substituted service of summons may be availed of. Here there was no
showing of diligent efforts to serve summons personally. Hence the service of summons was not
proper and valid.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the amendment of Rule 14 allowing service of summons by
facsimile transmittal refers to service of summons upon a foreign private juridical entity (under
Sec.12, Rule 14), not to a non-resident defendant (under Sec.18, Rule 14). In either case, service of
summons by facsimile cannot be effected unless leave of court had been obtained.
• MOTIONS
✓ Objection to the Court’s Jurisdiction Over the Person Must Be Raised at the Earliest
Opportunity
✓ Unlike objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter which may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; otherwise, the objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is deemed waived. Under Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, “defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.”
(Villagracia vs. Fifth (5th) Shari'a District Court, 723 SCRA 550, G.R. No. 188832 April 23, 2014, J.
Leonen)

✓ Note: There are a number of significant changes in the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure on
motions, including: (1) removal of the 3-day and 10-day notice rule; (2) discretionary nature of
hearings for litigious motions; (3) period of five calendar days to file an opposition to a litigious
motion; and (4) prohibition on the filing of a motion for leave for hearing on affirmative defenses
and other prohibited motions. Also, the revised rules now allow electronic means of filing and
service.
✓ A motion to dismiss should be filed within the time for but before the filing of an answer, unless
the motion is based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lis pendens, res judicata, and prescription.
Here the bank had already filed an answer; hence the motion to dismiss could no longer be filed.
✓ The motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue should be denied. The bank had already
filed a motion to dismiss in which it did not raise the objection of improper venue. Hence such an
objection is deemed waived pursuant to the omnibus motion rule. (Sec.9, Rule 15)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of personal jurisdiction shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Sec.23, Rule 14)
✓ Failure to Comply with the Rules or with Order of the Court is a Ground to Dismiss the
Action
✓ Specifically on the appellant’s failure to file a memorandum with the Court of Appeals, Rule 44,
Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SEC. 10. Time for filing memoranda in special
cases. — In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties
shall file, in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30)
days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all evidence, oral and documentary, is
already attached to the record. The failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the
period therefor may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. Rule 50, Section 1 reiterates that the
appellant’s failure to file the required memorandum within the reglementary period is a ground for
the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal: SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its motion or on that of the appellee, on the
following grounds: . . . . (e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies
of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules. (Buena, Jr. vs. Benito, 738
SCRA 278, G.R. No. 181760 October 14, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Dismissal of the Case Without Prejudice Terminates the Ancillary Action
✓ The Regional Trial Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute was a dismissal without prejudice to
refiling. In this particular instance, any writ of seizure, being merely ancillary to the main action,
becomes functus oficio. The parties returned to the status quo as if no case for replevin had been
filed. Thus, upon the dismissal of the case, it was imperative for petitioner to return the van to
Asuten. (Enriquez vs. The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc., 877 SCRA 447, G.R. No. 210950 August 15,
2018, J. Leonen)
✓ Two dismissal rule
✓ The Second Dismissal Caused by the Plaintiff Operates as an Adjudication Upon the Merits
✓ As a general rule, dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are without prejudice except when it is the
second time that the plaintiff caused its dismissal. Accordingly, for a dismissal to operate as an
adjudication upon the merits, i.e., with prejudice to the re-filing of the same claim, the following
requisites must be present: (1) There was a previous case that was dismissed by a competent court;
(2) Both cases were based on or include the same claim; (3) Both notices for dismissal were filed by
the plaintiff; and (4) When the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was consented to by the
defendant on the ground that the latter paid and satisfied all the claims of the former. The purpose
of the “two-dismissal rule” is “to avoid vexatious litigation.” When a complaint is dismissed a
second time, the plaintiff is now barred from seeking relief on the same claim. (Ching vs. Cheng, 737
SCRA 610, G.R. No. 175507 October 8, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits
provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or
including the same claim. (Sec.1, Rule 17)
✓ The two-dismissal rule will not apply making the second dismissal with prejudice. The SC has held
that in order for the two-dismissal rule to apply, both dismissals must be at the instance of the
plaintiff. (Ching v. Cheng, Oct.8, 2014). Here the first dismissal was at the instance not of the plaintiff
but of the defendant who had filed a motion to dismiss which was granted.

• PRE-TRIAL
✓ Pretrial promotes efficiency of case proceedings by allowing the parties to stipulate on facts and
admissions that no longer need proof, and to agree on key issues, among others. (BPI v. Genuino,
763 SCRA 604)
✓ Under Sec.7, Rule 19, the contents of the pre-trial order may be modified before trial to prevent
manifest injustice. For the court to refuse consideration of a triable issue would result in a manifest
injustice.
✓ The contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of action unless modified
before trial to prevent manifest injustice. Here trial was already on-going. Hence the amendment
of the pre-trial order to add an issue may no longer be made.
✓ Although a pre-trial order is not meant to catalogue each issue that the parties may take up during
the trial, issues not included in the pre-trial order may be considered only if they are impliedly
included in the issues raised or inferable from the issues raised by necessary implication.
(LICOMCEN v. Abainza, 691 SCRA 158)
✓ Note: There are a number of significant changes in the Revised Rules on Procedure on pre-trial,
including: (a) the court may, on its own, decide the case right after pre-trial; (b) shift of the duty to
ensure issuance of the notice of pre-trial; (c) provision on specific periods for issuance of notice and
order, among others; (d) inclusion of effect of counsel’s absence; (e) rules on reservation of witnesses
and documents; (f) expediting the proceedings; (g) additional items to be included in the pre-trial
order; and (h) inclusion of provisions on CAM and JDR.
➢ MODES OF DISCOVERY
✓ The Rules on Modes of Discovery are Accorded Broad and Liberal Interpretation
✓ In light of the general philosophy of full discovery of relevant facts, the unreceptive and negative
attitude by the respondent is abominable. The rules on discovery are accorded broad and liberal
interpretation precisely to enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues
and facts, including those known only to their adversaries, in order that trials may not be carried
on in the dark. Undoubtedly, the trial court had effectively placed petitioners at a great
disadvantage inasmuch as respondent effectively suppressed relevant documents related to the
transaction involved in the case a quo. Furthermore, the remedies of discovery encouraged and
provided for under the Rules of Court to be able to compel the production of relevant documents
had been put to naught by the arbitrary act of the trial court. (Eagleridge Development Corporation
vs. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc., 695 SCRA 714, G.R. No. 204700 April 10, 2013, J.
Leonen)
➢ Motion for Production
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for production or inspection of documents or things
under Rule 27 is subject to the requirement that the documents or things should not be privileged.
Here what sought to be produced is a detailed list of an industrial product’s ingredients and
chemical components which are trade secrets and thus privileged. (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell,
Inc. GR 1728355, Dec.13, 2007)
➢ Interrogatories
✓ The procedure on “Interrogatories to Parties” under Rule 25 is briefly explained as follows:
1. A party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from an adverse party shall file and serve
upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered by the latter.
2. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by
the person making them. The interrogatories shall be answered within 15 days from service
thereof. The answers may be used for the same purposes provided for in Section 4 of Rule
23 on depositions.
3. Objections to any interrogatories may be made within 10 days after service thereof.
✓ The effect of the failure to serve written interrogatories is that unless allowed by the court for good
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may
not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
pending appeal.
➢ Admission by Adverse Party
✓ The procedure on “Admission by Adverse Party” under Rule 25 is briefly explained as follows:
1. At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a
written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and
relevant document or the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact.

2. Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless,
within the period designated in the request, which shall not be less than 15 days after service
thereof, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the requesting party
a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested
or setting forth in detail why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matter.
3. Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court within the period for
and prior to the filing of his sworn statement.
✓ The effect of the failure to file and serve request for admission is that, unless allowed by the court
for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request
for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be,
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be allowed to present evidence on such facts.
• TRIAL
✓ The admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of the
witnesses are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a preliminary
investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor at the state of determination
of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (De Lima v. Guerrero, 843 SCRA 1)
• DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
✓ A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the facts adduced and the applicable law, the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Where the totality of plaintiff’s evidence, together with such
inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn therefrom, does not warrant recovery
against the defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained. A demurrer to evidence is
likewise sustainable when, admitting every proven fact favorable to the plaintiff and indulging in
his favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make
out one or more of the material elements of his case, or when there is no evidence to support an
allegation necessary to his claim. It should be sustained where the plaintiff’s evidence is prima facie
insufficient for a recovery. (Dandoy v. CA, 531 SCRA 351)
• JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the officer making the levy shall give the judgment obligor
the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to
satisfy the judgment. (Sec.6, Rule 39)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to recover upon a claim may at any time after
the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting admissions for a summary
judgment in his favor. Here the failure of the defendant to answer timely the request for admission
resulted in the implied admission of the matters of which an admission was requested. (Sec.2, Rule
26)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, when the action is on a contractual money claim and the
defendant dies before the entry of final judgment, the action shall not be dismissed but shall instead
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land
and the party fails to comply, the court may direct the act to be done at the disobedient party’s cost
by some other person appointed by the court or the court may by an order divest the title of the
party and vest it in the movant or other person. (Sec.10(a), Rule 39)
➢ Judgment on pleadings
✓ Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading.
However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the
material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. A judgment on the pleadings is a
judgment on the facts as pleaded, and is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the
pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes. It is settled that the trial court has the
discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no
controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed. (Comglasco Corp. v. Santos Car Check Center
Corp. 754 SCRA 481)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment on the pleadings is not proper if the answer tenders
an issue.
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may set forth two or more statements of a defense
alternatively or hypothetically. The SC has held that inconsistent defenses may be pleaded
alternatively or hypothetically provided that each defense is consistent with itself. (Sec.2, Rule 8,
Baclayon v. CA, Feb.26, 1990)

✓ Under Rule 34, a judgment on the pleadings is proper only if the answer fails to tender an issue.
➢ Summary judgments
✓ Section 1: Summary judgment for claimant. – A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in
answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a
summary judgment in his or her favor upon all or any part thereof. (1a))
✓ Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. – A party against whom a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move
with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her favor
as to all or any part thereof. (2a)
✓ A summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of
cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions
and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or defense at an early stage of the litigation
to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. When the pleadings on file show that there
are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way
of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the
case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. (Phil. Business Bank v. Chua, 634 SCRA
635)
✓ The facts subject of an unanswered request for admission may be the basis of a summary judgment.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to recover upon a claim may move for a
summary judgment based on admissions. (Sec.1, Rule 35)
✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may at any time, move with supporting admissions
for a summary judgment in his favor. (Sec.2, Rule 35). Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted
the genuineness and due execution of the acknowledgment receipt, which was the basis of
Defendant’s defense, by failing to specifically deny it under oath. (Sec.8, Rule 8)
✓ NOTE: There are a number of significant changes in the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure on
summary judgment, including: (1) the court has discretion not to conduct a hearing on the motion;
(2) the motion shall cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the specific law
relied upon; (3) adverse party’s period to comment has been extended to five days, but non-
extendible; (4) any action of the court on the motion shall not be subject of an appeal or petition
for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus; and (5) the court may ascertain the extent to which the
amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy.
✓ RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
✓ Mistake in Legal Strategy is Not a Ground for Petition for Relief from Judgment
✓ Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A wrong choice in legal
strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a petition
for relief from judgment. Mistake as a ground also “does not apply and was never intended to apply
to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial since such error may be
corrected by means of an appeal.” Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice to
one of the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud. (City of Dagupan vs.
Maramba, 728 SCRA 520, G.R. No. 174411 July 2, 2014, J. Leonen)
II. Criminal Procedure
• GENERAL MATTERS
✓ A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable
by law.
✓ In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or
Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or
Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.
(Asistio v. People, 756 SCRA 256)
• PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
✓ The Filing of Information Tolls the Prescriptive Period of a Crime Involving an Ordinance
✓ As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls
the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent judge
was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992),
the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and issues

with the present case. In that case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint
was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Rodriguez on October 2, 1990. The conduct of the preliminary investigation, the original charge
of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the violation of the ordinance did not alter the period
within which to file the Information. Respondents were correct in arguing that the petitioner only
had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense before it prescribed within which
to file the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. (Jadewell Parking System Corporation vs.
Lidua, Sr., 706 SCRA 724, G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ Conformity to the Pleading of a Public Prosecutor is Necessary in a Criminal Case
✓ In Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde, 775 SCRA 408 (2015), this Court ruled that the required conformity of
the public prosecutor was not a mere superfluity and was necessary to pursue a criminal action. A
private party does not have the legal personality to prosecute the criminal aspect of a case, as it is
the People of the Philippines who are the real party-in-interest. The criminal case must be under
the direction and control of the public prosecutor. Thus, when the public prosecutor does not give
his or her conformity to the pleading of a party, the party does not have the required legal
personality to pursue the case. (Valderrama vs. People, 821 SCRA 570, G.R. No. 220054 March 27,
2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Formal Amendments After Arraignment Should Not Prejudice the Rights of the Accused
✓ Rule 110, Section 14 similarly provides that in permitting formal amendments when the accused
has already entered his or her plea, it is important that the amendments made should not prejudice
the rights of the accused. In People v. Casey, 103 SCRA 21 (1981), this Court laid down the test in
determining whether an accused is prejudiced by an amendment. Thus, the test as to whether a
defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information has been said to be whether a defense
under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and
whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the
one form as in the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an amendment
to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not
change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could
call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the
accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not
of substance — not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Court. (Corpus, Jr. vs. Pamular, 879 SCRA 187, G.R. No. 186403
September 5, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ Not Even the Supreme Court Can Order the Prosecutor What and Whom to Charge
✓ Acting on the basis of the evidence presented to them, public prosecutors are vested “with a wide
range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge.” Thus, “the prosecuting
attorney cannot be compelled to file a particular criminal information.” In accordance with judicial
noninterference, “not even the Supreme Court can order the prosecution of a person against whom
the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case.” In People v.
Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 (1967), this Court sustained the public prosecutor and issued a writ of
certiorari against Court of First Instance Judge Hernando Pineda’s orders for the prosecutor to
abandon four (4) out of the five (5) cases that the prosecutor previously filed because, according to
Judge Pineda, “the acts complained of ‘stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the
accused, not by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should therefore be
treated as one crime to the series of shots killed more than one victim.”’ (Reynes vs. Office of the
Ombudsman (Visayas), 894 SCRA 137, G.R. No. 223405 February 20, 2019, J. Leonen)
✓ It is basic in criminal procedure that an accused may be charged with as many crimes as defined in
our penal laws even if these arose from one incident. (Asistio v. People, 756 SCRA 256)
✓ Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint
based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to
reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence,
the preliminary investigation remains valid. The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded
attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses. (Ocampo v. Abando, GR 176830)
✓ A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of

the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein
the offense was committed. (Fantastico v. Malicse, Sr., 745 SCRA 126)
✓ Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution to prove two things – the fact of the crime,
i.e, the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged, and the fact
that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. (Cabugao v. People, 731 SCRA 214)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial question arises only if there has been a
previously filed civil action. Here the civil action for nullification of marriage was filed after the
criminal action. Hence no prejudicial question will arise. Moreover, the SC has held that a pending
case for declaration of nullity does not raise a prejudicial question to a charge of bigamy since a
person who contracts a second marriage without first awaiting a judicial declaration of nullity of
his first marriage has already committed bigamy. (People v. Odtuhan, July 17, 2013)
• PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
✓ Filing of an Appeal as to the Civil Aspect is Forum Shopping if the State Pursues an Appeal
✓ If the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court acquitting the
accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action, the
civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense is likewise appealed. The appeal of
the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the
acquittal of the accused. Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that
of the state without violating the doctrine of non-forum shopping. The conclusion is different if
private complainant reserved the right to institute the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
ex delicto before the Regional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of
the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing
of an appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be considered as forum shopping. This is not
the situation here. (Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 737 SCRA 252, G.R. No. 172505 October 1, 2014,
J. Leonen)
✓ Dismissal of Criminal Action Implies Dismissal of Civil Action if there is No Reservation
✓ The Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 28859 correctly reinstated the present case only with
regard to Vivian. When Abellana did not reserve her right to institute a separate civil action, her
cause of action for damages was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case. Rule 111,
Section 3 of the Rules of Court prohibits offended parties from recovering damages twice for the
act being prosecuted in the criminal action. Thus, Abellana is now barred from instituting this case.
(Torreon vs. Aparra, Jr., 848 SCRA 380, G.R. No. 188493 December 13, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Under section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only
the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delito. All the other civil actions
under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted,” and may be
filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action.
The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate
and independent civil action based on this Articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on
the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of
the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate,
distinct and independent of the civil action “deemed instituted” in the criminal action. (Kasupanan v.
Laroya, GR 145391, Aug. 26, 2002)
✓ An independent civil action is an action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense charged
which by provision of ;aw is considered independent in that it does not need reservation and it shall
proceed regardless of the result of the criminal action. (Rule 111)
✓ The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall
extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action
instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising
from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the
accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused
may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
✓ The motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia should be denied. In cases of physical injuries,
a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought

by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action. (Sec.3,
Rule 111)
✓ Two instances where the court can hold the accused civilly liable even if he was acquitted are:
1.The acquittal was based on the ground that the liability of the accused was only civil, not
criminal; and
2.The acquittal of the accused was based on reasonable doubt. (Sec.2, Rule 120)
• PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
✓ The Conduct of Preliminary Investigation Lies Solely Within the Discretion of the
Prosecutor
✓ The conduct of the preliminary investigation and the subsequent determination of the existence of
probable cause lie solely within the discretion of the public prosecutor. If upon evaluation of the
evidence, the prosecutor finds sufficient basis to find probable cause, he or she shall then cause the
filing of the information with the court. Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then
“personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence” to determine
whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination
of probable cause exists. (Mendoza vs. People, 722 SCRA 647, G.R. No. 197293 April 21, 2014, J.
Leonen)
✓ Determination of Probable Cause Relies on Common Sense and Not Evidence for Conviction
✓ Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Serrano’s Resolution was issued pursuant to a preliminary
investigation. Preliminary investigation “ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial
or be released.” It inquires only into the existence of probable cause: a matter which rests on
likelihood rather than on certainty. It relies on common sense rather than on “clear and convincing
evidence”: Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such
facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does
it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. 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. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs
facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he
has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well- founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to
whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. (Marasigan vs. Fuentes, 778 SCRA 645,
G.R. No. 201310 January 11, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ The Secretary of Justice May Reverse or Modify Resolutions Even Without a Pending
Petition
✓ The 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for review before the Secretary of
Justice can reverse, affirm, or modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice may also order the conduct of a reinvestigation
in order to resolve the petition for review. Under Section 11: SECTION 11. Reinvestigation. — If
the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary to reinvestigate the case, the reinvestigation shall be held
by the investigating prosecutor, unless, for compelling reasons, another prosecutor is designated
to conduct the same. Under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, however, the Secretary of
Justice may motu propio reverse or modify resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the
chief state prosecutor even without a pending petition for review. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 779 SCRA 1,
G.R. No. 209330 January 11, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ Preliminary Investigation is Not a Judicial Proceeding that Leads to Issuance of Protection
Order
✓ More basic, the filing of Maria Sheila’s complaint-affidavit did not even commence proceedings on
her own petition for the issuance of a protection order. Preliminary investigation, or proceedings
at the level of the prosecutor, does not form part of trial. It is not a judicial proceeding that leads

to the issuance of a protection order in a VAWC case. Thus, the pendency and subsequent dismissal
of Maria Sheila’s Complaint-Affidavit did not engender the risk of either litis pendentia or res
judicata, which would serve the basis of a finding of forum shopping by her mother. (Pavlow vs.
Mendenilla, 823 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 181489 April 19, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of an
accused. The prosecutor only determines “whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.” As such, the prosecutor does not perform quasi-judicial functions. (De
Lima v. Reyes, 779 SCRA 337)
✓ A preliminary investigation is essentially prefatory and inquisitorial – it is not a trial of the case
on the merits and has no purpose except to determine whether a crime has been committed, and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of that crime. (Land Bank of the
Phils. v. Orilla, 556 SCRA 102)
✓ This Court, explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, that hearsay evidence is
admissible during preliminary investigation. The Court held thusly: Thus, probable cause can be
established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.
Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation
because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties. (De Lima v. Guerrero, 843 SCRA 1)
✓ The SC has held that the failure to conduct a preliminary investigation before the filing of an
information is not a ground for a motion to quash since it is not mentioned in Sec.3, Rule 117
✓ Under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law, an incumbent public officer prosecuted for a graft-related
offense should be preventively suspended from office. The argument of X that he was already
occupying a position different from which the information charged him and that therefore there is
no more danger of intimidating witnesses and hampering the prosecution is misplaced. Such is only
one of the bases for preventive suspension. Another basis is to prevent the public officer from
committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. (Beroa v. SB, July 27, 2004)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the investigating prosecutor may resolve the complaint
based on the evidence before him even if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts
to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing
evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid. (Ocampo v. Abando, Feb.11, 2014)
➢ Inquest
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in case of an inquest after a warrantless arrest and there
is absence or unavailability of the inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended
party directly with the proper court. (Sec.6, Rule 112)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the public prosecutor conducts an inquest instead of a
preliminary investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an
offense which requires a preliminary investigation. (Sec.6, Rule 112)
• ARREST
✓ Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense. (Homar v. People, 768 SCRA 584)
✓ Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused Must be Raised Before Arraignment
✓ The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among which are: (a) the failure to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of an accused; (b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest;
and (c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as
constitutionally inadmissible. Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an
invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea.
Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is “estopped from questioning the
legality of his or her arrest.” The voluntary submission of an accused to the jurisdiction of the court
and his or her active participation during trial cures any defect or irregularity that may have
attended an arrest. The reason for this rule is that “the legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused.” (Veridiano vs. People, 826 SCRA 382, G.R.
No. 200370 June 7, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Jurisprudence is settled that “any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused should be timely
raised in a motion to quash the Information at any time before arraignment, failing in which, he is

deemed to have waived” his right to question the regularity of his arrest. (People v. Cunanan, 753
SCRA 275)
✓ Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by his arrest or by his voluntary
appearance in court. The voluntary appearance of the accused may be made by the filing of a
pleading or motion in court asking for affirmative relief. Here the accused voluntarily appeared
when they filed the motion asking for affirmative relief, that is, a reinvestigation. Moreover,
resolution of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest does not require that the court have jurisdiction
over the person of the accused and resolution of a motion for reinvestigation does not require that
the accused be in the custody of the law. (Miranda v. Tuliao, GR 158763, March 31, 2006)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a peace officer, may, without a warrant arrest a person if
in his presence the arrested person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense, or when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it. (Sec. 5, Rule 113)
✓ The one who may invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the person whose constitutional
rights were violated. The rights under the Bill of rights are invoked by the people against the State
or its agents, not the other way around.
✓ Under the Law on Criminal Procedure, an arrest warrant is valid until served.
✓ The SC has held that the Constitution does not mandatorily require the judge to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. The judge may opt to personally evaluate the report
and supporting documents submitted by the investigating prosecutor regarding the existence of
probable cause and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest.
✓ There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable cause. The SC has held that
the judge may rely upon the resolution of the investigating prosecutor provided that he personally
evaluates the same and affidavits and supporting documents (People v. Grey, July 26, 2010)
✓ The arrest must be made within 24 hours after the commission of the crime. Where the arrest took
place a day after the commission of the crime, it cannot be said that an offense has just been
committed. (People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740)
✓ Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it”
means personal knowledge not of the commission of the crime itself but of facts and circumstances
which would lead to the conclusion that the person to be arrested has probably committed the
crime. Such personal knowledge arises from reasonably worthy information in the arresting
person’s possession coupled with his own observation and fair inferences therefrom that the person
arrested has probably committed the offense. (Pestilos v. Generoso, 739 SCRA 337)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused’s failure to file a motion to quash before plea
is a waiver of the objection to an illegal arrest. (Sec.9, Rule 117)
✓ The SC has held that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. (People v. Racho, Aug. 3,
2010) A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal search. (Villanueva v. People, Nov.17,
2014)
✓ The following are the instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid
warrantless arrest:
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and;
3. When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner. (Sec.5, Rule 113)
• BAIL
✓ Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed
independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to
be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his
health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.
(Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, GR 213847)
✓ Bail is Automatically Cancelled When the Case is Dismissed
✓ Among the instances when bail is deemed automatically cancelled is when the case is dismissed.
Since cancellation of bail is automatic upon the dismissal of the case, no notice or hearing is even
necessary, as the cancellation takes place when any of the three (3) enumerated instances takes

place: (1) the acquittal of the accused, (2) the dismissal of the case, or (3) the execution of the
judgment of conviction. The release of the amount posted as bail is a separate matter. When the
cash bond is made to answer for any fines or costs, the automatic cancellation is not succeeded by
the immediate release of the cash bond. In this case, the dismissal of the case due to the withdrawal
of the information resulted in the automatic cancellation of respondent’s bail. (Personal Collection
Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang, 844 SCRA 475, G.R. No. 206958 November 8, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Accused May File a Second Petition for Bail if there are New Developments
✓ Escobar’s Second Bail Petition is not barred by res judicata as this doctrine is not recognized in
criminal proceedings. Expressly applicable in civil cases, res judicata settles with finality the
dispute between the parties or their successors-in-interest. Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, 539
SCRA 415 (2007), declares that res judicata, as found in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is
a principle in civil law and “has no bearing on criminal proceedings.” Rule 124, Section 18 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure states: Section 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to
criminal cases. — The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the
Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to
criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
Indeed, while certain provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in criminal cases,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is excluded from the enumeration under Rule 124 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, an accused may file a second petition for bail, particularly if
there are sudden developments or a “new matter or fact which warrants a different view.” Rolando’s
release on bail is a new development in Escobar’s case. The Court of Appeals has pointed out that
the other alleged coconspirators are already out on bail: Rolando, in particular, was granted bail
because Cubillas’ testimony against him was weak. “Escobar and Rolando participated in the same
way, but Escobar’s bail was denied.” Escobar’s fundamental rights and liberty are being deprived
in the meantime. (People vs. Escobar, 833 SCRA 180, G.R. No. 214300 July 26, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ There is an Order of Preference with Respect to Where Bail May Be Filed
✓ The text of Rule 114, Section 17(a) of the Rules of Court shows that there is an order of preference
with respect to where bail may be filed. In the absence or unavailability of the judge where the case
is pending, the accused must first go to a judge in the province, city, or municipality where the case
is pending. Furthermore, a judge of another province, city, or municipality may grant bail only if
the accused has been arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is
pending. (Tejano vs. Marigomen, 840 SCRA 564, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2492 September 26, 2017, J.
Leonen)
✓ Sec.24, Rule 114 provides that no bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has become
final and that in no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence.
✓ The SC has held that in order that a person may apply for bail, he should be in “custody of the law”,
that is, he had been arrested or had voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
by surrendering to the proper authorities. (Paderanga v. CA, 247 SCRA 741)
✓ As a paramount requisite then, only those persons who have either been arrested, detained, or
otherwise deprived of their freedom will ever have occasion to seek the protective mantle extended
by the right to bail. The rationale is that it would be incongruous to grant bail to someone who is
free.
✓ The ground that the court had already ruled that the evidence of guilt is strong is improper. An
order denying an application for bail is interlocutory and remains at the control of the court until
final judgment. Hence the court is not bound by its earlier ruling and may consider the same if the
evidence or law warrants the same.
✓ The ground that the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on the evidence presented
by the prosecution is improper. While Sec.8, Rule 114 provides that the prosecution has the burden
of proof to show that the evidence of guilt is strong, it should not be taken to mean that the
resolution of the bail application is based solely on the prosecution evidence. At the hearing for the
bail application, both the prosecution and the accused must be given reasonable opportunity to
prove or to disprove, respectively, that the evidence of guilt is strong. (Santos v. How, January 26,
2007)
✓ The SC held that in cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment,
otherwise the accused may be hindered from filing a motion to quash since his arraignment would
necessarily be deferred pending the resolution of the motion to quash. This would amount to a
substantial dilution of his right to file a motion to quash. (Lavides v. CA, Feb.1, 2000)

✓ Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest provided that he does so before entering his plea. (Sec.26, Rule
114)
✓ Bail is a matter of judicial discretion:
1. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment.
2. After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpertua, or life
imprisonment. (Sec.2 & 5, Rule 114)
• ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
✓ Every Criminal Prosecution Begins with the Presumption of Innocence of the Accused
✓ Every criminal prosecution begins with the “constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence
in favor of the accused that can only be defeated by proof beyond reasonable doubt.” “Proof beyond
reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would
convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment” is crucial in defeating the
presumption of innocence. During proceedings, the prosecution initially presents proof
substantiating the elements of the charge. The prosecution must rest “on the strength of its case
rather than on the weakness of the case for the defense.” After proving the elements, “the burden
of evidence shifts to the accused” to negate the prosecution’s claim. Thereafter, the courts shall
resolve whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Segundo,
833 SCRA 16, G.R. No. 205614 July 26, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Suspension of Arraignment May Be Allowed in Certain Circumstances Only
✓ Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the suspension of the accused’s
arraignment in certain circumstances only: SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion
by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused
appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to
fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court
shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b) There
exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period
of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the
reviewing office. The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela Peña-Reyes and
Manalastas’ arraignment after the 60-day period from the filing of the Petition for Review before
the Department of Justice on March 8, 2005. It was only on September 13, 2010 that the temporary
restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals. The trial court erred when it did not act on
the criminal case during the interim period. It had full control and direction of the case. As Judge
Mogul reasoned in denying the motion to dismiss in Crespo, failure to proceed with the
arraignment “disregards the requirements of due process [and] erodes the Court’s independence
and integrity.” (ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, 753 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 195956 March 11, 2015, J.
Leonen)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused must be arraigned within 30 days from the
time the court acquires jurisdiction over his person and violation of this time limit will entitle the
accused to move for the dismissal of the information.
✓ Jurisdiction over an accused is acquired when the warrant of arrest is served. Absent this, the court
cannot hold the accused for arraignment and trial. (Mendoza v. People, GR 197293)
✓ Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed of the
reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and the corresponding penalty
that could be possibly meted against him. (Kummer v. People, 705 SCRA 490)
✓ At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be
allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or
information is necessary.
✓ When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present
evidence in his behalf.

✓ Improvident plea – At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may
permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
➢ Bill of Particulars
✓ The SC held that the dismissal of a case for failing to file a proper bill of particulars is a ground for
dismissal of the case for failure to comply with the Rules or with an order of the court. (Virata v.
Sandiganbayan, May 27, 1997)
➢ Double Jeopardy
✓ Res judicata in prison grey is another term for double jeopardy.
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a requirement for a first jeopardy to attach is that there
must have been a valid plea by the accused. Said rules also provide that when the accused pleads
guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of guilty
shall be entered for him. Since there was no standing plea, a first jeopardy did not attach and thus
the Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing upon A’s right against double jeopardy.
(People v. Balisacan, Aug.31, 1966)
✓ If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and
section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the information may be dismissed on motion of the
accused on the ground of denial of his right of speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of
proving the motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence
to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the
rules on double jeopardy.
• MOTION TO QUASH
✓ Evidence Aliunde are Not to be Considered in a Motion to Quash
✓ In filing a motion to quash, the accused “assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information
filed against him or her for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent
in the face of the information.” If the accused avails himself or herself of a motion to quash, the
accused “hypothetically admits the facts alleged in the information.” “Evidence aliunde or matters
extrinsic from the information are not to be considered.” “If the motion to quash is based on an
alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall
order the amendment of the complaint or information.” If the motion to quash is based on the
ground that the facts alleged in the complaint or information do not constitute an offense, the trial
court shall give the prosecution “an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.” If after
amendment, the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect, the trial court shall
quash the complaint or information. (In The Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan
Malang Salibo vs. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, BJMP Building, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City,
755 SCRA 296, G.R. No. 197597 April 8, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ As a Rule, the Denial of a Motion to Quash is Not Appealable as it is Merely Interlocutory
✓ As a general rule, the denial of a motion to quash is not appealable as it is merely interlocutory.
Likewise, it cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. The denial of the motion to quash can
still be raised in the appeal of a judgment of conviction. The adequate, plain, and speedy remedy is
to proceed to trial and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Thus, in Galzote v. Briones,
657 SCRA 535 (2011): . . . In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed by
the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower court’s decision of conviction
is appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an error
committed by the trial court but as an added ground to overturn the latter’s ruling. In this case,
the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to immediately question the denial of his motion
to quash via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, the
denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an
interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it
be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or
any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an
interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above. Ordinarily, the denial of a motion to
quash simply signals the commencement of the process leading to trial. The denial of a motion to
quash, therefore, is not necessarily prejudicial to the accused. During trial, and after arraignment,
prosecution proceeds with the presentation of its evidence for the examination of the accused and
the reception by the court. Thus, in a way, the accused is then immediately given the opportunity

to meet the charges on the merits. Therefore, if the case is intrinsically without any grounds, the
acquittal of the accused and all his suffering due to the charges can be most speedily acquired.
(Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, 875 SCRA 374, G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458 July 31,
2018, J. Leonen)
✓ The Remedy is to File a Motion to Quash if there is already a Lawful Process of the Court
✓ If an accused is confined under a lawful process or order of the court, the proper remedy is to pursue
the orderly course of trial and exhaust the usual remedies. This ordinary remedy is to file a motion
to quash the information or the warrant of arrest based on one or more of the grounds enumerated
in Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules of Court: Section 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash
the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (a) That the facts charged do not
constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the
officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has
been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse
or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent. (Osorio vs. Navera, 856 SCRA 435, G.R. No. 223272 February 26, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ A motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects
which are apparent in the face of the information. (People v. Odtuhan, 701 SCRA 506)
✓ The motion to quash should be granted. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, no complaint or
information may be filed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor of the Ombudsman or his
deputy. (Sec.4, Rule 112)
✓ There is no more need to conduct a pre-suspension hearing if the motion to quash the information
was denied. The SC held that there is no more need to conduct a pre-suspension hearing to
determine for the second time the validity of the information for purposes of preventively
suspending the accused. (Miguel v. SB, July 4, 2012)
✓ The motion to quash is not legally tenable. The SC held that the death of the public officer did not
mean that the allegation of conspiracy between the public officer and the private person can no
longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished
by the death of the public officer was his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime
nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and the private person. Hence
the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged. (People v. Go, March 25, 2014)
✓ The motion to quash warrant of arrest and to fix bail may be considered since only jurisdiction
over the person not custody of the law is required. Jurisdiction over the person of A was obtained
by his voluntary appearance made through the filing of the motion seeking affirmative relief.
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, lack of personal jurisdiction, which includes the ground of
an invalid or illegal arrest, must be raised in a motion to quash before plea; otherwise such ground
is deemed waived. (Sec.9, Rule 117)
✓ As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not applealable; and appeal
from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither
can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an
appeal or any other adequate, plain, speedy remedy. (Maximo v. Villapando, 825 SCRA 133)
✓ The RTC has several options if it dismisses the criminal case based on the grounds raised by
petitioner in her Motion to Quash. Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has three
(3) possible alternative actions when confronted with a Motion to Quash:
1. Order the amendment of the Information;
2. Sustain the Motion to Quash; or
3. Deny the Motion to Quash.
The first two options are available to the trial court where the motion to quash is meritorious.
Specifically, as to the first option, this court had held that should the Information be deficient or
lacking in any material allegation, the trial court can order the amendment of the Information
under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

• PRE-TRIAL
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, all agreements or admissions made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise
they cannot be used against the accused. (Sec.2, Rule 118)
• TRIAL
✓ The prosecution’s right to prosecute gives is “a wide range of discretion – the discretion of whether,
what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are
best appreciated by prosecutors.” Under section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the court is given the power to discharge a state witness only after it has already
acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. (Jimenez v. People, GR 209195, Sept. 17, 2014)
✓ The SC held that the death of a co-conspirator, even if he was the lone public officer, did not mean
that the allegation of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be proved or that
the alleged conspiracy was already expunged. The only things extinguished by the death of a co-
conspirator was his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the
basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. (People v. Go, March 25,
2014)
✓ The SC has held that where the delay in cross-examining the witness was imputable to the accused,
he could not be heard to complain if the witness becomes unavailable through no fault of the party
presenting the witness and hence the witness’s direct examination should not be stricken out.
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a requirement for discharge is that there is no other
evidence available for the prosecution of the offense and that there is absolute necessity for the
testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested. (Sec.17, Rule 119). Here since the budget
officer’s testimony is merely corroborative, there is no absolute necessity for it. Necessity is not
there when the testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosecution’s
evidence. (Jimenez v. People, Sept.17, 2014)
➢ Trial in Absentia
✓ The requisites of a “trial in absentia” are the following:
1.The accused must have been arraigned.
2.The accused must have been duly notified of the trial.
3.His failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec.14(2), Art.III, Constitution)
✓ Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to
be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit:
1. at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt;
2. during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and
3. at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused
may appear by counsel or representative. (People v. De Grano, 588 SCRA 550)
➢ Demurrer to Evidence
✓ Dismissal Based on Demurrer to Evidence is Equivalent to an Acquittal
✓ When a criminal case based on demurrer to evidence is dismissed, the dismissal is equivalent to an
acquittal. As a rule, once the court grants the demurrer, the grant amounts to an acquittal; any
further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
Hence, the Republic may only assail an acquittal through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court: Accordingly, a review of a dismissal order of the Sandiganbayan granting an
accused’s demurrer to evidence may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65,
based on the narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. (Republic vs. Gimenez, 778 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 174673 January 11, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ The SC has held that the grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal upon the
merits and is immediately final. (People v. City Court of Silay, Dec.9, 1976)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, after the prosecution has rested its case, a demurrer to
evidence may be availed of on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
• JUDGMENT
✓ Under Section 6 Rule 120, if the judgment was for conviction and the failure of the accused to
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available under the Rules of Court
and the court shall order his arrest. The accused may regain the remedies only if he surrenders and
files a motion for leave to avail of the remedies under the Rules of Court.
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in case of a judgment of conviction and the accused failed
to appear, he shall lose the remedies available under the Rules and thus he should surrender and

file such a motion and prove that his failure to appear was for a justifiable cause. (Sec.6, Rule 120).
The remedy of the accused in order to be able to file an appeal is to file within 15 days from the
promulgation a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedy of appeal.
✓ The requisites of a “promulgation of judgment in absentia” are the following:
1.Failure of the accused to appear at the promulgation despite notice.
2.The promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket.
3.A copy of the judgment must be served upon the accused at his last known address or through
his counsel. (Sec.6, Rule 120)
• APPEAL
✓ Appeal is the Remedy to an Order Granting a Motion to Withdraw an Information
✓ An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and dismissing a criminal case is final, and
the remedy to question this final order is an appeal. On the first issue, the petition for certiorari
filed by respondent under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is inappropriate. It bears stressing that the
Order of the RTC, granting the motion of the prosecution to withdraw the Information and
ordering the case dismissed, is final because it disposed of the case and terminated the proceedings
therein, leaving nothing to be done by the court. Thus, the proper remedy is appeal. Respondent
filed with the CA the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead
of an ordinary appeal, not because it was the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to
him under the law, but, obviously, to make up for the loss of his right to an ordinary appeal. It is
elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal,
where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case. A special civil action under Rule 65
cannot cure a party’s failure to timely appeal the assailed decision or resolution. Rule 65 is an
independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary
appeal. Appealing the withdrawal of an information does not violate the right of the accused against
being placed in double jeopardy. As to what mode of review petitioners may avail of after a court
grants an accused’s motion to withdraw information and/or to dismiss the case, Section 1 of Rule
122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure instructs: “Any party may appeal from a
judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.” In availing of the
remedy of certiorari before the RTC, petitioners claim that they had no plain, adequate and speedy
remedy to question the MeTC’s grant of the motion. The records of the cases show, however, that
the motion was granted by the MeTC before respondents were arraigned. Thus, the prohibition
against appeal in case a criminal case is dismissed as the accused would be placed in double jeopardy
does not apply. (Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang, 844 SCRA 475, G.R. No. 206958
November 8, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Effects of a Favorable Judgment Extend to Those Who Did Not Appeal
✓ As a rule, the effects of an appeal can only bind the accused who appealed his or her conviction.
However, when an appellate court renders a favorable judgment, the effects of such favorable
judgment extend even to those who did not appeal, to the extent that such effects apply to their
specific contexts. Here, accused-appellant’s acquittal arising from a lack of proof of corpus delicti
favors the other accused, Sison and Bautista, even if they did not appeal before this Court. This
Decision applies to them as much as it does to accused-appellant. (People vs. Yanson, 912 SCRA 1,
G.R. No. 238453 July 31, 2019, J. Leonen)
✓ In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal
can correct errors, through unassigned in the appealead judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s
decision based on grounds other than those that parties raised as errors. (Ramos v. People, 815 SCRA
226)
• SEARCH AND SEIZURE
✓ Jurisprudential Instances of Reasonable Warrantless Searches and Seizures
✓ There are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless. In the Rules of Court,
searches incidental to lawful arrests are allowed even without a separate warrant. This court has
taken into account the “uniqueness of circumstances involved including the purpose of the search
or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure
was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.” The known
jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are: 1. Warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest.; 2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,”; 3. Search of a moving vehicle.
Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy

especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4. Consented
warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and frisk; and 7. Exigent and emergency
circumstances. (People vs. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427, G.R. No. 200334 July 30, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a
search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 541 SCRA
249)
✓ The rule does not require that the search warrant should identify with particularity the person
against whom it is directed – it suffices that the place to be searched and things to be seized are
described. (Javellana, Jr. v. Belen, 614 SCRA 342)
✓ The motion to suppress should be granted. A search warrant should particularly describe the
things to be seized. (Sec.2, Rule 126) Any evidence obtained in violation of Sec.2, Art. III of the
Constitution shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
✓ The SC has held that the signature of an accused in a receipt of items seized which signature was
obtained without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence the same being tantamount
to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession. (Gutang v. People, July 11, 2000)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from its date.
Thereafter, it shall be void.
✓ The seizure of the unlicensed armalite was proper since it was in plain view. Even assuming that
the search and seizure was illegal, the armalite should be held in custodia legis subject to appropriate
disposition in the criminal proceedings that may thereafter be filed for illegal possession of
firearms. (Alih v. Castro, June 23, 1987)
✓ Under the Constitution, the right of the people against unlawful search is inviolable except in cases
where a valid search warrant was issued or in exceptional cases where the law provides for a
warrantless search. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, items seized by virtue of an
unlawful search are inadmissible in evidence.
✓ Under a SC issuance, application for search warrants involving dangerous drugs may be filed with
Executive Judge of the RTCs of Manila by the NBI. The search warrant is enforceable outside
territorial jurisdiction of Manila. The application shall be personally endorsed by the head of the
NBI. (A.M. 99-20-09-SC, Jan.25, 2000)
✓ The legal concept of “venue is jurisdictional“ cannot be validly raised in applications for search
warrants. The SC has held that an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action but a
special criminal process.
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, for compelling reasons, an application for search warrant
may be filed with any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place
of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant
shall be enforced.
✓ The judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on the
facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted. (Sec.5, Rule 126)
✓ If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in
the form required by Rule 126. (Sec.6, Rule 126)
✓ Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the warrant must direct that it be served in the day time,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (Sec. Rule
126)
III. Appeal (Rules 41, 45)
• RULE 41 Appeal from the RTCs
1. What ruling may be appealed
• An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of
a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
• No appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from
judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating
consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or inal order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is
pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
• In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special
civil action as provided in Rule 65.
• 2. Modes of appeal from RTC
A. Ordinary Appeal
Either by Notice of Appeal or Records on Appeal.
B. Petition for Review under Rule 42
Appeal from the decision of the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction.
C. Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45
Direct appeal to the SC of the decision of the RTC in its original jurisdiction based
on pure question of law.
• 3. Period of appeal
a. 15 or 30 days for Ordinary Appeal;
b. 48 hours for habeas corpus cases.
• 4. Where to pay appellate court docket fees — In the court a quo.
• 5. Notice of appeal — shall indicate
a. the parties to the appeal,
b. specify the judgment or inal order or part thereof appealed from,
c. specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and
d. state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
• 6. Record on appeal, when required
a. special proceedings and
b. other cases of multiple or separate appeals
• 7. Perfection of appeal, residual jurisdiction of court
A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the
notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
a. upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and
b. the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
a. upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and
b. the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the
court may
a. issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which
do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal
b. approve compromises,
c. permit appeals of indigent litigants,
d. order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and

e. allow withdrawal of the appeal.
• 8. Dismissal of appeal
Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate
court, the trial court may motu propio or on motion dismiss the appeal
a) for having been taken out of time;
b) non-payment of docket fee.
• Neypes v. CA, 141524,14 Sep 2005 This "fresh period rule" shall apply to Rule 40 governing
appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review
from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new
rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order
denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any inal order
or resolution.
• NOTE: Applies only to final orders and NOT to interlocutory orders. (Rubio v. MTCC of CDO)
• An Interlocutory Order Refers to Something Between the Start and End of the Suit
• It is elementary that an appeal may only be taken from a judgment or final order that completely
disposes of the case. As such, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order (i.e., “one which
refers to something between the commencement and end of the suit which decides some point or matter
but it is not the final decision of the whole controversy”). As explained in Sime Darby Employees
Association v. NLRC, 510 SCRA 204 (2006), “an interlocutory order is not appealable until after the
rendition of the judgment on the merits for a contrary rule would delay the administration of justice
and unduly burden the courts.” (Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. vs. Chiongbian, 729 SCRA 580, G.R. No.
197530 July 9, 2014, J. Leonen)
• RULE 45 Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court
1. What cases may be brought to the SC on Certiorari

A judgment, Final order or resolution of the
a. Court of Appeals,
b. the Sandiganbayan,
c. the Court of Tax Appeals,
d. the Regional Trial Court or
e. other courts, whenever authorized by law.
Including as well that of:
a. Commission on Audit;
b. Commission on Elections.
2. What question may be raised

Only questions of law may be raised except writs of
a. Amparo,
b. Habeas Corpus, and
c. Kalikasan
Exceptions:
a. When conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures;
b. When inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
c. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
d. When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
e. When the findings of fact of the court of appeals are conflicting;
f. When the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary
to the admissions of both parties;
g. When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which if considered would justify a different conclusion;
h. When findings of fact of CA are contrary to the trial court’s findings.

3. Period to file
a. Within 15 days from receipt of the judgment appealed from or

from denial of motion for reconsideration or new trial;
b. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees
and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme
Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which
to file the petition
4. Where to pay docket fees- To the clerk of SC

5. Dismissal or denial of petition
a. Failure to comply with the requirement regarding payment of docket and other lawful
fees, and deposit for cost;
b. Failure to show proof of service;
c. Failure to observe contents of petition and the documents that must accompany it.
d. Appeal is without merit;
e. Prosecuted manifestly for delay;
f. Question is too unsubstantial.
6. Review discretionary
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the
Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the
power of supervision.
7. Sanction for not filing pleadings required by the SC
The SC may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it
may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider
appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non- filing or unauthorized filing
of such pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.
8. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases
The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases,
except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
IV. Annulment of Judgments (Rule 47)
• RULE 47 Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and Resolutions
1. When can it be availed - If the remedies of new trial, relief from judgment and appeal have not or
could not have been availed of.
2. Grounds for annulment

a. Extrinsic Fraud, if have not been availed of in motion for new trial or petition for relief
from judgment;
b. Lack of Jurisdiction
• Ancheta v. Ancheta, 145370, 4 March 2004 - If the ground is extrinsic fraud, the petitioner must allege
that he failed to avail of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief through no fault of his own.
However, if the ground of lack of jurisdiction is ALSO included, then there is no need to allege said
condition precedent.
• Coombs v. Castañeda, 192353, 15 March 2017- A judgment ordering a reconstitution of title is null and
void if the title is not really lost but in the possession of the rightful owner. If the title was not lost,
the RTC does not have jurisdiction to grant the reconstitution of title.

Thus, the judgment of the court ordering reconstitution can be assailed by Annulment of Judgment
under Rule 47 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there is no need anymore to state in the
petition that petitioner failed to avail of appeal, petition for relief through no fault of his own.
3. When to file annulment

Lapse of 6 months from finality of judgment.
Until barred by laches.
A final and executory judgment may be set aside in three (3) ways. To wit:
a. By petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38;
b. When the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, by
direct attack, by certiorari, annulment of judgment or by collateral attack; and
c. When the judgment was obtained by fraud and Rule 38 cannot be applied anymore.
A person who is not a part of the judgment may sue for its annulment PROVIDED that he can prove
a. that the judgment was obtained through fraud and collusion and
b. that he would be adversely affected thereby.
Possible remedies of defendant declared in DEFAULT:

a. Rule 9, Section 3[b] – Motion to Lift Order of Default, there is still no judgment;
Ground: FAME;
b. Rule 37 – Motion for new trial, judgment not yet final;

Ground: FAME;
c. Rule 38 – Petition for relief from judgment, within 60 days and 6 months, judgment is
already Final;
Ground: FAME;
d. Rule 41 – Appeal, within 15 days from receipt of judgment;

Ground: Default judgment is contrary to law or evidence;
e. Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgment;

Ground: Extrinsic Fraud or Lack of Jurisdiction;
f. Rule 65 – Certiorari;
Ground: GADALEJ.
If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its
discovery; and If based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
4. Action by the court - Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the
same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons
shall be served on the respondent
.
5. Procedure - same as ordinary civil action
6. Effect of judgment - A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final
order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being
refiled in the proper court.
However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud,
the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had
been granted therein.

7. Effect on the prescriptive period to refile action
GR: The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended
from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment.
EXC: However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable
to the plaintiff in the original action.
8. Annulment of judgment of MTC decision, where to file
An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional
Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and
sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.
• ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
✓ Fraud to Become a Basis for Annulment of Judgment has to be Extrinsic Fraud
✓ Annulment of judgment is the remedy when the Regional Trial Court’s judgment, order, or
resolution has become final, and the “remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other
appropriate remedies) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.” The grounds for
annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. This court defined extrinsic
fraud in Stilianopulos v. City of Legaspi, 316 SCRA 523 (1999): For fraud to become a basis for
annulment of judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the fraudulent acts
pertain to an issue involved in the original action or where the acts constituting the fraud were or
could have been litigated. It is extrinsic or collateral when a litigant commits acts outside of the
trial which prevents a party from having a real contest, or from presenting all of his case, such that
there is no fair submission of the controversy. (Santos vs. Santos, 737 SCRA 637, G.R. No. 187061
October 8, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ There is Extrinsic Fraud Even if Committed Through the Use of Forged Documents During
Trial
✓ When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other interested
party, as in this case, then the fraud is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud was committed
through the use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the trial. Jose’s actions
prevented Rosario and Joanne from having a reasonable opportunity to contest the adoption. Had
Rosario and Joanne been allowed to participate, the trial court would have hesitated to grant Jose’s
petition since he failed to fulfill the necessary requirements under the law. There can be no other
conclusion than that because of Jose’s acts, the trial court granted the decree of adoption under
fraudulent circumstances. (Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA 415, G.R. No. 188801 October 15, 2014, J.
Leonen)
V. Small Claims
• SMALL CLAIMS CASES
✓ Under the Rules on Small Claims Cases, the decision therein is final and unappealable. Under the
Rules of Civil Procedure, the special civil action for certiorari is proper in cases where there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.
✓ Prompt Rendition of Judgment in Small Claims Cases is Mandatory
✓ Pursuant to its rule-making power, the Court, under the present Constitution, can adopt a special
rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and select pilot courts that would empower the
people to bring suits before them to resolve legal disputes involving simple issues of law and
procedure without the need for legal representation and extensive judicial intervention. This
system will enhance access to justice, especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of
litigation even in cases of relatively small value. It is envisioned that by facilitating the traffic of
cases through simple and expeditious rules and means, our Court can improve the perception of
justice in this country, thus, giving citizens a renewed “stake” in preserving peace in the land. x x
x The theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring practical
justice to the parties when the disputed claim is small, because the time and expense required by
the ordinary litigation process is so disproportionate to the amount involved that it discourages a
just resolution of the dispute. The small claims process is designed to function quickly and
informally. There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence. Thus,

the intent of the law in providing the period to hear and decide cases falling under the Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, which is within five (5) days from the receipt of the order of
assignment, is very clear. The exigency of prompt rendition of judgment in small claims cases is a
matter of public policy. There is no room for further interpretation; it does not require respondent’s
exercise of discretion. He is duty-bound to adhere to the rules and decide small claims cases without
undue delay. (Orbe vs. Gumarang, 658 SCRA 231, A.M. No. MTJ-11- 1792 September 28, 2011)
✓ Small Claims Case is Immediately Executory, Hence, Cannot Be the Subject of Appeal
✓ Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy
of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution.
Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where
appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Considering that small claims cases are exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, certiorari petitions assailing its
dispositions should be filed before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. (A.L. Ang Network,
Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA 514, G.R. No. 200804 January 22, 2014)
✓ No Evidence Shall be Allowed During the Hearing Which Was Not Submitted with the
Claim
✓ Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: “A small claims action is commenced by
filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate,
accompanied by a Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and
Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable
document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support
the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted
together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence.” (RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr., 905 SCRA 219, G.R. No. 223274 June
19, 2019)
VI. Evidence
• CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE
✓ Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting
a matter of fact. (Sec.1, Rule 128)
✓ The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused
cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can
supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial
evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence has
been defined as that which goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which,
if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue. (Bacolod v. People, GR 206236)
✓ It is well-established that mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support
a conviction, most specially if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may reasonably be
deduced that the accused was the malefactor. (Atienza v. People, 716 SCRA 84)
✓ Factum probandum – is a proposition as to the correctness of which the tribunal must be
persuaded or, in other words, a fact in issue.
✓ Factum probans – is the material presented to convince the tribunal about the reality of the
proposition or fact in issue.
• JUDICIAL NOTICE
✓ Courts Do Not Take Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws and Judgments Including Divorce
Decree
✓ Mere presentation of the divorce decree before a trial court is insufficient. In Garcia v. Recio, 366
SCRA 437 (2001), this Court established the principle that before a foreign divorce decree is
recognized in this jurisdiction, a separate action must be instituted for that purpose. Courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments; thus, our laws require that the divorce
decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be pleaded and proved like any other fact
before trial courts. Hence, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266 (2010): The starting point in any
recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no

sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of
another country.” This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as
facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the
effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action
instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree
as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. (Racho vs. Tanaka, 868 SCRA 25, G.R. No. 199515 June
25, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ A Learned Treatise May Be Admitted Through Judicial Notice or Testimony of an Expert
Witness
✓ Neither can the English translation be considered as a learned treatise. Under the Rules of Court,
“a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his or her personal knowledge.” The
evidence is hearsay when it is “not . . . what the witness knows himself or herself but of what he or
she has heard from others.” The rule excluding hearsay evidence is not limited to oral testimony
or statements, but also covers written statements. The rule is that hearsay evidence “is devoid of
probative value.” However, a published treatise may be admitted as tending to prove the truth of
its content if: (1) the court takes judicial notice; or (2) an expert witness testifies that the writer is
recognized in his or her profession as an expert in the subject. Here, the Regional Trial Court did
not take judicial notice of the translator’s and advisors’ qualifications. Nor was an expert witness
presented to testify on this matter. The only evidence of the translator’s and advisors’ credentials
is the inside cover page of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan. Hence, the Regional
Trial Court was correct in not considering the English translation as a learned treatise. (Arreza vs.
Toyo, 906 SCRA 588, G.R. No. 213198 July 1, 2019, J. Leonen.)
✓ The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose
that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. (Degayo v.
Magbanua-Dinglasan, GR 173148)
✓ JUDICIAL ADMISSION
✓ Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial admission in
civil cases is one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule
18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the
subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. (Eastern
Shipping Lines v. BPI/Ms Insurance, GR 182864)
✓ A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was
made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset. (CIR v. Meralco, 725 SCRA
384)
• RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
✓ Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the
law of these rules (Rule 128, Section 3)
✓ Relevancy - It is the relationship of evidence to the fact in issue. If the evidence will tend to prove
the fact in issue, then the evidence is relevant. If there is no connection at all, then the evidence is
not relevant.
✓ To be relevant, evidence must relate to an issue of fact. If not, then it is irrelevant.
✓ If you introduce evidence for a fact not alleged in the pleading, then the introduction of such
evidence may be objected for being irrelevant.
✓ Competency - It is one that is not excluded by the law or rules.
✓ If the test of relevancy is logic and common sense, the test of competency is the, constitution, law
or rules.
✓ Courts Adopted Totality of Circumstances Test in Admissibility of Out-of-Court
Identifications
✓ Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show ups
where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru
mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru
lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose.
Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification
during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance
with the requirements of constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying

on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test
where they consider the following factors, viz.: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at
the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. (Concha vs. People, 881 SCRA 556, G.R. No. 208114
October 3, 2018, J. Leonen)
• OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
✓ Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the
fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
✓ We cannot overemphasize the primacy in probative value of physical evidence, that mute but
eloquent manifestation of the truth. (Li v. People, GR 127692)
✓ The package of shabu is object evidence and is not covered by the privilege against self-
incrimination which applies only to testimonial compulsion.
• DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
✓ Secondary Evidence May Be Presented Only When the Original Document is Not Available
✓ In case of unavailability of the original document, secondary evidence may be presented as provided
for under Sections 5 to 7 of the same Rule: SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. —
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his
part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse
party’s custody or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse
party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof
of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the
case of its loss. (5a) SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. —
When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office,
its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
(Republic vs. Gimenez, 778 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 174673 January 11, 2016, J. Leonen) NOTE; Sec.7
is now Sec.8
✓ Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (Sec.2, Rule 130)
✓ If the documentary or object evidence is excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for
the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (Sec.40, Rule 132)
✓ The SC has held that the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence, not to object or
testimonial evidence. Here the marked money is object not documentary evidence since it is being
offered to prove not its contents but its existence and use in the buy-bust operation. (People v.
Tandoy, 192 SCRA 28)
✓ The failure to deny under oath the bill of lading results in the admission by B Lines of its
genuineness and due execution but does not preclude B Lines from raising defenses not covered by
the implied admission.
✓ Under Sec.8, Rule 8, the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document is deemed
admitted by the adverse party if he fails to specifically deny such genuineness and due execution.
Here the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, which is an actionable document,
was impliedly admitted by A when he failed to deny the same under oath, his answer being
unverified. Hence A is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery and thus B may object to
the proposed testimony seeking to prove forgery.
✓ The SC has held that an implied admission under Sec.8, Rule 8 does not preclude the adverse party
from introducing evidence that the actionable document was not supported by a consideration. The
reason is that such evidence is not inconsistent with the implied admission of genuineness and due
execution. (Acabal v. Acabal, March 31, 2005)

✓ Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the adverse party who fails to specifically deny under oath an
actionable document is deemed to have admitted its authenticity and due execution.
• PAROL EVIDENCE
✓ Parol Evidence Should Be Relevant to the Conclusion Proposed by the Presenting Party
✓ Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated in the second
paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, “a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the agreement.” Raising any of these items as an issue in a pleading such that it falls under
the exception is not limited to the party initiating an action. In Philippine National Railways v. Court
of First Instance of Albay, 83 SCRA 569 (1978), this court noted that “if the defendant set up the
affirmative defense that the contract mentioned in the complaint does not express the true
agreement of the parties, then parol evidence is admissible to prove the true agreement of the
parties.” Moreover, as with all possible objections to the admission of evidence, a party’s failure to
timely object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained. Apart from pleading
these exceptions, it is equally imperative that the parol evidence sought to be introduced points to
the conclusion proposed by the party presenting it. That is, it must be relevant tending to “induce
belief in the existence ”of the law, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by the party
seeking to introduce parol evidence. In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence
to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a
party’s pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the parol
evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the
presenting party. (Paras vs. Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, 755 SCRA 241, G.R.
No. 171601 April 8, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ When the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, they are deemed to have intended the
written agreement to be the sole repository and memorial of everything that they have agreed
upon; whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.
(RCBC v. Bernardino, 803 SCRA 586)
✓ The exception to the parol evidence rule on the ground that the agreement fails to express the true
intent of the parties obtains only where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms
that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
instrument. (RCBC v. Bernardino, 803 SCRA 586)
✓ Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the contract’s meaning, it cannot serve to
incorporate into the contract additional conditions which are not mentioned at all in the contract
unless there is fraud or mistake. (Republic v. Roque, 805 SCRA 524)
✓ TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
✓ Mental Abnormality May Be Established by the Testimonies of Witnesses
✓ The presentation of a psychologist is not essential in determining the intellectual condition of
AAA. In this case, AAA’s intellectual disability was established by the testimony of her teacher and
the Regional Trial Court’s observation of her conduct in court. Even accused-appellant himself
admitted that he was aware of AAA’s intellectual disability. Moreover, a Psychological Report was
issued by the Philippine Mental Health Association, Baguio-Benguet Chapter, Inc., showing that
AAA’s overall level of intellectual functioning is comparable to a three (3)-year-old child. Accused-
appellant has failed to show any reason to reverse the finding of the lower courts. Thus, this Court
quotes the Court of Appeals with approval: Mental abnormality may be established by evidence
other than medical evidence or psychiatric evaluation; it may be established by the testimonies of
witnesses. (People vs. Tayaban, 846 SCRA 209, G.R. No. 207666 November 22, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ An Inconsistency Which Has Nothing to Do with the Elements of a Crime is Not Fatal
✓ As for the supposed inconsistencies in Pineda’s testimony, People v. Nelmida, et al., 680 SCRA 386
(2012), explained, “An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not
a ground to reverse a conviction.” The Court of Appeals thus held: As to the imputed
inconsistencies in Pineda’s testimony, they refer only to minor if not inconsequential or trivial
matters which do not impair the credibility of Pineda. In fact, it even signifies that he was neither
coached nor was lying on the witness stand. What commands greater importance is that there is
no inconsistency in Pineda’s complete and vivid narration as far as the principal occurrence and
positive identification of accused-appellants as the victim’s assailants. (People vs. Magallano, Jr., 889
SCRA 74, G.R. No. 220721 December 10, 2018, J. Leonen)

✓ Testimonial evidence, if not questioned for credibility, bears the same weight as documentary
evidence. (People v. Rayos, GR 200942)
✓ Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must come not only from the mouth of a credible witness, but
must also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience. A credible witness must,
therefore, be able to narrate a convincing and logical story. (De Leon v. BPI, GR 184565)
✓ An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when the former
comes from the mouth of a credible witness. (People v. Gallemit, 724 SCRA 676)
✓ The “most important witness” rule pursuant to the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-
Discovery Measures provides that the judge shall, during the pretrial conference, determine the
most important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of witnesses.
✓ The “one-day examination of a witness” rule pursuant to the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use
of Deposition-Discovery Measures provides that a witness has to be fully examined in one day
only, subject to the court’s discretion to extend the direct and/or cross examination for justifiable
reasons.
✓ Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party’s witness may be properly impeached by reputation
evidence provided that it is to the effect that the witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or
integrity was bad. (Sec.11, Rule 132). The reputation must only be on character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness. (Cordial v. People, 166 SCRA 17). Here the evidence is not on the Prosecution
witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or integrity but on his aggressive and violent
tendencies. The evidence had nothing to do with the witness’s character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness. Hence the impeachment was improper.
✓ Insofar as the question tends to show that A had committed murder, I would object on the ground
that the evidence sought to be obtained is irrelevant. There is no logical connection between being
arrested for the violation of the Anti-Graft Law and committing the crime of murder.
✓ Insofar as the question tends to impeach A’s testimony as a witness, the same is objectionable on
the ground that a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts. (Sec.11,
Rule 132)
✓ Insofar as the question tends to elicit evidence of A’s bad moral character, the same is objectionable
on the ground that the prosecution cannot adduce evidence of the accused’s bad moral character
except in rebuttal. (Sec.54(a)(2), Rule 130)
✓ The question may also be objected to on the ground that it was not covered in the direct
examination if A in his direct did not mention anything about a previous arrest or criminal case.
(Sec.1(d), Rule 115) See; Sec.6, Rule 132
✓ Under the Law on Evidence, the hearsay rule does not apply to facts which are undisputed. The
testimony of the witness is admissible for the purpose of proving that the victim was posting his
medical condition on FB and was liking the posts of his FB friends.
✓ The Statements of Bystanders Made Immediately After the Startling Occurrence are Res
Gestae
✓ As a general rule, “a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that
is, which are derived from his own perception.” All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general
rule, and one of which is when the evidence is part of res gestae, thus: Section 42. (Now Sec.44)
Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, under the stress
of excitement caused by the occurrence may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance,
may be received as part of the res gestae. There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the
statements of the bystanders were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in
fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae. (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., 724 SCRA 148, G.R. No.
196735 May 5, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Note: Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, the definition of hearsay is amended as follows:
“Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
offered to prove the truth of facts asserted therein.” It also added a new provision on “residual
exception” as one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule – to be admissible if the court determines

that (a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative
on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure
through reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice
will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence.
✓ Under the Law on Evidence, an independently relevant statement is not covered by the hearsay
rule and is admissible in evidence. Here the testimony of the witness relates to the victim’s belief
or state of mind on his medical condition and on his emotions or feelings and is thus independently
relevant.
✓ Under the res inter alios acta rule, the out-of-court statement or act of a third person is not
admissible in evidence against a party. Here the out-of-court act or statement is of a third person
B, not the accused himself, and is thus not admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact that
A is the accused’s father is irrelevant in the absence of any evidence that the accused had authorized
A to settle the case or that the accused was present when the offer was made. (People v. Erguiza,
571 SCRA 634)
✓ Under the Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule
provided that such declaration relates to the cause of the declarant’s death.
✓ Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration in order to be admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule must be made under the consciousness of an impending death.
✓ The SC has held that the attorney-client privilege applies only to communications regarding past
crimes not to those concerning future crimes.
✓ The written and oral statements he obtained from the surviving crew members are protected under
the attorney-client privilege.
✓ Where the client is a corporation, the attorney-client privilege extends to the employees of the
company and thus their communications to the attorney for the purpose of enabling him to give
sound and informed advice are considered privileged. (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383)
✓ The attorney-client privilege applies only to the communications between the attorney and client
and the lawyer’s advice given in the course of or with a view to professional employment.
✓ Under the marital disqualification rule, a spouse may not testify for or against the other without
the latter’s consent. The mere fact that the wife was estranged from the husband is not an exception
to the marital disqualification rule.
✓ Under the Rules of Evidence, an exception to the marital disqualification rule is in a criminal
case committed by one spouse against the other.
✓ Under the Rules of Evidence, the physician-patient privilege applies only to civil case. Here the
testimony is being offered in a criminal case for arson.
✓ Under the Law on Evidence, the doctor-patient privilege applies only to civil cases, not criminal
cases. (Sec.24(c), Rule 130)
✓ Under the Rules of Evidence, the priest-penitent privilege applies only to a confession made to
or advice given by the priest in his professional character. A confession made by a penitent to a
priest is privileged and may not be testified to by the priest without the consent of the penitent.
✓ The SC held that there is no violation of physician-patient privilege bars only the physician, not
other persons. (Krohn v. CA, 233 SCRA 146) NOTE: Rule 130, Sec. 24, last par.: communication
shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the information,
provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality. (24a)
✓ Oral confession is not admissible as evidence of guilt. Under the Constitution, a person under
custodial investigation must be apprised of his Miranda Rights; otherwise any confession made by
him is inadmissible in evidence.
✓ Confession is one whereon a person acknowledges his guilt of a crime. A confession, standing alone
it would not be sufficient to warrant conviction since it is an extrajudicial confession which is not
sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Sec.3, Rule 133)
✓ A’s declaration is hearsay as she was not presented in court to testify thereon. Her declaration will
not qualify as a dying declaration exception since she was not the one who died. Nor will it qualify
as a part of the res gestae since A’s declaration was not made while a startling occurrence was
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto.

✓ He cannot object to the presentation of the text message on the ground that it was hearsay. The
SC had held that statements showing declarant’s state of mind, such as his knowledge or belief, are
considered as independently relevant statements and thus not hearsay. (Estrada v. Desierto, GR
146710-15, April 3, 2001)
✓ Under the Rules of Evidence, a statement made immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence
is excepted from hearsay rule as part of the res gestae.
✓ The SC upheld dying declarations as an exception to the confrontation clause since “such
declarations have always been regarded as an exception to the general rule regarding hearsay
evidence.” (US v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
✓ Under the Law on Evidence, where character is used as circumstantial evidence, the evidence to
prove such character is limited to reputation evidence. Hence the prosecution’s rebuttal evidence
which was based not on reputation but on a past conviction is inadmissible. Moreover evidence on
the prior conviction would run afoul of the similar acts rule.
• OFFER AND OBJECTION
✓ The following elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:
1. There is more than one circumstance.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences (Sec.4, Rule 133)
✓ Circumstantial Evidence May Be Sufficient to Establish the Conviction of the Accused
✓ The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of an accused: SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence,
when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than
one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
(People vs. Chavez, 735 SCRA 728, G.R. No. 207950 September 22, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ The objection to the documentary evidence was made timely at the time these were offered in
evidence. It was premature to object to the documents when they were merely being marked and
identified.
✓ Under Sec.38, Rule 132, when the objection is based on 2 or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection must specify the ground/s relied upon. Here the court’s ruling did not state which of the
two grounds it relied upon in sustaining the objection. Hence the Counsel can ask for a
reconsideration of the ruling.
✓ Clearly therefore, evidence not formally offered during the trial cannot be used for or against a
party-litigant by the trial court in deciding the merits of the case. Neither may it be taken into
account on appeal. Since the rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter, failure to make
a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered and admitted thereafter shall be excluded
and rejected. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Custom, 812 SCRA 1)
✓ However, this Court has relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to
be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the same must have been identified by
testimony duly recorded and incorporated in the record of the case. (People v. Aplat, 729 SCRA 260)
✓ Tender of excluded evidence – If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. Of the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. (Sec.44, Rule 132)
✓ A Hearsay Evidence, Whether Objected to or Not, Has No Probative Value
✓ The court cannot arbitrarily disregard evidence especially when resolving a demurrer to evidence
which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. The difference between the admissibility of
evidence and the determination of its probative weight is canonical. Admissibility of evidence refers
to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at all. On the
other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an
issue. Thus, a letter may be offered in evidence and admitted as such but its evidentiary weight
depends upon the observance of the rules on evidence. Accordingly, the author of the letter should
be presented as witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question him
on the contents of the letter. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter

renders its contents suspect. As earlier stated, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no
probative value. (Republic vs. Gimenez, 778 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 174673 January 11, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ Presumption of Regularity, if Not Rebutted, Becomes Conclusive
✓ With Gaite being a public officer, his acts also enjoy the presumption of regularity, thus: The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes
conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case
of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its
lawfulness. (Espiritu vs. Del Rosario, 738 SCRA 464, G.R. No. 204964 October 15, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Presumption of Good Faith Does Not Apply if it is Integral with the Status to be Proved
✓ With the Republic having put forward evidence that the Tramo property claimed by Sindophil
belongs to the Republic, the burden of evidence shifted to Sindophil to prove that its title to it was
valid. Concomitantly, it had the burden of proving that it was indeed a buyer in good faith and for
value. As this Court said in Baltazar v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 354 (1988), “the burden of
proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status”
and “in discharging that burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith,
i.e., that everyone is presumed to act in good faith. The good faith that is essential here is integral
with the very status which must be proved.” Unfortunately for Sindophil, it utterly failed to
discharge the burden of evidence because its counsel failed to attend the scheduled initial
presentation of evidence. (Sindophil, Inc. vs. Republic, 884 SCRA 555, G.R. No. 204594 November 7,
2018, J. Leonen)
✓ NOTE: The Revised Rules on Evidence adds “burden of evidence” to Section 1 on burden of proof.
Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence shifts. Burden of evidence is the duty of the
party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie
case.
✓ Constitutional Presumption of Innocence Prevails Over Presumption of Regularity
✓ The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties cannot work in favor of the law
enforcers since the records revealed severe lapses in complying with the requirements provided for
under the law. “The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt
the regularity of the performance of official duty.” Thus, this presumption “will never be stronger
than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will
defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent.” (People vs.
Segundo, 833 SCRA 16, G.R. No. 205614 July 26, 2017, J. Leonen)
• PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
✓ A Document Referred to by a Writing or Record Given in Evidence May Also Be Inquired
Into
✓ Under Section 17, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court, when part of a writing or record is given
in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached writing or record is given in evidence, any other writing or record necessary to
its understanding may also be given in evidence. Since the Deed of Assignment was produced in
court by respondent and marked as one of its documentary exhibits, the LSPA which was made a
part thereof by explicit reference and which is necessary for its understanding may also be
inevitably inquired into by petitioners. (Eagleridge Development Corporation vs. Cameron Granville 3
Asset Management, Inc., 695 SCRA 714, G.R. No. 204700 April 10, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ Public Documents Need Not Be Authenticated Since the Facts therein are Prima Facie
Evidence
✓ As for private documents, i.e., those not enumerated in Rule 132, Section 19, they must be
authenticated, or their due execution and authenticity proven, per Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules
of Court, thus: Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By
anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that
which it is claimed to be. Official receipts of hospital and medical expenses are not among those
enumerated in Rule 132, Section 19. These official receipts, therefore, are private documents which
may be authenticated either by presenting as witness anyone who saw the document executed or
written, or by presenting an evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the

maker. (Imperial vs. Heirs of Neil Bayaban and Mary Lou Bayaban, 881 SCRA 383, G.R. No. 197626
October 3, 2018, J. Leonen) NOTE: Sec. 19 (c) Documents that are considered public documents
under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; - Sec.20 (c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
✓ Documents Collected by the PCGG Do Not Make Them Public Documents
✓ The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the course of its investigations does
not make them per se public records referred to in Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
presented as witness its records officer, Maria Lourdes Magno, who testified that these public and
private documents had been gathered by and taken into the custody of the PCGG in the course of
the Commission’s investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. However, given
the purposes for which these documents were submitted, Magno was not a credible witness who
could testify as to their contents. To reiterate, “if the writings have subscribing witnesses to them,
they must be proved by those witnesses.” Witnesses can testify only to those facts which are of
their personal knowledge; that is, those derived from their own perception. Thus, Magno could
only testify as to how she obtained custody of these documents, but not as to the contents of the
documents themselves. Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these Affidavits
or Memoranda submitted to the court. Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be considered as
public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still
classified as hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by
the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own language in writing the affiant’s statements,
parts of which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover,
the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this reason,
affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the
witness stand to testify thereon. (Republic vs. Gimenez, 778 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 174673 January 11,
2016, J. Leonen)
✓ Official Records Kept in a Foreign Country Must Be Accompanied by a Certification
✓ Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, the admissibility of official records that are kept
in a foreign country requires that it must be accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of an
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, consular agent or any officer of the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in that foreign country. Here, the Certificate of Acceptance of
the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B.
Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular
Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The
Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the
Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the
Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce
between petitioner and respondent. The Regional Trial Court established that according to the
national law of Japan, a divorce by agreement “becomes effective by notification.” Considering that
the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was duly authenticated, the divorce between
petitioner and respondent was validly obtained according to respondent’s national law. (Racho vs.
Tanaka, 868 SCRA 25, G.R. No. 199515 June 25, 2018, J. Leonen) NOTE: Rule 132, Sec. 24(2) If
the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party to
a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public
document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof,
the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention
subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the Philippines
✓ An Ancient Document May Be Admitted if there is a Certification that it is the Exact Copy
✓ A copy purporting to be an ancient document may be admitted in evidence if it bears a certification
from the proper government office where the document is naturally found genuine that the
document is the exact copy of the original on file. Here, the photocopied Affidavit of Teofila does
not carry such certification from the notary public or the Register of Notaries Public, among others.
Petitioners have not shown that the Affidavit of Teofila is free from suspicion and unblemished by
alterations. (Heirs of Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr. vs. Heirs of Gabino T. Villanoza, 825 SCRA 264, G.R. No.
218666 April 26, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ The Rule on Offer of Evidence is Part of the Right to Due Process of the Parties

✓ A witness’ testimony must be offered at the start, when he or she takes the stand for the first time
and before questions are propounded to him or her. Documentary or object evidence, on the other
hand, must be orally offered after the presentation of a party’s witnesses unless the court orders or
allows that a written formal offer is filed. All evidence must be formally offered. Otherwise, the
court cannot consider them. This rule ensures that judges will carry out their constitutional
mandate to render decisions that clearly state the facts of cases and the applicable laws. Judgments
must be based “only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit.” This rule also
affords parties their right to due process by examining the evidence presented by their opponent,
and to object to its presentation when warranted. (Amoguis vs. Ballado, 878 SCRA 1, G.R. No.
189626 August 20, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ Testimonial Evidence Not Formally Offered but Not Timely Objected to May Still Be
Considered
✓ The purpose of offering a witness’ testimony is for the court to expertly assess whether questions
propounded are relevant and material, and if the witness is competent to answer. Where the
proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason,
the latter has the right to object. But such right is a mere privilege which can be waived.
Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is
opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. Thus, while it is true that the
prosecution failed to offer in evidence the testimony of the complaining witness upon calling her
to testify and that it was only after her testimony and after the petitioner moved that it be stricken
that the offer was made, the respondent Court did not gravely err in not dismissing the case against
the petitioner on the ground invoked. For, she should have objected to the testimony of the
complaining witness when it was not first offered upon calling her and should not have waited in
ambush after she had already finished testifying. By so doing she did not save the time of the Court
in hearing the testimony of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible. And for
her failure to make known her objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was
waived. (Amoguis vs. Ballado, 878 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 189626 August 20, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ No Evidence Shall be Allowed During Trial if not Pre-Marked During Pre-Trial
✓ The rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked
during pretrial. This provision, however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for
good cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may constitute “good cause,”
though this Court has previously defined it as any substantial reason “that affords a legal excuse.”
The trial court retains its discretion to allow any evidence to be presented at trial even if not
previously marked during pretrial. Here, the trial court allowed the presentation of the counterfeit
credit card at trial due to the prosecution’s explanation that during pretrial, the counterfeit credit
card was still in the Criminal Investigation and Detective Group’s custody. (Cruz vs. People, 826
SCRA 561, G.R. No. 210266 June 7, 2017, J. Leonen)
• WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
✓ The Prosecution Should Rely on the Strength of its Own Evidence, Not Weakness of the
Defense
✓ While not requiring absolute certainty, proof beyond reasonable doubt demands moral certainty.
Compliance with this standard is a matter of compliance with a constitutional imperative: This rule
places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength
of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof
beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but
similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”
“Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the
prosecution.” Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course,
that an accused must be acquitted. (People vs. Royol, 893 SCRA 54, G.R. No. 224297 February 13,
2019, J. Leonen)
• CHILD WITNESS
✓ The Testimony of a Child-Victim, Who Has No Ill Will against the Accused, Deserves
Credence
✓ As shown by her testimony, AAA was able to narrate in a clear and categorical manner the ordeal
that was done to her. As a child-victim who has taken significant risks in coming to court, her

testimony deserves full weight and credence. People v. Veloso, 690 SCRA 586 (2013), stated that:
In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given
full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely
understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what
she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility,
especially if no ill will — as in this case — motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is
well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused may thus be convicted solely on her
testimony — provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. (People vs. Gutierez, 720 SCRA 607, G.R. No. 208007 April 2, 2014, J.
Leonen)
✓ Under the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, there is no requirement that a competency
examination of the child witness be conducted before leading questions may be asked of her. (Sec.20,
REWC)
✓ A competency examination may be conducted by the court (Not the prosecutor) only if substantial
doubt exists as to the child’s competency to testify. (Sec.6, RECW)
• DNA EVIDENCE
✓ In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following
factors – how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination
of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests; Admittedly, we are just beginning to integrate these advances in science and
technology in the Philippine criminal justice system, so we must be cautious as we traverse these
relatively uncharted waters though we can benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that
has developed in other jurisdiction. (People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504)
✓ I would challenge the veracity and accuracy of the results of the DNA evidence by challenging the
chain of custody of the biological samples, the DNA testing methodology, the qualifications and
the competence of the forensic DNA laboratory, and the reliability of the testing result. (Sec.7, Rule
on DNA Evidence)
VII. Special Civil Actions
• CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
➢ RULE 65
✓ A Motion for Reconsideration is a Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy
✓ A motion for reconsideration is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law alluded to in Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for
reconsideration is required before a petition for certiorari is filed “to grant the court which rendered
the assailed judgment or order an opportunity . . . to correct any actual or perceived error attributed
to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.” (Madarang vs.
Morales, 725 SCRA 480, G.R. No. 199283 June 9, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Rule 45 Petition May Be Treated as Rule 65 Petition if the Subject is One of Jurisdiction
✓ There have been instances when a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was treated by
this court as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As explained in China Banking Corporation v.
Asian Construction and Development Corporation, 550 SCRA 585 (2008): In many instances, the Court
has treated a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 as a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, such as in cases where the subject of the recourse was one of jurisdiction,
or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. vs. Chiongbian, 729 SCRA 580, G.R. No.
197530 July 9, 2014, J. Leonen)
✓ Rule 65 Petition Does Not Stay the Principal Case Unless a TRO or WPI Has Been Issued
✓ As basic as the principle of finality of judgments is the rule that filing a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure “shall not interrupt the course of the principal case
unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against
the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.” Unlike an appeal, a pending petition
for certiorari shall not stay the judgment or order that it assails. The 2005 Rules of Procedure of
the National Labor Relations Commission, which were in effect when the material incidents of this
case occurred, explicitly and specifically makes this principle applicable to decisions of labor

arbiters and of the National Labor Relations Commission. (De Ocampo vs. RPN-9/Radio Philippines,
Inc., 777 SCRA 183, G.R. No. 192947 December 9, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ Non-Compliance with the Rules of Court Constitutes Grave Abuse of Discretion
✓ Non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not, as the Office of the Solicitor General asserts, a mere
error of judgment. It constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In Crisologo v. JEWM Agro- Industrial
Corporation, 717 SCRA 644 (2014): This manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures
constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge Medel
Belen, 674 SCRA 477 (2012), the Court held as inexcusable abuse of authority the trial judge’s
“obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure.” Such level of ignorance is
not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,” or in essence, grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Needless to say, judges are expected to exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and
apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no less. (Cruz vs. People, 828
SCRA 685, G.R. No. 224974 July 3, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ An Administrative Agency Does Not Have the Power to Rule on Petitions for Certiorari
✓ DARAB’s exercise of the innately judicial certiorari power is an executive encroachment into the
judiciary. It violates the separation of powers; it is unconstitutional. With or without a law enabling
it, DARAB has no power to rule on jurisdictional controversies via petitions for certiorari.
DARAB’s self-serving grant to itself of the power to issue writs of certiorari in the 1994 DARAB
New Rules of Procedure is itself a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. It must be annulled for running afoul of the Constitution. (Heirs of Eliza Q. Zoleta vs.
Land Bank of the Philippines, 836 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 205128 August 9, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ The special and civil action of Certiorari is defined in the Rules of Court thus – when any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its
or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
✓ The accepted definition of grave abuse of discretion is: “a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner because of passion or hostility.” (Reyes v. COMELEC, 708 SCRA 197)
✓ Note that the requisites for certiorari are the following:
a) A tribunal, board or officer exercises judicial or quasi-judicial function;
b) It or he/she acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;
c) There is no appeal not plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
✓ An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
✓ An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction and is
correctible not by certiorari but by appeal. (Villareal v. Aliga, Jan.13, 2014)
✓ The private prosecutor, in representation of the offended party, has the legal standing to file the
petition for certiorari with the CA, since there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC
in granting the withdrawal order. An offended is considered as an “aggrieved party” under Sec.1,
Rule 65 (Salvador v. Chua, July 15, 2015)
✓ An order of execution is not appelable. (Sec.1(e), Rule 41) The remedy of an aggrieved party is to
file the appropriate civil action under Rule 65 with the CA within 60 days from notice of the order
or of the order denying the motion for reconsideration if one was filed.
✓ If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the judicial remedy that the accused should undertake is
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the SC. Certiorari is available to challenge
interlocutory orders rendered with grave abuse of discretion since appeal is unavailable.
✓ The SC has held that the proper remedy from the Ombudsman’s orders or resolutions in criminal
cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the SC. (Quarto v. OMB, Oct.5, 2011)

✓ Under Sec.1(b) of Rule 41, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order and the aggrieved
party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.
✓ The special civil action for certiorari should be filed with the CA. It should be filed within 60 days
from receipt by the public prosecutor of the order denying the motion for reconsideration pursuant
to Sec.4 of Rule 65. The 60-day period should be reckoned from the receipt by the public prosecutor
who has the direction and control of the prosecution pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(Sec.5, Rule 110)
✓ There is no mode of appeal from a decision or final order of the NLRC, since such decision or final
order of the NLRC, since such decision or final order is final and executory pursuant to the Labor
Code. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action for certiorari with the CA.
(St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494).
✓ Such special civil action may raise questions both of fact and law. (Aggabao v. COMELEC, 449
SCRA 400)
✓ Under the Rules on Special Proceedings, the order appointing a special administrator is non-
appealable. (Sec.1(e), Rule 109) The SC has held, however, that such order can be challenged by a
special civil action for certiorari if it can be shown that the appointment was made with grave abuse
of discretion. (Jamero v. Melicor, May 26, 2005)
➢ PROHIBITION
✓ Prohibition is a legal remedy, provided by the common law, extraordinary in the sense that it is
ordinarily available only when the usual and ordinary proceedings at law or in equity are
inadequate to afford redress, prerogative in character to the extent that it is not always demandable
of right, to prevent courts, or other tribunals, officers, or persons, from usurping or exercising a
jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law.
✓ The writ of prohibition, as the name imports, is one which commands the person to whom it is
directed not to do something which, by suggestion of the relator, the court is informed he is about
to do. If the thing be already done, it is manifest the writ of prohibition cannot undo it, for that
would require an affirmative act; and the only effect of a writ of prohibition is to suspend all action
and to prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction. Prohibition, as a rule, does not
lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli. (Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform, 572 SCRA 185)
➢ MANDAMUS
✓ Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the
state or sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or
person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from
the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law.
✓ The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued only in cases of extreme necessity where
the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who
has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.
✓ Entitlement to an Informer’s Reward is Not Ministerial Which May Be the Subject of
Mandamus
✓ Petitioner’s entitlement to an informer’s reward is not a ministerial matter. Quite the contrary, its
determination requires a review of evidentiary matters and an application of statutory principles
and administrative guidelines. Its determination is a discretionary, quasi-judicial function,
demanding an exercise of independent judgment on the part of certain public officers. Whether
from Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2338, Presidential Decree No. 707, Section 331 of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1977, Section 35 of Presidential Decree No. 1773, or Section 282 of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, it is clear that the grant of an informer’s
reward is not a readily demandable entitlement. It is not a legally mandated duty in which every
incident is prescribed with a preordained outcome. The mere consideration of a claim is contingent
on several factual findings. Making these findings demands proof the appraisal of which is to be
done by certain public officers. Hence, it demands the exercise of discretion. (Lihaylihay vs. Tan,
872 SCRA 277, G.R. No. 192223 July 23, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ As a peremptory writ, mandamus must be issued with utmost circumspection, and should always
take into consideration existing laws, rules and jurisprudence on the matter, particularly the
principles underlying our Constitution.
✓ Moreover, the remedy of mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a ministerial duty
after performance of the duty has been refused. As a rule, it cannot be used to direct the exercise of
judgment or discretion; if at all, the obligated official carrying the duty can only be directed by

mandamus to act, but not to act in a particular way. The courts can only interfere when the refusal
to act already constitutes inaction amounting to grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice,
palpable excess of authority, or other causes affecting jurisdiction. (Velasco v. Belmonte, 780 SCRA
81)
✓ The SC has held that mandamus may not be directed against discretionary acts. Prohibition, not
mandamus, is the proper remedy when a motion to dismiss is improperly denied. (Enriquez v.
Macadaeg, 84 Phil. 674)
✓ While the general rule is that mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary
duty, where such discretion however can be legally exercised in only one way and it refuses to act
in such manner, mandamus will lie to compel the court to exercise its discretion in accordance with
law.
✓ The writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the Treasurer in the
Information. The SC has held that mandamus will lie only if the exclusion of a person from the
information was arbitrary.
✓ The SC has held that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by Mandamus.
(MMDA v. Concerned Residence of Manila Bay, Dec.18, 2008)
• QUO WARRANTO
✓ A De Facto Officer’s Title to his Office May Only be Attacked Through a Quo Warranto
Petition
✓ In any case, we cannot order the invalidation of respondent’s appointment in the present
proceedings. To do so would necessarily result in his removal from an office he has physically
possessed for almost nine (9) years. Respondent has been discharging the duties of the City
Assessor, at the very least, under a color of title to the position especially since he possesses the
qualifications for it. Analogous to a de facto officer, respondent’s title to his office may only be
attacked through a petition for quo warranto filed by the Government or by the person claiming
title to the office. (Abad vs. Dela Cruz, 753 SCRA 680, G.R. No. 207422 March 18, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ In justifying resort to a petition for quo warranto, the Republic argues that quo warranto is available
as a remedy even as against impeachable officers, like respondent. The Republic argues that
petition for quo warranto is different from the impeachment proceedings because the writ of quo
warranto is being sought to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment
complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public
trust while in office. (Republic v. Sereno, GR 237428, May 11, 2018)
✓ A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested
public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought against the person who is
alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may be
brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such office.
In other words, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested position.
Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for
quo warranto may be dismissed. It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant
who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office. (Arquero v.
CA, 658 SCRA 70)
✓ The SC held that the issue of whether to bring or not a quo warranto proceeding is within the
sound discretion of the OSG which may not be compelled to so, especially where the issue of
citizenship is being litigated in another case. (Topacio v. Ong, Dec. 18, 2008)
✓ The SC held that the action while denominated as one for certiorari and prohibition is essentially
one for quo warranto since it seeks to oust Justice from the office of CA justices and that since that
the petitioner has shown no right to the office of CA justice, he is bereft of legal personality to
initiate the action
• EXPROPRIATION
✓ RA 8974 Requires Immediate Payment of Zonal Value Before Government Can Take
Possession
✓ As stated in Republic v. Judge Gingoyon, 478 SCRA 474 (2005), Republic Act No. 8974 “provides for
a procedure eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67” since it requires the
immediate payment of the zonal value and the value of the improvements on the land to the
property owner before the trial court can allow the government to take possession. In contrast,
Rule 67 only requires the government to deposit the assessed value of the property for it to enter

and take possession. (National Power Corporation vs. Posada, 752 SCRA 550, G.R. No. 191945 March
11, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ Expropriation Case is Not Automatically Dismissed When Property Ceases to be for Public
Use
✓ The rule, therefore, is that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed when it is determined that
it is not for a public purpose, except when: First, the trial court’s order already became final and
executory; Second, the government already took possession of the property; and Lastly, the
expropriation case already caused prejudice to the landowner. The expropriation case is not
automatically dismissed when the property ceases to be for public use. The state must first file the
appropriate Motion to Withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings.
The grant or denial of any Motion to Withdraw in an expropriation proceeding is always subject
to judicial discretion. (National Power Corporation vs. Posada, 752 SCRA 550, G.R. No. 191945 March
11, 2015, J. Leonen)
✓ In any case, the Republic cannot base its right to the subject lot solely on the alleged presence of a
government structure therein. The law provides for a strict procedure for expropriation which the
State must follow lest it violates the constitutionally enshrined principle that “private property
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” (Federated Realty Corp. v. CA, 477
SCRA 707)
✓ The SC has held that the defendant in an expropriation case cannot file a motion to dismiss but
should raise his objections in the answer. (Masikip v. City of Pasig, Jan.23, 2006)
✓ In case of expropriation for national government infrastructure projects, the law requires that the
government, in order that it will have the right to enter or take possession, should immediately
pay the owner of the property 100% of the market value of the property. (RA 8974, Republic v.
Gingoyon, Dec. 19, 2005)
VIII. Special Proceedings
• WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
✓ Habeas Corpus May Be Availed of as a Post-Conviction Remedy or Violation of Liberty of
Abode
✓ The “great writ of liberty” of habeas corpus “was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
personal freedom.” Habeas corpus is an extraordinary, summary, and equitable writ, consistent
with the law’s “zealous regard for personal liberty.” Its primary purpose “is to inquire into all
manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom
if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.” The
restraint of liberty need not be confined to any offense so as to entitle a person to the writ. Habeas
corpus may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy or when there is an alleged violation of the
liberty of abode. (Osorio vs. Navera, 856 SCRA 435, G.R. No. 223272 February 26, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ A Writ of Habeas Corpus May No Longer Be Issued if there is a Lawful Process of the Court
✓ Habeas corpus effectively substantiates the implied autonomy of citizens constitutionally protected
in the right to liberty in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. With liberty being a
constitutional right, courts must apply a conscientious and deliberate level of scrutiny so that the
substantive right to liberty will not be further curtailed in the labyrinth of other processes.
However, a writ of habeas corpus may no longer be issued if the person allegedly deprived of liberty
is restrained under a lawful process or order of the court. The restraint then has become legal.
Therefore, the remedy of habeas corpus is rendered moot and academic. (Osorio vs. Navera, 856
SCRA 435, G.R. No. 223272 February 26, 2018, J. Leonen)
✓ It is settled that habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where “the rightful custody of any
person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.” In custody cases involving minors, the writ
of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right custody over the child. The
grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of the following requisites:
(1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor;
(2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the
respondents; and
(3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and
not that of the respondents. (Masbate v. Relucio, GR 235498, July 30, 2018)

✓ Under Sec.4, Rule 102, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed if a person is in custody by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record. With more reason here where the judgment of
conviction is already final. (Go v. Dimagiba, GR 151876, June 21, 2005)
✓ A perusal of Sec.14, Rule 102 shows that it applies only where there is no final conviction yet as it
speaks of the bail bond being “conditioned for the [the prisoner’s] appearance before the court
where the offense is properly cognizable to abide by its order or judgment.
✓ Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, a child below 15 is below the age of criminal
responsibility and should not be detained by a court. (Sec.20). The appropriate remedy is a petition
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus if the detention of the 14-year old is not by virtue of a
court order or process.
✓ Under the Rules on Special Proceedings, the writ of habeas corpus is available in cases of illegal
detention of a person.
✓ Under the Rules on Special Proceedings, the writ of habeas corpus is available in cases of illegal
detention. Said rules provide that a court or judge authorized to grant the writ must, when the
petition therefor is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same forthwith,
and immediately thereupon the clerk of court shall issue the writ or in case of emergency, the judge
may issue the writ under his own hand and may depute any officer or person to serve it. (Sec.5, Rule
102)
✓ The court or judge before whom the writ is returned must immediately proceed to hear and
examine the return. (Sec.12, Rule 102)
• WRIT OF AMPARO
✓ The Rule on the Writ of Amparo - A.M. No. 07-09-12-SC
✓ SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
✓ The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief,
as it partakes of a summary proceeding and requires only substantial evidence to make the
appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to the petitioner. It serves both preventive and curative
reliefs in addressing extrajudicial abduction and torture. Temporary protection orders are merely
intended to assist the Court before it can arrive at a judicious determination of the amparo petition.
A temporary protection order, being an interim relief, can only be granted before final adjudication
on the amparo case is made. The privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, already entails the
protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since the writ of amparo was already granted and issued,
there is no more need to issue a temporary protection order. (Yano v. Sanchez, GR No. 186640,
February 11, 2010)
✓ Although a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity, government involvement
in any enforced disappearance remains an indispensable element. In other words, the disappearance
subject of the amparo proceedings must be attended by some governmental involvement.
✓ It has been ruled that amparo proceedings may be instituted for purposes of determining the
responsibility of parties in an enforced disappearance. (Burgos v. President GMA, G.R. No. 183712,
July 5, 2011)
✓ There can be no determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo proceedings,
and courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing. (Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009)
✓ The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the violation of or threat to the right to life,
liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omission of a public official. Moreover, in
the context of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of the respondents,
by action or omission, in enforced disappearance. Accountability, on the other hand, may attach to
respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who
carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. (Secretary of National
Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008)
✓ Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary
determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation by the
appropriate government agency. (Boac v. Cadapan, G.R. No. 184461, May 31, 2011)

✓ The Supreme Court has held that superior officers, such as the President, as Commander-in-Chief,
can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the
context of amparo proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of command responsibility, the requisites
of which are: a.) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate; b.) the superior knew or had reason
to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and c.) the superior failed to take
the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators
thereof. (Rodriguez v. President GMA, G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011)
✓ In amparo proceedings, “commanders may therefore be impleaded-not actually on the basis of
command responsibility-but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.”
(Balao v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 186050, December 13, 2011)
✓ A writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has
been violated or is threatened with violation by a public official or employee or a private individual
or entity. (Sec.1, Rule on Writ of Amparo)
✓ The writ of amparo is distinguished from the writ of habeas corpus in that it covers enforced
disappearances and extralegal killings, or threats thereof, unlike the writ of habeas corpus which
covers unlawful deprivation of liberty or withholding of rightful custody.
✓ Issuance of the Writ of Amparo Sets in Motion Presumptive Judicial Protection
✓ Due to the delicate and urgent nature of these controversies, the procedure was devised to afford
swift but decisive relief. It is initiated through a petition to be filed in a Regional Trial Court,
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. The judge or justice then makes an
“immediate” evaluation of the facts as alleged in the petition and the affidavits submitted “with the
attendant circumstances detailed.” After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of
Amparo or immediately dismiss the case. Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting
affidavits do not show that the petitioner’s right to life, liberty or security is under threat or the
acts complained of are not unlawful. On the other hand, the issuance of the writ itself sets in motion
presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner. The court compels the respondents to appear
before a court of law to show whether the grounds for more permanent protection and interim
reliefs are necessary. (De Lima vs. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013, J.
Leonen)
✓ An Amparo Allows Vigilant Judicial Monitoring Until the Measures Have Served their
Purpose
✓ If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. The judgment should contain measures
which the judge views as essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo
case. These measures must be detailed enough so that the judge may be able to verify and monitor
the actions taken by the respondents. It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the
Supreme Court via Rule 45. After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be
satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner’s life, liberty and security cease
to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. Parenthetically, the case may also be
terminated through consolidation should a subsequent case be filed—either criminal or civil. Until
the full satisfaction of the judgment, the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows vigilant judicial
monitoring to ensure the protection of constitutional rights. (De Lima vs. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226,
G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ A Writ of Amparo is a Special Proceeding and the Rules on Summary Procedure Will Not
Apply
✓ The 1991 Revised Rules of Summary Procedure is a special rule that the Court has devised for the
following circumstances: SECTION 1. Scope.—This rule shall govern the summary procedure in
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts,
and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction: A.
Civil Cases: (1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, x x x. (2) All other cases, except
probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed x x x. B.
Criminal Cases: (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; (2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances; (4) All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not
exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both. It is clear from this rule that this type of
summary procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mind-boggling how this rule
could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application

of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding.
It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil
nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously
misplaced. (De Lima vs. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ A Memorandum is a Prohibited Pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
✓ The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence,
it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a synthesis
of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required before the case is
submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different
functions in facilitating the suit. More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. (De Lima vs. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. No. 204528 February
19, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ Distinction between the Privilege of the Writ of Amparo and the Actual Writ of Amparo
✓ The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ
of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-
12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits,
the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the
required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or
the threat to the petitioner’s life, liberty or security. A judgment which simply grants “the privilege
of the writ” cannot be executed. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant
judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise
out of very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or
ritualistic as “granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo.” (De Lima vs. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226,
G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013, J. Leonen)
✓ The remedy of the writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right
of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The Rule on the
Writ of Amparo was issued as an exercise of the Supreme Court’s power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It aims to address concerns
such as, among others, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. (De Lima v. Gatdula, 691
SCRA 226)
✓ Although the writ of amparo specifically covers “enforced disappearances” this concept is neither
defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction: As the law now stands, extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal
acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized
under the RPC and special laws. (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598)
✓ Under the SC Rules on the Writ of Amparo, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited motion.
✓ I will appeal the judgment denying a petition for writ of Amparo by filing a Petition for Writ of
Amparo by Certiorari with the SC within 5 working days from notice of judgment. (Sec.19, Rule on
the Writ of Amparo)
✓ The writ of amparo is available in cases where the enforced or involuntary disappearance of a
person is with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State. (Navia v. Pardico, June 19,
2012)
✓ Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by an authorized party on behalf of
the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the order provided for in the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo. (Sec.2(c))
✓ The amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. (Sec.23e, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo)
• WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
✓ The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (Sec.1, Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data)
✓ The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image,
privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to
enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to
control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It must be emphasized that in

order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, there must exist a nexus between the right to
privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. (Gamboa v. Chan, 677
SCRA 385)
✓ Under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, the writ is available in cases where a person’s right to
privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act of an entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home,
or correspondence of the aggrieved party.
✓ The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.
Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the
Constitution. It is evident that respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a
legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s employment - are what prompted
her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably
lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters. (Meralco v. Gopez-Lim, Oct.5, 2010)
• ENVIRONMENTAL CASES/ WRIT OF KALIKASAN
✓ Ordinary Citizens Can Sue On Their Own or In Representation of Future Generations
✓ On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled
that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental
rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. Thus: Petitioners
minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation
has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come. (Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102, G.R. No. 206510
September 16, 2014)
✓ A Writ of Kalikasan is a Special Civil Action that Covers Environmental Damage
✓ The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an extraordinary
remedy, covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is available against an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity. The following
requisites must be present to avail of this remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of
the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation
arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces. (LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, 789 SCRA 271, G.R. No. 209165
April 12, 2016)
✓ The Magnitude of Damage to Two or More Cities or Provinces is a Condition Sine Qua Non
✓ The Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has the burden to prove the (1)
environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated; (2) act or omission
complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Even the Annotation to the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases states that the magnitude of environmental damage is a
condition sine qua non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be contained
in the verified petition. (LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, 789 SCRA 271, G.R.
No. 209165 April 12, 2016)
✓ There is a Difference between a Writ of Kalikasan and a Writ of Continuing Mandamus

✓ The RPEC did liberalize the requirements on standing, allowing the filing of citizen’s suit for the
enforcement of rights and obligations under environmental laws. This has been confirmed by this
Court’s rulings in Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014), and International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-BioTech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), 776 SCRA 434 (2015).
However, it bears noting that there is a difference between a petition for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan, wherein it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the
environmental damage subject of the writ; and a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing
mandamus, which is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or
omission. (Segovia vs. The Climate Change Commission, 819 SCRA 543, G.R. No. 211010 March 7,
2017)
✓ Under Sec.1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a requisite for availing of
the writ of kalikasan is that there must be an allegation that the environmental damage is of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
✓ Precautionary principle - It is the principle which states that when human activities may lead to
threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, the court shall take actions to avoid or diminish that threat notwithstanding that there
is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect.
✓ The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit
of the doubt. The burden of proof is shifted from the regulator to the person or persons responsible
for the potentially harmful activity, who will now have to demonstrate that their actions are
not/will not cause harm to the environment.
✓ The principle addresses the fact that complexities associated with environmental cases will present
difficulties under the regular rules of procedure. Overall, the precautionary principle would
essentially aid plaintiffs in establishing cases that would be, under most circumstances, difficult if
not impossible to prove.
✓ The SC has held that in environmental cases, the defense of failure to exhaust administrative
remedies by appealing the ECC issuance would apply only if the defect in the issuance of the ECC
does not have any causal relation to the environmental damage. Here the issuance of the ECC has
a direct causal relation to the environmental damage since it permitted the bulldozing of a portion
of the mountain and the cutting down and burning of several trees and plants. Hence defense of
failure to appeal the ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies would not apply. (Paje v. Casino,
Feb.3, 2015)
✓ The writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing
any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of
acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
✓ The Rules of Procedure for Environment Cases provides that the writ of kalikasan is available to
a people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group. (Sec. Rule 7)
✓ The petitioner in a petition for writ of kalikasan is exempt of docket fees unlike in a civil complaint
for damages.
✓ In a petition for writ of kalikasan, the petitioners may avail of the precautionary principle in
environmental cases which provides that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environmental that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, action shall
be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of
evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status
quo.
✓ The judgment is a writ of kalikasan case is immediately executory.
✓ A person who avails of the writ of kalikasan may also file a separate suit for the recovery of
damages.

ETHICS
I. Qualifications for New Lawyers
• Rule 138 Sec. 2 Rules of court
• - Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
• Requirements for admission to the bar
• - Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be:
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 21 years of age
3. Of good moral character
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character; and
6. That there are no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines
7. Finished undergrad course, and completed units - 18 English, 6 Math, 15 Soc Sci
II. Code of Professional Responsibility
• Duty to the IBP
• Lawyers have the duty to report to the IBP Chapter Secretary the changes on her office and residence
addresses pursuant to Section 19 of the IBP By-Laws. Every change after registration in respect to
any of these matters shall be reported within 60 days to the Chapter Secretary who shall in turn
promptly report the change to the national office.
• In this case, Atty. Laysa changed her office and residence addresses without updating the IBP. There
being no court notice or processes that reached Atty. Laysa, she was unable to file a single answer or
position paper on the complaint against her and attend the mandatory conference of the case and file
the required mandatory conference brief. Had Atty. Laysa fulfilled her duty to update her registration
with the IBP, she would have received every pleading and notice in relation to the instant case and be
able to explain her side. Indubitably, no one is left to blame, but herself. (In Re: Petition for the Disbarment
of Atty. Estrella O. Laysa, Patricia Maglaya Ollada vs. Atty. Estrella O. Laysa. A.C. 7936, 30 June 2020, En
Banc, J. Inting)
• Duty to account client’s funds
• Respondent's acts of failing to comply with his legal duty to file the civil case (for annulment of
marriage) and failing to return his client's money (CAD$2,000.00) violate the Lawyer's Oath, which
mandates that no lawyer shall delay any man for money or malice. These acts also violate Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code because respondent employed devious conduct by manifestly delaying the return
of complainant's money. Finally, respondent's failure to return his client's money violates Canon 16
and Rule 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code, which requires that a lawyer must account for the client's
money and promptly return the same.
• Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as: to file an action, to appeal an
adverse judgment, to consummate a settlement, or to pay a purchase price for a parcel of land, the
lawyer, upon failure to spend the money entrusted to him or her for the purpose, must immediately
return the said money entrusted by the client. Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of
his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate
and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and
processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives
rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the
conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of
public confidence in the legal profession. (Felicitas H. Bondoc, Represented By Conrad H. Bautista vs. Atty.
Marlow L. Licudine, A.C. 12768, 23 June 2020, En Banc, J. Gesmundo)
• Duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice
• Atty. Dancel, in failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client, had clearly fallen short of his
duties as counsel as set forth in Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. According to said
Canon, a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice. Rule 12.03 in particular states that a "lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so." x x x
• The present disbarment complaint was filed way back in year 2000. The Court gave no less than eight
orders for Atty. Dancel to file his Comment. We gave warnings and even imposed fines. Instead of
complying, however, Atty. Dancel repeatedly ignored the Court's directives and even claimed, at one
point, not to have any knowledge about the complaint after having filed several motions for extension
of time to file Comment.
• It was only after 15 years that Atty. Dancel filed a one-page Comment, claiming to be afflicted with
diabetes, nary a proof to support such claim. The Court simply cannot countenance Atty. Dancel's act
of repeatedly pleading for extensions of time and yet not submitting anything to the Court. His
repeated noncompliance constitutes willful disregard for Court orders putting in serious question his
suitability to discharge his duties and functions as a lawyer. As a lawyer who is made a respondent in
a disbarment proceeding, Atty. Dancel should submit an explanation, and should meet the issue and
overcome the evidence against him. The reason for this requirement is that an attorney, thus, charged,
must prove that he still maintained that degree of morality and integrity expected of him at all times.
(Romeo Telles vs. Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel, A.C. 5279, 8 September 2020 En Banc, Per Curiam)
• Lawyer’s duty of candor and good faith to courts
• In this case, three Court of Appeals Justices filed a complaint against the respondent after De Jesus
went to the Court of Appeals and inquired about a decision which the complainants purportedly wrote
ordering the acquittal of Fajardo, De Jesus’ cousin. As it turned out, the Fajardo’s case was still in the
completion stage and was assigned to another Justice of another division. NBI operatives eventually
nabbed respondent in an entrapment operation.
• Verily, the acts exhibited by respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath. Her acts are also contrary to
Canons 1, 7, and 10, and their relevant rules because respondent violated the laws, particularly Articles
172 and 315, par. 2 of the RPC, tarnished the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
committed falsehood and deceit against her clients and the courts.
• Respondent's acts also constitute grave misconduct. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules,
which must be established by substantial evidence. As 10 distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must
be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists
in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character
to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
• Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to violate the law when she fraudulently drafted a fake
decision of the CA, falsely including therein the names of complainants, and presenting it to her clients
for monetary consideration. These acts show respondent's wanton disregard of the law and a patent
propensity to trample upon the canons of the Code. Hence, respondent should also be held
administratively guilty for grave misconduct. In fine, respondent's acts should not just be deemed as
unacceptable practices that are both disgraceful and dishonorable; these reveal a moral flaw that makes
her unfit to practice law. (Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, et al. vs. Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, A.C.
12415, 5 March 2019, Per Curiam)
• Counsel’s duty to keep client informed of his cases
• In this case, it is undisputed that respondent was engaged as early as 1996 to handle various legal
matters. In 2011, complainant filed a verified Complaint against respondent before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline for respondent's alleged neglect to handle
complainant's cases or to at least inform complainant of the progress of the cases. Respondent evidently
neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by complainant. Respondent even failed to at least inform
complainant of the progress of the cases. Respondent's inaction is clearly in violation of Rules 18.03
and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requiring him to serve his client with
competence and diligence, among others.
• In the present case, respondent failed to safeguard complainant's interests after the retainer
commenced. Respondent's mere acceptance of the money from the client without fulfilling his duties
as a lawyer is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. Respondent's actions constitute a clear
violation of the trust reposed in him by complainant. (Jocelyn Sorensen vs. Atty. Florito T. Pozon, A.C.
11334-5, 7 January 2019, Second Division, Carpio, Acting C.J.

• Duty of obedience to court directives
• It must be remembered that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such, must
bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the lawyers
public responsibilities. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and their deference
is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment
for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, a lawyer is imposed graver responsibility
than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
• From the facts, Atty. Lupeba (acting as counsel to Petitioner Abellanosa) failed to comply with the
Court's lawful orders (to indicate his or his client’s contact details in all papers and pleadings filed with
the Supreme Court; to show proof of service of the Petition with a full statement of the actual date,
place and matter of service; and to indicate Atty. Lupeba's current Professional Tax Receipt Number
and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Official Receipt Number or Life Membership Number). He
did not give any justifiable reason why he disobeyed the directives of this Court. Atty. Lupeba was
given time from 2009 to 2015 to explain why he should not be sanctioned, yet he failed to respond to
any of the Court’s orders. In fact, he did not even participate at the proceedings before the IBP. Atty.
Lupeba only filed a Compliance for payment of the fine of P1,000.00 and also filed the Motion for
Reconsideration of Our Resolution dismissing the Petition for repeated failure to file a Reply. We
emphasize that a "Court's resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied
with partially, inadequately or selectively." Atty. Lupeba's actions not only stand his disrespect to the
14 Court, but also constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a sufficient cause for suspension or
disbarment.
• The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. Atty. Lupeba's acts in wantonly
disobeying his duties as an officer of the court show utter disrespect for the Court and a complete
disregard of his duties as a member of the legal profession. Therefore, his suspension for five years is
warranted.(In Re: G.R. 185806 Generoso Abellanosa, et al. vs. Commission on Audit and National Housing
Authority vs. Atty. Cipriano P. Lupeba, A.C. 12426, 5 March 2019 En Banc, Per Curiam)
Lawyer's Oath
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.
• Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or
with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the
end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
III. Disqualifications/Inhibitions for Judges

• RULE 137 - Disqualification of Judicial Officers
• Section 1. Disqualification of judges. — No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or
his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is
related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the
fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has been presided in any inferior court when
his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
• A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just
or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
• Section 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and effect. — If it be claimed that an official is
disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his competency may, in writing, file
with the official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed
with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his
disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the
case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own
competency, until after final judgment in the case.
• RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where:
(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in
controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the
judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
(c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to
counsel within the fourth degree;
(e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
• In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.
• 2 types of disqualifications: Compulsory and Voluntary ( Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court)
• 1. Compulsory disqualification is when the law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively
or impartially sit in a case, and for that reason, prohibits him and strikes his authority to hear and
decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties concerned.
• 2. Voluntary, on the other hand, leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit
in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide.
The law leaves to the judge to decide for himself the question as to whether he will desist from
sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him, unless he
cannot discern for himself the inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality required of him, in
which event the court will see to it that he disqualifies himself.
• Grounds for compulsory disqualification: No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without the
written consent of all parties in interest and entered upon the record, in which:
a. He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or
b. He is related to either party within the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within
the 4th degree, computed according to the rules of civil law;

c. He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or
d. He has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review (par. 1, Sec.
1).
• Rationale behind Compulsory Disqualification (Sec. 1, Rule 137)
- To preserve public faith in the judiciary’s fairness and objectivity to allay suspicions and distrust as
to a possible bias and prejudice in favor of a party coming into play.
• Instances when a judge should disqualify themselves in deciding a case
a. Actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of the disputed evidentiary facts;
b. Judge previously served as a lawyer or is a material witness on the matter;
c. The judge or a member of his family has material interest in the outcome of the controversy;
d. Judge, previously served as an executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or lawyer, in the
controversy; and
e. That the judge’s ruling in the lower court is the subject of review;
f. Relation of the judge by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or
to counsel within the fourth civil degree; and
g. The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest as an heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary or otherwise in the controversy, or as has any other interest that could substantially be
affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
IV. Direct and Indirect Contempt
• Direct contempt refers to a person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe an affidavit
or deposition when lawfully required to do so.
• Indirect contempt refers to a person guilty of any of the following acts:
a. Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;
b. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the
act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or
process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or
upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner
disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
c. Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
d. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
e. Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
f. Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
g. The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him.
• CONTEMPT
✓ The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order to allow them to conduct their business
unhampered by publications and comments which tend to impair the impartiality of their decisions
or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. (Marantan v. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164)
✓ Willful and Deliberate Forum Shopping Shall Constitute Direct Contempt
✓ Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, apart from being a ground for
summary dismissal, “willful and deliberate forum shopping . . . shall constitute direct contempt,
and is a cause for administrative sanctions.” Thus, it would be inadequate to stop with a mere
declaration that respondent City of Makati, which acted through its counsels, engaged in forum
shopping. It was among the matters prayed for by petitioner City of Taguig that appropriate
sanctions be imposed for respondent City of Makati’s wilful and deliberate forum shopping. So too,
respondent City of Makati’s defenses have been duly pleaded and considered in this case. Under
Rule 71, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, direct contempt committed against a
Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 days and/or a fine not exceeding P2,000.00. Accordingly, a fine of P2,000.00 is
imposed on each of respondent City of Makati’s counsels who filed the Petition for Annulment of
Judgment before the Court of Appeals: Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason,

and Atty. Gwyn Gareth T. Mariano. (City of Taguig vs. City of Makati, 793 SCRA 527, G.R. No.
208393 June 15, 2016, J. Leonen)
✓ Difference Between Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt
✓ Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge “for the
benefit of the other party.” A criminal contempt is committed when a party acts against the court’s
authority and dignity or commits a forbidden act tending to disrespect the court or judge. Civil
contempt proceedings seek to compel the contemnor to obey a court order, judgment, or decree
which he or she refuses to do for the benefit of another party. It is for the enforcement and the
preservation of a right of a private party, who is the real party-in-interest in the proceedings. The
purpose of the contemnor’s punishment is to compel obedience to the order. Thus, civil contempt
is not treated like a criminal proceeding and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary to
prove it. (Oca vs. Custodio, 832 SCRA 615, G.R. No. 199825 July 26, 2017, J. Leonen)
✓ Under Rule 71, the remedy of an aggrieved party from a judgment or final order of indirect
contempt is an appeal. The SC has held that if a party disobeys a writ of execution for delivery or
restitution of property, such party should not be held in contempt for it is the duty of the sheriff to
oust him with the assistance of appropriate peace officers. (Lipata v. Tutaan, Sept. 29, 1983)
PRACTICAL EXERCISES
I. Parts of Conveyancing, Affidavits
• Parts of a Deed of Absolute Sale
• Title of Deed. As implied above, deeds come in different forms and types. Check if the document and
the first section displays the title – Deed of Absolute Sale. Conventionally, the first paragraph runs:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made and entered into this 23th day of
January, 2021at Manila, Philippines by and between;
• Parties Involved. A Deed of Absolute Sale must contain accurate information about the identities of
the selling and buying parties. Accordingly, if the seller is married, the spouse must signify consent,
hence the name must be indicated as well. Other information such as age legality, citizenship, and
postal address must be included, just as seen below:
JUAN M. DELA CRUZ, married to JUANA M. DELA CRUZ, both of legal age,
Filipino citizens and with postal address at San Isidro, Guagua, Pampanga,
represented by this instance by their Attorney in-Fact, GREGORIA O. DE
CASTRO, hereinafter referred to as the “SELLER”
AND
HILARIO H. MARIANO, married to ESTRELLA I. MARIANO, both of legal age,
Filipino citizens with postal address at 270 San Antonio, Guagua, Pampanga,
hereinafter referred to as the “BUYER”
• As illustrated, an attorney-in-fact shall be representing the sellers. Generally, an attorney-in-fact is a

legal representative or a person authorized to perform business-related transactions on behalf of the
principal (Search online to find out more).
• Property Details. A Deed of Absolute Sale must contain a detailed description of the property,
including – the Transfer Certificate of Title number, technical description and boundaries, and others,
as exemplified below:
WITNESSETH:
That the VENDOR is the registered owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of Land
located at Brgy. of San Isidro, Mun. of Guagua, Prov. of Pampanga covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 042-201700000 in the Registry of Deeds, San
Fernando, Pampanga, and more particularly described and bounded as follows:

TITLE NO. 042-201700000
“A PARCEL OF LAND (LOT 6 BLK. 5 OF THE SUBD. PLAN PSD-03-123456,
BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2, -03-151360, LRC. REC. NO.) SITUATED IN
THE BRGY. OF SAN ISIDRO, MUN. OF GUAGUA, PROV. OF PAMPANGA
BOUNDED ON THE SE., ALONG LINE 1-2 BY LOT 8; ON THE SW.….
• Purchase and Sale Agreement. As one of the most important and critical parts, this specifies the price
of sale and settles the terms and conditions of the agreement. See example below:
That for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE

THOUSAND PESOS (P525,000.00), Philippine currency in cash whereof is
hereby acknowledged, the “SELLER”, hereby sells, transfers, and conveys unto
me the “BUYER” his heirs and assigns, free of all liens and encumbrances or claims
whatsoever that certain parcel of land under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 042-
201700000.
That it is further declared that the real property above described is free from all
liens and/or encumbrances and shall defend its ownership from any and all claims
whatsoever.
• Execution. Once the Deed of Absolute Sale is drafted, the parties involved shall execute it by affixing
their signatures. Other than the selling and buying parties, witnesses should also sign all the pages of
the document. In addition, the Deed of Absolute Sale shall be acknowledged and notarized by a legal
practitioner.
• Parts of Affidavits
• The basic form for an affidavit has four parts:
• A statement that the affiant is swearing under oath to the truthfulness of the information
contained in the affidavit
I, Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age and residing/with address at Tondo,

Manila, under oath, state:
• The information that is being sworn to
“1. THAT on 28 February 2005 while riding on a jeepney on my way

home, my wallet was pick-pocketed without my knowledge; “
• The signature of the affiant
THAT I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing

facts and to use the same for whatever legal purpose it may serve.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this

_______________ at __________________.
__________(name)________
Affiant
• The attestation of a notary public or other official authorized to administer oaths
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at

__________________, Affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate bearing No. ________________ issued at
_________________ on ___________________________.

Doc No. ________;
Page No. _______ ;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2021.
II. Parts of Pleadings, Motions
• A pleading must contain: (a) a caption, setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and
the docket number if assigned; and (b) the body, setting forth the designation of the pleading, the
allegations of the party’s claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
• RULE 7 - PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING
• Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the
docket number if assigned.
• The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party
on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
• Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated. (1)
• Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations of the
party’s claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
• (a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its
number in all succeeding pleadings.
• (b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action are joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced by
the words “first cause of action,” of the second by “second cause of action”, and so on for the others.
• When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of several causes of action in the
complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words “answer to the first cause of action” or “answer to the
second cause of action” and so on; and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are addressed to
several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by words to that effect.
• (c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
• (d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (4)
• Section 3. Signature and address. — (a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must
be signed by the party or counsel representing him or her.
• (b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading
and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances:
• (1)It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
• (2)The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence,
or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;
• (3)The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and
• (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
• (c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has
been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for
disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the
violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a
violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be
limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on
motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all
of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including
attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the
monetary penalty to the client. (3a)

• Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath or verified.
• A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate
or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following
attestations:
• (a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or
based on authentic documents;
• (b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
• (c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise
have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
• The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations
in the pleading.
• A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or
upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading. (4a)
• Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath
in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his or her
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
• Parts of Motions
• RULE 15 MOTIONS
• Section 1. Motion defined. - A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading. (1)
• Section 2. Motions must be in writing. - All motions shall be in writing except those made in open court
or in the course of a hearing or trial.
• A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial should immediately be resolved in
open court after the adverse party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.
• When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits
or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (2a)
• Section 3. Contents. – A motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which
it is based, and if required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be
accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers. (3) x x x
• x x x (b) All motions shall be served by personal service, accredited private courier or registered mail. or
electronic means so as to ensure their receipt by the other party.
• (c) The opposing party shall file his or her opposition to a litigious motion within five (5) calendar days
from receipt thereof. No other submissions shall be considered by the court in the resolution of
the motion.

Jan.25-PM-Best Bar Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jan.25-PM-Best Bar Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#Best_Bar_Reviewer

PROCEDURE AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

pg. 1 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 2 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 3 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 4 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 5 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 6 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 7 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 8 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 9 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 10 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 11 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 12 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 13 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 14 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 15 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 16 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 17 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 18 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 19 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 20 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 21 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 22 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 23 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 24 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 25 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

1. What cases may be brought to the SC on Certiorari

2. What question may be raised

pg. 26 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

a. Within 15 days from receipt of the judgment appealed from or

4. Where to pay docket fees- To the clerk of SC

7. Sanction for not filing pleadings required by the SC

8. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases

2. Grounds for annulment

pg. 27 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

3. When to file annulment

Possible remedies of defendant declared in DEFAULT:

b. Rule 37 – Motion for new trial, judgment not yet final;

d. Rule 41 – Appeal, within 15 days from receipt of judgment;

e. Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgment;

pg. 28 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

8. Annulment of judgment of MTC decision, where to file

pg. 29 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 30 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 31 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 32 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 33 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 34 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 35 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 36 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 37 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 38 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 39 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 40 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 41 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 42 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 43 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 44 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 45 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 46 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 47 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA

pg. 48 Best_Bar_Reviewer Dodie D. Lagarto, JD, MBA