Golden Apple vs.
Sierra Grande Realty Corporation July 28, 2010 626 SCRA 1 Civil Procedure; Appeals; Questions of Law; The principle is well-established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court. However, this rule is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court. Findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals may also be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts. People vs. Magayon July 28, 2010 626 SCRA 58 Evidence; Conflicting Testimonial Evidence; The focal point of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of the witnesses, to be addressed primarily by the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. Accordingly, its findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would otherwise affect the result of the case. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the same, as in this case. Varela vs. Revalez July 29, 2010 626 SCRA 159 Civil Procedure; Complaint; The complaint merely identified Varela as the mayor of Cadiz City. It did not categorically state that Varela was being sued in his official capacity. The identification and mention of Varela as the mayor of Cadiz City did not automatically transform the action into one against Varela in his official capacity. The allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the cause of action.
Same; Same; In the case at bar, petitioner is actually sued in his personal capacity inasmuch as his principal, the State, can never be the author of any wrongful act. The Complaint filed by the private respondent with the RTC merely identified petitioner as Director of the Telecommunications Office, but did not categorically state that he was being sued in his official capacity. The mere mention in the Complaint of the petitioner’s position as Regional Director of the Telecommunications Office does not transform the action into one against petitioner in his official capacity. What is determinative of the nature of the cause of action are the allegations in the complaint. It is settled that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filling [sic] the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. Cariaga vs. People July 30, 2010 626 SCRA 231 Criminal Procedure; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided. People vs. Court of Appeals August 3, 2010 626 SCRA 353 Criminal Procedure; Equipoise Rule; Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not suffice to produce a conviction. To this Court’s mind, the reliance of the RTC in the equipoise rule is misplaced as a review of previous Court decisions would show that the position of petitioner is in fact correct. The equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties have already concluded the presentation of their respective evidence as shown in a plethora of cases such as Abarquez v. People, Tin v. People and People v. Leano. Same; Based on Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause,
Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. so as to standardize the
. the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. However. Appeals. Court of Appeals. To this Court’s mind. the appeal appears to be absolutely meritorious. Abulon: However. the Court sees no reason to do so in this case as there is no reason to reverse the findings of the CA. Fresh Period Rule. Under Section 4. Rules of Criminal Procedure. counted from receipt of the order dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. Rellota August 3. In Neypes v.
People vs. Torres vs. Calipay vs. or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. This Court may deign to veer away from the general rule if. when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information. in relation to Section 5. As explained by this Court in People v. Variance Doctrine.order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice. following the variance doctrine embodied in Section 4. appellant can be found guilty of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. Information. 2010 626 SCRA 409 Remedial Law. It is true that procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in the interest of substantial justice. the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty days from the filing of the information. Rule 120. procedural rules are relaxed in order to serve substantial justice. and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved. 2010 626 SCRA 450 Remedial Law. on its face. NLRC August 3. in a number of instances. Civil Procedure. the RTC had complied with its duty of personally evaluating the supporting evidence of the prosecution before arriving at its decision of dismissing the case against respondents. Alamag August 3. Appeals. the Court declared that a party-litigant should be allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC. 2010 626 SCRA 422 Criminal Procedure. Indeed.
and may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. In the present case. it appearing that the defeated party’s claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership.
. Ownership. must be given retroactive effect and applied even to actions pending in this Court. Same. Same. nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. it is equally settled that possession is an essential attribute of ownership. subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court for the removal of the improvements. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment. since respondents received a copy of the Order denying their motion for reconsideration on August 29. an execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. Furthermore. The settled general principle is that a writ of execution must conform strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. in Sumiran v. it would be redundant for PEA to go back to court and file an ejectment case simply to establish its right to possess the subject property. No express order to this effect needs to be stated in the decision. Same. However. Public Estates Authority August 3. adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected. nor is a categorical statement needed in the decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to remove the improvements on the property if the defendant fails to do so within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore. A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. Same. the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him. Thus. but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. De Leon vs. then the last day for filing their notice of appeal was on September 13. 2001. Writs of Execution. 2001. The removal of the improvements on the land under these circumstances is deemed read into the decision. Same. 2010 626 SCRA 547 Judgments. If the defendant refuses to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party. the Court again emphasized that the ruling in Neypes. in this case.appeal periods provided in the Rules of Court and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted. It bears stressing that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision. As a general rule. 2001 is well within the prescribed period. the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision. The respondents having filed their notice of appeal on September 11. a writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed. Same. being a matter of procedure. This is precisely what happened in the present case. Damaso. This Court had already declared the disputed property as owned by the State and that De Leon does not have any right to possess the land independent of his claim of ownership.
Temporary Restraining Order. amount to encouraging multiplicity of suits. the effectivity of the said Orders was made to last for an indefinite period because the resolution of PEA’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition was made to depend upon the finality of the judgment in G. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. remains to be the exception rather than the rule. Such writ was but an essential consequence of this Court’s ruling affirming the nature of the subject parcel of land as public and at the same time dismissing De Leon’s claims of ownership and possession.Contrary to De Leon’s claims.R. 2007 and March 4. Certiorari. it would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy. in effect. The principle of judicial courtesy. a TRO issued by the CA is effective only for sixty days. even in the absence of a TRO issued by a higher court. To further require PEA to file an ejectment suit to oust de Leon and his siblings from the disputed property would. the Court finds that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Orders dated December 28. Abrogar. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court or court of origin does not stay the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. however. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. the Order of the RTC holding in abeyance the resolution of PEA’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition also appears to be a circumvention of the provisions of Section 5. Worse. which limit the period of effectivity of restraining orders issued by the courts. This is consistent with the provisions of Section 10. In the present case. the precept of judicial courtesy should not be applied indiscriminately and haphazardly if we are to maintain the relevance of Section 7. directed the maintenance of the status quo by issuing its assailed Orders. in effect. The Court reminds the De Leon that it does not allow the piecemeal interpretation of its Decisions as a means to advance his case. which provide for the procedure for execution of judgments for specific acts. the RTC. was a necessary complement thereto. CA.
. even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court. In fact. the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court did not constitute an unwarranted modification of this Court’s decision in PEA v. the assailed Orders of the RTC have even become more potent than a TRO issued by the CA because. CA. fully follows after considering the entirety of the Court’s decision in PEA v. 181970. Read in this manner. It is true that there are instances where. PEA’s right to possession of the subject property. as well as the removal of the improvements or structures existing thereon. but the same must be considered in its entirety. under the Rules of Court. paragraphs (c) and (d). but rather. No. To get the true intent and meaning of a decision. Section 7. As held by this Court in Go v. Based on the foregoing. 2008. As to whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding in abeyance the resolution of PEA’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Demolition. Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. no specific portion thereof should be isolated and read in this context. Judgments. Principle of Judicial Courtesy.
and the legality of his arrest under the Amended Information. As a consequence. by his active participation in the trial. During the arraignment on March 21. time and expenditure of the courts. the validity of the admission of the Amended Information. an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is possible. executory and unappealable. Same. petitioner refused to enter his plea since the issues he raised were still pending resolution by the appellate court. his act should be so manifestly consistent with. As a final note. which is the “life of the law. Almeda August 3. Same. Waiver. 2007. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) later argued that the present petition had been rendered moot since the presentation of evidence. Criminal Procedure. and indicative of. 2010 626 SCRA 575 Judgments. PEA is prevented from enjoying the fruits of the final judgment in its favor. without previously invoking his objections thereto.” There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause. wherein petitioner actively participated. petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge against him. Waiver. waive his stated objections. thus prompting the trial court to enter a plea of “not guilty” for him. The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General in its contention that every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final.” To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts. Leviste vs. It is in the interest of justice that this Court should write finis to this litigation. Same. for in the present case.Same. Injunction. When the only proof of intention rests on what a party does. the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. had been concluded. Same. CA has been delayed for almost ten years now simply because De Leon filed a frivolous appeal against the RTC’s order of execution based on arguments that cannot hold water. it bears to point out that this case has been dragging for more than 15 years and the execution of this Court’s judgment in PEA v. By applying for bail. Whatever delay arising from petitioner’s availment of remedies against the trial court’s Orders cannot be imputed to petitioner to operate as a valid waiver on his part. Moot and Academic Issues. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period. Bail. Arraignment. Neither can the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be deemed as a voluntary relinquishment of petitioner’s principal
. The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies “only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial. petitioner did not. Waiver on the part of the accused must be distinguished from mootness of the petition. as he vigorously raised them prior to his arraignment.
Same. Same. Preliminary Investigation. has been conducted. Notably. Same.prayer. Words and Phrases. Considering the general rule that an information may be amended even in substance and even without leave of court at any time before entry of plea. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years. the trial of the case took its course. to grasp the respective remedies available to them before and after the filing of a complaint or information in court. a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of court. so long as an inquest. The benefit of the provisions of Article 125. which requires the filing of a complaint or information with the proper judicial authorities within the applicable period. does it mean that the conduct of a reinvestigation at that stage is a mere superfluity?
. Inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. owing to its summary nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125. where available. ends with either the prompt filing of an information in court or the immediate release of the arrested person. belongs to the arrested person. Same. Inquest. Same. After arraignment. Same. the rules provide that there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense. Same. Same. Amendment of Information. only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. Same. Before the accused enters a plea. the arrested person has the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation. BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN COURT. two months and one day without regard to fine. The accelerated process of inquest. the private complainant may proceed in coordinating with the arresting officer and the inquest officer during the latter’s conduct of inquest. Same. It must be clarified though that not all defects in an information are curable by amendment prior to entry of plea. The non-issuance of such injunctive relief only means that the appellate court did not preliminarily find any exception to the long-standing doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution. For obvious reasons. It is imperative to first take a closer look at the predicament of both the arrested person and the private complainant during the brief period of inquest. provided he duly signs a waiver of any objection against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. this remedy is not available to the private complainant since he cannot waive what he does not have. Meanwhile. Consequently. After the entry of a plea. An information which is voidab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground for quashal. As an exception. Same. the rules on inquest do not provide for a motion for reconsideration. a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused. An amendment which operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is likewise impermissible.
the Court ruled that a substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation. Matalam adds that the mere fact that the two charges are related does not necessarily or automatically deprive the accused of his right to another preliminary investigation. Same. Any remedial measure springing from the reinvestigation – be it a complete disposition or an intermediate modification of the charge – is eventually addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged. Notatu dignum is the fact that both the original Information and the amended Information in Matalam were similarly charging the accused with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Same. (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan. All other matters are merely of form. which would make it not just a right but a duty of the prosecution to ask for a preliminary investigation.It is not. and (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts. Same. Same. and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume. it is for the prosecution to consider whether a reinvestigation is necessary to adduce and review the evidence for purposes of buttressing the appropriate motion to be filed in court. The following have been held to be mere formal amendments: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction. Same.
. Same. Same. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein 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. (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one. The Court answers in the affirmative. Due process of law demands that no substantial amendment of an information may be admitted without conducting another or a new preliminary investigation. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Reinvestigation is required in cases involving a substantial amendment of the information. Same. The question to be resolved is whether the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder is considered a substantial amendment. In Matalam v. Same. Same. which must make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made. unless the amended information contains a charge related to or is included in the original Information. Same. Since the trial court would ultimately make the determination on the proposed course of action. Same.
Petitioner did not. People vs. whether oral or in writing.” Generally. petitioner opted to merely observe the proceedings and declined to actively participate. . which in essence means simply that it is the duty of a party trying to impugn the testimony of a witness by means of prior or. judicial review is
. Same. the presence of the respondent as long as efforts to reach him were made and an opportunity to controvert the complainant’s evidence was accorded him. during the preliminary examination and at the witness stand relative to thelocation of the room where she was ravished. in the reinvestigation. Apropos is this Court’s ruling in People v.Same. even with extreme caution. Mercado v. such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is given by him that he should be deemed impeached. By way of exception. however. “Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. for that matter. however. as a condition sine qua non to the validity of a preliminary investigation. subsequent inconsistent statements. harped upon by appellant. and if so. Definition of Probable Cause. Court of Appeals states that the rules do not even require. a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. . Impeachment of Witness. Respecting AAA’s inconsistent statements. Criminal Procedure. make much of the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the proposed amended charge. the statements must be related to him. 13. Section 13 of the Rules of Court which provides: SEC. Despite notice of hearing. 2010 627 SCRA 89 Criminal Law. MetroBank vs. Relucio: . to give the witness a chance to reconcile his conflicting declarations. Reynado August 9. Every effort to reconcile the conflicting points should first be exerted before any adverse conclusion can be made therefrom. and he must be asked whether he made such statements. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. – Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. Witnesses. 2010 626 SCRA 613 Criminal Procedure. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. Same. Preliminary Investigation. These considerations lie at the base of the familiar rule requiring the laying of a predicate. Words and Phrases. Sambahon August 3. the defense oddly did not call attention thereto to afford her the opportunity to explain or clarify it as called for under Rule 132. every witness is presumed to be truthful and perjury is not to be readily inferred just because apparent inconsistencies are evinced in parts of his testimony. allowed to explain them. Probable Cause.
whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. as analyzed by the prosecutor.allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is. The proper remedy under the circumstances where persons who ought to be charged were not included in the complaint of the private complainant is definitely not to dismiss the complaint but to include them in the information. the facts as presented in the Complaint-Affidavit of the auditor are reasonable enough to excite her belief that respondents are guilty of the crime complained of. To emphasize. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence is not required. Same. Same. patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. when he has exercised his discretion “in an arbitrary. In the case at bar. we find that this case falls under the exception rather than the general rule. The findings of the Secretary of Justice in sustaining the dismissal of the Complaint are matters of defense best left to the trial court’s deliberation and contemplation after conducting the trial of the criminal case. Section 2. Same. capricious. Justice Secretary Cuevas we had occasion to rule that the “presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. Prosecution of Offenses. De Vera August 9. Same. a prima facie case of estafa exists against respondents. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates that all criminal actions must be commenced either by complaint or information in the name of the People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to be responsible therefor. Heirs of Francisca Medrano vs.” Tested against these guidelines. Same. but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Public prosecutors. Same. Same. Same.” Same. are the ones obliged to bring forth before the law those who have transgressed it. Thus the law makes it a legal duty for prosecuting officers to file the charges against whomsoever the evidence may show to be responsible for the offense. Same. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. In Andres v. Same. a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is “not a part of the trial. As perused by her.” Same. not the private complainant.” A “finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. Suffice it to say that it is indubitably within the discretion of the prosecutor to determine who must be charged with what crime or for what offense. Same. 2010 627 SCRA 108
refers to a situation wherein the purchaser seeks possession of the foreclosed property during the redemption period. Same. Same. Thus. as amended. he is not really denied protection as his interest is one and the same as his transferors. Thus.Remedial Law. Same. especially where a new title
. the RTC has the power during the period of redemption to issue a writ of possession on the ex parte application of the purchaser. based on Rule 9. De Vera’s interest cannot be considered and tried separately from the interest of the named defendants. Same. Joinder of Parties. Same. he would be bound by any judgment against his transferors under the rules of res judicata. As there was a transferee pendente lite whose answer had already been admitted. Same. U-7316). Section 7 of Act 3135. order the issuance of the writ of possession in the purchaser's favor. 2010 627 SCRA 125 Remedial Law. DNG Realty and Development Corporation August 9. the RTC shall. as transferee pendente lite. While the rule allows for discretion. in legal contemplation. His rights were derived from the named defendants and. Civil Procedure. Equitable PCI Bank. there is no reason why it should not also have the same power after the expiration of the redemption period. the trial court should have tried the case on the basis of that answer. Inc vs. His participation in the case should have been allowed by due process considerations. the transferee’s interest is deemed by law as adequately represented and protected by the participation of his transferors in the case. As mentioned. a transferee pendente lite is deemed joined in the pending action from the moment when the transfer of interest is perfected. Upon the purchaser's filing of the ex parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond. if under Section 7 of Act 3135 as amended. Same. In this case. In the instant case. Discretion is permitted because. There may be no need for the transferee pendente lite to be substituted or joined in the case because. the paramount consideration for the exercise thereof should be the protection of the parties’ interests and their rights to due process. Foreclosure of Mortgage. Same. Writs of Possession. the circumstances demanded that the trial court exercise its discretion in favor of allowing De Vera to join in the action and participate in the trial. But equally well settled is the rule that a writ of possession will issue as a matter of course. as a matter of course. The above provision gives the trial court discretion to allow or disallow the substitution or joinder by the transferee. De Vera is not a stranger to the action but a transferee pendente lite. Section 3(c). even without the filing and approval of a bond. Same. after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of the purchaser. who are already parties to the case. De Vera is a transferee pendente lite of the named defendants (by virtue of the Deed of Renunciation of Rights that was executed in his favor during the pendency of Civil Case No. The trial court’s approach is seriously flawed because De Vera’s interest is not independent of or severable from the interest of the named defendants. in general. It will be remembered that the trial court had already admitted De Vera’s answer when it declared the original defendants in default.
A writ of certiorari.
Century Canning Corporation vs. A party may file a petition to set aside the foreclosure sale and to cancel the writ of possession in the same proceedings where the writ of possession was requested. Same. Same. Thus. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. prohibition and mandamus will only be issued if there is neither appeal nor any plain. Section 8 of Act 3135 provides the plain. 2010 627 SCRA 192
. Joinder of Indispensible Parties. The aggrieved party may thereafter appeal from any disposition by the court on the matter. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties. Same.had already been issued in the name of the purchaser. and adequate remedy in opposing the issuance of a writ of possession. The basis of this right to possession is the purchaser’s ownership of the property. Parties. 3135 mandates that even if an appeal is interposed from an order granting a petition for a writ of possession. speedy. Same. Same. Respondent's recourse to the CA via Rule 65 was inappropriate even though the Sheriff had demanded that they vacate the property. Same.’ The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. It is "precisely ‘when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed. not only as to the absent parties but even to those present." The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves." If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party. Civil Procedure. 2010 627 SCRA 179 Remedial Law. speedy or adequate relief in the ordinary course of law. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) vs. "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. such order shall continue to be in effect during the pendency of an appeal. Actions. Section 8 of Act No. Same. the writ of possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance of such writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function. Keihin Philippines Corporation August 9. but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. Same. Under Section 7. Same. However. after the consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem. Ramil August 9.
Appeals. Reyes vs. upon this. The rule is that high respect is accorded to the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies. and for a declaration of his rights or duties. An action for the reformation of an instrument. Petitioners insist that this is mainly a petition for declaratory relief. Same. he endorsed it to Marivic Villanueva for the signature of the Executive Vice-President Ricardo T. Petitioner's belated allegations in its reply filed before this Court that Marivic Villanueva denied having seen the CAPEX form cannot be given credit. 2010 628 SCRA 1 Actions. cannot be given thestamp of finality and conclusiveness normally accorded to it. issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court. factual findings of an administrative agency. petitioner faults the CA in disregarding the unanimous findings of the LA and the NLRC sustaining the legality of respondent's termination from his employment. because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party. inferred or deduced from bare facts adduced in evidence. Declaratory Relief. Points of law. respondent received the CAPEX form containing the signature of Po. 1999. administrative agency or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court. he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal. more so in the case at bar where both the LA and the NLRC share the same findings. Same. will. ordinance. therefore. theories. contract or other written instrument.Remedial Law. for want of substantial basis. Same. Ortiz August 11. The rule is not. Same. or whose rights are affected by a statute. however. as even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared “final” by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted. bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising. reversed the ruling of the NLRC. Who may file petition. The next day. to quiet title to real property
. Respondent alleged in his position paper that after preparing the CAPEX form on March 3. without exceptions one of which is when the findings of fact of the labor officials on which the conclusion was based are not supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion. Anent the first issue raised. When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below. Section 1. thereunder. as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. 1999. Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides: SECTION 1. or any other governmental regulation may. Po. The same holds true when it is perceived that far too much is concluded. Accordingly. Petitioner never controverted these allegations in the proceedings before the NLRC and the CA despite its opportunity to do so. executive order or regulation. in fact or in law. — Any person interested under a deed. before breach or violation thereof. March 4. this Court sees no error on the part of the CA when it made a new determination of the case and. such as the NLRC.
The order merely mentions the Caloocan City MeTCs. The judicial policy must thus remain that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it. Courts. or any government regulation. may bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder. Same. except when the redress sought cannot be obtained in the proper courts or when exceptional and compelling circumstances warrant availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Court's primary jurisdiction. Heirarchy of Courts. The foregoing order is not addressed to the Caloocan City RTC. may be brought under this Rule. The first paragraph concerns declaratory relief. Same. contract or other written instrument. The first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63 enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a declaratory relief namely. Cruz. executive order or regulation. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This Court. the Quezon City RTC could not have validly enjoined the
. will. The Quezon City Government. viz: Under this rule.) Same. Nothing more. while a petition for declaratory relief may be treated as one for prohibition if it has far reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved. to warrant declaratory relief. Injunction. Petitioners did not bother to proffer a compelling reason for their direct resort to this Court. there is no allegation of facts by petitioner tending to show that she is entitled to such a writ. will. or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code. executive order or regulation. In Ortega v. which has been defined as a special civil action by any person interested under a deed. contract or other written instrument. a statute. executive order or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument. there is no statutory or jurisprudential basis for according to this Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory relief which advances only questions of law. or to a statute or ordinance. contract or other written instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute. only a person who is interested “under a deed. This procedural faux pas proves fatal. The second paragraph pertains to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument. and whose rights are affected by a statute or ordinance. (2) an action to quiet title.” This means that the subject matter must refer to a deed. even if this petition delves on questions of law. The Court’s exhortation against taking a procedural shortcut cannot be overemphasized. deed. will. or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. directly filed the instant case here.) Same. declared that the subject matters to be tested in a petition for declaratory relief are exclusive. Neither can it be inferred from the language thereof that the Quezon City RTC intended to enjoin the Caloocan City RTC from further proceeding with the Recovery case. the Court accentuated: At all events. This is under the principle of expressio unius est exclussio alterius. and (3) an action to consolidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurchase. Finally. The foregoing section can be dissected into two parts. will. petitioners. Same. ordinance. (Emphasis supplied. Same.or remove clouds therefrom. contract or other written instrument. (Emphasis supplied. Despite this procedural remedy available to them. under the pretext that they were in a quandary as to their rights under the Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC. in Lerum v. But more importantly.
Same. Bereft of merit too is petitioners’ argument that the Caloocan City MeTC cannot disregard the injunction order of the Quezon City RTC hearing the Annulment/Reversion case. useless. In fact. an ejectment case can be tried apart from an annulment case. Cojuangco v. Spouses Ching v. while in an annulment case the issue is ownership. and a mere redundancy. Insular Drug Co. Escaño. whose purpose is to establish said party’s cause of action or defense. Court of Appeals justifies this rule in this manner: Beginning with the case of Orais v. much less with their orders or judgments. Darwin v. (Emphasis supplied. Ejectment. Same. Limos vs. we laid down the long standing doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. Odones August 11. The established rule is that a pending civil action for ownership such as annulment of title shall not ipso facto suspend an ejectment proceeding. it is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery. should not.. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request. National Power Corp. v. Hon. it is pointless. Corollarily. A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice. down to the subsequent cases of Nuñez v. this discretion carries with it the determination of whether or not to impose the sanctions attributable to such fault. Tokonaga.
. that the application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases. Under these rules. 2010 628 SCRA 288 Remedial Law. The determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery also rests on sound judicial discretion. Luciano v. petitioners failed to justify that this case falls within said exception.) Same. Same.Caloocan City RTC without violating the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. the issue is possession. cannot. Although there is an exception to this rule. bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice. The Court explained that the rationale for this is that in an ejectment case. Modes of Discovery. Unless it serves that purpose. Villegas. Provincial Governor. The various trial courts of a province or city. De Leon v. De Veyra. As such. Cabigao v. Evidence. Same. Hubahib v. Same. Inc. a party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall be deemed to have impliedly admitted all the matters contained therein. however.. It must be emphasized. Same. del Rosario. Judge Salvador. Low. having the same or equal authority.
Sales Invoices. Respondents herein are enforcing their rights as buyers in good faith and for value of the subject land and not as heirs of the original owner. Pleadings and Practice. Same. They were not the bases of respondent’s action for sum of money but were attached to the Complaint only to provide details on the alleged transactions. and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale. and improvident. erroneous. It must be noted that in Yaptinchay and Enriquez. In an action for annulment of title. Same. the complaint must contain the following allegations: (1) that the contested land was privately owned by the plaintiff prior to the issuance of the assailed certificate of title to the defendant. respondent could have presented evidence linking these sales invoices to petitioner. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature. a preliminary hearing thereon is unnecessary. 2010 628 SCRA 574 Actions. Unlike in Yaptinchay and Enriquez. As correctly held by the CA. Actions. quantity.Same. Lazaro vs. Same. Annulment of Title. Same. Equally settled is the fact that laches is evidentiary in nature and it may not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss. Same. Same. the filiation of herein respondents to the original owner is not determinative of their right to claim title to and ownership of the property. At any rate. Inc August 23. Had the case proceeded further. consideration of the attached sales invoices would not change our conclusion. Jurisprudence has always been firm and constant in declaring that when the affirmative defense raised is failure to state a cause of action.
. They were evidentiary in nature and not even necessary to be stated or cited in the Complaint. Brewmaster International. the sales invoices are not actionable documents. Declaration of Heirship. Laches. naming Total as the purchaser of the goods. In both cases. Cause of Action. the respondents’ claim is rooted on a sale transaction. do not absolutely foreclose the probability of petitioner being liable for the amounts reflected thereon. and (2) that the defendant perpetuated a fraud or committed a mistake in obtaining a document of title over the parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff. Same. The sales invoices. this Court held that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding and not in a civil action. plaintiffs’ action for annulment of title was anchored on their alleged status as heirs of the original owner whereas in this case.
is interlocutory. as amended. the requirement of prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. and does not end the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. Indeed. Pleadings and Practice. Interlocutory Orders. Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1. Aside from the public interest involved in the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth by the Government.
. Actions. though. While it is true that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. This rule. the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non. relaxation of the rule is permitted in sound discretion of the court. Admission of additional evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Contrary to public respondent’s posture. the court may grant the parties the opportunity to adduce additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question. Hence. has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law. its order denying admission to petitioner’s documentary exhibits. As a fourth exception.when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. Rule 30). (2) when public interest is involved. An order that does not finally dispose of the case. Words and Phrases. lies only when the lower court has been given the opportunity to correct the error imputed to it through a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution. and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) August 25. was merely interlocutory. Public respondent seriously erred in denying the motion to reopen for presentation of additional evidence on the basis of the supposed “final and executory” ruling which denied admission of Exhibits “B” to “E” in the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by the petitioner. Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal. as amended. prescribed an order of trial (Section 5. Order of Trial. 2010 629 SCRA 54 Certiorari. it was shown that the issue herein raised by petitioner had already been squarely argued by it and amply discussed by public respondent in its assailed resolution. Same. Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. As a rule. as well as the denial of the motion to reopen for presentation of additional evidence for plaintiff. The remedy of reopening a case for presenting further proofs was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. or (3) in cases of urgency.Republic vs. in the furtherance of justice.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities. the Court had the occasion to discuss the nature of supervening events. v. thus: One of the exceptions to the principle of immutability of final judgments is the existence of supervening events. No. L-77645 under the Resolution dated October 26. including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time. Rule 1of the Interim Rules defines the nature of the judgments rendered thereunder as follows: SEC. Dee Ping Wee vs. 8799 (Interim Rules). Let the titles over these properties be finally determined and quieted down with all reasonable speed. series of 1986. Presidential Commission on Good Governmentin No. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits before the Sandiganbayan. 1987. Inc. Corporation Law. free of delaying technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks. If there is adequate proof of illegal acquisition. provided that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be strictly applied to cases involving ill-gotten wealth. which event may render the execution of the judgment impossible or unjust. More so in the instant case where the showing of a prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth was sustained by this Court in Silverio v. Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies. should now be relentlessly pursued. The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. fraud or illicit conduct. issued by former President Corazon C. misappropriation. Executive Order No. Should such an event occur after a judgment becomes final and executory. Ispection of Corporate Books. Section 4. not mere legalisms or perfection of form. A supervening event affects or changes the substance of the judgment and renders the execution thereof inequitable. otherwise known as the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No.M. Civil cases involving the inspection of corporate books are governed by the rules of procedure set forth in A. In Natalia Realty. 14. Court of Appeals. Substantial justice to all parties. accumulation. Lee Hiong Wee August 25. 01-2-04-SC. It was incumbent upon the public respondent to adopt a liberal stance in the matter of procedural technicalities. Sandiganbayan (Third Division): In all cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth brought by or against the Presidential Commission on Good Government.
. let it be brought out now. Court of Appeals dictates that a stay or preclusion of execution may properly be sought. Apropos is our pronouncement in Republic v. Eleven years have passed since the government started its search for and reversion of such alleged ill-gotten wealth. Appeals.Ill-Gotten Wealth. Aquino. it is the policy of this Court to set aside technicalities and formalities that serve merely to delay or impede their judicious resolution. Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired finality. Ramirez v. Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgments. 2010 629 SCRA 145 Judgments.
the decision or order rendered under the Interim Rules shall remain to be immediately executory. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. 85880 adjudged that the RTC patently erred in deciding in favor of respondents since the latter failed to show that they were impelled by proper motives in seeking to inspect the corporate records of Marine Resources Development Corporation. All decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. Sandiganbayan has already settled that the burden of proof lies with the corporation who refuses to grant to the stockholder the right to inspect corporate records. the provision enunciates that a decision and order issued under the Interim Rules shall be enforceable immediately after the rendition thereof. SP No. a restraining order must be sought from the appellate court to enjoin the enforcement or implementation of the decision or order. On September 14. In order to assail the decision or order. The petition for review shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the Regional Trial Court. Same. Executory nature of decisions and orders. Verily. the first part of Section 4. however. as correctly held by the Court of Appeals (First Division) in the assailed Resolution dated June 29. 2005 in CA-G. the second part of the provision speaks of an appeal or petition that needs to be filed by the party concerned. SP No. 8799 shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. unless restrained by an appellate court.R. The Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) in CA-G. Unless a restraining order is so issued. if any. Inspection of Corporate Books.4.All decisions and orders issued under these Rules shall immediately be executory. Rule 1 of the Interim Rules is categorical.R.Republic v. Appeals. the Court issued a Resolution in A.M. 90024. However. Same. Interlocutory orders shall not be subject to appeal. 2. No. Same. except the awards for moral damages. No appeal or petition taken therefrom shall stay the enforcement or implementation of the decision or order. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the legal fee prescribed in Rule 141 as amended before the expiration of the reglementary period. . 2004.
. Save for the exceptions clearly stated therein.” the Court thereby resolved that: 1. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reasons and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. In this appeal or petition. the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the petition for review. 04-9-07-SC to rectify the situation wherein “lawyers and litigants are in a quandary on how to prevent under appropriate circumstances the execution of decisions and orders in cases involving corporate rehabilitation and intra-corporate controversies. Burden of Proof.” To address the “need to clarify the proper mode of appeal in [cases involving corporate rehabilitation and intra-corporate controversies] in order to prevent cluttering the dockets of the courts with appeals and/or petitions for certiorari.
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.” Same. that is. It is. criminal cases.” The case of Galman v. not appeal. 2010 629 SCRA 250 Criminal Procedure. Same. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. the Court has held: Like any other rule. instead of remanding them for further proceedings. shows that the case need not be remanded to the CA for appropriate proceedings.” The rule is that “while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal.People vs. In several cases. Same. is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. Asis August 25. Same. a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in. Same. a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court. however. Same. People
. or the dismissals of. Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine. however. presents an instructive exception to the rule on double jeopardy. Sandiganbayan. In our jurisdiction. the Court. in acquitting the accused. Louel Uy. Certiorari. “The rationale behind this exception is that a judgment rendered by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion was issued without jurisdiction. is not without exception. “On many occasions. has resolved actions on the merits. Thus. are errors of judgment. We deem that a remand of the case would only prolong the disposition of the case. What the OSG is questioning. The OSG’s petition forcertiorari. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65. for this reason. void. For said reason. that is. therefore. It is not without precedent. This. cannot be resolved without violating Abordo’s constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy. We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine. An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. thus rendering the assailed judgment void. would not merit a favorable review even if it would be given due course simply because it is bereft of merit. A review of the records. which forms part of the records. The rule. the above said rule is not absolute. By way of exception. in People v.
Crisostomo vs. there is no double jeopardy. when the prosecution has been denied due process of law. however. the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. in the interest of public service and for the expeditious administration of justice. Double Jeopardy. Consequently. as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case. however.
It must be stressed that as a rule. Thus. Accordingly."15Petitioner’s bare allegations in his motion to inhibit are not adequate grounds for the disqualification or inhibition of the trial judge. because the latter actually poked a gun at him. It is also done thru line-ups where a
."14 "Bare allegations of partiality x x x [is not sufficient] in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor. thus: Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. Same. Teehankee. "a motion to inhibit must be denied if filed after x x x the Court had already given its opinion on the merits of the case. In People v. 2010 630 SCRA 42 Remedial Law. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. Same. In a motion for inhibition. petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Inhibition was filed on November 29. Out-of-court Identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. as testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit. Witnesses. Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges.September 1.. Same. Jr. being ex-parte. but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses. Appellants make much of a few inconsistencies in his statement and testimony. 2002. "[t]he movant must x x x prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial. It is settled that affidavits. are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. Evidence. But such inconsistencies have already been explained by Alejo during cross-examination by correcting his earlier statement in using number four (4) to refer to those persons actually standing around the car and two (2) more persons as lookouts. with respect to the number of assailants and his reaction when he was ordered to get down in his guard post. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. People September 6. and that he got nervous only when the second lookout shouted at him to get down. 2002after the trial court rendered its Decision on November 14. 2010 629 SCRA 590 Criminal Procedure. the rationale being that ‘a litigant cannot be permitted to speculate upon the action of the court x x x (only to) raise an objection of this sort after a decision had been rendered’. we explained the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to determine the admissibility of such identification. Lumanog vs. the trial judge did not commit any impropriety in denying the motion to inhibit as it came after the case had been decided on the merits. credence should not be given to the issue of alleged prejudice and partiality of the trial judge. Same." Here. Affidavits.
Same. a ballistic report on the slugs can be dispensed with in proving petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Law. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. In the instant case. .witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. the same does not constitute suppression of evidence. Same. As regards the failure of the police to present a ballistic report on the seven spent shells recovered from the crime scene. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. .
. It would be indispensable if there are no credible eyewitnesses to the crime inasmuch as it is corroborative in nature. We have held that the inadmissibility of a police line-up identification should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification. the trial court did not rely solely on said out-of-court identification considering that Alejo also positively identified appellants during the trial. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors. In any case. his subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended it. (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time. The presentation of weapons or the slugs and bullets used and ballistic examination are not prerequisites for conviction. The corpus delicti and the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime are more than enough to sustain his conviction. viz: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. the positive identification by prosecution witnesses is more than sufficient to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. even assuming arguendo that Alejo’s out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity. Out-of-court Identification. People. Evidence. Thus. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects. Same. As this Court held in Velasco v. since the identity of the assailant has been sufficiently established. Even without a ballistic report. A ballistic report serves only as a guide for the courts in considering the ultimate facts of the case. and.