Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22



(Based on the lectures of Judge Quiambao, Justice Javier & Atty. Villasis)



GR: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction
having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction (Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindog, A.M. No. RTJ10-2225,
September 6, 2011). XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third party claimant is involved (Santos v. Bayhon,
G.R. No. 88643, July 23, 1991).

The RTC did not have jurisdiction to determine or to review the validity of the decree of adoption issued by the
erstwhile CFI by virtue of equal rank and category between the RTC and the CFI. The proper court with jurisdiction to
do was the CA, which has been vested by Sec. 9 B.P. Blg. 129 with the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for the
annulment of the judgments of the RTC (Oribello v. CA, G.R. No. 163504, 5 August 2015, Bersamin J.).


CA has jurisdiction on the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because the preventive suspension issued by
Ombudsman, an interlocutory order, is unappealable. The second paragraph of Section 14 which states that No court
shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the
Supreme Court, on pure question of law is unconstitutional because it increased this Supreme Court's appellate
jurisdiction, without its advice and concurrence in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution (Conchita
Carpio Morales, et. al., v. CA & Binay, Jr., G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015).


Sharia District Court has original jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title of a parcel of land, concurrently
with the RTC by force of Article 143, paragraph 2(b) of Code of Muslim Personal Laws. In the instant case, we apply the
principle generalia specialibus non derogant. A general law does not nullify a special law. BP 129 and PD 1083 must be
construed together, then by taking PD 1083 as an exception to the general law to reconcile the two laws. However,
Shariah courts have no jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer case which fall under the jurisdiction of
the MTC regardless of the value of the property involved. (Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434, 5 March 2010).


The adjudicators of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) do not have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation under RA. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL)
The RTC as a Special Agrarian Court has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation under
CARL. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators of the DARAB and to convert the original jurisdiction of
the RTC into appellate jurisdiction is void for being contrary to the CARL. DARAB adjudicators are only empowered to
determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to the landowners (Landbank v. Suntay,
2011, Bersamin J.).


In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due
time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. In either case, the court may issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises,
permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (Sec. 9, Rule


GR: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. (Gochan v. Gochan,
13 December 2001).

XPN: The court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in the payment of
docket fess, and manifests its willingness to abide by he rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the
court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Life Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Asuncion and not the strict regulations set
in Manchester shall apply.


Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, the execution of compromise agreement, if within 6 months from date of
settlement, should be done by the Lupon. If done beyond the 6-month period, regardless of the amount involved, it


should be filed with the MTC. The cause of action is the enforcement of the compromise agreement (Michael Sebastian
v. Annabel Lagmay Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015).

XPN: If you filed an action for collection of sum of money, you are deemed to have rescinded, abandoned the
compromise agreement reached before the barangay (Crisanta Miguel v. Jerry Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January
25, 2012). Because the respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos, said agreement is
deemed rescinded pursuant to Article 2041 of the New Civil Code and the petitioner can insist on his original demand.
Perforce, the complaint for collection of sum of money is the proper remedy. Considering that the Kasunduang Pag-
aayos is deemed rescinded by the non-compliance of the respondent of the terms thereof, remanding the case to the
trial court for the enforcement of said agreement is clearly unwarranted (Miguel v. Montanez, 25 January 2012,
Reyes, J.).


AM No. 08-8-7-SC effective February 1, 2016 increased from P100,000 to P200,000, exclusive of interest and costs, the
amount or value of the claim falling within the jurisdiction of small claims courts. Damages and interest not included.

Remedies in Case of Small Claims: Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) and Annulment of Judgment (Sec. 10, Rule 47)

Rulings of the Small Claims Court are unappealable. To question the decision, a petition for certiorari must be filed with
the RTC (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Mondejar, 2014).

Epistolary Jurisdiction

Power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case arising from a LETTER PETITION introduced by a third
person, rather than the aggrieved party, for the protection of public interest, pursuant to the concept of judicial activism
(Resident Marine Mammals v. Secretary Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015, En Banc).


Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the amount involved should be 200K or below. The rules on RSP do not apply
in cases of settlement of the estate regardless of the amount involved.

GR: Motion to dismiss is prohibited

XPNs: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) failure to comply with a condition precedent (barangay

Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the motion prohibited by this Section is that which seeks reconsideration of
the judgment rendered by the court after trial on the merits of the case. Here, the order of dismissal issued by
respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is obviously not a judgment on
the merits after trial of the case. Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading
contemplated under Section 19 (c) of the present Rule on Summary Procedure. (Lucas vs. Fabros, A.M. No. MTJ-99-
1226. January 31, 2000)



Anticipatory Breach

An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the
renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring
his action at once. Thus, the principle contemplates future periodic deliveries and a willful refusal to comply therewith.
(Blossom and Company Inc. v. Manila Gas Corporation, G.R. No. L-32958, 8 November 1930)


Real Party in Interest

The shareholders of a corporation are not the real parties in interest in an action involving the wrongful attachment of
the corporations assets. The stockholders have a personality distinct and separate from the corporation (Stronghold
Insurance v. Cuenca, March 6, 2013, Bersamin, J.).

The personality of a corporation is distinct and separate from the personalities of its stockholders. Hence, its
stockholders are not themselves the real parties in interest to claim and recover compensation for the damages arising
from the wrongful attachment of its assets. Only the corporation is the real party in interest for that purpose
(Stronghold Insurance v. Tomas Cuenca, 6 March 2013, Bersamin, J.).

Indigent Litigants


Only a natural party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a
corporation vested by the State with a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its members, is a juridical
person. As such, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigants (Re: Query
of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi Re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., AM. No.
09-6-9-SC, 19 August 2009, Bersamin, J.).

Substantial Interest

Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest in the question involved, nota mere incidental interest.
The rule refers to a real or present substantial interest in the question distinguished from mere expectancy, or from a
future contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke
jurisdiction off the court as a party-plaintiff in an action (Francisco Alfonso, et. al v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., GR. No.
188471, 20 April 2010, Bersamin, J.).

Effect of death of a party litigant

After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased. A petition for annulment of deed of sale
involves property and property rights survives the death of a person. In the instant case, the RTC was belatedly
informed of the death of the plaintiff Memoracion and was supplied with the name and address of her legal
representative, Edgardo Cruz. What the RTC could have done was to require Edgardo Cruz to appear in court and
substitute Memoracion as party to the pending case. (Memoracion Z. Cruz as represented by Edgardo Z. Cruz v.
Oswaldo Z. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, 1 September 2010)


Action for Recovery of Deficiency after Extrajudicial Foreclosure of a Real Estate Mortgage is a Personal Action

First, it is a personal action since it does not affect the title to or possession of real property or any interest
therein. Second, assuming arguendo that there was improper venue, the ground was waived by the mortgagors
since they did not timely raise it in their motion to dismiss. Here, the ground for improper venue was raised
belatedly in the motion for reconsideration, not in the motion to dismiss. Hence, the objection is waived in
pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 9 (BPI Family Bank v. Yujuico, G.R. No. 175796, 22 July 2015, Bersamin J.).

Annulment or Rescission of a Sale of Real Property is a Real Action

An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and
prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. (Paglaum Management &
Development Corp., et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 179018,18 June 2012).

Restrictive Stipulations on Venue

Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed
upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
places fixed by law. What is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties. Regarding restrictive
stipulations on venue, it must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive
words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of
venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as
merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place (Briones v. CA, G.R. No.
204444, 14 January 2015).


Amendment as a matter of right

Amendment is considered as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
reply, at any time within 10 days after it is served (Sec. 2, Rule 10). It is settled that a motion to dismiss is not the
responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule. A plaintiff may file an amended complaint even after the original
complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final (Riano, 2014, citing Bautista v.
Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc., G.R. No. 148411, 29 November 2005).

Amendments required to be with leave of court

1. If the amendment is substantial (Sec. 3, Rule 10); and

2. A responsive pleading had already been served (Siasoco v. CA, G.R. No. 132753, 15 February 1999).

Instances when an amendment may be made to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence

1. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties;
NOTE: Failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of said issue.


2. Amendment may also be made to authorize presentation of evidence even if evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends
of substantial justice will be subserved thereby (Sec. 5, Rule 10).

Three Modes of Specific Denial

1. ABSOLUTE DENIAL - Defendant specifying each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit
and, whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial;
2. PARTIAL DENIAL - Defendant who desires to deny only a part of an averment, and the denial is done by the
defending party specifying so much of the material allegation of ultimate facts as is true and material and denying
only the remainder;
3. DENIAL BY DISAVOWAL OF KNOWLEDGE - Defendant states in the answer that he is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint by stating so in
the answer. It is settled that denials based on lack of knowledge or information of matters clearly known to the
pleader, or ought to be known to it, or could have easily been known by it are insufficient, and constitute ineffective
or sham denials. (Fernando Medical Enterprises v. Wesleyan University, January 2016, Bersamin, J.)


A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A compulsory counterclaim
is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. A counterclaim is permissive if it does not
arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an
independent claim that may be filed separately in another case. (Alba v. Malapajo, 13 January, 2016, Peralta, J.).

The RTC of Makati should have been earlier disallowed to proceed on the ground of litis pendentia, or, once the decision
in the Manila case became final, should have been dismissed on the ground of res judicata. In the Manila case, the
petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim asserting that the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage had been devoid of
basis in fact and in law; and that the foreclosure and the filing of action had been made in bad faith, and in wanton
violation of his rights. His pleading thereby showed that the cause of action he later pleaded in the Makati case, (i.e..,
annulment of foreclosure sale) was identical to the compulsory counterclaim he had set up in the RTC of Manila
(Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, 18 July 2012, Bersamin J.).

Forum Shopping

Forum shopping is an act of malpractice by a party who repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court (Sotto v. Palicte, 2014, Bersamin, J.).

Forum shopping can be committed in either of three ways, namely:

1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been
resolved yet (litis pendentia);
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (res judicata); or
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where
the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).

Third-Party Complaint

Under Sec. 11, Rule 3, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponents
claim. Under this rule, a person not a party to the action may be impleaded by the defendant either (a) on an allegation
of liability to the latter; b) direct liability to the plaintiff, or (c) both (a) and (b). The first situation is covered by the
phrase "for contribution indemnity or subrogation" while the second and third are subsumed under the catch-all "or
any other relief in respect of his opponent's claim." (Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Paras, G.R. No. 161909, 25
April 2012, Bersamin, J.).

Actionable Document

GR: Where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it under
oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document will be deemed admitted
(Casent v. Philbanking Corporation, 14 September 2007, Velasco, J.)

XPNs:1.When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument;
2.When the compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.



Remedies from an order of default

After notice of order and before judgment Motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the
grounds of FAME and he has meritorious defense (affidavit
of merit).

If denied he may move for reconsideration; Grounds:


If denied - Petition for certiorari under Rule 65

After judgment before judgment becomes final and 1. New Trial (Rule 37)
executory 2. Appeal (Rule 40 or 41)
(Period of appeal)
After judgment has become final and executory 1. Petition for Relief from judgment (Rule 38).
2. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47)
Defendant has been wrongly or improvidently He may avail of the special civil action of certiorari under
declared in default Rule 65.

NOTE: The court can be considered to have acted with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and when the lack of jurisdiction is patent in the
face of the judgment or from the judicial records (Balangcad
v. Justices of the CA, G.R. No. 83888, February 12, 1992).


The petition for certiorari only carried the affidavit of service executed by one Pascua, Jr., who declared that he had
served copies of the petition by registered mail with registered receipts attached. The petition only bore, however, the
cut print-outs of what appeared to be the registry receipt numbers of the registered matters, not the registry receipts
themselves. Sec. 13, Rule 13 requires to be appended the registry receipts, not their reproductions. Hence, the cut print-
outs did not substantially comply with the rule (Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit (COA)
Proper, GR No. 213525, 27 January 2015, Bersamin, J.).


If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, substituted service of
summons may be effected. Given the circumstance that the defendants were always out of office, it was clear that
personal service could not be made within a reasonable time. Substituted service was, thus, justified (Macasaet v. Co,
G.R. No. 156759, 5 June 2013, Bersamin J.).


The defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except,
when 1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, 2) litis pendentia, 3) res judicata, and 4) prescription are evident
from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In the four excepted instances, the court may motu proprio dismiss the
claim or action.


GR: All available grounds for objection in attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding should be invoked at one
time; otherwise, they shall be deemed waived (2010 Bar).

1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Litis pendentia;
3. Res judicata; and
4. Prescription (Sec. 1, Rule 9)


Pre trial is mandatory in civil cases. After the last pleading is filed, the plaintiff is mandated to file an ex parte motion
moving the case for pre-trial. Thereafter the clerk of court shall issue a notice of pre-trial. If the plaintiff fails to file his
motion ex parte moving the case for pre-trial, within 5 days from the filing of the last pleading the clerk of court shall
issue a notice of pre-trial notwithstanding the absence or lack of an ex parte motion moving the case for pre-trial.
Service of notice of pre-trial is mandatory.

The failure of the defendant to appear on the date of the pre-trial conference on the ground that he was not given notice
of pre-trial renders the whole proceeding from pre-trial up to judgment and ultimately execution of judgment void
for having been made in violation of the defendants right to due process (PNB v. Sps. Perez, 15 June 2011).



A lawyer may intervene in a case in order to protect his interests under a contingent fee arrangement pursuant to Sec.
26, Rule 38 (Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 183952, 9 September 2013, Bersamin J.). In this case, a client,
entering into a compromise with the adverse party, filed a motion to withdraw its case and terminated the services of
the law firm.


Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25)

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 party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.. The interrogatories shall be
answered fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them.
Period to answer: 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;
Period to file objections: Within 10 days after service thereof.
Effect of Failure to serve: 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. XPN: Unless allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
Admission by Adverse Party (Rule 26)
The procedure on Admission by Adverse Party under Rule 26 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.
Admissions to be requested from the adverse party
1. Genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request; or
2. Truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request (Sec. 1, Rule 26).
The request for admission shall be made 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 (Sec. 1, Rule 26).
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not
constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding
(Sec. 3, Rule 26). A party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party on material and
relevant facts at issue shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts unless otherwise allowed by the court for
good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice (Sec. 5, Rule 26).
The court may allow the party making the admission to withdraw or amend the admission upon such terms as may be
just (Sec. 4, Rule 26). Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action
only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any
other proceeding (Sec. 3, Rule 26).

Production or Inspection of Documents or Things

The rules of discovery, including Sec. 2, Rule 27, are to be accorded with broad and liberal interpretation. Purpose: to
obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts to be determined in the case and thereby prevent the trial
from being carried on in the dark (Insigne v. Abra Valley Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 204089, 29 July 2015, Bersamin J.).

Reverse order of trial

Where the defendant, in his answer, relies upon an affirmative defense, a reverse order of trial shall take place. Since
the defendant admits the plaintiffs claim but seeks to avoid liability based on his affirmative defense he shall proceed
first to prove his exemption (Yu v. Mapayo, G.R. No. L-29742, 22 March 1972).

Memorandum Decision


Decisions which adopt by reference the findings of facts and conclusions of law of inferior tribunals. Memorandum
decisions do not transgress the constitutional requirement in Art. VIII, Sec. 14, on clearly and distinctly stating the facts
and the law on which the decision is based. Nonetheless, it would be more prudent for a memorandum decision not to
be simply limited to the dispositive portion but to: (1) State the nature of the case; (2) Summarize the facts with
references to the record; and (3) Contain a statement of the applicable laws and jurisprudence and the tribunals
assessments and conclusions on the case. (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CA, G.R. No. 114323, September 28,


GR: A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any
respect even if the modification is intended to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law (Sofio v. Valenzuela, 2012,
Bersamin, J.).

1. correction of clerical errors;
2. nunc pro tunc entries;
3. void judgments; and
4. whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the judgments rendering execution unjust and

NOTE: A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry made now of something which was actually previously done, to
have effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply an omission in the
record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake.

Is an appeal unmeritorious considering that the Order denying the MR is an interlocutory Order?

An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment is effectively an appeal from
the final order or judgment itself; the prohibition against appealing an order denying a motion for reconsideration
referred only to a denial of a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order (Jose v. Javellana et al., 2012,
Bersamin, J.).

Denials based on lack of knowledge or information of matters clearly known to the pleader, or ought to be known to it,
or could have easily been known by it are insufficient, and constitute ineffective or sham denials (Fernando Medical
Enterprises, Inc. v. Wesleyan University Philippines, G.R. No. 207970, January 20, 2016, Bersamin J.).



When is a second motion for reconsideration allowed?

1. Motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, unless it is a mere reiteration of arguments already passed upon
by the court (San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, 31 July 2006); and
2. If filed before the Supreme Court, and only after meeting the following requirements:
a. with express leave;
b. for extraordinarily persuasive reasons;
c. by a vote of at least 2/3 of the actual membership of the SC en banc; and
d. before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the courts declaration (League
of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, 28 June 2011, Bersamin, J.).


MOTION FOR EXECUTION: There is no need to file a motion for execution in an amparo or habeas corpus decision (LT.
Col. Boac v. Cadapan, 2011).

Variance Rule

If the writ of execution varies the terms of the judgment and exceeded them, it has no validity. (KKK Foundation v. Hon.
Calderon-Bargas, 2007).

Some instances where a writ of execution may be appealed

1. the writ of execution varies the judgment;

2. there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
3. execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
4. it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court;
5. the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or


6. it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or issued
against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued
without authority.

REASON: Considerations of justice and equity dictate that there be some mode available to the party aggrieved of
elevating the question to a higher court. That mode of elevation may be either by appeal, or by a special civil action of
certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. The instant case falls under one of the exceptions; the fact that Danilo has left the
property under dispute is a change in the situation of the parties that would make execution inequitable or unjust
(Danilo L. Parel v. Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011).

NOTE: In such event, one of the corrective measures that may also be taken is the quashing of the writ of execution
(Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 2013).

Rule on Execution

The rule on execution by motion or by independent action under Section 6, Rule 39 applies only to civil actions and not
to special proceedings, such as an ex parte petition for the issuance of the writ of possession (Sps. Topacio v. Banco
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 2010) or a land registration case (Ting v. Heirs of Diego Lirio, 2007), as it is not
in the nature of a civil action.

Execution pending appeal does not bar the continuance of the appeal on the merits, for the rules of court precisely
provides for restitution according to equity in case the executed judgment is reversed on appeal (Legaspi v. Ong, GR
No. 141311, 26 May 2005)

Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides that where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or
annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of
damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances. Evidently, the action of the RTC in ordering the
issuance of the writ of execution against herein petitioner for it to return the excess amount private respondent has
paid in compliance with the execution pending appeal, is in accordance with the Rules. (O. Ventanilla Enterprises
Corp. v. Tan, 2013).


Final Order vs. Interlocutory Order

A final order disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, while an interlocutory order
does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with
preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. (Garrido v. Tortogo et al.,
2011, Bersamin, J.).

Fresh Period Rule

A party-litigant should be allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC, counted
from receipt of the order dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, so as to
standardize the 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 (Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005).

The ruling in Neypes, being a matter of procedure, must be given retroactive effect and applied even to actions pending
in this court (Sumiran v Damaso, G.R. NO. 162518, August 19, 2009).

The Fresh Period Rule shall also apply to Rule 40, Rule 42, Rule 43, Rule 45 whether full or partial or any final order or
resolution (Gagui v. Dejero, 2010). However, a scrutiny of the said rules reveals that the "fresh period rule" enunciated
in Neypes need NOT apply to Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to
appeal. It is explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the
notice of the decision, award, judgment, final order or resolution or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed (Rolex Rodriguez v. People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 192799, 24 October 2012).

The Fresh 15-Day Period provided for in Neypes applies to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding the wording of
Section 6, Rule 122 (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, 2011).

The fresh period rule does not apply to: (1) Administrative appeals (San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group
Inc. v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayang, G.R. No. 194702, April 20, 2015); (2) Rule 64 - Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit (Fortune Life Insurance Co., Inc. v. COA, G.R.
No. 213525, 27 January 2015, Bersamin, J.).

Dual Function of Appellate Courts

1. Review for Correctness Function: To review a case on appeal to render substantial justice. Focuses on the
doctrine of res judicata.


2. Institutional Function: To contribute to the progressive development of the law for the guidance of the courts in
deciding future similar cases. Focuses on the doctrine of stare decisis (Appeal and Review in the Philippines,

Harmless Error Rule

When errors are harmless, minor or inconsequential, reversal on appeal should not be handed by the appellate courts
(Appeal and Review in the Philippines, Bersamin). In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, the Court
examines its damaging quality and impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and
insignificant, the Court disregards the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence
against the prejudiced party (People v. Teehankee, Jr., 1995).

Slip Rule

The Slip Rule is one of the exceptions to the rule that modification of judgment or order is not allowed after its finality
this is allowed where the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment contains a clerical error or an ambiguity
arising from an inadvertent omission, the error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision
itself (Appeal and Review in the Philippines, Bersamin).

Stay of Execution Under Rule 43

The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of
Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just (Sec. 12, Rule 43).


Except the Supreme Court, RA 8975 expressly prohibits any court from issuing any TRO, preliminary injunction, or
preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain, prohibit or compel the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials,
or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the Governments direction, from:

(a) acquiring, clearing, and developing the right-of-way, site or location of any National Government project;
(b) bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the National Government;
(c) commencing, prosecuting, executing, implementing, or operating any such contract or project;
(d) terminating or rescinding any such contract or project; and
(e) undertaking or authorizing any other lawful activity necessary for such contract or project. (Nerwin Industries v.
PNOC-ENERGY, 2012, Bersamin, J.)

Exceptions to the Final Judgment Rule

1. Statutory Exception: when provided for in the Rules of Court

2. Discretionary Exception: when allowed or refused by the Supreme Court, acting pursuant to its appellate
3. Collateral Order Exception: when the decision determines a collateral matter regarding rights of the parties to the
action which is too important to be denied review (e.g. judgment against respondent in indirect contempt cases)
4. Immediate Harm Exception: when postponement of an act subject of appeal will produce an immediate and
irreparable harm against the appellant (Appeal and Review in the Philippines, Bersamin).

Question of Law

A question, to be one of law, must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them except:
1. when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
2. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3. when there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. when the findings of facts are conflicting;
6. when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
7. when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
8. when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
9. when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
10. when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and
11. when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion (Landines v. People and de Ramon, G.R. No. 167333, 11 January 2016,
Bersamin, J.).



A petition for review under Rule 42 is not the proper remedy to assail a decision of the RTC in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, since the RTC in the case acted in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The appeal should be by way of
Rule 41, or by an ordinary appeal (Heirs of Garcia v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, G.R. No. 162217, 22 July 2015,
Bersamin, J.).

An appeal under Rule 43 is a discretionary mode of appeal, which the CA may either dismiss if it finds the petition to be
patently without merit, or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to
require consideration; or may process by requiring the respondent to file a comment on the petition. (Maniebo v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 158708, 10 August 2010, Bersamin, J.).


A compromise agreement has the effect and authority of res judicata between the parties, and is immediately final and
executory unless rescinded upon grounds that vitiate consent. Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it is more than a
mere contract between the parties. Any effort to annul the judgment based on compromise on the ground of extrinsic
fraud must proceed in accordance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (Tung Hui Chung and Tong Hong Chung v. Shih
Chiu Huang, G.R. No. 170679, 9 March 2016, Bersamin, J.).


It is available only to a party in whose favor the remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, and petition for relief
from judgment are no longer available through no fault of said party. As such, the petitioner, being a non-party in the
case sought to be annulled, could not bring the action for annulment of judgment (Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 161122, 24 September 2012 Bersamin, J.).


A status quo ante order is an equitable remedy intended to maintain the last actual, peaceable, uncontested state of
things which preceded the controversy. Unlike a TRO, it is issued by the court motu proprio and no bond is required for
the issuance of a status quo ante order.

A status quo ante order, by its nature, cannot require the doing (or undoing) of acts (Megaworld Properties &
Holdings Inc. v. Majestic Finance & Investment Co., G.R. No. 169696, 9 December 2015, Bersamin J.).


The well-established rule is that the motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party
can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before the
resort to certiorari is intended to afford to the public respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error
attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. Though the rule is not absolute, a
perusal of the circumstances of the case shows that none of the foregoing exceptions was applicable herein. Hence,
Causing should have filed a motion for reconsideration because there was nothing in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
that precluded the filing of a motion for reconsideration in election offense cases (Causing v. Comelec, GR No. 199139, 9
September 2014, Bersamin, J.).

Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are directed only to tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
The issuance of the department order was purely administrative or executive function of the Secretary of Justice. Nor is
mandamus proper to control or review the exercise of discretion (Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 188056, 8
January 2013, Bersamin J.).

A Judicial Compromise Agreement cannot be assailed by a Petition for Certiorari based on extrinsic fraud

No. If the ground of the respondent to assail the judgment based on the compromise agreement was extrinsic fraud, his
action should be brought under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Here, the original action for annulment may be based only
on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, provided that extrinsic fraud was not availed of, or could not have been
availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Moreover, this remedy is to be availed of only if the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner. (Chung vs. Huang, 2016, Bersamin, J.)



Inverse condemnation refers to the action for recovery of just compensation filed by the property owner in a situation
wherein the State, local government, unit or public utility seizes or takes private property for public use without filing
beforehand a complaint for expropriation. It is called inverse because it is the property owner rather than the State
which initiated the proceedings for the payment of just compensation (National Power Corporation v. Makabangkit,
G.R. No. 165828, 24 August 2011, Bersamin J.).



To enable the extra-judicial foreclosure of the Real Estate Mortgage, the special power to sell should have been inserted
in the REM itself or embodied in a separate instrument attached to the REM; otherwise, only judicial foreclosure may be
resorted to as set forth in Rule 68 of the Rules of Court (Sps. Baysa v. Sps. Plantilla, 2015, Bersamin, J.).


A boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reinvindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The boundary
dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed by the defendant formed part
of plaintiffs property. A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court the
proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry (Manalang v. Bacani, 2015, Bersamin, J.)

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory; but the defendant, to stay its
immediate execution, must: (1) perfect an appeal; (2) file a supersedeas bond; and (3) periodically deposit the rentals
becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. (Acbang v. Hon. Luczon, Jr., 2014)

A petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in an ejectment case under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court. Under Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, the RTC has no jurisdiction over a petition for relief from
judgment. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari before the RTC. (Agdal v. Carlos, 2010)

NOTE: The Court treated the petition for relief from judgment before the RTC as a petition for certiorari in this case.



Essentially, a writ of inquiry, granted to test the right under which a person is detained, and to relieve a person if such
restraint is illegal. It is regarded as palladium of liberty, a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of right
but in the sound discretion of the court or judge.

A restraint that is lawful and pursuant to a court process cannot be inquired through habeas corpus (Mangila v. Judge
Pangilinan, G.R. No. 160739, 17 July 2013, Bersamin, J.).

It may also be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c)
an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess. (In the matter of the application for
the writ of habeas corpus reclassifying sentence to R.A. No. 8353 in behalf of Rogelio Ormilla, et. al. v. The Director,
Bureau of Corrections, G.R. No. 170497, 22 January 2007).

Is the writ of habeas corpus and certiorari ancillary to each other?

The writ of habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary to each other to give effect to the supervisory powers of the
higher courts. A writ of habeas corpus may be used with the writ of certiorari for the purpose of review (Galvez v. CA,
G.R. No. 114046, 24 October 1994).

Can the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals take cognizance of a case of habeas corpus with respect to custody of

Yes. Although the Family Court where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found has exclusive and
original jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus with respect to custody of minors, the SC and the CA can take
cognizance of such petition in order that it can be enforceable within the Philippines. However, the return can be heard
in the FC/RTC (if there is no FC in the judicial region), and there is no need to file a separate petition for custody
because the issue can be ventilated in the petition for the writ.

NOTE: The general rule is that parents should have custody over their minor children. But the State has the right to
intervene where the parents, rather than care for such children, treat them cruelly and abusively, impairing their
growth and well-being and leaving them emotional scars that they carry throughout their lives unless they are liberated
from such parents and properly counselled (In the matter of the petition for habeas corpus of minor Shang Ko
Vingson Yu Shirly Vingson Shirly Vingson Demaisip v. Jov Cabcaban, UDK No. 14817, 13 January 2014).


The petitioner in a Writ of Amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of
government participation. The allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough (Navia
v. Padico, 2012).

When a criminal action has been commenced, a petition for a Writ of Amparo shall be filed in the same court where the
criminal action was pending (Reverend Father Robert Reyes v. CA, 2009).


New standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence in Amparo petitions

The Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to enable amparo petitioners to meet the
required amount of proof showing the States direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a
fair and proper rule in amparo cases to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality and to consider
any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible
evidence adduced. Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules for as
long as it satisfies the most basic test of reason i.e., relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency
with all other pieces of adduced evidence (Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, 3 December 2009).

Kinds of amparo petitions

What began as a protection against acts or omissions of public authorities in violation of constitutional rights later
evolved for several purposes:

1. amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas corpus writ;
2. amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes;
3. amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision;
4. amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions; and
5. amparo agrario for the protection of peasants rights derived from the agrarian reform process

The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. It can be availed
of as an independent remedy to enforce ones right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational privacy. The
remedies against the violation of such right can include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the
database or information or files in possession or in control of respondents (Vivares v. St Thereses College, G.R.
No. 202666, 29 September 2014).
Nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or
entity engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and collecting of data. What matters is that the person or entity
must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether
such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal
endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from
getting to said person or entity (Vivares v. St Thereses College, G.R. No. 202666, 29 September 2014).

What should be alleged in a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan?

In a Writ of Kalikasan, petitioner has the burden to prove the following:

1. Environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated;
2. Act or omission complained of; and
3. Environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.

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. v. Agham Party List, 2016).


The proper mode of appealing a judgment or final order in special proceedings is by filing a notice of appeal and record
on appeal within 30 days from notice of judgment or final order (Chipongian v. Lirio, GR No. 162692, 26 August 2015,
Bersamin, J.).



Complaint and information

The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash may be sustained based on the ground that the
complaint or information charges no offense is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the
essential elements of the offense as defined in the law (Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, 11
September 2013, Bersamin, J.).

The real nature of the criminal charge is determined NOT from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the recital


of the facts in the complaint or information. Therefore, a quashal of the information cannot be availed of (Lacson v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, 20 January 1999).


Judicial review of the action of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or reversing the resolution of the prosecutor
Any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 2016)
Authority of the Secretary of Justice to motu proprio order the conduct of a reinvestigation
The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within her authority to affirm,
nullify, reverse, or modify the resolutions of her prosecutors. Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice may step in and order
a reinvestigation even without a prior motion or petition from a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of
justice. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 2016)

Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action

In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal
action refers only to that arising from the offense charged. Subsidiary liability against Ospital ng Manila cannot be
adjudged against it as it had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum (Solidum v. People, G.R. No. 192123, 10 March
2014, Bersamin, J.).
Effect of death as to the criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto

Criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of the appellant is not extinguished by his death prior to final judgment. The
independent civil actions in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176, as well as claims from sources of obligation other than delict,
are not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without
reservation. The civil action may thereafter be instituted against the estate or legal representatives of the decedent is
taken from the new provisions of Section 16 of Rule 3 in relation to the rules for prosecuting claims against his estate in
Rules 86 and 87 (People of the Philippines vs. Lipata, 2016).

Extinguishment of criminal liability

The acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the
criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist
(Lumantas v. Calapiz, G.R. No. 163753, 15 January 2014, Bersamin, J.).
Prejudicial question
The essential elements of a prejudicial question are provided in Sec. 7, Rule 111, to wit: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed (San Miguel Properties, Inc. v.
Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013, Bersamin, J.).
Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation
1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law.

a) The COMELEC through its duly authorized legal officers, has the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms
of the government, to conduct PI of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Election Code and to
prosecute the same (Sec. 265, BP 881, OEC, as amended by Sec. 43, RA 9369).
b) The Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the
government, the investigation of such cases (Sec. 15(1), RA 6770).
c) The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of the OSG and other government
agencies is empowered to investigate, file and prosecute cases investigated by it (E.O. No. 14, 7 May 1986).
d) Preliminary investigation is not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has
been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. Hence, the
presentation of the medical certificates to prove the duration of the victims need for medical attendance or of their
incapacity should take place only at the trial, not before or during the preliminary investigation (Enrile v.
Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, 22 October 2014, Bersamin, J.).

Cases not requiring preliminary investigation


1. If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day.
2. If a person is arrested lawfully without a warrant involving an offense which requires a PI, i.e, the penalty is at least
4 years, 2 months and 1 day, an information or complaint may be filed against him without need for PI. Inquest
proceedings instead would be conducted.

No right to cross-examine during preliminary investigation

It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses
which the complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the respondent
shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and,
where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an
opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine (Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos.
212140-41, January 21, 2015).
Hearsay evidence in determination of probable cause
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. However, in administrative cases,
where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated, what is required is "substantial evidence" which cannot rest entirely
or even partially on hearsay evidence (Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al., G.R. No. 212140-41, January 21,
Rule 65 to question regularity of preliminary investigation
A petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary investigation in any other venue has been rendered
moot by the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the conduct of arraignment. The prudent course of action at this stage
would be to proceed to trial. The accused, however, is not without remedies. He may still file any appropriate action
before the trial court or question any alleged irregularity in the preliminary investigation during pre-trial. (De Lima vs.
Reyes, 2016)

Instances of a valid warrantless arrest

1. In flagrante delicto arrest;

2. Doctrine of hot pursuit; and
3. Escapee.
(Sec. 5, Rule 113)

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Accused was arrested for violation of traffic ordinance. However, the ordinance imposes fine as sole penalty hence, a
warrantless arrest cannot be made for such offense. Consequently, the drugs obtained by authorities from the arrest
was rendered inadmissible since there can be no valid search incidental to unlawful arrest. An exception to this rule is
the Plain View doctrine. From the foregoing, the accused was acquitted (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, Sereno, J.).

The principal purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial or whenever so required by the
court. The Philippines commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the dignity of every
person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a
clear and convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that
there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.21384, 18 August
2015, Bersamin, J.).
When bail is not allowed
1. A person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall
not be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong;
2. After judgment of conviction has become final; or
3. After the accused has commenced to serve his sentence.

When Bail is a matter of right

1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC and
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec.
4, Rule 114);
3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with the law for an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment.

Bail as a matter of discretion

1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;


2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, a person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is not strong (Sec. 7, Rule 114); and
3. A child in conflict with the law charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong. (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

Forfeiture of bail
If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen are given
thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgement should be rendered
against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) Produce the body of the accused or give reason for his non-production; and
(b) Explain why the accused did not appear before the court. Failing in these requirements, a judgement shall
be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally for the amount of bail.
Cancellation of bail
Bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. Bail is automatically cancelled upon acquittal
of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgement of conviction.
If the accused, despite due notice, fails to appear, the arraignment shall not proceed. The court shall issue an order of a
warrant for his arrest, and the bail bond filed by him, if there is any, be ordered forfeited (Citizens Surety and
Insurance Co. Inc v. Judge Concepcion, G.R. No. L-43233, 23 January 1978).
Plea-bargaining in drug cases

The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The Court deems it proper to declare as invalid the
prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made part of the rules of procedure through an
administrative circular duly issued for the purpose (Salvador Estipona, Jr. y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo and
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017).
Bill of particulars
It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall
not be required to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the
elements of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove any item of factual information included in the bill of
particular (Enrile v. People, 2015).

Grounds for a motion to quash the complaint or information

1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
4. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
5. That the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
7. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
8. That it contains various averments which if true would constitute legal excuse or justification; and
9. 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 (double jeopardy). (Sec. 3, Rule 117)

GR: An order sustaining a Motion to Quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.
XPN: Except when the ground of the motion to quash is either:
1. Extinction of criminal liability; or
2. Double jeopardy
(Sec. 6, Rule 117)

Amendment of Information

1. If the defect can be cured by amendment, or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment (People v.
Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, 17 July 2013).

2. If the defect such as the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form, the information is curable by amendment, and the motion to
quash shall be denied and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information (People v. Andrade,
G.R. No. 187000, 24 November 2014).


3. If the information does not charge an offense, then a motion to quash is in order. But if the information charges an
offense and the averments are so vague that the accused cannot prepare to plead or prepare for trial, then a
motion for a bill of particulars is the proper remedy. Thus, a motion to quash and a motion for a bill of particulars
are distinct and separate remedies, the latter presupposing an information sufficient in law to charge an offense
(Enrile v. People, 2015).

Remedy against denial of a motion to quash

The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant-accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the
decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash.
The denial, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari
because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law (Enrile vs. Manalastas, 2014).
Double Jeopardy

A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable. It is immediately executory and the State may not seek its
review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Judgment of acquittal can only be challenged through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process to the
State (People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982. 5 August 2009).

Elements of Double Jeopardy

1. Conviction or acquittal, or dismissal was made without the consent of the accused
2. Conviction or acquittal, or dismissal was made by a court of competent jurisdiction;
3. A valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged;
4. Accused pleaded guilty to the charge; and
5. The subsequent prosecution is for an offense which is the same as in the former complaint or information, or
frustration, or for any offense which necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or

Period when provisional dismissal becomes permanent

The dismissal shall become permanent if:

1. The case is not revived within 1 year after the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal with respect to
offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount or both; or
2. The case is not revived within 2 years after the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal with respect to
offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years (Sec. 8, Rule 117).

Time bar rule

The prosecution has to revive the case if it desires to prevent the provisional dismissal becoming permanent and the
revival of the case being time-barred. If no revival of the case is made within the prescribed period, the dismissal shall
be removed from being provisional and becomes permanent.

Matters considered during pre-trial conference:
1. Plea bargaining;
2. Stipulation of facts;
3. Marking for identification of evidence of parties;
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
5. Modification of the order of the trial if one of the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
6. Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case (Sec. 1, Rule 118)

Pre-trial agreement shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118).
Effect of non-appearance of counsel for the accused or the prosecutor during the pre-trial without valid
The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties in the form of reprimand, fines or imprisonment the counsel does
not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation (Sec. 3, Rule 118; Sec. 5, Speedy Trial Act).
Instances when the presence of the accused is required by law

In the following instances, the presence of the accused is required:

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.

Reverse Trial

The order of the trial may be modified when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
information but interposes a lawful defense (Sec. 11 (e), Rule 119).

Requirements for an accused to become a State Witness:

a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of the said accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
(Sec. 17, Rule 119)

The admission as a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981 also operates as an acquittal, and said witness cannot
subsequently be included in the criminal information except when he fails or refuses to testify. The immunity for the
state witness is granted by the DOJ, not by the trial court (Ampatuan Jr. v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013).


Variance doctrine

GR: An accused can be convicted of an offense only when it is both charged and proved.
XPN: When the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in
the offense proved (Sec. 4, Rule 120).

When an offense includes or is included in another

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included
in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the
latter. (Sec. 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court).
Absence of the accused at the promulgation of judgment
The promulgation of judgment shall proceed even in the absence of the accused despite notice. The promulgation in
absentia shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving a copy thereof to the accused at
their last known address or through counsel. The court shall also order the arrest of the accused if the judgment is for
conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause (Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 183152-54,
January 21, 2015).
If failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of
Court against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. But if he surrenders and files a motion for leave of court
to avail of the remedies and proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice (Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015).
Exceptions to the rule that modification of judgment or order is not allowed after its finality
1. Slip Rule

Modification of judgment is allowed after its finality where dispositive portion of a final and executory
judgment contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, the error known as
the slip rule (Bersamin J., Appeal and Review in the Philippines, citing Castelo vs. CA 244 SCRA 180).
2. To make the judgment conform to prevailing circumstances.

Example: reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee is inappropriate because of the employers eventual
closure (Bersamin J., Appeal and Review in the Philippines, citing Galindez vs. Rural Bank of Llanera , Inc.,
175 SCRA 132, 138-139).
The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same
rule does not apply in criminal cases because Sec. 9, Rule 122 which governs the appeal specifies such submission as
optional on his part, and commands the resolution of the appeal by the RTC on the basis of the records of the trial court
and of any memoranda of appeal as the parties may file in the case (Sanico v. People, G.R. No. 198753, 25 March 2015,
Bersamin, J.).


With the intervening passage on June 24, 2006 of R.A. No. 9346, the imposition of the death penalty has become
prohibited. Thus, the retroactive application of the prohibition against the death penalty must be made here because it
is favorable to the accused (People v. Buado, G.R. No. 17063, 8 January 2013, Bersamin, J.).
Requisites before a search warrant may be issued:
1. It must be issued upon probable cause;
2. Probable cause must be determined by the issuing judge personally;
3. The judge must have personally examined, in the form of searching questions and answers, the applicant and
his witnesses;
4. The search warrant must particularly describe or identify the property to be seized as far as the circumstances
will ordinarily allow;
5. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;
6. It must be in connection with one specific offense; and
7. The sworn statements together with the affidavits submitted by witnesses must be attached to the record
(Prudente v. Dayrit, G.R. No. 82870, December 14, 1989).

GR: The procurement of a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly conduct a search and seizure.
XPN: (Instances of a valid warrantless search)
1. Search incident to lawful arrest;
2. Plain view doctrine;
3. Immediate control test;
4. Consented search (waiver of right);
5. Search of moving vehicle;
6. Checkpoints; body checks in airports;
7. Stop and frisk situations (Terry doctrine);
8. Enforcement of custom laws;
9. Exigent and emergency circumstances; and
10. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building regulations.

NOTE: A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.

Determination of probable cause by the judge

The trial judge, by issuing the warrants of arrest, already found the existence of probable cause. It is then superfluous
for the accused to seek the judicial determination of probable cause on the pretext that the trial court should still act
and proceed independently of the executive determination of probable cause to charge the proper offense (Berua vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177600, October 19, 2015, Bersamin, J.).

Dismissal in the absence of probable cause

Under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the judge is authorized to immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record does not establish probable cause that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus,
established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements charged (Young v. People of the Philippines,
GR No. 213910, February 3, 2016).

Court where application for search warrant shall be filed:

GR: It should be applied before any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
1. Before any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of
the crime is known; or
2. Before any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
NOTE: In both cases, filing in such courts requires compelling reasons stated in the application.
3. When the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the
criminal action is pending.

NOTE: In case of search warrant involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code,
the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, the Executive judges and whenever they are on
official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice- Judges of RTCs of Manila and Quezon City
shall have the authority to act on the application filed by the NBI, PNP and the Anti- Crime Task Force

Indispensable party must be impleaded in a special civil action for certiorari

It cannot be denied that the search warrant in question had been issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
and that fact rendered the People of the Philippines indispensable parties in the special civil action for certiorari
brought to nullify the questioned orders of respondent Presiding Judge. Therefore, if the People is not impleaded the
petition should be dismissed for violating Sec. 3, Rule 46 (Charlie Te vs. Hon. Augusto Breva, G.R. No. 164974, August
5, 2015, Bersamin, J.).



Rights of accused at the trial

1. Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt;
2. Right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him;
3. Right to be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings;
4. Right to testify as a witness in his own behalf;
5. Right against self-incrimination;
6. Right to confront and cross examine witnesses against him at trial;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence;
8. Right to a speedy, impartial and public trial; and
9. Right to appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
(Sec. 1, Rule 115)



Two Requisites of Axioms of Admissibility

1. Axiom of relevancy: only facts having rational probative value should be admissible as an evidence. There is a
logical connection between the evidence and the factum probandum; and
2. Axiom of competency:facts having rational probative value should not be excluded by the law and rules.

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

The fact or proposition to be established. The fact or material evidencing the fact or proposition
to be established.
The fact to be proved, the fact which is in issue and to which The probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the
the evidence is directed. fact in issue.
Ultimate Facts. Intermediate or evidentiary facts.
Hypothetical. Existent.

Overcoming presumption that official duty has been regularly performed

You can overcome presumption of regularity through clear and convincing evidence showing either:
1. That the police officers were not properly performing their duty; or
2. They were inspired by any improper motive.


The court can take judicial notice of the fact that rape was committed in public places

Rape can be committed in a cramped dwelling despite the probable presence of other occupants because seclusion is
not an element of the crime. Its commission can be established by circumstantial evidence even if the victim, being the
sole witness, was rendered unconscious during its commission (People v. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, 15 June 2015,
Bersamin, J.).


Best evidence rule v. Parol evidence rule

Best evidence rule Parol evidence rule

It establishes a preference for the original document It is not concerned with the primacy of the evidence but
over a secondary proof thereof. presupposes that the original is available.
It precludes the admission of secondary evidence if It precludes the admission of other evidence to prove the
original document is available. terms of a document other than the contents of the document
Can be invoked by any litigant to an action whether or Can be invoked only by the parties to the document and their
not said litigant is a party to the document involved. successor-in-interest.
Applies to all forms of writing. Applies to written agreements (contracts) and wills.

When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the
writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence
may be admitted. The said Rule does not apply in an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of deed of sale
with right to repurchase that is alleged to have cast a cloud on the title of a property. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of
Alvarez, 2013, Bersamin, J.).


Even assuming that the Angara Diary was an out of court statement, still its use is not covered by the hearsay rule.
There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor
evidence, and (3) absence of the oath. Not all hearsay evidence is inadmissible as evidence. Here, the SC said as a matter
of exception, production of the original document may be dispensed with whenever when the case at hand, the
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose by its production
(Estrada v. Desierto, April 2001).


Child Witness defined

1. any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of 18 years; and
2. in child abuse cases, any person over 18 years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or
protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, 21 November 2000).

When the competency of a child is disputed

1. The courts function is to resolve as to whether the proposed witness has the requisite understanding and capacity;
2. The court may also allow the attorneys to make inquiry; and
3. The examination should show that the child has some understanding of the punishment which may result from
false swearing; but the courts have not insisted on a very definite or exact knowledge of this subject.

Is a child of tender age qualified to testify?

Yes, every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the
party challenging the childs competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to
perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will
the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child (A.M. No. 004-07-SC;
People v. Avila, G.R. No. 195244, 22 June 2015, Bersamin, J.).


Applicability of the Judicial Affidavit Rule to criminal cases

Sec. 9 (a) JAR: 1. Maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years;
2. Accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits irrespective of the penalty involved;
3. Civil aspect of the crime, irrespective of the imposable penalty.

Contents of the judicial affidavit

1. It shall be prepared in the language known to the witness. If not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation
in English or Filipino;
2. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath,
and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
4. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness;
5. The place where the examination is being held;
6. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
a. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
b. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
c. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the
Rules of Court;
7. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
8. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to
administer the same


If one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction. (Sunga v. Chan, 2001)

Marital disqualification rule v. Marital privileged rule

Marital Disqualification Rule Marital Privileged Communication Rule

(Sec. 22, Rule 130) (Sec 24 (a), Rule 130)
Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party to the Can be claimed whether or not the other spouse is
action. a party to the action.
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time the Can be claimed even after the marriage is dissolved.


testimony is offered.
Constitutes a total prohibition for or against the spouse of the Applies only to confidential communications
witness on facts or information even prior the marriage between the spouses received during the marriage.

Two Branches of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

1. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130); and
2. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do
the same or similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130).

Double Hearsay

An out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement. To be admissible, both layers of
hearsay must be found separately admissible.

A traffic accident investigation report is NOT admissible as evidence in court as an exception to the Hearsay Rule

A traffic accident investigation report prepared by a police officer relying solely on the account of a supposed
eyewitness and not on his or her personal knowledge is not evidence that is admissible as an exception to the Hearsay
Rule. The presentation of a public oficer or person performing a duty enjoined by law who made an entry may be
dispensed with provided, a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law
to do so; and b) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must
have been acquired by him personally or through official information(DST Movers Corporation v. Peoples General
Insurance Corporation, 2016, Bersamin, J.).

Dying Declaration: Requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration

1. Declaration was made by a dying person;
2. Under a consciousness of his impending death;
3. Declaration refers to the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant and not of anyone else;
4. Declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants death is the subject of the inquiry;
5. Declarant is competent as a witness had he survived (Ibid.);
6. Statement is complete in itself Doctrine of Completeness;
7. The declarant should have died (if he survives, his declaration may be admissible as part of the res gestae); and
8. That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a
victim. (People v. Salafranca, 2012, Bersamin, J.)

Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

A partys reaction to a statement or action of another when it is reasonable to treat partys reaction as an admission of
something stated or implied by another.

Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement

It merely proves the fact that a statement was made or uttered and not to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the

Hot tub rule/ Hot tub hearing/ Hot-tubbing

The judge hears all the experts discussing the same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion
with a professional colleague (ISAA v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, G.R. No. 209271, 8 December 2015). It is the
concurrent presentment of expert witnesses in evidentiary hearings which may include confrontation among the


Chain of custody in relation to Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002

The links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody:
1. The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items shall be conducted where the search warrant
is served.
2. The physical inventory and photograph shall be shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his
representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or
confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated refused to sign above
their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
3. The marked seized items shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/
seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
4. Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements shall not render void and invalid such seizures and
custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/ team (Section 21(1) of RA No. 9165; People v. Gonzales, 3 April 2013, Bersamin, J.).


No photograph was taken of the recovered items for documentation purposes. It was also not shown why, despite the
requirement of the law itself, no representative from the media, from the Department of Justice, or any elective official
was present to serve as a witness during the arrest. The Prosecutions testimonial evidence fell short of showing that
efforts were undertaken by the law enforcers to be present during the operation against the appellant from his
apprehension until the seizure of the drugs (People v. Angngao, G.R. No. 189296, 11 March 2015, Bersamin, J.).

The uncertainty on the identities of the individuals who could have handled the sachet of shabu after PO1 Dimlas
marking broke the chain of custody, and tainted the integrity of the shabu ultimately presented as evidence to the trial
court. (People v. Gonzales y Santos a.k.a. TAKYO G.R. No. 182417, 3 April 2013, Bersamin, J.).


Preponderance of evidence is required in actions brought to recover ill-gotten wealth under Sec. 1 of E.o. 14-A.
(Republic of the Philippines v. Bakunawa, et al., G.R. No. 180418, 28 August 2013, Bersamin, J.).


Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived have been proven; and, (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 4).


Basic requisites for the admissibility of an object or real evidence:

1. The evidence must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness; and
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.


Although the documents were not attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record or by his deputy and
said documents did not comply with the requirement that if the record was not kept in the Philippines, a certificate of
the person having custody must accompany the copy of the document that was duly attested stating that such person
had custody of the documents, the non-compliance with the Rules was not enough reason to reject the utility of the
documents for the purposes they were intended to serve. The official participation in the authentication process of
Tanja Sorlie of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the attachment of the official seal of that office on
each authentication indicated that the documents were of a public nature in Norway, not merely private documents
(Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Ellen Johanne Harper, et. al., August 2012, Bersamin, J.).


The RTC could not take the declaration of Villas into consideration because Villas extra-judicial sworn statement
containing the declaration had not been offered and admitted as evidence by either side. The CA stressed that only
evidence that was formally offered and made part of the records could be considered; and that in any event, the
supposed contradiction between the extra-judicial sworn statement and the court testimony should be resolved in favor
of the latter (Barut v. People, 24 September 2014, Bersamin, J.).


Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

It is a legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the
government has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights (Sec. 1, Rule 6, AM No. 09-6-8-SC).

SLAPP as a Legal Defense

The defendant may file an answer interposing as a defense that the case is a SLAPP and shall be supported by
documents, affidavits, papers and other evidence; and, by way of counterclaim, pray for damages, attorneys fees and
costs of suit (Sec. 1, Rule 6, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

NOTE: The nature of the hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature. The parties must submit all
available evidence in support of their respective positions (Sec. 3, Rule 6, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

When the Court Rejects the Defense of a SLAPP

The evidence adduced shall be treated as evidence of the parties on the merits of the case, and the action shall proceed
in accordance with the Rules of Court (Sec. 4, Rule 6, AM No. 09-6-8-SC).