RULE 120: JUDGMENT

Section 1. Judgement; definition and form. – Judgment is the adjudication by the court that
the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the
proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be written in the official language, personally
and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly
a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.

Judgments should avoid the tendency to generalize and form conclusions without detailing the facts
from which such conclusions are deduced. Indeed, elementary due process demands that the parties
to a litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the
factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.

The Supreme Court sustained decisions of lower courts as having substantially or sufficiently complied
with the constitutional injunction notwithstanding the laconic and terse manner in which they were
written and even if there were much to be desired in terms of clarity, coherence and comprehensibility,
provided that they eventually set out the facts and the law on which they were based, as when they:
 Stated the legal qualifications of the offenses constituted by the facts proved, the modifying
circumstances, the participation of the accused, the penalty imposed and the civil liability; or
 Discussed the facts comprising the elements of the offense that was charged in the
information, and accordingly rendered a verdict and imposed the corresponding penalty; or
 Quoted the facts narrated in the prosecution’s memorandum but made their own findings and
assessment of evidence, before finally agreeing with the prosecution’s evaluation of the case.

On the other hand, decisions or orders of lower courts and even of the Court of Appeals issued in
careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are at a patent nullity and must be struck down as
void when it:
 Contained no analysis of the evidence of the parties nor reference to any legal basis in reaching
its conclusions; or
 Contained nothing more than a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses of both parties;
or
 Convicted the accused but failed to cite any legal authority or principle to support conclusions;
or
 Consisted merely of mostly sweeping generalizations and failed to support its conclusion; or
 Consisted or discussion or reasoning merely based on the findings of another court sans
transcript of stenographic notes; or
 Failed to explain the factual and legal bases for the award of moral damages.

Parts of a decision
 Statement of the case
 Statement of facts
 Issues or assignment of errors
 Court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and
 Dispositive portion.

Statement of the case – consists of a legal definition of the nature of the action.
Statement of facts – the following are the different ways of relating the facts of the case:
 Objective or reportorial method, the judge summarizes, without comment, the testimony of
each witness and the contents of each exhibit;
 Synthesis method, the factual theory of the plaintiff or prosecution and then that of the
defendant or defense is summarized according to the judge’s best light;
 Subjective method, the version of the facts accepted by the judge is simply narrated without
explaining what the parties’ versions are; and
 A combination of objective and subjective means, the testimony of each witness is reported
and the judge then formulates his or her own version of the facts.

Issues or assignment of errors – on appeal, the assignment of errors, as mentioned in the appellant’s
brief, may be reproduced in toto and tackled seriatim, so as to avoid motions for reconsideration of
the final decision on the ground that the court failed to consider all assigned errors that could affect
the outcome of the case. But when the appellant presents repetitive issues or when the assigned errors
do not strike at the main issue, these may be restated in clearer and more coherent terms.

Court’s ruling – this part contains a full discussion of the specific errors or issues raised in the
complaint, petition or appeal, as the case may be; as well as of other issues the court deems essential
to a just disposition of the cae.

The dispositive portion – this includes a finding of innocence or guilt of the accused, the specific
crime committed, the penalty imposed, the participation of the accused, the modifying circumstances
if any, and the civil liability and costs. In case an acquittal is decreed, the court must order the
immediate release of the accused, if detained (unless they are being held for another cause) and order
the director of the Bureau of Corrections (or wherever the accused is detained) to report, within a
maximum of ten (10) days from notice, the exact date when the accused were set free.

Note: In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition should state whether
the complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The
following test of completeness may be applied:
 The parties should know their rights and obligations;
 They should know how to execute the decision under alternative contingencies;
 There should be no need for further proceedings to dispose of the issues;
 The case should be terminated by according the proper relief.

Note: It is an elementary doctrine that for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed
and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who penned it. In this connection, the
Court En-Banc issued the Resolution, implementing B.P. 129 which provides that cases
already submitted for decision shall be decided by the Judge to whom they were submitted,
except cases submitted for decision to judges who were promoted to higher courts or to those
who are no longer in the service. It merely requires that the judge who pens the decision is
still an incumbent judge, that is, a judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a different
branch, at the time the decision is promulgated.

Other important matters

 In the case of Ortiz vs. Aramburo, the Supreme Court held that there is no provision of law
which would preclude a judge from deciding a case on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence presented before the first judge who resigned from the service without deciding the
case, which oral evidence was taken by a stenographer and was produced before the second
judge. This rule is rooted in practical considerations.
 In the case of Rivera, Jr. vs. People, the Supreme Court held that a verbal judgment or order
of dismissal is a violation of Section 1 of Rule 120, hence, such order is, in contemplation of
law, ineffective. This is in line with the ruling in Cabarroguis vs. San Diego that a verbal order
of dismissal did not have the effect of acquitting the accused before it was withdrawn.
 In the case of Abay, Sr. vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court held that where there is valid
information and the accused has been arraigned, an order of dismissal issued by the court,
motu proprio, in the course of a trial of a criminal case, whether based on the merits or for
failure of prosecution witnesses to appear, has the effect of a judgment of acquittal, and double
jeopardy attaches. However, this order of dismissal must be written in the official language,
personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him conformably with the
provisions of Rule 120, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
Section 2. Contents of the judgment. – If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the
legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation
of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3)
the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his
wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is
any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved
or waived.

In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

The purpose of Section 2 of Rule 120 is to inform the parties and the person reading the decision on
how it was reached by the court after consideration of the evidence of the parties and the relevant
facts, of the opinion it has formed on the issues, and of the applicable laws.

Judgment of conviction
The Supreme Court emphasized that a conviction must stand on the strength of the prosecution’s
evidence, not on the weakness of the defense which the accused put up.

In cases where the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, the trial court is duty-
bound to determine the civil liability of the accused. If the filing of a separate civil action has not been
reserved or priorly instituted or the enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should,
in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission to be
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any. In the case of Tan vs. OMC Carriers,
the Court held that actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must
actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation,
conjecture, or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages.

However, the absence of a competent proof should not deprive the offended party some degree of
indemnity for the substantial economic damage and prejudice they had suffered. According to Article
2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

Judgment of acquittal
After trial on the merits, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the
ground of double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where
there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.

But, in case of an acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly liable. In the case of Manantan vs.
Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court distinguishes modes of acquittal with respect to civil liability:
 The acquittal is on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission
complained of; and
 The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
In the case of People vs. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the accused does not
prevent a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case where:
 The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;
 Where the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; or
 Where the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of
which the accused was acquitted.

Moreover, the civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment
in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or
where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.

Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. – When two or more offenses are charged in a
single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may
convict him of as many offenses as charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for
each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.

In the case of People vs. Tagud, the court said that it is axiomatic that each and every charge of rape
is a separate and distinct crime. Verily each of the alleged incidents of rape charged should be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information or that proved, and
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.
Variance doctrine – The Constitution mandates that the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, shall
enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
From this fundamental precept proceeds the rule that the accused may be convicted only of the
crime with which he is charged.
Exception: where it provides that an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than that
with which he is charged in the Information, unless such other offense was both established by
evidence and is included in the offense charged in the information.
In People vs Lumilan, the court ruled that since murder or homicide neither includes or is
necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, the trial
court may not validly convict an accused for the former crime under an information charging the
latter offense.