EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING BY

THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT

THAT THE PARTIES MUST PERSONALLY SIGN THE SAME: (MONASTERIOPE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should never

issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries
caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the
probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation,
and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown
to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be
refused.
It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to
prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial,
anddemonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).

THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT

ENTERTAINED THE JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE AT LARGE.
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY
ACCUSED who was present during the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE
GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the

pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
(Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000)
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the
three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these
elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the

ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012],
PERALTA, J.)

The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A.
No. 6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that
initially, the Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the
value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for
their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition
arrangement. Thus, in determining just compensation, the RTC is required to
consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the
current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the
sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment
made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to
the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs. Sps.
Costo [2012], Peralta, J).

QUO WARRANTO: A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to

determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the
holder from its enjoyment. It is brought against the person who is alleged to
have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office.
It may be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person
claiming to be entitled to such office. In quo warranto, the petitioner who
files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the subject
public office. In other words, the private person suing must show a clear right
to the contested position. Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a
right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be
dismissed. It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant
who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession
of his office (ARQUERO VS. CA [2011], PERALTA, J).

Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case:
In People v. Hernandez, the Court held that delay resulting from
extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders must be read in
harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that

the [p]etition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal
case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the
case. The trial court was then correct and acting well within its discretion
when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for postponement mainly
because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of venue (MARI &
PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).

The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.
If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for
an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the
constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would
be violated. (VILLAREAL VS. ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA, J.)
WHEN A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 17 OF
THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THERE IS NO NEED TO STATE
IN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IN A SUBSEQUENT
RE-FILED COMPLAINT THE FACT OF THE PRIOR FILING AND
DISMISSAL OF THE FORMER COMPLAINT. (BENEDICTO VS. LACSON
[2010], PERALTA, J.).

IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE GRANT OF DEMURRER IS TANTAMOUNT TO

AN ACQUITTAL AND THE DISMISSAL ORDER MAY NOT BE APPEALED
BECAUSE THIS WOULD PLACE THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL ORDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL, IT IS
STILL REVIEWABLE BUT ONLY THROUGH CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
OF THE RULES OF COURT. (PEOPLE VS. ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA, J.).

FORUM-SHOPPING CAN BE COMMITTED IN THREE WAYS: (1) by filing

multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been
finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) by

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). (BORRA vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J.)

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER: It is a settled rule that

jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations
in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set
up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the
whims of the defendant. (MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS.
CULLEN [2013], PERALTA, J.)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue,

the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of
the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear
and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity
for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the right of
respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the
prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service
meted on government employees or officials is immediately executory in
accordance with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly
observed in administrative disciplinary cases. (OMBUDSMAN vs. DE CHAVEZ
[2013], PERALTA, J).

THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO

PROMULGATE RULES CONCERNING PLEADING, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE IN ALL COURTS. (GSIS VS. HEIRS OF CABALLERO [2010],
PERALTA, J.).
IN DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THIS
RIGHT, THE FACTORS TO CONSIDER AND BALANCE ARE THE
FOLLOWING: (A) DURATION OF THE DELAY; (B) REASON THEREFOR;
(C) ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT OR FAILURE TO ASSERT IT; AND (D)
PREJUDICE CAUSED BY SUCH DELAY. (MARI VS. GONZALES, 2011
PERALTA, J.)

MOTION
TO
DISCHARGE
A
WRIT
OF
ATTACHMENT:
UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE CONTRACT AND THE VERACITY OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALLEGATION OF FRAUD, PERTAIN TO THE
MERITS OF THE MAIN ACTION. HENCE, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT TO BE
TAKEN UP IN RESOLVING THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE, LEST WE RUN
THE RISK OF DECIDING OR PREJUDGING THE MAIN CASE AND FORCE
A TRIAL ON THE MERITS AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (THE
MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN VS. HON. DUMDUM, JR., [2010],
PERALTA, J).

INSTANCES WHEN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS REQUIRED BY LAW:

Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia,
allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the
proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of
guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c)
at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case,
the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the
proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived (PEOPLE VS. DE
GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).

Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is

denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go
to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses
invoked in their motion to quash
The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions, one of
which is when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to
quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion,
then
certiorari
or
prohibition
lies.
(JAVIER
VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OVER ORDERS,
DIRECTIVES AND DECISIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY CASES ONLY. (OMBUDSMAN VS.
VENTURA, 2009, PERALTA, J.)

QUAHAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT: IN VIEW OF THE WITHDRAWAL

OF THE INFORMATION FOR ROBBERY, THE QUASHAL OF THE SUBJECT
SEARCH WARRANTS AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANTING THE
ISSUANCE BY THE RTC OF THE SAID SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
RESPONDENTS ALLEGED ACTS OF ROBBERY HAS BEEN RENDERED
MOOT AND ACADEMIC. (TAN vs. SY TIONG GUE, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

PLAIN VIEW: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be
in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search
warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine
applies when the following requisites concur:
(a)
the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area;
(b)

the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

(c)
it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or
properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the
course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent. (MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

IN SEARCHES INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST, THE ARREST

MUST PRECEDE THE SEARCH; GENERALLY, THE PROCESS CANNOT BE
REVERSED.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an
arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the
arrest at the outset of the search. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT

SEIZURE MUST BE CARRIED OUT WITH A JUDICIAL WARRANT;
OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES UNREASONABLE AND ANY EVIDENCE
OBTAINED THEREFROM SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE
IN ANY PROCEEDING. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE

REQUIREMENT BEFORE POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY CARRY OUT A BUYBUST OPERATION.
A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY MERE NONCOORDINATION WITH THE PDEA. (PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA [2011],
PERALTA, J.).

GENERALLY, A CRIMINAL CASE HAS TWO ASPECTS, THE CIVIL AND

THE CRIMINAL:
The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally
liable is also civilly liable. The civil action, in which the offended party is the
plaintiff and the accused is the defendant, is deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a)). The law allows the
merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party
benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him.
But, when the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case
on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since
liability under such an action can be determined based on mere
preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the
terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim
for civil liability. The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to
determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged the state
with his crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense,
the parties to the action are the People of the Philippines and the accused.
The offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state. Also in this
wise, only the state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole
right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme
Court. (BURGOS VS. CA, G.R. NO. 169711)

FORECLOSURE AND WRIT OF POSSESSION:

It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a mortgage or its
foreclosure as well as the sale of the property covered by the mortgage
cannot be raised as ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession. Any
such questions must be determined in a subsequent proceeding (Philippine
National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29,
2005, 465 SCRA 287) as in fact, herein respondents commenced an action
for Annulment of Certificate of Sale, Promissory Note and Deed of Mortgage.
x x x x Since respondents failed to redeem the mortgage within the
reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter
of right and the issuance thereof is merely a ministerial function (F. David
Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 78714, November
21 1990, 191 SCRA 516, 523).
The judge to whom an application for a writ of possession is
filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner
of its foreclosure. Until the foreclosure sale is annulled, the
issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial (Philippine National
Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465
SCRA 287). In fact, even during the period of redemption, the purchaser
is entitled as of right to a writ of possession provided a bond is posted to
indemnify the debtor in case the foreclosure sale is shown to have been
conducted without complying with the requirements of the law. More so
when, as in the pres ent case, the redemption period has expired and
ownership is vested in the purchaser. x x x The defaulting mortgagor is not
without any expedient remedy, however. For under Section 8 of Act 3135, as
amended by Act 4118, it can file with the court which issues the writ of
possession a petition for cancellation of the writ within 30 days after
the purchaser-mortgagee was given possession . IN FINE, it would be a
grievous error for QC-RTC, Branch 77 to deny petitioners motion for the
issuance of a writ of possession (PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK VS. JAMES
NG, ET AL. G.R. NO.187556, MAY 5, 2010, FIRST DIVISION, CARPIO MORALES,
J.).

CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE:

LIABILITIES OF THE DECEASED ARISING FROM QUASI-CONTRACTS
SHOULD BE FILED AS CLAIMS IN THE SETTLEMENT OF HIS ESTATE,

AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5, RULE 86 OF THE RULES OF COURT. x x x

x We read with approval the CAs use of the statutory construction principle
of lex specialis derogat generali, leading to the conclusion that the specific
provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court should prevail over the
general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court; the settlement
of the estate of deceased persons (where claims against the deceased
should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings,
while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 of
the Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily. (METROPOLITAN BANK &
TRUST COMPANY VS. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, G.R.
NO. 170498, JANUARY 9, 2013, BRION, J.)

DIRECT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TITLE:

The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such
judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is
indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an
attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof (ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO
SORIANO JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

RES JUDICATA:
For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following
requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the
new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the first case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there
must be between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject
matter and causes of action. As to the fourth element, it is important to
note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: first, bar by
prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of
Court and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is provided in Section
47 (c) of the same Rule. There is bar by prior judgment when, as
between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second
case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject
matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the
first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment,
facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again

be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit
may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of
action is not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK VS. SIA, G.R. NO. 165836, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION,
QUISUMBING, J.).

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 is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been
paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.
(GENERAL
MILLING
CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT
LABOR
UNION VS.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ,
J.).

THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE

COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE
REVIEWED ON APPEAL:
The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the
CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs.
WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011,
PERALTA, J.)

THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A

SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS
AVAILABLE:
To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong
remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule,
to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate;
2) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued
are null and void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may
be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in other meritorious
cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case; hence,
we apply the general rule. Respondent not having availed himself of the
proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the
dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS VS. ORDA, G.R. NO.
189402, MAY 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:

The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly, the amount
involved P13, 300.00 assessed value of the subject property as declared by
respondents, is immaterial for purposes of the RTCs appellate
jurisdiction. All cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the
RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (SEC. 22 OF B.P. 129; FEDERICA M.
SERRANO VS. SPOUSES ANSELMO AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ, G.R. NO.
162366, NOVEMBER 10, 2006, TINGA, J.)

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON

FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such
as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have
been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent

necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject
matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a
motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived
of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such
relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex
parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where
the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where
the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
(BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO.
162575, DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45

AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT:
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of
Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or
proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a
petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action
under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds
therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute
for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45.
(SANTIAGO CUA, JR., ET. AL. VS. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN ET. AL., G.R. NO.
181455-56, DECEMBER 4, 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).

WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous
case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and
the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the
ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (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). x x x If the forum shopping is not considered willful and
deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on
the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum
shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two)
actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA VS. METROPOLITAN BANK
& TRUST CO. G.R. NO. 182311, AUGUST 19, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICONAZARIO, J.).

ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS

TESTAMENTARY:
An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the
estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not
merely indirect or contingent. (Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No.
133743, February 6, 2007, Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R.
No. 134029, February 6, 2007, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).

AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT
REQUIRE PROOF:
It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course
of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in
other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When
made in the same case in which it is offered, no evidence is needed to prove
the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made. The
admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary
thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is
interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic of the Philippine vs. Estate
of Hans Menzi, G.R. No. I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez, J.)

WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL

RECORD OF A FOREIGN COUNTRTY:
As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce obtained abroad
is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a
judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or
record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country. Under
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document

may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by

either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer
having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the
Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by
the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b)
authenticated by the seal of his office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs.
Louella A. Catalan-Lee, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or
prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to
wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for
the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into
consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial.
Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or
promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new
trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the
judgment is not yet final. (NEMIA CASTRO VS. ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND
JAMIR GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 192737, APRIL 25, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).

HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED:

Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory. handwriting
experts,
while
probably
useful,
are
not
indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures. This is
so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be
the handwriting of such person, because he has seen the person write; or
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
has been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person. Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper
basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the handwriting or
signature of a person with which he has sufficient familiarity. (Fullero vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, ChicoNazario, J.)

REFERRAL OF SOME CASES FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND

JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

The following are under the mandatory coverage for court-annexed

mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR): a) all civil cases and
the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except those
which by law may not be compromised; b) special proceedings for the
settlement of estates; c) all civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to
file action issued by the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; d) the
civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; e)
the civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not
exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a private
person; f) the civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel; g) All civil cases and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under
Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; h) all cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the exclusive
and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33,
par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; i) all civil cases involving
title to or possession of real property or an interest therein brought on appeal
from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts
under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; and j)
all habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of
the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the special
jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 (A-114. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA).
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:
Normally, execution will issue as a matter of right only (a) when the
judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor
has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal
has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been
filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been
returned to the court of origin. Execution pending appeal is the
exception to the general rule. As such exception, the courts discretion in
allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence
of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling
circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes
illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or
damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the
judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead
of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity
(ROSARIO T. FLORENDO VS. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP., G.R. NO.
167976, JANUARY 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL:
THE TRIAL COURT HAS NO DISCRETION OR OPTION TO DENY A
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL SINCE DISMISSAL BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER
SECTION 1, RULE 17 IS A MATTER OF RIGHT. (O.B. JOVENIR
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MACAMIR REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 135803, MARCH 28, 2006,
TINGA, J.)

OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS:

The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his
mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the
assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics
and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing
which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed
observer. (Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 138696, July 7, 2010).

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON

FOR THE FIULING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:
Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a
condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. (Office of the
Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No. 169241, May, 2 2006, 488 SCRA 574, 580). Its
purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or
perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual
circumstances of the case (Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of
Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, 127 (2005); National Housing Authority v.
Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58, 64 (2001). The rule is, however, circumscribed
by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity,
as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised
in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the
lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government
or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4)
where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless;
(5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest
is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7)
where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no

opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY
DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

COURTS ARE TASKED TO DETERMINE NOTHING MORE THAN THE

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. DUE
EXECUTION OF THE WILL OR ITS EXTRINSIC VALIDITY PERTAINS TO
WHETHER THE TESTATOR, BEING OF SOUND MIND, FREELY
EXECUTED THE WILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES
PRESCRIBED BY LAW:
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of
making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will;
but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly
known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must
prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. x x x x An essential
element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator
or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her
earthly possessions upon his/her death. (ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR ET AL.
VS. LORENZO LAXA, G.R. NO. 174489, APRIL 11, 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

SANDIGANBAYAN:
DECISIONS AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SHALL
BE APPEALABLE TO THE SUPREME COURT BY WAY OF PETITION FOR
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 RAISING PURE QUESTIONS
OF LAW. CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 IS NOT THE REMEDY (PEOPLE
VS. ESPINOSA, G.R. NOS. 153714-20, AUGUST 15, 2003).

POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING:

The DNA test availed of by a person already convicted under a final and
executory judgment is termed "post-conviction" DNA testing. The Rules on
DNA Evidence allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available to (a)
prosecution, or (b) to the person convicted by a final and executory
judgment provided that the following requirements are met: (a) a biological
sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing
would probably result in the several of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6,
Rules on DNA Evidence). The remedy available to the convict if the result of

the post-conviction DNA testing is favorable to him includes: (a) filing of a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin; (b) the court shall
conduct a hearing and in case the court finds that the petition is meritorious,
it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of
the convict, unless his detention is justified for a lawful cause (Section 10,
Rules on DNA Evidence).

DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

The provision provides that where the penalty imposed by the RTC is
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is made directly to this
Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. On the other hand, a case where the penalty imposed is death will be
automatically reviewed by the Court without a need for filing a notice of
appeal. However, People vs. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
modified these rules by providing an intermediate review of the cases
by the CA where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death. Pursuant to Mateos ruling, the Court issued
A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules governing
review of death penalty cases. Also affecting the rules on appeal is the
enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect
on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death
penalty is prohibited, and in lieu thereof, it imposes the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature
of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC. Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on
appeals, death penalty cases are no longer operational. It is a settled
rule that substantiated factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those
of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on
appeal. (PEOPLE VS. ABON G.R. NO. 169245 FEBRUARY 15, 2008 VELASCO,
JR., J.)

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and
the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based
on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected
with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to

suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves
facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would
be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined. (JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL V. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL &
PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172060, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT:
AGREEMENTS OR ADMISSIONS MADE DURING THE PRE-TRIAL
CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED UNLESS THEY ARE
REDUCED IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE ACCUSED AND COUNSEL
(SEC. 2, RULE 118, RULES OF COURT).

LEGAL STANDING OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE

TO SEEK REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING BAIL
TO THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF STRONG
EVIDENCE OF GUILT:
Actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by
the Solicitor General, are, as a rule summarily dismissed. Here, the question
of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action,
preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The
grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused
that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has
already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when
warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In Narciso v. Sta. RomanaCruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the offended party to
challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. But in that case, the
trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the
appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the
private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice." It is
not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses
that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the
evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. (BURGOS VS. CA, G.R. NO.
169711, FEBRUARY 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).

CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE:

From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special Administrator's
commission is no less a claim against the estate than a claim that third

parties may make. Section 8, Rule 86 of the Rules recognizes this when it
provides for "Claim of Executor or Administrator Against an Estate." Under
Section 13 of the same Rule, the action of the court on a claim against the
estate "is appealable as in ordinary cases." Hence, by the express terms of
the Rules, the ruling on the extent of the Special Administrator's commission
- effectively, a claim by the special administrator against the estate - is the
lower court's last word on the matter and one that is appealable. (ATTY.
GEORGE S. BRIONES VS. LILIA J. HENSON-CRUZ, RUBY J. HENSON,
AND ANTONIO J. HENSON, G.R. NO. 159130, AUGUST 22, 2008,
BRION, J.)

APPEALS:
It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the appeal
throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate
court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment
whether they are assigned or unassigned (MICHAEL SAN JUAN VS. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 177191, MAY 30, 2011, NACHURA, J.)

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION:

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION is defined as capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The subject Resolutions
having been issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, no
grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the appellate court. (MARCELO
G. GANADEN AL. VS. FERMIN P. LANAG, SR., ET AL., G.R. NOS. 170500 &
170510-11 JUNE 1, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

DEMAND IS NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF REPLEVIN

ACTION:
For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an
affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:
Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond: The applicant must show by his own
affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:

(a)
That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed,
particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
(b)
That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party,
alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief;
(c)
That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so
seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in
double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned for
the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged,
and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover
from the applicant in the action (emphjasis supplied).
The Supreme Court see nothing in these provisions which
requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of
the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus,
prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of
replevin. More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that
a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that
he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either
pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Navarros
position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore
totally unmeritorious. (ROGER V. NAVARRO, VS. HON. JOSE L.
ESCOBIDO, G.R. NO. 153788, NOVEMBER 27, 2009, BRION, J.).

REQUISITES FOR INTERPLEADER:

1.
The plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or his
claim thereto is not disputed;
2.
The parties to be interpleaded must have adverse or
conflicting claims to the property in possession or custody of the plaintiff.
3.
The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and
the same.

BY ESCAPING PRISON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT IMPLIEDLY WAIVED HIS

RIGHT TO APPEAL:

Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals,

it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding, the escape of the
accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its
review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital
punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the
court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. (People vs. Esparas, G.R.
No. 120034, August 20, 1996). By escaping prison, accused-appellant
impliedly waived his right to appeal. (PEOPLE VS. FRANCISCO TARUC, G.R.
NO. 185202, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.)

OBSCENE MATERIALS OR PORNOGRAPHIC FILES:

While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of
the Revised Penal Code was dismissed as there was no concrete and strong
evidence pointing to them as the direct source of the subject pornographic
materials, it cannot be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks. At
the risk of being repetitious, it appears undisputed that the seized computer
units belonging to them contained obscene materials or pornographic files.
Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection of their
supposed property rights. (Nogales vs. People, G.R. No. 191080, November
21, 2011, Mendoza, J.)

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or
prevent the failure of justice. Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a
new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there
exists newly discovered evidence. The grant or denial of a new trial is,
generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which
cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown. This Court
has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of
newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the evidence was
discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered
and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3)
that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have
been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable
diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered (MANUEL
YBIERNAS ET AL. VS. ESTER TANCO GABALDON ET AL., G.R. NO.178925, JUNE
1, 2011, NACHURA, J.).

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:

UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, A MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MAY BE
FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE PROMULGATION OF THE
JUDGMENT OR FROM NOTICE OF THE FINAL ORDER APPEALED FROM.
FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD RENDERS THE SUBJECT DECISION FINAL
AND EXECUTOR (MAPAGAY VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 178984, AUGUST 19,
2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).

DEAD MANS STATUTE:

The Dead Mans Statute provides that 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.
But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: 1. The witness is a party or
assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted;
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative
of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3. The subject-matter of
the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person
or against person of unsound mind; and 4. His testimony refers to any
matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind. Well entrenched is the rule
that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estate
that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to
occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim.
Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified
from testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the death of the
deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the estate or
representatives of the deceased. (Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, G.R. No. 143340,
August 15, 2001, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.).

OBJECT EVIDENCE:
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE: Physical evidence is a mute but
eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has relied
principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the

physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the
physical evidence should prevail. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Reyes,
G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008, Austria-Martinez, J.).

RULES DNA EVIDENCE:

DNA IS AN ORGANIC SUBSTANCE FOUND IN A PERSONS CELLS
WHICH CONTAINS HIS OR HER GENETIC CODE. EXCEPT FOR
IDENTICAL TWINS, EACH PERSONS DNA PROFILE IS DISTINCT AND
UNIQUE. THE PURPOSE OF DNA TESTING IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
AN ASSOCIATION EXISTS BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE AND THE
REFERENCE SAMPLE. IN ASSESSING THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF DNA
EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER, AMONG
OTHERS THINGS, THE FOLLOWING DATA: a) How the samples were
collected; b) How they were handled; c) The possibility of contamination of
the samples; d) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples; e) Whether
the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests;
and f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. (People vs.
Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656. May 9, 2002, Per Curiam).

RECEIVERSHIP:
THE PURPOSE OF A RECEIVERSHIP IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MAIN
ACTION. Receivership is also aimed at preservation of, and at making more
secure, existing rights. It cannot be used as an instrument for the destruction
of those rights.

IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE

DECEASED, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE IS PREFERRED OVER THE NEXT
OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT:
When the law speaks of "next of kin", the reference is to those who are
entitled, under the statute of distribution, to the decedents property; or one
whose relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate as
distributed, or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether
an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the
decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the
issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits.
(Belen Sagad Angeles, vs. Aleli "Corazon" Angeles Maglaya, G.R. No. 153798
September 2, 2005, GARCIA, J.).

HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST-CONVICTION REMEDY:

The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention in which individuals are deprived of liberty. The writ may not be
availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue
of a valid judgment.However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed
when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following
exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation
of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the
court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed
penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such
excess. (ANDAL V. PEOPLE, 307 SCRA 605 [1999]; GO VS. DIMAGIBA, G.R.
NO. 151876, JUNE 21, 2005).