Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
REMEDIAL LAW
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. Distinguish between necessary and indispensable parties.
Indispensable Parties
The action cannot proceed unless
they are joined. Their presence is sine
qua non for the exercise of judicial
power.
No valid judgment if indispensable
party is not joined.
They are those with such an interest
in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect their rights.
(Rule 3 of Rules of Court)
Necessary Parties
The action can proceed even in the absence
of some necessary parties.
Case may be determined in court even if a
necessary party is not joined but the
judgment therein will not resolve the entire
controversy.
They are those whose interests are so far
separable that a final decree can be made in
their absence without affecting them.
(a)
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding 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;
(c)
where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or
the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d)
(e)
where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
(f)
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;
(g)
where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h)
where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity
to object; and
(i)
where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (Nisce
vs. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 167434, February 19, 2007)
Similarities
Distinctions
The remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Considering the final nature
of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not
allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution.(A.L. Ang
Network vs. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014)
15. (a) What is the Two-Dismissal Rule or the Twin-Dismissal Rule?
The Two-Dismissal Rule provides that dismissals that are based on the following grounds, to
wit:
(1) that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(2) that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and
(3) that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of
the statute of frauds, bar the refiling of the same action or claim.
(Strongworld Construction Corporation vs Perello, GR No 148026, July 27, 2006)
(b) Will the Two-Dismissal rule apply if the prior dismissal was done at the
instance of the defendant?
NO. Rule 17 governs dismissals at the instance of the plaintiff, not of the defendant.
Dismissals upon the instance of the defendant are generally governed by Rule 16, which
covers motions to dismiss. The purpose of the "two-dismissal rule" is "to avoid vexatious
litigation." When a complaint is dismissed a second time, the plaintiff is now barred from
seeking relief on the same claim. (Ching and Powing Properties vs. Cheng, G.R. No. 175507,
October 8, 2014)
16. Distinguish Depositions in Civil cases from criminal cases.
Depositions in civil cases are governed by Rules 23 to 28 while depositions in criminal cases
are governed by Sec. 15 of Rule 119.
Depositions in civil cases may be made before any judge, notary public or person
authorized to administer oaths at any time or place within the Philippines; while depositions
in criminal cases may be made only before the court where the case is pending;
Depositions in criminal cases may only be affected when it satisfactorily appears that a
witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court
or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, while in civil cases, no
specific ground is needed in taking a deposition. (Go et. Al. vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, 18
July 2012)
18. What are the different kinds of consolidation of cases?
(1) Quasi-consolidation - Where all, except one of several actions are stayed until one is
tried, in which case the judgment in one trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not
actually consolidation but is referred to as such.
(2) Actual consolidation - Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate
identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered. This is
illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the same parties
stating claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint.
(3) Consolidation for trial - Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each
retains its separate character and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of
consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one
action to be parties to the other. (Republic vs. Oribello, 692 SCRA 645)
19. What is the effect of failure to file and serve request for admission?
Unless otherwise 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 permitted to present evidence on such facts (Section 5, Rule 26
RC; Afulugencia vs. Metro Bank, 715 SCRA 399, February 5, 2014)
20. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories?
Unless as hereinafter allowed nu the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of
justice, a party not served with written interrogatories, may not be compelled by the advrse
party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal (Section 6,
Rule 25 RC)
21. Are actions for foreclosure and partition incapable of pecuniary estimation
therefore always cognizable by the RTC?
NO. Actions for foreclosure and partition are real actions. Thus, jurisdiction over such actions
is determined by the assessed value of the property involved.
The MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real
property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. (Barrido vs. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October
20, 2014)
20. In Malana vs. Tappa (G.R. No. 181303, September 17, 2009), the Supreme
Court ruled that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not
categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC.
In Sabitsana vs. Muertegui (G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013), however, it
was held that it is clear under the Rules that an action for quieting of title
may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real
property in dispute.
What are the distinctions between the two cases of Malana and Sabitsana
so as to reconcile the respective rulings?
Main Issue
Discussion with
respect to the
presence or
absence of breach
Petitioners
Complaint for
quieting of title was
filed after
petitioners already
no discussion on breach
demanded and
respondents
refused to vacate
the subject
property.
Under Section 1, Rule 63, a person must file a
petition for declaratory relief before breach or
violation of a deed, will, contract, other written
instrument, statute, executive order, regulation,
ordinance or any other governmental regulation.
(Martelino vs. National Home Mortgage Finance
Corp., G.R. No. 160208, June 30, 2008)
Where a specific rule or law provides the venue, the same shall be followed. (Section
4(a), Rule 4)
2.
If, however, there is a stipulation between the parties as to the venue, the same shall
govern. However, in order for such venue stipulation to be binding, it should contain
restrictive words like "only," "solely," "exclusively in this court," "in no other court
save ," "particularly," "nowhere else but/except ," or words of equal import.
(Pacific Consultants vs. Schonfeld, G.R. No. 166920, February 19, 2007)
3.
In cases where there is no rule or law providing for the venue or where there is no
venue stipulation, the venue depends on whether the action is real or personal.
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Section 1, Rule
4)
All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff. (Section 2, Rule 4)
23. What are the requisites for the grant of an execution of a judgment pending
appeal or discretionary execution?
(a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
(b) there must be good reasons for execution pending appeal;
(c) the good reasons must be stated in the special order.
(Stronghold Insurance v. Felix, G.R. No. 148090, November 28, 2006)
24. Distinguish the provisional remedies in civil cases.
REQUIREMENTS
Preliminary
Attachment
1. There must be a
valid cause of action;
2. There must be a
valid ground (Sec. 1,
Rule 57);
3. The applicant has
no other sufficient
security;
4. The value or the
claim to the property
is at least equal to
the prayer above all
counter-claims.
WHEN FILED
at the
commencemen
t of the action
or at any time
before entry of
judgment
BOND
equal to the
value of the
property
3RD PARTY
CLAIMANT
Sec. 14
/additional bond
is equal to the
value of the
property
Preliminary
Injunction
a. Right in esse a
right must be actual,
subsisting and
substantive and not
merely futuristic or
inchoate;
b. There must be a
violation or
threatened violation
of the right;
c. The violation or
threatened violation
of the right will result
in irreparable damage
or injury
at any stage of
an action or
proceeding
prior to the
judgment or
final order
amount fixed
by the court
n/a
1. Affidavit
2. Bond of the
Applicant
3. Bond of the
Receiver
even after
execution of
judgment
two bonds:
one for the
applicant and
one for
receiver
n/a
1. Affidavit
2. Bond twice the
value of the property
at the
commencemen
t of the action
before answer
is filed: once
answer is filed
issues are
joined
including right
to possess.
twice the
value of the
property: for
the cost of the
property and
for damages
Application only
at the
commencemen
t of the action
or at any time
prior to the
judgment or
final order, or
practically
anytime,
because the
decision for
support never
becomes final
none
Receivershi
p
Replevin
Support
Pendente
Lite
Sec.7/additional
bond is equal to
the value of the
property
n/a
PROHIBITION
Aggrieved party
Petitioner
Respondent
Court, Tribunal or
Officer
MANDAMUS
Court, Tribunal, Officer,
Person or Corporation
1. Lack of jurisdiction
Grounds
2. Excess of jurisdiction
1. Unlawful
neglect in the
performance of an act
which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty;
2. Unlawful exclusion of
another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other
is entitled
That judgment be
rendered commanding
and praying the
respondent, immediately
or at some other time to
be specified by the court,
to do the act required to
be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner,
and to pay damages
sustained by the
petitioner by reason of
the wrongful act of the
respondent.
Ministerial
Prayer
Functions
Discretionary
Discretionary or ministerial
Common
requirement
No appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated November 9, 1989 requires that
"impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the
defendant personally and the failure of such efforts," which should be made in the proof of
service. (Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974 August 16, 2006)
27. Distinguish between Rule 64 and Rule 65.
Rule 64
Where
applicable
Period to file
Applicability
of fresh
period rule
not applicable
Rule 65
Decision of any other
tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
Petition shall be filed not
later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the
judgment, order or
resolution.
Applicable
Purpose
When allowed
Amended Pleading
To add or strike out an allegation or the
name of any party, or by correcting a
mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken
or inadequate allegation or description in
any other respect.
Amendment as a matter of right:
(a) Any time before a responsive pleading is
served or,
(b) In case of a reply, at any time within ten
(10) days after it is served
Supplemental Pleading
Effect
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46
& 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs.
Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and
exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to
certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See
Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
(AC No 14-93, July 15, 1993)
30. Give the distinctions of the two kinds of TRO.
How filed
When will take effect
72 hours
Ex- parte
counted from issuance
20 days
Ex- parte
counted from service
May be extended
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. What cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan had been
transferred to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional trial court?
All cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where the information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
The cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this section shall be
tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office. (Section 4, RA 10660, July
28, 2014)
1. Distinguish between amendment and substitution of Information.
Amendment
Ground
formal or substantial
errors
Substitution
a mistake which was made
in charging the proper
offense
10
11
NOT AVAILABLE
General Rule: After judgment
of conviction has become
final
Exception: Parole
a. After
accused
has
imprisonment
c. Before conviction by
RTC of an offense
punishable by death,
RP or LI, when the
evidence of guilt is
NOT strong
commenced
to
serve
sentence (Sec. 24, Rule
113)
b. Requisites
a. Imprisonment exceeds
6 yrs, AND (Rule 113,
Sec. 5)
b. Either
of
the
circumstances
is
present:
1) Accused
is
a
recidivist (RPC, Art.
14(9)),
quasirecidivist (RPC, Art.
62(5)),
or
has
committed
the
crime aggravated
by reiteration (Art.
14(10))
2) Accused
has
previously
sentence, or has
violated the terms
of his bail without
valid
justification
(RPC, Art. 157 to
159)
3) Accused
committed
the
offense
while
under
probation
(P.D. 968), parole
(Act
4103),
or
conditional pardon
(Art. 159)
4) Probability of flight
if released on bail
5) Undue risk that he
may
commit
another
crime
during pendency of
appeal
The
list
is
not
exclusive! (Regalado,
2009th ed., p. 432)
c. Offense punishable by
death, RP, or LI, when
the evidence of guilt is
strong.
(Rule 114)
4. Three Informations were filed against Jo Anne and Antony charging them with
frustrated homicide and 2 counts of less serious physical injuries before the MTC.
Jo Anne and Antony then filed a motion to quash and a motion for the deferment
of the arraignment which were both denied by the MTC. Their motion for
reconsideration having been denied, Jo Anne and Antony filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC. Is the remedy correct?
NO. 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
12
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. Hon.
Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014)
5. (a) May the judge motu proprio dismiss a criminal case on his own findings that
there is no probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest?
YES. While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a crime is the sole
function of the prosecutor, the trial court may, in the protection of one's fundamental right
to liberty, dismiss the case if, upon a personal assessment of the evidence, it finds that the
evidence does not establish probable cause. (Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21,
2014)
(b) What is the distinction between executive determination and judicial
determination of probable cause?
Executive
Determination of
Probable Cause
When made?
Whose
function?
during preliminary
investigation
the public prosecutor
Judicial
Determination of
Probable Cause
upon filing of the
Information before the
court
the judge
to determine whether
probable cause exists
and to charge those
to ascertain whether a
For what
whom he believes to
warrant of arrest
purpose?
have committed the
should be issued
crime as defined by
against the accused
law and thus should
be held for trial
(Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014)
6. (a) What are the conditions for the discharge of an accused in order that he
may be a state witness?
(1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
(3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
(4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
(5) The trial court is satisfied that:
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 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. (Jimenez vs. People, G.R. No. 209195 and G.R. No. 209215, September
17, 2014)
7. What is the Berry Rule?
The Berry Rule provides for the requisites of newly discovered evidence under Section 2,
Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as a ground for a new trial, viz:
13
14
A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such
case, the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo acted without jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. No grave abuse of
discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts
and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on said evidence. Certiorari will issue only
to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of
the trial court. (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014)
ii. As regards the civil aspect, an ordinary appeal filed by the private complainant.
In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can
only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private
complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as
the civil liability of the accused is concerned. (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January
13, 2014)
(b) What is the Finality of Acquittal Doctrine? What are its purposes?
A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final,
unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. This prevents the State
from using its criminal processes as an instrument of harassment to wear out the accused
by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also serves the additional purpose of
precluding the State, following an acquittal, from successively retrying the defendant in the
hope of securing a conviction. And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, from
retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. (Villareal vs. Aliga,
G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014)
(c) Cite the exceptions to the Finality of Acquittal Doctrine.
(1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a
mistrial, or
(2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances
(Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014)
15. What is a mittimus?
A mittimus is a process issued by the court after conviction to carry out the final judgment,
such as commanding a prison warden to hold the accused in accordance with the terms of
the judgment.
The final judgment of the court is carried into effect by a process called mittimus.
(Section 16, Rule 124)
16. Does the omnibus motion rule apply in motions to quash search warrants?
YES. The omnibus motion rule applies to motions to quash search warrants provided that
objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the
warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress.
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only take
cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if:
(1) Said issue was not available or existent when they filed the motion to quash the search
warrant; or
(2) The issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(Pilipinas Shell Petroleoum vs. Romars International Gases Corp, G.R. No. 189669, February
16, 2015)
18. Which will prevail between the dispositive portion/ fallo and the body of a
Decision?
General Rule: The dispositive portion will prevail. This rule rests on the theory that the
fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.
15
Exception: However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so
clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision
will prevail. (Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs. Court of Appeals and Bengson Commercial
Building G.R. No. 154559, October 05, 2011)
19. May a person be entitled to apply for probation after having appealed from
the judgment of conviction of the trial court?
YES. While ordinarily, he would no longer be entitled to probation, if the Supreme Court finds
him guilty only of a lesser crime and holds that the maximum penalty imposed on him
should be lowered, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation,
considering this new penalty, upon remand of the case to the trial court. (Colinares vs.
People)
EVIDENCE
1. What is the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements?
While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for
the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to
establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. (Espineli
vs. People, G.R. No.179535, June 9, 2014)
2. What is the evidentiary weight of a recantation?
The general rule is that recantations are hardly given much weight in the determination of
a case and in the granting of a new trial. (Tan An Bung vs. CA, G.R. No. L-47747, February
15, 1990) As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and
reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable,
because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through
intimidation or for monetary consideration. (People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 181900, October
20, 2010).
The rare exception is when there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction
other than the testimony of a witness or witnesses who are shown to have made
contradictory statements as to material facts under which circumstances the court may be
led to a different conclusion. (Tan An Bung vs. CA, G.R. No. L-47747, February 15, 1990)
3. Distinguish between Factum Probans and Factum Probandum.
Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition to be
established, or that which a party wants to prove to the court. On the other hand, Factum
Probans refers to the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum will be proved.
(Gomez vs. Gomez-Samson et.al., G.R. No. 156284, February 6, 2007)
4. What is the Sexual Abuse Shield Rule?
Under Section 30(a) of A.M. No. 004-07-SC, otherwise known as the Child Witness Rule, the
following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
However, by way of exception, paragraph b of the same Rule provides that evidence of
specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than
the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
5. Will failure to immediately mark the seized drugs automatically impair the
integrity of the chain of custody?
NO. The failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, such as
immediately marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of
custody because what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
16
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. Section 21 and its IRR do not even mention "marking."
What they require are (1) physical inventory, and (2) taking of photographs. (People
vs. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014)
6. What is the Formal-Offer Rule? Does this rule admit of any exception?
The court cannot consider any evidence that has not been formally offered. Formal offer
means that the offering party shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits
into evidence. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of this evidence
even if this has been previously marked and identified, except when the following
requirements are met:
1. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded, and
2. The evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case. (Section
34, Rule 132; Sabay vs. People, G.R. No. 192150, October 1, 2014)
7. What is the quantum of evidence that the trial courts are required to ascertain
in passing upon evidence raised in a demurrer to evidence?
The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely
required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in
character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded
according to the circumstances.
To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove:
(a) the commission of the crime, and
(b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.
(People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014)
8. What is the English Exchequer Rule? Distinguish it from the Harmless Error
Rule.
The rule provides that "a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to
have caused prejudice and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial."
The Exchequer rule is no longer applicable.
The harmless error rule is followed in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly
admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of
the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not
overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party.
(People vs. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995)
9. What is the Thayerian Doctrine or the Thayer Theory of Rebuttal?
The Thayer theory of rebuttal provides that disputable presumptions (other than the
presumption of legitimacy) fall as a matter of law when evidence has been
introduced which would support a finding of the non-existence of the presumed
fact. The existence of the presumed fact must be assumed unless and until evidence has
been introduced which would justify a jury in finding the non-existence of the presumed fact.
[Hinds vs. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 155 Me. 349, 155 A.2d 721 (1959)]
10. What are the requisites for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence?
(a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death;
(b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of impending death;
(c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and
17
(d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant's death.
(People vs. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014)
12. What is res gestae? When is it considered admissible in evidence?
Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main
fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with
the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the
act, declaration, or exclamation, is so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or
event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also
whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. (People
vs. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014)
13. Give the hierarchy of the quanta of evidence. Define each.
i. Overwhelming Evidence
ii. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (People vs. Tadepa, G.R.
No. 100354, May 26, 1995)
iii. Clear and Convincing Evidence
This standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
preponderance of evidence. (Government of Hongkong vs. Olalia, Jr.)
iv. Preponderance of Evidence
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
(Siao Aba vs. Atty. De Guzman, A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011)
v. Substantial Evidence
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if
other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. (Miro vs. Mendoza vda.
de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013)
vi. Prima Facie Evidence
Evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is
sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the partys
claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence
which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the
issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence. [H. Black, et al., BLACKS
LAW DICTIONARY 1190 (6th ed.,1990)]
vii. Probable Cause
In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause has been uniformly defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought to be searched. It being the duty of the issuing officer to issue, or refuse
to issue, the warrant as soon as practicable after the application therefor is filed, the facts
warranting the conclusion of probable cause must be assessed at the time of such judicial
determination by necessarily using legal standards then set forth in law and jurisprudence,
and not those that have yet to be crafted thereafter. [Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 918-919 (1996)]
viii. Circumstantial Evidence
A chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of
reasoning towards a conviction. (People vs. Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010)
Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
18
Marital Privilege
Section 24(a) Rule 130
this privilege may be
claimed whether or not
the spouse is a party to
the action
may be claimed even
after the marriage has
been dissolved
applies only to
confidential
communication
between the spouses
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
1. What is the Bar Rule otherwise known as the Primacy of Criminal Action Rule?
The Bar Rule provides that when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate
petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved
party by motion in the criminal case. (Section 22 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC and A.M. No. 07-912-SC)
This rule is applicable in the prerogative writs of amparo and habeas data.
19
When it may
issue
Purpose
Preliminary citation
When the person is
detained under
governmental
authority and the
illegality of his
detention is not patent
from the petition for
the writ of habeas
corpus
To order the
government officer
having custody to
show cause why the
writ should not issue
Peremptory Writ
To require the
unconditional production
before the court of the
body of the person
detained at the date and
time specified
20
YES. Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex.
As for the change of name from a feminine to a masculine name, Considering the
consequence that the change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, the same
should be allowed. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth
certificate from female to male. (Republic vs. Cagandahan)
7. May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in
the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?
No. A correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or
typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108
of the Rules of Court.
There is no special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. The sex
of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or
midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally
recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a persons sex made at the time of his
or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable. (Silverio vs. Republic)
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. What is the Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Clause?
The doctrine of separability or severability enunciates that an arbitration agreement is
independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a
separate agreement and the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when
the contract of which it is a part comes to an end.
The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially significant to the determination of
whether the invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. Indeed, the
doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also referred to as the
container contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement.
Irrespective of the fact that the main contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement
still remains valid and enforceable. (Gonzales vs. Climax Mining, Ltd., G.R. No.167994,
January 22, 2007)
2. What are the remedies from a decision of the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal.
The remedies are:
a.
Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC;
b.
Appeal through a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the RTC to the CA;
c.
Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court on questions of law;
21