Red Notes on Remedial Law

8/20/2019 Red Notes on Remedial Law

1/77

R E M E D I A L L A W 2005 CENTRALIZED B AR OPERATIONS

MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSSource: U.P. Law Center

EFFECT OF AMENDMENT TO A PLEADINGIngr an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land filed in the Regional Trial Court, thedefendanDefendant through his lawyer, filed an answer therein admitting the averment in thecomplaint that the land was acquired y the plaintiff through inheritance from his parents, theformer owners thereof.

Susequently, the defendant changed his lawyer and, with leave of court, amended theanswer. !n the amended answer, the aovementioned admission no longer appears" instead, thealleged ownership of the land y the plaintiff was denied coupled with the allegation that thedefendant is the owner of the land for the reason that he ought the same from the plaintiff#sparents during their lifetime.

$fter trial, the %egional &rial Court rendered a decision upholding the defendant#sownership of the land.

'n appeal, the plaintiff contended that the defendant is ound y the admission contained

in his original answer.!s the contention of plaintiff correct( )hy(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, ecause pleadings that have een amended disappear from the record, lose theirstatus as pleadings and cease to e *udicial admissions. )hile they may nonetheless e utili+ed asagainst the pleader as etra*udicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, eformally offered in evidence. -Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 94)

A!TERNATI"E ANSWER

YES, ecause an admission in the original pleading does not cease to e a *udicial admission

simply ecause it was deleted in an amended pleading. &he original answer, although replaced yan amended answer does not cease to e part of a *udicial record, not having een epungedtherefrom. -Dissenting opinion in Torres vs. Court of Appeals, 11 SCRA !4)

REMEDIES OF A PARTY DECLARED IN DEFAULT

)hat are the availale remedies of party declared in default:./ 0efore the rendition of *udgment" 12./ $fter *udgment ut efore its finality" and 213./ $fter finality of *udgment( 21

SUGGESTED ANSWER

&he availale remedies of a party declared in default are as follows:./ 0efore the rendition of *udgment

-a/ he may file a motion to dismiss under oath to set aside the order of default onthe grounds of fraud, accident, mista4e or ecusale negligence and that hehas a meritorious defense - Sec. 356 of %ule 7 /" and if reconsideration isdenied, he may file the special civil action of certiorari for grave ause ofdiscretion tantamount to lac4 or ecess of *urisdiction - Sec. of %ule 89 /" or

-/ he may file a petition for certiorari if he has een illegally declared in derfaulte.g. during the pendency of his motion to dismiss or efore the epiration ofthe time to answer. - atute v. C$, 28 SC%$ ;8


2/77

San BedaCollege of Law

R E M E D I A L L A W

reconsideration on gh ground of ecessive damages, insufficient evidence or thedecision or final order eing contrary to law - Sec. 2 of %ule 3;/" and thereafter, if

the motion is denied, appeal is availale under %ules >? or >, whichever isapplicale.

3./ $fter finality of the *udgment, there are three ways to assail the *udgment, which

are: -a/ a petition for relied under %ule 3< on the grounds of fraud, accident, mista4e

or ecusale negligence"-/ annulment of *udgment under %ule >; for etrinsic fraud or lac4 of *urisdiction"-c/ certiorari if the *udgment is void on its face or y the *udicial record. -

0alangcad vs. @ustices of the Court of $ppeals, A.%. Bo.


3/77


sheriff, upon a claim and prima facie showing of ownership, cannot e considered as suchinterference. - A"iera vs. CA, 4# SCRA 14$ S% vs. Disca%a, 1&1 SCRA '&)

%RIT OF E+ECUTION

Plaintiff sued to recover an unpaid loan and was awarded P333,???.?? y the %&C ofanila. Defendant did not appeal within the period allowed y law. Fe died si days after thelapse of the period to appeal. orthwith, a petition for the settlement of his estate was properlyfiled with the %&C of Pampanga where an inventory of all his assets was filed and correspondinglyapproved. &hereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for eecution with the anila court, contendingtherein that the motion was legally *ustified ecause the defendant died after the *udgment in theanila court had ecome final. %esolve the motion and state your reasons.

. /Under the same set of facts as -a/, a writ of eecution was issued y the anila courtupon proper motion three days after the lapse of the period to appeal. &he correspondinglevy on eecution was duly effected on defendant#s parcel of land worth P888,???.?? a dayefore the defendant died. )ould it e proper, on motion, to lift the levy on defendant#s

property( State the reasons for your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

-a/ otion for eecution denied.$lthough the defendant died after the *udgment had ecome final and eecutory, it

cannot e enforced y a writ of eecution against the estate of the deceased which is in custodialegis. &he *udgment should e filed as a proven money claim with the %&C of Pampanga. -(aredesvs. o%a, 61 SCRA #!')

-/ Bo, since the levy on eecution was duly effected on defendant#s parcel of land a dayefore the defendant died, it was valid. &he land may e sold for the satisfaction of the *udgmentand the surplus shall e accounted for y the sheriff to the corresponding eecutor oradministrator. -Sec. '*c) of Rule 9)

COUNTERCLAIM

G filed an action for damages against & arising from the latter#s tortuous act. H filed his$nswer with a counterclaim for damages suffered and epenses incurred on account of G#s suit.&hereafter, G moves to dismiss the case since he lost interest in the case. H did not o*ect. &hecourt dismissed the action without pre*udice. H moved the to set the reception of his evidence toprove his counterclaim. !f you were the *udge, how would you resolve the motion( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

! would deny the motion. !nasmuch as H#s counterclaim for damages incurred on account ofG#s suit cannot remain pending for independent ad*udication, H should have o*ected to thedismissal of the complaint. Fis failure to o*ect deprived him of the right to present evidence toprove his counterclaim. - Sec. ! of Rule 1'$ +notorio v. Lira, 1! SCRA 69 ).

AD&UDICATION OF CASES %IT#OUT TRIAL

Can civil and criminal cases e ad*udicated without trial( plain

SUGGESTED ANSWERCivil Cases may e ad*udicated without trial, such as in the following rules:a./ Summary @udgment./ @udgment on the Pleadings

c./ Summary Procedured./ Sec. 3 of %ule ;

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


4/77



Criminal cases as a rule may not e ad*udicated without trial. Some

eceptions are the following:a./ Plea of guilty./ otion to quash on the ground of doule *eopardy or etinction of criminal action

or liailityc./ otion to dismiss on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy trial.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI$ %#EN MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION NOT NECESSARY

!s the failure to file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court as a conditionprecedent for the granting of the writ of certiorari or prohiition always fatal( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, ecause there are eceptions, such as the following:a./ &he question of *urisdiction was squarely raised efore and decided y the

respondent court./ Pulic interest is involvedc./ Case of urgencyd./ 'rder is patent nullitye./ !ssue is purely of lawf./ Deprivation of right to due process

E+TRATERRITORIAL SER-ICE OF SUMMONS

)hen is etra=territorial service of summons proper(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

traterritorial service of summons is proper when the defendant does not reside and is notfound in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, orthe su*ect of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lienor interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, inecluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has eenattached within the Philippines. -Sec. ; of %ule >/ !t is also proper when the defendantordinarily resides within the Philippines, ut is temporarily out of it. -Sec. 1& of Rule 14)

RES &UDICATA

velyn filed a complaint for a sum of money against @oan ut the complaint was laterdismissed for failure to prosecute Iwithin a reasonale length of time.J &hereafter, velyn filedanother case ased on the same facts against @oan. @oan moved to dismiss the same on the groundthat the cause of action therein is arred y a prior *udgment -res *udicata/. velyn opposed themotion claiming that re *udicata has not set in since @oan was not served with summons and thecomplaint in the first case was earlier dismissed, so that the trial court never acquired *urisdictionover her person and, consequently, over the case. Fow would you decide the motion of @oan(plain.

SUGGESTD ANSWER&he motion to dismiss is denied. 'ne of the essential requisites of res *udicata is

*urisdiction over the parties. !nasmuch as @oan was not served with the summons in the first casewhich was earlier dismissed, the court did not acquire *urisdiction over her person and, hence, the

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


5/77


dismissal was without pre*udice to the filing of another action against her. -%epulic Planters 0an4vs. olina, Septemer 2


6/77



3./ $ssuming that the value of %ene#s estate does not eceed P ?,???.??, what remedy isavailale to otain a speedy settlement of his estate(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

1) &o settle %ene#s estate in the least epensive manner, an etra*udicial settlementof the estate y agreement of the parties should e made through a pulic instrument to efiled with the %egister of Deeds, together with a ond in an amount equivalent to the valueof the personal property involved as certified under oath y the parties concerned andconditioned upon payment of any *ust claim that may e filed within two -2/ years y anheir or other person unduly deprived of participation in the estate. &he fact ofetra*udicial settlement or administration shall e pulished in a newspaper of generalcirculation once a wee4 for three -3/ consecutive wee4s. * Sec.1, Rule '4.)

2./ !f %ene left only one heir, then the heir ma ad*udicate to himself the entire estate y

means of an affidavit of self=ad*udication to e filed also with the register of deeds,together with the other requirements aovementioned. -id./

3./ Since the value of %ene#s estate eceed P?,???.??, the remedy is to proceed to underta4ea summary settlement of estates of mall value y filing a petition in court and uponhearing, which shall eheld not less than one -/ month nor more that three -3/ monthsfrom the date of the last pulication of a notice which shall e pulished once a wee4 forthree -3/ consecutive wee4s in a newspaper of general circulation in the province and aftersuch other notice to interested persons as the court may direct. &he court may proceedsummarily without the appointment of an eecutor or administrator, and without delay,grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any, to estate, and to apportion and divide amongthem after payment of such dets of the estate as the court shall then find to e due. &heorder of partition if it involves real estate, shall e recorded y the proper register#soffice. - Sec.!, rule '4).

AMENDMENT -S. SU'STITUTION OF INFORMATION

)ithin the contet of the rule on Criminal Procedure, distinguish an amendment from asustitution of an information.

SUGGESTED ANSWER$n amendment may e made in sustance and form, without leave of court, at any time

efore an accused pleads, and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, y leaveand at the discretion of the court, when the same can e done without pre*udice to the rights ofthe accused. Sustitution may e made if it appears at any time efore *udgment that a mista4e

has een made in charging the proper offense, in which case, the court shall dismiss the complaintor information upon filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with %ule 7,Sec. , provided that the accused would not e placed therey in doule *eopardy and may alsorequire the witnesses to give ail for their appearance at the trial. - Sec. 14, Rule 11$Tee-anee, /r. vs. ada%ag, !' SCRA 14 /.

STOP AND FRISK SEARC#

)hat is a &erry search - or so called Istop and fris4J /( !s it *ustified under eisting law and*urisprudence( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER$ &erry search is a stop=and=search without a warrant. !t is *ustified when conducted y

police officers on the ases of prior confidential information which were reasonaly corrooratedy other attendant matters. - $niag, @r. vs. Comelec, 23; SC%$ >2> /.

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


7/77


DOU'LE &EOPARDY

Aeorge was charged with falsification. 'n the date of initial trial, the fiscal moved for the

postponement on the ground that the case had een assigned to a special prosecutor of the D'@who was out of town to attend to an urgent case, and who had wires him to request forpostponement. &he fiscal manifested that he was not ready for trial ecause he was unfamiliarwith the case. &he *udge then as4ed the accused as well as his counsel whether they wereamenale to a postponement. 0oth Aeorge and his counsel insisted on a trial. &he *udge orderedthe case dismissed.

Upon learning thereof, the special prosecutor filed a petition for certiorari under %ule 89 ofthe %ules of Court alleging that the dismissal was capricious and deprived the government of dueprocess. Aeorge opposed the petition invo4ing doule *eopardy.a./ !s doule *eopardy a ar to the petition( plain../ Suppose that trial on the merits had in fact proceeded and the trial *udge, finding the

evidence to e insufficient, dismissed the case, would your answer e the same( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a.) NO, ecause this is not an appeal y the prosecution asserting a dismissal to e erroneous.!t is a petition for certiorari which assails the order of dismissal as invalid and a nullityecause it was capricious and deprived the Aovernment of due process. Considering thatthis was the first motion for postponement of the trial filed y the fiscal and the groundwas meritorious, the *udge gravely aused his discretion in ordering the case dismissed. I)t9e5e is no 1alid dismissal o5 te5mination o) t9e :ase, t9e5e is no 0asis )o5 in1o/in(do40le ;eo2a5d


8/77



read into the records y the plaintiff. Fence, the trial court could properly consider h.C in thedetermination of the action even though it was not formally offered in evidence. &his is an

eception to the rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not een formallyoffered. * Sec. # of Rule 1!)

PAST RECOLLECTION RE-I-ED

G states on direct eamination that he once 4now the facts eing as4ed ut he cannotrecall them now. )hen handed a written record of the facts, he testifies that the facts arecorrectly stated, ut that he has never seen the writing efore.

!s the writing admissile as past recollection recorded( plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

B', ecause for the written record to e admissile as past recollection recorded, it must haveeen written or recorded y G or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, orimmediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he 4newthat the same was correctly written or recorded. - Sec. 8 of %ule 32/ 0ut in this case G has neverseen the writing efore.

&UDICIAL NOTICE

a./ Aive three instances when a Philippine court can ta4e *udicial notice of a foreign law../ Fow do you prove a written foreign law(c./ Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant ut no evidence

was presented to prove the eistence of said law, what is the presumption to e ta4en

y the court as to the wordings of said law(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a./ &he three instances when a Philippine court can ta4e *udicial notice of a foreign laware:./ )hen the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law2./ )hen the foreign law refers to the law of nations - Sec. of %ule 27/3./ )hen it refers to a pulished treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the su*ect of

law if the court ta4es *udicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof isrecogni+ed in his profession or calling on the su*ect. - Sec. >8, %ule 3?/

./ $ written law may e evidenced y an official pulication thereof of y a copy

attested y the officer having the legal custody of the record, or y his deputy, andaccompanied if the record is not 4ept in the Philippines, with a certificate that suchofficer has the custody. !f the office in which the record ids 4ept is in a foreigncountry, the certificate may e made y the secretary of the emassy or legation,consul=general, consul, vice=consul, or consular agent or y any officer in the foreigncountry in which the record is 4ept, and authenticated y the seal of his office. - Sec.2> of %ule 32/

c./ &he presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law are the same as the local law.&his is referred to as the doctrine of processual presumption.

#EARSAY RULE

Aerry is eing tried for rape. &he prosecution#s evidence sought to estalish that at aout7:??pm of @anuary 2?, 77>, Aerry went to complainant @une#s house to invite her to watch thefestivities going on at the town pla+a. @une accepted the invitation. Upon reaching the pulic

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


9/77


mar4et, which was *ust a stone#s throw away from @une#s house, Aerry forcily dragged @unetowards the anana grove ehind the mar4et where he was ale to have carnal 4nowledge with@une for aout an hour. @une did not immediately do home thereafter, and it was only in the earlymorning of the following day that she narrated her ordeal to her daughter Li+a. Li+a testified in

court as to what @une revealed to her.

a./ !s the testimony of Li+a hearsay(./ !s it admissile in evidence against the o*ection of the defense(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a./ HS, Li+a#s testimony is hearsay. $ witness can testify to those facts which he4nows of his personal 4nowledge, that is, which are derived from his ownperception ecept as otherwise provided in the rules - Sec. 38 of %ule 3?/.

./ B', it is not admissile in evidence against the o*ection of the defense, ecause itis not one of the eceptions to the hearsay rule. !t cannot e considered part of theres gestae ecause only statements made y a person while a startling occurrenceis ta4ing place or immediately prior or susequent thereto with respect to the

circumstances thereof, may e given in evidence as part of the res gestae. - Sec.>2 of %ule 3?/ She narrated her ordeal to her daughter only in the morning of thefollowing day, as she did not immediately go home after the incident whichoccurred at 7:?? pm. She could have made up the story. She should e placed onthe witness stand, not Li+a whose 4nowledge of the event is hearsay.

$lternative answer:Li+a#s testimony is admissile in evidence as to the tenor ut not as to the truth of what

@une revealed to her.

DEAD MAN3S STATUTE

aimo filed an action against Pedro, the administrator of the estate of deceased @uan,for the recovery if a car which is part of the latter#s estate. During trialm, aimo presentedwitness ariano who testified that he was present when aimo and @uan agreed that the latterwould pay a rental of P2?,??? for the use of aimo#s car for one month after which @uan shouldimmediately return the car to aimo. Pedro o*ected to the admission of ariano#s testimony.

!f you were the *udge, would you sustain Pedro#s o*ection( )hy(

SUGGESTED ANSWER

NO, the testimony is admissile in evidence ecause witness ariano who testified as towhat aimo and @uan, the deceased person, agreed upon, is not disqualified to testify on theagreement. &hose disqualified are parties to a case, or persons in whose ehalf a case isprosecuted against the administrator of @uan#s estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as

to any matter of fact occurring efore @uan#s death. * Sec. ! of Rule 1).

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


10/77



SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES OF SELECTED CASES

CI-IL PROCEDURE

-LASON ENTERPRISES CORPORATION 1s. COURT OF APPEALS=G.R. Nos. >7>!!7!*. &4l< !, >???.@

!t is well=settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original one, which is thus

deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record, it does not follow ipso facto thatthe service of a new summons for amended petitions or complaints is required. 5-ere t-edefendants -ave alread% appeared "efore t-e trial court "% virtue of a suons on t-eoriginal coplaint, t-e aended coplaint a% "e served upon t-e it-out need of anot-ersuons, even if ne causes of action are alleged. After it is ac7uired, a court8s urisdictioncontinues until t-e case is finall% terinated. Conversel%, -en defendants -ave not %etappeared in court and no suons -as "een validl% served, ne suons for t-e aendedcoplaint ust "e served on t-e. !t is not the change of cause of action that gives rise to theneed to serve another summons for the amended complaint, ut rather the acquisition of*urisdiction over the persons of the defendants. !f the trial court has not yet acquired *urisdictionover them, a new service of summons for the amended complaint is required.

UNITED #OUSING CORPORATION 1s. DAYRIT, ET AL.

=G.R. No. 6!*77. &an4a5< 77, >??.@

A udgent upon coproise -ic- is a udgent e"od%ing a coproise agreeententered into "% t-e parties in -ic- t-e% ae reciprocal concessions in order to terinate alitigation alread% instituted is not appeala"le, is iediatel% e:ecutor% and -as t-e effect ofres udicata. $ *udgment rendered upon a compromise agreement, not contrary to law or pulicpolicy or pulic order has all the force and effect of any other *udgment, it eing a *udgment onthe merits, hence, conclusive upon the parties and their privies. $s such, it can e enforced y writof eecution.

'A FINANCE CORPORATION 1s. RUFINO CO, ET AL.=G.R. No. >B6B>. &4ne ", >??".@

&he rule is that a compulsory counterclaim cannot Kremain pending for independentad*udication y the court.K &his is ecause a compulsory counterclaim is auiliary to the proceedingin the original suit and merely derives its *urisdictional support therefrom. T-us, it necessaril%

follos t-at if t-e trial court no longer possesses urisdiction to entertain t-e ain action oft-e case, as -en it disisses t-e sae, t-en t-e copulsor% counterclai "eing ancillar% tot-e principal controvers%, ust lieise "e siilarl% disissed since no urisdiction reains

for t-e grant of an% relief under t-e counterclai.or the guidance of 0ench and 0ar, if any of the grounds to dismiss under Sec. 3, %ule ;,

of the %ules of Court arises, the proper recourse for a defendant who desires to pursue hiscompulsory counterclaim in the same proceeding is not to move for the dismissal of the complaint"instead, he should only move to have plaintiff declared non=suited on the complaint so that thelatter can no longer present his evidence thereon, and simultaneously move that he e declared asin default on the compulsory counterclaim, and reserve the right to present evidence e parte on

his counterclaim. &his will enale defendant who was un*ustly haled to court to prove hiscompulsory counterclaim, which is intertwined with the complaint, ecause the trial court retains

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


11/77


*urisdiction over the complaint and of the whole case. &he non=dismissal of the complaint, the non=suit notwithstanding, provides the asis for the compulsory counterclaim to remain active andsusisting.

#EIRS OF FLORENTINA NUGUID -DA. DE #A'ERER 1s. CA=G.R. Nos. L*7!?? to L*76?. Ma< 7!, >?>.@

)here a party dies in an action that survives, and no order is issued y the court for theappearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the deceased in sustitution of thedeceased, and as a matter of fact no such sustitution has ever een effected, the trial held y thecourt without such legal representatives or heirs and the *udgment rendered after such trial arenull and void ecause the court acquired no *urisdiction over the persons of the legalrepresentatives or of the heirs upon whom the trial and the *udgment would e inding.

TAN 1s. DUMARPA=G.R. No. >"666. Se2tem0e5 77, 7*.@

&he remedies availale to a defendant declared in default are as follows: -a/ a motion toset aside the order of default under Section 3-/, %ule 7 of the %ules of Court, if the default wasdiscovered efore *udgment could e rendered" -2/ a motion for new trial under Section -a/ of%ule 3;, if the default was discovered after *udgment ut while appeal is still availale" -3/ apetition for relief under %ule 3


12/77



=:ecution proceedings are not autoaticall% sta%ed "% t-e filing of a petition forrelief fro udgent. &he filing of their petition for relief and the susequent appeal from the

order denying relief stayed the eecution proceedings efore the trial court. Beither are eecutionproceedings stayed y the perfection of the appeal from the order denying relief from *udgment. !nordinary appeals, perfection of an appeal under section 7 of %ule > divests the trial court of*urisdiction over its *udgment and eecution proceedings ecause the *udgment has not yetattained finality. $n appeal from an order denying relief from *udgment under %ule 3< is different.Fere, the @udgment is already final and eecutory and as aforestated, the only way y whicheecution could e suspended is y the issuance of a writ of preliminary in*unction. Bo in*unctionwas secured y petitioners.

RODRIGUE 1s. PRO&ECT ! MARKET SER-ICE COOPERATI-E, INC.=G.R. No. 6??!. A4(4st 7", >??B.@

!n this *urisdiction, the general rule is when a court *udgment or order ecomes final and

eecutory, it is the minsterial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of eecution to enforce this*udgment. $ writ of eecution may however e refused on equitale grounds as when there is achange in the situation of the parties that would ma4e eecution inequitale or when certaincircumstances which transpired after *udgment ecame final render eecution of *udgment un*ust.

P#ILIPPINE NAILS AND %IRES CORPORATIO 1s. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.=G.R. No. >*"?"". Fe054a5< >*, 7".@

Under the old %ules, specifically Section 2 of %ule 37 of the pre=77; %ules of Court, thetrial court is granted, upon good reasons, the discretion to order an eecution even efore theepiration of the time to appeal. T-e present Rules also grant t-e trial court t-e discretion toorder t-e e:ecution of a udgent or a final order even "efore t-e e:piration of t-e period toappeal, also upon good reasons stated in a special order after due -earing. Such discretion,

however, is allowed only while the trial court still has K*urisdiction over the case and is inpossession of either the original record, or the record on appeal, as the case may e, at the time ofthe filing of such motion.K &he mere filing of a ond y the successful party is not a good reason forordering eecution pending appeal, as a comination of circumstances is the dominantconsideration which impels the grant of immediate eecution5"6 the requirement of a ond isimposed merely as an additional factor, no dout for the protection of the defendants creditor.K

RE+LON REALTY GROUP, INC. 1s. CA=G.R. No. >7*>7. Ma5:9 >B, 77.@

irstly, it must e rememered that, in the amended petition of %elon for annulment of*udgment, respondent Paramount was impleaded for the reason that the prayer therein sought thenullification of the new titles issued in the name of respondent Paramount. >nasuc- as a petition

for annulent of udgent is classified as an original action t-at can "e filed "efore t-eCourt of Appeals, t-e said court can adit, "% a% of an aendent to t-e petition, necauses of action intiatel% related to t-e resolution of t-e original petition. Fence,respondent Paramount ecame a necessary party in the petitioners original cause of action see4inga declaration of the eistence and validity of the owners duplicate copy of the su*ect certificateof title in the possession of the latter, and an indispensale party in the action for the declarationof nullity of the titles in the name of respondent Paramount. !ndeed, there can e no completerelief that can e accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination orsettlement of the claim su*ect of the action, if we do not touch upon the necessary consequenceof the nullity of the new duplicate copy of the su*ect certificate of title. &he %ules of Courtcompels the inclusion of necessary parties when *urisdiction over the person of the said necessaryparty can e otained. Bon=inclusion of a necessary party when there is an opportunity to include

him would mean waiver of the claim against such party.

ANDAYA 1s., A'ADIA, ET AL.

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


13/77


=G.R. No. >*"". De:em0e5 76, >??".@

@urisdiction over su*ect matter is essential in the sense that erroneous assumption thereofmay put at naught whatever proceedings the court might have had. Fence, even on appeal, and

even if the parties do not raise the issue of *urisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded fromruling that it has no *urisdiction over the case. !t is elementary that *urisdiction is vested y lawand cannot e conferred or waived y the parties or even y the *udge. !t is also irrefutale that acourt may at any stage of the proceedings dismiss the case for want of *urisdiction. or this matter,the ground of lac4 of *urisdiction in dismissing a case is not waivale. Fence, the last sentence ofSec. 2, %ule 7, %ules of Court, epressly states: K)henever it appears that the court has no*urisdiction over the su*ect matter, it shall dismiss the action.K

OFELIA #ERRERAFELI+ 1s. CA=G.R. No. >*"6"!. A4(4st >>, 7*.@

$ voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. $n appearance inwhatever form, without eplicitly o*ecting to the *urisdiction of the court over the person, is a

sumission to the *urisdiction of the court over the person. )hile the formal method of entering anappearance in a cause pending in the courts is to deliver to the cler4 a written direction orderinghim to enter the appearance of the person who suscries it, an appearance may e made ysimply filing a formal motion, or plea or answer. &his formal method of appearance is notnecessary. Fe may appear without such formal appearance and thus sumit himself to the*urisdiction of the court. Fe may appear y presenting a motion, for eample, and unless y suchappearance he specifically o*ects to the *urisdiction of the court, he therey gives his assent tothe *urisdiction of the court over his person. 5-en t-e appearance is "% otion o"ecting to t-e

urisdiction of t-e court over -is person, it ust "e for t-e sole and separate purpose ofo"ecting to t-e urisdiction of t-e court. >f -is otion is for an% ot-er purpose t-an to o"ectto t-e urisdiction of t-e court over -is person, -e t-ere"% su"its -iself to t-e urisdictionof t-e court.

REYNALDO #ALIMAO 1s. ATTYS. DANIEL -ILLANUE-A and INOCENCIO PEFIANCO FERRER, &R.=Adm. Case No. "7B. Fe054a5< >, >??!.@

'n the other hand, when a motion to dismiss is ased on payment, waiver, aandonment,release, compromise, or other form of etinguishment, the motion to dismiss does nothypothetically, ut actually, admits the facts alleged in eistence of the oligation or det, onlythat plaintiff claims that the oligation has een satisfied. So that when a motion to dismiss onthese grounds is denied, what is left to e proven in the trial is no longer the eistence of the detut the fact vel non of payment y the defendant.

GARCIA 1s. CA and SPOUSES UY=G.R. No. "?7?. &4ne >>, >??7.@

$s for private respondents -defendants/ loss of standing in court, y reason of having eendeclared in default, again we rule that a party in default loses the right to present his defense andeamine or cross=eamine witnesses. !t does not mean that eing declared in default, and thereylosing ones standing, constitutes a waiver of all rights" what is waived only is the right to e heardand to present evidence during the trial while default prevails. $ party in default is still entitled tonotice of final *udgments and orders and proceedings ta4en susequent thereto.

PACIFIC 'ANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ORGANIATION 1s. CA=G.R. No. >?"6". Ma5:9 7, >??B.@

lucidating the crucial distinction etween an ordinary action and a special proceeding,Chief @ustice oran states: $ction is the act y which one sues another in a court of *ustice for the

enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while specialproceeding is the act y which one see4s to estalish the status or right of a party, or a particularfact. Fence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


14/77



of a right y one against another, while the latter is ut a petition for a declaration of a status,right or fact. )here a party litigant see4s to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an

action. )here his purpose is to see4 the appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is aspecial proceeding to estalish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment ofguardianship.

GARCIA 1s. LLAMAS=G.R. No. >B*>76. De:em0e5 , 7".@

$ summary *udgment is a procedural device designed for the prompt disposition of actionsin which the pleadings raise only a legal, not a genuine, issue regarding any material fact.Consequently, facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is yet no admission,

disavowal or qualification" or specific denials or affirmative defenses are set forth in the answer,ut the issues are fictitious as shown y the pleadings, depositions or admissions. $ summary*udgment may e applied for y either a claimant or a defending party.

'n the other hand, under Section of %ule 3> of the %ules of Court, a *udgment on thepleadings is proper when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the materialallegations of the adverse partys pleading. &he essential question is whether there are issuesgenerated y the pleadings. 3< $ *udgment on the pleadings may e sought only y a claimant, whois the party see4ing to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross=claim" or to otain a declaratoryrelief.

#EIRS OF RICARDO OLI-AS 1s. #ON. FLORENTINO A. FLOR and &OSE A. MATA%ARAN=G.R. No. L6"*". Ma< 7>, >?.@

!n the guise of a position paper, private respondent filed a otion to Dismiss. )hile this is,indeed, a prohiited pleading -Sec. 95a6, %ule on Summary Procedure/ it should e noted that theotion was filed after an $nswer had already een sumitted within the reglementary period. !nessence, therefore, it is not the pleading prohiited y the %ule on Summary Procedure. )hat the%ule proscries is a otion to Dismiss, which would stop the running of the period to file an $nswerand cause undue delay.

DACOYCOY 1s. IAC=G.R. No. 6*B*. A25il 7, >??>.@

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriatecourse of action at this stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well asin the courts of first instance -now %&C/, may e waived epressly or impliedly. )here defendantfails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided y Section > of %ule > of the%ules of Court, and allows the trial to e held and a decision to e rendered, he cannot on appealor in a special action e permitted to challenge elatedly the wrong venue, which is deemedwaived.

NORT#ERN CEMENT CORPORATION 1s. IAC and S#IPSIDE INC.=G.R. No. L!!"!. Fe054a5< 7?, >?.@

&here have een instances where the Court has held that even without the necessaryamendment, the amount proved at the trial may e validly awarded, as in &ua+on v. 0olanos,where we said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that as4ed for, noamendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the

point on which recovery was ased. &he appellate court could treat the pleading as amended toconform to the evidence although the pleadings were not actually amended. $mendment is alsounnecessary when only clerical errors or non=sustantial matters are involved, as we held in 0an4 of

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


15/77


the Philippine !slands v. Laguna. !n Co &iamco v. Dia+, we stressed that the rule on amendmentneed not e applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or pre*udice is caused the o*ectingparty. $nd in the recent case of Bational Power Corporation v. Court of $ppeals, we held thatwhere there is a variance in the defendants pleadings and the evidence adduced y it at the trial,

the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conform with the evidence.

S2o4ses GO 1s. TONG=G.R. No. >B>?*7. No1em0e5 76, 7".@

%ule >9 of the %ules of Court specifically states that in all cases, the C$s decisions, finalorders or resolutions M regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved M may eappealed to this Court through a petition for review, which is *ust a continuation of the appellateprocess involving the original case. 9 'n the other hand, a special civil action under %ule 89 is anindependent suit ased on the specific grounds provided therein. $s a general rule, certioraricannot e availed of as a sustitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under%ule >9.

DELGADO 1s. CA=G.R. No. >"6>. De:em0e5 7>, 7*.@

&he principle of res *udicata does not apply when the dismissal of the earlier complaint,involving the same plaintiffs, same su*ect matter, same theory and the same defendants, wasmade without pre*udice to its refiling at a future date, or in a different venue, as in this case. &hedismissal of the case without pre*udice indicates the asence of a decision on the merits and leavesthe parties free to litigate the matter in a susequent action as though the dismissal action had noteen commenced. >n ot-er ords, t-e discontinuance of a case not on t-e erits does not "aranot-er action on t-e sae su"ect atter.

YAO KA SIN TRADING 1s. CA, ET AL.=G.R. No. B"7. &4ne >B, >??7.@

Under Section , %ule 3 of the %ules of Court, only natural or *uridical persons or entitiesauthori+ed y law may e parties in a civil action. !n @uasing Fardware vs. endo+a, this Court heldthat a single proprietorship is neither a natural person nor a *uridical person under $rticle >> of theCivil Code" it is not an entity authori+ed y law to ring suit in court.

SPOUSES ELANIO C. ONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS=G.R. No. >**B>. &4l< B, 77@

!t ears stressing that the &CC cannot admit the elated certification on the ground thatplaintiffs -respondents/ were not anyway guilty of actual forum shopping. &he distinction etweenthe prohiition against forum shopping and the certification requirement should y now e tooelementary to e misunderstood. To reiterate, copliance it- t-e certification against forus-opping is separate fro and independent of t-e avoidance of t-e act of foru s-oppingitself. T-ere is a difference in t-e treatent "eteen failure to copl% it- t-e certificationre7uireent and violation of t-e pro-i"ition against foru s-opping not onl% in ters ofiposa"le sanctions "ut also in t-e anner of enforcing t-e. T-e forer constitutessufficient cause for t-e disissal it-out preudice of t-e coplaint or initiator% pleadingupon otion and after -earing, -ile t-e latter is a ground for suar% disissal t-ereofand for direct contept. &he rule epressly requires that a certification against forum shoppingshould e attached to or filed simultaneously with the complaint or other initiatory pleadingregardless of whether forum shopping had in fact een committed. $ccordingly, in the instantcase, the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer must follow as a matter of course.

=/=CT=?T CAS=@ ailure of t-e defendants to allege lac of cetification of non;forus-opping is not a aiver of t-eir rig-t to assert t-e defect

)hile not raised in the parties# pleadings, it is necessary to mention that the failure ofpetitioners# answer filed in the e*ectment case to allege the lac4 of certification of non=forum

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


16/77



shopping did not result in the waiver of their right to assert the defect. 'ur decision in Nho v.Court of $ppeals where this Court ruled that y virtue of Sec. , %ule 7, #$$% Rule& of Civil

'rocedure, o*ections of this 4ind are forfeited when not raised in the answerOcomment earliertended to a petition for special civil action of certiorari, is not controlling. T-e instant case isgoverned "% t-e 1991 Revised Rules on Suar% (rocedure -ere a otion to disiss isgenerall% proscri"ed e:cept for lac of urisdiction over t-e su"ect atter or failure tocopl% it- conciliation proceedings and -ere t-e onl% atters deeed aived for failureto assert in t-e anser are negative and affirative defenses.

Clearly, petitioners were ecused from filing a motion to question the asence of thecertification and, concomitantly, their failure to include the o*ection in their answer did notresult in the waiver thereof since the o*ection is neither a negative nor an affirmative defense.&o clarify, non=compliance with the requirement of certification does not give rise to anaffirmative defense, i.e., the allegation of new matter y way of confession and avoidance, muchless a negative defense since the underta4ing has nothing to do with the operative facts required toe alleged in an initiatory pleading, such as allegations on the cause of action, ut with a special

pre=requisite for admission of the complaint for filing in court.

GUMA'ON -S. LARINGR No. >*7B7" NO-. 76,7>8

&hus, the 77; %ules of Civil Procedure now provide that the court may (otu proprio dismissthe claim when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on the record that:

. the court has no *urisdiction over the su*ect matter"2. there is another cause of action pending etween the same parties for the same cause"

or3. where the action is arred y a prior *udgment or y statute of limitations.rom the foregoing, it is clear that a court may not (otu proprio dismiss a case for improper

venue, this ground not eing among those mentioned where the court is authori+ed to do so.

!n fact, the applicale rule would e Section , %ule 7 of the 77; %ules of Civil Procedureproviding that Idefenses and o*ections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answerare deemed waived.J urthermore, Section 8, %ule 8 of the 77; %ules now provides that if nomotion to dismiss has een filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided in this %ule whichincludes the ground that venue is improperly laid -Section 5c6/ may e pleaded as an affirmativedefense in the answer, and in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may e had thereonas if a motion to dismiss has een filed. %espondent not having raised improper venue in a motionto dismiss or in his answer, he is deemed to have waived the same. )ell=4nown is the asic legalprinciple that venue is waivale. ailure of any party to o*ect to the impropriety of venue isdeemed a waiver of his right to do so.

'ENITO C. SALAAR vs. #ON. TOMAS R. ROMAQUIN=G.R. No. >B>!. Ma< 7>, 7*@

&he pleadings of the accused and copies of the orders or resolutions of the trial court areserved on the People of the Philippines through the Provincial Prosecutor. Fowever, in appealsefore the Court of $ppeals and the Supreme Court either -a/ y writ of error" -/ via petition forreview" -c/ on automatic appeal" or, -d/ in special civil actions where the People of the Philippinesis a party, the general rule is that the 'ffice of the Solicitor Aeneral is the sole representative ofthe People of the Philippines.

A cop% of t-e petition in suc- action ust "e served on t-e (eople of t-e (-ilippines asandated "% Section , Rule 46 of t-e Rules of Court, t-roug- t-e Bffice of t-e Solicitor0eneral. T-e service of a cop% of t-e petition on t-e (eople of t-e (-ilippines, t-roug- t-e(rovincial (rosecutor ould "e inefficacious. T-e petitioners failure to -ave a cop% of -is

petition served on t-e respondent, t-roug- t-e Bffice of t-e Solicitor 0eneral, s-all "e

sufficient ground for t-e disissal of t-e petition as provided in t-e last paragrap- of Section, Rule 46 of t-e Rules of Court.


17/77


EMERITO REMULLA vs. &OSELITO DP. MANLONGAT=G.R. No. >*>?. No1em0e5 >>, 7*@

!n a numer of cases, the Supreme Court has in fact relaed the period for perfecting anappeal, especially on grounds of sustantial *ustice, or when there are other special andmeritorious circumstances and issues. Eerily, this Court has the power to rela or suspend the rulesor to eempt a case from their rigid operation when warranted y compelling reasons and therequirements of *ustice.

!n the present case, the late filing == y only one day == of the prosecution#s Botice of $ppealwas ecusale, considering respondent#s diligent efforts.

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DE-ELOPMENT CORP. -S. CAGR No. >!7*7, Ma< >6,7B8

&he purpose of Section , %ule 8 of the %ules of Court is to permit a defendant to assert

an independent claim against a third=party which he, otherwise, would assert in another action,thus preventing multiplicity of suits. $ll the rights of the parties concerned would then ead*udicated in one proceeding. &his is a rule of procedure and does not create a sustantial right.Beither does it aridge, enlarge, or nullify the sustantial rights of any litigant. 596 &his right to filea third=party complaint against a third=party rests in the discretion of the trial court. &he third=party complaint is actually independent of, separate and distinct from the plaintiff#s complaint,such that were it not for the rule, it would have to e filed separately from the original complaint.

T-e t-ird;part% coplaint does not -ave to s-o it- certaint% t-at t-ere ill "erecover% against t-e t-ird;part% defendant, and it is sufficient t-at pleadings s-o

possi"ilit% of recover%. >n deterining t-e sufficienc% of t-e t-ird;part% coplaint, t-eallegations in t-e original coplaint and t-e t-ird;part% coplaint ust "e e:ained.3!! At-ird;part% coplaint ust allege facts -ic- pria facie s-o t-at t-e defendant is entitledto contri"ution, indenit%, su"rogation or ot-er relief fro t-e t-ird;part% defendant.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SECRETARY OF &USTICE vs. #ON. RALP# C. LANTION=G.R. No. >"?*!B. &an4a5< >, 7@

!n a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding, Section3, %ule 2 of the %ules of Court guarantees the respondent#s asic due process rights, granting himthe right to e furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting documents,and the right to sumit counter=affidavits and other supporting documents within ten days fromreceipt thereof. oreover, the respondent shall have the right to eamine all other evidencesumitted y the complainant.

&hese twin rights may, however, e considered dispensale in certain instances, such as:1.) !n proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, li4e the summaryaatement of a nuisance per &e -$rticle ;?>, Civil Code/, the preventive suspension of apulic servant facing administrative charges -Section 83, Local Aovernment Code, 0. P. 0lg.33;/, the padloc4ing of filthy restaurants or theaters showing oscene movies or li4eestalishments which are immediate threats to pulic health and decency, and thecancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution"

2./ )here there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is notprecluded from en*oying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without pre*udiceto the person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of adelinquent tapayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee" and

3./ )here the twin rights have previously een offered ut the right to eercise them had noteen claimed.

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES 1s. MODESTO TEE a./.a. ESTOY TEE

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn15http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn15http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/#_ftn22


18/77



=G.R. Nos. >*B*!*6. &an4a5< 7, 7".@

&hus, it has een held that term Knarcotics paraphernaliaK is not so wanting in particularityas to create a general warrant. Bor is the description Kany and all narcoticsK and Kall implements,paraphernalia, articles, papers and records pertaining toK the use, possession, or sale of narcoticsor dangerous drugs so road as to e unconstitutional. $ search warrant commanding peace officersto sei+e Ka quantity of loose heroinK has een held sufficiently particular.

&ested against the foregoing precedents, the description Kan undetermined amount ofmari*uanaK must e held to satisfy the requirement for particularity in a search warrant.Boteworthy, what is to e sei+ed in the instant case is property of a specified character, i.e.,mari*uana, an illicit drug. 0y reason of its character and the circumstances under which it would efound, said article is illegal. $ further description would e unnecessary and ordinarily impossile,ecept as to such character, the place, and the circumstances. &hus, this Court has held that thedescription Killegally in possession of undetermined quantityOamount of dried mari*uana leaves andethamphetamine Fydrochloride -Shau/ and sets of paraphernaliaK particulari+es the things to e

sei+ed.&he search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording, Kundetermined

amount of mari*uana or !ndian hemp,K in our view, has satisfied the Constitutions requirements onparticularity of description. &he description therein is: -/ as specific as the circumstances willordinarily allow" -2/ epresses a conclusion of fact M not of law M y which the peace officers maye guided in ma4ing the search and sei+ure" and -3/ limits the things to e sei+ed to those whichear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is eing issued. Said warrant imposes ameaningful restriction upon the o*ects to e sei+ed y the officers serving the warrant. &hus, itprevents eploratory searches, which might e violative of the 0ill of %ights.

PEOPLE -S. CA'ILES= 7* SCRA >?? @

Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement,not elicited through questioning y the authorities, ut given in an ordianry manner wherey theaccused orally admitted having committed the crime.

ESQUI-EL 1s. T#E SANDIGAN'AYAN=G.R. No. >"67"6, Se2tem0e5 >6, 77@

!n Rodrigo, )r* v&* Sandigan+ayan, inay v&* Sandigan+ayan, and !ayu& v&* Sandigan+ayan,we already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and eclusive *urisdiction of theSandiganayan. Bor can arangay Captain ar4 $nthony squivel claim that since he is not amunicipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganayan#s *urisdiction. R.A. '9'#, as aended "% R.A.?o. &!49, provides t-at it is onl% in cases -ere none of t-e accused are occup%ing positionscorresponding to salar% grade E!' or -ig-er t-at e:clusive original urisdiction s-all "evested in t-e proper regional trial court, etropolitan trial court, unicipal trial court, andunicipal circuit court, as t-e case a% "e, pursuant to t-eir respective urisdictions as

provided in Fatas (a"ansa Flg. 1!9, as aended. Bote that under the 77 Local AovernmentCode, ayor squivel has a salary grade of 2;. Since arangay Captain squivel is the co=accused inCriminal Case Bo. 2>;;; of ayor squivel, whose position falls under salary grade 2;, theSandiganayan committed no grave ause of discretion in assuming *urisdiction over said criminalcase, as well as over Criminal Case Bo. 2>;;*B?B6!, &an4a5< 7B, 77@

Section 9 of %$ 8;;? gives the 'mudsman primary *urisdiction over cases cogni+ale ythe Sandiganayan. &he law defines such primary *urisdiction as authori+ing the 'mudsman Kto

ta4e over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of suchcases.K T-e grant of t-is aut-orit% does not necessaril% ipl% t-e e:clusion fro its urisdiction of cases involving pu"lic officers and eplo%ees cogni2a"le "% ot-er courts. &he

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


19/77


eercise y the 'mudsman of his primary *urisdiction over cases cogni+ale y the Sandiganayanis not incompatile with the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offensescommitted y pulic officers and employees. !ndeed, it must e stressed that the powers grantedy the legislature to the 'mudsman are very road and encompass all 4inds of malfeasance,

misfeasance and non=feasance committed y pulic officers and employees during their tenure ofoffice.

SALAAR -S. PEOPLE= GR No. >B>?">, Se2tem0e5 7", 7" @

!f demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted y the court, the accused has the rightto adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case , unless the court also declares that the act oromission from which the civil liaility may arise did not eist. >f t-e trial court issues an order orrenders udgent not onl% granting t-e deurrer to evidence of t-e accused and ac7uitting-i "ut also on t-e civil lia"ilit% of t-e accused to t-e private offended part%, said udgenton t-e civil aspect of t-e case ould "e a nullit% for t-e reason t-at t-e constitutional rig-tof t-e accused to due process is t-ere"% violated . &his is so ecause when the accused files a

demurrer to evidence, the accused has not yet adduced evidence oth on the criminal and civilaspects of the case. &he only evidence on record is the evidence for the prosecution. )hat the trialcourt should do is to issue an order or partial *udgment granting the demurrer to evidence andacquitting the accused" and set the case for continuation of trial for the petitioner to adduceevidence on the civil aspect of the case, and for the private complainant to adduce evidence yway of reuttal after which the parties may adduce their sur=reuttal evidence as provided for inSection , %ule 7 of the %evised %ules of Criminal Procedure.

CASUPANAN -S.LAROYA= GR No. >*B"?>, A4(4st 7!, 77 @

Under Section of the present %ule , the independent civil action in $rticles 32, 33, 3>and 2;8 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action ut may e filed

separately y the offended party even without reservation. &he commencement of the criminalaction does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of theCivil Code. T-e suspension in Section ! of t-e present Rule 111 refers onl% to t-e civil actionarising fro t-e crie, if suc- civil action is reserved or filed "efore t-e coenceent oft-e criinal action.

GA'IONA -S. CA=GR No. >*">>, Ma5:9 ", 7>@

$n amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is alreadycontained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for convictionfor the crime charged is an amendment to form that can e made at any time. @urisprudenceallows amendments to information so long as: -a/ it does not deprive the accused of the right toinvo4e prescription" -/ it does not affect or alter the nature of the offense originally charged" -c/it does not involve a change in the asic theory of the prosecution so as to require the accused toundergo any material change or modification in his defense" -d/ it does not epose the accused toa charge which would call for a higher penalty" and, -9/ it does not cause surprise nor deprive theaccused of an opportunity to meet the new averment.

!n the case at ar, it is clear that the questioned amendment is one of form and not ofsustance. T-e allegation of tie -en an offense is coitted is a atter of for, unlesstie is a aterial ingredient of t-e offense. >t is not even necessar% to state in t-e>nforation t-e precise tie t-e offense as coitted unless tie is a aterial factor . !t issufficient that the act is alleged to have een committed at any time as near to the actual date atwhich the offense was committed as the Complaint or !nformation will permit.

LALICAN -S. -ERGARA=GR No. >!>?, &4l< ">, >??6@

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


20/77



&his Court has consistently defined the proper procedure in case of denial of a motion toquash. &he accused has to enter a plea, go to trial without pre*udice on his part to present the

special defenses he had invo4ed in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decisionis rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authori+ed y law. Certiorari is not t-e properreed% -ere a otion to 7uas- an inforation is denied. T-at t-e appropriate recourse isto proceed to trial and in case of conviction, to appeal suc- conviction, as ell as t-e denialof t-e otion to 7uas-, is ipelled "% t-e fact t-at a denial of a otion to 7uas- is aninterlocutor% procedural aspect -ic- cannot "e appealed nor can it "e t-e su"ect of a

petition for certiorari. T-e reedies of appeal and certiorari are utuall% e:clusive and notalternative or successive.

'AYAS -S. SANDIGAN'AYAN=GR Nos. >*"!??>, No1em0e5 >7,77@

&here is nothing irregular or unlawful in stipulating facts in criminal cases. &he policy

encouraging it is consistent with the doctrine of waiver, which recogni+es that K. . . everyone has aright to waive and agree to waive the advantage of a law or rule made solely for the enefit andprotection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can e dispensed with and relinquishedwithout infringing on any pulic right and without detriment to the community at large.K

!n the present case, the @oint Stipulation made y the prosecution and petitioners was awaiver of the right to present evidence on the facts and the documents freely admitted y them.&here could have een no impairment of petitioners right to e presumed innocent, right to dueprocess or right against self=incrimination ecause the waiver was voluntary, made with theassistance of counsel and is sanctioned y the %ules on Criminal Procedure. 'nce the stipulationsare reduced into writing and signed y the parties and their counsels, they ecome inding on theparties who made them. &hey ecome *udicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. ven ifplaced at a disadvantageous position, a party may not e allowed to rescind them unilaterally" itmust assume the consequences of the disadvantage. !f the accused are allowed to plead guilty

under appropriate circumstances, y parity of reasoning, they should li4ewise e allowed to enterinto a fair and true pretrial agreement under appropriate circumstances.

YAP -S. CA=GR No. >*>B7?, &4ne !, 7>@

!t militates emphasis that petitioner is see4ing ail on appeal. Section #, Rule 114 of t-eRevised Rules of Criinal (rocedure is clear t-at alt-oug- t-e grant of "ail on appeal in non;capital offenses is discretionar%, -en t-e penalt% iposed on t-e convicted accused e:ceedssi: %ears and circustances e:ist t-at point to t-e pro"a"ilit% of flig-t if released on "ail,t-en t-e accused ust "e denied "ail, or -is "ail previousl% granted s-ould "e cancelled. !nthe same vein, the Court has held that the discretion to etend ail during the course of the appealshould e eercised with grave caution and for strong reasons, considering that the accused hadeen in fact convicted y the trial court .

SALES -S. SANDIGAN'AYAN=GR No. >*"7, No1em0e5 >!, 7>@

&he determination of proale cause is a function of the *udge" it is not for the provincialfiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. 'nly the *udge and the *udge alone ma4es this determination" 2.6&he preliminary inquiry made y a prosecutor does not ind the *udge. !t merely assists him inma4ing the determination of proale cause. !t is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts ofstenographic notes, if any, and all other supporting documents ehind the prosecutors certificationwhich are material in assisting the *udge in his determination of proale cause" and 3.6 @udges and

prosecutors ali4e should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines proale cause forthe issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertainswhether the offender should e held for trial or e released. ven if the two inquiries e made in

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


21/77


one and the same proceeding, there should e no confusion aout their o*ectives. T-edeterination of pro"a"le cause for purposes of issuing t-e arrant of arrest is ade "% t-e

udge. T-e preliinar% investigation proper G -et-er or not t-ere is reasona"le ground to"elieve t-at t-e accused is guilt% of t-e offense c-arged and, t-erefore, -et-er or not -e

s-ould "e su"ected to t-e e:pense, rigors and e"arrassent of trial G is t-e function of t-e prosecutor.

RO+AS -S, -ASQUE="B SCRA !"!@

!n criminal prosecutions, a reinvestigation, li4e an appeal, renders the entire case open for review.

US -S. PURGANAN= GR No. >*B6>, Se2tem0e5 7*,77@

&he filing of a petition for etradition does not per se *ustify the issuance of a warrant ofarrest against an etraditee. &he petition, in some instances, may not contain sufficient allegations

and proof on the issue of whether the possile etraditee will escape from the *urisdiction of theetraditing court.

)hen the petition for etradition does not provide sufficient asis for the arrest of thepossile etraditee or the grant of ail as in the case at ar, it is discretionary for the etraditioncourt to call for a hearing to determine the issue.

$n etraditee has the right to apply for ail. &he right is rooted in the due process clause ofthe Constitution. !t cannot e denied simply ecause of the silence of our etradition treaty andlaw on the matter. &he availaility of the right to ail is uttressed y our other treatiesrecogni+ing civil and political rights and y international norms, customs and practices.

&he etraditee may apply for ail ut its grant depends on the discretion of the etraditingcourt. &he court must satisfy itself that the ail will not frustrate the ends of *ustice.

!n deciding whether to grant ail or not to a possile etraditee, the etraditing courtmust follow a higher and stricter standard. &he etraditee must prove y clear and convincing

evidence that he will not flee from the *urisdiction of the etraditing court and will respect all itsprocesses. !n fine, that he will not frustrate the ends of *ustice.

TULIAO -S. RAMOS= 7* SCRA "6 @

$ *udge should demand the presentation of the originals of the required documents eforeapproving a ail ond.

PEOPLE -S.NARCA =GR No. >*, &4l< 7>, >??6@

&here is nothing in the %ules which renders invalid a preliminary investigation held withoutdefendants counsel. Bot eing a part of the due process clause ut a right merely created y law,preliminary investigation if held within the statutory limitations cannot e voided. $ppellantsargument, if sustained, would ma4e a moc4ery of criminal procedure, since all that a party has todo to thwart the validity of the preliminary investigation is for their counsel not to attend theinvestigation. !t must e emphasi+ed that the preliminary investigation is not the venue for the fulleercise of the rights of the parties. T-is is -% preliinar% investigation is not considered as a

part of trial "ut erel% preparator% t-ereto and t-at t-e records t-erein s-all not for partof t-e records of t-e case in court. (arties a% su"it affidavits "ut -ave no rig-t toe:aine itnesses t-oug- t-e% can propound 7uestions t-roug- t-e investigating officer. >n

fact, a preliinar% investigation a% even "e conducted e:;parte in certain cases.

YUSOP -S. SANDIGAN'AYAN

=GR No. >"B?!, Fe054a5< 77, 7>@

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


22/77



&he defenses failure to cross=eamine li+aeth %eglos was occasioned y her superveningdeath. Lac4 of cross=eamination due to the death of the witness does not necessarily render the

deceaseds previous testimony epungile. 0esides, mere opportunity and not actual cross=eamination is the essence of the right to cross=eamine.

We also find unmeritorious appellants' argument that Elizabeth's testimony, having been taken during the bail hearingsd under Section 8, Rule !, as amended by "ircular #$%!, &evidence

SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORP. -S. T#E S#ERIFF OF RTC, QC. Et.al=GR No. >**"?, No1em0e5 7", 7>@

&he effect of the quashal of the warrant on the ground that no offense has een committedis to render the evidence otained y virtue of the warrant Kinadmissile for any purpose in anyproceeding,K including the preliminary investigation.

DE LOS SANTOSREYES -S. MONTESA=AMRT& ?"?", A4(4st 6, >??B@

>n satisf%ing -iself of t-e e:istence of pro"a"le cause for t-e issuance of a arrantof arrest, t-e udge, folloing t-e esta"lis-ed doctrine and procedure, s-all eit-er *a)

personall% evaluate t-e report and t-e supporting docuents su"itted "% t-e prosecutorregarding t-e e:istence of pro"a"le cause and, on t-e "asis t-ereof, issue a arrant ofarrest, or *") if on t-e face of t-e inforation -e finds no pro"a"le cause, -e a% disregardt-e prosecutor8s certification and re7uire t-e su"ission of t-e supporting affidavits ofitnesses to aid -i in arriving at a conclusion as to t-e e:istence of pro"a"le cause.-Supreme Court Circular Bo. 2, dated 3? @une 737 577>6./ &his procedure is dictated y sound pulic policy" otherwise*udges would e unduly laden with the preliminary eamination and investigation of criminalcomplaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed efore their courts. At t-isstage of a criinal proceeding, t-e udge is not tased to revie in detail t-e evidence

su"itted during t-e preliinar% investigation$ it is sufficient t-at -e personall% evaluatest-e report and supporting docuents su"itted "% t-e prosecution in deterining pro"a"lecause. T-is udicial function does not carr% it- it a otu proprio revie of t-erecoendation of t-e prosecutor in a capital offense t-at no "ail s-all "e granted. Suc- arecoendation is t-e e:clusive prerogative of t-e prosecutor in t-e e:ercise of -is 7uasi;

udicial function during t-e preliinar% investigation, -ic- is e:ecutive in nature. !n suchcases, once the court determines that proale cause eists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,the warrant of arrest shall forthwith e issued and it is only after the accused is ta4en into thecustody of the law and deprived of his lierty that, upon proper application for ail, the court onthe asis of the evidence adduced y the prosecution at the hearing called for the purpose may,upon determination that such evidence is not strong, admit the accused to ail.

PEOPLE -S. NADERA

=GR Nos. >">"*6, Fe054a5< 7, 7@

Convictions "ased on an iprovident plea of guilt are set aside onl% if suc- plea is t-esole "asis of t-e udgent. !f the trial court relied on sufficient and credile evidence to convictthe accused, the conviction must e sustained, ecause then it is predicated not merely on theguilty plea of the accused ut on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

P#IL. RA''IT 'US LINES -S. PEOPLE= GR No. >*66", A25il *, 7* @

$n appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutionalsafeguard against doule *eopardy and throws the whole case open to a review y the appellatecourt. &he latter is then called upon to render *udgment as law and *ustice dictate, whether

favorale or unfavorale to the appellant. &his is the ris4 involved when the accused decides to

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


23/77


appeal a sentence of conviction. !ndeed, appellate courts have the power to reverse, affirm ormodify the *udgment of the lower court and to increase or reduce the penalty it imposed.

ALONTE -S. SA-ELLANO

76 SCRA 7*B

$fter the case has een filed in court, any pardon made y the private complainant,whether y sworn statement or on the witness stand, cannot etinguish criminal lialilty.

PEOPLE -S. ESCANO"*? SCRA !6*

&he acquittal on appel of certain accused ased on reasonale dout enefits a co=accusedwho did not appel or who withdrew his appeal.

PEOPLE -S. MADERAS"B SCRA B*

)here the accused escapes from actual custody or flees from constructive custody, theCourt may motu proprio or on appellee#s motion dismiss the appeal for aandonment.

E-IDENCE

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES vs. E-ANGELINE GANENAS % UR'ANO=G.R. No. >*>*. Se2tem0e5 !, 7>@

&he alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses refer to minor ortrivial incidents that do not detract from the fact that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto asa result of the uy=ust operation. &he identities of the leader and the memers of the police teamare nonessential matters that have no direct earing upon the actual commission of the offense.

5itnesses testif%ing on t-e sae event do not -ave to "e consistent in ever% detail, asdifferences in recollections, viepoints or ipressions are inevita"le. So long as t-e% concuron t-e aterial points of t-eir respective testionies, slig-t differences in t-ese atters donot destro% t-e veracit% of t-eir stateents're&u(ption of Regularity in the 'erfor(ance of -fficial Duty

&he testimonies of the police officers with respect to appellant#s participation in the drug=related transaction, which was the su*ect of the operation, carried with it the presumption ofregularity in the performance of official functionsCourts accord credence and full faith to thetestimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to e performing their duties regularly,asent any convincing proof to the contrary!n this case, no sufficient reason or valid eplanationwas presented to deviate from this presumption of regularity on their part.

!n almost every case involving a uy=ust operation, the accused put up the defense offrame=up. &he Supreme Court views such claim with disfavor, ecause Iit can easily e feigned

and faricated.

E-ANGELINE CA'RERA 1s. PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES and LUIS GO,=G.R. No. >B!>. &4l< 7*, 7".@

!n this case, the prosecution failed to adduce in evidence any notice of dishonor of thethree postdated chec4s or any letter of demand sent to and received y the petitioner. &he aretestimony of Luis Ao that he sent letters of demand to the petitioner notifying her of the dishonorof her chec4s is utterly insufficient.

or failure of t-e prosecution to s-o t-at notices of dis-onor of t-e t-ree postdatedc-ecs ere served on t-e petitioner, or at t-e ver% least, t-at s-e as sent a deand letternotif%ing -er of t-e said dis-onor, t-e pria facie presuption under Section ! of F.(. Flg. !!t-at s-e ne of t-e insufficienc% of funds cannot arise. T-us, t-ere can "e no "asis foresta"lis-ing t-e presence of actual noledge of insufficienc% of funds.K

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa!"


24/77



!n light of such failure, we find and so declare that the prosecution failed to prove eyondreasonale dout all the elements of violation of 0.P. 0lg. 22. Fence, the need to reverse and set

aside the decisions of oth the Court of $ppeals and the trial court convicting the petitioner of thecrime of violation of 0.P. 0lg. 22.

Fowever, we uphold the decision of the C$ affirming the trial courts decision ordering thepetitioner to pay to the private respondent the total face value of the chec4s in the amount ofP2?7,;9.>9. )e stress that a chec4 is an evidence of det against the drawer, and although maynot e intended to e presented, has the same effect as an ordinary chec4, and if passed upon to athird person, will e valid in his hands li4e any other chec4. Fence, the petitioner is oliged to payto the private respondent Luis Ao the said amount of P2?7,;9.>9 with 21 legal interest perannum, from the filing of the information until the finality of this decision, the sum of which,inclusive of interest, shall e su*ect thereafter to 21 per annum interest until the amount due isfully paid, conformaly to our ruling that when an oligation is reached, and it consists in thepayment of a sum of money, i.e. a loan or forearance of money, the interest due should e thatwhich may have een stipulated in writing. !n the asence of such stipulation, the rate shall e 21

per annum computed from default, i.e. *udicial or etra*udicial demand. 29 !n this case, the rate ofinterest was not stipulated in writing y the petitioner, the private respondent and 0oni Co. &hus,the applicale interest rate is 21 per annum.

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GO-ERNMENT PCGG8 1s. =G.R. No. >"7>7. Fe054a5< >, 7".@

!n the face of the $ffidavit and the Supplemental $ffidavit, it is indeed strange how theomudsman could have ruled that there was no testimonial evidence on the said matters. &hat heruled thus clearly shows that he whimsically opted to disregard those pieces of evidence and

therey demonstrated his capricious and aritrary eercise of *udgment.&he complainant is required to file affidavits Kas well as other supporting documents to

estalish proale cause,K as stated in the %ules of Court:K-a/ &he complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall e accompanied

y the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents toestalish proale cause.K

&his requirement was fulfilled y the PCAA. &he Supplemental Complaint was accompaniedy the $ffidavits of witnesses as well as y a host of other supporting documents, all of which Mta4en together M estalished proale cause.

>t s-ould "e noted t-at t-e Rules on =vidence recogni2es different fors of evidence Go"ect, docuentar% or testionial G it-out preference for an% of t-e in particular. 5-ats-ould reall% atter are t-e eig-t and t-e sufficienc% of t-e evidence presented.

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES 1s. CARLITO MARA#AY < MORACA=G.R. Nos. >7!7B7?. &an4a5< 7, 7"@

)hile the father=daughter relationship of accused=appellant and the victims, ylene and0elinda, remains undisputed, the minority of the victims, though alleged, was not satisfactorilyestalished. !t is the urden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim waselow < years of age when the rape was committed in order to *ustify the imposition of the deathpenalty.

!n the recent case of People vs. anuel Pruna y %amire+ or rman Pruna y %amire+, thisCourt laid down the following guidelines in appreciating age, eit-er as an eleent of t-e crieor as a 7ualif%ing circustance@K. &he est evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true

copy of the certificate of live irth of such party.

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


25/77


K2. !n the asence of a certificate of live irth, similar authentic documents such as aptismalcertificate and school records which show the date of irth of the victim would suffice to proveage.K3. !f the certificate of live irth or authentic document is shown to have een lost or

destroyed or otherwise unavailale, the testimony, if clear and credile, of the victims mother or amemer of the family either y affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on mattersrespecting pedigree such as the eact age or date of irth of the offended party pursuant to Section>?, %ule 3? of the %ules on vidence shall e sufficient under the following circumstances:

a. !f the victim is alleged to e elow 3 years of age and what is sought to e provedis that she is less than ; years old". !f the victim is alleged to e elow ; years of age and what is sought to e provedis that she is less than 2 years old"c. !f the victim is alleged to e elow 2 years of age and what is sought to e provedis that she is less than < years old.

K>. !n the asence of a certificate of live irth, authentic document, or the testimony of thevictims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will sufficeprovided that it is epressly and clearly admitted y the accused.

K9. !t is the prosecution that has the urden of proving the age of the offended party. &hefailure of the accused to o*ect to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not e ta4enagainst him.K8. &he trial court should always ma4e a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.K

&hus, although the defense does not contest the age of the victim, it is still essential thatthe prosecution present independent proof thereof, pursuant to Bo. 9 of said guidelines. $s amatter of fact, the minority of the victim must e proved with equal certainty and clearness as thecrime itself. Under Section >>, %ule 3? of the %ules on vidence, a irth certificate is the estevidence of a persons date of irth. !n the instant case, the prosecution did not present thecertificates of live irth of oth ylene and 0elinda or other similar authentic documents to provetheir ages. Bot even the victims mother or the victims themselves, or any other relative qualifiedto testify on matters respecting pedigree, were presented y the prosecution to estalish the

victims ages at the time the crimes were committed. Such failure of the prosecution to dischargeits urden constrains this Court to hold that the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot eappreciated in these cases.

PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES 1s. MARLON MORALDE=G.R. No. >">!. &an4a5< >!, 7".@

Faving een positively and unmista4aly identified y the complainant as her rapist, theappellants defense of alii cannot prosper. Categorical and consistent positive identification,a"sent an% s-oing of ill;otive on t-e part of t-e e%eitness testif%ing t-ereon, prevailsover t-e defenses of denial and ali"i -ic-, if not su"stantiated "% clear and convincing

proof, constitute self;serving evidence undeserving of eig-t in la. $lii, li4e denial, isinherently wea4 and easily faricated. or this defense to *ustify an acquittal, the following muste estalished: the presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of theoffense and the physical impossiility for him to e at the scene of the crime. &hese requisiteshave not een met.

#EIRS OF LOURDES SAE SA'ANPAN 1s. AL'ERTO C. COMORPOSA=G.R. No. >B76. A4(4st >7, 7".@

Pleadings filed via fa machines are not considered originals and are at est eact copies.$s such, they are not admissile in evidence, as there is no way of determining whether they aregenuine or authentic.

&he Certification, on the other hand, is eing contested for earing a facsimile of thesignature of CB% 'fficer @ose . &agorda. &he facsimile referred to is not the same as that which

is alluded to in Aarvida. &he one mentioned here refers to a facsimile signature, which is definedas a signature produced y mechanical means ut recogni+ed as valid in an4ing, financial, andusiness transactions.

RedNotesinReme

d

ialLa

!"


26/77



Bote that the CB% officer has not disclaimed the Certification. !n fact, the DB% regionaldirector has ac4nowledged and used it as reference in his 'rder dated $pril 2, 77"6?7B. &an4a5< >", 7".@

&he 'ffice of the Solicitor Aeneral counters that findings of the trial court during the ailhearing were ut a preliminary appraisal of the strength of the prosecutions evidence for thelimited purpose of determining whether appellant is entitled to e released on ail during thependency of the trial. Fence, we agree with the 'SA that said findings should not e construed asan immutale evaluation of the prosecutions evidence. !t is settled that the assessment of theprosecution evidence presented during ail hearings in capital offenses is preliminary and intendedonly for the purpose of granting or denying applications for the provisional release of the accused.

TEODORO K. KATIG'AK 1s. T#E SANDIGAN'AYAN=G.R. No. >*>". &4l< >, 7".@

$ careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence adduced y the prosecution does notsupport the charge of violation of Section 3, paragraph -e/ of %$ 3?7, as amended, in the instantinformation against the petitioners. Significantly, the said pieces of documentary evidence wereoffered only for the purpose of estalishing the participation and liaility of their co=accused,

%oert 0alao, as noted in the written ormal 'ffer of hiits 39 of the prosecution datedSeptemer 22, 77;. &he same was prepared and signed y $tty. Bicanor E. Eillarosa, counsel ofthe private complainant, with the written approval of Prosecutor anuel . Corpu+ of the 'ffice of

San

'eda

Colle(e

o)

La

!*


27/77


the Special Prosecutor. !n this connection, the rule is eplicit that courts should consider theevidence only for the purpose for which it is offered.

&he prosecution relies heavily on BF$ 0oard %esolution Bo. 2>93 dated arch 2, 772 toestalish the alleged conspiracy etween the petitioners and their co=accused. Fowever, the Court

is othered y the uneplained failure of the prosecution to include in its formal offer of ehiitssuch a very vital piece of evidence in proving the eistence of the alleged conspiracy among thepetitioners.

5e ep-asi2e t-at an% evidence a part% desires to su"it for t-e consideration oft-e court ust forall% "e offered "% -i. Suc- a foral offer is necessar% "ecause it is t-edut% of t-e udge to rest -is findings of fact and -is udgent strictl% on t-e evidence offered"% t-e parties at t-e trial$ and no finding of fact can "e sustained if not supported "% suc-evidence. Docuents not regularl% received in evidence during t-e trial ill not "e consideredin disposing of t-e issues in an action.

REPU'LIC OF T#E P#ILIPPINES 1s. #ONORA'LE SANDIGAN'AYAN and FERDINAND E. MARCOS=G.R. No. >B7>B*. &4l< >B, 7".@

erdinand @r.s pronouncements, ta4en in contet and in their entirety, were aconfirmation of respondents# recognition of their ownership of the Swiss an4 deposits. $dmissionsof a party in his testimony are receivale against him. !f a party, as a witness, delieratelyconcedes a fact, such concession has the force of a *udicial admission. !t is apparent fromerdinand @r.s testimony that the arcos family agreed to negotiate with the Philippinegovernment in the hope of finally putting an end to the prolems esetting the arcos familyregarding the Swiss accounts. &his was doutlessly an ac4nowledgment of ownership on their part.&he rule is that the testimony on the witness stand parta4es of the nature of a formal *udicialadmission when a party testifies clearly and unequivocally to a fact which is peculiarly within hisown 4nowledge.

)e have always adhered to the familiar doctrine that an admission made in the pleadingscannot e controverted y the party ma4ing such admission and ecomes conclusive on him, andthat all proofs sumitted y him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should e ignored,

whether an o*ection is interposed y the adverse party or not. &his doctrine is emodied inSection >, %ule 27 of the %ules of Court.

!n the asence of a compelling reason to the contrary, respondents *udicial admission ofownership of the Swiss deposits is definitely inding on them. &he individual and separateadmissions of each respondent ind all of them pursuant to Sections 27 and 3, %ule 3? of the%ules of Court.

T9e de:la5ations o) a 2e5son a5e admissi0le a(ainst a 2a5t< 9ene1e5 a 25i1it< o)estate eHists 0eteen t9e de:la5ant and t9e 2a5t


28/77



out the truth. &he impartiality of a *udge cannot e assailed on

Documents

Red Notes on Remedial Law