You are on page 1of 8

1

I
I would rule that the pieces of evidence are inadmissible.
Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution provides that no torture,
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against [the accused] and any
confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Also, the
Exclusionary Rule Principle states that evidence obtained from an
illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in
violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and
will not be admitted as evidence.
There being no showing that A voluntarily admitted the
crime, then the evidence obtained is a fruit of a poisonous tree
and cannot be admitted as evidence in trial.
II
The Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to assume
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition in relation
to the constitutionality of a law or executive action. Section 5, Art.
VIII of the Constitution provides clearly:
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
III
The preliminary injunction order issued by the COMELEC 1 st
Division is an interlocutory order.
The remedy of A is to seek the review of the interlocutory
order during the appeal of the decision of the Division in due
course.
Or, exceptionally, the Supreme Court may take cognizance
of a certiorari action directed against an interlocutory order issued
by a Division of the COMELEC when the following circumstances
are present: first, the order was issued without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and second, under
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the subject of the controversy is
a matter which (1) the COMELEC en banc may not sit and
consider or (2) a Division is not authorized to act or (3) the

members of the Division unanimously vote to refer to the


COMELEC en banc.
[Sahali vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201796. January 15, 2013]
IV
Admissibility is the character or quality which any material
must necessarily possess for it to be accepted and allowed to be
presented or introduced as evidence in court. It answers the
question: should the court allow the material to be used as
evidence by the party?
Weight of evidence is the value given or significance or
impact, or importance given to the material after it has been
admitted; its tendency to convince or persuade. Hence a
particular evidence may be admissible but it has no weight.
Conversely, an evidence may be of great weight or importance
but it is not admissible.
V
As argument is untenable. Pending appeal of a conviction by
the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail
is expressly declared to be discretionary, not a matter of right.
Under the present revised Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the
availability of bail to an accused may be summarized in the
following rules:
xxx
xxx
xxx
e.
After conviction by the Regional Trial Court wherein a
penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20
years is imposed, and not one of the circumstances stated in Sec.
5 or any other similar circumstance is present and proved, bail is
a matter of discretion (Sec. 5);
f.
After conviction by the Regional Trial Court imposing
a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than
20 years, and any of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any
other similar circumstance is present and proved, no bail shall
be granted by said court (Sec. 5); x x x
[Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec.
5. Bail,
when
discretionary.
Upon
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an

offense
not
punishable
by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary. The application
for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court
despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has
not transmitted the original record to the appellate
court. However, if the decision of the trial court
convicting the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for
bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate
court.
Should the court grant the application, the
accused may be allowed to continue on provisional
liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the
same bail subject to the consent of thebondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be
cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following or
other similar circumstances:
(a)
That he is a recidivist, quasirecidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
(b)
That he has previously escaped from
legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without a
valid justification;
(c)
That he committed the offense while
under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;
(d)
That the circumstances of his case
indicate the probability of flight if released
on bail; or
(e)
That there is undue risk that he may
commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on
motion of any party, review the resolution of the

Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in


either case.]
[Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010]
VI
The motion to dismiss should be denied. A is entitled to seek
for the recognition and enforcement of the subject foreign arbitral
award in accordance with Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act of 2004).
It is in the best interest of justice that in the
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, we deny availment
by the losing party of the rule that bars foreign corporations
not
licensed
to
do
business
in
the
Philippines from maintaining a suit in our courts. When a party
enters into a contract containing a foreign arbitration clause
and, as in this case, in fact submits itself to arbitration,
it becomes bound by the contract, by the arbitration and by the
result of arbitration, conceding thereby the capacity of
the other party to enter into the contract, participate in the
arbitration and cause the implementation of the result.
Clearly, on the matter of capacity to sue, a foreign arbitral
award should be respected not because it is favored over
domestic laws and procedures, but because Republic Act No. 9285
has certainly erased any conflict of law question.
[Tuna Processing, Inc. v. Philippine Kingford, Inc., G.R. No. 185582,
February 29, 2012]
VII
The requirements for intervention are: [a] legal interest in the
matter in litigation; and [b] consideration must be given as to
whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may
be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenors rights may
be protected in a separate proceeding or not.
Intervention pro interessesuo is a mode of intervention wherein a
stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of asserting a
property right which is the subject matter of litigation without
becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant.
[Nordic Asia Limited vs. CA, G.R. No. 111159. July 13, 2004]
VIII
The appeal is timely filed.

Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or "The Judiciary Reorganization


Act of 1980" provides clearly:
Sec. 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition x x x. Their decisions in these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts.
In the Neypes ruling, when a motion for reconsideration is
denied, a fresh period of 15 days is given to file an appeal from
the notice of Order dismissing it (RTC to CA).
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 2. When to appeal. An appeal may be
taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the
appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from.
xxx
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a
timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No
motion for extension of time to file a motion for new
trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
In the present case, thus, applying the above jurisprudence,
law and Rule, the applicant has a fresh period of 15 days to file
his notice of appeal, because the decision denying his motion for
reconsideration is a final order.
IX
a.
Yes. The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure
an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made
in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This
requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings,
and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it
fatally defective. Truly, verification is only a formal, not a
jurisdictional, requirement. Hence, it was sufficient that the
private prosecutor or the public prosecutor signed the verification,
and petitioners need only show that there was reasonable cause
for the failure of private complainant to sign the verification and
that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the
administration of justice. [People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710,
June 5, 2009, Peralta, J.]

b.
No. The proper remedy is appeal. Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court states:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
In the given case, there is clearly an appeal available to the
prosecution, because the modification by the RTC of its judgment
is tantamount to a final order. It is then appealable to the Court of
Appeals. It is not an interlocutory order against which a Rule 65
petition may be filed.
X
Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust Company G.R. No.
141818, 22 June 2006 definitively outlined several judicial
remedies an aggrieved party to an arbitral award may undertake:
(1)a petition in the proper RTC to issue an order to vacate the
award on the grounds provided for in Section 24 of RA 876;
(2) a petition for review in the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and
law; and
(3)a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
should the arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Section 24 of RA 876 provides for the specific grounds for a
petition to vacate an award made by an arbitrator:
Sec. 24. Grounds for vacating award. - In any one of the
following cases, the court must make an order vacating the award
upon the petition of any party to the controversy when such party
proves affirmatively that in the arbitration proceedings:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other
undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrators or any of them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or
in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the

controversy; that one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified


to act as such under section nine hereof, and willfully refrained
from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior
by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced;
or
(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final and definite
award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
[ABS-CBN vs. WINS, G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008]
XI.
A status quo ante order has the nature of a temporary
restraining order. A temporary restraining order shall be effective
only for a period of 20 days from notice to the party or person
sought to be enjoined. During the 20-day period, the judge must
conduct a hearing to consider the propriety of issuing a
preliminary injunction. If no action is taken by the judge on the
application for preliminary injunction within the said 20 days, the
TRO would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer
force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary.
[Llamson vs. Logronio, et. al., G.R. No. 167745, June 26, 2007]
XII
a)
If I were the counsel for Pedro, I would file a motion to
dismiss. After producing the final print out of the motion, the
motion shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties
affected in accordance with the Rules of Court. The motion shall
be filed by presenting the original copy thereof, plainly indicated
as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending it by
registered mail. Service of the motion shall be made either
personally or by mail.
The complaint should be dismissed on the ground that the
venue is improperly laid. The venue should be in Las Pias City,
where defendant is residing in accordance with the Rules of Court.
As plaintiffs are living abroad, then it follows that the venue shall
be where the defendant resides. Miguel, even though he is the
attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff spouses, is not a real party-ininterest in the case; thus, his residence is immaterial to the venue
of the filing of the complaint.
b)
On the issue of venue, I would rule that, indeed, RTC
Valenzuela is not the proper venue. If the plaintiff does not reside
in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed in
the court of the place where the defendant resides. In Cohen and
Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., this Court held that there
can be no election as to the venue of the filing of a complaint

when the plaintiff has no residence in the Philippines. In such


case, the complaint may only be filed in the court of the place
where the defendant resides.
[Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012]
XIII
Among the deficiencies of the writ of habeas corpus are: (1)
It does not primarily address the protection of life, liberty and
security of persons; and (2) It concerns only illegal detention.
The writ of amparo, on the other hand, (1) is envisioned
basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
quality of this life; and (2) is an extraordinary writ conceptualized
and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The doctrine has a
broad scope encompassing not just illegal detention nor actual
violations, but also the prevention of possible violations, of human
rights and other constitutional guarantees.
XIV
I would advise Rachel to file a petition for correction of entries
which should be filed in the Local Civil Registrar where her birth
certificate is located or registered.
Under Republic Act (RA) 9048 which authorizes the city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general to correct a clerical
or typographical error in an entry and/or change the first name or
nickname in the civil register without the need of a judicial order.
Here, since it is only Rachels first name needs to be corrected
due to its typographical error she may file such petition under R.A.
9048.

You might also like