You are on page 1of 31

Criminal Procedure: Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies in the case.

148 H went to work in New York, leaving his wife W in the Philippines. Six years later, he
became an American citizen, divorced W and married X. After only six months, X
divorced H. When he went home, he found that W had a live in relationship with Z. H
then filed a complaint for adultery against W and Z. Would the complaint prosper?

NO. The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery the person who can
legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this case,
it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce
in his country, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so
far as he is concerned. Thus, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and
has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the
offended spouse at the time he filed suit. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity
and conformity with the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our rules of
evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of W, pursuant to Section 48,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. Section 48.:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order, is
conclusive upon the title to the thing, and (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. The foreign divorce had already
severed the marital bond between the spouses. The Court reasoned in Van Dorn v.
Romillo that: To maintain x x x that, under our laws, [the Filipino spouse] has to be considered
still married to [the alien spouse] and still subject to a wife's obligations x x x cannot be just.

Criminal Procedure: Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure is applicable.
149 X filed a complaint against Y before the RTC of Santiago City. The certificate against
forum shopping was subscribed and sworn to before a notary public of Bayombong. In
case the certificate is false, what would be the proper venue for perjury, Santiago City or
Bayombong?
Bayombong is the proper venue for the case. The venue and jurisdiction over criminal
cases is not only in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its
essential ingredients took place. The second and fourth elements, requiring the Certificate
against Forum Shopping to be under oath before a notary public, appear to have been made
in Bayombong. Thus, Bayombong is the proper venue and RTC Bayombong City is the proper
court to try the perjury case against Y, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury were
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Bayombong, not Santiago City.
In the case of Sy Tiong the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and
swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury
are executed. When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding
that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given.
Applying such in the case Bayombong is the proper venue.
Criminal Procedure: Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applies in the case.

150 The XYZ Corporation was beset by problems among its officers. President X filed a

petition in court for issuance of another owners copy of the corporations Transfer

Certificate of Title which was allegedly lost. After the petition was granted, Treasurer Y

came to know about it and filed a complaint against X for perjury because X knew that

the TCT was in the possession of Y but stated under oath that it was lost. After the

prosecution filed an information for perjury, Y intervened through a private prosecutor.

X moved to exclude the private lawyer alleging that perjury was a public crime and did

not involve private interests. Should the court allow the private prosecutor to

participate in the case?


Yes, the court can allow the private prosecutor to participate in the case. Petitioners

contention lacks merit. The Court declared in the early case of Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco, that

whether public or private crimes are involved, it is erroneous for the trial court to consider the

intervention of the offended party by counsel as merely a matter of tolerance. Thus, where the

private prosecution has asserted its right to intervene in the proceedings, that right must be

respected.

Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the

criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the

prosecution of the offense. Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that,

"[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be

deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,

reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal

action." Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the right to

institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for damages arising from the offense charged.

Thus, the private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the criminal action. In the case, there

was neither a waiver nor a reservation made; nor did the offended party institute a separate

civil action. It follows that evidence should be allowed in the criminal proceedings to establish

the civil liability arising from the offense committed, and the private offended party has the right

to intervene through the private prosecutors.


Criminal and Civil Procedure: Section 1 of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court (Consolidation
of case) and Section 22 (Consolidation of trials of related offenses) of Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court applies.

151 Y issued thirty checks to X as weekly payment of his loan. When all checks bounced, X
filed thirty cases against Y for violation of BP 22. X did not have sufficient funds to pay
the filing fees for all cases, and so he requested the executive judge to give due course
to and docket fees of the cases, with the rest to follow when his means would permit.
Should the judge allow this despite the fact that all cases arose out of the same
transaction, and should be tried jointly?

Yes. The consolidation of criminal cases is a matter of judicial discretion, according to


Section 22 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Nothing wrong or illegal in granting petitioners
request. Granting petitioners request would not constitute a deferment in the payment of filing
fees, for the latter clearly intends to pay in full the filing fees of some, albeit not all, of the cases
filed. In the instant case, there are a total of thirty (30) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 that was
filed and each, assessed its filing fees, individually, based on the amount of check one covers.
Each count represents an independent violation of BP Blg. 22. Filing fees are, therefore, due
for each count and may be paid for each count separately. The fact remains that there are still
thirty (30) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 that were filed and, as a consequence, thirty (30)
individual filing fees to be paid. Neither would the consolidation of all counts make any
difference. Consolidation does not transform the filing fees due for each case consolidated into
one indivisible fee. Allowing petitioner to pay for the filing fees of some of the thirty counts of
violation of BP Big. 22, will concededly result into the absolute non-payment of the filing fees of
the rest. The fate of the cases which filing fees were not paid, however, is already the concern
of the court. (RICHARD CHUA, Petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE, METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, MANILA,).
Criminal Procedure: Section 17 (Where bail filed), Rule 114 of Rules of Courts applies in
the case.

152 The RTC of Baguio issued a warrant for the arrest of X for homicide with bail fixed at
P100,000. If X is arrested at Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya, can the MTC judge of the place
approve the bail posted by him?

Under Section 17 of Rules of Courts. Bail, where filed. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may
be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the
judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a
province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with
any regional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan
trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
Applying such in the case he must post his bail in the Regional Trial Court of Nueva
Vizcaya. He can only post bail in the municipal trial court of Kayapa if there is no available
judge in any Regional Trial Court of Nueva Vizcaya. He cannot directly post bail in MTC
Kayapa unless there is no available judge in RTC in the province where he was arrested.

Evidence and Constitutional Law: (Validity of extra-judicial confession)

153 There was no lawyer in the remote town where X was under custodial investigation for
homicide but Y, called attorney by the people, had just graduated from law school,
and reviewing for the bar exams. Y assisted the accused and told him that if he
committed the crime, he should admit it to lessen the penalty. Y passed the bar given
that same year. Is the extrajudicial confession of X admissible in evidence?

No. The right of the accused to have an independent and competent counsel was violated
because the person who assisted the accused was not a lawyer at the tie he made the
admission. Confession to be admissible must be a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing.
To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform to constitutional requirements.
One of his rights is to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own
choice, to be provided with counsel if they are unable to secure one, to be assisted by such
counsel during the investigation, to have such counsel present when they decide to waive
these rights, and to be informed of all these rights and of the fact that anything they say can
and will be used against them in court. In People v. Santos, Court held: A confession is not
admissible unless the prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits
imposed by the 1987 Constitution. In the case at bar, the confession is inadmissible because it
was made with person who is not yet a lawyer. His right to have a competent and independent
counsel was violated.

Criminal Procedure: Section B of RULE 116 of Rules of Court is applicable.


(Arraignment)

154 Since he was hospitalized in Santiago City, accused X could not attend his arraignment
in the RTC Lagawe. He executed a special power of attorney authorizing his brother Y
to enter a plea of not guilty for him. Should the court allow Y to plead for and in behalf
of X?
No. Section B of RULE 116 of Rules of Court provides that Section 1. Arraignment and
plea; how made. (b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally
enter his plea. It is clear that the attendance of the accused in Arraignment shall only be made
through his personal appearance and cannot be made through representative even though
armed with Special Power of Attorney since the importance of arraignment is to inform the
accused of the nature and cause of accusation. It is important to acquire the jurisdiction of the
person.
Criminal Procedure: Section 2, Rule 116 of Rules of Court (Plea of guilty to a lesser offense)

155 X was charged with murder. After the prosecution presented its principal witnesses, the
accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser crime of homicide. Would the accused still
be allowed to enter into a plea bargaining agreement?
Yes. Plea Bargaining may also be made during the trial proper and even after the
prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. As pointed out in the case
of Peo. Parahinog, 96 SCRA 373, after the prosecution has rested, the only basis for which the
court could rightfully act in allowing the accused to change his former plea of not guilty could
be nothing more nothing less than the evidence already in the record since the rule was not
and could not have been intended as a procedure for compromise, much less bargaining. The
court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the pre-trial stage
or that it was made only after the prosecution already presented several witnesses. Allowing
the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense is addressed to the sound discretion of the court
(Daan v. Sandiganbayan).

Criminal Procedure: Section 4. Rule 112 of Rules of Court (Resolution of investigating


prosecutor and its review)

156 The City Prosecutor of Santiago City filed an information for murder against X before
the RTC which also has territorial jurisdiction over Cordon, Isabela. Among the
evidence were pictures of the scene of the crime clearly showing that it was committed
actually in Cordon. Can the court dismiss the case motu proprio on the ground that the
prosecutor had no authority over crimes committed outside Santiago City?
No. Section 4, Rule 112 applies in the case. The information is void if it is filed by a person
without authority like a City Prosecutor for a crime committed outside city limits (Cudia v. CA.
284 SCRA 173). In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, et al. the Court held that the information
having been filed by an unauthorized party, the information was fatally flawed. It noted that this
defect is not a mere remediable defect of form, but a defect that could not be cured.

Criminal Procedure: Doctrine of Adherence to Jurisdiction

158 A complaint for estafa involving P20,000 with penalty of prision correccional maximum
to prision mayor minimum was filed with the city prosecutor of Manila. Before the case
could be resolved, a law was passed increasing the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial
court to 8 years of imprisonment. Where the case should be filed, the MeTC or RTC?
The case shall be filed with the RTC having the original jurisdiction before the a law
increasing the jurisdiction of MTC was passed. Jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time
of filing of the complaint and once acquired, the jurisdiction of the court is not affected by
subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal (Oh v. CA, 403 SCRA
300).
Jurisdiction of Court for Hijacking case
159 X, an American citizen, hijacked a plane from Japan and diverted it to Malaysia. Later,
he fled to Sulu but was arrested for being an undocumented alien and brought to
Manila. Can criminal charges for hijacking be filed against him before the RTC of
Manila?
It depends. If the plane is Philippine registry then the Philippines can lawfully try the case.
However if the Philippines has no jurisdiction over the accused where the plane is not
Philippine registry nor aircraft of foreign registry which was compelled to land in Philippine
territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said territory. The Hague
Convention, also known as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft,
which was ratified by several states, including the Philippines agreed to make hijacking
punishable by severe penalties, and to include it in the list of extraditable crimes. Hijackers
may be tried in the country where the aircraft landed or where the aircraft is registered.

Criminal Procedure: Section 14,Rule 110, of Rules of Court (Amendment/Substitution))

158. X was charged with estafa for the issuance of BDO check no. 102030 to the damage
and prejudice of Y. During trial, it was proven that the person prejudiced by the
dishonor of the check was Z, and not Y. Could X be convicted despite the mistake in the
designation of the offended party?
Yes. If the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as a check, an
error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial.
Erroneous designation of the person injured is not material because the subject matter of
the offense, a check, was sufficiently identified with such particularity as to properly identify the
particular offense charged (Ricarze v. CA.)

Criminal Procedure: Section 14, Rule 110, of Rules of Court (Amendment)


159. X was charged with rape. After arraignment, the prosecution sought to amend the
information to allege that by reason of the rape, the victim became insane. Should the
amendment be allowed?
Yes. As held in the case of Peo. V. Damago, an amendment after arraignment to allege
that the victim of rape became insane by reason of or on occasion of the rape merely raises
the penalty that may be imposed in case of conviction and does not charge another offense
different from that charged in the original information. Moreover, the insanity may be
considered a supervening event. Unlike other qualifying circumstances, insanity may not be
readily discerned and could easily be mistaken as a mere initial reaction to the incident.

160. The city prosecutor dismissed the complaint against X for the death of Y but the
Secretary of Justice reversed him, stating that there was probable cause to file an
information against X for murder. X appealed to the Court of Appeals and filed a motion
before the RTC to suspend the implementation of the warrant of arrest.

A) Can the court act on the motion even if X has not been arrested?

Yes. Custody of the accused is not a requisite in granting the motion to suspend the
implementation of the warrant of arrest since the motion can only be filed by person who is not
yet arrested or under detention. Warrant of arrest is no longer necessary when an accused is
already detained or arrested or voluntary surrendered. By filing the motion to suspend
implementation of warrant of arrest the accused deemed voluntarily surrendered himself to the
jurisdiction of the Court. Hence the court may grant the motion even X has not been arrested.

B) If the Court of Appeals sustains the Secretary of Justice, could the RTC still dismiss
the case for lack of probable cause?

Yes. Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution
of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is
mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either
agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of the trial courts duty
and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. Thus, the trial court may make an
independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-
affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public
prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before it; or any evidence
already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the
public prosecutor. The trial court should make its assessment separately and
independently of the evaluation of the prosecution or of the Secretary of Justice.
(Leonardo U. Flores, Hon. Raul S. Gonzalez).

Criminal Procedure: Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of Rules of Court (Institution of criminal and
civil actions)

161. X, president of ABC Corp. issued a check to Y in payment of a corporate debt. When
the check bounced, a BP 22 case was filed against X. Can Y file a civil case against ABC
Corp. on the dishonored check?

Yes. Technically, nothing in Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of Rules of Court prohibits the
reservation of a separate civil action against the juridical person on whose behalf the check
was issued. What the rules prohibit is the reservation of a separate civil action against the
natural person charged with violating B.P. Blg. 22, including such corporate officer who had
signed the bounced check. In theory the B.P. Blg. 22 criminal liability of the person who issued
the bouncing check in behalf of a corporation stands independent of the civil liability of the
corporation itself, such civil liability arising from the Civil Code. B.P. Blg. 22 itself fused this
criminal liability of the signer of the check in behalf of the corporation with the corresponding
civil liability of the corporation itself by allowing the complainant to recover such civil liability not
from the corporation, but from the person who signed the check in its behalf. It permissible to
pursue the criminal liability against the signatory, while going after the corporation itself for the
civil liability. (Jaime U. Gosiaco, versus - Carpio Morales et al. )

Criminal Procedure: Rule 112 of Rules of Court (Preliminary Investigation)

162. Municipal engineer X purchased a Toyota pick up for P1.5M as evidence by the
documents he submitted. Later, Toyota documents showed that the actual price was
P1.4M. The LGU filed a complaint against X for violation of RA 3019. After investigation,
the provincial prosecutor filed an action against X for falsification of public documents.
X filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that since another case was filed, another
preliminary investigation for falsification.

A. Is the ground relied upon by X proper? No. There is no question that there is a denial
of a right. However, if there is an irregularity, that is not a ground for dismissal. The right of
a person to preliminary investigation is recognized by the law and is governed by the Rules
of Court. However, the failure to accord this right does not ipso facto result in the dismissal
of the information; the case is merely suspended, and the prosecutor directed to conduct
the proper investigation (ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP, petitioner, vs. The Honorable
SANDIGANBAYAN )
B. Is a new preliminary investigation necessary?
Yes. While the "absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's
jurisdiction over the case (n)or do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render it defective, but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendant,
before entering his plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead
of dismissing the information, should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct
it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be
conducted.

` Criminal Procedure: (Illegal Arrest or Irregularity of Preliminary Investigation)


163. X left her 2 year old son Y with Z while she went to work. Later, Z texted X that Y had
fallen down the stairs, and was brought to the hospital. Two days later Y died of
multiple injuries. X complained to the police that Y must have beaten by Z. Based on
this information, the police arrested Z in his house for murder. When he was searched,
the police found shabu. In court, X pleaded not guilty to the charges of murder and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. During the trial, he questioned the validity of his
arrest and subsequent search. The prosecution opposed the move and claimed that X
could no longer question the arrest and search after pleading to the charge. Is the
prosecution correct?

No. The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning
the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies only if
he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his
objections thereto. There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual
intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause. When the only
proof of intention rests on what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with,
and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no
other explanation of his conduct is possible.
Criminal Procedure and Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution (Trial in
Absentia and instances when the presence of accused is required).

164. Because the accused was absent during trial despite due notice, the prosecutor
moved for his arrest and confiscation of bond. The defense counsel opposed the
motion, arguing that the accused was waiving his right to be present in court. Should
the motion of the prosecution be granted?

It is important to state that the provision of the Constitution authorizing the trial in
absentia of the accused in case of his non-appearance after arraignment despite due notice
simply means that he thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses face to face among
others. An express waiver of appearance after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same
effect. However, such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the
prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes
of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused. Such waiver of
a right of the accused does not mean a release of the accused from his obligation under the
bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right but not his
duty or obligation to the court. ELIAS CARREDO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, VICTORIA CATOSTOS, and HON. GENEROSO A. JUABAN (Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch VII).

Criminal Procedure: Section 9, Rule 114 (Amount of Bail) Excessive shall not be required.

165. The RTC convicted X of estafa, imposed a penalty of reclusion temporal, and
ordered him to pay the Y, the offended party P5M, the amount of the fraud, plus legal
interest. X immediately appealed and prayed that he remain out on bail. Would it proper
to fix bail at P5M?
No. The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or
whenever so required by the court and not intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of
civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court. The amount
should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no higher
than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Fixing bail at an amount equivalent to the
civil liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,000,000.00) is to permit the
impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is
charged of.
Petitioner was in fact declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC but the setting
of bail in the amount of P5,500,000.00 is unjustified as having no legal nor factual basis (Yap
vs. CA,358, SCRA 564)

Criminal Procedure: Sec. 3, Rule 118 of Rules of Court (Non-appearance at pre-trial)

166. The accused and the offended party were absent during pre-trial despite due notice.
Could the court proceed with the pre-trial despite their absence?
Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal cases, the presence of the private
complainant or the complaining witness is however not required. Even the presence of the
accused is not required unless directed by the trial court. It is enough that the accused is
represented by his counsel. Indeed, even if none of the parties appeared for the pre-trial, the
same can and should proceed. After all, the public prosecutor appeared for the State and the
accused maybe represented by his lawyer during pre-trial. In the case of Peo. V. Tac-an the
Court held that the presence of the complainant or even the accused is not absolutely
necessary.

Criminal Procedure: Rule 116 Section 1 of Rules of Court. (Arraignment and plea; how
made).
167. Atty. X was charged with violation of RA 8262. On the date set for his arraignment,
he filed a motion stating that he could not attend since he had a case in another court,
that as a lawyer, he was well informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him, and that he was waiving the reading of the information. Atty. X then prayed that a
plea of not guilty be entered for him. Is the prayer meritorious?
No. Under Rule 116 Section 1 of Rules of Court. Arraignment and plea; how made. - (a)
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed
or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by
furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the
language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty xxx.
(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. xxx
Arraignment is one of the stage of criminal proceeding which requires the personal appearance
of the accused. It cannot be waived as a matter of public policy because it formally informs the
accused regarding the nature and cause of accusation against him.

Criminal Procedure: Section 17, Rule 119 (Discharge of accused to be state witness)
168. Circumstantial evidence pointed to X, Y and Z as the ones who raped and killed AB.
During the police investigation, Z confessed that during a drinking spree, X concocted a
plan to kidnap AB using the car of Y. Z also admitted that after X and Y raped AB, he also
raped her. During trial, Z offered to be a state witness. X and Y opposed the motion
since Z admittedly raped AB. Is Z qualified to be a state witness?
Yes. The facts reveals that Z is not the most guilty for he was not the mastermind, nor the
owner of the car which was used to kidnap the victim. The Court held in the case of Peo. V.
Larranaga, that the accused may not be considered as the most guilty where, although he
admitted having also raped the victim, was far from being the mastermind and was more
oblivious follower who joined the ride.

Criminal Procedure- Sec. 1, Rule 117 Rules of Court (Former conviction or acquittal; double
jeopardy)

169. A collision between the truck driven by X and a taxi resulted in the death of taxi
driver Y, slight injuries to passenger Z and total damage to the taxi. Upon complaint of
Z, X was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physically injuries. X
pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly. Later, X was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide for the death of Y. Can X successfully move to quash
the information on the ground of double jeopardy?
Yes. The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted
under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365
defining and penalizing quasi-offense. The accused negative constitutional right not to be
"twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense" protects him from, among others,
post-conviction prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction upon a valid information. The two charges against petitioner, arising
from the same facts, were prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses. The doctrine that
reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a
means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts,
undergirded this Courts unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to
Article 365. These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally
impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.(JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner,
vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO.)

Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers: Rule 135, 9 of the Rules of Court.
(Signing of judgments out of province)
170. After the case was submitted for decision, Judge X of RTC Br. 3, Baguio was
appointed judge of RTC Branch 50, and Judge Y was designated acting judge of RTC Br.
3, Baguio. Instead of leaving the case with the court, Judge X brought the records with
him and decided the case. After the decision was promulgated, the accused appealed
and claimed that the decision was void since the Judge Y should have issued an order
as the preference of the parties, and if no choice is made, Judge Y shall decide the case.
Is the decision of Judge X void?
No. Rule 135, 9 of the Rules of Court applies in the case. The judge had authority to
decide the case notwithstanding his detail to the other RTC branch. More than the successor,
the judge who heard the witnesses testify, who presumably had pored over the documentary
evidence, certainly is in much better position to appraise the facts and thereafter to apply the
statute or codal provision involved. A litigants expectation as to his suit being adjudged with
care and thoroughness has greater chances then of being satisfied under such
circumstances. This is so even on the assumption that the one who succeeds him on the
bench is much more skillful and penetrating in his scrutiny of the proof and much more
proficient in the jurists art.
Trial judges once they act as presiding judges or otherwise designated as acting/assisting
judges in branches other than their own, cases substantially heard by them and submitted to
them for decision, unless they are promoted to higher positions in the judicial ladder, may be
decided by them wherever they may be if so requested by any of the parties and endorsed by
the incumbent Presiding Judges through the Office of the Court Administrator. .
Criminal Procedure: Section 4 of Rule 120 of Rules of Court (Judgment in case of variance
between allegation and proof)

171. The prosecution charged X with attempted murder before the RTC. After trial, the
evidence clearly showed that X had no intent to kill the victim, and thus, X could be
convicted of slight a physical injury which is within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Should
the judge dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction?

No. Section 4 of Rule 120 of Rules of Court provides that an accused may be convicted
only of any offense charged in the information or any offense necessarily included therein. It is
elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of
the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the
trial. It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would
indicate that a lesser offense outside the trial courts jurisdiction was committed does not
deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the
information as filed since" (once) the jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of
the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to oust
jurisdiction already attached. Hence the judge cannot dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Criminal Procedure: Section 7, Rule 120, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
(Modification of judgment)

172. The RTC convicted X of homicide without any mitigating or aggravating


circumstance, and imposed a penalty of 5 years to 12 years and 1 day. The RTC was
clearly in error because the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum should be within the range of prision mayor,
and the maximum within the range of reclusion temporal medium. Can the prosecution
appeal to correct the mistake?

No. Verily, a sentence which imposes upon the defendant in a criminal prosecution a
penalty in excess of the maximum which the court is authorized by law to impose for the
offense for which the defendant was convicted, is void for want or excess of jurisdiction as to
the excess. Section 7, Rule 120, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the
Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Only a motion by
the defendant can interrupt the running of the period at the expiration of which the judgment
becomes final. Hence the appeal shall be made by the accused not the prosecution. The
modification of the judgment must be at the instance of the accused (Argel v. Pascua, 363
SCRA 381)

Civil Procedure: Rule 40 (Memorandum)


173. X appealed from the decision of the municipal trial court but failed to file a
memorandum on appeal. Can the RTC apply Rule 40, and motu proprio dismiss the
appeal for failure to file the memorandum?

It depends. The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to
dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases, because
Section 9(c), supra, imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal on the basis of the
entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed upon the
submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the
same. Hence, the dismissal of the petitioners appeal cannot be properly premised on the
failure to file the memorandum on appeal. However in Civil case the rule is obligatory. Under
the express mandate of said Rule, the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on
appeal. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this
mandate or to perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal (Enriquez v. Court
of Appeals).

Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure: Unreasonable search and seizure


174. In the implementation of a search warrant, the police divided themselves into two
teams to search the house of X. One team was accompanied by X while the other team
was accompanied by the barangay captain and a kagawad. The second team found the
items stated in the search warrant. Would the seized items be admissible in evidence?

No. The search was invalid. The implementation of the search warrant is irregular where
the accused or any occupant did not actually witness the search made by the second team.
The accused or any occupants should be the ones that should have accompanied the
policeman while the search was being done and cannot be substituted by the barangay captain
and a kagawad.

Criminal Procedure: Motion to Quash (Where to file)


175. Armed with a search warrant issued by the RTC, police searched the house of X and
found stolen articles worth P12,000. Thereafter, an information for anti-fencing was filed
with the MTC. If X moves to quash the search warrant, where should he file it?

The Motion to Quash shall be filed before the MTC. The Court where the case has been
filed has the authority to resolve the motion to quash search warrant even if issued by co-equal
court (Garagay v. Peo. 335 SCRA 272). The proper forum to question the legality of a search
warrant is in the Court where a main case is pending and not the issuing court ( Ong v. CA,
370 SCRA 48). Since the information was filed before the MTC, it has the jurisdiction to resolve
the motion to quash the search warrant though the warrant was issued by RTC.
Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction
176. Y borrowed P450,000 from X and promised to pay it on December 1, 2013. Y failed to
pay it, and so, X gave Y a final demand to pay it on January 31, 2014. After barangay
proceedings failed, X prepared a complaint to be filed with the RTC. A day before X was
to file the case, the jurisdiction of the MTC was increased to P500,000. Where the case
should be filed, RTC or MTC?

The case shall be filed to the RTC. Under the doctrine of Adherence to the Court once a
Court has acquired jurisdiction over the case it cannot be ousted by the new legislation even
though the character of which transfer the jurisdiction to other tribunal. The case remains until
the case is finally resolved unless the law is curative and has retroactive effect over the case
already pending before the Court. In the case, the matter is not under the jurisdiction of the
Court because it is not yet filed before any Court. The law took effect before X has to file the
case hence it is the RTC which has jurisdiction.

Civil Procedure: Estoppel


177. Y filed a case against X for recovery of a parcel of land before the RTC. After Y
rested his case, X presented one witness. On the next hearing, X realized that the RTC
had no jurisdiction and so moved for the dismissal of the case. Y opposed the motion,
saying that X was estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court. Should the
court dismiss the case?
Yes. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
action shall be dismissed based on Section 1, Rule 9 of Rule of Court. This defense may be
interposed at any stage of the proceedings. The parties are not barred from assailing
jurisdiction because jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by consent of the parties or by
estoppel. In the case, the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was
seasonably raised.

Civil Procedure: Determination of Jurisdiction.


178. While driving his car, X bumped Y who suffered serious injuries. Y claimed P135,465
as actual damages, P200,000 as moral damages, P200,000 as exemplary damages, and
P100,000 as attorneys fees. Where the case should be filed?

The case shall be filed before the RTC. The moral damages and the exemplary damages
shall be included in determining the jurisdiction of the case. In the case of Iniego vs. Purganan
the Court held that the amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it
is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts,
whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action. In the
case the total amount of damages claimed was Php 635,465.00, which is under the jurisdiction
of the RTC.

Civil Procedure: Effect of non-payment of Docket Fees within prescriptive period


179. X rushed the filing of a complaint against Y for $200,000 since the action was about
to prescribe. He was shocked to find out the he had to pay a large filing fee. He
persuaded the clerk to accept the complaint with a promise to pay the balance the
following day. It took X, however, more than a week to complete the payment. If the
action prescribed after the filing of the case but before the full payment of docket fees,
should the court dismiss the case?

Yes. Payment of docket fees is jurisdictional. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. If the filing of the complaint is
not accompanied by payment of proper docket fees, the court may allow the payment of which
within reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. Without of the payment docket fees within the prescriptive period, jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action will not vest in the Court. Since in the case the docket
fees was not paid in time, the Court should dismiss the case.

Civil Procedure: Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court (Character of land in Forcible
Entry case)
180. X had a pending application with the DENR for issuance of a free patent. When Y
learned about it, he filed a protest with the DENR and entered the property under the
claim that it was his grandfather Z who had originally cleared the land. X filed a case
against Z for forcible entry. Z sought to dismiss the case on the ground that it was the
DENR which had jurisdiction over the case. Is the motion meritorious?

No. The character of the property involved, as to whether it is still public land or not, is of
no moment. Even public lands can be the subject of forcible entry cases which is under the
jurisdiction of the Court specifically the Municipal Trial Court. The Court, in David v. Cordova,
categorically declared that the land spoken of in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
includes all kinds of land. The Court also stressed that ejectment proceedings are summary
proceedings only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or
right to possession of property. Title is not involved. To repeat, the sole issue to be resolved is
the question as to who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or
possession de facto. Hence, it does not matter that the land in dispute belongs to the
government, and the government did not authorize either the plaintiff or defendant to occupy
said land. The issue of possession may still be litigated between the plaintiff and the
defendant.

Section 19 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Jurisdiction of the Courts)

181. The ABC Co., Inc. and the union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement
under which male employees shall retire at age 65 while female employees shall retire at
age 63. Some employees sued the company before the RTC to invalidate the CBA,
claiming that it was invalid under the equal protection clause. Does the court have
jurisdiction over this case between employees and employer?

Yes. The subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively


cognizable by the RTC, pursuant to Section 19 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The issue
cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the application of the
Constitution and labor statutes. Not every dispute between an employer and employee is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Actions between an employer and
employee where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of
action preceded from different source of obligation is within exclusive jurisdiction of the regular
court. Applying such in the case, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the controversy.

Civil procedure: Venue of collection cases (meaning of residence in civil law)


182. The family home of Major X was in Makati. For the past year, while stationed at
PMA, he lived in a rented house in Baguio City. Y, a resident of Baguio, borrowed
money from X, and when Y failed to pay the debt, X sued him in Makati. Was venue
properly laid?

No. Claim of money maybe filed in residence of the plaintiff or defendant. Residence in
Civil Law refers to the actual residence, or physical habitation and not domicile. In the case,
the actual residence of X is not Makati but Baguio City. Hence the venue of the action must be
Baguio city being the actual residence of Major X and Y.

Civil Procedure: Rule 2, Causes of Action (Requisites of Joinder)

183. X and Y rented adjacent townhouses owned by Z. X and Y were not able to pay their
rent when they were laid off. Can Z properly file a single action against for ejectment X
and Y?

No. Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action was not complied. In the case X and Y are
renting different townhouse. Although the townhouses are adjacent, separate complaint
against X and Y shall be instituted. It is well to remember that the joinder of causes of action
may involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder involves different parties, as in
this case, there must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out
of the same transaction or series of transaction. In the case, the question of fact or of law does
not arise from same transaction or series of transaction. The subject matter of the case is
different.

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases

184. X referred to Atty. Z his claim for P80, 000 against Y. On behalf of X, Atty. Z signed
and filed a complaint against Y with the MTC. Can the court give due course to the
action?
No. In cases of Small claims lawyers are not allowed to appear unless they are party to a
case. Small claim case requires compliance of verification and Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping. Non-compliance of Certification against forum shopping, is generally not curable by
its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is presence of "special
circumstances or compelling reasons." The certification against forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case xxx. Finally, the certification against forum
shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for
reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. In the case
the Atty. Z is not armed with Special Power of Attorney. Hence the complaint cannot be given
due course.

Civil Procedure: Claim of reimbursement of the improvements


185. X filed a case for recovery of a parcel of land against Y before the RTC. After the
judgment against Y became final, a writ of execution was issued. Y then filed an action
for P250, 000 against X before the MTC as reimbursement of the improvements on the
property against X. Shall the action prosper?

No. In actions for ejectment or for recovery of possession of real property, it is well settled
that the defendant's claims for the value of the improvements on the property or necessary
expenses for its preservation are required to be interposed in the same action as compulsory
counterclaims (SPOUSES MELITON, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NELIA A. ZIGA).
The first case has already became final and executory. Y being an intervenor in the former
case could have set up in the first case the claim he is entitled as possessor in good faith to
the value of improvements made in the property.
Civil Procedure: Circular No. 28-91 and Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
(Effect of non-compliance of Certificate of non-forum shopping)

186. X mortgaged his lot to the PNB and when he failed to pay the debt, the mortgage
was foreclosed, and in the auction sale, PNB was the highest bidder. X failed to redeem
the property, prompting the bank to file a petition for issuance of a writ of possession.
The petition did not include a certificate of non-forum shopping and so X filed a motion
to dismiss. Is the motion meritorious?
Any violation of Circular No. 28-91 and Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guideline shall
be cause for the dismissal of the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading,
upon motion and after hearing. The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory. Failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused by the fact that plaintiff
is not guilty of forum shopping. The Circular applies to any complaint, petition, application, or
other initiatory pleading, regardless of whether the party filing it has actually committed forum
shopping. Every party filing a complaint or any other initiatory pleading is required to swear
under oath that he has not committed nor will he commit forum shopping.
In the case of Melo vs. CA the Court is not unmindful of the adverse consequence to
private respondent of a dismissal of her complaint, nor of the time, effort, and money spent
litigating up to this Court solely on a so-called technical ground. Nonetheless, the Court held
that compliance with the certification requirement on non-forum shopping should not be made
subject to a partys afterthought, lest the policy of the law be undermined.

Civil Procedure: Section 10,Rule 8, Rules of Court (Specific denial of an allegation of


the complaint)
187. In his complaint for damages arising from a vehicular collision against Y, X alleged
in paragraph 4 that Y was the owner of an Isuzu pick up with plate no. BBY 123. In his
answer, Y alleged that he was without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the material averments in par. 4. Is this a sufficient specific
denial?

No. Defendant's answer wherein it merely denies generally and specifically each and every
allegation contained in each and every paragraph of the complaint, is but a general denial. It is
not a specific denial under section 10 of Rule 8, because it does not deal specifically with each
material allegation of fact, nor does it set forth the substance of the matters upon which the
defendant relies to support his denial. It does not serve the purpose of requiring the defendant
to make a specific denial, which is to compel him to specify the matters which he intends to
disprove and disclose the matters upon which he relies to support his denial, thereby limiting
the issues and avoiding unnecessary delays and surprises. Under the old procedure the
plaintiff was compelled by defendant's mere general denial to prove facts alleged in the
complaint which the defendant did not even attempt to dispute. Time and again, this Court has
stressed that "An unexplained denial of information and belief of a matter of records, the
means of information concerning which are within the control of the pleader, or are readily
accessible to him, is evasive and is insufficient to constitute an effective denial and that "the
form of denial ... adopted by the appellants, although allowed by the Rules of Court (referring
to lack of sufficient knowledge or information) must be availed of with sincerity and in good
faith, certainly neither for the purpose of confusing the adverse party as to what allegations
of the complaint are really put in issue nor for the purpose of delay.

Criminal Procedure: Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court (Motion to dismiss)

188. In his complaint for declaration of nullity of contract, X alleged that the contract
between him and Y was void ab initio. Y failed to specifically deny the said allegation.
Is Y considered to have admitted that the contract was void?

Y failed to allege in his answer that the claim of X had prescribed. Can Y still pursue
the dismissal of the action on the ground of prescription?
Yes. Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds on which a motion
to dismiss a complaint may be based, and the prescription of an action is included as one of
the grounds under paragraph (f). The defendant may either raise the grounds in a motion to
dismiss or plead them as an affirmative defense in his answer . The failure to raise or plead
the grounds generally amounts to a waiver, except if the ground pertains to (1) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) litis pendentia , (3) res judicata, or (4) prescription.
Since in the case the ground is prescription of claims, court may consider such ground motu
proprio and accordingly dismiss the complaint provided it is apparent from the pleadings or the
evidence on record. As held in the case of BENJAMIN CUA (CUA UlAN TEK),-versus-
WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING, INC. and ADVANCE SHIPPING CORPORATION The
Court, therefore, need not resolve the question of whether there have been actually waiver of
defense of prescription; an inquiry into this question is useless, as courts are empowered to
dismiss actions on the basis of prescription even if it is not raised by the defendant so long as
the facts supporting this ground are evident from the records. Hence Y may still move for the
dismissal of the case.

Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Withdrawal of appearance/Substitution of counsel)

189. Atty. X was the counsel on record of plaintiff Y. Later, Atty. Z entered his appearance
as counsel of Y and filed a motion for reconsideration of an order of the court. Would
service on Atty X of the order denying reconsideration be effective?

No. A lawyer has no personality to file a motion for reconsideration where he is not the
counsel on record. A lawyer may not simply withdraw his appearance in a case without a
formal petition filed in the case. Substitution of counsel must be made in accordance with Rule
138 of the Rules of Court (Casolita, Sr. v CA)

Civil Law and Civil Procedure: Notice of Lis pendens (proper grounds)

190. X sold a parcel of land to Y on instalment. After Y failed to pay the balance of P1M, X
filed a collection case to recover the balance. Could a notice of lis pendens be properly
filed?

No. In the present case, the annotation of the lis pendens was improper because the case
filed by X against Y was purely a personal action. It has been held that the doctrine of lis
pendens has no application to a proceeding in which the only object sought is the recovery of a
money judgment, though the title or right of possession to property may be affected. It is
essential that the property be directly affected, as where the relief sought in the action or suit
includes the recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication between
conflicting claims of title, possession, or right of possession to specific property, or requiring its
transfer or sale.
To be sure, in Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty Corporation, the Court have
previously explained that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceeding in
which the only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of
possession to property be incidentally affected. Even if a party initially avails of a notice of lis
pendens upon the filing of a case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the case turns
out to be a purely personal action. In such event, the notice of lis pendens becomes functus
officio.
191. X filed a collection case against Y who was now in Canada upon petition of his son.
Summons was served upon the caretaker of Y. When informed about it, Y contacted his
friend Atty. Z who filed a motion for extension of time to file answer. One week later,
Atty. Z filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over Y.

A) Could the court entertain the motion for extension even if it did not contain a notice
of hearing?

Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: (Notice of hearing)
No. Observance of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in the
case are not mandatory: Section 4 lays the general rule that all written motions shall be set for
hearing by the movant, except the non-litigated motions or those which may be acted upon by
the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. These ex parte motions include a
motion for extension of time to file pleadings, motion for extension of time to file an
answer, and a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal. The motion for extension
of time is not a litigated motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the
latter an opportunity to resist the application, but an ex parte motion made to the court in behalf
of one or the other of the parties to the action,
in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties.

C) Did the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of Y?

Section 7,Rules of the Rules of Court


Yes. SEC. 7. Substituted service. Rule 14 of the Rules of Courts If, for justifiable causes,
the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section,
service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving the
copies at the defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
Under our procedural rules, service of summons in person of defendants is generally
preferred over substituted service. Substituted service derogates the regular method of
personal service. It is an extraordinary method since it seeks to bind the respondent or the
defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice of such action is served not upon
him but upon another to whom the law could only presume would notify him of the pending
proceedings.
In action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the
Court to validly try and decide the case. If the respondent is already residing abroad, the Court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person by service of summons, unless he voluntarily
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the case the service of summon through his
caretaker is not effective to acquire jurisdiction over Y. However Y voluntarily submits himself to
the jurisdiction of the court when he seek for the legal services of a lawyer and even filed a
motion for extension to file an answer (ALEXANDER TAM WONG, Petitioner,
vs. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA, September 17, 2009)

Rule 36 of the Rules of Court and Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution
192. X filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. The court summarily denied
the motion. Is the order valid even if it does not state clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law upon which it was based?
While the Constitution requires every court to state in its decision clearly and distinctly the
fact and the law on which it is based, the Constitution requires the court, in denying due course
to a petition for review, merely to state the legal basis for such denial.

Section 14 of which states that No decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition
for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. It would be an exercise in redundancy for the
Court to reproduce or restate in the minute resolution denying the petition the conclusions that
the CA reached. With the promulgation of its Internal Rules, the Court itself has defined the
instances when cases are to be adjudicated by decision, signed resolution, unsigned resolution
or minute resolution. Among those instances when a minute resolution shall issue is when the
Court denies a petition filed under Rule 45 of the [Rules of Court], citing as legal basis the
absence of reversible error committed in the challenged decision, resolution, or order of the
court below. Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise
demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be
informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to
the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of
X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The
losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted,
should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to
how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the
possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is
an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes
of legal reasoning.

Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: (Notice of Hearing)
193. X filed a motion for reconsideration which did not contain a notice of hearing stating
the date and time when it would be submitted for resolution of the court. The clerk of
court refused to accept the motion, stating that it was a mere scrap of paper. Is the
clerk of court correct?

Yes. Jurisprudence had been categorical in treating a litigious motion without a valid notice
of hearing as a mere scrap of paper. In the classic formulation of Manakil v. Revilla, such a
motion was condemned as: x x x nothing but a piece of paper filed with the court. The court
had no right to consider it, nor had the clerk any right to receive it without a compliance with
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of Rules of Court. It was not, in fact, a motion. It did not comply
with the rules of the court. It did not become a motion until x x x the petitioners herein fixed a
time for hearing of said alleged motion. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure applies in the case. Section 4 lays the general rule that all written motions shall be
set for hearing by the movant, except the non-litigated motions or those which may be acted
upon by the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. These ex parte motions
include a motion for extension of time to file pleadings, motion for extension of time to file an
answer, and a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal.
In Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company, the Court ruled
that a notice of time and place of hearing is mandatory for motions for new trial or motion for
reconsideration, as in this case. The Court have reiterated this doctrine in National
Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals, the rule that the requirement of notice
under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 is mandatory and the lack thereof is fatal to a motion for
reconsideration.

194. The RTC rendered judgment in favour of plaintiff X, ordering defendant Y to pay
plaintiff P100K as moral damages, and P100K as attorneys fees. Y immediately filed
notice of appeal upon receipt of the judgment. Two days later, X received a copy of the
judgment. X then filed a motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that he was
already 70 years old and sickly, and he needed the money for his medical expenses.

A. Can the court still consider the motion for execution since Y had already perfected his
appeal?
Civil Procedure: Section 2, Rule 39 (Execution Pending Appeal)
Yes. Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that execution pending
appeal is an exception to the general rule that execution issues as a matter of right, when a
judgment has become final and executory. As such exception, the courts discretion in allowing it
must be strictly construed and must be grounded of good reasons it has been held, consist of
compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory.

B. Assuming that the court can still consider the motion, are there good reasons to grant
it?
Civil Procedure: Section 2, Rule 39, Execution pending appeal (Good reason).
Yes. In case of De leon and Soriano it concluded that old age is a good reason to allow
execution pending appeal as any delay in final disposition of the present case may deny private
respondent of his right to enjoy fully the money he has with defendant. The appeal would take
years to decide with finality, and X might very well be facing a different judgment from a Court
higher than any earthly tribunal and the decision on his complaint, even if it be in his favour, would
have become meaningless as far as he himself was concerned.

You might also like