DOCTRINES IN REMEDIAL LAW

Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Special Proceedings

Doctrine of Transcendental Importance

The strict application of the Rules of Procedure may be dispensed with in a case the subject matter of
which is of great importance or involves national interest.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction
until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question
arising in the proceeding before the court (Omictin vs. CA, GR 148004, January 22, 2007)

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with
the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs
should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons
exist.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and
importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations,
or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of liberal
interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed
before it.

Principle of Negative Averments

Is a party required to prove negative allegations?

GENERAL RULE: NO. They need not be proved, whether in a civil or criminal action.

EXCEPTION: Where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or
defense in a civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses
thereto.

HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of
action or defense, such negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the
purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the
adverse party.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree / But For/ Taint Doctrine

Posits that all evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal search (the poisonous tree) must be
suppressed, whether it was obtained directly through the illegal search itself or indirectly using
information obtained din the illegal search.

Doctrine of Interlocking Confessions

It states that extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion which are
identical with each other in their essential details and corroborated by other evidence against
the persons implicated, are admissible to show the probability of the latters actual
participation in the commission of the crime.

Variance Doctrine

When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which
is included in the offense proved. (Sec. 4, Rule 120)

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense
charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. (Sec.4, Rule 120)

Hypothetical Admission Rule

A motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a
criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law,
or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission
of the facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of
the material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law.
Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered. To be sure, a
motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact.
(People vs. Odtuhan)
Fresh Period Rule

Fresh period to appeal is applicable in criminal proceedings. Fresh 15-day period is allowed after the
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. (Tan Yu vs. Tatad)

Doctrine of Hot Pursuit

When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of fact and circumstance that the person to be arrested has
committed it.

Supervening Fact Doctrine

If, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the defendant may be held liable,
altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused
cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.

Knock and Announce Principle

It states that officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify
themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to
be searched, and show to them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to
them said warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by them. The requirement
is not a mere procedural formality but is of the essence of the substantial provision which
safeguards individual liberty.

Plain View Doctrine

The plain view doctrine recognizes that objects inadvertently falling in plain view of an officer
who has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure without warrant
(Harris vs. US, 390 US 324). It may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and
indiscriminate seizures, nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence
of a defendants guilt. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object
(Coolidge vs. New Hampshire, 403 US 443). It is also been suggested that even if an object is
observed in plain view, the seizure of the subject will not be justified where the incriminating
nature of the object is not apparent. Stated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the
police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure (People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597) The elements of plain view seizure are:

a. prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where
they are;
c. the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
d. plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People vs. Aruta,
288 SCRA 626).

Sexual Abuse Shield Rule

GR: It states that the following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:

1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec. 30(a)].

XPN: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence
shall be admissible [Sec. 30(b)].

Chain of Custody Rule

Is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction.

Doctrine of Completeness

The statement as offered must not be merely part of the whole as it was expressed by the
declarant; it must be complete as far as it goes. To be complete does not mean that it should
contain everything that constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but it should
express in full all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.

Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

An adoptive admission is a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it

is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by
the other person (ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO 356 SCRA 108).

Principle of Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat

False description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person
intended has once been sufficiently described.

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party
who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be
stricken from the record.
Hearsay Rule

The basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not
admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her
exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand
witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her.

Similar Acts Rule

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time.

Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta

1ST PART: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 28);

2nd PART: Similar acts as evidence (Sec. 34).

Res Gestae

Refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime
immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous
reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for
the declarant to fabricate a false statement.

Relaxed Admissibility of Evidence

In the proper resolution of the case, the court has the discretion to admit a rather inadmissible
evidence provided it has a relation to other evidence already presented which is relevant to the
fact in issue in the case.

Totality of Evidence Rule

The doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases means that the court must consider all the
pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, not in isolation with each other, and to consider
any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent
with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic
test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency
with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it
satisfies this basic minimum test (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009).

Bubble Burst Theory (Thygorean Doctrine)

The rule on presumption of law shall not apply in case there is evidence to the contrary.

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
the burden of proving the foreign law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or even if pleaded, is
not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is same as ours (ATCI Overseas
Corporation, Amalia G.Ikdal and Ministry of Public Health Kuwait vs. Ma. Josefina Echin,
G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010).

Statute of Non-Claims

It is a period fixed by the courts for the filing of claims against the estate for examination and
allowance.

GR: Within the time fixed in the notice which shall not be more than 12 months nor less than 6
months after the date of the first publication. Such period once fixed by the court is
mandatory. Otherwise, the claims are barred forever.

Note: Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action

already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the
claims he has against the decedent, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in
such action. (Sec. 5, Rule 86)

XPN: Belated claims.

Precautionary Principle

Definition. Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of
serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat (Sec. 4[f], Rule 1, Part 1).

The adoption of the precautionary principle as part of these Rules, specifically relating to
evidence, recognizes that exceptional cases may require its application. the inclusion of a
definition of this principle is an integral part of Part V, Rule on Evidence in environmental
cases in order to ease the burden of the part of ordinary plaintiffs to prove their cause of
action. In its essence, precautionary principle calls for the exercise of caution in the face of risk
and uncertainty. While the principle can be applied in any setting in which risk and
uncertainty are found, it has evolved predominantly in and today remains most closely
associated with the environmental arena.

Applicability. When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a casual link
between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary
principle in resolving the case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt (Sec. 1, Rule 20, Part V).

The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual
findings cannot be achieved. By applying this principle, the court may construe a set of facts as
warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the
environment. This may be further evinced from the second paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 20, where
bias is created in favor of constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
In effect, this principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer
harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. This principle should be treated as a
principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an
inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff:

a. Settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain;

b. Settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and
c. Settings in which the harm that might result would be serious.

When these featuresuncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of
serious harmcoincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt,
cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest for a in which the precautionary
principle may find applicability.

Standards for application. In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among
others, may be considered:
a. threats to human life or health;
b. inequity to present or future generations; or
c. prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of
those affected (Sec. 2, Rule 20).

Doctrine of Continuing Threat

In order that a writ of amparo can be issued, the threat on the right to life, liberty, or security
must be actual and continuing and not merely imaginary, thereby depriving the petitioner of
his said right from the inception up to the termination of the case.