Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015)Remedial Law

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT

A final and executory judgment, under the doctrine of immutability and inalterability, may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by the Supreme Court. However, as rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Thus, in the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss. - PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of "A. Milan Trading," and Laura M. Milan, G.R. No. 151215, April 5, 2010

Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter. - City of Dumaguete, herein represented by City Mayor, Agustin R. Perdices vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011

JURISDICTION

In cases where a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, the same COMELEC Division should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the order. - Eddie T. Panlilio vs. Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda, G.R. No. 181478, July 15, 2009

As a general rule, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. However, it admits an exception where the party fully participated in the proceedings. A teacher cannot raise want of jurisdiction when she has availed of the remedies in the proceedings. - Civil Service Commission vs. Fatima A. Macud, G.R. No. 177531, September 10, 2009Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. The Court may suspend or even disregard rules when the demands of justice so require.

No court, aside from the Supreme Court, may enjoin a national government project unless the matter is one of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue such that unless the act complained of is enjoined, grave injustice or irreparable injury would arise. - Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, In His Capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City and BCA International Corporation, G.R. No.176657, September 1, 2010

Administrative agencies, like the Energy Regulatory Commission, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and, as such, could wield only such as are specifically granted to them by the enabling statutes.In relation thereto is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in nature.- BF Homes, Inc. andThe Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corp. vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 171624, December 6, 2010

The rule is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. Once vested by law, on a particular court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature through the enactment of a law. - Bernabe L. Navida et al. vs. Hon. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011

A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. - NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011

It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 163037, February 6, 2013

A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC, entitled Resolution Providing Guidelines in the Inventory and Adjudication of Cases Assigned to Judges who are Promoted or Transferred to Other Branches in the Same Court Level of the Judicial Hierarchy, actually recognizes that both the transferred judge and the new judge can decide the case but gives consideration to the preference of the parties, but the lapses in the observance of the rule by the judge which was not chosen by the accused does not invalidate the decision due to violation of due process when the accused was sufficiently given the opportunity to be heard, to defend himself and to confront his accusers on the offense hurled against him. - People of the Philippines vs. Giovanni Ocfemia y Chavez, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Petitioner wants this Court to recognize the rights and interests of the residents of Sun Valley Subdivision but it miserably failed to establish the legal basis, such as its ownership of the subject roads, which entitles petitioner to the remedy prayed for. As petitioner has failed to establish that it has any right entitled to the protection of the law, and it also failed to exhaust administrative remedies by applying for injunctive relief instead of going to the Mayor as provided by the Local Government Code, the petition must be denied. - New Sun Valley Homeowners' Association, Inc., vs. Sangguniang Barangay, Barangay Sun Valley, Paraaque City, et al., G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011

It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint. - Addition Hills Mandaluyong Civic & Social Organization, Inc., vs. Megaworld Properties & Holdings, Inc., Wilfredro I. Imperial, In His Capacity As Director, NCR and Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Department of Natural Resources, G.R. No. 175039, April 18, 2012

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CAUSE OF ACTIONS

A judge is not an active combatant in proceedings where the order he had rendered is being assailed. As such, he must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. Being a nominal party to the case, he has no personal interest nor personality therein. Thus, he has no legal standing to institute a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. - Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC Guihulngan, Negros Oriental vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, Hon. Mehol K. Sadain and Hon. Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., The Commissioners of the Second Division, Commission on Elections, Manila; and Walter J. Aragones, G.R. No. 159117, March 10, 2010

The nature of the cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint. Three essential elements must be shown to establish a cause of action. In this case, the legal rights of the petitioner Bank and the correlative legal duty of LCDC have not been sufficiently established in view of the failure of the Bank's evidence to show the provisions and conditions that govern its legal relationship. - Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No.185590, December 03, 2014

PLEADINGSInitiatory Pleadings

Since the alleged misconduct falls under indirect contempt, proceedings should be initiated either motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, or by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. It is clear that private respondent has missed out on all of the above requirements as he filed only a motion rather than a verified petition. - Bases Conversion Development Authority vs. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Pampanga, Register of Deeds of Angeles City, Benjamin Poy Lorenzo, Lavernie Poy Lorenzo, Diosdado De Guzman, Rosemary Eng Tay Tan, Leandro De Guzman, Benjamin G. Lorenzo, Antonio Manalo, and Socorro De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 155322-29, June 27, 2012

FAILURE TO FILE AN APPELLANTS BRIEF

Liberality is given to litigants who are worthy of the same, and not to ones who flout the rules, give explanations to the effect that the counsels are busy with other things, and expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on the mere self-serving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-MBF Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz IX, Cielo C. Aguiluz, Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay andMCA Holdings and Management Corporation vs. MBf CARD International Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited. G.R. No.173586, March 14, 2012

DEFAULT

While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and not the rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No. 166104. June 26, 2008

SUMMONS

A case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served as it would be difficult to conceive that when the defendant appears before the Court complaining that he has not been validly summoned, the case against him will immediately be dismissed. - Spouses German Anunciacion and Ana Ferma Anunciacion and Gavino G. Conejos vs. Perpetua M. Bocanegra and George M. Bocanegra, G.R. No. 152496, July 30, 2009

The Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the Republic by service of summons upon the DPWH Region III alone. The applicable rule of procedure in this case is Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that when the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, the service of summons may be effected on the Office of the Solicitor General. The DPWH and its regional office are simply agents of the Republic, which is the real party in interest. - Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, through the Hon. Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane vs. Alberto A. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011

DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

PILTEL filed different actions to different courts thereby declaring it by the court as guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by some other court, or to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.- Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. Radiomarine Network, Inc., G.R. No.152092, August 4, 2010

Defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. It also allows courts to dismiss casesmotu proprioon any of the enumerated grounds (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)litis pendentia; (3)res judicata; and (4) prescription provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. - Heirs of Domingo Valientes vs. Hon. Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 29, 9thJudicial Region, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur andVilma V. Minor, G.R. No. 157852, December 15, 2010

Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the petition for review oncertiorarisuch material portions of the record as would support the petition.However, such a requirement was not meant to be an ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would merit the outright dismissal of the petition.In accordance with Section 7 of Rule 45,the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate. - F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. vs. Online Networks International, Inc., G.R. No. 171238, February 2, 2011

It bears stressing that the sanction of dismissal may be imposed even absent any allegation and proof of the plaintiff's lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules. The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested in obtaining the relief prayed for. - Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., Owner of the Vessel M/V "Explorer", Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc. and Foremost International Port Services, Inc., G.R. No. 175409, September 7, 2011

RES JUDICATA

Conclusiveness of judgment, one of the aspects of the concept of res judicata, requires only the identity of issues and parties, but not of causes of action. Hence, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. A case involving an issue of whether or not an instituted civil case was dismissible due to forum shopping committed by petitioners, which eventually was dismissed based on that same ground, constitutes as res judicata to a petition with the same issue between the same parties albeit on a different ground of failure to prosecute. - Ley Construction & Development Corporation, LC Builders & Developers, Inc., Metro Container Corporation, Manuel T. Ley, and Janet C. Ley vs. Philippine Commercial & International Bank, Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court Of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, G.R. No. 160841, June 23, 2010

Besana filed complaint for illegal dismissal but the court decided that he was not illegally dismissed. However, he failed to file an appeal which therefore attained finality of the decision. NEA issued another resolution including his dismissal and he appealed to such resolution. The court ruled that he is already barred by Res judicata. Res judicataor bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause.The doctrine ofres judicatais founded on a public policy against re-opening that which has previously been decided, so as to put the litigation to an end. - Engr. Job Y. Besana,Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora et al., vs. Rodson F. Mayor, G.R. No. 153837 July 21, 2010

Literally, res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment."It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. - Heirs of Maximino Derla, namely: Zelda, Juna, Geraldine, Aida, Alma, All Surnamed Derla; and Sabina Vda. De Derla, all represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Zelda Derla vs. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda. de Hipolito, Mae D. Hipolito, Roger Zagales, Francisco Derla, Sr., Jovito Derla, exaltacion pond, and Vina U. Casaway, in her capacity as the Register Of Deeds of Tagum, Davao Del Norte, G.R. No. 157717, April 13, 2011

The annulment of the sale of share in the subject property and the legal redemption and the claim for damages should not be mistaken to be the causes of action, but they were the remedies and reliefs. The cause of action is the sale of the entire subject property by Basilia,et al. to Selga spouses without Sony Brars knowledge and consent, hence, depriving the latter of her rights and interests over herpro-indivisoshare in the subject property as a co-heir and co-owner. Therefore, Civil case before RTC-Branch 56 should be dismissed, being barred by res judicata. Any error committed by RTC-Branch 55 in the Decision in Civil Case No. 276 could only be reviewed or corrected on appeal. - Tobias SelgaandCeferina Garancho Selga vs. Sony Entierro Brar, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Marina T. Entierro, G.R. No. 175151, September 21, 2011

A judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits.

Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case. - Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Dolores Hilario, Teresita Hilario, Thelma Hilario Ochoa Eduardo Hilario, G.R. No. 160446, September 19, 2012

LITIS PENDENCIA

As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two actions be different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both actions, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not. - Philippine National Bank vs. Gateway Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485, February 15, 2012

INTERVENTION

Jurisprudence describes intervention as "a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings." "The right to intervene is not an absolute right; it may only be permitted by the court when the movant establishes facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing it." - The Board of Regents of the Mindanao State University represented by its Chairman vs. Abedin Limpao Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012

Although Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene may be filed. This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. - Deogenes O. Rodriguez vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals and Philippine Chinese Charitable Association, Inc., G.R. No. 184589, June 13, 2013

JUDGEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS

Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time. - Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Group Management Corporation (GMC) and Lapu-Lapu Development & Housing Corporation (LLDHc), G.R. No. 167000 & 169971, June 8, 2011

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

A demurrer to evidence is defined as an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012

FAILURE TO FILE AN APPELANTS BRIEF

Liberality is given to litigants who are worthy of the same, and not to ones who flout the rules, give explanations to the effect that the counsels are busy with other things, and expect the court to disregard the procedural lapses on the mere self-serving claim that their case is meritorious. - MCA-Mbf Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Aguiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz IX, Cielo C. Aguiluz, Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay andMCA Holdings And Management Corporation vs. MBf Card International Limited and MBf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No.173586, March 14, 2012

MODES OF APPEALS

Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal to this Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari should raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Thus, the Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the CA only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: 1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) the findings of fact are conflicting; 6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; 7) the findings of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; 8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; 9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; 10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and 11) such findings are contrary to the admission of both parties. - Romulo Tindoy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157106, September 03, 2008

Petitioners assertion in their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their petition that (a) the foregoing documents/pleadings were not material to the issues they raised and (b) anyway, the records of the case may be ordered elevated by the CA, cannot excuse them from failing to comply with the requirement of a petition for review under Rule 43. We reiterate here that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process as it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. - Pedro Gabriel et. al. vs. Murmuray Jamias et. al., G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008

The Court disagrees with Standard Chartered that the conclusion drawn by the CA from the evidence based on record is a question of law. This is the opposite definition of a question of law. Its reliance on the ruling in Commissioner of Immigration vs. Garcia that when the facts are undisputed, then the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom by the Court of Appeals is correct is a question of law is misplaced. In the present case, the facts are disputed. SCBEU claims that there is an existing company practice entitling Standard Chartereds emplo-yees to outpatient medicine reimbursements and spouses of its male employees to maternity benefits while the latter argues the contrary. - Standard Chartered Bank vs. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU), G.R. No. 165550, October 08, 2008

Moreover, it is the Courts advice to lower courts, under exceptional circumstances, to be cautious about not depriving of a party of the right to appeal and that every party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities. - Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Evaristo Tiotioen, G.R. No. 167215, October 08, 2008

As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of law are brought to this Court since Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII of the Constitution includes in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on appeals.Rule 43 provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be sought in the CA instead of this Court. In the case at bar, the question on whether Santos can retire under RA 660 or RA 8291 is undoubtedly a question of law because it centers on what law to apply in his case considering that he has previously retired from the government under a particular statute and that he was re-employed by the government. Thus, he availed of the proper remedy which is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. - JoseSantos vs. Committee on Claims Settlement,and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009

The right demand arbitration is predicated on the existence of an agreement to arbitrate between the parties except when arbitration is expressly required by the law. Also, the party who demands the right of arbitration must be privy to the agreement upon which he invokes his right, otherwise, he has no legal personality to pursue a claim. - Ormoc Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. (OSPA), Occidental Leyte Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OLFAMCA), Unifarm Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (UNIFARM) and Ormoc North District Irrigation Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (ONDIMCO), vs. The Court Of Appeals, Hideco Sugar Milling Co., Inc., and Ormoc Sugar Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 156660, August 24, 2009

The Supreme Court respects the findings of the Ombudsman because it is an independent body tasked to investigate complaints against public officials and is meant to be free from influence from the judiciary.

The decision of the Ombudsman on a complaint involving the finding of probable cause in criminal cases involving public officials may be reviewed by the Supreme Court via Rule 65 and not Rule 43. Petition for review under Rule 43 as mode of review only applies to decisions of the Ombusman over administrative cases. - Ernesto Francisco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto et al., G. R. No. 154117, October 2, 2009

There is no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts where a decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising only questions of law.

Dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties.

The owner of the property is not an indispensable party in an action for expropriation. Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an actionthe remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to be indispensable

A declaration of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary civil action such as an action for reconveyance, but must only be made in a special proceeding, for it involves the establishment of a status or right While the appropriate special proceeding for declaration of heirship would be the settlement of the estate of the decedent, nonetheless, an action for quieting of title is also a special proceeding, specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court on declaratory relief and similar remedies. - Republic of thePhilippines vs. Hon. Mamindiara P. Mangotara, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, and Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation, and the Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010

Under Supreme Court Circular No. 562000, in case a motion for reconsideration of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed has been filed, the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be computed from notice of the denial of such motion. - Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar, G.R. No.163091, October 6, 2010

It is the inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. - Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Joel R. Umandap and Felicidad D. Umandap, G.R. No. 166298, November 17, 2010

Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.- Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. and Lydia Sia vs. Development Bank Of The Philippines, Jose To Chip, Patricio Yap and Roger Balila, G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010

When a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. Nevertheless, the acceptance of a petition forcertiorari,aswellasthegrantofduecoursetheretois, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court.The provisions of the Rules of Court, which are technical rules, may be relaxed in certain exceptional situations.Where a rigid application of the rule thatcertioraricannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, it is within our power to suspend the rules or exempt a particular case from its operation. - Spouses RubenandMyrna Leynes vs. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur,and Spouses Gualberto & Rene Cabahug-Superales, G.R. No.154462, January 19, 2011

In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve factual issues. - Spouses Rogelio Marcelo and Milagros Marcelo vs. LBC Bank, G.R. No. 183575, April 11, 2011

The petition under Rule 45 must not involve the calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only issue that should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn by the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate. - Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Chief of the Philippine National Police vs. Thi Thu Thuy T. De Guzman, G.R. No. 175021, June 15, 2011

The appointments made by respondent Loyola could not be considered grave misconduct and dishonesty. There were vacant positions causead by the creation of positions and these vacancies should be filled up. There is misconduct if there is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. In the case, evidence show that respondents Loyolas did not transgress some definite rule of action. Had there been a transgression in the creation of positions and appointments, the Civil Service Commission should have so stated when the appointments were submitted for approval. - Eloisa L. Tolentino vs. Atty. Roy M. Loyola et al., G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011

The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. - Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo (Euprocinia, Royce and Irish Crisostomo) vs. Rudex International Development Corporation, G.R. No. 176129, August 24, 2011

The basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of the Supreme Court, because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review.However, in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, such as when there was palpable error or a grave misapprehension of facts by the lower court. - Gemma Onga.k.a.Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact. - Felimon Manguiob vs. Judge Paul T. Arcangel, RTC, Branch 12, Davao City and Alejandra Velasco, G.R. No. 152262, February 15, 2012

Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. - Spouses Jesus Dycoco and Joela E. Dycoco vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Nelly Siapno-Sanchez and Inocencio Berma, G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013

Time and again the Supreme Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation. - Rhodora Prieto vs. Alpadi Development Corporation, G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013

It is already a well-established rule that the Court, in the exercise of its power of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark on a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case, considering that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.

This rule, however, admits of exceptions as recognized by jurisprudence, to wit: (1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. - Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Forest Development vs. Vicente Roxas and the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. 157988, December 11, 2013

The accused, arrested through a buy-bust operation of the police, is questioning the noncompliance with the rule on chain of custody of seized illegal drugs but the accused only raised such objection on appeal at the CA. SC ruled that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. - People of the Philippines vs.Joselito MorateyTarnate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014

A question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This petition of the union now before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. The crucial question of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case, and good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. The issue of whether there was already deadlock between the union and the company is likewise a question of fact. - Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014

PERIOD TO APPEAL

Jurisprudence has settled the fresh period rule, according to which, an ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to the Court of Appeals, under Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen (15) days either from receipt of the original judgment of the trial court or from receipt of the final order of the trial court dismissing or denying the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Ermelinda C. Manaloto, Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcilla, Lourdes J. Catalan, Ethelinda J. Holt, Bienvenido R. Jongco, Artemio R. Jongco, Jr. and Joel Jongco vs. Ismael Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010

EFFECT OF DEATH PENDING APPEAL

The death of an accused pending his appeal extinguished not only his criminal liabilities but also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on the crime committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Paniterce, G.R. No. 186382, April 5, 2010

The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto. - People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013

EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECTS OF JUDGEMENTS

Respondent sheriff departed from the procedure prescribed bythe Rules in the collection of payment for sheriffs expenses in implementing a writ of execution.Respondent as an officer of the court should have shown a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. Instead, he failed to comply with his duties under the law and to observe proper procedure dictated by the rules. - Jorge Q. Go vs. Vinez A. Hortaleza, A.M. No. P051971. June 26, 2008

It is also wellsettled that the court is authorized to modify or alter a judgment after the same has become executory, whenever the circumstances transpire rendering itsexecution unjust and equitable. - California Bus Lines, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et.al, G.R. No. 145408, August 20, 2008

It is settled that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. - Government Service Insurance System vs. The Regional Trial Court Of Pasig City, Branch 71, Cresenciano Rabello, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Branch 71, Pasig City; and Eduardo M. Santiago, substituted by his widow, Rosario Enriquez Vda. De Santiago, G.R. No. 175393, December 18 2009

It is settled that a writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. Execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. It must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision. - University Physicians Services, Incorporated vs. Marian Clinics, Inc. and Dr. Lourdes Mabanta, G.R. No. 152303, September 1, 2010

Sheriff Pascua totally ignored the established procedural rules laid down under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court when he did not give Juanito the opportunity to either pay his obligation under in cash, certified bank check, or any other mode of payment acceptable to Panganiban; or to choose which of his property may be levied upon to satisfy the same judgment, Sheriff Pascua immediately levied upon the vehicle that belonged to Juanitos wife, Yolanda. - Yolanda Leachon Corpuz vs. Sergio V. Pascua, Sheriff III. Municipal Trial Court in Cities, TreceMartiresCity,Cavite, A.M. No. P-11-2972, September 28, 2011

To justify the stay of immediate execution, the supervening events must have a direct effect on the matter already litigated and settled.Or, the supervening events must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice. - Spouses Jesse Cachopero and Bema Cachopero vs. Rachel Celestial, G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012

Section 21, Rule 70 provides that the judgment of the RTC in ejectment cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the perfection of an appeal to a higher court. To avoid such immediate execution, the defendant may appeal said judgment to the CA and therein apply for a writ of preliminary injunction. In this case, the decisions of the MTCC, of the RTC, and of the CA, unanimously recognized the right of the ATO to possession of the property and the corresponding obligation of Miaque to immediately vacate the subject premises. This means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Miaque does not have any right to continue in possession of the said premises. It is therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement that Miaque "appears to have a clear legal right to hold on to the premises leased by him from ATO at least until such time when he shall have been duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of judgment caused to be issued by the MTCC. - Air Transportation Office (ATO) vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals (Nineteenth Division) and Bernie G. Miaque, G.R. No. 173616, June 25, 2014

PROVISIONAL REMEDIESPreliminary Injunction

The doctrine of non-interference is premised on the principle that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly adjudicated and to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to establish(a)a right inesseor a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) a violation of that right; (c)that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. - Jimmy T. Go vs. The Clerk of Court And Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental, Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr., and Sheriff Dioscoro F. Caponpon, Jr. and Multi-Luck Corporation, G.R. No. 154623, March 13, 2009

Although as a general rule, a court should not by means of a preliminary injunction, transfer property in litigation from the possession of one party to another, this rule admits of some exceptions. For example, when there is a clear finding of ownership and possession of the land or unless the subject property is covered by a torrens title pointing to one of the parties as the undisputed owner. In the case at bar, the intervenors Valdez and Malvar have established a clear and legal right of ownership and possession and the alleged TCT of the defendants spouses dela Rosa is non-existent. - Sps. Gonzalo T. Dela Rosa & Cristeta Dela Rosa vs. Heirs of Juan Valdez and Spouses Potenciano Malvar and Lourdes Malvar, G.R. No. 159101, July 27, 2011

Writ of injunction would issue: [U]pon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said right. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainants right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. - BP Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Burmah Castrol Philippines, Inc.) vs. Clark Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 175284, September 19, 2012

For the writ to issue, two requisites must be present, namely, the existence of the right to be protected, and that the facts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it. In the absence of the same, and where facts are shown to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must be struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion.

The determination of the completeness or sufficiency of the form of the petition, including the relevant and pertinent documents which have to be attached to it, is largely left to the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the petition, in this case the Court of Appeals. If the petition is insufficient in form and substance, the same may be forthwith dismissed without further proceedings. That is the import of Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court may require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. - Palm Tree Estates, Inc. and Belle Air Golf and Country Club, Inc., vs. Philippine Bank, G.R. No. 159370, October 3, 2012

A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in the case before it.In this connection, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicants showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury. - Solid Builders, Inc. and Medina Foods Industries, Inc. vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013

STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER

A status quo order is merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, not to provide mandatory or injunctive relief. In this case, it cannot be applied when the respondent was already removed prior to the filing of the case. - Bro. Bernard Oca, et al., vs. Laurita Custodio, G.R. No. 174996, December 03, 2014

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

DECLARATORY RELIEFS

Petitioners Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo assailedviaDeclaratory Relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, the orders of the trial courts denying their motions to suspend proceedings.This recourse by petitioners, unfortunately, cannot be countenanced since a court order is not one of those subjects to be examined under Rule 63. A petition for declaratory relief cannot properly have a court decision as its subject matter.- Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo vs. Hon. Judge Belen B. Ortiz, G.R. No.137794, August 11, 2010

PROHIBITION

While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and not the rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No. 166104. June 26, 2008

Before resorting to the remedy of prohibition, there should be "no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."- Spouses Alvin Guerrero and Mercury M. Guerrero vs. Hon. Lorna Navarro Domingo, G.R. No. 156142, March 23, 2011

MANDAMUS

Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. The legal right to the performance of the particular act sought to be compelled must be clear and complete. Otherwise, where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, mandamus cannot issue. Thus, the issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. - Fidela R. Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice, The Administrator, Land Registration Authority, The Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 142549, March 9, 2010

FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGEService of Notice of Sale

The written notice of sale to the judgment obligor need not be personally served on the judgment obligor himself as it may be served on his counsel, or by leaving the notice in his office with his clerk or a person having charge thereof. - Sps. Elizabeth S. Tagle & Ernesto R. Tagle vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97, Sps. Federico and Rosamyrna Carandang and Sheriff Carol Bulacan, G.R. No. 162738, July 8, 2009

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

It is settled that for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must concur, namely: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or to comply with the conditions of the lease and (2) there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in Section 2, particularly, 15 days in the case of land and 5 days in the case of buildings. - Charles Limbauan vs. Faustino Acosta, G.R. No. 148606. June 30, 2008

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

Although matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in a special proceeding, it would be more practical to dispense with a separate special proceeding for the determination of the status of the parties if it appears that there is only one property being claimed by the contending parties. - Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court Of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009

GUARDIANSHIP

A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes, are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012

WRIT OF AMPARO

The constitutional right to travel is not covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The Writ of Amparo covers the right to life, liberty, and security. A persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. - Reverend Father Robert Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, Secretary Raul M. Gonzales, in his capacity as the Secretary of Justice, and Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 182161, December 03 2009

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

In rape cases, the accused cannot capitalize on the inconsistencies in testimonies of the witnesses when such inconsistencies cover inconsequential details such as the time or place of commission because they do not form part of the elements of the offense. He cannot also bank on the delay of the filing of the offense because it is established in jurisprudence that the delay is justified due to victims fear of public stigma. - People of the Philippinesvs. Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009

In cases of rape, the discrepancies in the testimony of the victim as to the dates of the commission of the offense do not negate the finding of guilt. What is material in the offense is the occurrence of rape and not the date of commission. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 30, 2009The Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Asilan y Tabornal, G.R. No. 188322, April 11, 2012

DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

In a case of murder, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense.It is not the use of the words qualifying or qualified by that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category.It is sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during trial. - People of the Philippines vs. Rene Rosas, G.R. No. 177825, October 24, 2008

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Corollary, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, in which case an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. - People of the Philippines vs. Jaime AyochokyTauli, G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010

The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability andonlythe civil liabilitydirectlyarising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liabilityex delictoinsenso strictiore. - Dante Hernandez Datu vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.169718, December 13, 2010

Olacos death during the pendency of her appeal, extinguished not only her criminal liability for qualified theft committed against private complainant Ruben Vinluan, but also her civil liability, particularly the award for actual damages, solely arising from or based on said crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Juliet Olaco y Poler, G.R. No. 197042, October 17, 2011

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome of another pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled the second action should be stayed. - Sta. Lucia Realty & Development vs. City of Pasig, Municipality of Cainta, Province of Rizal, Intervenor, G.R. No. 166838, June 15, 2011

ARREST

Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority.Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions. On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person. - People of the Philippines vs. Nelida Dequina y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc y Japitana & Nora Jingabo y Cruz, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011

Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants, the search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said arrests, and the eventual seizure of the shabu from accused-appellants possession, are also considered unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable. - People of the Philippines vs. Rolando S. Delos Reyes, alias "Botong," and Raymundo G. Reyes, alias "Mac-Mac," G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011

The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. When two cases involve same accused, proceedings in one case, such as the issuance of a warrant of arrest, should not be extended or made applicable to the other.

Moreover, a case which has not been previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa when required to for conciliation shall be dismissed without prejudice. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply with the Lupon requirement is an exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. - Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug vs. Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012

Non-flight does not connote innocence. - People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013

Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Nevertheless, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. - People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSEDIllegal Search and Warrant

In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., this Court held that the quantum of evidence required to prove probable cause is not the same quantum of evidence needed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in a criminal case that may be subsequently filed. We ruled in this case that the determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. Taken together, the aforementioned pieces of evidence are more than sufficient to support a finding that test calls were indeed made by PLDTs witnesses using Mabuhay card with PIN code number 332 1479224 and, more importantly, that probable cause necessary to engender a belief that HPS Corporation, et al. had probably committed the crime of Theft through illegal ISR activities exists. To reiterate, evidence to show probable cause to issue a search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt which, at this juncture of the criminal case, is not required. - HPS Software and Communications Corp. and Hyman Yap vs. PLDT, G.R. No. 170217 and G.R. No. 170694, December 10, 2012

Where the accused is charged of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and now questioning the legality of his arrest as the same was done without a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest, the Court ruled that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto and had reiterated that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. - People of the Philippines vs. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA BARGAINING

It is not enough to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea; the court must explain fully to the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty; that death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the felony.Thus, the importance of the courts obligation cannot be overemphasized, for one cannot dispel the possibility that the accused may have been led to believe that due to his voluntary plea of guilty, he may be imposed a lesser penalty, which was precisely what happened here. - People of the Philippines vs. Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Respondent Mayor Henry Barrera was charged for violation of anti graft and corrupt practices for ousting the vendors in the market however he filed demurrer to evidence. The court granted demurrer to evidence for elements of such crime was not present in the case specifically manifest partiality. For an act to be considered as exhibitingmanifest partiality,there must be a showing of a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.Evident bad faith,on the other hand, is something which does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; It partakes of the nature of fraud.- People of the Philippines vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan (4THDiv.) and Henry Barrera,, G.R. Nos.153952-71 August 23, 2010

SEARCH WARRANT

The Director of NBI may delegate his duty of signing the authorization to apply for search warrant to a subordinate. Such delegation of duty shall not make the application or the resulting search warrant null and void. Furthermore, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure did not repeal A.M. No. 99-10-09-SCwhich authorized the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs which may be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction. - Spouses Joel and MariettaMarimla vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Omar T. Viola, RTC Judge, Branch 57, Angeles City, G.R. No. 158467, October 16, 2009

Tuan was charged with Illegal possession of dangerous drugs and contended that the issuance of search warrant was not justified for the Search Warrant did not describe with particularity the place to be searched. The court ruled that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. - People of the Philippines vs. Estela TuanyBaludda, G.R. No. 176066 August 11, 2010

EVIDENCE

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test which considers the following factors: (1) the witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

It is settled that an out-of-court identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification and that, even assuming that an out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended it. - People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Sabangan and Noli Bornasal, G.R. No. 191722, December 11, 2013

The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to an arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. - People of the Philippines vs. Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

This circumstantial evidence constitutes positive identification of Gil as the perpetrator of the crime charged, to the exclusion of others. She was the person who had the motive to commit the crime and the series of events following her threat to cause chaos and arson in her neighbourhood the fire that started in her room, and her actuations and remarks during, as well as immediately before and after the fire sufficiently points to Gil as the author of the said crime.

A well-entrenched legal precept, the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the case and the said trial court is in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through actual observation of the witnesses manner of testifying, demeanor and behaviour while in the witness box. - People of the Philippines vs. Julie Villacorta Gil, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider,inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. - People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Pascual y Ildefonso, G. R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009

The Trial Court correctly convicted the accused of the crime of qualified Carnapping based on circumstantial evidence, when the combination of circumstances are interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato Lagat y Gawan A.K.A. Renat Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa, G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011

The accused was convicted of rape with homicide. The accused on appeal raised the issue of the absence of direct evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. In this regard, the Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence may be resorted to establish the complicity of the perpetrators crime when these are credible and sufficient, and could lead to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the complex crime of rape with homicide. With respect to the appellants contention that the witnesses presented were not credible, the Court reiterated the jurisprudential principle affording great respect and even finality to the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially if the factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. - People of the Philippines vs. Bernesto De La Cruz @ Berning, G.R. No. 183091, June 19, 2013

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. It consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. - People of the Philippines vs. Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014

PRESUMPTIONS

The fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. The presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. - Vicente Manzano, Jr. vs. Marcelino Garcia, G.R. No. 179323, November 28, 2011

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (Substantial Evidence)

This Court has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an administrative finding of fact where the decision of the Ombudsman is not supported by substantial evidence, but based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, as in the present case, this Court finds sufficient reason to overturn the same. - Marita C. Bernaldo vs. The Ombudsman and The Department Of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No. 156286, August 13, 2008The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. And in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. - Wilfredo Y. Antiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Masterbulk, Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011

Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.

As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Arnel A. Bernardo, Attorney V, Bureau Of Internal Revenue (BIR), G.R. No. 181598, March 6, 2013

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

It is well-settled that a judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Viola Cahilig et al., vs. Hon. Eustaquio G. Terencio et al., G.R. No. 164470, November 28, 2011

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Although the best evidence rule admits of exceptions and there are instances where the presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed, such as when the original is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of secondary evidence must still be established.- Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009

PAROLE EVIDENCE

A CBA is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. It covers the whole employment relationship and prescribes the rights and duties of the parties. If the terms of the CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. However, if the CBA imports ambiguity, then the parties intention as shown by their conduct, words, actions and deeds prior to, during, and after executing the agreement, must be ascertained. That there is an apparent ambiguity or a failure to express the true intention of the parties, especially with regard to the retirement provisions of the CBA, is evident in the opposing interpretations of the same by the Labor Arbiter and the CA on one hand and the NLRC on the other. It is settled that the parole evidence rule admits of exceptions. A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he raises as an issue, among others, an intrinsic ambiguity in the written agreement or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. - Flavio S. Suarez, Jr., Renato A. De Asis, Francisco G. Adorable, et al., vs. National Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 150180, October 17, 2008

The Parol Evidence Rule provides that when the terms of the agreement have been reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. A party may not modify, explain, or add to the terms in the two written Deeds of Absolute Quitclaim since he did not put in issue in his pleadings any of those allowed by the Rules. - Maria Torbela, represented by her heirs, Eulogio Tosino et al., vs. Spouses Andres T. Rosario et al., G.R. No. 140528, December 7, 2011

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTSPublic Documents

As pointed out by the trial court, the Restructuring Agreement, being notarized, is a public document enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption. The spouses Tiu, who attested before the notary public that the Restructuring Agreement "is their own free and voluntary act and deed," failed to present sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. - Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu, G.R. Nos. 173090-91, September 7, 2011

Notarized documents (e. g. the notarized Answer to Interrogatories in the case at bar is proof that Philtrust had been served with Written Interrogatories) are merely proof of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter but is notprima facieevidence of the facts therein stated. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed therefore applies only to the portion wherein the notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned thereon.Thus, even though affidavits are notarized documents, we have ruled thataffidavits, being self-serving, must be received with caution. - Philippine Trust Company (also known as Philtrust Bank) vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals and Forfom Development Corporation, G.R. No. 150318, November 22, 2010

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers if does not dwell on material points shall not negate the finding of guilt. Also, the failure on the part of the police officer to issue an official receipt for the confiscated items is not fatal defect because the issuance of the same is not an element of the crime of possession of illegal drugs. - People of the Philippines vs. Randy Magbanuaalias Boyung and Wilson Magbanua, G.R. No. 170137, August 27, 2009

Mere inconsistencies as to minor details in the testimony of the witness does not affect his credibility. It may also strengthen his position as the court abhors memorized statements. The accused must prove ill motive on the part of the witness, otherwise, his statement shall be given full credence by the court. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena y Camba A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato And Jessie Garcia y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009

Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application. Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. - People of the Philippines vs. Jose Galvez y Blanca, G.R. No. 181827, February 2, 2011

The RTC observed that AAA was in the custody of the DSWD when she testified for the prosecution, and was returned to the family of the Aniceto Bulagao during the time when SHE recanted her testimony. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary considerations.Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice, simply because the witness who has given it later on changes his mind for one reason or another.- People of the Philippinesvs. Aniceto Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011Despite all these findings, Gemma has posited from the RTC all the way up to the Supreme Court that she is not the Gemma Ong named and accused in the case.Positive identification of a culprit is of great weight in determining whether an accused is guilty or not. Thus, it cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party. The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused. - Gemma Onga.k.a.Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011

Delay in making criminal accusations will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the positive identification of the witnesses is more than enough to prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - People of the Philippines vs. Noel T. Adallom, G.R. No. 182522, March 7, 2012

Dulay points out that the prosecution failed to present the informant in court, alleging that the same was necessary to corroborate the testimony of PO1 Guadamor, since it was only the informant and PO1 Guadamor who witnessed the actual transaction. The Court disagrees. It is settled that the identity or testimony of the informant is not indispensable in drugs cases, since his testimony would only corroborate that of the poseur-buyer. The Court has repeatedly held that it is up to the prosecution to determine who should be presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. After all, the testimony of a single witness, if trustworthy and reliable, or if credible and positive, would be sufficient to support a conviction. Moreover, in determining values and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. - People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Dulay, G.R. No. 188345, November 10, 2012

QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS

A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses, such as his/her sense of sight, remain functional and allow him/her to make observations about his/her environment and experiences Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those observations known to others. - People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Aleman y Longhas, G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS

As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended. The reason for this is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. - People of the Philippines vs. Salvador C. Daco, G.R. No. 168166, October 10, 2008

The issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Dominguez, Jr., alias Sandy, G.R. No. 180914, November 24, 2010

The victim s delay in reporting the rapes does notundermine her credibility.In a long line of cases, the Court pronounced that the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. Moreover, Jurisprudence teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail.Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. - People of the Philippines vs.Roger Tejero, G.R. No.187744, June 20, 2012

The purported inconsistency between the testimonies of AAA and her mother BBB merely refers to a minor detail. The central fact is that Batula, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, and use of a bolo, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. Whether AAA was able to name Batula as the perpetrator immediately after the rape or AAA was able to identify Batula as her rapist at a later time, does not depart from the fact that Batula raped AAA. We have said time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony. - People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Batula, G.R. No. 181699, November 28, 2012

In People v. Paringit, this Court has declared that not all blows leave marks. Thus, the fact that the medico-legal officer found no signs of external injuries on AAA, especially on her face, which supposedly had been slapped several times, does not invalidate her statement that Mangune slapped her to silence her. But, even granting that there were no extra-genital injuries on the victim, it had been held that the absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. The same rule applies even though no medical certificate is presented in evidence. Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is not an essential element of the crime This Court, in a long line of cases, has ruled that the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape. The doctrine is thus well- entrenched in our jurisprudence, and the Court of Appeals correctly applied it. - People of the Philippines vs. William Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, November 14, 2012

Alleged inconsistencies do not detract from AAAs credibility as a witness. A rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. We reiterate the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People v. Arpon, we stated that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial courts observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness deportment and manner of testifying. Her furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. - People of the Philippines vs. Felix Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012

Estoya likewise makes much of the inconsistencies between CCCs Sinumpaang Salaysay and his testimony in open court. Said inconsistencies do not at all damage CCCs credibility as a witness. It is doctrinally settled that discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness affidavit and testimony in open court do not impair credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating offi