CASE NO.

1 intestate court denied the motion stating that the Baguio Court to has
TERESA IGNACIO V. RAMON REYES ET.AL. no authority to partition the property of the estate because it already
G.R. No. 213192 has jurisdiction over the matter.  Respondents filed a petition for
July 12, 2017 certiorari with the CA and the latter set aside the Order issued by the
J. Peralta intestate court, allowing the RTC-Baguio to distribute the estate of
Florencio Sr. Hence, this petition.
Doctrine: In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the
question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate Issue: Was the intestate court correct in denying the motion to allow
court cannot resolve with finality. the RTC of Baguio to partition the properties, claiming that it has
jurisdiction over such matter?
Facts:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Ruling: No. Generally, the intestate court has no authority to pass
Teresa R. Ignacio challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals upon the question of ownership. Jurisprudence teaches that
(CA), which annulled and set aside the order of the RTC (intestate jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is special and limited
court), disallowing the RTC of Baguio to partition the property. The as it relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will
respondents are Ramon, Florencio Jr., Rosario and Carmelita, and and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not
the Heirs of Amparo, Intestate Estate of Soledad, Jose and Intestate extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise
Estate of Angel. during the proceedings. This is true whether or not the property is
alleged to belong to the estate. A probate court or one in charge of
Teresa Ignacio became the administratrix of the Florencio Reyes Sr. proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or
estate. On different dates, Teresa executed several lease contracts determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and
with different lessees over parcel of lands located at Magsaysay which are claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court
Avenue, Session Road and Loakan, all situated in Baguio City. The could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they
respondents filed before the Baguio RTC, three complaints for should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to
partition, annulment of lease contract, accounting and damages with be administered by the administrator. If there is not dispute, well and
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against good, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the
Teresa and the lessees of the subject Baguio properties. The opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final
respondents alleged in their Complaints that, with the exception of the determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate
lessees, the parties and the Florencio Sr. estate own one-tenth (1/10) court cannot do so.
of each of the Session Road, Loakan and Military Cut-off, and
Magsaysay properties. They claimed that Teresa misrepresented that  However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by
the Florencio Sr. estate is the sole owner of the properties and leased expediency and convenience, to wit:
the same to the other parties without their conformity. The Baguio
RTC manifested that it shall await a Request Order from the intestate 1.      The probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate
court regarding the possible distribution of the subject properties. or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from,
the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to the final
Respondents and the others filed a motion before the intestate court determination of ownership in a separate action;
praying for the issuance of an order allowing the distribution of the
heirs' aliquot shares in the co-owned properties' net income, and the 2.      If the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the
partition of the said properties by the Baguio RTC. However, the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to
1
the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of
third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to
resolve issues on ownership.

The intestate court committed grave abuse of discretion when it

asserted jurisdiction over the subject properties since its jurisdiction
relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons. Any decision that the intestate court would render
on the title of the properties would at best be merely provisional in
character, and would yield to a final determination in a separate
action.

2
CASE No. 2 presented as evidence a Debit Memo from East West and the
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF REYNALDO testimony of its branch manager. However, the respondent-children
GUZMAN RODRIGUEZ; ANITA ONG TAN, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the funds deposited in the BPI
C. RODRIGUEZ, RACQUEL R. GEGAJO , ROSALINDA R. *
joint account belonged exclusively to Reynaldo.
LANDON, REYNALDO C. RODRIGUEZ, JR., ESTER R.
FULGENCIO, RAFAEL C. RODRIGUEZ AND REYNEST C. ISSUE: Was the trial court is justified in ruling out the inclusion of the
RODRIGUEZ, Respondents. BPI joint account in the estate of the decedent in view of the earlier
G.R. No. 230404, January 31, 2018 extrajudicial settlement executed by the heirs?

DOCTRINE: While the probate court exercises limited jurisdiction, it RULING: YES. Even if the probing arms of an intestate court is
may settle questions relating to ownership when the claimant and all limited, it is equally important to consider the call of the exercise of its
other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly power of adjudication especially so when the case calls for the same.
or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the probate court for The exercise of the trial court of its limited jurisdiction is procedural;
adjudication. hence, waivable. In this case, it called for the determination of the
ownership of the funds contained in the BPI joint account since the
FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner intestate estate of Reynaldo has already been extrajudicially settled
Anita Ong Tan assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of by his heirs. The respondent-children impliedly agreed to submit the
Appeals in reversing the ruling of the Regional Trial Court which issue of ownership when they raised an affirmative relief before the
granted the petitioner’s claim against the estate of the deceased intestate court. Thus, the trial court exercised sound judiciousness
respondent Reynaldo Rodriguez by ruling out the inclusion of the BPI when it ruled out the inclusion of the BPI joint account in the estate of
joint account between co-depositors Anita and Reynaldo. the decedent.

The respondent-children of the deceased Spouses Reynaldo and

Ester Rodriguez executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of
the latter’s properties. One of the properties of Reynaldo included a
BPI Joint Account, but this was not included in the extrajudicial
settlement executed by the respondent-children. Petitioner received a
notice that their account will become dormant if no subsequent
transactions will be made. She decided to withdraw all the funds from
said account, but the bank required her to submit the extrajudicial
settlement of the heirs, among others. She asked herein respondents
to sign a waiver granting the former all rights over the account.
However, the respondent-children refused to sign believing that the
funds belonged to their father. The bank withheld the release of funds
due to the conflicting claims of the petitioner and respondent-children.

Anita filed a petition for the settlement of the Intestate Estate of

Reynaldo and the issuance of letters of administration other than the
heirs of Reynaldo on the ground that the funds used to open the BPI
joint account were her exclusive funds from East West Bank. She
3
CASE No. 3 Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz, instituted a special proceeding entitled "In the
Matter of the Intestate Estate of Enrique T. Longa Petition for Letters
IONA LERIOU, ELEPTHERIOS L. LONGA, AND STEPHEN L. of Administration."  Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz (respondent-
LONGA, Petitioners, v. YOHANNA FRENESI S. LONGA (MINOR) administratrix) was appointed the administratrix of Enrique's estate,
AND VICTORIA PONCIANA S. LONGA (MINOR), REPRESENTED and the RTC issued the Letters of Administration in her favor.
BY THEIR MOTHER MARY JANE B. STA. CRUZ, Respondents. Respondent-administratrix submitted a Report of the Inventory and
G.R. No. 203923, October 08, 2018 Appraisal of the real and personal properties of the decedent, which
Leonardo-De Castro, J.: was duly noted by the RTC in its Order.

On May 20, 2008, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion 1. To Remove

DOCTRINES: Jane Sta. Cruz as Administratrix; and 2. Appoint Eleptherios L. Longa
A testate or intestate settlement of a deceased's estate is a or His Nominee as Administrator (Omnibus Motion). Petitioners
proceeding in rem, such that the publication under Section 3 of the alleged that they were denied due process of law because they did
same Rule, vests the court with jurisdiction over all persons who are not receive any notice about respondents' Petition for Letters
interested therein. Administration. They further accuse respondent-administratrix of
neglect and misrepresentation in her duties as such administratrix,
In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased including her failure to file a bond as required by law. Furthermore,
person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said petitioners assert that each of them, being the surviving spouse and
estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. This is the same legitimate children of Enrique, has a preferential right over
consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in respondents to act as administrator of the estate, or to designate
establishing the order of preference in the appointment of somebody else to administer the estate in their behalf, pursuant to the
administrators for the estate. The underlying assumption behind this order of preference under Rule 78, Section 6.
rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and
economical administration of the estate, or, on the other hand, suffer Respondent-administratrix, in opposition thereto, averred that
the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have petitioners are disqualified to act as administrators because petitioner
the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the Iona, a Greek national, is already divorced from Enrique and has
estate correctly. already remarried as shown by her name Iona Leriou Regala in the
Omnibus Motion, and petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen are non-
FACTS: residents of the Philippines. Furthermore, Respondent-administratrix
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Iona recognizes that respondents Yohanna and Victoria's shares in the
Leriou (Iona), Eleptherios L. Longa (Eleptherios), and Stephen L. decedent's estate are significantly less than the shares of petitioners
Longa (Stephen) assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Eleptherios and Stephen who are Enrique's legitimate children.
Appeals, which affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) However, respondent-administratrix sensed that petitioner Eleptherios
of Muntinlupa City Branch 276, which denied petitioners' Omnibus is slowly depleting the estate by charging his plane fares to and from
Motion to remove respondent Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz as the United States of America (USA) and huge phone bills against the
administratrix; and to appoint petitioner Eleptherios or his nominee as estate. In addition, petitioner Eleptherios ordered respondent-
administrator of the estate of deceased Enrique Longa (Enrique). administratrix to transfer all of the estate to him so that he could
personally partition the properties to Enrique's heirs. Thus,
Respondent-minors Yohanna Frenesi S. Longa (Yohanna) and respondent-administratrix was forced to seek the help of the courts for
Victoria Ponciana S. Longa (Victoria), represented by their mother, the proper settlement of Enrique's estate.
4
 right to administer the estate or that their choice of
On June 18, 2008, the RTC issued the assailed Order denying administrator should be preferred because they are the
petitioners' Omnibus Motion. nearest of kin of the decedent. It is worth emphasizing that the
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the preference given to the surviving spouse, next of kin, and
Orders dated July 18, 2003 and November 3, 2008 of the trial court. creditors is not absolute, and that the appointment of an
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. administrator greatly depends on the attendant facts and
circumstances of each case.  
ISSUES:
1. Is personal notice as provided for under Rule 76, Sec. 4 a 3. No. Notably, the trial and appellate courts did not find any
jurisdictional requirement? factual or legal ground to remove Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz as
2. Did the courts a quo correctly issue the letters of administratrix of Enrique's estate. Both courts cleared
administration in favor of respondent-administratrix Mary Jane respondent-administratrix of the charges of misrepresentation
Sta. Cruz? of being a pauper and concealment of assets of Enrique's
3. Should private respondent be removed as administratrix of the estate. While it is conceded that the court is invested with
estate? ample discretion in the removal of an administrator, it must,
however, have some fact legally before it in order to justify
HELD: such removal. There must be evidence of an act or omission
1. NO. The Court, in Alaban v. Court of Appeals, explained that it on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in
is just a matter of personal convenience. It should be disregard of the rules or the orders of the court which it deems
emphasized that a testate or intestate settlement of a sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the
deceased's estate is a proceeding in rem, such that the administrator.
publication under Section 3 of the same Rule, vests the court
with jurisdiction over all persons who are interested therein. In
the instant case, the Order dated July 4, 2007 was published
for three consecutive weeks in Balita, a newspaper of general
circulation, on the following dates: July 27, 2007, August 3,
2007, and August 10, 2007. By such publication which
constitutes notice to the whole world, petitioners are deemed
notified about the intestate proceedings of their father's estate.

2.  Yes, it is respondent-administratrix Mary Jane Sta. Cruz who is

entitled to the issuance of letters of administration. Petitioners
are non-residents of the Philippines, which disqualify
them from administering the decedent's estate pursuant
to Rule 78, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Respondents
are also disqualified by reason of their minority. In the
appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased
person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the
interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as
administrator. Here, petitioners cannot assert their preferential
5
CASE NO. 4
Republic of the Philippines v. Virgie (Virgel) L. Tipay Is Rule 108 the proper remedy for correction of substantial changes in
G.R. No. 209527 the civil registry?
February 14, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J: RULING:

Doctrine: Yes. It is true that initially, the changes that may be corrected under
“As long as the procedural requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the summary procedure of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are clerical
the appropriate adversary proceeding to effect substantial corrections or harmless errors. However, the Court ultimately recognized that
and changes in entries of the civil register.” substantial or controversial alterations in the civil registry are
allowable in an action filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as
Facts: long as the issues are properly threshed out in appropriate adversarial
This is a petition under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Republic of the proceedings— effectively limiting the application of the summary
Philippines (Republic), seeking to reverse the affirmation of CA of the procedure to the correction of clerical or innocuous errors.
RTC decision, granting respondent Virgie Tipay’s (Virgel) petition for
correction of certain entries in his birth certificate. If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for
correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if
Virgel, through a petition under Rule 108, sought to correct entries on filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can
his birth certificate, specifically: no longer be described as "summary".
(a) his gender, from "FEMALE" to "MALE;"
(b) his first name, from "VIRGIE" to "VIRGEL;" and Evidently, the Republic incorrectly argued that the petition for
(c) his month and date of birth to "FEBRUARY 25, 1976." From “MAY correction under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is limited to changes
12, 1976”, as it erroneously appears in the NSO copy. in entries containing harmless and innocuous errors. The cited cases
in the petition were already superseded by much later jurisprudence.
The petition was sufficient in form and substance and it proceeded to Most importantly, with the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048
trial. Testimonies of Virgel and Virgel’s mother, Susan Tipay were in 2001,  this law provided ahn administrative recourse for the
presented, including various documentary evidence with a medical correction of clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving the
certificate that Virgel was phenotypically male. substantial corrections in the civil registry to Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. Since Virgel notified all the interested parties that could be
RTC granted the petition. Republic filed a notice of appeal, stating that affected by the decision of the RTC, a proper adversarial proceeding
Virgel should have filed a petition under Rule 103, and not Rule 108. was followed.
Republic argued that Rule 108 is confined to correction of clerical
errors, which excludes name or date of birth. Since the wrong
procedure was followed, RTC did not acquire any jurisdiction over the
matter. Virgel argued that Rule 108 was proper, that as long as the
proceeding were adversarial, it is within Rule 108. CA denied
Republic’s appeal stating that there was sufficient evidence to grant
the changes, hence, this petition.

Issue:
6
CASE NO. 5 Republic argued that Gallo wanted to change the name that she was
Republic of the Philippines v. Michelle Soriano Gallo given and that it was not merely a clerical error. They said that the
G.R. No. 207074 name was not patently misspelled as “Michael” could not have been
January 17, 2018 the result of misspelling “Michelle.” Thus, Rule 103 should have
J. Leonen applied as a substantial change was contemplated. Respondent
Gallo, countered that the issue of whether or not the petitioned
Doctrine:  Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct corrections are innocuous or clerical is a factual issue, which is
clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil improper in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. In any
register. It also governs the correction of substantial errors in the entry case, she argues that the corrections are clerical; hence, the
of the information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule 64 and those applicable rule is Rule 108 and not Rule 103, with the requirements of
affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person. The an adversarial proceeding properly satisfied.
proceedings under this rule may either be summary, if the correction
pertains to clerical mistakes, or adversary, if it pertains to substantial Issue: Does the petition involve a substantive change under Rule 103
errors. instead of mere clerical errors which falls under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court
Facts: This is Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the CA
decision which denied the Republic of the Philippines' appeal from the Held: No, the petition merely involves clerical errors. Republic Act
order of the RTC granting herein respondent Michelle Soriano Gallo's No. 10172 defines a clerical or typographical error as a recorded
(Gallo) Petition for Correction of Entry of her Certificate of Live Birth. mistake, "which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding."
By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical error as a
Michelle Soriano Gallo brought a petition for Correction of Entry of her mistake "visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding," the law
Certificate of Live Birth. In her original documents she prayed that her recognizes that there is a factual determination made after reference
name be corrected from “Michael” to “Michelle” and to change her to and evaluation of existing documents presented. Thus, corrections
biological sex from “Male” to “Female” under Rule 108 of the Rules of may be made even though the error is not typographical if it is
Court. In addition, she asked for the inclusion of her mother’s middle "obvious to the understanding," even if there is no proof that the name
name and her father’s middle name, the date of her parent’s marriage or circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used.
as these were also not recorded in her birth certificate. Gallo showed
several documents as proof such as her college diploma, voter’s In any case, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the case
certification and transcript which all indicated that her name was at bar. The change in the entry of Gallo's biological sex is governed by
“Michelle Soriano Gallo. A doctor’s certification which also said that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court while Republic Act No. 9048 applies to
she was female. The RTC granted her petition. all other corrections sought. the governing law on changes of first
name is currently Republic Act No. 10172, which amended Republic
The office of the Solicitor General however appealed from the Act No. 9048.  As to the issue of which between Rules 103 and 108
decision saying that Gallo did not comply with the jurisdictional applies, it is necessary to determine the nature of the correction
requirements under Rule 103 as the title did not state her official sought by Gallo. Upon scrutiny of the records in this case, this Court
name, “Michael Gallo.” and also stated that it was defective for not rules that Gallo's Petition involves a mere correction of clerical errors.
stating the cause of the change of name. The CA sided with Gallo A clerical or typographical error pertains to a: [M]istake committed in
saying that she used the correct remedy as the sought changes were the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or
clerical, harmless, and innocuous. The Republic again appealed. typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous ...
which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the , and can be corrected or
7
changed only by reference to other existing record or records[.] CASE NO. 6
However, corrections which involve a change in nationality, age, or
status are not considered clerical or typographical. Considering that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEO ANTIDO y LANTAYAN
Gallo had shown that the reason for her petition was not to change alias “JON-JON”
the name by which she is commonly known, this Court rules that her GR No. 208651
petition is not covered by Rule 103. Gallo is not filing the petition to March 14, 2018
change her current appellation. She is merely correcting the Perlas-Bernabe J.
misspelling of her name.
Doctrine: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
Correcting and changing have been differentiated, thus: To correct extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability, based
simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error solely thereon. However the claim for civil liability survives
from." To change means "to replace something with something else of notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be
the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. Gallo is predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law,
not attempting to replace her current appellation. She is merely contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delits.
correcting the misspelling of her given name. "Michelle" could easily
be misspelled as "Michael," especially since the first four (4) letters of Facts:
these two (2) names are exactly the same. The differences only This is a Resolution dated April 7, 2014 issued by the Supreme Court
pertain to an additional letter "a" in "Michael," and "le" at the end of where it  affirmed the decision of the CA finding accused-appellant
"Michelle." "Michelle" and "Michael" may also be vocalized similarly, Romeo Antido guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.  
considering the possibility of different accents or intonations of
different people. In any case, Gallo does not seek to be known by a However, accused-appellant had already died on December 28, 2013
different appellation. The lower courts have determined that she has before the promulgation of the said Resolution, as evidenced by his
been known as "Michelle" all throughout her life. She is merely Certificate of Death
seeking to correct her records to conform to her true given name.
However, Rule 108 does not apply in this case either. The applicable Issue:  Is there a need to reconsider and set aside the Resolution of
law for Gallo during the time she filed the case was RA 9048 as RA the Court and enter a new one dismissing the criminal case against
10172 was enacted during 2012 and Gallo filed for her correction the accused-appellant?
during 2010. So it seems that for her case it was the civil registrar who
had primary jurisdiction and not the RTC and only if denied by the
Ruling: Yes.
registrar would it be taken up by the RTC. However, with respect to
the change of sex, she was correct in using Rule 108 as this is
Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, accused-appellant’s death
considered a substantial change excluded in the definition of clerical
prior to his final conviction by the Court renders dismissible the
or typographical errors in RA 9048. Regardless her failure to file the
criminal cases against him. Article 89 (1) of the RPC provided that
admin case before the civil registrar, the court held that the Republic
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the accused.
has waived its right to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction as
laches has occurred.
In People vs. Culas, the Court thoroughly explained the effects of the
death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities, as follows:
Hence, the petition was Denied.

8
1.Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes well to clarify that accused-appellant’s civil liability in connection with
his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability, based solely thereon. his acts against the victim, AAA, may be based on sources other than
As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the delicts; in which case, AAA may file a separate civil action against the
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and estate of
only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the accused-appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.
offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the

death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) xxx
e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above,

an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of
filing a separate civil action and subject to Section l, Rule 111 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or
the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon
which the same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his
right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where
during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction,
the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action.
In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with
provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid
any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.

Thus, upon accused-appellant’s death pending appeal of his

conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted
therein for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action. However, it is
9
Case No. 7 was barred by prescription. The RTC dismissed the appeal and
BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA v. SCREENEX affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. The Motion for Reconsideration
GR No. 211564 was likewise denied. Evangelista filed a petition for review before the
Nov 20, 2017 CA but it only affirmed the RTC’s decision to deny petitioner’s Motion
SERENO, C.J. for Reconsideration.

DOCTRINE: Petitioner contends that the lower court erred in ordering the accused
to pay his alleged civil obligation to private complainant. In particular,
In BP 22 cases, the action for the corresponding civil obligation he argues that the court did not consider the prosecution’s failure to
is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The criminal action prove his civil liability to respondent, and that any civil liability there
for violation of BP 22 necessarily includes the corresponding might have been was already extinguished and/or barred by
civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately prescription. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the date of
shall be allowed or recognized. prescription was reckoned from the date of the check, 22 December
2004. So when the complaint was filed on 25 August 2005, it was
FACTS: supposedly well within the prescriptive period of ten (10) years under
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set aside the Article 1144 of the New Civil Code.
Decision and Resolution rendered by the CA. The petition was filed by
petitioner Benjamin Evangelista against respondent Screenex. ISSUE:

Sometime in 1991, Evangelista obtained a loan from respondent Is the petitioner still liable for the total amount of P1.5 million indicated
Screenex, Inc. which issued two checks to him. As security for the in the two checks.
payment of the loan, Evangelista gave two open dated checks both
pay to the order of Screenex, Inc. From the time the checks were RULING:
issued by Evangelista, they were held in safe keeping together with
the other documents and papers of the company by Philip Gotuaco, No. The petitioner is not anymore liable to pay the P1.5 million debt.
Sr., father-in-law of respondent Alexander Yu, until the former's death -The SC ruled in favor of petitioner.
on 19 November 2004.
In BP 22 cases, the action for the corresponding civil obligation is
On 25 August 2005, petitioner was charged with violation of Batas deemed instituted with the criminal action. The criminal action for
Pambansa 22 filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati violation of BP 22 necessarily includes the corresponding civil action,
City, Branch 61. The MeTC acquitted him of the criminal charges and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed
because the prosecution failed to prove the third element; i.e. at the or recognized.
time of the issuance of the check to the payee, the latter did not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for payment of the Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because
check in full upon its presentment. Evangelista, however, was of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22,
declared liable for the corresponding civil obligation. Evangelista filed the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the
a timely Notice of Appeal before the Makati RTC saying the lower complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which
court erred in not appreciating the fact that the prosecution failed to are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as
prove the civil liability of Evangelista to private complainant; and any collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases
civil liability attributable to Evangelista had been extinguished and/or for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a
10
criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being
paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the While the space for the date on a check may also be filled, it must,
civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the however, be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given
number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on and within a reasonable time. Assuming that Yu had authority to insert
dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of the dates in the checks, the fact that he did so after a lapse of more
these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal than 10 years from their issuance certainly cannot qualify as changes
and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should made within a reasonable time.
be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the Given the foregoing, the cause of action on the checks has become
separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the stale, hence, time-barred. No written extrajudicial or judicial demand
reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no was shown to have been made within 10 years which could have
longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in tolled the period. Prescription has indeed set in.
court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is
when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the
Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. We
have previously observed that a separate civil action for the purpose
of recovering the amount of the dishonored checks would only prove
to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and
would further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity of
suits must be avoided.

This notwithstanding, the civil action deemed instituted with the

criminal action is treated as an "independent civil liability based on
contract."

Section 119 of the NIL, however, states that a negotiable instrument

like a check may be discharged by any other act which will discharge
a simple contract for the payment of money.
A check therefore is subject to prescription of actions upon a written
contract.

Barring any extrajudicial or judicial demand that may toll the 10-year
prescription period and any evidence which may indicate any other
time when the obligation to pay is due, the cause of action based on a
check is reckoned from the date indicated on the check.

If the check is undated, however, as in the present petition, the cause

of action is reckoned from the date of the issuance of the check. This
is so because regardless of the omission of the date indicated on the
check, Section 17 of the Negotiable Instruments Law instructs that an
undated check is presumed dated as of the time of its issuance.
11
Case No. 8 reconsideration, which the OCP Pasig also denied. Meanwhile, the
Chiang vs PLDT RTC allowed the informations to be withdrawn.
G.R. No. 196679
December 13, 2017 PLDT filed a petition for review before the DOJ. In its Resolution
JARDELEZA, J dated November 5, 2007, the DOJ denied PLDT's petition and
affirmed the findings of the OCP Pasig. PLDT moved for
Doctrine: Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable reconsideration, pending which, it manifested to the DOJ that: 1) the
errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and CA in PLDT v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig City, Rene
jurisprudence. It also refers to cases in which, for various reasons, Fernandez Lacson and Arnold Bata Julio, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
there has been a gross misapprehension of facts. It is on this score No. 86466, had directed the RTC to proceed with the hearing of the
that questions of fact may inevitably be raised criminal cases against Lacson and Julio; and 2) the Supreme Court
had denied with finality Lacson and Julio's petition for review on
Facts : Rolando A. Alcantara, Division Head, Alternative Calling certiorari.
Pattern Detection Division of respondent Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT), through a letter requested the On June 2, 2010, the DOJ denied PLDT's motion for reconsideration.
assistance of Superintendent Federico E. Laciste, Chief of the Thereafter, PLDT filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging
Regional Intelligence Special Operation Office R2 (RISOO)-National that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in: 1) sustaining
Capital Region Police Office, in conducting further investigation on OCP Pasig's finding that PLDT’s complaints were not sufficiently
illegal toll bypass operations of Worldwide Web Corp. (Worldwide supported by evidence; and 2) issuing its resolutions despite the CA’s
Web), Message One Inc. (Message One), and Planet Internet prior decision in PLDT v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig
Mercury One (Planet Internet). City, Rene Fernandez Lacson and Arnold Bata Julio which constitutes
res judicata on the existence of probable cause against petitioners.
On September 26, 2001, upon application of RISOO, along with PLDT
personnel as technical witnesses, Branch 78 of the Regional Trial The CA granted the petition in its Decision dated January 31, 2011.
Court (RTC), Quezon City issued three search warrants against The CA found probable cause for theft in petitioners’ act of depriving
Worldwide Web, Message One, and Planet Internet. In particular, PLDT of fees and tolls by routing and completing international long
Search Warrant Nos. Q-01-3857 and Q-01-3858 were issued against distance calls using lines, cables, antenna and/or air wave or
Planet Internet and petitioners for violation of Presidential Decree frequency which connects directly to the local or domestic exchange
(PD) No. 401and Article 308(1), in relation to Article 309 of the facilities of PLDT and making it appear that the international calls
Revised Penal Code (RPC), respectively. were local calls. The CA held that Planet Internet's arguments that it is
not involved in toll bypass operations because it is an authorized
Robertson, in his rejoinder, asserted that as VAS provider, Planet reseller of IGF services and that toll bypass does not constitute theft
Internet does not need to secure a franchise or a Certificate of Public are matters of defense that should be proved during a full-blown trial
Convenience and Necessity since it does not lay out its own network.
Also, a VAS provider is expressly allowed to competitively offer its Issue : Does the CA has the power to exercise judicial review over
services using cable facilities it leases from licensed carriers. the findings of the DOJ and whether or not there is abuse of discretion
on the part of DOJ?
In its Resolution dated June 28, 2002, the OCP Pasig dismissed the
charges for insufficiency of evidence and filed a motion to withdraw
the informations before the RTC. PLDT filed a motion for
12
Held : Yes. From the foregoing, the Supreme Court agrees with the committed in this case, the following elements must be shown to exist:
CA's exercise of judicial review over the findings of the DOJ. We also (1) the taking by Planet Internet (2) of PLDT’s personal property (3)
sustain its reversal of the DOJ ruling. with intent to gain (4) without the consent of PLDT (5) accomplished
without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or the
We hasten to reiterate the deferential attitude we have adopted use of force upon things. All these elements have been sufficiently
towards review of the executive's finding of probable cause. This is averred in PLDT's complaint-affidavit and have sufficiently
based not only upon the respect for the investigatory and engendered a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed.
prosecutorial powers granted by the Constitution to the executive
department, but upon practicality as well. The determination of The test calls made by PLDT revealed that they were able to
probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor and, complete international calls, which were made to appear as local calls
ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the and were not recorded in the Call Details Records of PLDT’s toll
corresponding information or move for the dismissal of the case. exchanges. This deprived PLDT of the appropriate charges due them.
However, the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may be subject of However, Planet Internet and petitioners take issue with categorizing
judicial review. The review will be allowed only when grave abuse of the earnings and business as personal properties of PLDT. In Laurel
discretion is alleged. v. Abrogar, we have already held that the use of PLDT’s
communications facilities without its consent constitutes the crime of
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been theft of its telephone services and business. Here, aside from the
defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded allegation that Planet Internet had unauthorized use of PLDT
belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is telephone lines which enabled it to bypass PLDT’s IGF facility, PLDT
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. In determining also complained of Planet Internet’s bypass of its PSTN, unauthorized
probable cause, the average person weighs facts and circumstances access of subscribers within the exclusive service area of PLDT, and
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which use of PLDT's network facilities, without consent, in the origination of
he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A outgoing international calls.
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was Moreover, toll bypass operations could not have been accomplished
committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare without the installation of telecommunications equipment to the PLDT
suspicion, but it requires less than evidence that would justify a telephone lines. Thus, petitioners may also be held liable for violation
conviction. of PD No. 401, which penalizes the unauthorized installation of any
A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether telephone connection without previous authority from PLDT. The OCP
there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It is enough that the Pasig, as affirmed by DOJ, found that Planet Internet was legally
act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. The using PLDT lines legally installed to Planet Internet. However, the
term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import charge for violation of PD No. 401 was based on Planet Internet's
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable unauthorized connection of telecommunications equipment to its
belief. A trial is intended precisely for the reception of prosecution PLDT telephone lines which enabled it to route outgoing international
evidence in support of the charge. The court is tasked to determine calls using PLDT lines, numbers, and facilities without the required
guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented by fees. The physical act of making unauthorized or illegal connections to
the parties at a trial on the merits. subscribed PLDT telephone lines is precisely the act being
complained of.
It is imperative, though, that in order to arrive at probable cause, the
elements of the crime charged should be present. For theft to be
13
CASE NO. 9 Judge issued an Order granting the bail petition and denying the
EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES v. AFABLE E. motion for inhibition.
CAJIGAL
AM No. RTJ-18-2523 Complainant filed a case against respondent judge for (1) grave
June 06, 2018 abuse of authority for allowing the accused to go home after his
J. Del Castillo arraignment for a nonbailable offense, (2) gross ignorance of the law
and evident partiality in granting the petition for bail despite
Doctrine: Bail hearing is necessary even if the prosecution does complainant's pending motion for reconsideration and/or motion to set
not interpose any objection or leaves the application for bail to the hearing to another date, among others. For his part, respondent
the sound discretion of the court. Judge claims  that there was no reason for him to detain the accused
since there was yet no warrant issued for his arrest or that a petition
Facts: Complainant Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc. filed an for bail had been filed.
administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, gross
inefficiency, grave abuse of authority, and evident partiality against Issue: Is respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
respondent Judge Judge Afable E. Cajigal, relative to a criminal case failing to make a judicial determination of probable cause and in failing
for qualified theft which was filed against Ike R. Katipunan, to conduct a hearing on the accused's application for bail?
complainant's former Inventory Control Service Assistant.
Ruling: Yes. Basic is the principle that upon setting a case for
After the filing of the Information, respondent Judge did not set the arraignment, the accused must have either been in the custody of the
case for arraignment nor issue a warrant of arrest; instead, he granted law or out on bail. Another basic principle is that the judge must
the accused's Motion for Preliminary Investigation and Motion to Defer conduct his own personal evaluation of the facts and circumstances
Further Proceedings. Meanwhile, there being no resolution on the which gave rise to the indictment, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 112 of
preliminary investigation despite the lapse of the 60-day period, the Rules of Court and Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
complainant filed a Motion to Set Case for Arraignment. Upon
comment of the accused, respondent Judge ordered the City Respondent Judge should not have waited for the accused to file an
Prosecution Office of Quezon City to conclude the on-going re- omnibus motion for a judicial determination of probable cause. By
investigation. Thereafter, the City Prosecution Office resolved to affirm setting the case for arraignment and trial, respondent judge must have
the earlier finding of probable cause. Respondent Judge arraigned the found probable cause to hold the accused for trial. He should have
accused. Instead of ordering the accused's commitment respondent proceeded to examine in writing and under oath the complainants and
Judge allowed the accused to go home, despite the offense being the witnesses by searching questions and answers. The failure of
nonbailable,. Accused filed a Petition for Bail. During the bail hearing, respondent Judge to conduct a judicial determination of probable
respondent Judge found the filing thereof premature and issued a cause under Section 5, Rule 112 was exacerbated by his act in
warrant of arrest against the accused. Instead of committing the allowing the accused to go home without bail after arraignment. These
accused at the Quezon City Jail, he was instead detained at the acts were indicative of gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
Criminal Investigation and Detention Unit of Central Police District, Respondent Judge's failure to conduct a hearing on accused's
Camp Karingal, Quezon City. Thereafter, respondent Judge Petition for Bail constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A bail hearing
scheduled the bail hearing despite manifestation by complainant's is a must, despite the prosecution's lack of objection to the same.  
counsel of his unavailability on said date. During the bail hearing,
respondent Judge declared the Petition for Bail submitted for The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail
resolution due to the absence of complainant's counsel. Respondent hearing in petitions for bail. Even if the prosecution fails to adduce
14
evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the
court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to
ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the
adequacy of the amount of bail.The court accorded compassion and
charity towards respondent Judge who appeared to have spent the
best years of his professional life in the Judiciary only imposing a fine
of P20,000.00.

15
CASE NO. 10 application for admission to bail despite the fact that the evidence on
Ramon "Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) record do not show a clear and strong evidence of their guilt for the
and People of The Philippines crime of plunder. Revilla, later on, moved to withdraw his petition
G.R. No. 218232; July 24, 2018 stating that he will just avail of the remedies available to him in the
Carpio, J. proceedings once the insufficiency of the evidence against him is
established.
DOCTRINES:
1. The court is to conduct only a summary hearing, or such brief ISSUES:
and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence 1. Is the evidence presented by the prosecution strong to deny
of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the bail?
hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence 2. Is the motion for transfer of detention of accused from the PNP
for purposes of bail. Custodial Center to a BJMP-operated facility meritorious?
2. Under the Rules of Court, the court, such as the 3. Is the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment against
Sandiganbayan in the present case, shall exercise supervision accused’s monies and properties proper in the case of
over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating plunder?
unnecessary detention.
3. For the ex-parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment to HELD:
be valid, an affidavit of merit and an applicant's bond must be 1. YES, the evidence presented by the prosecution is strong to
filed with the court in which the action is pending. deny bail upon Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles.

FACTS: Petitions for certiorari in several cases were filed by Ramon The grant or denial of bail in an offense punishable by reclusion
"Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. (Revilla), Richard A. Cambe (Cambe), and Janet perpetua, such as plunder, hinges on the issue of whether or not the
Lim Napoles (Napoles), assailing the Resolution dated December evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. This requires the conduct of
2014 of the Sandiganbayan denying them bail. bail hearings where the prosecution has the burden of showing that
the evidence of guilt is strong, subject to the right of the defense to
During the bail hearings, the prosecution presented nine witnesses cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence in its own rebuttal.
expounding on the complicity of the three accused. On the other The court is to conduct only a summary hearing, or such brief and
hand, the defense presented Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui (Pagui), a speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is
lawyer and retired document examiner of the NBI, as expert witness. practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is
Pagui stated that upon comparison of Revilla's purported signatures merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.
on the photocopies of the PDAF documents and the standard
documents bearing Revilla's authentic signature, the purported During the bail hearings, both parties were afforded opportunities to
signatures are not authentic and affixed by Revilla. The offer their evidence. The prosecution presented nine witnesses and
Sandiganbayan held that the prosecution duly established with strong documentary evidence to prove the strong evidence of guilt of the
evidence that Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles, in conspiracy with one accused. The defense likewise introduced evidence in its own rebuttal
another, committed the crime of plunder defined and penalized under and cross-examined the witnesses presented by the prosecution.
RA 7080; thus, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to bail. Only after both parties rested their case that the Sandiganbayan
issued its Resolution, which contains the summary of the
They argue that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of prosecution's evidence. The summary of the prosecution's evidence
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their
16
shows the basis for the Sandiganbayan's discretion to deny bail to
Cambe and Napoles. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction and did
not abuse its discretion in ordering the commitment of Revilla and
Thus, the Sandiganbayan exercised its judicial discretion within the Cambe in the PNP Custodial Center.
bounds of the Constitution, law, rules, and jurisprudence after
appreciating and evaluating the evidence submitted by the parties. 3. YES because all the requisites for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment have been complied with.
2. NO. The law vests authority in the PNP to detain arrested persons.
For the ex-parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment to be
The Rules of Court provide that an arrest is the taking of a person into valid, an affidavit of merit and an applicant's bond must be filed with
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission the court in which the action is pending. For the affidavit of merit,
of an offense. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to Section 3 of the same rule states that: "[a]n order of attachment shall
be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making be granted only when it is made to appear by the affidavit of the
the arrest. Section 24 of RA 6975, or An Act Establishing The applicant or some other person who personally knows of the facts that
Philippine National Police Under A Reorganized Department of the a sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one of those
Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes, provides that: mentioned in Section 1 hereof, that there is no sufficient security for
"The Philippine National Police (PNP) shall have the following powers the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount
and functions: x x x (e) Detain an arrested person for a period not due to applicant or the value of the property the possession of which
beyond what is prescribed by law, informing the person so detained of he is entitled to recover is as much as the sum for which the order is
all his rights under the Constitution; x x x." The Revised PNP Police granted above all legal counterclaims." The mere filing of an affidavit
Operational Procedures Manual provides that: "any person arrested reciting the facts required by Section 3, however, is not enough to
due to the commission of a crime/s can be detained/admitted in the compel the judge to grant the writ of preliminary attachment. Whether
PNP Detention/Custodial Center." As defined in the Revised PNP or not the affidavit sufficiently established facts therein stated is a
Police Operational Procedures Manual, a detention/Custodial Center question to be determined by the court in the exercise of its discretion.
is an institution secured by the PNP Units concerned for the purpose The sufficiency or insufficiency of an affidavit depends upon the
of providing short term custody of [a] detention prisoner thereby amount of credit given it by the judge, and its acceptance or rejection,
affording his safety and preventing escape while awaiting the court's upon his sound discretion. On the requirement of a bond, when the
disposition of the case or his transfer to the appropriate penal State is the applicant, the filing of the attachment bond is excused.
institution.
Clearly, the crime of plunder is based on a claim for public funds or
In the present case, both Revilla and Cambe voluntarily surrendered property misappropriated, converted, misused, or malversed by the
to the Sandiganbayan upon the issuance of the warrants of arrest accused who is a public officer, in the course of his employment as
against them, albeit with motion to elect the detention facilities in the such. The filing of the criminal action for plunder, which is within the
PNP Custodial Center. Upon their voluntary surrender, they are jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, is deemed to necessarily carry with
deemed arrested and taken into custody. The Sandiganbayan it the filing of the civil action.
thereafter allowed both Revilla and Cambe to be detained in the PNP
Custodial Center barracks. Under the Rules of Court, the court, such Accordingly, the writ of preliminary attachment is an available
as the Sandiganbayan in the present case, shall exercise supervision provisional remedy in the criminal action for plunder.
over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary
detention.
17
18
CASE NO. 11 unlawfully transferring or conveying the same into their possession
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines and the and control through irregularly issued disbursement vouchers and
Sandiganbayan (First Division) fictitious expenditures.”
G.R. no. 220598
April 18, 2017 All filed their petitions for bail which were granted except for
GMA and Aguas due to strong evidence of guilt. Trial ensued. After
Benigno R. Aguas v. Sandiganbayan the prosecution rested its case, petitioners filed their respective
G.R. no. 220593 demurrers to evidence but Sandiganbayan denied such on the ground
April 18, 2017 that there existed sufficient evidence that they conspired to commit
plunder. Both petitioners assailed the validity of denial via separate
Ponente: J. Bersamin petitions of certiorari, stating that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave
abuse of discretion. Their petitions were then consolidated.
DOCTRINE:
The constitutional prohibition against placing a person under         On July 19, 2016, the Court promulgated its decision,
double jeopardy for the same offense bars not only a new and disposing:
independent prosecution but also an appeal in the same action after
jeopardy had attached. As such, every acquittal becomes final WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitions for
immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions issued in
or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan
State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate the on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; GRANTS the
Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would petitioners' respective demurrers to evidence; DISMISSES
effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the petitioners to a Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners
second jeopardy despite their acquittal. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and BENIGNO AGUAS for
insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release
FACTS: from detention of said petitioners; and MAKES no
        Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, along with several pronouncements on costs of suit.  
directors and officers of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,
and former officials of the Commission on Audit were charged before On August 3, 2016, the State, through the Office of the
the Sandiganbayan with the crime of plunder pursuant to RA 7080, as Ombudsman, moved for the reconsideration of the decision, stating
amended by RA 7659, for committing the offense in relation to their that: [a] giving due course to the petitions for certiorari action assailing
respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective an interlocutory order denying demurrer to evidence violates section
official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which provides that an order
conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then denying the demurrer to evidence, shall not be reviewable by appeal
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or or by certiorari before judgment, and [b] requiring additional elements
acquire, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount in the prosecution of plunder, not fully taking into account the
or total value of Php 365,997,915.00, more or less, through any or a evidence presented, and disregarding the conspiracy between
combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or petitioners all violate the State’s right to due process of law.
means, for instance “raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and
receiving, in several instances, the above-mentioned amount from the Petitioners point out that the State miserably failed to prove
Confidential/Intelligence Fund from PCSO's accounts, and/or the corpus delicti of plunder; that the Court correctly required the
19
identification of the main plunderer as well as personal benefit on the protections, specifically: protection against a second prosecution for
part of the raider of the public treasury to enable the successful the same offense after acquittal; protection against a second
prosecution of the crime of plunder; that the State did not prove the prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and protection
conspiracy that justified her inclusion in the charge; that to sustain the against multiple punishments for the same offense. Petitioners insist
case for malversation against her, in lieu of plunder, would violate her that the consideration and granting of the motion for reconsideration
right to be informed of the accusation against her because the of the State can amount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition
information did not necessarily include the crime of malversation; and against double jeopardy because their acquittal under the decision
that even if the information did so, the constitutional prohibition was a prior jeopardy within the context of Section 21, Article III (Bill of
against double jeopardy already barred the re-opening of the case for Rights) of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
that purpose.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
ISSUES: punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished
1.     Whether or not the Court violated sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Rules by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
of Court under either shall constitute a bar to another
2.   Whether or not granting the motion for reconsideration would be prosecution for the same act.
equivalent to double jeopardy
  The insistence of the petitioners is fully warranted. Indeed, the
RULING: consideration and the granting of the motion for reconsideration of the
1.     No. Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the State will amount to the violation of the constitutional guarantee
denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused against double jeopardy.
could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. [T]he Sandiganbayan as the The Court's consequential dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-12-
trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously CRM-0174 as to the petitioners for insufficiency of evidence
denied the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of competent amounted to their acquittal of the crime of plunder charged against
and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder, and them.
despite the absence of the factual bases to expect a guilty verdict.

2.        Yes. The constitutional prohibition against placing a person

under double jeopardy for the same offense bars not only a new and
independent prosecution but also an appeal in the same action after
jeopardy had attached. As such, every acquittal becomes final
immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction
or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the
State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate the
Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would
effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the petitioners to a
second jeopardy despite their acquittal.

It is cogent to remind in this regard that the Constitutional prohibition

against double jeopardy provides to the accused three related
20
CASE NO. 12 passing prior to being presented as a witness during trial proper.
PEOPLE v. ROGER DOMINGUEZ Hence, they argue that Mendiola's testimony ought to be stricken off
G.R. No. 229420, February 19, 2018 the records.
Velasco, Jr., J.
RTC ordered that the testimony of Mendiola be stricken off the
Doctrine: The death of the state witness prior to trial proper will not record of the case. The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
automatically render his testimony during the discharge proceeding
inadmissible Issues:
1.    Should the testimony of Mendiola should be stricken off the
Facts: This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 filed by the Office records of Criminal Case No. Q-11-168431.
of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking to nullify the Decision of the 2.    Was the accused deprived of their right to cross-examine the
CA affirming the RTC ruling directing that the testimony of the witness
deceased state witness Alfred Mendiola (Mendiola) be stricken off the
records of Criminal Case No. Q-11-168431. Ruling:
1.    NO. The death of the state witness prior to trial proper will not
Venson Evangelista, a car salesman, was abducted in Cubao, automatically render his testimony during the discharge proceeding
Quezon City by a group of men later pinpointed as the respondents inadmissible.
herein. Evangelista's charred remains were discovered the following
day in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. In connection with the incident, The rule is explicit that the testimony of the witness during the
Mendiola and Ferdinand Parulan (Parulan) voluntarily surrendered to discharge proceeding will only be inadmissible if the court denies the
the Philippine National Police (PNP) and executed extrajudicial motion to discharge the accused as a state witness. However, the
confessions identifying respondents Roger and Raymond Dominguez motion hearing in this case had already concluded and the motion for
(Dominguez Brothers) as the masterminds behind the killing. discharge, approved. Thus, whatever transpired during the hearing is
Information against Mendiola and the respondents for Carnapping already automatically deemed part of the records of Criminal Case
with Homicide were filed. A hearing was conducted on the No. Q-11-168431 and admissible in evidence pursuant to the rule.
prosecution's motion that Mendiola be discharged as an accused to
become a state witness. On the said date, Mendiola gave his To qualify as a state witness, the respondent must testify on the
testimony and was cross examined by the counsel for the defense. details of the commission of the crime. The testimony of Mendiola was
RTC issued an Order granting the motion to discharge Mendiola as an offered for the limited purpose of qualifying him as a state witness
accused to become a state witness. Thereafter, by a surprise turn of does not automatically render his statements as to the specifics on
events, Mendiola was found dead on May 6, 2012. The RTC then the commission of the offense inadmissible. To recall, one of the
required the parties to submit their respective position papers on requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 is to establish that the
whether or not Mendiola's testimony during the discharge proceeding erstwhile respondent does not appear to be the most guilty among
should be admitted as part of the prosecution's evidence in chief him and his cohorts
despite his failure to testify during the trial proper prior to his death.
Respondent raised that Section 18, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court 2.    No. Respondents had the opportunity to cross-examine Mendiola.
makes it mandatory that the state witness be presented during trial
proper and that, otherwise, his failure to do so would render his Respondents' reservation for trial proper of the right to further cross
testimony inadmissible. Moreover, respondents lament that they were examine Mendiola did not diminish the sufficiency of the opportunity
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine Mendiola upon his that they were given to confront the adverse witnesses.
21
Notwithstanding the said reservation, Mendiola's testimonies and
admissions as regards the particulars of the crime already formed part
of the records of the case when the RTC granted his motion to be
declared a state witness. Respondents' constitutional rights were not
violated since the fair hearing envisaged by criminal due process had
been complied with when the counsels for the respondents conducted
a rigorous and exhaustive cross-examination of the deceased witness
during the discharge hearing.

22
Case No. 13 involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim,
People of the Philippines vs Lino Alejandro XXX, which if considered will result in a different verdict.
G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018
Tijam, J. CA: The initial decision of the RTC acquitting the accused failed to
express clearly and distinctly the facts of the case, as the records on
Tickler: Rape; Acquitted but was Reversed; double jeopardy which the acquittal was based was incomplete and inaccurate.
Obviously, with the unintentional exclusion of the testimony of the
Doctrine: Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on private complainant from the records of the two criminal cases, the
Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription RTC could not have made complete findings of facts in the initial
against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for decision. The verdict of acquittal had no factual basis. It was null and
double jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following void, and should have necessarily been recalled and set aside.
elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of Issue: Did double jeopardy attach in this case?
competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had
pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case Held: YES. Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on
was dismissed without his express consent Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription
against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for
Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape, double jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following
defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 8369[3], of a 12- substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of
year old minor, AAA.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered a competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had
plea of not guilty and trial ensued. pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case
was dismissed without his express consent.
During trial, AAA testified that accused-appellant followed her,
grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school. There, accused- Here, all the elements were present. There was a valid information for
appellant removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and two counts of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which
inserted his penis into her vagina the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a
judgment of acquittal was thereafter rendered and promulgated on
Two months later, accused-appellant went inside AAA's house July 25, 2011. What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of
through a window one night, undressed himself and AAA, and acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion that the private
inserted his penis inside her vagina. On both occasions, accused- complainant failed to testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders
appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had with a different case involving the same accused-appellant.
happened. Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in
open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal
defense and submitted the case for decision. had already been promulgated. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal,
whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final,
RTC: Acquitted but recalled Upon manifestation of Assistant unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.
Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz that there were Orders that were
inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979 The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions,
which are: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and
23
where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a
grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. We find
that these exceptions do not exist in this case.[23] Here, there was no
deprivation of due process or mistrial because the records show that
the prosecution was actually able to present their case and their
witnesses.

A mere manifestation also will not suffice in assailing a judgment of

acquittal. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should
have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a
petition for certiorari.

24
Case No. 14 ISSUE:
Noel Navaja v Hon. De Castro May the petitioner be separately tried for different acts constituting
GR no. 180969 violations of PD 1829 Sections 1a and 1f?
September 11, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe
RULING:
DOCTRINE: The Principle of Delito Continuado is applicable in NO. Although each information pertain to acts that were done days
special law. Acts done days apart in separate locations should be apart and in different locations, the SC held that petitioner should only
charged for only a single violation of PD 1829 when the same were be charged and held liable for one single violation of PD 1829 as the
motivated by a single criminal impulse to obstruct and impede the separate acts can be said to be motivated by a single criminal impulse
preliminary investigation. to obstruct and impede the preliminary investigation. The SC
conclusion is premised on the principle of delito continuado, there
FACTS: being a plurality of acts performed in unity of a criminal intent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision dated Furthermore legal principles from penal code may be applied
June 26, 2007 and the Resolution dated November 12, 2007 of the supplementary to special law crimes. Petitioner's acts of allegedly
CA, which affirmed the Order dated September 21, 2006 of the RTC preventing Ms. Magsigay from appearing and testifying in a
of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50, and accordingly, sustained the denial of preliminary investigation proceeding and offering in evidence a false
petitioner Noel Navaja's motion to quash filed before the MCTC of affidavit were clearly motivated by a single criminal impulse in order to
Jagna & Garcia-Hernandez, Jagna, Bohol. realize only one criminal objective, which is to obstruct or impede the
preliminary investigation proceeding. Thus, applying the principle of
Petitioner Noel Navaja was charged of two counts of obstruction of delito continuado, petitioner should only be charged with one (1) count
justice for the following: of violation of PD 1829 which may be filed either in Jagna, Bohol
1.     Allegedly preventing material witness from appearing in a where Ms. Magsigay was allegedly prevented from appearing and
preliminary investigation against his wife in a falsification of a private testifying in I.S. Case No. 04-1238, or where petitioner allegedly
document case initiated by DKT Philippines in Bohol and (violates presented a false affidavit in the same case. However, since he was
PD1829 1a) already charged - and in fact, convicted in a Judgment dated July 3,
2.     Allegedly presenting a falsified notarized affidavit purportedly 2007 - in the MTCC-Tagbilaran, the case in MCTC-Jagna should be
executed by the material witness supporting his wife’s counter- dismissed as the events that transpired should only be deemed as a
affidavit. (violates PD1829 1f) partial execution of petitioner's single criminal design.

Two separate informations were filed against petitioner in MCTC-

Jagna (violation of 1a) and MCTC-Tagbiliran Bohol (violation of 1f).
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss arguing that violation of PD 1829
1(a) should absorb the subsequent violation of PD 1829 1(f) premised
on the ground that the criminal cases arose from a single alleged
criminal intent from a single preliminary investigation proceeding.
MCTC-Jagna, RTC, and CA denied the MTD stating that the violation
of Section 1a and 1f are two separate offenses and they occurred in
different places with different elements from the other.

25
 Personal Collection argued that the trial court failed to make its own
CASE NO. 15 evaluation of the merits of the case and only relied on Prosecutor
Aquiatan-Morales' recommendation that there was no probable cause
PERSONAL COLLECTION DIRECT SELLING, INC. vs. TERESITA to charge Carandang with estafa.
L. CARANDANG
G.R. No. 206958 Issues:
November 8, 2017 1) Can the Information be withdrawn after it was filed in Court?
LEONEN, J.
2) Was petitioner deprived of due process when it was allegedly not
DOCTRINE: Judges must act with cautious discernment and faithfully given opportunity to be heard on respondent’s Motion to Release
exercise their judicial discretion when dismissing cases for lack of Cash Bond
probable cause. An order granting the withdrawal of an information 3) Is Petition for Certiorari a proper remedy to an order granting
based on the prosecutor's findings of lack of probable cause must withdrawal of Information
show that the judge did not rely solely on the prosecution's
conclusions but had independently evaluated the evidence on record Ruling:
and the merits of the case.
1) YES
Facts: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
assailing the CA’s decision that there was no grave abuse of When an information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction
discretion when the RTC granted the Motion to Withdraw Information over the case and has the authority to determine, among others,
filed by the prosecutor in People of the Philippines v. Carandang. whether or not the case should be dismissed. The court is "the best
Carandang was charged with committing estafa while Personal and sole judge of what to do with the case before it."  
Collection was the private offended party. Judges must act with cautious discernment when asked to dismiss
cases on the ground of the absence of probable cause to support
Personal Collection filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa with
the withdrawal or dismissal of an information. While the accused is
unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence against Carandang before
constitutionally given a guarantee of presumption of innocence,
the City Prosecutor of QC for her failure to liquidate the cash
there is also the concern for the right to due process of the
advances she received in trust from Petitioner. After the preliminary
prosecution.
investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor filed an Information against
Carandang. Carandang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, alleging The order granting the withdrawal of an information must state the
that she did not appear during the preliminary investigation because judge's assessment of the evidence and reasons in resolving the
she did not receive any subpoena. RTC granted her Motion. The OCP motion. It must clearly show why the court's earlier assessment of
recommended that the complaint against Carandang be dismissed. probable cause was erroneous, The court should not merely accept
The Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information for lack of the prosecution's findings and conclusions. Its independent judicial
probable cause, which was granted by the RTC. Hence, petitioner discretion in allowing the information to be withdrawn must not only
filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA arguing that the RTC acted be implied but must be palpable in its order.  
with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Orders granting the
In the case at bar, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion
Motion to Withdraw Information. The CA denied the Petition. Hence,
when it reversed its earlier finding of probable cause. The earlier
the petitioner filed an appeal via Rule 45 before the SC.
finding was about the issuance of the arrest warrant, in which the trial
court evaluated the prosecutor's Resolution and its attached

26
documents. It was during the reinvestigation that respondent was able presented by respondent and because all the elements of estafa were
to present her defense against the allegations in the complaint. present. Thus, petitioner questions the trial court's allegedly erroneous
Clearly, the additional evidence adduced prompted the prosecutor's conclusions of fact and law, which are errors of judgment that cannot
reversal of its initial finding of probable cause. It was also this be corrected by an extraordinary writ of certiorari. Despite the use of
additional evidence that formed the basis of the trial court's evaluation an improper remedy, this Court proceeds to decide the issues to
that there was now a lack of probable cause sufficient to withdraw the pursue judicial economy.
information. There being insufficient evidence showing that the trial
court erred in finding a lack of probable cause, the grant of the
withdrawal of the information must be upheld.

2) NO.
Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines
for the cancellation of bail. Among the instances when bail is
deemed automatically cancelled is when the case is dismissed. In
the case at bar, petitioner's right to due process was not violated
when it was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard on the
Motion to Release Cash Bond. No notice or hearing was necessary,
since the bail was automatically cancelled upon the dismissal of the
case. Petitioner's hypothetical objections to the Motion to Release
Cash Bond would have been superfluous and unnecessary since
the release of the cash bond to respondent was already warranted
under the Rules.

3) NO.
Appeal was available and was the proper remedy. Rule 122, Section
1 of the Rules states that any party may appeal from a judgment or
final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.
An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and
dismissing a criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this
final order is an appeal. Appealing the withdrawal of an information
does not violate the right of the accused against being placed in
double jeopardy  as the motion was granted before arraignment
In the case at bar, despite petitioner's claim that its petition before the
Court of Appeals was not an appeal of an order dismissing the
criminal case against respondent, it is evident that the grant of the
Motion to Withdraw Information dismissed the criminal case. Further,
in its Petition for Certiorari, petitioner assails the RTC’s findings of
lack of probable cause due to the alleged insufficiency of evidence
27
Case no. 16
Ruling: Yes, petitioner can appeal the civil aspect of the case.
LYDIA CU v. TRINIDAD VENTURA Jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by
G.R. No. 224567 the trial court, or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the
September 26, 2018, J. Peralta OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the
People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party
Doctrine: Jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not
case by the trial court, or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses.  For this reason,
only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect the People are deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the criminal
representing the People. The private complainant or the offended case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal
party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. In view of the corollary
OSG, but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or
Facts: This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari under injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated July 1, 2016, of petitioner Lydia of the suit ,an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as
Cu that seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution of the Court of represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private
Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that as a private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal
complainant, she is not authorized to represent the State in an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil
from a criminal action filed against the respondent Trinidad Ventura. liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil
action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only
Petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. In
Blg. 22 (BP 22) against respondent. The Office of the City Prosecutor this case, petitioner may appeal the criminal case but is limited to the
found probable cause and an Information was filed with the civil liability arising therefrom.
Metropolitan Trial Court for violation of BP 22. The MeTC found the
respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22. Nevertheless, granting that what petitioner questioned was the civil
Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and the Regional Trial Court aspect of the case, the petition must still fail. A close reading of the
reversed and set aside the decision of the MeTC. Petitioner filed a records would show that the prosecution was not able to prove and
motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC. Thereafter, establish its case, not only in its criminal aspect but also in its civil
she filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review aspect where the required proof needed is only a preponderance of
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with the CA. The CA dismissed evidence.
the appeal.

According to the CA, in criminal actions brought before the Court of

Appeals, or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is
solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Petitioner
insists that in the petition for review that she filed with the CA, she
questioned the civil aspect of the decision of the RTC and, thus, there
is no need for the representation of the OSG.

Issue: Can a private complainant appeal from a criminal case

28
Case No. 17 Justice. However, despite the manifestation , Judge Pamular issued
MAYOR "JONG" AMADO CORPUS, JR. AND CARLITO SAMONTE the assailed Order.
v. HON. JUDGE RAMON D. PAMULAR OF BRANCH 33, GUIMBA,
NUEVA ECIJA, MRS. PRISCILLA ESPINOSA,* AND NUEVA ECIJA Issue/s:
PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FLORO FLORENDO 1. Can  the RTC proceed in conducting further proceedings on
G.R. No. 186403, September 05, 2018 the amended information and on the issuance of a warrant
LEONEN, J. despite the pendency of a Petition for Review before the
Department of Justice? YES.
Doctrine: The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by an
amendment is to determine whether a defense under the original
information will still be available even after the amendment is made 2.            Should a formal amendment after plea be allowed? NO.
and if any evidence that an accused might have would remain
applicable even in the amended information. Ruling:

Facts: 1. Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order Procedure provides for the grounds for suspension of
which granted the prosecution’s Motion to Amend the Original arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment
information for murder filed against Samonte to include Mayor Corpus shall be suspended in case of a pending petition for review of
as his co-accused in the crime charged and issued a warrant against the prosecutor's resolution filed before the Department of
him. In this case, Angelito Espinosa was shot by Samonte causing his Justice.
immediate death. Samonte was caught in flagrante delicto and
thereafter was arrested. After the inquest proceedings, an Information
for Murder was filed against him. Samonte admitted the killing but The respondent judge committed an error when he denied petitioners'
pleaded self-defense. Trial on the merits ensued. Later on, the wife of motion to suspend the arraignment of Corpus because of the
the deceased filed a complaint-affidavit alleging that Corpuz was the pendency of their Petition for Review before the Department of
one who instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. RTC dismissed the Justice. However, this Court's rule merely requires a maximum 60-day
complaint. Then, Florendo, the Officer-in-charge, found a probable period of suspension counted from the filing of a petition with the
cause to indict Corpus. He directed the filing of an amended reviewing office. Consequently, therefore, after the expiration of the
information which now included Corpus a co-conspirator for the killing 60-day period, "the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to
of Angelito. Despite Florendo taking over the case, the Assistant deny the motion to defer arraignment.” In this case, petitioners jointly
Prosecutor still dismissed the complaint against Corpus. Meanwhile, filed their Petition for Review before the Department of Justice on
Florendo filed an Undated Motion to Amend Information, Samonte February 9, 2009.Thus, the 60-day period has already lapsed since
and Corpus opposed this through a Vehement Opposition and April 10, 2009. Hence, respondent judge can now continue with the
Omnibus Motion. They averred that Judge Pamular's action was arraignment and further proceedings with regard to petitioner Corpus.
premature considering that the Motion to Amend Information has yet
to be scheduled for hearing. Moreover, Samonte was already 2. No. The amendment is merely formal. However, it is not allowed
arraigned. Samonte and Corpus also claimed that the issuance of a after Samonte’s plea because it will prejudice him. Any amendment to
warrant of arrest should be suspended because the latter intended to an information which only states with precision something which has
appeal through a Petition for Review before the Department of already been included in the original information, and therefore, adds
nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only a formal
29
amendment that can be made at anytime. On the other hand, "a
substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court."

In the case at bar, the facts alleged in the accusatory part of the
amended information are similar to that of the original information
except as to the inclusion of Corpus as Samonte's co-accused and
the insertion of the phrase "conspiring and confederating together."
The allegation of conspiracy does not alter the basic theory of the
prosecution that Samonte willfully and intentionally shot Angelita.
Hence, the amendment is merely formal.

However, Rule 110, Section 14 similarly provides that in permitting

formal amendments when the accused has already entered his or her
plea, it is important that the amendments made should not prejudice
the rights of the accused. It is undisputed that upon arraignment under
the original information, Samonte admitted the killing but pleaded self-
defense. While conspiracy is merely a formal amendment, Samonte
will be prejudiced if the amendment will be allowed after his plea. The
test of whether an accused is prejudiced by an amendment is to
determine whether a defense under the original information will still be
available even after the amendment is made and if any evidence that
an accused might have would remain applicable even in the amended
information. His defense and corresponding evidence will not be
compatible with the allegation of conspiracy in the new information.
Therefore, such formal amendment after plea is not allowed.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is

PARTIALLY GRANTED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija for its preliminary examination of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and thereafter
proceed to the arraignment of petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr.

30
 ISSUES: Is the filing of a complaint by a shareholder who was illegally
CASE NO. 18 deprived of her right to possess the property by the presence of
GR No. 198124, Sep 12, 2018, JOHN CARY TUMAGAN v. MARIAM armed men an ejectment case or intra-corporate dispute?
K. KAIRUZ, JARDELEZA, J.:
HELD:NO. The CA erred in characterizing the action as an ejectment
DOCTRINE: The Court considers two elements in determining the case filed by shareholder who was illegally deprived of her right to
existence of an intra-corporate controversy, namely: (a) the possess the property by the presence of armed men. While
status or relationship of the parties; and (b) the nature of the respondent insists that the case is one for forcible entry where the
question that is the subject of their controversy. only issue is the physical possession and not ownership over the
property, her prior physical possession has not been established in
FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set the courts. In fact, the MCTC found that prior to the events of May 28,
aside the Decision of the CA in granting respondent Mariam Kairuz’s 2007, both petitioners and respondent were in actual possession of
Petition for Review; thus, reversing the ruling of the RTC in affirming the property: petitioners, on behalf of BIRI as the owner of the
the dismissal of the complaint for ejectment on the ground of failure to property, and respondent, by virtue of the accommodation granted to
implead an indispensable party rendered by the MCTC. her by BIRI under the MOA allowing her to continue her water
reloading business on the property even after the transfer of its
Respondent filed an ejectment case before the MCTC alleging that ownership to BIRI.
she had been in actual and physical possession of a 5.2-hectare
property in Benguet until May 28, 2007, but it was disturbed when While the case purports to be one for forcible entry filed by the
petitioners John Cary Tumagan, Alam Halil, and Bot Padilla conspired respondent against BIRI’s employees and contractors in their
with each other and took possession of the property by means of individual capacities, the true nature of the controversy is an intra-
force, intimidation, strategy, threat, and stealth with the aid of armed corporate dispute between BIRI and respondent-shareholder
men. After forcibly gaining entry into the property, respondent was regarding the management of, and access to, the corporate property
excluded from the property. On the other, petitioners averred that subject of the MOA. Therefore, MCTC has never acquired jurisdiction
respondent could not bring the present action for forcible entry, over the ejectment case.
because she was never the sole owner or possessor of the property.
They alleged that respondent was the spouse of the late Laurence
Ramzy Kairuz, who co-owned the property, publicly known as Kairuz
Spring, with his sisters. Laurence and his sisters were able to
establish a corporation, Bali Irisan Resources, Inc. (BIRI), through the
MOA with Balibago Waterworks System Incorporated (BWSI). BIRI is
30% owned by the Kairuz family and 70% owned by BWSI and its
allied company, PASUDECO. The petitioners who worked for BIRI
also alleged that the corporation merely exercised its legal right to
prevent unauthorized persons from entering its property. They further
alleged that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the action filed by the
respondent who was a shareholder of BIRI, because the same is an
intra-corporate dispute which falls under the jurisdiction of the
appropriate RTC.
31
CASE NO. 19
RULING: NO, the legality of a warrantless arrest cannot be raised
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO for the first time on appeal to the SC.
BRINGCULA Y FERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant.
G. R. NO. 226400   24 January 2019 The rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of
Peralta, J.: his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him
before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the
DOCTRINE: Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is objection is deemed waived. The subsequent filing of the charges and
deemed waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest against a person
warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto illegally detained will cure the defect of that detention. In the present
is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without case, appellant was arrested on the very same day that the crime was
objection. committed. Albeit the arrest was not effected immediately after the
incident, this is readily explained by the fact that private complainant
FACTS: The case is an appeal of appellant Joselito Bringcula which opted not tell anyone who her assailant was until that morning when
sought to set aside CA’s decision affirming the decision of the RTC she officially filed her complaint in the police station. At any rate,
which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of accused-appellant already pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
robbery with rape. against him during his arraignment without questioning his
warrantless arrest. He actively participated in the proceedings before
For the case filed in the lower court, appellant denied the allegations the trial court thereafter. In effect, appellant is deemed to have
and claimed that in the night of the incident, he was at home sleeping. submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and waived any
This was corroborated by the testimony of his wife. perceived defect or irregularity that may have attended his arrest.
The RTC of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon ruled that the elements of the Hence, the accused herein cannot raise the question on legality of the
crime charged are present in the case and that the defense of warrantless arrest, having actively participated in the proceedings.
appellant is weak. Thus, it found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua plus the corresponding
damages. The CA affirmed RTC’s ruling with modification as it
awarded civil indemnity in addition to the damages awarded.

In this appeal, appellant questions the legality of his warrantless

arrest, as well as the following: 1) that prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt; 2) that his identity was not properly
established; and 3) that the victim’s testimony is not credible because
of its inconsistencies.

ISSUE: May the accused raise the issue of the legality of his
warrantless arrest for the first time on appeal to the SC?

32
CASE NO. 20 Issue/s:

LILIA S. DUQUE and Heirs of MATEO DUQUE et.al. v. SPS. 1. Did the Sps. Duque’s failure to reply to the request for
BARTOLOME D. YU, JULIET O. YU and DELIA DUQUE CAPACIO admission tantamount to an implied admission of the authenticity and
GR No. 226130 genuineness of the Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale?
Feb. 19, 2018, J. Velasco
Velasco, JR., J. 2. Did the failure to answer the request for admission render the
whole evidence of Sps. Duque worthless, resulting to a sufficient
basis for granting Demurrer of Evidence?
Doctrine/s:
If the matters in a request for admission have already been admitted
or denied in previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter Ruling:
cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew.
1. No.
Facts:
This is a petition for review under Rule assailing the decision of CA, Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 26 clearly provides that once a party serves
which then affirmed the denial of the RTC. a request for admission as to the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact, the party to whom such request is served has 15 days
Petitioner, Spouses Lilia and Mateo Duque (Sps. Duque) owned a within which to file a sworn statement answering it. In case of failure
land in Badian Cebu. August 28, 1995, Sps Duque allegedly executed to do so, each of the matters of which admission is requested shall be
a Deed of Donation over the property in favor of their daughter, deemed admitted. This rule, however, admits of an exception, that is,
respondent Delia D. Capacio (Capacio), who, in turn, sold a portion when the party to whom such request for admission is served had
thereof to her co-respondents, Spouses Yu (Sps. Yu). Sps Duque already controverted the matters subject of such request in an earlier
filed a verified complaint for “Declaration of Non-Existence and Nullity pleading.
of a Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request for admission have
TD” against the Capacio and Sps. Yu before the RTC, claiming that already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the
the signature in the Deed of Donation was forged. requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them
anew. In turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a
Sps. Yu  filed a Motion for Admission by Adverse Party under Rule 26 response to the request and, thereafter, assume or even demand the
of the ROC, requesting the admission of, among others: Deed of application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.
Donation and the Deed of Absolute Sale. Sps. Duque failed to
comment thereon, hence the RTC declared the documents as Sps. Yu served the request for admission to admit the genuineness
impliedly admitted. During trial, Sps. Yu moved for demurrer of and authenticity of the Deed of Donation. As pointed out by Sps.
evidence, which was granted by the RTC. CA affirmed the demurrer Duque, the documents being requested to be admitted have already
ruling that Sps. Duque's non-compliance with the motion for been denied and controverted in the previous pleading, that is, the
admission resulted in the implied admission of the Deed of Donation's verified complaint for Declaration of Non-Existence and Nullity of a
authenticity, among other documents. With such admission, the courts Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of TD.
ruled that their entire evidence was rendered worthless. Hence, this In fact, the forgery committed in the Deed of Donation was the very
petition. essence of that Complaint, where it was alleged that being a forged
document, the same is invalid and without force and legal effect.
33
Petitioners, therefore, need not reply to the request for admission.
Consequently, they cannot be deemed to have admitted the Deed of
Donation's genuineness and authenticity for their failure to respond
thereto.

2. NO
Having said that there was no implied admission of the genuineness
and authenticity of the Deed of Donation, SC holds that it was also an
error for the RTC to grant the demurrer to evidence.

The demurrer to evidence was anchored on the alleged implied

admission of the Deed of Donation's genuineness and authenticity.
The trial court granted the demurrer holding that with the said implied
admission, respondents Sps. Yu's claim became undisputed and Sps.
Duque have nothing more to prove or disprove.  But in view of SC's
findings that there was no implied admission to speak of, the demurrer
to evidence must, therefore, be denied and the Orders granting it shall
be considered void. With SC’s denial of the demurrer to evidence, it
will now proceed to rule on the merits of the Complaint solely on the
basis of the petitioners' evidence on record.

Being a falsified document, the Deed of Donation is void and

inexistent. As such, it cannot be the source of Capacio's transferable
right over a portion of the subject property. Being a patent nullity,
Capacio could not validly transfer a portion of the subject property in
favor of respondents Sps. Yu under the principle of "Nemo dat quod
non habet," which means "one cannot give what one does not have."

34
CASE NO. 21 accomplished because "AAA" was able to extricate herself from
appellant's grip and run towards "BBB" who was outside their house
PEOPLE VS GIL RAMIREZ at that time. For several years, "AAA" just suffered in silence because
GR No. 218701 Feb 14 2018 of fear for her own life as well as that of her family. In 2005, a medical
Del Castillo J; examination was conducted where the doctor  described the hymen of
"AAA" as anular, thick, wide and estrogenized. Dr. Soliman added that
DOCTRINE: there was a possibility that "AAA" could had no injury even after
In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost sexual intercourse. The defense having raped her in 1989. He
always the single most important issue. When the complainant's claimed that during that year, he sometimes did not go home for 10 to
testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's 15 days because he had to stay at his work in Cagayan Valley
conviction. The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of Medical Center where he was in charge of freezing cadavers.
witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on Because of this and his low salary, he and his wife always had an
appeal. However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of argument every time he went home.
the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances
have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. The RTC convicted the accused. It found the testimony of
"AAA" as straightforward and considering her consistent positive
FACTS: identification of the appellant, the RTC gave credence to the version
Appellant Gil Ramirez was charged before the RTC of Cagayan of the of the prosecution and rejected appellant's defense of denial. The CA
crime of rape committed against her own daughter.  According to the affirmed the RTC based on the following circumstantial evidence: the
prosecution, "AAA" was born to "BBB," her mother, and herein conclusion finding appellant's guilt for rape was anchored on the
appellant in 1982.  Sometime in 1989, when "AAA" was only seven following circumstantial evidence: "(1) "AAA" was sleeping in their
years old, and while "BBB" was out of their house, appellant purposely house; (2) "AAA" was awakened when [appellant] forced [her] to smell
made "AAA" inhale a certain substance which caused "AAA" to lose a substance that caused her to lose consciousness; (3) "AAA"
her consciousness. Upon regaining awareness, "AAA" noticed blood positively identified [appellant] as the only person she saw before she
in her shorts and her underwear was no longer worn properly. She lost consciousness; (4) upon regaining consciousness. there was
also felt pain in her sexual organ.On another occasion, "AAA" was at blood on "AAA's" shorts; (5) "AAA's" panty was also reversed; and, (6)
home when appellant started touching her breast and tried to insert "AAA" felt pain in her vagina."
his penis into her vagina. "AAA" fought back but appellant was
stronger. Eventually, appellant was able to insert his penis into ISSUE: Were the pieces of  circumstantial evidence presented
"AAA's" anus and vagina. Thereafter, appellant threatened "AAA" not sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of rape?
to report to anyone what happened; otherwise, he would kill her and
her mother.
HELD:
Sometime in 1991, while "AAA" was inside their house, NO.  In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is
appellant suddenly dragged and laid "AAA" on the bed. Armed with a almost always the single most important issue. When the
knife, appellant threatened to kill "AAA" and all the members of their complainant's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the
family if she would report anything to the authorities. The intended accused's conviction. The findings of the trial court regarding the
rape was not consummated because "BBB" suddenly arrived. Again in credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even
1996, "AAA" was sleeping in their house when appellant suddenly finality on appeal. However, this principle does not preclude a
pulled her out of bed. Appellant's obvious lewd intent was not reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or
35
circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial CASE NO. 22
court. Indeed direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the
only basis from which a court may draw its finding of guilt. Resort to TEODORO C. TORTONA v. JULIAN C. GREGORIO
circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4 of the GR No. 202612, Jan 17, 2018
Rules of Court. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which LEONEN, J.
indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-
finder draws from the evidence established. The requisites for DOCTRINE: Documents acknowledged before a notary public are
circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are: presumed to have been duly executed. This presumption may be
(a) There is more than one circumstance; contradicted by clear and convincing evidence. A notarized Deed of
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are Absolute Sale where the thumbmark of a party is shown to be a
proven; and, forgery is void.
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts.
However, courts exercise a wide latitude of discretion in giving weight
To the mind of the Court, these circumstances did not establish with to expert testimonies, taking into consideration the factual
certainty the guilt of appellant as to convince beyond reasonable circumstances of the case.
doubt that the crime of rape was in fact committed or that he was the
perpetrator of the offense charged. Significantly, the testimonial FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
account of "AAA" even created a glaring doubt as to whether rape assailing the CA Decision which reversed the Decision of RTC which
was indeed committed and as regards the real identity of the culprit. ruled in favour of the petitioners in their action for recovery of real
We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of "AAA" and found the property with damages against respondents. Petitioners are heirs of
essential facts insufficient to sustain appellant's conviction. Rufina Casimiro while respondents are the heirs of Rafaela Casimiro.

There was no allegation that appellant was actually seen inside the Rufina and Rafaela are siblings who, together with their other siblings,
house before the alleged incident and the only occupant before she co-owned 2 parcels of land. They share in equal, undivided 1/10
went to sleep. The circumstances relied upon by the CA in its assailed shares in one land and 1/5 in the other. When Rufina was still alive,
Decision failed to sufficiently link appellant to the crime. What is extant she regularly collected her shares in the income of the 2 properties.
on record is that the allegation of sexual molestation on "AAA" by After her death, petitioners continued to collect and receive their
appellant was anchored principally on presumption. But in criminal mother's share. Later, petitioners were surprised when they learned
cases, "speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof that Rufina allegedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale selling her
required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable share in the 2 lots to Rafaela. Thus petitioners filed a complaint for
doubt. Suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgment.” recovery of real property with damages.

In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of prima facie Petitioners underscored that their mother was illiterate, not even
proving appellant's guilt of the crime of rape beyond reasonable knowing how to write her own name. They alleged that she only
doubt. Thus, to still consider appellant's defense would be an exercise affixed her thumbmark on documents, and whenever she did so, she
in futility. was always assisted by at least one (1) of her children. Thus, they
asserted that if the sales to Rafaela were genuine, they should have
known about them.

36
 that lead to no other conclusion than that the thumbmarks on the
In support of their allegations, they presented during trial some contentious Deed of Absolute Sale are forged.
documents, collectively identified as the standard documents,
supposedly bearing the authentic thumbmarks of their mother.  They Rule 130, Section 49 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies that
also presented NBI fingerprint examiner Eriberto B. Gomez, Jr., who courts may admit the testimonies of expert witnesses or of individuals
noted that "the purported thumbmarks of Rufina Casimiro in the possessing "special knowledge, skill, experience or training":
alleged Deed of Absolute Sale ... [were] not identical with her
standard thumbmarks in [the standard documents]" and concluded Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on
that "the thumbmarks appearing in the ... Deed of Absolute Sale ... a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training
were not impressed by Rufina Casimiro." which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.

RTC ruled in favour of petitoners, ruling that the Deed of Absolute Testimonies of expert witnesses are not absolutely binding on courts.
Sale was a forgery. CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC, However, courts exercise a wide latitude of discretion in giving weight
finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was a notarized document and to expert testimonies, taking into consideration the factual
had in its favor the presumption of regularity. The Heirs of Rufina then circumstances of the case.
filed the present Petition.
This analysis applies in the examination of forged documents:
ISSUE: Is the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Rufina Due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of
Casimiro, as seller, and Rafaela Casimiro, as buyer, is void, as Rufina forged documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners
Casimiro never consented to it and with her apparent thumbmarks on is usually helpful. These handwriting experts can help determine
it being fake. fundamental, significant differences in writing characteristics between
the questioned and the standard or sample specimen signatures, as
RULING: YES. It is true that notarized documents are accorded well as the movement and manner of execution strokes.
evidentiary weight as regards their due execution. Nevertheless, while
notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a
presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that mere statement of the theory or opinion of the expert, but rather in the
is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. aid that he can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve
as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his
The contentious Deed of Absolute Sale in this case is a notarized conclusion is founded.
document. Thus, it benefits from the presumption of regularity. The
burden of proving that thumbmarks affixed on it by an ostensible party The witness rendering an opinion must be credible, in addition to
is false and simulated lies on the party assailing its execution. It is possessing all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
then incumbent upon petitioners to prove by clear and convincing specified in the Revised Rules on Evidence. In the case of an expert
evidence that the seller's thumbmarks, as appearing on the Deed of witness, he or she must be shown to possess knowledge, skill,
Absolute Sale, are forged and are not their mother's. Petitioners experience, or training on the subject matter of his or her testimony.
successfully discharged this burden. On the other hand, an ordinary witness may give an opinion on
matters which are within his or her knowledge or with which he or she
With the aid of an expert witness, they contrasted Rufina's apparent has sufficient familiarity.
thumbmarks on the Deed of Absolute Sale with specimen
thumbmarks on authentic documents. They demonstrated disparities The credibility of an expert witness does not inhere in his or her
37
person. Rather, he or she must be shown to possess knowledge, skill,
experience, or training on the subject matter of his or her testimony.

38
CASE NO. 23 Furthermore, the DNA paternity test result "sealed the case for the
prosecution."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGAR ALLAN CORPUZ Y
FLORES Issue:
G.R. No. 208013, July 03, 2017         Is AAA, an intellectually disabled person, qualified to be a
LEONEN, J. witness.

Doctrine: Ruling:
An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason,         YES. To qualify as a witness, the basic test is "whether he [or
ineligible from testifying in court. "He or she can be a witness, she] can perceive and, perceiving, can make known his [or her]
depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows." If an perception to others." Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except
court. as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
Facts: perception to others, may be witnesses.
This Court resolves this appeal filed by Edgar Allan Corpuz y
Flores (Allan) from the Decision of the Court of Appeals which Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling that Allan was guilty beyond incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be
reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of Simple Rape of AAA, a mental witnesses:
retardate (intellectually disabled) with a mental age of five (5) years (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time
and eight (8) months. of their production for examination, is such that they
are incapable of intelligently making known their
Allan was charged with four (4) counts of rape in Branch 50, perception to others;
Regional Trial Court, Villasis, Pangasinan committed against the will
of AAA, 14 years old, with a mental age of a 5-year old child. Upon (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as
arraignment, Allan pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
presented different witnesses to prove the crime. All of the testimonies respecting which they are examined and of relating
of the witnesses were collaborated to prove the crime charged. them truthfully.

The trial court ruled that AAA's testimony was "categorical, Therefore, an intellectually disabled person is not, solely by
straight forward and credible." Since it was already established that this reason, ineligible from testifying in court. "He or she can be a
the victim was intellectually disabled, it would be unlikely for her to witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she
fabricate the accusations against Allan. As confirmed by one of the knows." If an intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is
witnesses, AAA's degree of honesty was great. Considering her admissible in court.
mental age, she did not know how to decipher right from wrong. Thus,
her simple recount of events showed her "honesty and naiveté. The Notwithstanding AAA's intellectual disability, she is qualified to
trial court also ruled that AAA's healed hymenal lacerations, take the witness stand. A person with low Intelligence Quotient may
pregnancy, and delivery of a child adequately substantiated carnal still perceive and is capable of making known his or her perception to
knowledge. Similarly, AAA's categorical identification of Allan as the others. Given that AAA's qualification as a witness is already settled,
offender was corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses.
39
AAA's mental state also does not prevent her from being a credible
witness.

The credibility as a witness of an intellectually disabled person

is upheld provided that she is capable and consistent in narrating her
experience. Emphasis must be given to the fact that the competence
and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have
been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can
communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than
undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends
greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded
and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details
of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of
the accused.

Furthermore, the doctor who examined the victim explicitly

stated that "[AAA's] degree of honesty is great" despite her condition.
[AAA's] degree of honesty is "great" because, with her mental age,
she does not know what is right or wrong. Indeed, in light of her
mental state, [AAA's] simple narration of what happened to her is
indicative of her honesty and naiveté.

Moreover, it would be unlikely for AAA to fabricate charges

against Allan. When there is no proof showing that the witness was
moved by any improper motive, his or her identification of the offender
as the perpetrator of the crime shall be upheld.

In affirming the finding of the accused's guilt, this Court is

aware that "when a woman says that she has been raped, she says,
in effect, all that is necessary to show that she had indeed been
raped." If her testimony withstands the test of credibility, like in this
case, "the rapist may be adjudged guilty solely on that basis."

Therefore, Allan cannot exculpate himself, claiming that his

guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since AAA was
allegedly not oriented to date, time, and place. AAA's failure to offer
any testimony as to when and where she was raped does not matter.
This Court underscores that the date, place, and time of the incidents
need not be accurately established since these are not elements of
rape.
40
 cannot prevail over "AAA’s" testimony as it was not properly
corroborated or substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It
CASE NO. 24 likewise reiterated that the defense of denial could not prevail over
People vs Richard Ramirez "AAA’s" positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the
G.R. No. 219863 crimes charged. Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.
March 6, 2018
Issue:
Del Castillo, J.: 1. Was AAA’s testimony credible and straightforward, given that:
(a) she simply answered "yes" to almost all of the trial
Doctrine: An admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal case prosecutor’s leading questions;16 and (b) the defense was
would be tantamount to a violation of the rights of the accused and a able to prove that the alleged acts of rape could not have been
conviction based alone on hearsay evidence is a nullity, hence, perpetrated by appellant, as there were other persons present
entitles the accused to an acquittal. when said acts were supposedly committed
2. Should the accused be convicted of the crime of rape
Facts:
Accused-appellant herein was charged, on 2 separate Ruling:
Informations, with the crime of ( 1)rape and (2) acts of lasciviousness 1. Yes. To convict an accused of statutory rape, the prosecution
of one AAA who was then six (6) years old at the time the said crimes must prove: 1) the age of the complainant; 2) the identity of the
were committed. The victim and the accused were neighbors. accused; and 3) the sexual intercourse between the accused
Accused. a stay-in construction worker in Baliwag, Bulacan, was also and the complainant. In this case, the prosecution successfully
a friend of AAA's uncle who would usually sleep over at the victim’s established that the first rape incident on February 24, 2007
house. On February 2007, AAA was awakened by the accused when indeed took place when "AAA" was only 6 years old,22 and
he removed her pajama and panty and placed himself on top of her. that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime.Notably, both
The accused licked her vagina before inserting his penis into it. She the RTC and the CA found "AAA’s" testimony credible and
felt pain and cried. Since the accused threatened her with harm if she convincing. We, too, see no reason to disbelieve "AAA’s"
[told] the incident to anybody, she kept mum about it. Again, in March testimony as regards the first rape incident, since it was not
2007, AA/\ was awakened by the shout of her uncle, CCC. There, she shown that the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood or
saw accused standing at the corner of the house with her panty at the misappreciated facts or circumstances of weight and
latter’s feet Realizing that she was naked, she instantly wore her short substance which, if properly considered, would have altered
pants and ran and embraced her uncle. Thereafter, AAA, together the result of the case.
with her grandparents and uncles, went to the police to report what
happened. The medico legal examination of the private organ of AAA We reject appellant’s contention that the presence of
revealed no laceration in her hymen. other persons during the commission of the first rape incident
rendered "AAA’s" testimony unbelievable. "It is not impossible
The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in
doubt of the crime of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Like the RTC, deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault
the CA found "AAA’s" testimony worthy of credence.13 It also noted is being committed."26 After all, "[i]t is settled that lust is not a
that "AAA" had "positively identified appellant as her abuser and her respecter of time or place and rape is known to happen [even]
statements under oath were sufficient to convict appellant for [his in the most unlikely places." We are likewise not persuaded by
misdeeds]." In addition, the CA held that appellant's defense of denial appellant's claim that the absence of lacerations on "AAA’s"
41
 hymen negated sexual intercourse. "The rupture of the hymen
is not an essential and material fact in rape cases; it only
further confirms that the vagina has been penetrated and
damaged in the process."28 Besides, as the CA correctly
pointed out, the Initial Medico-Legal Report29 itself stated that
although there was "no evident injury at the time of
examination," the "medical evaluation cannot exclude sexual
abuse."

2.  No. AAA’s testimony as regards the second rape incident is

not sufficient to convict appellant of rape or even acts of
lasciviousness sans the testimonies of BBB and CCC (AAA’s
uncle) who supposedly witnessed firsthand what happened on
that fateful night. AAA’s narrative thereto clearly consisted of
hearsay evidence which, “whether objected to or not, has no
probative value unless the proponent can show that the
evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence
rule.
As held in People vs Mamalias, the Court emphasized that the
admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal case would be
tantamount to a violation of the rights of the accused.
xxx
A conviction based alone on proof that violates the
constitutional right of an accused is a nullity and the court
that rendered it acted without jurisdiction in its rendition.
xxx
Clearly, the RTC committed a grave mistake when it relied on
hearsay evidence to convict appellant of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness.

42
CASE NO. 25 up, not a lineup, since only the 4 suspects were presented to Macutay
for identification. CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court decision.
MELKY CONCHA AND ROMEO MANAGUELOD v. PEOPLE OF Contrary to Concha and Managuelod's allegations, there was no
THE PHILIPPINES impermissible suggestion when Macutay positively identified them in
G.R. No. 208114, October 03, 2018 the police lineup. They were identified as the perpetrators since
LEONEN, J.: Macutay recognized them as part of the group that aimed a gun at
him and coercively took the Honda Wave motorcycle. Moreover,
DOCTRINE: An out-of-court identification such as a police show-up is the Court has held that even without a police line-up, there could still
inadmissible if it is tainted with improper suggestions by police be a proper identification as long as the police did not suggest such
officers. identification to the witnesses. The records are bereft of any indication
that the police suggested to Macutay to identify the accused-
FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of appellants as the carnappers.
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the January 31, 2013
Decision and the July 5, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals be In this Petition for Review, the petitioners argue that only the four (4)
reversed and set aside. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 2010 Joint accused were presented to Macutay for identification. By doing so, the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela, finding police "grossly suggested to the witness that the persons shown to
Petitioners Melky Concha (Concha) and Romeo Managuelod him were the perpetrators of the crime charged." In effect, no police
(Managuelod) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of lineup was conducted.
carnapping.
ISSUE:
Two (2) criminal Informations against Marlon Caliguiran (Caliguiran), Was the out-of-court identification of Melky Concha and Romeo
Alvin Tamang, Concha, and Managuelod, charging them with two (2) Managuelod admissible?
counts of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 or the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972. A Honda Wave motorcycle was forcibly RULING:
taken by the four (4) accused from Macutay, who was then driving it. No, it was inadmissible. Out-of-court identification is conducted by the
As Macutay's group was traversing the road, the motorcycle had a flat police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect
tire. The group decided to push the motorcycle. While doing so, they alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is
chanced upon a parked white car on the highway. Four (4) armed done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to
persons emerged from it and one of them pointed a gun at Macutay identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness
and declared "holdup." Macutay and his group then hid as the armed identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the
men took his motorcycle and left the sidecar behind. Police asked purpose.
Macutay to accompany them to Cabagan Police Station to identify the
persons suspected to be responsible for the crime. At the police In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court
station, Macutay pointed to Managuelod, Concha, and Caliguiran as identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
the persons who robbed him. Concha denied involvement in the circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1)
carnapping. 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
RTC found both Concha and Managuelod guilty beyond reasonable any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty
doubt of carnapping. On appeal, they argued that the out-of-court demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time
identification was not valid as it was conducted through a police show- between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness
43
of the identification procedure. At the outset, this Court finds
that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the out-of-court Hence, the decision of the CA was reversed and the petitioners
identification conducted by the police was a police lineup. What was acquitted.
conducted was a police show-up, since only four (4) persons were
shown to the prosecution's witness for the purpose of identifying his
four (4) assailants.

As to whether the out-of-court identification of petitioners satisfied the

totality of circumstances test, this Court finds that it did not. Although
there was no significant lapse of time from the day of the incident up
to the day when Macutay identified his supposed assailants, his
identification fell short on the remaining factors. First, Macutay failed
to provide descriptions of his attackers when he reported the incident
to the police. Second, Macutay was admittedly scared and confused,
which reduced his degree of attention. His disorientation was
apparent when he gave his watch, wallet, and even his t-shirt to his
assailants as soon as he heard "holdup." He did not even wait for
them to tell him what they needed from him. Third, it was not shown
how certain Macutay was in his identification of petitioners. Without
any prior description, the basis of his identification is questionable. It
also remains uncertain whether the t-shirt that petitioner Concha wore
during the police show-up was the same t-shirt that Macutay gave to
his assailants, since he failed to describe that piece of clothing in his
report before the police. Finally, the out-of-court identification was
tainted with improper suggestion. To reiterate, the police in Cabagan
Police Station showed Macutay only four (4) persons to be identified.

To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to

present a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the
frailty of human memory. It must also show that the identified person
matches the original description made by that witness when initially
reporting the crime. The unbiased character of the process of
identification by witnesses must likewise be shown.

Even so, given the peculiar circumstances of this case, this Court
holds that the gross corruption of Macutay's out-of-court identification
through the improper suggestion of police officers affected the
admissibility of his in-court identification. Conviction in criminal cases
demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. While this does not require
absolute certainty, it calls for moral certainty.
44
CASE NO. 26 dated July 1, 1994 and the Promissory Note dated July 4, 1994
despite Loreta Tabuada having died on April 16, 1990.
SOFIA TABUADA, NOVEE YAP, MA. LORETA NADAL, AND
GLADYS EVIDENTE VS. ELEANOR TABUADA, JULIETA The petitioners offered for admission the following exhibits, namely:
TRABUCO, LAURETA REDONDO, AND SPS. BERNAN CERTEZA (a) the death certificate of Loreta Yulo Tabuada that indicated April
& ELEANOR D. CERTEZA 16, 1990 as the date of death; (b) Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
G.R. No. 196510 No. T-82868 covering Lot No. 4272-B-2 registered in the name of
September 12, 2018, BERSAMIN, J. Loreta H. Tabuada; (c) the Promissory Note executed by Loreta
Tabuada; (d) the Mortgage of Real Rights executed by Loreta
DOCTRINE: Competent proof of a legal relationship is not limited to Tabuada as the mortgagor; (e) the list of payments of the principal
documentary evidence. Object and testimonial evidence may be obligation; and (f) the demand letter from the Spouses Certeza
admitted for the same purpose. Indeed, the relationship may be addressed to Loreta Tabuada.
established by all the relevant facts and circumstances that constitute
a preponderance of evidence. RTC ruled in favor of Petitioners. CA reversed and set aside the
decision of the RTC ruling that petitioners were not able to prove by
FACTS: preponderance of evidence that they were the legal heirs of the late
Petitioners, Sofia Tabuada, et. al., filed an appeal  appeal seeks to Loreta Tabuada. The name of the deceased on the death certificate
undo the decision promulgated by the CA, whereby it reversed and (Loreta Yulo Tabuada) did not match the name of the registered title
set aside the judgment rendered in favor of the petitioners by the holder (Loreta H. Tabuada). MR denied.
RTC.
ISSUE: Did Sofia Tabuada competently establish her relationship to
Petitioners filed an action to declare the nullity of a mortgage in the the late Loreta Tabuada.
RTC against respondents Spouses Bernan and Eleanor Certeza
(Spouses Certeza), Eleanor Tabuada, Julieta Trabuco and Laureta RULING: YES. The legal relationship of Sofia Tabuada with deceased
Redondo. The respondents were declared in default and an ex parte Loreta Tabuada was established by preponderance of evidence.
hearing was held.
Competent proof of a legal relationship is not limited to documentary
Petitioners presented Sofia Tabuada, who testified that her late evidence. Object and testimonial evidence may be admitted for the
husband was the son of Loreta Tabuada and the brother-in law of same purpose. Indeed, the relationship may be established by all the
defendant Eleanor Tabuada; that her husband had inherited from his relevant facts and circumstances that constitute a preponderance of
mother, Loreta Tabuada, Lot 4272-B-2, located at Barangay Tacas, evidence.
Jaro, Iloilo City where they were residing; that she received the notice
sent by respondent Spouses Certeza regarding their land, informing Under the Rules of Court, evidence – as the means of ascertaining in
them that the land had been mortgaged to them (Spouses Certeza); a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact – may be
and that she immediately inquired from respondents Eleanor Tabuada object, documentary, and testimonial. Although documentary
and Trabuco about the mortgage, and both admitted that they had evidence may be preferable as proof of a legal relationship, other
mortgaged the property to the Spouses Certeza; and that she was evidence of the relationship that are competent and relevant may not
puzzled to see the signature purportedly of Loreta Tabuada on top of be excluded.
the name Loreta Tabuada printed on the Mortgage of Real Rights

45
The mere discrepancy between the name of the deceased entered in
the death certificate (Loreta Yulo Tabuada) and the name of the
titleholder (Loreta H. Tabuada) did not necessarily belie or disprove
the legal relationship between Sofia Tabuada and the late Loreta
Tabuada. To establish filiation, the courts should consider and
analyze not only the relevant testimonies of witnesses who are
competent but other relevant evidence as well. There was on record
herein Sofia Tabuada's unchallenged declaration of her being the
daughter-in-law of the registered titleholder. Also on record was the
petitioners' being in the actual possession of Lot No. 4272-B-2, which
they had been using as the site for their family residence. Such
established circumstances indicated that the deceased Loreta Yulo
Tabuada and titleholder Loreta H. Tabuada could only be one and the
same person.

Moreover, even the Spouses Certeza were aware that respondents

Eleanor Tabuada and Tabuco were the relatives of Sofia Tabuada
and that the respective families of Eleanor Tabuada, Tabuco and
Sofia Tabuada actually resided on the same lot. Verily, the facts and
circumstances sufficiently and competently affirmed the legal
relationship between Sofia Tabuada and the late titleholder Loreta H.
Tabuada.

We reverse the CA, and reinstate the judgment of the RTC.

46
CASE NO. 27 whom was AAA, and then handed over the marked money
(P900.00) to Buhisan. The police officers also gave P200.00
ANTONIO PLANTERAS, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE as "tip" for Tawi. After that, PO3 Dumaguit executed the pre-
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. arranged signal, a "missed call" on the rest of the team. When
G.R. No. 238889, October 03, 2018 the rest of the team arrived at the xxxxxxxxxxx Lodge, PO3
PERALTA, J Dumaguit announced that they are police officers and
immediately thereafter, Buhisan, Tawi, petitioner and his wife,
TICKLER: Prostitute, trafficking, conviction based on circumstantial Christina, were arrested. PO3 Dumaguit retrieved the marked
evidence money from Buhisan, and Tawi then handed it over to PO2
Almohallas. Consequently, the police officers brought the
DOCTRINE: No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of persons arrested to their office and turned over the girls who
circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All the were exploited to the DSWD.
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every As a result, two (2) Informations were filed against Buhisan, Tawi,
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." Christina and petitioner.

FACTS: Petitioner sought to reverse under R. 45 the CA Decision On arraignment, petitioner and his co-accused all pleaded "not guilty"
affirming RTC ruling finding him in violation of Section 5, par. (a) of to their respective charges.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208 or promoting trafficking in persons.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO3 Dumaguit and PO2
Surveillance operations were conducted after reports came in that Almohallas. The prosecution also presented the testimony of AAA to
pimps were indeed offering the sexual services of young girls to corroborate the testimonies of the said police officers.
various customers at the entrance/exit door of the xxxxxxxxxxx Lodge,
owned by petitioner and his wife, Christina Planteras. After the prosecution had rested its case, all the accused, including
petitioner, filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The Demurrer was granted,
Subsequently, an entrapment operation was conducted. but only in favor of Christina Planteras and, accordingly, the case
against her was dismissed.
At the xxxxxxxxxxx Lodge, PO3 Dumaguit and PO1 Llanes
were approached by Marichu Tawi who offered girls for sexual The defense presented the testimonies of petitioner, Buhisan and
favors for the price of P300.00 each. PO3 Dumaguit and PO1 Tawi.
Llanes, along with three (3) girls, namely, BBB, CCC, DOD,
then went upstairs. PO3 Dumaguit requested the services of During trial, petitioner testified that he is the registered owner of the
one more girl from Tawi. At that time, Buhisan arrived and xxxxxxxxxxx Lodge while Buhisan testified that she was merely a
joined the on-going negotiation. Tawi left and when she helper at the xxxxxxxxxxx Lodge. However, according to Buhisan,
returned, she brought with her a young girl, AAA. Petitioner petitioner instructed her to collect the payment from the four (4)
was behind the reception counter when the said negotiation guests which she complied. The customers gave her P200.00, but
took place and appeared to be listening to the said transaction. they immediately took the payment back from her and was then
PO3 Dumaguit and PO1 Llanes chose three (3) girls, one of immediately handcuffed and arrested. Buhisan further testified that
she knows AAA and the other girls in the Lodge that night, because
47
they frequently brought their customers to the New Perlito's Lodge.

Tawi, during her testimony, admitted that she was a sex worker and HELD: YES.
that she knows AAA and Buhisan because they were engaged in the
same activity. According to Tawi, upon the request of PO3 Dumaguit SC is not a trier of facts, no questions of facts are present in this case.
and PO1 Llanes, she and Buhisan introduced some girls to them. Nevertheless, granting that this Court shall review the factual
Tawi even offered her services in order to earn money for herself, incidents of this case, the petition must still fail.
however on that same night, they were arrested by the police officers.
Section 5 (a) of R.A. No. 9208, reads as follows:
RTC Decision: Conviction of Buhisan and Tawi.
CA affirmed.
Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. - The
Petitioner’s contention: following acts, which promote or facilitate trafficking in
persons, shall be unlawful:
According to petitioner, there is no evidence that he was engaged in
the trafficking of women or that his acts would amount to the (a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used
promotion of the trafficking of women. He further argues that to be any house, building or establishment for the purpose of
convicted of the charge against him, the offender must not just be promoting trafficking in persons.
conscious of the fact that he or she is leasing the premises but that
this consciousness must extend to being aware that such acts xxx
promote the trafficking in persons. Petitioner also claims that the
prosecution's evidence is insufficient to prove the presence of criminal Under the above provisions of the law, in order for one to be convicted
intent and cannot be said to have successfully overthrown the of the offense of promoting trafficking in persons, the accused must
constitutional presumption of innocence that he enjoyed. In addition, (a) knowingly lease or sublease, or allow to be used any house,
he avers that the case against him is not a case against "trafficking in building or establishment, and (b) such use of the house, building or
persons" within the meaning and intent of the law. establishment is for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons.

Petitioner insists that there is no direct evidence that he knowingly The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence
allowed the use of the New Perlito's Lodge as a place for the involves the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute
trafficking of persons. He further maintains that he has no participation the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of
in the negotiation for the sexual services of, among others, AAA and the evidence.
that he did not hear the conversation among the police officers,
Buhisan, and Tawi on April 28, 2009. He also contends that there Rule 113, Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence provides three
was, in fact, no human trafficking because AAA was not recruited to (3) requisites that should be established to sustain a conviction
be a prostitute. As such, according to petitioner, he is not guilty of based on circumstantial evidence:
promoting trafficking in persons. However, this Court finds otherwise. Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
ISSUE: Should petitioner be convicted based on circumstantial
evidence and the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses (a)There is more than one circumstance;
presented by the prosecution (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
48
 proven; and assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct,
and attitude under grueling examination. These factors are the most
The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the significant in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing
finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence. The the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. The factual
circumstances must be considered as a whole and should create an findings of the RTC, therefore, are accorded the highest degree of
unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused authored respect especially if the CA adopted and confirmed these, unless
the crime. some facts or circumstances of weight were overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted as to materially affect the
The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to disposition of the case. In the absence of substantial reason to justify
support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a quantitative one. the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as when
The proven circumstances must be "consistent with each other, no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and the former's findings.
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt."
As to the claim of petitioner that AAA freely engaged in prostitution,
It is indisputable that petitioner owns and manages the xxxxxxxxxxx thus, no trafficking in person was committed, such is unmeritorious.
Lodge. Evidence was also presented to establish that the pimps, Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic
customers and prostitutes who hang out near the said place utilize the Act No. 9208. The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to
same place for their illegal activities. Petitioner's knowledge about the the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators
activities that are happening inside his establishment was also of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or
properly established by the prosecution, most notably, through the deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own
testimony of AAA. free will.

It must be remembered that, "[n]o general rule can be laid down as to

the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice.
All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." In this case,
the totality of the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution prove beyond reasonable ground that petitioner allowed
the use of his establishment in the promotion of trafficking in persons.

Also, it has been maintained in a catena of cases that when the

issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said
findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. The
49
CASE NO. 28 contest. They contend that what should not be allowed directly should
no be permitted indirectly.
FRANCISCO C. EIZMENDI JR. v. TEODORICO P. FERNANDEZ
[ GR No. 215280, Sep 05, 2018 ] Respondent argues that his cause of action stems from his illegal
PERALTA, J. suspension as a member of VVCI and to that end is seeking to
question the authority of the BOD to do the same and asserts that his
DOCTRINE: If the Court were to entertain one of the causes of action case is not an election contest.
in Fernandez's complaint, which is partly an election contest raised
beyond the said reglementary period, then the salutary purposes of ISSUE: Can Fernandez's complaint be considered as an election
the said period under the Interim Rules would be rendered futile; the contest within the purview of the Interim Rules?
floodgates to election contests would be opened, to the detriment of
the regime of efficient and stable corporate governance. RULING: YES. An "election contest" as defined under Section 2, Rule
6 of the Interim Rules, which refers to "any controversy or dispute
FACTS: involving title or claim to any elective office in a stock or non-stock
The case is a petition for review certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules corporation, the validation of proxies, the manner and validity of
of Court seeking to nullify and set aside the Court of Appeals elections, and the qualifications of candidates, including proclamation
resolution. of winners, to the office of director, trustees or other officer directly
elected by the stockholders in a close corporation or by members of a
Respondent Teodorico P. Fernandez filed a Complaint Invalidation of non-stock corporation where the article of incorporation so provide."
Corporate Acts and Resolutions with Application for Writ of One of the reliefs prayed for by respondent in his complaint is to
Preliminary Injunction against the individual petitioners, namely: invalidate the claims of the individual respondents to their office.
Francisco C. Eizmendi Jr. et al., who allegedly constituted themselves Clearly, respondent’s case is an election contest.
as new members of the Board of Directors (BOD) of Valle Verde
Country Club, Inc. (VVCCI), despite lack of quorum during the annual Allowing respondent to question the validity of the election indirectly
members' meeting. The RTC decided to hear the case, but would be in violation of the 15-day reglementary period to file an
commented that it would refrain from ruling on the election issue as it election contest under the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing
would be violation of the 15-day reglementary period to file an election Intra-corporate Controversies. The rule is basic that what cannot be
contest under the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra- legally done directly cannot be done indirectly. To entertain the issue
corporate Controversies. Fernandez filed a Urgent Motion or Request of election in Fernandez’s complaint would render the rules illusory.
for Production/Copying of Documents relating to the elections, but
was denied by the RTC reiterating that the case was not an election Here, there is no doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of the
case. This resolution was assailed by respondent through a petition evidence sought to be presented by Fernandez. The RTC correctly
for certiorari filed with the CA. The CA ruled in his favor and ordered did was to dismiss the first cause of action because it is essentially an
the RTC to allow respondent to allow presentation of evidence with election contest that was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period
respect to the election of members of the BOD. under the Interim Rules, and to limit the issue of the case to the
second cause of action relating to his suspension.
Petitioners contend that respondent is indirectly trying to violate the
Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-corporate Controversies
by adding their election to the BOD as an issue to his suspension
despite the lapse of the reglementary period for filing an election
50
CASE No. 29 ISSUE: Does Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which requires a
ARMANDO LAGON v. HON. DENNIS A. VELASCO, IN HIS defendant to adduce his testimony and that of his witnesses by
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT judicial affidavits, and submit his documentary evidence before the
IN CITIES OF KORONADAL, SOUTH COTABATO, AND GABRIEL pre-trial or preliminary conference, offend his right to due process of
DIZON law?
G.R. No. 208424; February 14, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J. HELD: NO, by no stretch of the imagination may it be concluded that
Lagon was deprived of due process of law.
DOCTRINE: The fact that the defendant is mandated to submit his
judicial affidavit prior to the trial and before the plaintiff has rested his There is nothing in the provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which
case is not a cumbersome requirement or a circumvention of due prohibits a defendant from filing a demurrer to evidence, if he truly
process. On the contrary, this is necessary for the orderly believes that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient.
administration of the proceeding before the courts. Besides, in the resolution of the demurrer to evidence, only the
evidence presented by the plaintiff shall be considered and weighed
FACTS: This treats of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 by the Court. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is mandated to
seeking the annulment of the Order issued by public respondent Hon. submit his judicial affidavit prior to the trial and before the plaintiff has
Dennis A. Velasco (Judge Velasco), directing petitioner Armando rested his case is not a cumbersome requirement or a circumvention
Lagon (Lagon) to file the judicial affidavits of his witnesses within five of due process. On the contrary, this is necessary for the orderly
(5) days prior to the commencement of the trial dates. administration of the proceeding before the courts.

Lagon obtained a cash loan from private respondent Gabriel Dizon It must be remembered that in as early as the pre-trial conference, the
(Dizon), in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php defendant is already required to submit a pre-trial brief, where he is
300,000.00). In payment thereof, Lagon issued a PCI Bank check then tasked to state the number and names of his witnesses, as well
postdated January 12, 2001, in an equal amount. However, when as the substance of their testimonies; the issues to be tried and
Dizon presented the check for payment, it was dishonored for being resolved; and the documents or exhibits to be presented and the
Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. Consequently, Dizon sent a Letter purpose thereof. Thus, the defendant is already required in this early
to Lagon, demanding the payment. However, Lagon refused to pay. stage of the proceedings to formulate his defense and plan his
Thus, Dizon field a Complaint for Sum of Money, Damages and strategy to counter the plaintiff's complaint. There is nothing too
Attorney's Fees against Lagon. At the initial trial, neither of the parties tedious or burdensome in requiring the submission of the judicial
submitted their judicial affidavits or those of their witnesses. Hence, affidavit. In fact, this would even help the defendant in preparing his
Judge Velasco issued the assailed Order requiring the parties to opposing arguments against the plaintiff.
submit their respective judicial affidavits five (5) days before the trial.

In his Motion, Lagon requested that he be allowed to submit the

judicial affidavit of his witnesses after the plaintiff shall have adduced
his evidence. Lagon claimed that Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit
Rule, which mandates the submission by both parties of their judicial
affidavits before the pre-trial conference is violative of his right to due
process, hence unconstitutional.

51
 On account of the voluminous documentary exhibits to be presented,
CASE NO. 30 identified, and marked, the parties allotted six meetings/conferences
just for the pre-marking of exhibits. RTC issued a Pre-Trial Order in
LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.  v. PNB GENERAL INSURERS which the parties were given the opportunity to amend or correct any
CO., INC. AND UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. errors found therein within five days from receipt thereof. In the same
G.R. Nos. 230429-30, January 24, 2018 Order, all the parties made a reservation for the presentation of
VELASCO JR., J.: additional documentary exhibits in the course of the trial.

Doctrine: The JA Rule and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally The parties filed their respective Motions to Amend/Correct Pre-Trial
proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after trial had Order. None of the parties, however, sought to amend the Pre-Trial
already commenced. Order for the purpose of submitting additional judicial affidavits of
witnesses or the admission of additional documentary exhibits not
Facts: presented and pre marked during the Pre-Trial Conference.
Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the
business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft Trial on the merits ensued. Among of the witnesses presented by
items and decorative products. It leased buildings/warehouses, petitioner are Spouses Mr. Luis Raymond and Lara Villafuerte. During
located at JY & Sons Compound, Taguig City, for its business the continuation of Mr. Villafuerte's cross-examination, petitioner
operations. The handicraft products, raw materials, and machineries furnished respondents with a copy of the 2 Supplemental Judicial
nd

and equipment of petitioner were insured against fire and other allied Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte. PNB Gen, through a Motion to Expunge,
risks with respondent PNB General Insurers Co., Inc. (PNB Gen) and sought to strike from the records the said 2 Supplemental Judicial
nd

UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPB). Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte and all documents attached thereto for
alleged violation of Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC, otherwise
Approximately four hours before the policy was about to expire, a fire known as the "Judicial Affidavit Rule" (JA Rule) and A.M. No. 03-1-09-
broke out and razed the JY & Sons Compound. Petitioner immediately SC, or the Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and
claimed from the respondents for the loss and damage of its insured Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-
properties. Taking into consideration the findings of the independent Discovery Measures (Guidelines on Pre-Trial). UCPB filed its
adjusters and the report of its forensic specialists, respondents denied Manifestation and Motion, adopting in toto PNB Gen's Motion.
petitioner's claim. Petitioner filed a Complaint for Specific
Performance and Damages against respondents before the Makati A day prior to the hearing of the Motion to Expunge, the re-direct
City RTC. examination of Mr. Villafuerte continued. During the trial, petitioner's
counsel produced the Questioned Documents in open court and
RTC directed the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs, asked Mr. Villafuerte to identify those documents, seeking to introduce
accompanied by the documents or exhibits intended to be presented, and mark them as exhibits. Respondents immediately objected in
at least three days before the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. It also open court to the introduction and presentation of the Questioned
contained a stern warning that "no evidence shall be allowed to be Documents on the grounds that they were neither touched upon nor
presented and offered during the trial in support of a party's covered by the witness' cross-examination, and that the same were
evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier being introduced for the first time at this late stage of proceeding,
identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed without giving the parties opportunity to verify their relevance and
by the Court for good cause shown." authenticity. They argued that since these documents were not
presented, identified, marked, and even compared with the originals
52
during the Pre-Trial Conference, they should be excluded pursuant to same are being presented in response to the questions propounded
the Guidelines on Pre-Trial and JA Rule. The documents are further by PNB Gen's counsel, Atty. Mejia, during the cross-examination.
alleged to be the same documents subject of the respondents' twin
Motions to Expunge Respondents understandably take issue on Mr. Villafuerte's
competence to testify on the Questioned Documents given his
The RTC allowed Mr. Villafuerte to testify on the contested admission that he no longer has any direct participation in the
documentary exhibits. operations and management of petitioner corporation upon divesting
his interests thereat in 2004, and that his current participation in the
CA held that the RTC has the discretion, pursuant to Section 7, Rule company is only limited to an advisory capacity. To disallow the
132 of the Rules of Court, to allow the Questioned Documents to be presentation of the Questioned Documents on the ground of Mr.
presented and admitted in support of Mr. Villafuerte's answers during Villafuerte's incompetence to identify and authenticate the same for
his cross-examination. lack of personal knowledge is premature.  Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence clearly instructs that:
Issue/s: Whether or not the CA erred in disallowing the introduction of
additional documentary exhibits during trial and the filing of the 2 nd
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no
Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte. evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
Ruling: NO. Sec. 20 of the same Rule, in turn, provides that before any private
document is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
The JA Rule and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or
proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after trial written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
had already commenced. handwriting of the maker. The failure to properly authenticate the
documents would result in their inadmissibility. The court, however,
Sec. 10 of the JA Rule does not contain a blanket prohibition on the can only rule on such issue upon the proponent's formal offer of
submission of additional evidence. However, the submission of evidence, which, pursuant to Sec. 35, Rule 132, is made after the
evidence beyond the mandated period in the JA Rule is strictly subject presentation of the party's testimonial evidence. The present case
to the conditions that: a) the court may allow the late submission of clearly has not reached that stage yet when the documents were
evidence only once; b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a introduced in court.
valid reason for the delay; and c) the opposing party will not be
prejudiced thereby. The 2 Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. Villafuerte was
nd

properly admitted by the trial court.

Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial confers upon the trial
court the discretion to allow the introduction of additional evidence Sec. 2 of the JA Rule provides that the parties must file with the court
during trial other than those that had been previously marked and and serve on the adverse party the Judicial Affidavits of their
identified during the pre-trial, provided there are valid grounds. witnesses not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference. While the belated submission of evidence is not totally
The trial court precisely exercised this discretion. It allowed the disallowed, it is still, to reiterate, subject to several conditions, which
introduction of the Questioned Documents during the re-direct petitioner failed to comply with. Specifically, the records are bereft of
examination of Mr. Villafuerte upon petitioner's manifestation that the any justification, or "good cause," for the filing of the 2 Supplemental
nd

Judicial Affidavit during trial instead of during the pre-trial.

53
Nevertheless, the Court is constrained to rule that the 2 nd

Supplemental Judicial Affidavit was properly admitted in evidence by

the trial court. As can be gleaned from Page 64 of the Pre-Trial Order,
both parties reserved the right to present additional evidence. Clearly,
the foregoing reservation is tantamount to a waiver of the application
of Secs. 2 and 10 of the JA Rule. The parties are bound by the
contents of the Pre-Trial Order. Records do not disclose that the
respondents endeavored to amend the Pre-Trial Order to withdraw
their assent to their reservation. Consequently, they cannot now
dispute the contents of the Pre-Trial Order.

In view of the peculiar factual milieu surrounding the instant case, the
SC rule, pro hac vice, that the trial court did not gravely abuse its
discretion in allowing the Questioned Documents to be presented in
court and in admitting the 2 Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of
nd

petitioner's witness. This notwithstanding, litigants are strictly enjoined

to adhere to the provisions of the JA Rule, and to be circumspect in
the contents of court documents and pleadings.

54