San Beda College of Law
addendum in remedial Law
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q. How is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant acquired by the court?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid service of summons upon
him or by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority. The service of summons is intended to give
official notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against him. He is thus
put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as stated in the complaint. Where notice is not given to the
defendant or where the notice though given is defective, the court is without jurisdiction to render judgment
against him. (Ang Ping vs. CA, 310 SCRA 343,349 [1999])
Q. How is jurisdiction over the person of the accused acquired by the court?
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon either his apprehension with or without
warrant, or his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Voluntary submission by the accused
may be affected by posting bail, or by filing a motion to quash or by appearing at the arraignment or
entering trial. (Valdepenas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871; Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 711)
Note: the first question refers to a civil case because of the word “defendant” while the second question
refers to a criminal case because of the word “accused”. Don’t be confused.
Q. When can the court resort to substituted service of summons?
According to Sec. 7 Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Substituted service of summons
may be resorted to if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable
period. Provided further, that the impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts
made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made
in the proof of service. (Keister vs. Navarro, 77 SCRA 209, 214-215 [1977])
Q. Who are indispensable parties?
Indispensable parties are parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action. An indispensable party should be joined under any and all conditions, his presence being a sine qua
non for the exercise of judicial power. Failure to join an indispensable party will result in the dismissal of the
complaint, on motion, on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345,
348 [1925]; also Arcelona vs. CA, 280 SCRA 20 [1997])
Q. What is Forum Shopping? When is there Forum Shopping?
Forum Shopping consist of filing multiple suits involving the same parties, for the same cause of
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. There is
Forum Shopping: 1. Whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
decision (other than an appeal or certiorari) in another forum or 2. If after he has filed a petition before the
Supreme Court, a party files another before the Court of Appeals since in such case he deliberately splits
appeals “in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case
(offering a similar remedy) would still be open.” 3. Where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary
injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court. (Executive Secretary vs.
Gordon, 298 SCRA 736)
Q. When is the certificate against non forum shopping required?
The certificate against non forum shopping is a mandatory requirement in filing a complaint and
other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or relief (Sec. 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court). These initiatory
pleadings include not only the original complaint but also a permissive counterclaim, cross-claim, third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein the party asserts
his claim for relief. The rule does not require a certificate against non forum shopping for a compulsory
counterclaim because it cannot be subject to a separate and independent adjudication. It is not an initiatory
pleading. (UST vs. Surla, G.R. No. 129718, August 17, 1998).
Q. Will the subsequent compliance with the rules on non forum shopping cure a complaint which
originally did not embody such certificate against non forum shopping?
No, because according to Sec. 5 Rule 7, of the Rules of Court, which is based on Administrative
Circular No. 04-94, provides that a certificate against non-forum shopping may be incorporated in the
complaint or contained in a sworn certification annexed thereto or SIMULTANEOSLY filed therewith. The
Page 1 of 9
addendum in remedial Law
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
subsequent compliance with said requirement does not excuse a party’s failure to comply therewith in the
first instance EXCEPT in special circumstances or compelling reasons which makes the strict applications of
said rule and circular clearly unjustifiable and equitable. ( p. 150, Book of Regalado, Vol. I, Eight Ed.)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Q. May an interlocutory order be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court?
Yes, an interlocutory order can be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court provided that the interlocutory order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion. Sec. 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that an interlocutory order is
not appealable but the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
Q. Is a petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition a prohibited pleading in actions for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer?
It depends. Sec. 13, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, provides that a petition for certiorari, mandamus
and prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court is a prohibited pleading. Hence, a
petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition against any final order issued by the court is allowed.
(Sec. 13, Rule 70, Rules of Court)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Q. Pedro was accused of raping a minor. The information failed to state the age of the victim. If were
the counsel of Pedro would you file a Motion to Quash or a Motion of Bill of Particulars?
If I am the counsel of Pedro, I will neither file a motion to quash nor a motion for bill of particulars.
Failure to state the age of the victim is not a ground for a motion to quash except if the age of the
victim is an essential element of the crime charged like in seduction. In the crime of rape, age of the victim
is not an essential element of the offense.
As a defense counsel, I will neither file a motion for bill of particular because the failure to allege
the qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim in rape cases will not be prejudicial to my client’s case.
Under the Rules of Court, qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information. Failure
to allege the same, even if subsequently proved will preclude the court from taking such aggravating
circumstance into account. (People vs. Makilang, 368 SCRA 155 [2001]) (p. 56-57, Book of Agpalo, Criminal
Procedure, 2004 ed.)
Note: By filing a motion for a bill of particular, you will just be helping the prosecution correct their
mistake.
Q. Can a trial judge propounds questions to a witness?
As a general rule NO, because a critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial
and disinterested tribunal. (Webb vs. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997). In the case of Marcos vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No 126995, October 6, 1998, reiterating Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan 268 SCRA 332, the
court held that cross examination of the accused and the witnesses by the trial court indicates bias, and thus
violated due process.
Jurisprudence admits of some exceptions:
a. Questions propounded by the court merely for clarification.
b. A Voir Dire examination of the child.
Note: “Like Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure but beyond reproach”- Palang vs. Zosa, 58 SCRA
776 (1974)
Q. Does the failure to state the precise date when the offense was committed ipso facto render an
information for rape detective on its face?
No. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date when the offense
was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have
been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission (Sec. 11, Rule 110, Rules
of Court). After all, Section 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court merely requires that the information must
state, among others, the approximate time of the commission of the offense. (People vs. Larry Cachapero,
G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004)
Page 2 of 9
San Beda College of Law
addendum in remedial Law
Note: An example of an offense where the date of commission is a material ingredient of the offense is the
crime of infanticide. (p. 107 Book of Pamaran, Criminal Procedure, 2003 Ed.)
Q. State the consequences of pardon made by the offended party.
As a general rule, pardon by the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the
accused except private crimes under Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code, such as adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and
defamation which consists in the imputation of the above mentioned offenses. Private crimes are crimes
which cannot be prosecuted de officio. The pardon must, however, come BEFORE the institution of the
criminal action.
With respect to the civil liability, a pardon made by the offended party extinguishes the civil liability
arising from delict, whether the pardon is made before or after the institution of the action. Under the Rules
of Court, A party may waived the civil liability arising from the offense charged. (Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of
Court)
Notes:
1. The reason for the difference is “Crimes involves public interest while Civil Liability involves private
interest”
2. Rape is now a crime against persons which may be prosecuted de officio. (R.A. 8353, the Anti Rape
Law of 1997) (p. 894, Book of Reyes, Criminal Law Vol.2, 2001 Ed.)
Q. What are the duties of a trial judge if bail application is filed?
In light of the applicable rules on bail and jurisprudence, the following are duties of the trial judge in
case of an application for bail is filed:
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114, Rules of Court);
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its sound discretion (Section 7 and 8, Rule 114, Rules of Court);
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of the evidence
of the prosecution (Baylon vs Judge Sison , 243 SCRA 282, April 6, 1995);
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond
(Section 19, Rule 114, Rules of Court).
Note: Minors right to bail is always a matter of right regardless of penalty and weight of evidence.
Q. Mr. X was convicted of illegal recruitment in NLRC. Thereafter, a case of estafa was filed. Will the
filing of the case for estafa constitute double jeopardy? Explain.
NO. For DOUBLE JEOPARDY to exist, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under
Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of jeopardy because illegal recruitment is
malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the
criminal intent of the accused is necessary. The claim of double jeopardy, therefore, is patently without
merit. (People vs. Crispin Billaber y Matbanua, G.R. Nos. 114967-68, January 26, 2004)
EVIDENCE
Q. Is the testimony of a single prosecution witness sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused?
Yes, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be
trustworthy, credible, positive and reliable. (People vs. Tan Jr., G.R. No. 53834, November 24, 1986; People
vs. Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag, G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004)
Q. Is defense of alibi sufficient to prove the innocence of the accused?
Page 3 of 9
addendum in remedial Law
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
As a general rule, NO. the defense of Alibi is inherently weak. Such defense is considered inherently
weak and constitutes an “unstable sanctuary for felons” because of the facility with which it can be
concocted. Between the positive and categorical narrations of a witness and the negative averment of the
accused, the former is entitled to greater evidentiary weight. (People vs. Homer Magdaraog, G.R. No.
151251, May 19, 2004)
However, the defense of alibi may be given credence if the accused will be able to prove the he was
at some other place AND that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time
of its commission. (Arceno vs. People, G.R. No. 116098, April 26, 1996)(p.378, Book of Hererra, Remedial
Law Vol. 6, 1999 Ed.)(p.840, Book of Regalado Vol 2. tenth Ed.)
Q. What is the effect of the invocation of self defense by the accused, Under the Rules on Evidence? (J.
Callejo)
Once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the
killing was justified and he incurred no criminal liability. The accused must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution. The quantum of evidence necessary to
prove self defense or defense of a relative is “clear and convincing” evidence.(Catalina Security Agency vs.
Alicia Gonzales-Decano, G.R. No. 149039, May 27,2004)(People vs. Cajurao, G.R. No. 122767, January 20,
2004)(p. 839-840, Book of Regalado Vol. 2, tenth Ed.)
Q. Will the testimony of a young rape victim be given full credence by our courts of justice?
YES. In rape cases, testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible. The
revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence. The oft repeated
statement is that no woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she
was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. (People vs. Echegaray,
G.R. No. 117472, June 25, 1996)(p. 386, Book of Herrera, Remedial Law vol. 6, 1999 Ed.)
Q. Do inconsistencies in the testimonies impair the credibility of a witness?
NO. Where the inconsistency does not refer to an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency
is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. It has been held that
inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony, referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect
of the crime, do not diminish the witnesses’ credibility. (People vs. Domingo Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May
21, 2004).
Furthermore, inconsistencies on minor and TRIVIAL MATTERS SERVE TO STRENGHTEN, RATHER
THAN DESTROY, the credibility of the witness, especially of witnesses to crimes with shock the conscience
and numb the senses. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony,
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.(p.372,Book of Herrera, Remedial Law
Vol. 6, 1999 Ed.)
SOME ADDITIONAL CASES:
People of the Philippines vs. Ramirez
GRN 150079-80, June 10, 2004
Two informations for rape committed on the person of DP, a minor 14 years old, were filed against X
who pleaded not guilty to both charges. At the initial hearing on August 24, 2000, the prosecutor informed
the court about an amicable settlement reached between the parties as evidenced by the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the private complaint D. However, D later on recanted her Affidavit on the ground
that it had been obtained through improper influence and force.
Thereafter, the X was convicted for two counts of rape. In his appeal, he contends that prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. First, in her affidavit of Desistance, D categorically stated
that he was innocent of the crime charged. Second, D gave no direct testimony describing circumstances of
the alleged rape. Her sweeping statement that he had sexual intercourse with her was clearly inadequate to
establish his guilt. Decide.
HELD:
Affidavit of Desistance
As a rule recantation or an Affidavit of Desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation.
Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be
secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.
Page 4 of 9
San Beda College of Law
addendum in remedial Law
Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would
thus be interminable. An affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once
the case has been instituted in court. In the present case, private complainant lost the right or absolute
privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the case was already filed in court.
Once the case is filed in court, it is up to the sound discretion of the court whether to continue or to
dismiss the action.
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In concluding that appellant had raped private complaint, the RTC was guided by the precept that-
had she not been raped- no woman would claim that she was sexually abused, allow an examination of her
private parts, and go through the humiliation of a trial. This argument however, does not by itself overcome
the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Private complainant’s Sworn Statements, which formed part of the records of the preliminary
investigation, cannot be used to convict appellant because they do not form part of the case in the
RTC. They were not marked, much less formally offered before it. Evidence not formally offered
cannot be taken into consideration in disposing of the issues of the case.
While it is true that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony
of the rape victim, it must be clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Mere accusation is not enough.
Settled is the rule that evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; it cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
On the basis of the foregoing, appealed decision reversed. Appellant is acquitted.
People vs. Daniela
GRN 139230, April 24, 2003
An Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against M and J. When arraigned, both accused
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter trial ensued. In the course of the trial, M and J offered to withdraw their plea
of not guilty, and to enter a plea of guilty to the crime charged in the information. The prosecution agreed.
They were then rearraigned and pleaded guilty. Nevertheless the prosecution continued presenting its
evidence.
Thereafter, the trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and
imposed the penalty of death. What are the requirements for a valid plea of guilty to a capital offense?
HELD:
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:
“When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his
plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
accused may also present evidence on his behalf.”
The raison d’ etre behind the rule is that courts must proceed with caution where the punishable
penalty is death for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has
shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. Improvident plea of guilty on the part of the
accused when capital crimes are involved should be avoided since he might be admitting his guilt before the
court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully comprehended the meaning and import and
consequences of his plea. Under this rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court, namely: (1) the
court must conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea, and the accused’s full
comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) the court
must ask the accused if he desires to prevent evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he
desires.
People vs. Tac-an
GRN 148000, February 27, 2003
An information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor against X for falsification of public
official document. Out of the eleven (11) witnesses listed in the information, only the first three were
Page 5 of 9
addendum in remedial Law
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
notified of the arraignment and pre-trial. When the court called the case for pre-trial, it discovered that the
three witnesses that were notified were not in attendance. On motion of the accused, the case was
dismissed for failure of the said witnesses to appear. The motion for reconsideration of the prosecutor was
denied. It was the contention of the trial court that under RA 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) pre-trial is
mandatory and the presence of the complaining witnesses is likewise required during the trial for the parties
to participate in the plea bargaining and stipulations of facts during said proceedings. If the complaining
witnesses are absent, the principal purpose of the pre-trial cannot be achieved.
On petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision dismissing the petition on the ground that the errors committed by the trial court were mere errors
of judgment which are not correctible by a writ of certiorari. The appellate court also stated that
reinstatement of the criminal case will place the private respondent in double jeopardy.
1) Was the trial court correct in dismissing the case for failure of the witnesses to
appear in the pre-trial?
2) Will the reinstatement of the case amount to the double jeopardy?
HELD:
(1) NO. Under RA 8493, the absence during pre-trial of any witness for the prosecution listed in the
information, whether or not the witness is the offended party or the complaining witness, is not a valid
ground for the dismissal of the criminal case. Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal
cases, the presence of the private complainant or the complaining witness is however not required
unless directed by the trial court. It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.
The trial court acted without jurisdiction when it dismissed the case merely because none of the
witnesses notified by trial court appeared for the pre-trial. The State, like the accused is also entitled to due
process in criminal cases. The order of the trial court dismissing the criminal case deprived the State of its
right to prosecute and prove its case. Said order is, therefore, void for lack of jurisdiction, and is of no
effect.
(2) NO. To raise the defense of the double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first
jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only
(a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been
entered; (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
The lower court was not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of
the prosecution to due process. In effect, the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand of the
criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of
the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy.
People vs. De la Cruz
GRN 131035, February 28, 2003
A, B, and C went to the house of X. Shortly thereafter, Y, a neighbor and distant uncle of X, heard a
commotion and when he looked out his window he saw X fleeing for dear life chased by B and two others. Y
saw the three take turns in stabbing X when the latter sought refuge in a vacant lot fronting his house. D who
was in the vicinity rushed to where the shouts emanated and saw X being stabbed by the three.
In their sworn statements to the police, Y claimed that he did not know the names of the two
companions of B although they were known in the community as “Boy Negro” and “Bading De la Cruz”. Y
further stated that he could identify the two assailants if he saw them again. Danilo described Bading (A) as
small but with a big body and a big stomach.
Thereafter A was apprehended and an information for Murder was filed against him. He pleaded not
guilty. When D testified, he claimed that when he gave his sworn statement to the police investigators, he
described “Bading” as slim like himself. Trial court found the accused guilty of Murder.
On appeal, A avers that the testimony of D pinpointing him as one of the assailants of X is discordant
and unreliable. In his sworn statement to the police investigators, D described one of the companions of B as
tall and of medium built, and the other as stout with a big stomach. In contrast, the Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report of the arresting officers described A as short and slim; further Y admitted in his sworn
statements to the police that he did not know the names of the companions of B but he heard from the other
persons that they were “Boy Negro” and “Bading.” Decide the contentions of A.
HELD:
Whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court,
the testimony commands greater weight. Moreover, affidavits taken ex parte are inferior testimony given
Page 6 of 9
San Beda College of Law
addendum in remedial Law
in court, the former being invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate due to partial suggestions or
want of specific inquiries.
Identification of the person is not solely through knowledge of his name. In fact, familiarity
with physical features, particularly those of the face, is the best way to identify the person. One may
be familiar with the face but not necessarily the name. Thus, it does not follow that to be able to identify a
person; one must necessarily know his name. “Experience shows that precisely because of the unusual acts of
bestiality committed before their eyes, eyewitness, especially the victims to a crime, can remember with a
high degree of reliability the identity of criminals. We have ruled that the natural reaction of victims of
criminal violence is to strive to see the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner the crime was
committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailant create an impression which cannot be
easily erased from their memory.”
Decision affirmed.
People vs. Chiu
On the strength of the search warrant issued by the RTC of Pasay City, the house at No. 29 North
Road, Barangay Bagong Lipunan, Cubao, Quezon City was searched and yielded undetermined quantity of
white crystalline granules, a .38 revolver, ammunitions and other paraphernalia. The police officers brought
Robert Chiu and Mark Anthony Molina, occupants of said house, to Camp Karingal where they were detained.
They were, subsequently charged for the violation of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659(Dangerous Drugs Act)
and were convicted of said offense.
On appeal, appellant posits that the application for the search warrant should have been filed in the
RTC of Quezon City which had primary jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the search warrant was defective
and the articles/objects on the basis thereof were inadmissible in evidence. Is the search warrant defective?
HELD:
No. Section 1, SC Circular No. 19 dated August 4, 1987, which was in force when the application for
a search warrant was filed, provide viz.:
“All applications for search warrants relating to violations of Anti-subversion Act,
crimes against public order as defined in the RPC, as amended, illegal possessions of firearms
and/or ammunitions and violations of Dangerous drugs Act of 1972, as amended, shall no
longer raffled and shall immediately be taken cognizance of and acted by the Executive Judge
of RTC, Metropolitan Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court under whose jurisdiction the place
to be searched is located.”
However, an application for a search warrant may be filed in territorial jurisdiction other than where
the illegal articles sought to be seized are located. The SC Circular No. 19 was never intended to confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the Executive Judge mentioned therein; it is not a mandate for the exclusion for all
the other courts. That a court whose territory does not embrace the place to be search may still issue a
search warrant where the application is necessitated and justified by compelling consideration of
urgency, subject, time and place.
“Urgent” means pressing; calling for immediate attention. The court must take into account and
consider not only the “subject” but the time and place of the enforcement of the search warrant as well.
The determination of the existence of compelling considerations of urgency, and the subject, time and place
necessitating and justifying the filing of an application for a search warrant with a court other than the court
having territorial jurisdiction over the place to be search and things to be seized or where the materials are
found is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court where the application is filed, subject to review
by the appellate court in case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
People vs. Escote Jr.
An information for robbery with homicide was filed against X and Y. The lower court found them
guilty of the crime. On appeal, the accused contended that the trial court committed a reversible error in
relying on the testimony of a bus conductor, averring that although their counsel was able to initially cross-
examine the bus conductor. The former failed to finish the cross examination of the witness because the
witness failed to appear in the subsequent proceedings. Were the accused deprived of their constitutional
and statutory right to fully cross-examine bus conductor?
Page 7 of 9
addendum in remedial Law
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
HELD:
No. The right of cross-examination is a constitutional right anchored on due process. It is also a
statutory right found in Section 1(f), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that
the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
The essence of this right is the opportunity to cross examine. If the party has been given the
opportunity to cross examine but did not avail of it, the testimony of a witness who could not be cross
examined because of death or could no longer be found cannot be stricken off the record.
The right to cross examine is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct
amounting to a renunciation thereof.
People vs. Montaña
O was shot to death while on his way home. B, his brother, upon hearing the gunshot coming from
the direction of the house of O, rushed to the scene and saw O lying prostrate and M armed with a long
firearm. He carried O in his arms who told him that he was on the verge of death. When asked who shot him,
the victim declared thrice that Montañez shot him.
An information was filed against M and trial proceeded. But before the court could render judgment,
X admitted to the killing. He was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of homicide. In spite of
said admission of X, M was convicted as a principal in the crime of murder.
A motion for reconsideration was filed where the lower court modified its decision and convicted him
as an accomplice. Not satisfied with the decision, M appealed. The CA reversed the judgment and reinstated
the trial court’s original decision convicting him as a principal in the crime of murder. Montañez contends
that there was no direct evidence linking him to the said crime.
1. Did the court err in convicting him as principal of the crime of murder?
2. Is O’s statement a dying declaration even if he did not expressly state that he was on the brink of
death?
HELD:
(1) NO. The conviction of the accused may be proved by the prosecution either by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience. To be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be 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. If the prosecution adduced the
requisite circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of the prosecution.
In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence to prove that the appellant killed the
victim. However, the prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that the culprit was
the appellant, and no other.
(2) YES. O’s statement that it was the appellant who shot him was a dying declaration. The
statement is highly reliable, having been made in extremity when the declarant is at the point of death and
when any hope for survival is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and when the mind is
induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth. Even if the declarant did not make a
statement that he was in the brink of death, the degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact
that death superseded shortly afterwards may be considered as substantial evidence that the
declaration was made by the victim will full realization that he was in a dying condition.
Torres vs. Garchitorena
Mayor T caused the leveling and reclamation of the submerged portion of Susana Realty, Inc. (SRI) for
the relocation of displaced squatters from Tirona, Cavite. SRI filed a petition with the RTC for Prohibition
with a plea for injunctive relief against said mayor. SRI likewise filed with the Ombudsman a criminal
complaint against Mayor T for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and having found
probable cause, a case was filed before the Sandiganbayan.
The Republic then filed with the RTC of Cavite a complaint against SRI for the reversion of the
disputed property alleging that the same formed part of the inalienable mass of the public domain owned by
the State.
In the meantime, Mayor T filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for the suspension of the criminal
proceeding on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. The Sandiganbayan denied said motion
and the motion for reconsideration as well.
Page 8 of 9
San Beda College of Law
addendum in remedial Law
Does a prejudicial question exist necessitating suspension of the criminal proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan?
HELD:
None. Under Sec.7, Rule 111, of the Rules of Court, The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a)
the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
To constitute a prejudicial question, the civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of
the criminal action. In this case, the information filed with the Sandiganbayan was ahead of the complaint
in Civil Case No. 7160. Thus, no prejudicial question exists.
People vs. Ulit
FU was convicted of 2 counts of qualified rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness. The trial
court convicted him on account of his plea of guilty. The penalty imposed by trial court was death penalty. In
his appeal, FU contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him with death penalty despite his admission
of guilt. Was the imposition of death penalty proper?
HELD:
NO. When the accused in a capital offense informs the trial court of his decision to change his plea of
“not guilty” to “guilty”, it behooves the trial court to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequence of his plea as mandated by Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
In People vs. Camay, this Court enumerated the following duties of the trial court if the accused
pleads guilty to a capital offense:
1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the
accused of the consequences of his plea;
2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the
precise degree of his culpability;
3. The court may ask the accused if he wants to present evidence in his behalf.
The focus of the inquiry must be on the voluntariness of his plea of guilty so that it can be truly said
that it is based on a free and informed judgment.
Note: An appeal in a criminal case is a review de novo and the court is not limited to the assigned errors. An
appeal thus opens the whole case for review, and the appellate tribunal may consider and correct errors
though unassigned and even reverse the decision of the trial court on the grounds other than those which
the parties raised as an error.
Page 9 of 9
