1. APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 V.

CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI RULE 45 CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

Issues raised or involved are purely of law Jurisdictional issues, i.e., whether the respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Court is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction Court is exercising original jurisdiction
Brought only to the SC May be filed in the appropriate court having
jurisdiction over the lower court tribunal, board,
or officer.
No need for a Motion for Reconsideration Motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite
Appeal is taken within 15 days from the notice of Petition ifs filed not later than 60 days from
the judgment, final order, or resolution, or denial notice of the judgment, order, or resolution
of petitioner’s motion for new trial or sought to be assailed.
reconsideration
Lower court or judge which rendered the Tribunal, Board, or officer has to be impleaded in
judgment or final order appealed from shall not the action as nominal party respondent
be impleaded in the appeal
Appeal by certiorari stays the judgment, final The challenged proceeding is not stayed unled
order, or resolution the court issues a TRO or an injunctive writ
Appeal by certiorari may be availed of only after Petition for certiorari may be availed of during
a final judgment. the pendency of the case even before the
judgment. Thus, it may be availed of against an
It seeks to review final judgments or final orders interlocutory order.
Generally, the petition shall raise only questions Judicial review in certiorari proceedings shall be
of law which must be distinctly set forth. confined to the question of whether the
judgment is per se void on jurisdictional grounds.
Exceptions: The court will look into the decision’s validity if it
1. Appeals in Writ of Kalikasan was rendered by a court without jurisdiction or if
2. Appeals in Writ of Amparo the court or if the court acted with grave abuse
3. Appeals in Habeas Data of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, not on its legal correctness.
Absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, In original actions for certiorari under this Rule,
or capriciousness committed by the lower court, the findings of fact of the CA are not conclusive,
its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by or binding upon the SC, unlike the general rule in
the court of appeals, are binding and conclusive appeals by certiorari under Rule 45.
upon the SC.

2. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

IN CIVL CASES (Sec 1, Rule 33)
Anchored upon a failure of the plaintiff to show
that, upon the facts, and the law, he is entitled to
relief.
Requires no prior leave of court
When the demurrer is denied, the defendant
does not lose his right to present his evidence
IN CRIMINAL CASES (Sec 23, Rule 119)
Predicated upon the insufficiency of evidence
May be filed with or without leave of court
If filed with leave of court and the demurrer is
denied: Accused may adduce evidence in his
 defense.

If filed without leave of court and the demurrer is

denied: Accused waives his right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on
the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
If the demurrer to evidence is granted, the No appeal is allowed, as a rule, when a demurrer
plaintiff may appeal and if the dismissal is to evidence is granted in a criminal case because
reversed, the defendant is deemed to have the dismissal is deemed an acquittal.
waived his right to present evidence.
It is the defendant who invokes demurrer by The court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the
moving for the dismissal of the case. The court action after giving the prosecution an
cannot do so on its own initiative opportunity to be heard.

3. UNLAWFUL DETAINER v. FORCIBLE ENTRY

FORCIBLE ENTRY (Desahucio) UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Detentacion)

Possession of the land by the defendant is Possession is inceptively lawful but becomes
unlawful from the beginning as he acquires illegal by reason of the termination of his right to
possession by force, intimidation, threat, the possession of the property under the contract
strategy, or stealth. with the plaintiff.
No previous demand for the defendant to vacate Demand is jurisdictional if the ground is non-
the premises is necessary payment of rentals or failure to comply with the
lease contract.
As a rule, the plaintiff must prove that he was in The plaintiff need not have been in prior physical
prior physical possession of the premises until he possession.
was deprived thereof by the defendant
The 1-year period is generally counted from the Period is counted from the date of last demand
date of actual entry on the land or last letter of demand.

4. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS IN SMALL CLAIMS AND SUMMARY PROCEDURE

PROHIBITED PLEADINGS IN SUMMARY PROHIBITED PLEADINGS IN SMALL CLAIMS

PROCEDURE
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. —
The following pleadings, motions or petitions
shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this
Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash
the complaint or information except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or failure to comply with the preceding
section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of
a judgment, or for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
Section 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions -
The following pleadings, motions, and petitions
shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this
Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of
a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued
by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued
by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.

5. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

Modes of settlement of Estate:

a) Extrajudicial settlement of Estate;
b) Summary settlement of Estate of small value;
c) Partition;
d) Probate of a will;
e) Petition for letters administration on cases of intestacy.

EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT SUMMARY SETTLEMENT

No court intervention
Value of the estate immaterial
Allowed only on intestate succession
There must be no outstanding debts at the time
of the settlement of the estate
Resorted to at the instance of and by agreement
of all heirs
Amount of the bone is equivalent to the value of
the personal property
Judicial adjudication although summary
Gross value of the estate must not exceed
P10,000
Allowed both in testate and intestate succession
Available even if there are debts; it is the court
which will make provision for its payment
May be instituted by any interested party, even a
creditor of the estate without the consent of all
the heirs
Amount of the bond is to be determined by court

Procedure in Judicial Settlement of Estate:

1. Petition for the Probate of the Will, if any;
2. Court order fixing the time and place for probate;
3. Publication of hearing for 3 consecutive weeks. Notice shall also be given to the
designated/known heirs, legatees and devisees, and the executor if the one petitioning the
allowance of the will is not the executor;
4. Issuance of the certificate of allowance of the will;
5. EXECAD would give a bond in the amount as the court directs;
6. Issuance of Letters Testamentary/Administration (a special administrator may be appointed);
7. Issuance of the notice for filing claims to the creditors;
8. Publication and posting of notice for filing claims;
9. Filing of claims;
10. Issuance of order of payment for sale of properties;
 11. Payment of claims: Sale/Mortgage/ Encumbrance of estate properties;
12. Distribution of the remainder, if any.

6. WRIT of KALIKASAN AND WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

WRIT OF KALIKASAN WRIT OF CONTINUING

MANDAMUS
SUBJECT MATTER Unlawful act or omission; life, health, or Neglect or exclusion; law, rule,
property or right
PETITIONER Any person or representative or agent; One who is personally aggrieved
Public Officer/NGO/ Public Interest
Group
RESPONDENT Public or private entity or individual Government or Officers
TEMPORARY Ancillary remedy Ancillary Remedy
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ORDER
(TEPO)
VENUE Supreme Court or Court of Appeals Supreme Court, CA, or RTC
DISCOVERY MEASURES Ocular inspection or Production of No enumeration
Documents
DAMAGES None; Separate suit Allows damages for malicious
neglect of duty

7. POST CONVICTION REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS VIA USE OF DNA EVIDENCE

Section 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,

without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory
judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the
testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
Section 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing – Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. –
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the
results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In the case the court, after due
hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and
order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any
member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of
origin and issue the appropriate orders.

8. ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF FIRST NAMES / TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS

General Rule: No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicia order
Exception: Clerical or typographical errors which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of R.A. 9048 as amended by
R.A. 10172

Cases covered:
1. Clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname
 2. Clerical or typographical errors and change of the day and month in the date of birth; or
3. Clerical or typographical errors and change of sex of a person where it is patently clear there
was clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry
Cases NOT covered:
1. Nationality
2. Age
3. Status
Grounds:
1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce.
2. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner
and he has been publicly known by that by that first name or nickname in the community: or
3. The change will avoid confusion.

9. JURISDICTION

Totality Rule
Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes
of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transaction (BP
Blg. 129, Sec. 33)

Claims Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation

Actions which are incapable of pecuniary estimation are cognizable by the RTC except the
annulment of judgments of the RTC, which is cognizable by the CA (BP Blg. 129)

10. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

Writ of Attachment
ROC. Rule 57, Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue - At the commencement
of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the
property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral
and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict
against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his
own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk,
in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or
converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to
prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do
so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
 (f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on
whom summons may be served by publication.

Writ of Execution Pending Appeal

Rule 39 Section 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing party
with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in
possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the
filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even
before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in
the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after
due hearing.

Writ of Possession
A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person
entitled under the judgment. It may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.
Under said provision, the writ of possession may be issued to the purchaser in a foreclosure sale
either within the one-year redemption period upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the
redemption period, without need of a bond. (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation Vs. Planters
Development Bank, G.R. No. 187973, January 20, 2014)

Writ of Demolition
ROC. Rule 39 Section 14. Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. — When
the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment
debtor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon
special order of the court, issued upon petition of the judgment creditor after due hearing and after the
former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time by the court.

11. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

ROC. Rule 17, Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in the
preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of
the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been
pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the
dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice
of the motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless
otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit
shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
ROC. Rule 17, Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of
the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own
motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in
a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court

Two-Dismissal Rule
Applies when the plaintiff:
a. Twice dismissed the action
b. Based on or including the same claim
c. In a court of competent jurisdiction
The second notice of dismissal will bar the refiling of the action because it will operate as an
adjudication of the claim upon the merits.

12. MOTION TO DISMISS

Lack of capacity
A plaintiff lacks the legal capacity to sue when he does not have the necessary qualification to
appear at the trial such as when he is not in the full exercise of his civil rights and when plaintiff does not
have the character or representation he claims, which is a matter of evidence.
It refers to plaintiff’s general disability to sue such as on account of minority, insanity,
incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party (Columbia
Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996).

Failure to state cause of action

Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. If the allegations of
the complaint do not aver the concurrence of the elements of cause of action, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. It is not the lack or
absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the
complaint states no cause of action. (Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011)

Litis Pendentia v. Res Judicata

Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to a situation where two
actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively
settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause.

13. IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS AND HIERARCHY OF COURTS

Immutability of judgments
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and
law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of
clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void
judgments.
Policy of Judicial Hierarchy
Lower courts shall initially decide a case before it is considered by higher court. A higher court
will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate
courts.

14. WHEN DOES SANDIGANBAYAN HAVE JURISDICION OVER CASES INVOLVING PUBLIC OFFICERS
WITH SALARY 26 AND UNDER?

Regardless of salary grade, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over provincial
governors, vice governors, or members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sagguniang Panlungsod,
directors or managers of GOCCs, city mayors, vice mayors, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, trustees
of state universities, and other officials enumerated in Sec. 4 (1) (a) from letters (a) to (g) of PD 1606 as
amended by RA 7975 and 8249

15. COUNTERCLAIM SURVIVES DESPITE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

Effect of the Dismissal of a Complaint on the Counterclaim already set up

There are three significant situations involving the dismissal of a complaint and the effect of
such dismissal on the counterclaim already pleaded by the defending party.
1. The defendant does not file a motion to dismiss. Instead, he files an answer and utilizes
certain grounds for a motion to dismiss as affirmative defenses. Included in the answer is a
counterclaim. During the hearing on the affirmative defenses, the court decides to dismiss the
complaint.
The dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice to eh prosecution in the same or
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (Rule 16, Sec.6)
2. The plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded
his answer with counterclaim. The motion is granted by the court.
The dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the motion, he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same
action. (Rule 17, Sec.2)
3. The complaint is dismissed through the plaintiff’s fault and at a time when a counterclaim
has already been set up.
The dismissal is also without prejudice to the right if the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or separate action. (Rule 17, Sec.3)

16. RES GESTAE: SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS DURING STARTLING OCCURRENCE AND IN EQUIVOCAL
ACTS
One of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.

ROC. Rule 130. Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. – Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae.
Res gestae, which literally means “thing done” refers to those exclamations and statements by
either participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after
the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as
spontaneous reactions or utterances inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and fabricate a false statement.
“It is the event speaking through the declarant.” The testimony by a person regarding
statements made by another as that startling occurrence was taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, although essentially hearsay, is admissible exceptionally, on the theory that said
statements are “natural and spontaneous, unreflected and instinctive” made before there had been
opportunity to devise or contrive anything contrary to the real fact that occurred.

17. CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Forum Shopping is committed when multiple suits involving the same parties and the same
causes of action are filed either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment through means other than appeal or certiorari.
Certificate Against Forum Shopping is required only in a complaint or other initiatory pleading.
According to A.M. 04-94, the following are considered as initiatory pleadings:
1. Original civil complaint;
2. (Permissive) Counterclaim;
3. Cross-claim;
4. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaint;
5. Complaint-in-intervention; and
6. Any other petition or application wherein a party asserts his claim for relief/

General rule: The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader and not
his counsel.
Exception: If from reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader in unable to sign, he must execute
a Special Power of Attorney.
Reason: It is the petitioner and not his counsel who is in the best position to know whether he actually
filed or caused the filing of a petition. A certification filed by his counsel is a defective certification and is
a valid cause for dismissal.

18. BEST EVIDENCE VS. PAROL EVIDENCE; MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION VS. MARITAL PRIVILEGE

Best Evidence Rule

ROC. Rule 130. Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.

Parol Evidence Rule

ROC. Rule 130. Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents
of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.

BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Availability of Original Document
Contemplates a situation where the original is not
available in court and/or there is a dispute as to Presupposes that the original is available in court.
whether said writing is the original.
What the Rule Prohibits
Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written
evidence in lieu of the original document agreement.
regardless of whether or not it varies the contents
of the original.
Who may invoke the Rule
Can be invoked by any party to an action Can be invoked only when the controversy is
regardless of whether such party participated or between the parties to the written agreement,
not in the writing involved. their privies, or any party directly affected thereby.
Applicability
With the execution of wills, applies only to written
Applies to all kinds of writing. agreements.

Marital Disqualification Rule

ROC. Rule 130. Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage,
neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

Marital Privilege Rule

ROC. Rule 130. Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. - The following
persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;

MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION (RULE 130, SEC.22) MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE (RULE 130, SEC.24 A)
Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a party
to the action
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time
the testimony is offered.
Ceases upon the death of either spouse.
Constitutes a total prohibition against any
testimony for or against the spouse of the witness.
The prohibition is a testimony for or against the
other.
Can be claimed whether or not the spouse is a
party to the action.
Can be claimed even after the marriage has been
dissolved.
Continues even after the termination of the
marriage.
Applies only to confidential communications
between the spouses.
The prohibition is the examination of a spouse as
to matters related in confidence to the other
spouse.

19. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA: TWO BRANCHES

ROC. Rule 130. Sec. 28. Admission by third-party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudices
by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
ROC. Rule 130. Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom, usage and the like.

Principle of Res Inter Alios Acta Nocere Non Debet (Things done between strangers ought not
to injure those who are not parties to it.)

Rule 130, Section 28. First Branch

General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided such as vicarious admissions.
Reason: On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself,
and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or
conducts be used as evidence against him.
Exceptions:
a. Admissions by a co-Partner or agent (Rule 130, Sec.29)
b. Admissions by Privies (Rule 130, Sec.31)
c. Interlocking Confessions (People of the Philippines vs Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008)
d. Admission by Conspirator (Rule 130, Sec.30)
e. Admission by Silence (Rule 130, Sec.22)

Rule 130, Section 34. Second Branch

- also referred to as Propensity Rule or Previous Conduct Rule.

General Rule: Evidence that on did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time.
Reason: The rule is founded upon reason, public policy, justice and judicial convenience. The fact that a
person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a general rule, no logical
guaranty that he committed the act in question. Besides, if evidence of similar acts is to be invariably
admitted, they will give rise to a multiplicity of collateral issues and will subject the defendant to
surprise as well as confuse the court and prolong the trial. (Citibank v. Sabeniano, G.R. No. 156132,
October 12, 2006). A man may be a notorious criminal, and may have committed many crimes, and still
be innocent of the crime charged on trial. (People of the Philippines v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27,
2004)
Exceptions: (SKIPS-SCHUL)
It may be received to prove:
1. Specific Intent;
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
6. Scheme;
7. Custom;
8. Habit; or
9. Usage;
10. and the like

20. AMENDMENTS OF PLEADINGS; NON IMPLEADING OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

Indispensable Parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect their rights, so that courts cannot proceed without their presence. Joining
indispensable parties into an action is mandatory being a requirement of due process. Without their
presence, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the
joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any
and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely
when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action should be dismissed.
When an indispensable party is not impleaded, it is the duty of the court to require the plaintiff
to amend the complaint and impleaded the said indispensable parties. If only after the plaintiff has
failed to do so, that is the only time that the court may dismiss the case.

21. MERITORIOUS MOTION TO QUASH

Motion to Quash
A special pleading filed by the defendant before entering his plea which hypothetically admits
the truth of the facts spelled out in the Complaint or Information at the same time that is sets up a
matter which, if duly proved, would preclude further proceedings.
The test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is whether
or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
elements of the crime defined by law.
ROC. Rule 117. Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
 (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses
is prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

22. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE; OFFER OF EVIDENCE

Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

Effectivity date: January 1, 2013

Purpose
To avoid case congestion and delay that plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of
cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place.

Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies

The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed
courier service, not later than 5 days before the pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled
hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct
testimonies; and
2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as exhibits.

Offer of and Objections to Testimony in Judicial Affidavit

The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state
the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of witness.
The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers
found in it on the ground of inadmissibility.

Offer of Evidence
ROC. Rule 132. Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
ROC. Rule 132. Sec. 35. When to make offer. – As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer
must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be
offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless
allowed by the court to be done in writing.

Necessity of Offer of Evidence

It is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
purposes for which such documents are offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative
weight.

When formal offer of evidence is not required:

1. Lost objects previously marked, identified in the record and testified to by witnesses who had
been subjects of cross-examination in respect to said objects
 2. Summary Proceedings;
3. Documents, affidavits, and depositions used in rendering summary judgments under Rule 35;
4. Documents Judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of;
5. Documents whose contents are admitted by the parties.
6. Documents or affidavits used in deciding Quasi-judicial or administrative cases.
7. In Naturalization, Insolvency proceedings, Cadastral, Land Registration cases, Election cases,
and other cases where the Rules in Evidence do not apply.

23. PRE-TRIAL AND ARRAIGNMENT ARE MANDATORY

ROC. Rule 118, Section 1. Pre-Trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial
conference to consider the following:
A. Plea Bargaining;
B. Stipulation of Facts;
C. Marking for Identification of Evidence of the Parties;
D. Waiver of Objections to Admissibility of Evidence;
E. Modification of the Order of Trial if the Accused admits the Charge but interposes a Lawful
Defense; and
F. Such Matters as will promote a Fair and Expeditious Trial of the Criminal and Civil Aspects of
the Case.

When to Conduct Pre-Trial

Arraignment and Pre-trial shall be set 10 calendar days from date of the court’s receipt of the
case for a detained accused, and within 30 calendar days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
over a non-detained accused (A.M. No. 12-06-10-SC, Subheading III, item no. 8).

Arraignment
It is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (Taglay vs. Daray, G.R. No. 164258,
August 22, 2012).
ROC. Rule 116, Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made –
A. The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was
filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by
furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or
dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at
the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information…

24. MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT (FAME)/ PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT BY
DEFAULT (FAME)

Remedies Available to Party who has been Declared in Default

1. The defendant in default may, at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a
motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to
Fraud, Accident, Mistake or Excusable Negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (ROC. Rule 9,
Section 3 (b)).
2. If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory,
he may file a Petition for Relief from Judgment.
ROC. Rule 38, Section 1. Petition for Relief from Judgment, Order, or Other Proceedings –
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in
any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court
and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.

25. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY VS. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
two or more purposes, such evidence may be
admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is
offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
law for its admissibility therefor.
Where the evidence at the time of its offer
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with the other facts to be subsequently
proved, such evidence may be received on the
condition that the other facts will be proved
thereafter; otherwise, the evidence given will be
stricken out from the record.

26. REMEDY OF ACCUSED WHO FAILS TO ATTEND PROMULGATION DESPITE NOTICE TO COUNSEL

The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses the
remedies available under the Rules of Court against the judgment, specifically: (a) the filing of a motion
for new trial or for reconsideration (Rule 121); and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule
122) (Salvador vs. Chua, G.R. No. 212865, July 15, 2015).
Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a
motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be
allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days from notice (ROC. Rule 120, Sec. 6).

27. MOTIONS: NOTICE AND HEARING / 3 DAY NOTICE RULE

Requisites of a Motion (not made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial):
1. Must be in Writing (ROC. Rule 15, Sec. 2);
2. Set for hearing by the applicant (ROC. Rule 15, Sec. 4);
3. Notice of hearing:
a. Shall be addressed to all parties concerned; and
b. Shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than 10 days
from the filing of the motion (ROC. Rule 15, Sec. 5);
4. (A) Every written motion required to be heard and (B) notice of hearing thereof shall be
served in such a manner as to insure its receipt at least 3 days before the date of hearing, unless the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice (3 Day Notice Rule) (ROC. Rule 15, Sec. 4); and
5. Proof of Service (ROC. Rule 15, Sec. 6).

Exceptions to the 3 Day Notice Rule:

1. Ex-Parte Motions;
2. Urgent Motions;
 3. Motions agreed upon by the parties to be heard on shorter notice or jointly submitted by the
parties; and
4. Motions for summary judgment which must be served at least 10 days before its hearing.

28. JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS / SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Is a judgment rendered by the court if the answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegation of the adverse party’s pleading.
It will not apply when no answer is filed. It is
rendered without a trial, or even without a pre-
trial.
Is judgment rendered by a court without trial if it is
clear that there exist no genuine issue or
controversy as to any material fact, except as to
the amount of damages.

29. RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSEL

1. During Custodial Investigation – The State has the affirmative duty to inform the suspect of
his right to a competent and independent counsel, who is preferably the choice of the accused. The
State must likewise provide him with such a counsel if he himself fails to procure the services of one.
2. During Arraignment – The court has the affirmative duty to inform the accused of his right to
counsel and to provide him with one in case he cannot afford it. The court must act on its own volition,
unless the right is waived by the accused.
3. During Trial – It is the accused who must assert his right to counsel. The court will not act
unless the accused invoked his rights.

30. INADMISSIBLE ORAL CONFESSION DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

A confession is not admissible unless the prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained
within the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 12, Article III thereof, provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is subsequently tested
for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely — without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false
promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind. A confession
that does not meet all the foregoing requisites is disregarded in accordance with the cold objectivity of
the exclusionary rule (People v. Muleta G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999)

31. RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL AND DISPOSITION OF CASES

ROC. Rule 119, Section 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit.-
If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Sec. 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1,
as extended by Section 6 of this Rule, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on
the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion
but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion
of time under Section 3 of this Rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to
dismiss under this section.
1987 Constitution. Article III, Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

32. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Rule 117, Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused has
been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded
to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in
the former complaint or information.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea
was entered in the former complaint or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and
of the offended party except as provided in section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the
judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense.