Remrev Transcription Compilation 1

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2017-2018 [From Atty.
Albano’s Lecture]
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
03-08-18
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
 When do we settle the estate of the person?

The Law on Succession states that there is a transmission of successional rights from the moment of death
of the decedent.
 Kinds of Death:
1) Physical and actual death
2) Presumptive death
- E.g. A person who is > 75 years old, who disappears, and whose whereabouts are unknown is
presumed dead AFTER 5 years. You don’t even have to go to court to have the person declared
presumptively dead, because the law itself presumes that the person is dead. Reason: It is impossible
for a person of that age to survive by himself without the tender loving care of the members of his
family.
- Correlated with:
Art. 43, NCC  A person may inherit from another if there is evidence that one died ahead of the
other.
Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as
to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same;
in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no
transmission of rights from one to the other.
 Q: X’s spouse dies. How shall the deceased spouse’s estate be settled?
A: The law obliges the surviving spouse to settle the deceased spouse’s estate according to, among others,
Articles 103 and 130 of the Family Code.
Art. 103, FC (Liquidation of Absolute Community Assets and Liabilities)

Art. 103. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the community property shall be liquidated in the
same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the community
property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If
upon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving
the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing
requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of
the subsequent marriage.
Art. 130, FC (Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership Assets and Liabilities)

Art. 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be
liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal
partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased
spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance
involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
Prepared by: Amulong, Domingo, Miroy, Modesto, Movido, Padilla, Rafols, Talorong Page 1
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2017-2018 [From Atty. Albano’s Lecture]
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing
requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of
the subsequent marriage.
 Modes of Settlement of Estate:

1) If you are the sole heir, execute an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
2) If the estate does NOT exceed P10,000, file a Petition for Settlement of Estate. There is no need to
appoint an administrator.
3) Extrajudicial settlement of estate
- Resorted to when the heirs can come to an agreement as to the settlement of the estate
- Publication of the entire document/in toto is NOT required, but there must be publication of a Notice
of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate in order to notify persons who may have claims against the
estate.
- If movable properties are distributed by the heirs among themselves, they must put up a bond.
If immovable properties are involved, there is NO need to put up a bond.
4) Judicial settlement of estate
- When the heirs cannot agree among themselves as to the settlement of the estate, they may go to
court via an Affidavit or an Action for Partition of the Estate, which is less expensive than an
administration proceeding (in intestacy).
An administration proceeding is costly due to publication, appointment of an administrator (through
a Petition for the Issuance of Letters of Administration), etc. It is also lengthy and burdensome.
- Buot v. Dujali (2017 case): Administration proceedings are very expensive. Hence, the SC urges
parties to avail themselves of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate or, if they go to court, to opt for the
less expensive, ordinary Action for Partition of Estate.
-
 What court has jurisdiction over the subject matter?
- If there is a settlement proceeding--whether probate or not, testate or intestate--the GROSS VALUE of
the estate must be alleged. It is the jurisdictional point.
If the gross value of the estate does NOT exceed P300K/P400K, go to the MTC.
If the gross value exceeds P300K/P400K, go to the RTC.
- Frenela v. Banayad(?)
Petition for Probate of Will did not allege the gross value of the estate.
When the case reached the SC, the SC dismissed it after 17 years of litigation based on the principle that
the issue of jurisdiction can be raised even for the first time on appeal. Principle of estoppel in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy was inapplicable, because in that case, the decision was already final and executory. In
Frenela, there was still a pending case.
- Q: Suppose that your father/grandfather was born, and grew up, in Muntinlupa. All his properties were
located in Muntinlupa. He died in Muntinlupa. Where will you go for the settlement proceeding?
A: Go to the proper court of the place where the decedent was residing at the time of death.
Therefore, the proper court of Muntinlupa—whether the MTC or the RTC—has jurisdiction over the
settlement of his estate.
Q: Suppose none of the heirs are living in Muntinlupa/in the place where the decedent was residing at
the time of death. What if they are all in Davao City? Is this a question of jurisdiction or of venue?
A: It is a question of venue. They may agree to file it in a place other than the place where the decedent
was residing at the time of death (e.g. in Davao City).
- Q: Suppose the decedent was a resident of the U.S.A., but his properties are found in the Philippines.
What should be done?
A: Determine the place where the properties are located. That place shall be the place of filing for the
settlement proceedings.
Q: What if the properties are located in different parts of the Philippines? For example, there are
properties in Muntinlupa, Taguig, Pateros, Makati, Pasay, Laguna, etc.?
A: You shall settle the estate in the court that acquires jurisdiction ahead of the others. This is a question
of venue.
 Intestate Proceeding
- If you want to file a Petition for Letters of Administration, you should file it with the RTC. After the
jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, the proponent of the action shall ask for letters of
administration to be granted in his/her favor.
- Angeles v. Maglaya
Santos v. Judge Angeles
A and B were legally married and had a daughter, C. However, they were living separately in fact from
one another. A went to live with another woman, X, and children were born. When B died, A and his
live-in partner got married. Not long thereafter, A died. So, there was a Petition for the Settlement of
Estate of A filed by X, who prayed that she be appointed as the administratix of A’s estate. C filed an
Opposition thereto and insisted that she should be appointed as the administratrix. X said that she should
be the administratrix, because she is A’s surviving spouse.
(NOTE: There is preference given to the surviving spouse OR to the next of kin. The surviving spouse is
given preference by the law, because he/she is not only the decedent’s heir but also a partner in the
decedent’s properties during the marriage.)
 Q: If you were the judge in this scenario, what should you do while the controversy of the
appointment of an administratrix is unresolved?
A: In the meantime, in order to preserve the properties of the decedent’s estate, you should appoint a
special administrator with the same duties, functions, and powers as a regular administrator. There
is no preference taken into consideration in this matter; the judge’s discretion is absolute. However,
the exercise of this discretion is subject to the condition that the appointment shall be made looking
into the best interest of the estate.
Then, decide on who, between the two women, should be appointed as the administratrix of the
estate.
 Q: What are the qualifications of the possible appointee?
A: The appointee must be willing, competent, and ready to post a bond.
The posting of a bond is a requirement to ensure that the administrator/administratrix will perform
the duties and functions as provided for by the Rules or comply with the orders of the court.
If things are equal (i.e. the parties vying for appointment as administrator/administratrix are all
willing, competent, and ready to post a bond), you should determine who has a greater interest to
protect in the decedent’s estate.
In the case above, it is C, the daughter in the first marriage.
- Q: Is it possible to have co-administrators?
A: YES. There may be co-administrators if the parties all have valid interests over the estate or if the
estate is too big for one person to manage alone.
- As to preference in appointment, it shall be the surviving spouse/the next of kin OR someone who may
be suggested by the decedent’s heirs (e.g. principal creditor, counsel, etc.).
- Posting of bond and taking of oath are prerequisites to the assumption of the role of
administrator/administratrix.
- After the appointment of an administrator/administratrix (or even an executor of the estate in TESTATE
proceedings), there shall be a second publication to notify the creditors who may have claims against the
estate. This is so that they can file their claims within the period of NOT less than 6 months but NOT
more than 1 year (Statute of Non-claims), extendible for a period of 1 month only if there is a
justifiable reason.
 The claims are purely money claims. Thus, actions for damages and those for recovery of possession
of property, whether movable or immovable, should not be filed as claims against the estate.
 Examples of money claims against the estate:
1) Q: A is the creditor of B, but B died before he could pay his debt. There was no pending action
for collection filed by A. Was B’s obligation to A extinguished by his death?
A: NO. A may file a claim against B’s estate so that the administrator/administratrix may
examine it and determine whether or not it is a valid claim.
2) Q: A is the creditor of B. When the obligation became due and demandable, A filed a suit against
B for sum of money. In the meantime, B died. What did we do in Rule 3?
A: There should be a Notice of Death and Motion for Substitution of Parties. The case shall be
tried. Judgment will be rendered and become final and executory.
Q: In this case, do you execute the judgment against the executor or administrator of the estate?
A: NO. Go to the testate/intestate proceedings, and file the monetary judgment as a claim against
the estate.
3) Q: Before the death of B, he was in the hospital for many months. There was a promissory note
in the sum of PhP 2M for unpaid hospital bills, etc. Is this a claim against the estate?
A: YES. It may be deemed as expenses for the last sickness of the said person.
4) Funeral expenses
B died. His surviving spouse went to C, his close friend and an owner of a funeral home, to ask
for help with regard to B’s burial. C offered his “best services” which amounted to PhP 5M.
These are the ONLY claims that may be filed against the estate. But even if the claim is a
contingent one, you may file it against the estate.
For example, A is the owner of a parcel of land. In good faith, B constructed his house on the parcel
of land. In the meantime, A died. C, A’s son, appropriated the improvement of the builder in good
faith. Isn’t the builder in good faith entitled to payment of 100% of the value of improvement that
was appropriated? However, it was not the owner of the land who appropriated the improvement in
this case. B’s remedy is to file a claim against the estate. This old case of O’Brien was cited in
Metrobank v. Absolute Management Corp.
What happened in the Metrobank case? Mr. Chua was the owner of two enterprises: ABC
Enterprises and XYZ Enterprises. Mr. Chua borrowed money in the amount of PhP 42M, more or
less, from M Corporation, and he used ABC Enterprises to contract the loan. Mr. Chua told
Metrobank to deposit the amount in the account of XYZ Enterprises. Because of the close
relationship between Mr. Chua and Metrobank’s manager, the bank followed Mr. Chua’s
instructions. Mr. Chua died, and the payment of the loan became due and demandable. A demand
was made on ABC Enterprises, but the corporation said that it did not receive the money loaned.
When it was discovered that the amount was deposited with XYZ Enterprises, a demand was made
on the said corporation. However, XYZ Enterprises said that it was not a party to the contract of
loan. Who should be made to pay? M Corporation demanded payment from ABC Enterprises, XYZ
Enterprises, and Metrobank. Metrobank was ultimately liable for its negligence, but there was a
pending settlement of Mr. Chua’s estate. Metrobank filed a fourth-party complaint against Mr.
Chua’s estate. Was this fourth-party complaint against Mr. Chua’s estate the appropriate remedy?
What is the purpose of the fourth-party complaint, supposing it were regular? If Mr. Chua were
alive, that complaint would be intended for reimbursement.
But Mr. Chua was already dead, and there was a pending settlement proceeding of his estate. So, is
the fourth-party complaint the appropriate remedy against Mr. Chua’s estate, or is it a claim against
the estate?
The SC said: do not file a fourth-party complaint against the estate. Instead, file it as a claim against
the estate even if it is merely a contingent claim.
 Q: What if there is case of damages based on quasi-delict?

A: Remember the case of Hilado v. CA, a case in Negros. During Martial Law, Mr. Roberto
Benedicto, one of President Marcos’ cronies, had control of the sugar industry. He allegedly
committed tortious acts against the sugar planters in Negros. After his death, a complaint for
damages was filed (because of the tortious acts committed against the sugar planters) based on
quasi-delict.
But you cannot file it as a claim against the estate. If a judgment is rendered in your favor, such
judgment also cannot be executed. That judgment in the case for damages must be brought to the
testate and intestate proceedings and filed as a claim against the estate.
 Q: What if there is liability arising from a criminal case?
A: A good example can be found in Raquiza v. CA and Villegas and Villegas v. CA and Raquiza.
When Marcos became the President of the Philippines in 1965, Antonio Raquiza (Congressman of
the 1st District of Ilocos Norte) was appointed as the Secretary of Public Works. Even before
Raquiza could assume the office of Secretary of Public Works, Villegas called him corrupt, a thief.
A libel suit was filed against Antonio Villegas.
In the 1971 elections, Villegas lost the mayoralty race in Manila. His family went to the U.S.A.
Raquiza presented evidence in the libel case. When it was Villegas’ turn to present evidence, there
was a Notice of Death submitted by Villegas’ counsel. Villegas had died in Las Vegas.
What is the effect of death on the liability of the person if there is a criminal case? It extinguishes
criminal liability. The civil liability is also extinguished IF the civil aspect arises from the crime
charged as a felony. If the civil aspect arose from other sources of obligation, it may survive the
death of the accused.
The SC ruled that Raquiza should have filed a case for damages against the executor/administrator
of the estate of Antonio Villegas.
Therefore, do not file it as a claim against the estate directly. File a complaint against the executor/
administrator for damages based on crime or on quasi-delict (like in Hilado v. CA). Then, if
there is a judgment, and it becomes final and executory, file it as a claim against the estate. It is the
executor/administrator who will ask the court to allow the payment of the same. The determination
of the validity of the claim is made by the executor/administrator, because he/she is the one who will
pay upon the order of the court. That is now liquidation.
 Q: What if there is property that should be delivered to you, but the person who must deliver it has
already died?
A: Do not file a claim for recovery of an immovable property against the estate. Idemanda mo yung
administrator/executor of the estate for recovery of the immovable.
- Submission of an inventory of the estate is one of administrator/executor’s duties.
 Q: What is the nature of the inclusion of a property in the inventory?
A: It is merely provisional, because it can be questioned. It is not within the power of a
testate/intestate court to determine, with finality, if such property should form part of the inventory
of the estate. Rather, it is to be determined by a court of general jurisdiction.
 Q: There was a proceeding for the intestate estate of Mr. Juan Dela Cruz. A property was under the
name of Mr. A. Can you, the administrator, include the property under the name of Mr. A in the
inventory?
A: NO. That will violate the right to due process on the part of the person under whose name the
property is registered. That is the case of Camaya v. Patulandong(?). You should file an action for
reconveyance of the property and after due process, include it in the inventory.
Going back to the problem, what are the pieces of evidence and contention of the administrator to
show that the property belongs to the estate of Mr. Juan Dela Cruz? During the lifetime of Mr. Juan
Dela Cruz, Mr. A was one of his closest friends. Mr. Juan Dela Cruz bought the property and
registered it under the name of Mr. A. Mr. A never took possession of the said property. It was Mr.
Juan Dela Cruz who actually had possession of the property, paid the taxes thereon, and reaped the
fruits.
What does the 1st part of Art. 1448 of the NCC (under Implied Trusts) say?
Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party
but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The
former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. X X X
 De Los Santos v. Reyes

What does the 2nd part of Art. 1448 say?
Art. 1448. X X X However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or
illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably
presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.
The father bought a property but registered it under the name of the daughter. Later on, the father
wanted to take the property. The daughter refused and insisted that the property was donated to her
by him. The father died.
The SC said that a donation is only a rebuttable presumption of law. If it can be proven to be one of
trust, then the court will order the reconveyance of the property. After that, the administrator may list
it in the inventory. This is the act of marshalling the estate, preservation of the estate, looking for
the properties of the estate.
As a matter of fact, if you have evidence to show that this fellow is in possession of shares of stock
or of properties belonging to the estate, the court may even require him to appear. He may be cited in
contempt if he refuses to appear and to produce the said property/title of the said property.
- Q: What is the extent of the power of the probate court?
 The probate court CANNOT determine the nature of a contract.
Vizconde v. CA
Where did the property in BF Homes, Parañaque come from? Lauro and Teresita Vizconde married.
Teresita’s parents sold a property in Meycauayan, Bulacan to the spouses Vizconde. The spouses
Vizconde sold the Meycauyan property, and from the proceeds thereof, they bought the BF Homes
property where the family was massacred. After the death of Mrs. Vizconde, her father died. There
was an intestate proceeding that was filed before the RTC of Parañaque. The administrator of the
estate of Mrs. Vizconde’s father asked Lauro Vizconde to collate the property upon the contention
that the property was donated to the spouses Vizconde as evinced by the inadequacy of the price.
(NOTE: If the property was acquired by onerous title, it is not subject to collation. If it was acquired
by gratuitous title, it may be collated.) Lauro did not want to give up the property. The probate court
erred in deciding that the transaction was not a sale but instead, a donation. The SC said that the
probate court had no power to do that. It is a court of general jurisdiction which has the power to
determine if the transaction was a sale or a donation.
 The probate court CANNOT determine the ownership of a property. (General Rule)
The EXCEPTION is: if there is an agreement among the heirs, AND there is no third person who
will be prejudiced by the determination of the same.
 The probate court CANNOT determine, with finality, the inclusion of properties in the inventory.
WHY? All these things will be determined by a court of general jurisdiction. The probate/intestate
court has limited jurisdiction.
03-15-18
Dean Albano: Ah, venue. Tapos na tayo venue noh? Where do you? What court do you file? It's either the
MTC or RTC because the information in the settlement case must have to contain the gross value of the estate.
Gross value ‘yan ah, hindi assessed value. That if the gross value of the estate does not exceed PHP 300K /
400K, then you go to the MTC. But if the value of the estate would exceed PHP 300K / 400K (at least nag-
kakaintindihan na tayo ‘pag 3 and 4 ah, sa bar exam pang-mabilis ‘yan eh) then you go to the Regional Trial
Court. That’s in the case of Prinela vs Banayad before, where the court said that if you did not allege the gross
value of the estate, then no court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. You cannot determine what court has
jurisdiction. Maraming ganoon, maraming you file a complaint for recovery of possession of ownership but you
do not allege the assessed value, then the court will not be able to determine what court had jurisdiction. So the
only thing that the court will do will be to dismiss the action.
You have to file it before the court where the decedent was residing at the time of death. But it is not a
question of jurisdiction but a question of venue. I was illustrating that if the decedent was born in Muntinlupa,
grew up in Muntinlupa, died in Muntinlupa, all his properties are in Muntinlupa, then you got to Muntinlupa
court whether the MTC or RTC. But it’s not a question of jurisdiction but a question of venue. But let’s say for
example, all the children, all the heirs are not here in Muntinlupa, they are somewhere, they may be in
Mindanao, may be in Basilan, all their businesses are in another place, then they file it there in the place where
they are residing but nobody is objecting, eto na ‘yung Hao vs CA where the Supreme Court said that it’s not a
question of jurisdiction but a question of venue. It’s a question of venue. That’s it.
Doon ba tayo tumigil nung nakaraan? Saan ba tayo tumigil? Sinu-summarize lang natin para meron
tayong starting point.
But let us start with the situation where the decedent died with no debts, and the children are all of age,
then you do not need to go to court and file a settlement case because the heirs can always have an extrajudicial
partition of the estate. I think we’ve gone as far as that. Because you do not have to burden the estate with a
very tedious and expensive litigation because it entails a lot of activities. There is publication, there’s
appointment of the administrator, I think we’ve gone as far as that. Because the first round of battle when you
file the intestate proceeding is the appointment of administrator or administratrix. This is where you go to court
and file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of Juan dela Cruz. If you are the
proponent then your intention is always for you to be appointed as administrator or administratrix of the estate.
If you’re not the petitioner, you pray that you be appointed. In the case of San Luis vs San Luis, the wife in the
second marriage was the one who filed a petition for settlement of estate of the late governor of Laguna
Felicisimo San Luis, and then prayed that she be appointed as the administratrix of the estate of the late
governor. We have to remember that under the law, which is given the preference to be administrator or
administratrix --- the surviving spouse or the next of kin. Hindi naman sinabing surviving spouse #1 or # 2 or
next of kin #3, etc. etc. So when Mrs. San Luis filed a petition, the son in the first marriage questioned it. But
the problem is that, if there is a controversy between these parties, then what will the court do in the meantime?
The court will now appoint a special administrator, in order that there may be an officer of the court. Because if
you are the administrator or administratrix, you are considered as an officer of the court – an extension of the
court. In order to preserve the estate, the court may in the meantime, appoint a special administrator, walang
preference dito. The only condition there is, is the court will make a determination as to who is going to be
appointed as special administrator. But the test there is, will it be for benefit of the estate --- looking into the
interest of the estate. That is the most important consideration. Wala tayong preference dun eh. The only
condition is the estate will have to be preserved and looking into the best interest of the estate in the meantime
while the court is deciding who between the two will be appointed as the regular administrator or administratrix
as the case may be.
Why is it the spouse that is given the preference by the law? Because aside from being an heir, the
surviving spouse was a party in the acquisition of those properties. But the problem is, in the case of Angeles vs
Maglaya, I am the surviving spouse and I’m entitled to be administrator, because I was a party in the
acquisition of those properties. In the Case of Santos the daughter in the first marriage is saying that she’s also
entitled for together with the surviving spouse, they belong to the same category – we are both #1 because the
law says OR.
In the case of Santos vs Angeles, there’s a man and woman, they got married, they had one daughter.
They were living separately from each other. In the meantime, while they were living separately from one
another, the man lived with another woman and children were born. The woman in the first marriage died. Then
after the death of this woman, the live-in partners got married. In the meantime also, not long, namatay din yung
lalaki. It was the surviving spouse in the second marriage who brought to court the petition for settlement of
estate and prayed that she be appointed as the administratrix. Dumating ngayon the child from the first marriage
saying, “No, I should be the one.” Things being equal, both are willing, competent, and can put up a bond---
just determine who has a greater interest to protect in the estate. Because both are competent, compute the
interest of the child in the 1st marriage and the surviving spouse in the 2nd marriage. Sino ang mas malaki ang
interest? The daughter from the 1st marriage. Under the greater interest rule, the Supreme Court said, you may
appoint the daughter in the first marriage.
Ok, so what will you do if you are appointed with letters of administration issued in your favor?
Thereafter, there will be a publication. And for what purpose? In order to notify creditors of the estate to protect
the creditors of the estate because these creditors are given only a period of ONE YEAR within which to file
their claims against the estate. You will be bound by the statute on non-claims if you do not file it within the
period of NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS BUT NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR. However, the court
may grant you a 30-DAY PERIOD OF EXTENSION if you can cite a good reason. Just show proper
certification.
What are the claims against the estate that you are going to file? Remember that all the claims are
money claims. That if you’re going to file a claim to recover a property whether movable or immovable, ah
hindi pwede. Kasi pera lang ‘yan. Money claim lang ‘yan. What about damages because of a criminal or a
quasi-delict situation? Wala. Because the claims are purely for money claims. Ano ba ‘yung for money claims?
Example: A creditor, B debtor. Problem, B died. Can you file a money claim against the estate? Yes. Do not file
a complaint against the executor or administrator of the estate but file it as a claim against the estate.
If there is a contract of loan, for example. Oh, that is the first claim, if you remember what we said
before that under the provisions of Rule 3 of the ROC noon, sabi natin, A creditor, B debtor, A filed a complaint
for sum of money against B but in the meantime during the pendency of the action for sum of money, B died.
Did we dismiss the complaint for sum of money? No. What did we do? Substitution. Substitution and then we
tried. Judgment was rendered. It became final and executory. Can you execute it against the executor of the
estate? No. What will you do with that monetary judgment? Go to the testate / intestate proceeding again and
file it as a claim against the estate. Judgment na ‘yan ah.
Then what is another valid claim? Before Mr. B died he was brought to the hospital, he was there for a
period of 6 months, ang problema dito, namatay ng nasa hospital. Kung wala ng pera pambayad, may
promissory note. Hindi nakabayad. That is a claim against the estate. Expenses for the last sickness of the
decedent. Hospital expenses, professional expenses for the doctors, they should be filed as a claim against the
estate.
Also, for funeral expenses, they can be filed as a claim against the estate. Patay ka na may utang ka pa
din.
So, all these claims are pure money claims because you cannot file a money claim for damages. A
criminal case might have been committed by B but sabi mo every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Patay ka na nga, extinguished ang criminal liability mo, but you’re still civilly liable? Ganon ba ‘yun? Hindi
pwede.
It happened in the case of Raquiza vs Villegas. Antonio Villegas used to be the mayor of Manila, prior
to Martial Law. Pero nung ma-bomba ‘yung Plaza Miranda etc. etc, natalo siya kay Bagatsing. Natalo siya kay
Bagatsing kasi isa siya sa suspects sa bombing. Raquiza was the former congressman of the 1 st district of Ilocos
Norte. He was the first secretary when Marcos became the president. Raquiza was one of those na trusted ni
Marcos noong araw. He was appointed as secretary in order for Ablan to be elected as congressman of the 1 st
district. Sabi ni Villegas, “Naku, si Raquiza magnanakaw ‘yun.” Hindi pa nakaka-pwesto magnanakaw na daw.
And because of that, a libel case was filed against Antonio Villegas. The case was filed before the RTC. Trial
was conducted. Meanwhil Villegas run for mayor and natalo. Umalis, pumunta US with entire family. During
trial, Villegas passed away. There was a notice of death. After the notice of death, there was a meeting. I was
one of Raquiza’s counsels. Judge was from Batac, Ilocos Norte. Fiscal was from Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and the
counsel and then others. Raquiza arrived and we were already there. Sabi ni Raquiza, “Anong gagawin niyo sa
kaso ko Judge?” Sabi ni Judge, “Dedesisyunan ko.” Ako ang nag-react,”Anong dedesisyunan ni Judge? Co-
convict mo ‘yung patay? Yes, Art. 100 is there but who will be liable? Ako ang nag-comit ng libel, misis ko
mananagot civilly? Mali yata.” Sabi ni Raquiza, “Kakampi ka ba namin? Bakit ka ganyan mag-salita?” Sabi ko,
“I think the proper remedy is for you to file a complaint for damages against the executor or administrator of
Antonio Villegas. After the judgment, file it as a claim against the estate.” “Eh andito na, desisyunan na,
desisiyunan mo na.” Sabi ko, “Mukhang mali.” Sabi ni Raquiza, “Ikaw ba kakampi o kalaban?” “Kakampi, but
I’m just saying what I think is the proper remedy.” Sabi ni Judge, “Hindi, desisyunan ko.” “Eh nasa sa inyo
‘yun,” sabi ko. After the decision, na-promulgate na, meeting na naman. Sabi ko,”Naku, delikado ito. I hope
they will not go to the Court of Appeals” Sabi sa’kin, “Ikaw ba talaga kakampi dito o kalaban? Ikaw yata spy
dito kaya alam nila ginagawa natin!” “Malay ko ba kung sino sila,” sabi ko.
Problema, CA inaffirm ang decision. Liable daw sila Mrs. Villegas and etc. “Sabi ko, sana wag mapunta
sa Supreme Court.” Sabi sa’kin, “Sa susunod wag ka na sumama dito ah.” “Problema, tinatawagan niyo ko eh,
kakahiya namang hindi sumama eh baka sabihin ini-i-snob ko kayo. Okay. I hope it will not go to the Supreme
Court.”
Ang problema dito, August 7, 1997, the Supreme Court promulgated the decision. Sabi ng Supreme
Court, “RTC, CA wrong.”
That is the situation. If there is a criminal act, hindi mo pwede i-file as a claim against the estate ‘yung
damages eh. You file a complaint against the executor or administrator of Antonio Villegas. And then enter the
judgement. And then file it as a claim against the estate.
That happened also in the case of Hilado vs CA, in Bacolod, Negros. During the Martial Law, one of
the kronis of Marcos was the late Roberto Benedicto, very influential man from Bacolod. He took over the
sugar industry. Allegedly, there were tortuous acts committed by the late Benedicto against sugar planters. After
his death, there was a complaint for damages against the executor or administrator of Roberto Benedicto and
that is the appropriate remedy because you cannot file a claim against the estate and ask that you be paid
damages. Moral damages, exemplary damages, compensatory damages, lahat ‘yan hindi pwede. You file it
against the executor or administrator and when the judgment is rendered, you cannot execute it, but you can
only file it as a claim against the estate. Hilado vs CA was a quasi-delict or tortuous act. In the case of Raquiza
vs CA, there was a criminal act. But in all cases the Supreme Court said, file an action for damages against the
executor or administrator of the decedent, a judgment to be rendered involving the amount of damages you
cannot execute it against the executor or administrator but you have to go to court and file it as a claim against
the estate.
If you also want to recover a property, movable or immovable, do not file it as a claim against the estate
kasi they’re not called money claims. The claims are purely for money claims. Whether the claim is a fixed
amount or a mere contingent amount.
Okay, contingent amount, what’s a good example of a contingent claim? That is exemplified by a case
of Metrobank vs Absolute Management, there are two corporations that were under the control of Mr. Chua,
ABC Corp. and XYZ Corp. But Mr. Chua being the controlling holder of X corporation, Mr. Chua told
Metrobank to deposit a PHP 42 million worth check, ang ginamit ni Mr. Chua was ABC Corporation. ABC
Corporation was supposed to be the debtor. Ang problema dito, ang sinabi ni Mr. Chua, “Metrobank, deposit
mo to sa XYZ.” Sabi ng Metrobank, “Hindi pwede kasi pangalan ng ABC ito eh.” “Hinde, kayang kaya mo
‘yan. Manager, diba malakas ako sa’yo?” So, they deposited it. Dineposito despite banking rules. In the
meantime, namatay si Mr. Chua. There was a settlement proceeding. Obligations became due and demandable.
Sabi ng creditor, “Hoy, Mr. ABC, mag-bayad ka.” Sabi ng ABC, “Bakit may utang ba ko?” “Eto, check oh.”
“Eh hindi naman naka-deposit sa’kin, naka-deposit sa XYZ” Sabi ng creditor, “Oi, XYZ mag-bayad ka, sa’yo
pala to eh” “Oi, wala kong utang sa’yo,” sabi ng XYZ. And because of that, the creditor sued ABC, XYZ, and
Metrobank. Metrobank filed a fourth-party complaint against the estate of Mr. Chua. Is that the appropriate
remedy? Supreme Court said, NO, that is not the appropriate remedy, dapat mag-file ka ng claim against the
estate, even if your claim is a mere contingent claim. So, a trial will be conducted among the 4 of you, and
Metrobank will be made liable due to its negligence. So, ‘yun ang meaning ng contingent claim. Even if it is a
mere contingent claim, you cannot file a fourth-party complaint, file it as a claim against the estate even if it is a
mere contingent claim. It is in this case that the Supreme Court cited a very old case, a case decided long before
you were born. My same age or even older than me, The O’Brien Case, this is the situation, this is a parcel of
land. A is the owner of the parcel of land but B constructed his house on this parcel of land in good faith. In the
meantime, the owner of the land died. And after the death of the owner of the land, the son of the owner of the
land appropriated the improvement of Mr. Builder in good faith. Question. What is the remedy? Is it a remedy
for you to file an action against the son who appropriated the improvement for the value of the improvement?
Because, what are the rights of the builder in good faith again? The owner of the land can appropriate the
improvement. But it was not the owner who appropriated it, it was the son of the owner of the land, kasi
namatay na si owner of the land. Now, what is your remedy? The son of the owner of the land appropriated
your improvement, should you go to court and file the sone to cover the value of the improvement? Or is it
going to be filed as a claim against the estate of the owner of the land? Ito ‘yun. The Supreme Court said, do not
file a complaint for sum of money for the value of the improvement against the son of the owner of the land but
you file it as a claim against the estate of the owner of the land. It will be the estate that will pay you. And this
case was cited in the Metrobank vs Absolute case.
What are the claims against the estate? Okay. That you have to file those money claims within a period
of not less than six months but not more than one year, extendible if there is a justifiable reason for a period of
one month. But despite the 30-day extension and you fail to file, then that will be covered by the statute of
non-claims--- it will be barred. Okay. Claims against the estate.
Now, you’ll be appointed as the administrator--- you have to take your oath, put a bond, because the
bond is intended to ensure the performance of your duties and functions as required by your oath and as ordered
by the court because your first duty is the preservation of the estate. The main duties of an administrator are
preservation, liquidation, and distribution. What is the first thing that you have to do after being appointed,
you’ve taken your oath, put up a bond --- then what is your first duty? Ah, dapat mag-inventario ka. You have
to submit an inventory. An inventory of the properties of the estate. Partial inventory because efforts must be
exerted to enlist all properties. Then if madagdagan, supplemental inventory. What is the nature of the inclusion
of the property in the inventory? The nature is only provisional. It cannot be determined with finality by the
probate court. It will be determined with finality by a court of general jurisdiction.
You cannot put the property of Juan dela Cruz to the inventory of the estate of A. You cannot because
that will deprive the owner Juan dela Cruz of the right to due process. If you have concerns, then file a case for
reconveyance but it’s not for you to include it in that inventory. Because pursuant to the doctrine of Camaya vs
Paracumong, the SC said that for you Mr. Administrator to put the property in the inventory of another person
is a violation of the right to due process. Do not put it in the inventory, file an action for reconveyance. Let’s go
to substantive law, what do you recall of the provisions of Art. 1448 of the Civil Code? Trusts! Mr. A bought
this property during his lifetime. What evidence do you have? Check amounting to PHP 10 million. But Mr. A
registered the property under the name of Juan dela Cruz. And who has been paying the taxes until Mr. A died?
Mr. A. Who was in possession of that property until Mr. A died? Mr. A. Who was reaping the fruits of the
property? Mr. A. Ah, so holding in trust lang. So go to court and file an action for reconveyance. If ever it will
be reconveyed, put that in the inventory. Only then. What is the other part of Art. 1448? Parents bought a
property and registered it in the name of their daughter / son. What is the presumption? Presumption is
donation. But it is a merely disputable presumption. If you can prove that it was really not donated, but you can
prove it to be one of trust. Were you in possession during the lifetime of your parents? No. Who paid the taxes?
Parents. Fruits? Parents pa din. Eh ‘di ibig sabihin, it was not intended as a donation but was intended as a mere
trust.
So, the court will rule to reconvey and you can then add it to the inventory in order to determine the
gross value of the estate. Ito ang tinatawag na you are going to martial all the properties of the estate in order to
determine the gross value of the estate. Martialing, preservation of the estate, if merong stocks na nabili under
your name, you can be called by the court and be cited in contempt if hindi ka umattend. Yes. The executor or
administrator can call you to appear so that properties in your possession may be examined. Ito ‘yung tinatawag
nating martialing, o preservation of the estate.
But can you go to court and file an action to cite in comtempt a lessee who refuses to pay the rental?
Hindi pwede. Because if this is a lease property, and the lessee does not pay the rental, do not file for contempt,
but file a case for the collection of the amount of money. And you can collect that amount of money, and then
put that in the inventory. Once, properties, moneys, and etc. are recovered, put them in the inventory.
What is the nature again of placing this property in the inventory? Provisional. It shall be determined
with finality by a court of general jurisdiction.
So what is the extent of the power of that court? Can it determine the nature of a contract? CANNOT. It
must have to be determined by a court of general jurisdiction. Remember the case of Lauro Vizconde. One of
the best example of the situation where the Supreme Court said that, “No, the court cannot determine the nature
of a contract.” BF Homes house where the massacre happened, trace mo from Bulacan from the property of the
parents of Mrs. Vizconde. Binenta ng parents ni Mrs. Vizconde, sa mag-asawang Lauro at Teresita. Then after
acquiring the property from their parents, they sold the property. Then out of the proceeds of that sale, the BF
Homes property was bought, where the family of Mr. Vizconde was massacred. Webb was acquitted on the
ground of alibi because there was a certification from the US Government, that Webb was in the United States,
during that time. I knew he’d be acquitted, two weeks before the ruling. Because when I was a young lawyer, I
had a rape case that was acquitted on the ground of alibi, because it was supported by a document. A
documented alibi.
Ok, so, the father of Mrs. Vizconde also died. There was a petition for the settlement of estate of the
father of Mrs. Vizconde. Problema, the administrator wanted to collate Mr. Lauro Vizconde’s property. Eh
hindi naman binenta ‘yan eh, i-di-nonate sa inyo ‘yan. Bakit? Eh ganto presyo nan, pero binenta lang sa inyo
only so much? The probate court agreed. But that was an error. SC said, you cannot determine the nature of the
contract, because you have limited jurisdiction. The administrator should go to court first.
Oh, can a probate court determine the ownership of a property? No, as a rule. For example, your sister is
the administratrix of the estate. She tells you that the property under your name is not yours, that it belongs to
the estate of your father. Sabi mo, “Di ah, it was donated.” Instead of going to a court of general jurisdiction,
can you not just ask the probate court to determine if it was a donation or otherwise? Can it determine the
ownership of the property? As a rule, NO. It should be before a court of general jurisdiction because the
jurisdiction of that court is a limited jurisdiction.
But can the parties agree? If the parties would agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the court in order to
determine the ownership of the property and there is no prejudice to a third person, then that probate court may
determine the ownership of that property. Exception lang ‘yun ah. That is not the general rule. The ownership of
the property can be determined in a probate court if the parties will agree. Evidence will be presented in the
determination. So, these are the things that you have to consider in the probate proceeding.
Anything that you’re going to do as an administrator cannot be done without the sanction of the court.
For example, you’re going to pay a claim against the estate. It must be determined that it is a valid claim. Okay,
eh di bayaran mo ngayon. Can you just go to court and withdraw that amount of money? Hindi pwede. Dapat
may sanction ng court ‘yan. Eh kung walang pera? Motion for Leave to Sell the Property. It must be determined
to be legal, because it is a judgment money claim eh. Execute a deed of absolute sale. Motion for the approval
of the deed of absolute sale. Granted! Then you sell the property. Now, if there is a balance, we deposit it your
honor. Kaya madaming trabaho ‘yung administration proceedings. Kaya magastos. Kaya sabi ng Supreme
Court, if you can settle it amicably, settle it. But what is the better thing to do? What is the best thing to do? Do
not file administration proceedings. File an ordinary action for partition if it is possible. Walang masyadong
expenses ‘yun. Ordinary action for partition eh. There are no expenses to the administration ‘yan. Action for
partition of the estate, walang publication, walang administrator na babayaran. Magkano ‘yung binabayad sa
administrator ni Montecillo? PHP 1 million per annum. You can just imagine PHP 1 million per annum
nababawas sa estate. Nagiging mahirap ‘yung estate. Hindi yumayaman ‘yung estate. It goes down until it
becomes zero. That’s what the SC is telling us, if you can extrajudicially settle, ok. If you cannot, file an
ordinary action for partition, that will be less expensive than filing an administration proceeding. So, these are
the situations that you should consider in an administrative proceeding.
If you are the only heir, self-adjudication. Affidavit of self-adjudication presume that you’re the sole
heir. Because if ever you’re not the sole heir, then the other heirs can go to court and seek to nullify or annul
the affidavit of self-adjudication and present evidence that they are the heirs. Because the determination of their
share will be determined by the probate court. It is not to be determined by any court of general jurisdiction in
an ordinary action. There’s no such thing. Except in the case of Rebusquillo vs CA et al. where the SC said
that as in incident for the action for nullification of the affidavit of self-adjudication, then the heirs can present
evidence that they are the heirs, not only the surviving spouse. Kasi in this case, after the death, the surviving
spouse executed an affidavit of self-adjudication and stated among other things that I am the sole heir. Eh ang
problema, may anak, dinedeny pa. Ang sabi ng mga anak, “Hindi ba kami anak niyo?” So you’re going to
determine the heirship, because it’s for the probate court to determine.
Okay, ang problema dito, the administration proceedings have been on going, properties have already
been found. Properties have already been listed in the inventory. There are no claims against the state. Payments
have already been made because they’ve been determined as valid. But in the meantime, someone knocks at
your door, it happens to be the lawyer of the decedent. But you were out of the country for several years, eh
namatay in the meantime ‘yung client mo, you were the one who prepared the will of your client. Pero sabi ng
client mo, “Attorney, tago mo ito ah. Bigay mo sa heirs ko after my death. There’s something hidden in the last
will and testament. “A, this is your property. To my favorite daughter, here. To my wife. To my illegitimate
child, X, this is yours. To my illegitimate child, Y, this is yours.” Kaya sabi niya, “Attorney, huwag mong
bubuksan ‘yan hanggang buhay ako. ‘di bale murahin na ko, pag patay na ko, di ko na maririnig. Hindi ko
mararmadaman sa nicho. Hindi ko maririnig ‘yun.” Oh, so what will you do with that last will and testament?
Punitin mo na! *Laughs!* Remember that that will will not transmit anything unless submitted for probate. But
it has been found after the settlement proceedings. Problem, then you’re going to file for the petition for the
probate of the will. Iyun, file mo ngayon ‘yan. Pero same estate. What will you do with that intestate
proceeding? After all the jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, then file a motion that these two
cases be consolidated. Motion for consolidation of the testate and intestate proceedings, your honor. Granted!
And problema dito dun sa will, there is a designation of the executor or executrix. Remember that the
administrator is appointed by the court, while the executor or executrix is designated in the will by the testator.
May nakalagay dun, “So and so, for the children, for the surviving spouse, should the wife survive me, I hereby
declare her as the administrator or executrix of my estate. Or somebody else.” Okay. So, what will you do as an
administrator? Step down. Surrender everything that you have. All papers that are in your possession.
Everything that there is, surrender the same to the executor or administrator. Then you’ll have the probate of the
will.
Then, problem is, if it is a case of a holographic will, you’ll file a petition for the probate of that will.
How many witnesses do you need to present? One witness if there is no opposition, three if there is an
opposition. I always say that if it is a holographic will, habang nabubuhay kayo, file-an mo ng petition for
probate. Mas matipid. Walang publication ‘yan. If it is the executor of the holographic will who files the
petition for the probate of that will, very easy, very basic questions will be asked. There are only two basic
questions eh.
Oh, eto ‘yung executor, in order to execute there is now the testator, holographic will. Problem, ikaw
ang gumawa ng will eh. There are only basic questions that you are going to ask. Is this your handwriting? Yes.
Is this your signature? Yes. Tapos! Because all the you have to do is ask for identification. Ito yung tinagtawag
nating authentication. Is this your handwriting? Yes. Is this your signature? Yes. Eh sinong makaka-kontra nun,
kundi ikaw? Okay, so, admitted to probate.
Okay, so what about if it is a case of notarial will, pag notarial will, mabusisi ‘iyon. Oh so, execution of
the will, then the testator died, then you’re going to file for the petition of the probate of the will because that
will will not transmit naything to you unless it’s already been admitted to probate --- it will not transmit
anything to you, not even a single centavo. It has to be probated because it will not transmit anything to you. So
you file for the probate of the notarial will. Scheduled for hearing. You have the first witness, you have another
witness, another witness, so tatlong witnesses. Because how many witnesses should you present when you have
a notarial will? Minimum of three. Kahit 20, walang problema, if magkamali number 1,2, and 3, number 4 and
so on, pwede pa. So, that’s it, you’re going to present the next witness. So, questions are, “Do you know whose
signature is this?” “This is the signature of Mr. Juan dela Cruz.” “Why do you know?” “Because I was present.
I saw him.” “What do you mean by being presen?” “I was a witness in the signing of the instrument.” “Kasi
halimbawa, nasa labas ka ng pintuan, pero andun ka, present ka, kasi transparent.” If transparent you can see
each other. If translucent, makikita mo ba? Hindi eh. Kung maliwanag, may maaaninag ka, pero hindi mo kita.
Pero mere opportunity to witness the signing of the instrument is sufficient. You need to establish the fact that
that testator was present together with the witnesses, during the signing, and that they saw each other do it. You
will be needing to prove the extrinsic validity of the will. That the signature was affixed in the presence of one
another, this is one of the things that you primarily need to prove when it comes to the extrinsic validity of a
will. That the three of you were present at the time of the affixing of the signature. “Why do you know that this
is your signature?” “Because I was present.” So and so. So, if you will be able to answer all that, and you’d be
able to establish the extrinsic validity of the will, then your will will be admitted for probate.
Kasi, there are other situations dun eh, sa probate. “Objection your honor, because the date of the
holographic will is not complete.” Diba under the provisions of the Civil Code, the holographic will must have
to be completed. “Because the date your honor is only February 1995.” In the case of Roxas vs De Jesus, the
objection was because of the fact that it was not complete as it was only February 1985. Problem, hindi ba
complete date ‘yun? The SC said that that is a complete date, because it is a matter of evidence for me to prove
that it was executed and the holographic will was written on any day of February 1985. That is not a fatal defect
of the said will and testament. So that’s the situation.
“But your honor please…” “What?” “The signatures are not on the left margin!” “Where are they?”
“They are there at the right margin.” That’s substantial compliance. If they’re not there at the left, and not there
at the right, it is considered as substantial compliance.
“Objection your honor” “Why?” “Because the signatures are at the bottom of the attestation clause.”
Iyun. Fatal ‘yun. That is the case of Azuela vs CA, that is fatal in nature. That is a fatal defect. Because the
attestation clause must have to be signed at the bottom thereof by the three instrumental witnesses. And ang sabi
mo naman as proponent of the will, “Your honor it is true, that the signatures are not at the bottom. The
signatures of the witnesses are at the marginal side your honor. Isn’t that substantial compliance?” Supreme
Court in the case of Azuela vs CA said NO, because it is a requirement to affix the signature at the bottom of
the attestation clause. Kasi the significance of your signatures at the bottom of the attestation clause is different
from the significance of your signature there at the marginal side. Iba ‘yun eh.
Bakit? Ano bang cine-certify mo if it’s there at the bottom of the attestation clause? You are testifying
that the testator and the three witnesses affixed their signatures in the presence of one another. And you are
certifying that the document contains how many pages, and that is to protect the integrity of the last will and
testament. Why? As distinguished from your signature at the marginal side. What is the significance? Sabi ng
Supreme Court, it merely states that you know that you signed that page of the document, that’s all. But you’re
not certifying that the testator and the witnesses affixed their signatures in the presence of one another. Kaya
ayung ang mga situations that may happen in a probate proceeding.
The probate court can rule on the extrinsic validity of the will but as a rule, it cannot rule on the intrinsic
validity of the will. As a rule it cannot decide on the intrinsic validity of the will. Except in particular cases like
the case of Nuguid vs Nuguid and Nepomuceno vs CA, that if ever there is preterition, and preterition is
apparent, then the court can decide on the intrinsic validity of the will because preterition goes into the intrinsic
validity of the will. What is preterition? It annuls the institution of it, it appropriates the will. Can it be
extrinsically valid and intrinsically void considering that it appropriates the will if there is preterition? That is an
exception to the rule that the court can determine the intrinsic validity of the will. It is by reason of public
policy. Why? You can’t declare the will extirinsically valid and yet it is intrinsically void. You’re just wasting
the time and the efforts of the court, you’re just spending money for a useless undertaking. Because the
preterition of the heir is going to totally appropriate the will. So, that’s the situation. So the probate of a will.
So that a will has been admitted for probate and there is a criminal case for forgery, what is the rule? Is
this a criminal case for forgery? Because the evidence is the admission of the will to probate, you can just
imagine at that time, the three instrumental witnesses testified that the signature appearing in the document or
the signature of the testator because they are not present, and yet in the forgery case the accused will be
convicted of the crime of forgery. Hay nako, sabi ng Supreme Court, to prevent the inconsistency between the
decision in the criminal case and in the special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the probate of the
will, you have to dismiss the criminal case after the admission of the will to probate. What is the reason?
Because, the admission of the will to probate is the best evidence of its due execution.
As a matter of fact, during the pendency of the petition for probate and there’s a criminal case for
forgery, you can ask the court for the suspension of the criminal case. Yes, because the determination of the
extrinsic validity of the will is a prejudicial question to that particular case. Because you have to wait for the
decision of the court. Kasi kung sabihin niya, “This is not.” Ah you know, patay. What will happen to the
criminal case? It will proceed. That is the prejudicial question.
Okay, probate of the will. What happens, etc. Ang problema dito, diba the will has just been admitted to
probate, and granted na ‘yung letters testamentary, mag-o-oath ka, mag-b-bond ka, anong trabaho mo? Eh
tapos na ‘yung inventory, in fact nagbabayad na ng claims against the estate, wala ka ng makitang properties, eh
di anong tawag mo dito? Sitting pretty executor. And yet you have to pay with allowance of PHP 1 million per
anum. Mahal yun. Kasi if it’s a case of testate, you have to look for the properties. Ang paghahanap ng property
ang heavy work ng administrator. At magbabayad ‘yung estate.
So, you are the executor, you are the administrator, etc. etc, you have already been doing your duties.
You’re the martial. You’ve recovered money, properties, and you’ve been selling properties left and right, you
pay taxes, allowances of the heirs, etc. etc., but everything that you do should be sanctioned by the court. And
you have to do an accounting. Everything that you do and sell, accounted for. So everything that you do is to be
sanctioned by the court, in fact, you can’t execute an extrajudicial partition. Hindi pwede. Yung Unionbank
Case, the SC said you’re depriving the court of its jurisdiction if you’re going to divide it extrajudicially. If ever
you do it, go to court first. Diba ganun? So you have to martial the estate, all the properties of the estate, then
you have to start paying and you get paid. Etong martialing is preservation. Then paying is liquidation. Because
there are 3 basic duties of an administrator or executor of the estate: 1. Preservation, 2. Liquidation – bayad,
bayad, bayad. All the claims against the estate have already been paid, pagtingin mo ng inventory madami pa,
malaki pala ‘yung estate eh, then you prepare a project of partition. If it is intestate, in accordance with law, the
partition will be in accordance with law if walang will. But if it is with the will, then in accordance with the
will. Okay, kasi diba dun sa will siya na mismo nag-sabi kung magkano, eto share mo, eto share mo, eto share
mo. Pero if in accordance with law, according to law ang division nun. Okay.
Then after the preparation of the project of partition, go to court again. “I’ve already prepared the project
of partition, your honor. I’ve already paid all the obligations of the estate, your honor please. Every claim
against the estate have already been paid, your honor please. This is now the project of partition and I move for
its approval.” “Granted! Distribute!” Ayun, that is the last duty on your part. 3. Distribute, distribution of the
estate. After the distribution of the estate, wala na. Wala ka ng gagawin.
Then, motion again. “I’ve already complied with my duties, your honor. Preservation, liquidation, and
distribution. There is nothing more to do. I move for the ordering of closure of estate proceeding.”
“Granted!” “Tapos!” That is the settlement proceeding.
Ang problema pagka merong lumutang na utang pero na-distribute na ‘yung estate eh. Meron palang
claim na hindi nakita. Eh everything has been distributed, who will answer for that claim? The heirs, in
proportion to their share. And you cannot answer more than what you have received. If for example, the
claim is PHP 100 million, ang problema dito eh sampu kayo, PHP 100 million divided. You mean to say if PHP
200 million ang utang, sasagutin niyo ‘yung excess na PHP 100 million? Hindi ah. Because you can only have
obligations limited to your hereditary right. Limited to your hereditary right, hanggang dun lang. So if ever you
will be asked to pay, then you will pay only in accordance to what you received. But not more than what you
received. It is not your duty to pay beyond.
Eh suppose that person dies without a will? And there is no relative and there is no relative within the 5th
civil degree of consanguinity but you have a vast estate, then what will happen to that estate and there is no will,
there are no relatives within the 5th civil degree of consanguinity – oh nako, ma-e-escheat ‘yun. It will be
forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. Because if you look into the provisions of the law --- who
are the heirs in an intestate succession? Legitimate descendants, legitimate ascendants, illegitimate children,
surviving spouse (sa testate, third ang surviving spouse), brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces --- eh wala,
sino? Sinong huli? Republic of the Philippines.
So the Republic of the Philippines will file through the OSG an escheat proceeding.
Eh what are the other instances where the escheat proceeding will be filed? Ito. This is one of them. If
there is an account in the bank, and it has not been moving for the last ten years, ire-report ‘yan to the proper
authorities and the OSG will file an escheat proceeding. Eh kung malaki-laki ‘yan, sayang ‘yun. Under the
provisions of RA 3936 ‘yung Unclaimed Balances Act. Walang deposit-withdraw for the last ten years.
If ever there is an immovable property that was acquired by a foreigner, that can’t be. Except if you are
going to inherit direct from succession. What kind of succession again? Intestate succession! Huwag ‘yung
testate! Hindi pwedeng testate succession! Because you cannot execute the will and bequeath the immovable
property to a foreigner, hindi pwede ‘yun. Dapat intestate succession.
Or under the provision of the local citizenship law, you can acquire a parcel of land regardless of the
size if you are a citizen. But if you are a former citizen, and you want to come back to the Philippines para may
matirhan ka, how many square meters can you acquire? 3 hectares, if rural. 5,000 if urban. If, former natural
citizen. But if Chinese to Filipino, pumunta sa America, naging citizen, can he acquire? No. Because he is not a
former natural born. He was only a naturalized citizen. ‘Yan ang mga limitations sa alien acquisition of land in
the Philippines. Kaya nga ‘yung one of the latest decisions eh, Stone Case, nag-asawa ka ng foreigner, babae,
eh hindi naman pwedeng naka-rehistro ng conjugal ‘yan eh. Ang problema dito niloko ‘yung Hapon. Ibinenta
mo. Ayun, tapos. Hind ka pwedeng humabol. Hindu counted as conjugal because you violated the law. In fact,
that can even be escheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
But if you are an heir, to the 5th civil degree, there is now a judgment, escheat, in favor of the State, but
you appeared within the period of 5 YEARS from the time of the judgment, what will happen? “I’m an heir!”
“Within what line?” “4TH civil degree!” “Ah. Ibibigay sa’yo ang share mo.” But if there was a will, you are a
voluntary heir, you took care of a very old man until he died because you were even born in that place, in that
compound. Saan ‘yung compound? Sa loob ng Ayala Alabang. Pinaka-malaking lote sa Ayala Alabang. You
were born there because your father was the driver of the family. Your mother was the maid. You were born
there. Kaya ang birthplace mo, Ayala Alabang. Muntinlupa Elem. School, naglalakad ka lang pumasok, pero
address mo, Ayala Alabang. Lumaki na ng lumaki. Namatay ang asawa ng matanda, at you took care of the old
lady. Ang problema, nag-iisang anak, namatay pa. Ikaw na lang nag-aalaga. Unknown to you, long before her
death, she executed a holographic will. “To you, I’m giving this whole property at Ayala Alabang.” “Oh huwag
mo itong bubuksan habang buhay pa ako ah? Mumultuhin kita pag ginawa mo ‘yun! Huwag mo akong iiwanan
ah.” Ang problema dito, you are not even a relative of that lady. Na-escheat ngayon ‘yung property. But several
years after, nakit mo ‘yung envelope, binuksan mo, ‘yun pala holographic will, sa’yo pala ‘yun. What will you
do with that will? Pumunta ka sa Court, have it submitted for probate. Ibabalik sa’yo ‘yung property because
that’s yours. Because you are a mere voluntary heir, ‘yung 5-YEAR PERIOD OF APPEARANCE IS NOT
REQUIRED UPON YOU. You are not governed by that 5-YEAR PERIOD OF APPEARANCE because you
are not a relative within the fifth civil degree. And if ever that it will be admitted for probate, then the estate
would return it to you. Diba? So, sa escheat proceedings.
Properties will be distributed even to the local government agencies, charitable institutions ---eh ang
problema dito this is a property that is earning. Suppose you are the owner of San Beda, you are the sole owner,
there are no relatives within the 5th civil consanguinity, you died without a will, can the court order that this
property will not be distributed to the different agencies, etc. charitable institutions, but the court is hereby
constituting a permanent trust. Pwede ba ng permanent trust as ordered by the court? Yes. Pwede. Kasi nag-
karoon ng transmission ng hereditary right eh, to the Republic of the Philippines. But if you execute a last will
and testament, you cannot execute a permanent trust to such properties. Because you cannot provide in your last
will and testament that these properties of mine will never be distributed for as long as my heirs are alive.
Because how long can you prohibit the partition of your properties? 20 years lang. But the court can provide for
a permanent trust, kasi nagkaroon ng transmission to the Republic of the Philippines through the escheat
proceedings. So instead of distributing it and disintegrate the property, ‘yung income ng property ang i-d-
distribute. There will be a trustee who will take care of the income of the property for the distribution of the
income of the property for the preservation of the property constituted as a permanent trust.
So that’s the situation on the law on petition for the probate of a will, testate or intestate, together with
the escheat proceeding. Ok, ‘yan tayo sa special proceedings pero wala na tayong Constitution of Family Home
ah. Tomorrow, adoption, habeas corpus, correction of entries, etc. Then get ready for some areas in criminal
procedure, preliminary investigation: can you go into the credibility of witnesses during preliminary
investigation? Hindi pwede ah. Wala kang pakialam kung ikaw ay prosecutor conducting a preliminary
investigation dahil you can even file an information on the basis of hearsay. Pwedeng hearsay evidence. Siguro,
preliminary, then 110 and 111. We will re-arrange. 112 will be ahead of 110. Kasi magulo ‘yung arrangement
eh, oh na-file mo na ‘yung information, etc. etc. nagkaron ka ng prejudicial question saka ka mag-p-preliminary
investigation, ano yan? Iuna mo ‘yung preliminary, saka mo i-file etc. etc. Eh kesa unahin mo ‘yung filing. But
we will go to jurisdiction first. Then we’d run into the case of Senator De Lima. I’m sure you’ve taken that up.
Kasi if you’re a public officer even if you belong to GRADE 27 AND ABOVE under the Sandiganbayan Law,
nasa Sandiganbayan ka, but there are exceptions to the rule and one of them is the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act. RTC lagi ang meron ‘nan. Even if it is in relation to the performance of your duties and functions
regardless of your scale. Kasi scale ‘yun eh, Grade 27 and above. Generally under the Sandiganbayan Law,
you should be there in the Sandiganbayan, pero hindi, there are other cases like libel, even if you’re the
Chairman of the COMELEC, where you belong to Grade 31, ‘yung kaso ng People vs Lily Paño, RTC pa din
‘yun. Because under the provisions of the RPC, RPC ‘yun. Get ready siguro up to about 111 kasi mabilis na
lang naman ‘yan eh. In a different order, together with jurisdiction. We can even go as far as arrest. Sige, okay,
hindi na tayo nag-break eh. Okay.😊
03-16-18
If it affects the status of the person you have to go through court proceedings.
If ever the entry is a mere misspelling of a word, it can be corrected through the local civil registry.
Under RA 10172 even if the entry is apparently a material entry but the entry is patently erroneous, example if
the birth was today March 16, 2018 but what was written as the date of birth is March 16, 2028. So you
recorded the birth of the child is 10 years from now. Is that a material entry? Yes. Is that patently erroneous?
Definitely yes so that under RA10172 you can just go to the local civil registrar and have it corrected by the
local civil registrar.
Your name is intended for identification. If you want to change your name every now and then that is already a
matter of discretion. More often than not, that petition is denied.
ADOPTION
If you are foreigner you can adopt in the ph with your Filipino spouse. If you going for that with your Filipino
spouse a relative of the Filipino spouse within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The problem is
under the local adoption law, that foreigner can adopt jointly with the Filipino spouse subject to the condition
that he possesses the qualifications of the Filipino and four other requirements
A and B are married, A is a foreginer B is a Filipino, they would like to adopt jointly a relative of B by
consanguinity or affinity within fourth civil degree dapat yung foreigner na yan mas have the same qualification
as the Filipino. What are the four other requirements provided by law under RA 8552?
1. The foreigner must show that he is also eligible to adopt in his country;
2. That the laws of his country allows the child to enter the country of the adopter;
3. The 3 year residency requirement;
4. Diplomatic relationship.
If you can prove all these other requirements then you can be allowed to adopt jointly with your Filipino spouse.
The problem is that if you are a couple you have to adopt jointly. The Family Code used the word “shall” this is
for the procedural side of it because if you look at the case of Republic vs Polidano, couple, A and B are
married but it was the woman alone who filed the petition for adoption without impleading the husband. But the
husband executed an affidavit consenting to the adoption and the case was heard but one who was not
impleaded went to court and testified and they reiterate the contents on the affidavit of consent. Then it was
granted because even if the husband was not impleaded as a party petitioner although this was a requirement by
law, the totality of the circumstances like executing an affidavit of consent and testifying in court that he was
consenting to the adoption, would show that the person was deemed impleaded.
Then come the case of Michaell and Michelle Lim, foreigner and Filipino. They got married but the woman
filed a petition for adoption alone without impleading the husband because the husband was already in the
United States. This husband then filed a petition for divorce while the woman filed a petition for adoption. The
husband again executed an affidavit consenting to the adoption. But when the adoption was set for hearing, the
husband did not even come here to the ph and did not testify. The SC sand Republic vs Polidano is not
applicable in this case. The difference lies on the fact that the foreigner did not come here to testify on the
affidavit of consent.
What is the effect of adoption?
A child adopted has the same rights as that of a legitimate child but he does not have the right of representation.
Because the relationship is limited to the adopted and the adopted.
Can you adopt your own brother or Sister?
The SC said Yes. Never mind if that would result to double relationship if that would be for the best interest of
the child.
Who can file the action for rescission of Adoption?
Only the adopted can go to court and file rescission for decree of adoption.
If there is rescission, the custody of the child will be reverted to the parents or the DSWD who gave the consent
for the adoption of the child. Then there will be an order cancelling the record of birth as amended then it will
be reverted to the original record of birth.
HABEAS CORPUS
If ever there is a person who has been arrested without warrant, but no charges have been filed against the
person. The remedy is Habeas Corpus.
If there is unlawful detention the remedy is Habeas Corpus.
The petition for Habeas Corpus is not necessary to be an offense related. If you recall the case of Rubi vs
Provincial Board of the Province of Mindoro. The Provincial board adopted an ordinance for relocation of
people but those people who refused to vacate will be arrested. Refusal is not an offense but you may still file
for Habeas Corpus.
Can you ask for Habeas Corpus if your husband refuse to live with you?
No. The act of living together although provided under the Family Code cannot be compelled by any
proceeding in the Court because it is a voluntary or personal act.
Compulsion to change residence, your remedy is Habeas Corpus. (Villavicencio vs Lucban)
In Habeas Corpus it does not follow that it must be connected with an offense. So long as the person is detained
or the liberty of the person is in question, you file for Habeas Corpus. In this case there is a reverse trial it is the
respondent who will first testify and justify the detention.
Custody of the Child is in question, file for Habeas Corpus.

04-22-18
*In your answers, always place a reason WHY. Because while the answer is correct, it is an incomplete answer
WITHOUT the reason
There are those cases that are exceptional in character: To protect the interest of the victims of illegal
recruitment
Jurisdiction - what are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases?

1.) Penalty is one of them
-If it does not exceed 6 years, then that is generally within the cognizance of the MTC except in certain cases
like libel (because that is the max. penalty for libel)
That's why there was a mistake in the filing of a libel case before the MTC in the case of People v. City
Court of Quezon city. But the Supreme Court said no, that is within the jurisdiction of the RTC because of the
provision of Article 360 of the RPC. There was also a mistake in the case of People v. Justice Benipayo. As
Chairman of the COMELEC, he committed an offense and the offense was libel. So that was brought to the
Sandiganbayan, because he belongs to the salary scale of 27 & above, being the Chairman of the COMELEC.
But the Supreme Court said wrong again, go to the RTC that even if the libelous statement was uttered in
relation to the performance of the duties and functions of a Chairman of COMELEC, the SC said immaterial
'yan because it is the law that provides that libel lies within the jurisdiction of the RTC. That means that
jurisdiction is conferred by law.
The most recent controversy of jurisdiction over a criminal case is the case of Sen. De Lima v. Judge
Guerrero of Muntinlupa wherein a senator belongs to a grade scale of 29 or 31. Then allegedly, a Secretary of
Justice committed a crime in relation to the performance of her duties and functions. It's because of that that the
senator contended that it should have been with the Sandiganbayan, not with the RTC. But you have to
remember the provision of RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. That regardless of the grade scale
of the public officer or even if the act was committed in relation to the performance of duties and functions of
the public officer, then the RTC has jurisdiction. So what are we trying to say? Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
It was cited in a situation where even if you are a high
ranking official in the military if you have committed an act in relation to the performance of duties and
functions as a public officer who is a military man, even if your salary grade is 27 & above, then the military
tribunal has jurisdiction.
We have to remember the provisions of the Rules in the meantime. That an information has already been
filed and after the filing of the information you are going to conduct preliminary investigation (PI). Di ba
logical yan? That is the logical situation in the law.
Who are authorised to conduct PI? Of course, the prosecutor's office or the DOJ in general. Because the
DOJ has a national prosecution service. And if it's the national prosecution service that conducts the PI, they do
it because the case is a high-profile case. For example, the Maguindanao massacre or yung sa mga drug lords.
Umamin na nga, dinismiss
mo pa, baka ikaw ang ma-dismiss.
If I should be free to tell you, about those 2 Chinese because I know the person who apprehended these
people. And after he apprehended, somebody approached him but that fellow did not accept what was being
offered so he was brought to the Philippine Navy. From the PNP to the Philippine Navy - naging floating.
While they were trying the case for libel, the accused daw was trying to say something. The only
question that was asked was this: Did anybody hear what you said? Who was beside you? None. Who was at
your back? None. Who was in front of you? None. So nobody heard? Nobody heard. So, no libel. Kasi
publication ang importante sa libel eh. Eh ang problema kung written, patay. Lalo na yung Cyber-libel.
Hangga't di mo inaalis yan, eh continuing yun. Everyday yun. Hindi lang every day, every minute. So the period
of prescription will not run.
So who are going to conduct this investigation? So the prosecution service together with the COMELEC
together with the Ombudsman. Because they are going to determine whether there is probability of guilt.
Remember that PI, does not determine the guilt of the accused. It merely determines the probability of guilt. So
that in the case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the Supreme Court said that you can even file a criminal case on
the basis of hearsay provided it is supported by substantial basis. Because that is not going to determine the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. You are going to merely determine the probability. Kasi ang
probability of guilt lang eh is probably guilty. And who will prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt? The prosecution's office will prove. And who will decide whether the accused is guilty or not? It is the
court that will decide. So it is not the PI or the person conducting the PI that will determine the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt but it will be the judge, after presentation of evidence. So I always say it is
easier to file a criminal case pagka-naging prosecutors kayo in the future. When you are inclined to file, surface
lamang ang basis mo eh. Kasi probability of guilt lang. Kaya lang, ganda gandahan mo naman yung basis. In
order that there will be basis for the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It will
be easier for you to file, and it will be more difficult for you to dismiss.
Pag nagdismiss ka sa PI, you have to explain it very carefully. It's easier to file, hindi mo masyadong ija-
justify yung filing eh. Kasi probability of guilt lang. Pero pag dismissal, kailangan iexplain mo. You have to
explain why you are recommending dismissal. Anyway, your recommendation as a panel is not final; it still
goes somewhere. For example, yung nangyare dun sa drug lords. You mean to say that is a final decision of the
panel of prosecutors? No, because that is subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice. Automatic pa nga
yung review dun eh. Especially in the high profile cases coming from the NPS or national prosecutor service.
The COMELEC has the power to enforce the election law. Remember however that the Constitution
does not vest upon the COMELEC the exclusive power to enforce election laws. Enforcement of election laws
would include conducting PI, finding probability of guilt, and prosecuting offenses involving violation of
election law. There was a question in the case of De Lima v. COMELEC and Abalos v. COMELEC. These
two people, the chairman and the former chairman of the COMELEC Abalos and former President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, were charged with crimes involving the violation of the Omnibus election code. But who
conducted the PI? It was the joint panel of the DOJ and that of the COMELEC.
That's why there was a question. Why is it na nakikialam ang DOJ? Isn't it that the COMELEC has the
power to enforce our electoral laws? The Supreme Court said that the Constitution does not vest exclusive
authority or power on the part of the COMELEC to prosecute or conduct investigation & prosecute offenses
involving the Omnibus election code. That is not an exclusive power. It is only one of the powers but it is not an
exclusive power on the part of the COMELEC.
Especially now that there is an amendment to the Omnibus election code granting not only upon the
COMELEC the power to prosecute or enforce election laws but even to the DOJ. The Supreme Court said they
can do so. Because the power to enforce is not exclusive on the part of the COMELEC.
In relation to public officers, then who conducts PI in relation to the performance of their duties and
functions? That if there's a showing that there is a symbiotic relationship, relationship between the office and
that of the act done and that of the public office. The case of the judge who offered to file his recommendation
to the Supreme Court on the condition that she will be his girlfriend. The girl eventually filed Acts of
Lasciviousness against the judge. Meron bang connection yung Acts of Lasciviousness and that of the position
of the judge? Because of the influence that you have over that person, the Supreme Court said that there is an
intimate relationship between the act that was done and that of the public office because were it not for the fact
that you're a judge, and that were it not for the fact that this girl was your employee, you would not have been
able to do it. The Supreme Court said the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. But who can conduct the
investigation? Of course, the Office of the Ombudsman. So the Office of the Ombudsman can conduct this
investigation over acts that are committed by public officers in relation to the performance of their duties and
functions except in cases of drug related crimes. Because it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
If you try to look into the case of Quarto v. Ombudsman Marcelo this is just only one of those
situations. Together with that situation in the Ampatuan case. Is it not in the case of the massacre, after that act
was done, one of the participants of the massacre came to Manila immediately and went to the DOJ and
presented himself as a witness in order that the DOJ may be able to conduct an investigation? Eh sino ba
magwiwitness, lahat ng magwiwitness patay. And so one of the participants went to Secretary De Lima and
offered himself as a witness. So ano ginawa nila? Binigyan ng protection under the Witness Protection Program
(WPP). Then the participant executed an affidavit pointing to several people. That these are the people who
planned the massacre, people who participated actively, and that he was one of them. Investigation was
conducted and he was given WPP. But the result of the PI by that panel said that he was one of them. So what
did Mangudadato do? Petition for mandamus to compel the Secretary of Justice to charge that fellow because
the result of the PI showed that he was one of the participants. How can you prosecute a fellow who was
granted immunity from prosecution and was given protection under the WPP? Binigyan ng immunity from
prosecution eh. Because in exchange for your testimony is your protection. Kung hihingi ka rin lang ng
immunity statute, transactional ang hingin mo. Kasi kung use or derivative use immunity, if the result of the
investigation shows that you are a participant, you can be charged. Kung ako sayo, if you are the counsel, grant
him a transactional immunity statute.
In the same manner in the case of Quarto v. Ombudsman Marcelo there was a scam at the DPWH.
But Ombudsman Marcelo wanted to conduct an investigation. But how could you conduct an investigation if
you have no witnesses? If you have no documents to show that these people were the perpetrators of the crime?
He granted the people who were in possession of the documents bearing their signatures immunity from
prosecution of the crime.
Problema dito nagkagulo na naman kay Napoles, binigyan ng temporary immunity. Meron bang ganun?
Sabagay, ang contention ko dito is, why not? Kasi kung wala ka rin naman mga witnesses to help you in
conducting the investigation why not press Napoles to testify? And point to people who cooperated in the
perpetration of those offenses that were committed involving the PDAF with the senators and members of
Congress. Sila Jinggoy, Revilla, and Enrile lang ba ang nagcommit ng crime? Are you afraid that Napoles will
be covered by the WPP? If that is the truth, that is the lesser part of the evil. If that is going to be one of the
means by which you are going to solve a crime, why not? She is not the most guilty. Ang problema dito, yung
requirements for the discharge of a person/fellow accused to become a state witness and granting immunity
from prosecution are the same. There is only one difference. There is one added requirement by the provision of
the law. That you should be an active participant in a grave offense. And then the rest are the requirements of
discharge of an accused to become state witness. Pareho. Ang problema dito, he is not the most guilty. The
senator is guilty, but Napoles is not the most guilty. Who will decide whether that fellow will be discharged?
The DOJ. What about the power of the court? That is only confirmatory. If ever an accused will be discharged
to become the state witness, that is to be determined by the executive department, by the DOJ or by the
prosecutor. As long as that fellow is not the most guilty. Dun magkakatalo. But who will decide who is the most
guilty? It is the prosecutor's office. Because it is the prosecutor's office who will determine the kind of evidence
that will be presented. It is the DOJ who will determine who will be the witnesses. Para sa akin bigyan mo ng
pagkakataon eh, let her execute an affidavit. What pieces of evidence does she have in order to point to these
congressmen and senators? Because I do not believe that only the three senators should be prosecuted.
The Ombudsman, the COMELEC, the DOJ can grant. Nag grant ung DOJ sa Ampatuan case, nag grant
ung Ombudsman sa DPWH case (Quarto v. Ombudsman Marcelo), and then nag grant din ung COMELEC dun
sa kaso ng COMELEC v. Español. It's a case of violation of the Omnibus election code. There was vote
buying. Remember you are supposed to be there to render public service. Yung salary mo is only incidental to
the public service that you are rendering. Ang problema natalo etong si Mayor dahil hindi bumoto ang kanyang
lider. Dinemanda ng vote buying. Eh nag countercharge ng vote selling. Because both vote buying and vote
selling are offenses under the provisions of the Omnibus election code. Parehong nakulong. Iisang selda pa.
Sabi ng Supreme Court, bigyan mo ng immunity from prosecution ang vote seller, so that you can prosecute the
vote buyer. Otherwise, you cannot prosecute the vote buyer if you prosecute at the same time the vote seller.
Remember, that pursuant to the Estrada principle that even on the basis of hearsay for as long as it is
supported by substantial basis, then you can file a criminal prosecution. Because the PI is not the process where
you are going to determine the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Because you are going to
determine merely the probability of guilt. So that's the situation ah, under PI. Affidavits lang to ah. Walang trial
yan. Affidavit, counter affidavit, reply affidavit, etc.
If there is only one thing that I would like you to learn from me. If you think that you cannot dismiss the
case on PI, ipa file mo na. Because the moment you file your counter affidavit, you open your defense eh. And
you will be bound by that affidavit. Ang depensa mo lang to compel. Kung hindi mo rin lang kayang idismiss sa
PI dahil napakanipis ng ebidensya na isusubmit, probability of guilt lang, do not open the defense. Because,
yung mga magagaling na trial lawyers sa criminal cases, normally they do not submit affidavits eh.
Because the defense will be an open-ended defense. The defense might arise as the trial goes on. But the
moment you submit an affidavit, you will be bound by that affidavit. Kaya lang the temptation always is to fight
it out in the PI. But you're opening your defense and you will be limited to that kind of defense. Eh kung may
dumating na defense that will be available when the trial will come, how can you now change your theory when
you go to trial? So after the PI, there is probability of guilt found by the prosecutor who conducted the PI, then
there is an information.
Can you file a duplicitous information? I issue to you 10 checks. All of them were dishonored. For every
check that is dishonored, that is a crime. It's either BP 22 or Article 315. It's either violation of BP 22 or estafa.
Problem: Is it possible for the prosecutor to lump them into only one information? That is prohibited under the
provisions of the Rules because the Rules do not allow duplicitous information as a general rule. But please
remember that the defect on the information is only a procedural defect. What is your remedy if there is a
duplicitous information? File a Motion to Quash. That if ever the Motion to Quash is granted, the 10 offenses
lumped into one information will be filed separately. But please remember that it is not a jurisdictional defect; it
is a mere procedural defect. That if ever you do not file a Motion to Quash and then you agree to be tried or to
be arraigned, then all of them are proven during the trial, then that accused can be convicted for as many
offenses as there are proven during the trial. Because the defect in the information is a mere formal defect. It is
not a jurisdictional defect which can be waived if you do not file a Motion to Quash. That's the meaning of that
phrase. If you will come to the provisions of Rule 117, one of the grounds for a Motion to Quash is when there
is a duplicitous information.
Then what are the elements of a particular information?

2.) Place where the crime was committed. Eh bakit mo hahabaan ang complaint? Ultimately, the ultimate facts
are supposed to be alleged. Kasi kung admitted, eh di walang paglalabanan. In short, gumawa ka ng complaint
na iisa ang issue. You don't need to render a very long judgment. As long as you comply with the parts of a
judgment: statement of the case, statement of the facts, assuming that trial was conducted, findings of fact will
be based on the evidence, then what is the issue? Whether he is liable or not? What is the basis of the liability?
Because of the promissory note. So based on contract, loan. It is the law between the contracting parties. Eh di
wherefore. Ilang sentences lang decision mo?
People of the Philippines v. John Doe, or Jane Doe or Peter Doe. Because that is the accused who is not
identified properly in the meantime. That the moment the identity of the person will be discovered / revealed at
any stage of the proceedings, then the court can issue an order directing the amendment of the information. That
will be merely a formal amendment.
Time where the crime was committed. Do you need to exactly state the date and the time when the crime
was committed? The information states "at or about this time" you do not need to state the exact time when it
was committed. For example, is the time when it was committed an element of rape? Ay hindi naman ah.
Because rape can be committed at any moment during the day or night. But if he took advantage of nighttime,
then that can be alleged as an aggravating circumstance. The time when the crime was committed and the time
when it was filed in court must not be so far separated from one another because the recollection of the
complainant, the witnesses or even the accused of the circumstances might not be fresh anymore after a long
time. "10,000 days ago" baka nagprescribe na yun ah.
Then what are the elements of that particular offense? The name of the complainant, the name of the
accused, the place, the time when the crime was committed. Then you have to allege these aggravating,
qualifying, these special qualifying circumstances. Why? In order that if you can prove them, that may elevate
that crime to a qualified offense. For example rape, what will elevate it to a qualified offense? If you allege the
fact that the father committed the crime against the minor child, then you can elevate it from a simple crime of
rape. Can you prove the age, can you prove relationship of the victim if you did not allege the age and the
relationship of the victim and that of the accused? Yes. But even if you can prove them, the proof will not
elevate the crime to qualified rape but it will only entitle the victim to an award of exemplary damages. Because
under the provisions of the Civil Code, in order that exemplary damages may be awarded in a criminal case,
then there must be proof of burden of (atleast) one aggravating circumstance. But if ever they were not alleged
but they were proven that is only for the purpose of determining whether the accused is liable to pay exemplary
damages but it is not intended to elevate the offense for the purpose of the imposition of the appropriate penalty.
The information is hereby amended from that of murder to homicide. But for you to be able to amend it,
there must be a motion, there must be consent/notice the complainant. The amendment of the information in
order to downgrade the offense, has been a source of corruption in the prosecution service. The Supreme Court
has been telling us. It is either you're going to downgrade the offense or exclude an accused from the
information. What crimes may be prosecuted de officio? What are the crimes that are supposed to be
commenced by the private complainant/the victim? Dati rati apat. SARA, but rape has been converted into a
public offense that can be prosecuted de officio. That you cannot commence the crimes of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness without the private complainant or offended party commencing the same. Hindi pwedeng
mag commence ang fiscal dito. Because the fellow might want to keep it to herself. And if ever you are going to
prosecute persons for the crime of adultery, hindi ibig sabihin yung babae lang ipoprosecute mo, dapat pareho.
These are some important situations in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. What are the elements of an
offense? The body of the information shall determine the nature of the crime not necessarily the caption because
it is a mere conclusion of law by the prosecutor. Baka yung caption niya homicide. Ang problema dito, the body
of information alleges elements of murder. If trial will be conducted and the evidence will show that the
elements of murder were committed, can that person be convicted of the crime of murder? Yes. What about the
caption? The caption is a mere conclusion of law by the prosecutor. What determines the kind of offense
committed should not be the caption but should be the elements of the crime committed as alleged in the
information. The body of the information shall determine the crime that has been committed; it is not the
caption as the Supreme Court has always said.
If you are going to consider the fact that an information has been filed, what is the effect of the filing of
that criminal case? The civil aspect of that criminal case is deemed filed. And what is that civil liability that is
deemed filed? The filing of criminal liability carries with it the filing of the civil liability. And what is that civil
liability that is deemed filed? The civil liability arising from the crime charged as a penalty. Unless you reserve
it. Unless you waive it. Unless you filed it ahead of the criminal case. If it is the civil that you filed ahead of the
criminal, that is equivalent to a reservation of the right to file a separate civil action. Because you do not need to
make a reservation if it is one of those independent civil action. If it is an independent civil action, falling under
the provisions of Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil code, you do not need to make a reservation kasi
naka reserve na yan eh. Kaya nga independent civil action, they can be prosecuted independently of the criminal
prosecution.
For example, if there is a criminal case for estafa. Can you prosecute that person at the same time?
Criminally and civilly? Yes, why not. Do you need to make a reservation of the right to file that separate action?
It depends if the civil action arises from a contract. Because if you remember that under the provisions of
Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 in relation to Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, you do not need to make a
reservation of the same because they are independent civil actions. They can be prosecuted independently of the
criminal prosecution. You do not need to make a reservation. The civil liability that you reserve is the civil
liability arising from the crime charged as a felony. Because if you do not make a reservation, then that is
deemed to be filed with the criminal. For example, yung reparation. For example property is supposed to be
returned, if that person is going to be convicted. Yung mga civil liability under the RPC. Something is going to
be retrieved. Something is going to be returned. For example, I borrowed money for you. In consideration of the
amount, I gave you a check which was dishonored. Am I criminally liable. Yes, for the crime of estafa under
Article 315. Can you sue me civilly? Yes. Because you can file it independently of the criminal prosecution.
You do not have to reserve the same because that is an example of an independent civil action under the
provision of Article 33 of the Civil code. Di ba fraud yun?
In cases of defamation. For example written or oral defamation. I was sued for the crime of libel. Or
slander as the case may be. Can you sue me separately in a civil case for damages? Yes. Why not. But if you do
not sue me in an independent civil action, then the civil liability is going to be filed together with the criminal.
But if ever there is a criminal case that is prosecuted. Suppose there is acquittal, what are the kinds of acquittal
in a criminal case? If the acquittal is beyond reasonable doubt can the court render judgment of acquittal beyond
reasonable doubt and at the same time hold that accused civilly liable? What is one of the best examples of this
where there can be civil liability even if there is acquittal of the accused but it is based on reasonable doubt. For
example, I came to you and borrowed money from you. On due date, I delivered to you a check. But the check
was dishonored. Can you sue me under the crime of estafa under Article 315?
If ever you sue me for the crime of estafa, what is my defense if you were the counsel? Hindi criminal
case yan, that is civil in nature as your defense. The liability if ever is only civil in nature. It would have been
different if you delivered to me the money now and I delivered to you a check. Kasi that would be a case of
violation of Article 315. We're talking about Article 315 ah. Not BP 22. The defense that you can interpose is
that it is only a civil case and not a criminal case.
Counsel: In order to cut short the proceedings, in order to save time, we are ready to make offers for admission.
But our offers for admission is subject to one condition.
Judge: What for example are you going to offer by way of admission?
Counsel: We are willing to admit your Honor, that the accused issued the check in question.
He does not have to prove it anymore. In judicial admission it need not be proven; it is binding upon the one
admitting. Judge: What else?
Counsel: We are willing to admit that the check was dishonored. But as we said, it's off the record. In the
meantime. Preliminary hearing. We are willing to admit those two things subject to the condition that the
prosecution should also admit that the check was issued in payment of a preexisting obligation.
Now, is that a criminal case for estafa? None, that is only civil in nature.
The person was ready to pay the equivalent of the check to the witness stand.
Judge: What do you say now, prosecutor?
Prosecutor: We move for the dismissal of the information, your Honor.
Don't you know that if ever you interpose the defense that the check was issued in payment of a
preexisting obligation, that is an admission of civil liability? That is not a crime but it is civil in nature. Even if
we try this case up to the end, you're just wasting time, with that admission that the check was issued and
delivered in consideration of construction materials at a later date. Okay lang sana kung simultaneous eh. Estafa
sana yun. Article 315 sana yun.
There are 2 kinds of acquittal: that is one of the acquittals. And the other one is acquittal, where there is
a pronouncement that there is no basis upon which the civil liability may exist. What is a good example? The
most popular among them is, what? Mendoza v. Arrieta. Vehicle #1 and vehicle #2 at a stop position because
of a red light. Crossing. But vehicle #3 negligently bumped vehicle #2, which bumped vehicle #1. Vehicle #2
was prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property. Was he acquitted? Yes. Vehicle #2
was acquitted with the pronouncement that there is no basis for civil liability. What was the proximate cause to
the damage done to vehicle #1? Was it the negligent act of vehicle #2 eh naka stop position eh? The negligence
of vehicle #3 was the proximate cause of the damage done. Dapat si vehicle #3 ang iprosecute mo. That since
there was no negligent on the part of vehicle #2, #2 was acquitted. Not beyond reasonable doubt, but with the
pronouncement that there is no basis upon which the civil liability may exist. That despite the acquittal of the
accused in the criminal case, finile an siya ng civil action for damages. The Supreme Court said how can you
hold him liable civilly, when there is already a pronouncement in the criminal case that there was no basis upon
which the civil liability may exist? The extinguishment of the criminal action carries with it the extinguishment
of the civil liability.
It is similarly situated in the case of B. The check which was placed in the hands of Ching was stolen by
X. There is no crime, there is no civil liability. Ang problema hanggang dun lamang sa criminal case. That since
there was no commercial transaction between A and B, he is hereby acquitted. Hindi naman sinabi beyond
reasonable doubt. And because of that there was an appeal from that case because you cannot appeal from the
judgment of acquittal because that would put the accused in double jeopardy. But there was an appeal in so far
as the civil aspect is concerned. But what is the meaning of that pronouncement of the court in the body of the
judgment that since the check was stolen by Mr. X, it was proven to be so. Eh di ba ikaw ang presumed thief if
you would encash the check? Eh wala ka namang transaction eh ba't na sayo ang cheke? So ang presumption is
that you are the thief of the check. There was an acquittal, but there was no pronouncement that Mr. X is civilly
liable. The Supreme Court said that on the basis of the body of the judgment, that there was no transaction
between A and X, then there is no basis upon which the civil liability may exist. Kasi na acquit eh. You can
prosecute X for the civil aspect. Ang problema dito, the evidence is to the effect that there was no transaction
between A and X. So walang contract. Because there are several sources of an obligation and one of them is law
and another is contract. Sabi ng Supreme Court, the acquittal of the accused in this case is similar to the
acquittal of the accused in the case of Mendoza v. Arrieta. That since there was no basis upon which the civil
liability may exist because the check was merely a stolen check. A thief does not have a better right over the
object of the crime or theft as the case may be. So that what is extinguished in case of acquittal is the civil
liability arising from the crime charged as a penalty.
However, if the civil liability arises out of other sources of obligation like quasi delict, contract, quasi
contract, then you can prosecute the civil aspect in a separate action. But if the elements of estafa were not
proven, gaya nung sa Dy v. Mandy Commodities, no crime of estafa was committed, eh di acquitted. Because
the Supreme Court said, you should file a separate civil action because there was extinguishment of the criminal
liability together with the civil liability arising from the crime charged as a felony. But if there is a contract, go
to court and file an action.
If you take a look at the provision of Article 32 that is an outline of the Bill of Rights. If they violate
your freedom of religion, search and seizure, etc. If they violate your liberty of abode. Even if it does not
amount to a crime, you can file a separate civil action. For example they force you to get out of your abode.
Kagaya ng Villavicencio v. Lucban. Pwede mong idemanda yun ng criminal, kung may criminal. Pwede rin ng
civil, because of Article 32 the Civil code. Do you need to reserve it? Hindi, because that is an independent civil
action. Sabi naman ng Supreme Court don't worry if you do not file it immediately because the filing of the
criminal case will stop the running of the period of prescription for you to file the civil case. If it is based on
contract, 10 years, hindi tatakbo yun. If it is based on quasi delict 4 years hindi tatakbo yun. You do not need to
be worried because the period of 10 years or 4 will not run. It is stalled by filing of the criminal action.
But you cannot have an independent civil action, you cannot make a reservation if it is BP 22. The filing
of the criminal case for BP 22 carries with it the filing of the civil case. Consolidation. There is stringent
requirement of personal notice. Notice of dishonor is important. And that has been the basis of dismissal or
acquittal of the accused in BP 22 prosecutions. Hindi pwede yung by mail lang, which is sometimes impossible
to do. Iiwanan mo yun di pwede yun. However, there may still be basis for him to be civilly liable based on
contract.
Between a criminal case and a civil case, which is the prejudicial question? Di ba sabi ng batas, it is civil
in nature. The resolution of which will determine whether the criminal will proceed or not. But that civil must
be filed ahead of the criminal. Remember the case of Mercado v. Tan where there was a marriage celebrated in
Bacolod. But the marriage was celebrated without the benefit of a marriage license. So the marriage was void
for lack of marriage license. During the marriage, that man went to Cebu and got married to another woman
knowing that the marriage was void. Nalaman ni misis from Bacolod. Nagfile ng criminal case for Bigamy. And
then after, nagfile yung lalaki ng case to declare the marriage void for lack of license. Can he suspend the
criminal case for Bigamy because of prejudicial question? The court said you cannot. Because the procedural
requirement that the civil must be filed ahead of the criminal is not present in this case.
As a matter of fact, I have always said that if there is a prejudicial question it can even determine in
advance your guilt or innocence. The determination of the civil prejudges the criminal whether convicted or
acquitted. You filed an action to nullify the said document of sale and thereafter filed a criminal case of estafa
for having sold a property that did not belong to him. Estafa in 316 other forms of deceit. Nauna yung civil to
nullify the document of sale because according to you, that is a forged signature and there is no consideration.
But the criminal case was filed thereafter for estafa. Can you move for the suspension of the criminal case on
the ground of prejudicial question? Yes. But suppose it was proven that the signature appearing in the document
of sale is your signature, magpack up ka na, magpakulong ka na. Because that will determine whether the
criminal will proceed or not. That will pre empt your acquittal or conviction. That's why the principle in Rule
111 says in relation to Article 36 of the Civil code would tell us that the determination of the prejudicial
question in the civil will determine whether the criminal will proceed or not.
As to the bigamous marriage, you should have gone to court first and have that first marriage declared
void. You cannot determine for yourself the invalidity of your marriage because otherwise you can escape scot
free from liability. So you can marry every week. All of them are void. Because it is necessary that you have to
go to court on the basis of Article 40 of the Civil code. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void. You have to
go to court and have that marriage declared void.
Tere v. Tere. Nagbabakasyon ng Holy week nakakita ng magandang dalaga. But the lady is already
married. Sabi niya, eh di ba magpinsan buo kayo nun? Alam mo void ang marriage niyo, by reason of public
policy. Pero hindi pa siya nag aaral ng law ah. Pinaghandaan niya eh. You are first degree cousins, that is void
by reason of public policy under Article 38 of the Family code. So that man persisted in courting the lady until
that lady agreed to marry that man. After the Bar, nag NPA. No Permanent Address. Iniwan yung babae.
Pumasa ng law and then got married to another lady. Finile an siya ngayon ng disbarment on the ground of
immorality. Sabi ng Supreme Court, Atty. Tere did you not come to realise that before your marriage to your
second wife, you should have come to court to have that void marriage with your first wife declared void? Sabi
ni Atty. Tere, I did not know that your Honor. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Aggravating circumstance
of education under Article 15 because you're a lawyer. What happened? He was disbarred.
Atienza v. Brillantes. Kasi yung Brillantes na yan used to be a judge. We were appointed together by
President Cory Aquino sa MTC ng Manila. We knew that man to be married. Pero sabi niya, hindi, binata ako.
Bakit ka binata? My marriage to my wife is void." Bakit? Walang lisensya. But by the time he got married to
his wife, according to the facts, he was already a lawyer. Ang problema may kapilyohan. During the time he
was a judge, nakakita ng girlfriend ang loko. It so happened that that girlfriend is also a live-in partner of a
businessman from Cebu. San sila nakatira? Sa Bel Air, Makati. May kaya yung lalaki. He was not satisfied
being the boyfriend of that girl ang problema dito sa lahat ng masamang ginawa niya, pumunta pa dun sa bahay
ng lalaki para tumira dun sa girlfriend. Ang problema, dumating yung lalaki, yung may ari ng bahay. Not long
after binanatan siya ng damages sa Cebu. And despite that case that was filed against him in Cebu by that man,
these two went to California and got married. Pagbalik dito nagalit yung lalaki finile an siya ng administrative
case. What is one of the qualities of a judge? Morality. How can this fellow enter membership in the judiciary if
he is immoral? Pare, that is the end of your career. Tanggal. Because of immorality. Land grabber ka na,
girlfriend grabber ka pa. Eh tinakot niya pa. Ayun, that resulted in an action for damages. Sabi niya, how can I
be immoral your Honor please, when my marriage with my first wife is void? So that my marriage with my
second wife is valid especially if it was celebrated abroad and valid there as such. Teka muna. Marriages
celebrated between Filipino citizens outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws therein and valid
there as such shall be valid in the Philippines except as provided for in Article 35 par. 4. Bigamous marriage.
You did not think about going to court to have that first marriage declared void before you contracted marriage
with your second wife? Hindi pinalusot ng Supreme Court. The Family Code is retroactive, judge. You should
have gone to court to have that first marriage declared void.
Arrest. Remember that the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge is not ministerial. It is now a
matter of discretion on the part of the court. Because if the court does not find probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest, then the last thing that the judge may do is to dismiss the criminal case. Because remember
that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a matter of judicial determination/discretion ung probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The probable cause for the filing of an information is an executive
determination. It is determined by the prosecutor. Executive in nature. But the probable cause for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest is not an administrative or executive determination. It is a judicial determination. So that
whenever there is a criminal case that is filed in court and it is raffled to a particular branch of that court, the
issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a matter of ministerial duty.
Discretionary yan on the part of the court. Because the court will have to make a determination of the
existence of probable court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. And what will be the basis of the court in
determining the existence of probable cause? The record that is brought to that court. You do not have to tell the
court to make a determination. Automatic yan. There is a self-determination of the existence of probable cause
(for the issuance of a warrant of the arrest). You don't have to file a motion. You don't have to tell the judge
because that is his duty. And what will be the basis of the judge? Yung record. If there is basis, then the court
will issue a warrant of arrest. But suppose after a self-determination of the existence of the probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the record does not show any probable cause. What will the judge do?
Sasabihin ni judge, prosecutor, please elevate the entire record of the preliminary investigation so that on the
basis of this record plus your record I can determine the existence of probable cause. Suppose, still there is no
probable cause on the basis of the two records. What will the judge do? The judge will order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence. Still wala pa rin.
Tignan mo yung Constitution. No warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
Tama na yan. Pag dineretso mo pa search warrant na yun. Alright, you presented additional evidence. Wala pa
rin. Because in that situation you have already examined the complainant and the witnesses. Wala pa rin. Anong
options mo? The more prudent option on your part is do not issue a warrant of arrest; set it for pretrial and
arraignment. Then go to trial. That is the more prudent act on your part. Pero kung malakas ang loob mo as a
judge, dismiss.
Look at the case of People v. Yaddao involving Sen. Ping Lacson when he was still the PNP Chief.
Yung sa Kuratong Baleleng case. Eh di ba nafile an sila Ping Lacson. Di ba dinimiss yung kaso? Because there
was no probable cause. The Supreme Court said that if ever you dismiss, be sure that absolutely there is no
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. But the more prudent act on your part, kung di mahina
hina ang loob mo, do not dismiss it. Set it for pretrial, set it for arraignment, set it for trial. But do not remand it
to the prosecutor. Eto yung kaso ng Liza Maza eh. Because when that case was filed, the court made a self-
determination of the existence of probable cause pero sabi niya, the preliminary investigation is not complete, I
am remanding it to you. The Supreme Court said no, that is not the appropriate remedy. If there is no probable
cause on the basis of the record, you follow the procedure. Have the records of the preliminary investigation
elevated. If still you cannot find probable cause then, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence. Still,
if you cannot determine probable cause you have two options: you can dismiss or set it for pretrial, arraignment,
and trial. Then decide. It must be very clear, the Supreme Court said that whenever you dismiss it there is
absolute certainty that there is no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. That's when you can
dismiss the criminal case. Yun naman ang warning dun sa kaso ng Yaddao eh because Judge Yaddao dismissed
that criminal case because there was no finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
You do not need to ask the judge to make a determination for the existence of probable cause because
that is automatic on the part of the judge. To have a self-determination of the existence of probable cause. But
please do not remand. Yung recent case of Liza Maza. Where the Supreme Court said you committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when you remanded the case because of your
ruling that the preliminary investigation was not complete. That is not part of the rules. Remanding the said
case. That's the situation in the provision of the law on arrest.
When can there be arrest without warrant? If a crime has been committed in the presence of that officer.
Or even in front of a private individual. Di ba there is such a thing as citizen's arrest? Theoretically you can do
it. Because it is not only your right as an officer of the law; it is not only your right, it is your duty, to arrest a
person committing an offense in your presence. For example, somebody just committed a crime of murder or is
committing a crime? Can you arrest that person? Yes. Because you have to maintain peace and order. Peace
officer ka nga eh. You do not need a warrant of arrest. But the problem is, yung jailbreak. There are prisoners
escaping from prison. That is one of the instances under Rule 113 where that person can be arrested without
warrant. Ang naging controversial etong nasa gitna. Wala namang problema yung sa actually committing an
offense eh. Together with the prisoners escaping. To cut it short: jailbreak. If there are prisoners escaping from
prison, you can arrest them without warrant because actually that is a commission of a crime. Evasion of
Service of Sentence. Ang controversial is nasa gitna. Kasi nandito yung border ng situations eh. That the crime
has just been committed.
And if you are the police officer arresting that person, you have personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that that person committed the offense. That the person who is about to be arrested committed
that offense. Remember that the crime has just been committed. If the crime was committed yesterday and you
saw the culprit, can you arrest him today? Hindi pwede, he has not just committed the offense. He committed
the offense yesterday. Dito maganda magtanong. Aside from the enumeration, dito sa gitna pwede magtanong
eh. Isang magandang situation yung kaso ng Uy. There was a kidnapping incident. But there was a negotiation
between the parents and the said kidnapper of the victims. How can there be arrest without warrant? You have
no personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that a crime has been committed and we were the ones who
committed the crime. Where did personal knowledge come from? The Supreme Court said that in the case of
Uy xxx that personal knowledge of the police officers who arrested them at the end of the road came from the
monitoring team. So meron silang personal knowledge.
Grabe nga yung isa eh. A crime was committed last year or several years ago. Eh tumakbo yung tao
Nawala. But several years and several months thereafter, may communication siya dun sa community. Ibig
sabihin, pwede na ba umuwi. Pare, the sky is now clear. Eto naman si police officer na kapitbahay nung tao na
pumatay nung kanilang kapitbahay. Huli. Pwede? Hindi pwede. Altho that police officer saw the crime having
been committed, the crime has not just been committed. Yung 'just' means immediate. Otherwise, you can arrest
a person on the basis of previous acts that were committed and that would give a license for police officers to
abuse that power of arrest without warrant.
Kagaya ng nangyari kay Rolito Go. Was the arrest without warrant valid? No. A young man was killed
because of a disagreement at a particular part of the intersection in Ortigas. Nadyaryo, etc. etc. Na media. So
Rolito Go felt alluded to. Parang kamukha ko yun. Ako ba yun? Oo ikaw yan. Pinosasan. Kinulong. Was there a
valid arrest without warrant? The crime has not just been committed, the Supreme Court said. Because where
did you learn of the fact that Rolito Go committed the offense? From the media. So you have no personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that Rolito Go
committed the crime? You learned it only from the media. That is the case of People v. Rolito Go.
What about that case of Mayor Sanchez? Rape with homicide etc. Dyaryo, media covered it. After
several weeks, Sanchez was arrested without warrant. Was that a valid arrest without warrant? The Supreme
Court said no. Because the crime has not just been committed. You do not have also personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that the person you're arresting committed the offense. Because you learned of the
commission of the offense not from your personal knowledge but from the media. Similarly situated ah. Altho
ultimately, these two people were convicted.
We'll continue with this then Bail, Rights of the Accused, we will re arrange again 117 will be 116 and
116 will be 117. Kasi dito sa arrangement niya inarraign mo na saka ka nagfile ng Motion to Quash. No,
mauuna Motion to Quash before the Arraignment, because if you have already arraigned the accused, then that
will render the Motion to Quash moot and academic.
*****
03-23-18
RTC has jurisdiction over libel cases.
Relevant cases:
a.) People vs City Court of QC
- SC said libel is still within the cognizance of RTC because of the provisions of Art. 360 of Penal Code.
b.) People vs Justice Benefayo (?)

- Chairman of COMELEC committed libel
- Case was brought to Sandiganbayan because his salary grade is above 27
- SC said that libel is within the jurisdiction of RTC because its jurisdiction is conferred by law. Even if
the libelous statement was made in relation to his performance and functions as chairman of
COMELEC, it is immaterial because the jurisdiction for libel is conferred by law. Therefore, RTC has
jurisdiction.
c.) Senator De Lima vs Judge Guerrero of Muntinlupa

- Senator De Lima belongs to a SG of 31
- Allegedly Senator De Lima committed a crime in relation to her performance of duties and function.
- De Lima contented it should be with Sandiganbayan not RTC
- Under Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, regardless of the SG, RTC has jurisdiction
JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW

When can there be arrest w/o warrant?

-when a person is committing, has committed, about committing
Controversial point in ARREST:
When to question illegality of arrest?

-Prior to Arraignment (p.228)
-no objection, deemed waived.
Where there can be arrest w/o warrant?

-some say that you cannot arrest on a holiday, Biyernes santo?
-anytime of day or night or an any day (sec.6)
-not always necessary carrying warrant of arrest but normally to be very sure, should have the warrant of
arrest at the time of arresting the person.

If the person is under detention? Remedy: post bail for purposes of temporary liberty of the accused.
When bail is a matter of right or discretion?
-in the MTC, RTC = matter of right, except when the offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, or death whenever it is imposed when evidence of guilt is strong.
-but it is not always!
-ex. Murder, if penalty provided by law is RP = Petition for Bail then scheduled for hearing but not yet
for trial. When guilt is strong, present evidence but if it is proved that it is strong = NO bail.
-that the evidence presented in the hearing for bail shall form part of your evidence in chief but you do
not have to present all the witnesses.
If it is a matter of discretion, bail cannot be filed in any other court except w/ the court where it is pending.
(p.239)
Whenever petition for bail is filed, be sure that the accused will appear before the court.
Atty. Jose Paderanga vs. CA: accused should appear before the court. (p250)
-Doctrine of Constructive Custody? that if there is a justifiable reason, and the part of the accused not to
appear at the time of the hearing of the Petition for bail then the court can proceed with the hearing of the
petition for bail bec. it is as if the accused was under the custody of the court.
-you cannot invoke the power of the court in the pet. for bail and at the same time repudiate the power of
the court.
Court fixed at 5M Post Bail? Practical side: no need to question the appellate court if your client is in jail,
Remedy: file Motion for reduction of the bail bec. of excessive bail and then cash bail of 500k.
People vs. Villaluz: 1.9M = excessive bail violates the right of the accused (p.244)
If going to transfer in another place, inform your barangay chairman/barangay origin where you are
transferring.
-Is liberty of abode absolute if you have pending cases? depends on the situation. In case of former
Mayor Binay he accompanied his son for medical check up = if for Humanitarian reason, sometimes will
require to deposit money otherwise there will be a hold-departure order
Governor Leviste vs. CA: If convicted already and the penalty is 6yrs. not more than 20yrs, Homicide, there is a
matter of discretion: (rule 114, sec 5)
1. recidivist, quasi recidivist or habitual deliquent (p.235)
2. danger to commit another crime
3. any ANALOGOUS case if not surrender in the police after commission of an offense, then there's danger of
right/life?
If the penalty is more than 20 yrs., bail cannot anymore be granted.

-Cresencia Reyes case: covicted twice, 2 crimes of estafa (p.246)
Enrile case (p.231): SB denied Pet. for Bail but the SCgranted PB for humanitarian reasons.
-Bail is for the provisional liberty of the accused.
-To determine whether evidence is guilt is strong, what will happen to the person sick? defeated his
rights.
Can humanitarian reason be considered for Pet. for Bail? Yes. bec. of sickness
-followed only the case of Dela Rama
Person to be extradite? (Grace Poe case, before extradited, she was detained)
2 same cases in conflict:
1. USA vs. Purganan: SC held that he is not entitled to Pet. for Bail bec. Extradition is a sui generis proceeding.
It is not a criminal process, not a civil process, not an administrative process but a sui generis proceeding.
2. Hongkong Special Admin vs. Olalia (p.234): Sc granted bail provided that the person is not in flight risk
Why it is allowed here: Bec they came to realize that the PH is signatories to human right treaties: liberty
The case of Enrile was based on the case of Dela Rama and Governor Rodriguez = for humanitarian reason,
sickness.
When bail is a matter of right or discretion...
Times when no need for bail?
-sign a recognizance by responsible person in community or by himself. (p238)
-as a lawyer, pls. do not sign a recognizance.

Rights of the accused: Rule 115 looks like the Constitution, a shortcut form of the Constitution.
Extent of prohibition in appearing before court, or administrative proceeding, or quasi judicial body, or in
regular court? appearing on behalf of the client
Right to due process: given the opportunity to be heard (not necessary that you've heard it is necessary that you
have given the opportunity to be heard; can be waived), and notice are the minimum requirements by law
entitled to be informed of the nature of the case.
Is it necessary that the accused should be informed of the nature of accusations against him? yes, still part of
due process
-whenever there is information
People vs. Ong and People vs. Agustin: chinese language and Ilocano dialect respectively is the only
language/dialect he knew = violated their right
Mabanto vs. Sos: Rape case
Plead not guilty > trial was conducted on the basis of information that charged the crime of rape > convicted the
accused for the crime of qualififed seduction = Lesson: it is an error of judgment not of conviction -NO need to
appeal anymore!
-People vs. Nagi? NO matter how erroneous the judgment maybe if the judgment becomes final and
executory it has to be executed.
-it is a case of Poetic justice? Accused is not satisfied or not contented w/ the lower penalty and appeal
from that judgment of that lower penalty. SC will give the capital penalty
-It is based on People vs. Crisologo: Murder case - punishable by death in Davao
-there's infirmity/defect in trial of the case = SC: acquitted bec. there was a violation in the right
of due process and right to be inform
-accused is deaf-mute - arraignment and other stages was done by unofficial interpreter
In Babanto case, there's no defect but a perfect trial. It would not be death penalty if he could not have appealed
before the SC.
Tesigan vs. Asura: Right to be informed
Accused may opt to testify or may opt to never to testify.
If it was the accused who is the first witness, what till you do? will you object? bec. if you will not object, it
constitutes as waiver = will incriminate the accused.
Right against self-incrimination - limited to testimonial evidence but controlled by an act of___
-if not obejcted, waived.
People vs. Francis : Rape case

-SC: accused may choose to testify or not
-how can there be incrimination? not yet started impounding questions?
If it is the accused, even before the question being asked can avail RSI. If cannot invoke it, it is a waiver.
but if it is ordinary person, only when the incriminatory question is asked he can avail RSI.
Extent of RSI? is it limited to testimonial evid?
If accused was asked to write his name 10 times, what will be your objection?
-RSI, it will incriminate the accused.
-writing is protected/included in RSI - it is controlled by the intellect or mind
-but if it is a physical act, ei. DNA - not covered by the RSI.
-there are times that you cannot refused to testify, Galman vs. Pamaran case.
Kinds of Immunity Statute: (p.265)

1. Use and fruit I.S - can testify and be charged on the basis of the evidence you gave but the testimonies cannot
be used against in the criminal prosecution. You have to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
2. Transactional I.S - like contract; if ever granted, evidence cannot be used against the accused and cannot be
charge in any criminal prosecution - Comelec vs. Espano
After bail - may be granted or denied
People vs Balisacan: Murder case, have valid information (p. 302)
What is the basic duty of the court?
- If accused pleads guilty, he must be brought to the witness stand to determine if improvident or not. The
Court must conduct probing questions. Court must conduct an arraignment, one of the elements of
double jeopardy is missing plea.
If there is a provisional dismissal of any information, it should come from the accused in order to prevent from
invoking the right against double jeopardy, the 1 or 2 year period.
- If it is revived within the 1 or 2 year period = cannot invoke the double jeopardy defense.
- If the penalty does not exceed 6 years = 1 year
- If it will not be revived, the provisional dismissal shall become final and executory
- If the penalty exceeds 6 years = 2 years
- If revived only after the 1 or 2 years = can invoke double jeopardy
- If there’s consent of the accused, you can revive it
Tagle Robles Jardin Doctrine:
- No talk, no mistake
- Sign constitutes consent
- Tagle was dismissed without consent. Remedy if refiled: double jeopardy defense
- Robles moved for the dismissal. If the information is refiled, he cannot invoke double jeopardy because
he consented to it
- Jardin was dismissed without consent invoking speedy disposition trial. If refiled, he can invoke double
jeopardy.
After bail, the next step is for the court to deny or grant the petition for bail
- What is controlling is the strong evidence of guilt and not the penalty
Atty. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan
- Plunder case
- SB: Granted petition for bail provided there is arraignment first
- SC: There should be no condition for petition for bail because it will render the right of the accused to
file a Motion to Quash moot and academic.
- If Motion to Quash is denied, arraignment is next. No appeal from it because it is interlocutory
- Venue is a question of jurisdiction in a criminal case
- Everything is void if the court has no jurisdiction
Double Jeopardy requirements (p. 302)
1.) Valid indictment/information before court of competent jurisdiction

2.) Valid arraignment
3.) Valid Plea
4.) Dismissed without express consent of the accused
Cudia vs CA:
- There were 2 grounds for Motion to Quash: no jurisdiction and the city prosecutor is not an authorized
person to investigate
- There is an invalid information
- Cudia cannot invoke double jeopardy because the first information is invalid
Olaguer vs Military Commission:
- Connected with Tan vs Barrios

- During martial law, acquitted before military trinbunal
- Military Commission does not have jurisdiction over the civilians during martial law
- Therefore, it is a void judgment and he can be charged again for the same offense.
Tan vs Barrios:
- Doctrine of Operative Facts – can be charged before military tribunal but if you are acquitted, you
cannot be charged again.
Jason Ivler Case:
- Charged with Imprudence and damage to property

- He was also charged with imprudence resulting in homicide
- Accused will be put in double jeopardy
05-20-18
Double Jeopardy (DJ)

No man can be charged with the same offense.
Q: What is the meaning of the same offense?
A: Same offense or that which is necessarily included in the same offense but an act can give rise to a separate
or different offense. For instance, I issue a check to you and the check bounces, is it not that I violated Article
315 of the RPC and I violated the provisions of BP 22 as well.
Q: So can I be prosecuted?
A: I cannot be prosecuted for the same offense of Estafa if I was acquitted with the crime of Estafa because that
is same offense.
Q: But can I be prosecuted for another offense because the act gave rise to two offenses?
A: Yes, one is violation of Art. 315 which is Estafa and the other one is the provision of BP 22.
Q: So if I was charged with BP 22 can I be prosecuted under Art. 315?

A: Yes because they are different offenses but if I was acquitted in BP 22, I cannot be prosecuted again, that is
the prohibition in the constitution.
Q: If i was charged under the rules on illegal recruitment there are two offenses basically. The state shall rule
under illegal recruitment and can a person be charged under the provisions of the penal code?
A: Yes, Estafa, because there is fraud there.
Q: Is there DJ if I was charged under Art. 266 (Law on Rape) together with VAWC?
A: No, because they are separate and distinct offenses. The act may give rise to two offenses or even more. But
if the person is already acquitted of the crime of illegal recruitment, he cannot be charged again for the crime of
illegal recruitment. So you can now file a motion to quash on the ground of DJ, if you are charged again for the
same offense.
Grounds for Motion to Quash

1. Prescription - If it is apparent that the crime has already prescribed, file a motion to quash because the
state has lost the power to prosecute.
Q: 1-yr and 2-yr bar rule provisional dismissal must have to be emanating from the accused if emanating from
the prosecution it must have been with the consent of the accused. Why?
A: In order to prevent the accused from interposing the defense of DJ if ever it is refiled or revived.
For example there is a criminal case pending and the accused filed a motion for its provisional dismissal.
If the dismissal of the criminal case is without the consent of the accused then the state cannot revive it,
otherwise the accused would be put in DJ. (Tagle Doctrine)
Robles Doctrine
If the dismissal is with the consent of the accused because it was the accused who moved for the provisional
dismissal, the accused cannot interpose the defense of DJ. That's why if ever there is a provisional dismissal of a
criminal case, the rule says that it must have the consent of the accused either by filing a motion to quash or a
motion to dismiss or the prosecution filed it but with the consent of the accused. That is to prevent him from
interposing the defense of DJ if the prosecution revives or refiles it.
This is in case the penalty provided for by law does not exceed 6 years or if it exceeds 6 years.
Q: What are the significance of the 2 periods?

A: MTC Cases - If it does not exceed six years, the prosecution must have to refile it within the period of one
year
RTC Cases - if the penalty provided for by law exceeds 6 years, the provisional dismissal having been granted
the prosecution must have to refile it within 2 years.
But remember it must be with consent of the accused. There must be notice to offended party, there must be an
order granting it, and that the order must have to be furnished the prosecutor.
Q: Reason?
A: So that prosecutor may be bound by the 1-yr and 2-yr periods, because if not, then the periods will not
commence to run and in order that said period will be binding upon said prosecutor. After which the prosecutor
will have a choice either to revive or refile it within the 1-yr or 2-yr period. If ever the information is not
revived or refiled within the 1-year or 2-year period then it will be a final dismissal so that if there will be
refiling or revival of the case after the 1-year or 2-year period, then DJ attaches.
Who can move for the provisional dismissal of a case?
1. the prosecution with the express consent of the accused;

2. the accused; or
3. both the prosecution and the accused
If the accused does not consent and prosecutor refiles or revives, then DJ arises. (Tagle Principle)
What are the requirements in order that a case may be provisionally dismissed?
1. motion of the prosecutor with consent of the accused or;

2. motion of the accused, and;
3. notice to the offended party
4. There must be an order granting the motion
5. The order must be furnished to the prosecutor in order to bind the prosecutor
Reason behind the 1-year or 2-year period: It is a societal interest to speed up the administration of justice.
Q: How do you refile or revive an information?

A: You refile or file a motion to revive the information
Q: Is there a need for a preliminary investigation again?

A: No
But for example witnesses have already disappeared or have died but in the refiling of the said information
within the one year or two year period there are other new witnesses, then there is a need for another
preliminary investigation.
Suppose the same witnesses will be presented or there will be another accused, there is a need to conduct
preliminary investigation.
Q: What is the interest of the accused?

A: Economic and individual interest because if the prosecutor does not revive it, the dismissal becomes
permanent.
Q: Can you file a motion to quash during the pendency of Petition for bail?
A: In the case of Atty. Edward Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan he was charged together with Jinggoy Estrada and
Erap for the crime of plunder and then a petition for bail was filed but what was the condition that was imposed
by the SB for the SB to act on the petition for bail? Pa arraign ka muna just in case we grant the petition for bail
at ikaw ay nawala, we can try you in absentia.
Q: Can you file a motion to quash and at the same time file a petition for bail?
A: The SC said that you cannot impose that condition otherwise if you arraign the accused now during the
pendency of the petition for bail that will render the motion to quash moot and academic.
That's why we rearranged the rules. Motion to quash comes prior to arraignment under the provisions of Rule
116, because if you are already arraigned then your motion to quash is already moot and academic.
Q: Are they inconsistent remedies?

A: No, because if there are two pending motions: petition for bail with together with motion to quash the court
will act on the petition for bail first or on the motion to quash first because if you act on the motion to quash
first, then it quashes the information and the petition for bail becomes moot and academic because there is no
more crime and no more against the accused.
If the court will act on the petition for bail and grants the petition for bail then the accused will be arraigned. If
ever the motion to quash will be granted, Then the petition for bail will become moot and academic. They are
not inconsistent remedies. They are remedies that can be treated together.
Preliminary Conference/Pre-trial
It is mandatory that there is a pre-trial in criminal case.
Q: What are the purposes?

A:
1. Marking of exhibits if there are documentary evidence that you are to present you have to mark them.
Example: voluminous documents
2. Stipulation of facts - It is mandatory to have a pretrial but it is not mandatory to enter into stipulation of
facts because of the presumption of innocence. If a fact is admitted, there is no need to prove it during
trial. You cannot compel the accused to admit a factual situation otherwise it may result to an admission
of guilt.
Arraignment
Accused must personally appear because there is no such thing as arraignment in absentia. Although there is a
trial in absentia but there must be a prior arraignment. Prior to arraignment there might also be a plea
bargaining.
Q: Is it possible for the accused to plead to a lesser offense from that of murder to homicide? Yes, but it must be
necessarily be included in the offense charged.
Q: Can the accused plead guilty from homicide to a lesser offense?

A: Yes, imprudence or negligence resulting to homicide but not frustrated homicide because death negates life
and life negates death.
That is why under the rules there is a requirement of notice to the offended party during the pretrial because of
the possibility of a plea bargaining because it must to be with the consent of the prosecutor together with the
accused.
Q: suppose the complainant did not appear

A: Then the consent of the prosecutor is sufficient
If there is a justifiable refusal on the part of the complaining witness or of the offended party to appear at the
pre-trial conference or at the arraignment the consent of the prosecutor will be sufficient.
It is probably in the plea bargaining that the civil aspect arising from the crime charged may be agreed upon.
So in the crime of murder wherein the accused pleads guilty, it is probably there where the amount of damages
arising from the crime committed may be fixed already by the court in order to prevent the possibility of the
complaining witness in going to court again and file an action for damages.
The accused must personally appear during arraignment and there must be a reading of the information in a
language that is understood by the said accused otherwise there will be a violation of the constitutional right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.
Q: Suppose the accused refuses to enter a plea or imposes a condition, what will the court do?
A: The court will enter a plea of not guilty for the accused so that the case will now be set for trial.
Q: Suppose a father is charged of the crime of rape his minor child. there is an allegation of relationship (father-
daughter); there is also an allegation of minority of the victim. During arraignment the accused entered a plea of
guilty. Does it mean that the plea of guilty would also admit the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship so that the court can now impose the highest penalty?
A: No, if there are aggravating, qualifying or special qualifying circumstances when the accused entered a plea
of guilty then the plea of guilty will not include the aggravating, qualifying or special qualifying circumstances.
As a matter of fact the court may require the prosecutor to present additional evidence to determine the degree
of the accused’s culpability because if you can prove the qualifying circumstances, that will elevate the simple
rape to that of a qualified rape for the imposition of the appropriate penalty.
It is noteworthy to allege the aggravating and qualifying circumstances and prove the same because if you just
allege but you did not prove, the crime will be just simple rape and not qualified rape.
If there is a plea of guilty, the accused will be put on witness stand in order for the court to conduct searching
questions and answers to determine the voluntariness of the plea of guilty and that he understood the plea of
guilty and its essence.
Q: What is a plea of guilty?

A: It is an unconditional admission of guilt.
Q: Suppose the accused admits the killing of the victim and he was asked why he killed the latter and the
accused interposed the defense of self-defense. What is going to happen?
A: Stop the proceedings and accused will be arraigned again do not acquit the accused because of self-defense.
Then, the accused will be put on witness stand in order for the court to conduct searching questions and answers
and if ever there are aggravating or qualifying circumstances the prosecution may be required to present
evidence.
Q: Is it possible for the accused to enter a plea of guilty to be acquitted?

A: No, because whenever an accused enters a plea of guilty that is already an unconditional admission of guilt.
Q: Is it absolute?
A: No.
In the case of People vs. Mendoza wherein there are several accused charged for the crime of murder
and during arraignment Mr. A entered a plea of guilty while Mr. B and C entered a plea of not guilty. There is
an allegation of conspiracy, and we learn in our study of criminal law and the rules on evidence that the act of
one is the act of all, except in case of conspiracy. In this case, you have to prove conspiracy. The court will have
to suspend the rendition of the judgment so far as Mr. A is concerned and try Mr. B and C and if there was no
evidence to prove conspiracy or that the crime was committed, acquit Mr. B and C. Thereafter the court would
render a judgment of conviction with respect to the accused who plead guilty and acquit the accused who
pleaded not guilty and yet there is an allegation of conspiracy. So what will the court do to acquit the one who
admitted his guilt? Order Mr. A to withdraw his plea of guilty. Mr. A should file a motion to withdraw his plea.
Then, the court will arraign the accused. Thereafter, the court will render judgment acquitting all the accused.
Without following the procedure laid down in this case, the court cannot acquit the accused who entered a plea
of guilty.
People vs. Janjalani

It is not for the counsel to explain to the accused the effects of his change of plea from not guilty to a plea of
guilty. It is the duty of the judge to explain that through searching questions and answers.
TRIAL
The normal course of trial is that the prosecution will present evidence first to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt followed by the defense except when the accused pleads guilty or when self-defense is
interposed.
Q: Suppose there are several accused and one of the accused is discharged to become a state witness. What are
the requirements that must be met in order that the accused may become a state witness?
A: It is an executive determination.
Q: Who determines that the accused may be discharged as a state witness? A: The prosecutor. You have to file a
motion to discharge the accused as a state witness and it will be set for hearing. Thereafter, the accused must
execute an affidavit admitting his participation in that particular offense.
File a motion to discharge the accused to become a state witness attaching there to his affidavit.
Requirements that must be met in order that the accused may become a state witness:
1. That he is not the most guilty.
2. that the testimony of the accused is necessary and can be corroborated by the testimonies of other
witnesses
3. That the accused has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
Q: What is the nature of the order granting such?

A: It is merely a confirmatory order. It merely confirms the determination of the prosecutor or the executive
department.
Q: What is the effect of such?

A: Acquittal
Q: Can the accused be charged again for the same offense?

A: Not anymore because it will put him in double jeopardy except if the accused is going to recant. The
proceedings must be stopped, the prosecutor must move for the re-inclusion of the accused in the information.
Q: Suppose the accused executed an affidavit on the basis of which he was discharged but the accused refused
to go to court and testify.
A: Then he will be included in the information and it will not constitute double jeopardy.
Q: Suppose a motion to discharge the accused to become a state witness is filed and an affidavit admitting the
commission of the crime is attached but the court denied the same, what will happen to the affidavit?
A: It will not be admissible in evidence.
Q: Suppose it is granted and the accused refuse to testify, what will happen?
A: The contents of the affidavit will be admissible in evidence against him.
Q: What is the effect if the motion is granted?

A: In Ampatuan vs. Delima, the court ruled that if the motion was granted it grants the accused immunity from
prosecution that even if the result of the preliminary investigation would point to you as one of the perpetrators
of the offense, you cannot be included in the information because your testimony is in exchange for your
immunity from prosecution.
Q: What if the accused entered a plea of guilty, can that accused be discharged to become a state witness?
A: Yes, for as long as there is still no judgment have been rendered.
In People vs. Larrañaga (Chiong sisters case)

Seven accused were charged of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention. Mr. A was the one who raped one of
the Chiong sisters. There was a motion to discharge Mr. A in exchange for his immunity from prosecution
contending that he was not the most guilty. SC said that he cannot be the most guilty in the crime of kidnapping
with serious illegal detention because he was just an innocent bystander. The contention that he was the one
who raped one of the Chiong sisters was never considered by the court because the charge was for kidnapping
with serious illegal detention and not rape. If rape was the charge, then Mr. A was the most guilty, hence, he
cannot be a state witness.
Q: If the crime charged is murder, may the accused be convicted of the crime of homicide if there is variance
between the offense charged and the offense proven, can the accused be convicted of the crime of homicide?
A: Yes, because that is a lower offense it is necessarily included in the offense charged it cannot be otherwise,
otherwise that will be a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him.
Q: Suppose the title or the caption is homicide but the elements of the crime of murder is alleged in the
information and was proven during trial, can that person be convicted of the crime of murder?
A: Yes, the caption is a mere conclusion of law on the part of the prosecution because what will determine the
nature of the offense is the allegations in the information. The body of the information alleging the crime and its
will determine the nature of the offense.
After the presentation of evidence by the prosecution the defense will present evidence. After the presentation
of evidence by both parties when judgment will be rendered either acquitting or convicting the accused if it is a
case of acquittal then it becomes immediately executory under the finality of judgment doctrine meaning it
becomes immutable immediately. You cannot recall or modify the judgment after it has been promulgated
acquitting the accused whether the judgment is erroneous or not. No matter how erroneous that judgment is, if it
is a judgment of acquittal it is immediately executory. But if it is a judgment of conviction it can be appealed.
An appeal may result in acquittal or conviction or modification of the judgment.
Babanto vs Soza (Error of Judgment; Accused Appealed despite lower penalty)

The accused was charged, arraigned and tried with the crime of Rape but was convicted of the lesser offense of
Qualified Seduction by the trial court. The accused appealed the same and the result was that the entire record
of the case was opened for review. SC convicted Babanto with the crime of Rape.
You cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal because if you file a motion for reconsideration or if you appeal from
it, the accused will be put in double jeopardy except if there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction or except if there was lack of due process.
Q: Two exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy if there is an appeal from said judgment. What would be
your remedy?
A: The general rule is to file a special civil action for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused because
the accused was acquitted but the court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction under rule 65 and second if there was lack of due process
Remember if the penalty does not exceed six years you can avail of probation but whenever you appeal, do not
appeal from the merits of the case instead, you appeal questioning the penalty imposed. If the appeal is for the
purpose of questioning the penalty that was imposed and the penalty would be reduced by the court to the extent
that after the appeal, it was reduced by the court to a probationable penalty.
Villareal vs. People (Aquila Legis Case)

Where the penalty was not probationable because the court imposed a penalty of more than 6 years, they
questioned the penalty. When the court reduced the penalty to the extent that it was probationable they applied
for probation. But how can there be first opportunity if it was not probationable? If the penalty for example is
prision correccional, pwede.
In the case of Francisco vs. CA probation must be availed of at first opportunity. But the problem here is
prision correccional na nga nag-appeal pa kasi gusto mong maging arresto menor. In this case, the court ruled
that they cannot avail of probation because they did not avail it at first opportunity.
If you are going to appeal from a judgment, CA muna before SC because there might be misappreciation of
facts. SC does not review factual matters but only questions of law, as a general rule.
Q: What are the powers of the president?

A: Grant pardon - relinquish, Commutation – lesser penalty, Refrain – delay
People vs. Esparas

Esparas was a drug pusher. She was charged and convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It was
during this time that the death penalty is still imposable. The penalty for her offense was death until it was
reduced to only life imprisonment because there is a law that prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
Before, review by the SC was automatic. The SC had the occasion to say that if a person was charged with and
convicted of an offense which carries with it the penalty of death, such judgment does not become final and
executory until after it was reviewed by the SC. It is a right which the accused cannot waive and a duty that the
court cannot abdicate because it is the duty of the court to review it.
While the accused belongs to the minority of one, he has the right to be right and when the people belong to the
majority of many, they do not have the right to be wrong.
In simple terms, it means that it is better to acquit a guilty person rather than to put an innocent man to prison.
04-12-18
JUDGMENT
- If the judgment is a judgment of conviction, that can be appealed. But if the judgment is a judgment of
acquittal, you cannot appeal from the judgment. Otherwise, you will put the accused in double jeopardy.
- You cannot file a motion for reconsideration or file an appeal from the judgment of acquittal because it will
put the accused in double jeopardy.
- So what is the remedy if at all? The remedy there is Rule 65, special civil action for certiorari because the
court does not review the merits of the case. The court does not review the facts. Otherwise, the accused will be
put in double jeopardy. But what does the court review? If the court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
26 soldiers who allegedly killed Ninoy Aquino. Initially, they were acquitted. There was an investigation by
creating the Vasquez Commission. How come the Sandiganbayan acquitted the alleged killers of Ninoy
Aquino? What was the result of the investigation that resulted to the nullification of the acquittal? What were
the facts gathered that resulted in the nullification of the acquittal of the alleged killers of Ninoy Aquino?
- One of the pieces of evidence presented was this: all throughout the period of trial of the Ninoy Aquino
killing, there was a military man, a coronel, who seated at a particular part of the session hall in Sandiganbayan.
Also, it was found out that there was a television coverage which is directly connected to the Office of the
President. So that the President can observe the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan. Then, it was admitted by the
prosecutors of the Sandiganbayan, that every now and then, they were summoned to the Malacañang to brief the
President at the proceedings of the trial of Aquino gunman case. In that situation, therefore, the State was
deprived of the right to due process. So can there be nullification of the judgment of acquittal? YES. There was
mistrial of the case because of the 3 important pieces of evidence alone, the SC ruled that the State was
deprived of due process. The SC ordered the re-trial of the case. (Galman v Pamaran)
- The remedy is Rule 65. Don't appeal or file a motion for reconsideration. Otherwise, the accused will be put in
double jeopardy for the same offense. In rule 65, the court does not review the facts, evidence or merits of the
case. What the court reviews is whether in acquitting the accused, it committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. So basically, jurisdictional issues are reviewable by rule 65.
PROBATION
- It must be availed at first opportunity. So that if the penalty provided for in the judgment is probationable,
avail of it at first opportunity.
- Do not appeal on the merits of the case. Appeal only by saying that this is not supposed to be the penalty. The
penalty should only be like this. For example, the penalty, the judgment is more than 6 years, so, you cannot
avail of it at first opportunity pursuant to the case of Francisco v CA.
- If the penalty is more than 6 years, you can avail of it if it will be reduced provided that it is only for the court
to determine what penalty should be imposed. Because if you are going to appeal the entire decision of the
court, including the facts and the merits of the case, you cannot avail of probation, thereafter.
- In the case of Villareal, about the hazing in Ateneo, where the penalty imposed by the judgment in the lower
court is more than 6 years. If you appeal from it, and you will be successful in reducing the penalty, you can
avail of probation. (Before, if you appeal from the judgment, you cannot avail of probation. It is called the
straight jacket.) Is this not an abandonment of the principle in the case of Francisco v CA? The SC said NO in
the case of Villareal. It is a mere modification but subject to the condition that you should appeal on it from the
judgment. And if the court agrees with you, and reduced the penalty, then you can still avail of it at first
opportunity. That is the explanation in the case of People v Villareal.
Mabanto v Soza, charged with rape, arraigned for the crime of rape, tried for the crime of rape, and convicted of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness. There is an error of judgment. The accused appealed. The SC ruled that it is
a case of poetic justice.
File a Motion for New Trial – if there is a newly discovered evidence. Evidence that was already existing at the
time of the trial or prior thereto that even with the diligence of a good father of a family, it cannot be presented.
It must be so material, so substantial that if the motion is granted, then, that evidence would be presented. And
if ever it will be presented during the new trial, then the court may render a different judgment or a new
judgment. If the newly discovered evidence is merely corroborative, then it will not affect the judgment that
was previously rendered. So, you have to prove to the court that the newly discovered evidence is so material,
so substantial that it can even change the tenor of judgment from that of conviction to that of acquittal. You
have to do that. And how will you do it? Submit the affidavit of the proposed witness and his testimony. Then,
the court will determine whether it is so material, so substantial that it can change the tenor of the judgment or
to determine that it is truly a newly discovered evidence. Because even if it is a newly discovered evidence but
it has not probably change the judgment because it is only corroborative. The motion for new trial may not be
granted by the court. But if material and substantial, the new trial may be granted. But don’t file a motion for
new trial after acquittal. That would put the accused in double jeopardy. That is why, motion for new trial, MR
and appeal from judgment of acquittal would put the accused in double jeopardy. As we have said, the remedy
is rule 65 because of grave abuse of discretion and lack of due process as held in the Aquino murder case.
SEARCH WARRANT
For example, you are going to use the search warrant in Muntinlupa, can you apply for a search warrant in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila? Is it possible for you to apply for a search warrant in Muntinlupa even if you are
going to use it in Quezon City or vice-versa? YES. Because it is within the judicial region, it can be used in any
place.
People vs. Judge Edmar Castillo

- The evidence was supposed to be seized somewhere in the place in Cagayan. But the application for search
warrant was filed and granted in Appari, Cagayan. Allowed. As long as it is filed within the same judicial
region or for certain compelling reason.
When can there be search without warrant? The procedural side is in the Rules of court but the substantial
part of it is taken in relation to rights in Constitutional law.
- Search incident to a lawful arrest
- an incident of inspection
- stop and freeze
- airport search which is intended for security
- seaport search – intrusion in your privacy is only minimal compare to the danger that you are espousing to the
passengers of the aircraft or vessel
- Before a search warrant may be issued by the court, what does the court do? Appearance of the
complainant and witnesses he may produce.
Provisional Remedies in Criminal Procedure:

- Writ of attachment, levy and seizure of the property
- Subject of garnishment
EVIDENCE
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting the matter of fact.
When is evidence admissible:

1. When it is relevant to the issue; and
2. When it is not excluded by the law of these rules.
May circumstantial evidence be used to prove that a person is a foundling? YES.

- Sen. Poe cannot provide direct evidence to prove her nationality.
Situation where no fact in issue:

- answer did not tender an issue – file a motion for judgment on the pleading
What will happen if you did not answer on some of the admissions/stipulations? Waivable
Poe v CA: even if there is no answer, but it has been denied in the pleading
Gen. Rule: what sought to be admitted should be established in an answer

Exception: if what need to be answered has been admitted in the pleading
- Evidence must have such relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
- If there is a violation of the Miranda Rights, any evidence, no matter how truthful it is will be inadmissible,
because it is excluded by the Constitution. (People vs. Gesalva)
- Spontaneous admission made before the media is admissible except when the confession is obtained through
intimidation. (People vs. Andal)
- It is upon the sound discretion of the court whether to admit evidence or not.
Who may be a witness?

- All persons who can perceive, and by perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be a witness.
Who may not testify be reason of privilege communication?

1. The husband and 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 ascendants or descendants;
2. Attorney;
3. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
4. Minister or priest; and
5. Public office.
- The fact that a person is mentally retarded does not mean that he can’t be a witness. (People vs. Golangco)
- Relatives can be a witness, because they have the highest interest in resolving the case. The only witness is the
daughter. (People vs. Esogum)
- When the husband and wife have estranged relationship, living apart/separately for 6 months. Is there a unity
of interest that is sought to be maintained? NO. No more unity of interest that must be protected. The spouse
can testify even without the consent of the other spouse. (Alvarez vs. Ramirez)
Razon vs. IAC

- In 1971, Vicente Chuidian, as administrator of the state of his late father Juan Chuidian, filed a complaint in
the RTC against Enrique Razon to compel them to deliver certificates of stocks representing the shareholdings
of the deceased.
- During the trial, defendant Razon testified to on the oral agreement between him and Juan Chuidian that the
ownership of the shares of stock was actually vested in Razon, unless Chuidian opted to pay the same.
- The trial court having decided in favor of Razon, Vicente Chuidian appealed to the IAC. The latter reversed
the lower court’s decision, is it ruled, among others, that Razon’s testimony was barred by the Dead Man’s
Statute.
- The SC ruled that Razon’s testimony is admissible because: (1) The Dead Man’s Statute does not apply in this
case which was initiated by the administrator of decedent’s estate. The statute applies only to a case or claim
filed against the administrator or representative of an estate.
Res inter alios acta rule

- The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
- An extrajudicial confession is binding inly upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule:
1. Dying declaration
- The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death.
- It may be oral or written. It must be complete.
Reason: because of necessity and truthfulness of the dying declaration
To be admissible, dying declaration must:
a. Concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;

b. That at the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of impending death;
c. That he was a competent witness; and
d. That his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal case for Homicide, murder or parricide in which the
declarant is the victim.
- Dying declaration can be done through the glancing of the eyes. (People vs Lazaro)
- If the person did not die, he must testify; otherwise, the dying declaration is inadmissible as evidence. (People
v Joya)
Independent Relevant Statement – to establish the tenor of the statement and not to prove the truth of the
facts asserted in the statement. It is like a circumstantial evidence.
People vs. Robert Cloud

- X was beaten by Y to death, but before he died, he was brought by his grandmother to the hospital.
- The grandmother had a hysterical outburst at the emergency room that Y was the one who beat X.
- The hysterical outburst of the grandmother in the emergency room of the hospital is admissible as part of the
res gestae.
- The testimony of the witness as to the said statements of the grandmother is not hearsay, and is admissible as
an independently relevant statement.
2. Declaration against interest

3. Act or declaration about pedigree
Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz

- A man and a woman were living as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
- At that time, the man was writing his autobiography wherein he revealed that that he is the father of the child
in his girlfriend’s womb.
- The man died even before he could finish his autobiography.
- The woman gave birth and wanted that the child be registered under the name of his father.
- The father and brother of the man testified about his son`s/brother’s relationship with the woman and they
indeed had live together as husband and wife.
- The court allowed the child’s registration under the name of his father because of this declaration of pedigree.
- The testimony of the father and brother is a declaration against interest.
04-20-18
Res Inter Alios Acta. What is a good example if you implied an admission after the commission of an offense?
There is flight on the part of the suspect. What is the effect? That is an indication of an admission. Flight is an
indication of guilt.
Offer of a Compromise in a Civil Case. Is that an admission of the liability? No because compromise in civil
cases are encouraged by law but an offer of a compromise in a criminal case is an admission of guilt.
Rules on Documents. Best Evidence Rule. If there is an original of that document, then the best evidence is
always the original. If the contents of that document are the issues that are raised in court, then the best evidence
is the original of the document itself.
May a xerox copy of a document be admissible in evidence?
As a rule, no. Because if the contents of the pieces are what is raised, then the best evidence is the original. Pero
it goes into the best evidence rule together with the secondary evidence rule. The carbon copy, even if it is the
tenth copy for as long as it is prepared together with the first part then that is considered as the original,
duplicate original etc.
You may present a xerox copy for marking but make sure to bring the original copy with you when you offer
the document.
I am offering the evidence, exhibit A which is a deed of sale to show that the parties entered into this kind of
contract. May I ask the counsel to examine the xerox copy together with the original and please manifest that
the xerox copy is a faithful reproduction of the original.
What about if the original is no longer available? Before the document can be admitted, you are going to prove
that that document was executed and that it existed. How? Of course there are witnesses, you can present the
Notary Public to testify that the record show that he appear personally before me. Because in case that the
document is going to be notarize, syempre may kopya sya except if it is a case of a will because the document is
not kept by the notary public because of the confidential nature of a will and testament. Why are you saying that
you can only present the xerox copy? Because the same was lost. Narrate the circumstances of the lost. Kept in
the office, the office was swept totally by Yolanda in Tacloban. Present the persons who may have knowledge
on the execution of the said document. So, secondary evidence may be presented, that is the xerox copy of the
original.
If the document that is going to be presented in court is a Torrens title, don’t tell me that the register of deeds
would allow the torrens title to be brought to court, anong ibibigay sayo? Certified true copy of the torrens title;
or any government record. And that is still considered as evidence. Why is it that it is just a mere xerox copy,
yes your honor because this is a document of the government which cannot be just be removed from the place
where it is kept because of fear that it might be lost or destroyed. So that is just a mere certified true copy of the
document.
Or it may be a voluminous document, so xerox copies may be presented in court.
Or for example, the original of the document is in the possession of the other party. I have already asked the
honourable court to issue an order directing the other party to produce the copy of the document because it is in
his possession but despite the order of this court, in fact he has already been cited in contempt, still the original
of the document has not been presented in court. That is amounting to suppression of evidence. In that case,
you can now present a xerox copy of the document.
If ever the document is going to be presented. The parties entered into a contract, the terms and conditions of
the contract had been put into writing. Remember that if the contract is put into writing, that writing is the
repository of the terms and conditions of their agreement. These are the terms and conditions of our contract
and this is the evidence of the terms and conditions that is the document itself.
Can you present evidence in order to change, alter or modify the terms and conditions that are written in the
document? Generally, no; because document that contains the terms and conditions of the said contract is
considered as the repository of the terms and conditions agreed upon. Normally, you cannot modify it because
of the unreliability of testimonial evidence to change the terms and conditions of the said contract.
Exceptions:
1. Example. Contract of Sale with a Right to Repurchase. Uy vs. CA

There was a contract of sale with right to repurchase. What is the effect if you do not exercise the right
to repurchase within the time? You lose your right to repurchase. If the period has lapsed, by operation
of law, the vendee a retro becomes the owner of that property by operation of law. The vendee a retro
will have to file a petition for consolidation but there must be a notice to the vendor a retro, the purpose
of which is in order for the vendor a retro, if he decides to appear, he may appear and object to the
petition. He may object that it is not a sale but it is a mere equitable mortgage.
A property located at greenhills was sold. Property description: The lot is 1000 sqm. There was a house
that was built in that parcel of land. The value at the time was more or less 20 million but it was sold for
only 2.5 million pesos. Why did you sell it only for 2.5 million pesos? Because I was running for a seat
in Congress and I ran out of money.
What are the provisions of the firs paragraph of Art. 1602. If it is a contract of sale, even of it is absolute
in nature but the price or consideration is unusually inadequate, there is a presumption of an equitable
mortgage. So can you present evidence that it is not really one of sale but it is one of an equitable
mortgage? But before you can present evidence, raise that as an issue.
If it is the fact that it was an equitable mortgage and he consolidates the ownership, what law is he
violating? The provisions of the law on pactum commissorium. He must foreclose the mortgage and
participate in the foreclosure sale.
2. The document does not reflect the true intention of the parties.
3. If there is ambiguity
4. If there is contemporaneous agreement.
What is a good example of a contemporaneous agreement? That contemporaneous agreement is not

written in the document that evidences the contract. During the signing of the document, meron kayong
pinag usapan, why don’t we put that into writing, di na, usapang lalake. Gentleman’s agreement.
What is a good example of a gentleman’s agreement? The case of Mactan Cebu International Airport
Authority vs. Lozada. There was an expropriation of properties in Cebu for the Lahug Airport. There
was a contract over the expropriation of the properties. One of the properties belongs to Lozada. The
secretary said that if ever the property will no longer be devoted to the airport, you can buy back the
property. What happened to the airport? Inilipat sa Mactan. And because of that, Mr. Lozada wanted to
buy back the property, in connection to the contemporaneous agreement. RP refused because it was not
written. SC ordered the RP to sell the property back as it was part of the contemporaneous agreement.
You are going to put that as an issue. If ever the RP takes your property for a public purpose, it must
have to be devoted to that public purpose. Because if you have to look at the provisions of the Civil
Code on trust, if the state takes your property for a particular purpose, that property is held by the State
in trust in your favor. There is an obligation. That if ever the state abandons the property or it does not
use your property for that purpose, you can take back or buy back the property at the price you sold.
PRESUMPTIONS
There are two presumptions: conclusive and disputable presumptions. Don’t you realize that when you are
reading the presumptions in the Rules of Court in Rule 131, both of them have from the rule on estoppel. One of
them is estoppel in pais because basically we have two kinds of estoppel written in the Civil Code – estoppel by
deed and estoppel in pais.
One of them comes from the rule on estoppel – estoppel in pais. What is a good example of the estoppel in pais?
Kasi estoppel in pais, if you made the representation of something that you know, in order to make a person
believe your representation. If he believes it, can you prove it otherwise, no more. Because you are bound by
that representation of yours. That is estoppel in pais. What is a good example of that?
Proof of Filiation. Ilano vs. CA. A and B without the benefit of marriage lived together as husband and wife.
When the woman was about to give birth, it was the man who brought her to the hospital and he paid for
everything. When the child was born, the nurse and doctor went down to the lobby. Nakita nila si Mr. A. Mr. A,
di ba ikaw yung nagdala ng babaeng bagong panganak? Yes, ako. Sir, who is the father of the child? Ako. Data
was provided by the putative father but he did not sign the record of birth. Time came that a controversy and the
putative father came. Kasi sabi nung bata, ikaw ang father ko, ano ang iyong ebidensiya? Record of birth. Sabi
nung tatay: “An unsigned record of birth is not admissible in evidence as a proof of filiation, otherwise if it is
admissible in evidence as a proof of filiation it would be easy for a woman to vest legitimate status upon a child
even if the child is illegitimate. The case of Roces. Teka muna sandali, ano ang difference ng Roces from the
case of Ilano? Kasi in the case of Roces, a child was born but without the knowledge and consent and signature
of Mr. Joaquin Roces, his name was written in the record of birth of the child. Is that admissible in evidence?
No. Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar. There was no consent. There was no participation of Mr. Roces. Is the
Roces case similar to Ilano? No. Kasi nung ipinanganak yung bata, tinanong nung nurse yung mother. Mam,
who is the father of the child? Sabi ni mam, Mr. Joaquin Roces. But Mr. Roces was not there, he did not
consent, he did not signed the record of birth. Kaya nga pareho, hindi din ako pumirma. Sa Ilano, ang question
was like this, sir, who is the father of the child, sabi nya, ako. Anong pangalan mo sir, Juan De La Cruz. Data
provided. How old are you? What is your profession? Pareho ba yung situation? NO, because the one who
provided the date in the Roces case was the woman without the consent of Mr. Roces but in the case of Ilano, it
was the putative father who provided the data that he was the father of the child. Even if you did not sign it, it is
admissible in evidence because of the principle of estoppel in pais. You made the representation of something
that you knew. Alam mo na hindi ikaw yung father bakit mo sinabi na ikaw? Inamin mo e. Ano ba ang
magandang principle of estoppel that you will write if ever you have been confronted with that kind of
situation? If at the time you were supposed to speak, you were silent. Now that you are supposed to be silent,
you cannot speak. When you are asked who the father was, you said you are the father, you could have said that
you are not.
What is the other conclusive presumption? Art. 1436 of the Civil Code. If you are the lessee over this building,
can you question the title of your lessor? You cannot because of the principle of estoppel. You always recognize
the fact that Mr. A is the owner of the property that you are leasing. Now that you are being sued for ejectment,
you are saying that the title of A is void. Di pwede. You are bound to respect the title of that lessor. But you
cannot deny the fact that the title belongs to that lessor because you have to recognize it under the principle of
estoppel. Conclusive presumption. You cannot present evidence that the title of your lessor is void. That is in
fact a collateral attack on the title. You cannot interpose it as a defense that the title of Mr. lessor is void. In an
unlawful detainer case, that is collateral attack. You are conclusively bound to respect the title of the lessor. Yan
ang conclusive presumption.
What about the disputable presumption?
(1) Presumption of Innocence. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt because if you cannot prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then the
accused will be acquitted.
(2) If you buy a property with the use of your own money and registered it under the name of another
person. Is there a presumption of a donation or a presumption of trust? Art. 1440.
It depends upon who B is. If B is the son or daughter of Mr. A, under that law, there is a presumption of
donation. That is a mere disputable presumption. There was a case that happened between a father and a
daughter. The father bought the property and registered it under the name of her daughter. The daughter
claimed that it was a donation. Sabi ng father, no, itinago ko lamang yung contract sa pangalan no. In
the case of Delos Santos vs. Reyes, there was a small subdivision property. There was a prohibition that
no man can own more than one lot in the subdivision. Ang problema, yung kaibigan mo is leaving the
country. He needs money to get out of the country. Ibinenta sayo yung house and lot. So ipinangalan mo
sa daughter no. the father said it is one of trust. The SC said that he can prove that it is one of trust
although there is a presumption that it is. If you registered it under the name of someone else, not your
daughter, presumption of trust.
(3) A and B are married. They are covered by the conjugal partnership of gains. Ang presumption is that,
any property acquired by them by onerous title is presumed to be conjugal. But that is only a disputable
presumption. Regardless of the source of the funds used by the spouses in acquiring the said property if
it was acquired by onerous title, disputable presumption that it is conjugal. What is a good example of
that? A and B are married. X, the father of A died. And because of the death of X, A inherited a certain
amount of money. 50 million. What is the nature of that money? That is exclusive property because you
acquired it by gratuitous title. But during the marriage, he used it to purchase a property and registered it
under the name of his wife. Is there a presumption of conjugality considering that the title is only under
the name of B? Yes. What gives rise to the presumption of conjugality is the fact that it was acquired by
onerous title during the marriage although that is a mere disputable presumption. The spouses decided to
dissolve the marriage. Sabi nung babae, your honor, this is my property because it was under my name.
Sabi nung lalaki, it is mine. That is my exclusive property. What evidence do you have? When was it
acquired? It was acquired during the marriage.
(4) What about yung Art 43 of the Civil Code. A and B are entitled to inherit from one another, they
boarded a vessel. The vessel capsized. If there is no evidence that one died ahead of the other. What is
the presumption? They died at the same time. Thus, there was no transmission of successional rights.
(5) Co-owners of a property. They agreed that the property will be registered under one of them. Is it not
that it is a presumption of trust? You inherited a property but you agreed that it will be registered under
the name of your eldest. There is a presumption that the person under whose name the property is
registered is holding it in trust in your favor and that the person cannot acquire it by prescription as a
rule. When does a co-owner acquire the property subject of co-ownership by prescription? Generally
you cannot, except when you repudiate the trust and communicate the repudiation of the trust and
perform acts inconsistent with the trust, then the required period will now be running. But in the
meantime, even if you are going to acquire it with the use of fraud or intimidation or abuse of
confidence, under art. 1456 of the Civil Code, you are holding it in trust in favor of the owner.
(6) Under Art 168 of the Family Code, there are two presumptions. If a child was born prior to the
expiration of 180 days from the dissolution of the marriage, the presumption is that the child belongs to
the first marriage. Disputable. A child born within wedlock is presumed to be legitimate because there
was no presumption of illegitimacy. Whoever alleges the legitimacy of the child must have to prove that
the child is illegitimate. Reason for the presumption? The law seeks to protect the status of the child.
Best interest of the child. Protect the honor and integrity of the mother. Concepcion vs. CA.
(7) Presumption if there is loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods. Presumption? That the carrier is
presumed to be negligent. If there is a death or injury of the passenger, there is also presumption of
negligence. It is the burden of the common carrier to prove that he was not negligent. Reason: The
owner of the goods is always at the mercy if the common carrier.
(8) RA 1379 Forfeiture law – There is a government official. There is evidence that this person is receiving
a salary of only so much but the problem is that he has so much money. On top of his legitimate income
is presumed to be ill gotten. So there can be forfeiture under the forfeiture law because in excess of your
legitimate income, there is a presumption that they are ill gotten. You have to prove that it is not.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
The prosecution will first present their evidence. Then, the defense will also present their evidence.
Can you ask leading questions on direct examination? You cannot. Exception: preparatory to any other
questions. (Preliminary questions)
Suppose the person is an old person or a child. Under the child witness rule, leading questions can also be
asked.
You cannot ask misleading questions in cross-examinations.
Trial Technique: you don’t always need to conduct cross-examination. It is a double-bladed instrument. It may
or may not hurt you.
Example: Compensatory Damage. In direct examination, the prosecution failed to present documentary
evidence in support of the claim for compensatory damage. If you asked the documentary evidence in the cross
examination, you will end up paying the compensatory damage because the rule is that “no compensatory
damage will be given without documentary evidence to support the claim”. You will give the opportunity to the
prosecution to produce evidence that the complainant paid this much to the airlines. When is that opportunity
thereafter? E di sa redirect.
Alibi is a weak defense. That is the weakest of all defences because you can just say that it is not possible for
me to be there. However, defense of alibi supported by evidence aliunde has a great weight.
What was the evidence presented that resulted in the acquittal of Webb? Remember the certification issued by
the Government that Webb was in the US at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. How long does
it take you to travel from the US to the Philippines?
NOTE: You must first offer the evidence. If you did not make an offer of the testimony, then the Court will not
consider the testimony in the rendition of the judgment.
However, failure to make an offer is only a procedural defect. It can be cured. How? When the opposing party
conducts a cross-examination.
When do you make the offer in case of documentary evidence? After the identification, you may identify it, you
may mark it then you are going to make an offer at the end of the day. After the direct testimony, then you are
going to make the offer of the documentary evidence.
Suppose the objection is like this. We are presenting Mr, A to testify on the following factual matters. Objection
your honor, incompetent to testify. Sabi ng court: objection sustained. How will you now put the testimony into
the record? There is what we call tender of excluded evidence. May I make a tender of excluded evidence that
had the witness been allowed to testify then he could have testified. You put the testimony into the record so
that if there will be appeal, the court will be allowed to review the proposed testimony. The same is true with
the documentary evidence. If the court will exclude it, then you make a tender of excluded evidence. Attach it to
the record.

Remrev Transcription Compilation 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Remrev Transcription Compilation 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2017-2018 [From Atty.

 When do we settle the estate of the person?

Art. 103, FC (Liquidation of Absolute Community Assets and Liabilities)

Art. 130, FC (Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership Assets and Liabilities)

 Modes of Settlement of Estate:

 Q: What if there is case of damages based on quasi-delict?

 De Los Santos v. Reyes

What is the effect of adoption?

Can you adopt your own brother or Sister?

Who can file the action for rescission of Adoption?

If there is unlawful detention the remedy is Habeas Corpus.

Compulsion to change residence, your remedy is Habeas Corpus. (Villavicencio vs Lucban)

Custody of the Child is in question, file for Habeas Corpus.

Jurisdiction - what are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases?

Then what are the elements of a particular information?

RTC has jurisdiction over libel cases.

b.) People vs Justice Benefayo (?)

c.) Senator De Lima vs Judge Guerrero of Muntinlupa

When can there be arrest w/o warrant?

Controversial point in ARREST:

When to question illegality of arrest?

Where there can be arrest w/o warrant?

If the penalty is more than 20 yrs., bail cannot anymore be granted.

Mabanto vs. Sos: Rape case

Tesigan vs. Asura: Right to be informed

Accused may opt to testify or may opt to never to testify.

People vs. Francis : Rape case

Extent of RSI? is it limited to testimonial evid?

Kinds of Immunity Statute: (p.265)

People vs Balisacan: Murder case, have valid information (p. 302)

What is the basic duty of the court?

1.) Valid indictment/information before court of competent jurisdiction

Olaguer vs Military Commission:

- Connected with Tan vs Barrios

- Charged with Imprudence and damage to property

Double Jeopardy (DJ)

Q: So if I was charged with BP 22 can I be prosecuted under Art. 315?

Grounds for Motion to Quash

Q: What are the significance of the 2 periods?

Who can move for the provisional dismissal of a case?

1. the prosecution with the express consent of the accused;

1. motion of the prosecutor with consent of the accused or;

Q: How do you refile or revive an information?

Q: Is there a need for a preliminary investigation again?

Q: What is the interest of the accused?

Q: Are they inconsistent remedies?

Q: What are the purposes?

Q: Can the accused plead guilty from homicide to a lesser offense?

Q: suppose the complainant did not appear

Q: What is a plea of guilty?

Q: Is it possible for the accused to enter a plea of guilty to be acquitted?

People vs. Janjalani

Q: What is the nature of the order granting such?

Q: What is the effect of such?

Q: Can the accused be charged again for the same offense?

Q: What is the effect if the motion is granted?

In People vs. Larrañaga (Chiong sisters case)

An appeal may result in acquittal or conviction or modification of the judgment.

Babanto vs Soza (Error of Judgment; Accused Appealed despite lower penalty)

Villareal vs. People (Aquila Legis Case)

Q: What are the powers of the president?

People vs. Esparas

People vs. Judge Edmar Castillo