justice hilarion aquino update in remedial law-february 16, 2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
1/38
JUSTICE HILARION L. AQUINO
UPDATES IN REMEDIAL LAW
(CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES)
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
2/38
PART ONE
CIVIL PROCEDURE
A. Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction and Amendment of Complaint
Santos v. Claraval, 613 SCRA 333 (2010)
If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the complaint cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction to it.
Note: Under Sec. 2, Rule 10, R.C., if no responsive pleading has yet been
served upon the plaintiff, he can amend the complaint as a matter of right.
According to Rosario v. Carangdang, 96 Phi. 845 (1955) in such a situation,
plaintiff can amend his defective complaint to make the subject matter fall under
the jurisdiction of the court.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
3/38
2. In Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction
Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo, 643 SCRA 631 (2011)
Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an
appeal from decision of the regional trial court on election contests involving
election of municipal officials, then it is also the COMELEC which has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its jurisdiction.
Consequently, where, in an election case before the RTC, the court issues aninterlocutory order which is challenged on certiorari, the petitioner shoud be
filed not in the CA but in the SB.
Note: J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et. al. 9 SCRA 189 (1963)
In aid of appellate jurisdiction means that if a case is appealable to aparticular court or judicial tribunal or body, that court, tribunal or body has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
4/38
3. Jurisdiction and Docket Fees
3.1. Julian v. DBP, 661 SCRA 745 (2011)
The payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory andjurisdictional. Failure to pay the court docket fee within the prescribed period warrants adiscretionary but not automatic dismissal of the case.
3.2. Lu v. Lu, Sr., 643 SCRA 23 (2011)
If the correct amount of docket fees is not paid at the time of filing, the court shall acquirejurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant barring
prescription.
The prescriptive period that bars the payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which aspecific action must be filled. (Fedman Development Corporation v. Agcaoili, 656 SCRA 354 (2011)
3.3. D.M. Wenceslao and Associates v. City of Paranaque, 656 SCRA 369 (2011)
The payment of the appeal docket fee within the prescribed period for appeal ismandatory for perfection of the appeal. When the appeal docket fee is not paid in full within thereglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes final and no longer correctible byappeal.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
5/38
4. Omnibus Rulings in Civil Procedure
Republic v. Mangotora, 624 SCRA 360 (2010)Facts (133 pages of SCRA)
There were 7 cases that emanated from the trial court: a) 2
actions for quieting of title; b) expropriation; c) 3 unlawful detainer
cases; and d) reversion all of which involved the same parcels ofland. All these cases reached the Supreme Court via petition for
review or certiorari (Rule 45) and petition for certiorari (Rule 65).
The seven cases were consolidated and decided jointly.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
6/38
Republic v. Mangotora, continuation
Doctrinal Pronouncements
1. The Republic was in error when it filed a petition for review on certiorari and
petition for certiorari because these are two distinct remedies which are mutually
exclusive not alternative nor successive. In the interest of justice the Supreme
Court treated all the petitions as petitions for review on certiorari. (Rule 45)
2. The issue of whether or not the trial court should have dismissed one case on
2 grounds: a) forum shopping and b) an indispensable party has not been
impleaded raises a question of fact. Therefore, the Republic was correct in
directly appealing the trial courts decision to the SC on a petition for review oncertiorari. This did not violate the rule on heirarchy of courts because it is
precisely provided for in the Constitution.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
7/38
Republic v. Mangotora, continuation
3. Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground to dismiss an
action. The proper judicial course of action is to order the plaintiff to
implead the indispensable party and if he fails or refuses, the the court
can dismiss the case.
4. If a land is in the name of the Republic but the same is in thepossession of a party who claims an interest in said property,
expropriation, aside from other remedies, is a proper remedy.
5. The action of reversion and expropriation on the same property can be
instituted simultaneously or successively because one does not precludethe other. For example: if in the reversion case, the decision is the
reversion of the title of the land to the Republic, expropriation can be
instituted against the occupant thereof.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
8/38
Republic v. Mangotora, continuation
6. In an action for quieting of title, the court of proper jurisdiction can rule on
claimants status, filiation and heirship. Note: In an action for reconveyance, the
trial court cannot declare heirship of a party for only the probate or intestate
court can make that determination. The SC justified its ruling in the case of
quieting of title because this action is a special proceeding and as such, status
and filiation can be determined.
Note further: In Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, 467 SCRA 184 (2005), the SC
ruled that in an action for annulment of an Affidavit of Adjudication and the
certificate of title issued upon the registration of said Affidavit of Adjudication, the
issue of whether petitioner was an heir of the original owner of the subject
property can be determined by the trial court without the need of a prior filing of
an intestate proceeding for declaration of heirship and settlement of the estate ofthe deceased person.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
9/38
Republic v. Mangotora, continuation
7. Nature of an action for quieting of title The concept of cause of action in ordinary civil
action does not apply to quieting of title because the latter is a special civil action being in the
nature of declaratory relief.
The title to be quieted according to Art. 477 of CC is a legal or equitable title or an
interest on a real property. Title does not pertains to certificate of title under the Torrens
System; rather it pertains to a right of dominion or possession over a realty.
Hence, even unregistered property can be the subject of an action for quieting of title.
Even a party not in possession of the subject land can institute an action for quieting of title if
he possesses a legal or equitable title or interest in said property.
8. The rule that the execution of a decision in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases which
is immediately final and executory may be stayed by complying with the requirementsprovided for in Sec. 19, Rule 70, R.C. applies only to decision on appeal to the RTC. If the
RTC has rendered a decision affirming the decision of ejectment of the first level court, and
the same is an appeal to CA. Sec. 21 applies and not Sec. 19.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
10/38
5. Requirement in the Issuance of an Order Compelling a Party to Submit to
DNA Testing
Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (June 6, 2011)
Background Case: Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005). There are
four (4) significant procedural aspects in paternity actions:
1. A prima facie case
The testimony of the mother that she had sexual relation with the putativefather, if corroborated establishes a prima facie evidence of paternity which
shifts the onus of proof to the putative father.
1. Affirmative defenses
There are 2 affirmative defenses available to the putative father:
a) Incapability of sexual relations with the mother either because of
absence or impotency; and
b) Mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
11/38
Lucas v. Lucas, continuation
3. Presumption of legitimacy
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
presumed legitimate. The childs legitimacy may be impugned only
under strict standards provided by law.4. Physical resemblance between putative father and child may be
offered as part of the evidence of paternity.
Note: A court order directing a putative father to submit himself to
DNA testing is not offensive to the constitutional right against self
incrimination. That right pertains only to testimonial evidence.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
12/38
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
13/38
6. Recent Jurisprudence on Action for Reconveyance
6.1. Munoz v. Yabut, 650 SCRA 344 (2011)
Nature of Action
An action for reconveyance is a real action so that jurisdiction is determined by
the assessed value of the land in suit. It is also an action in personam so
that a decision binds only the parties. Consequently, a writ of execution
issued in the case cannot be enforced against a stranger.
6.2. Leoveras v. Valdez, 653 SCRA 1 (2011)
Concept of Action
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner whose land has been erroneously or fraudulentlyregistered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to
transfer or reconvey the land to him.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
14/38
6.3. Luga v. Arceaga, 654 SCRA 661 (2011)
Two Types of Actionsa) Under the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529)
This is the action which the owner of a land which has been
erroneously registered in the name of another can institute after
one year from the issuance of the decree of registration providedthat the property has not yet been conveyed to an innocent buyer
for value.
b) Under the Civil Code (Articles 1449-1467)
This is an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
15/38
6.4. Prescriptive Period
a) Luga v. Arceaga, Id
The action for reconveyance under the Property Registration Decree which
should be filed after one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration
does not prescribed for as long as the land does not fall into the hands of an
innocent buyer for value.
b) Fernando, Jr. v. Acua, 657 SCRA 499 (2011)An action for reconveyance based an implied trust prescribed after 10
years from date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the title
of the land.
If the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance
is imprescriptible. Such an action is properly one for quieting of title.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
16/38
7. Locus Standi in Mandamus
Guingona v. COMELEC, 630 SCRA 448 (2010)
If petition for mandamus is anchored on the peoples right to information on matters of publicconcern, any citizen can be a real party in interest the requirement of personal interestis satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen. There is no need to show anyspecial interest in the subject of the case.
Public interest anything which the public may want to know, either because such mattersdirectly affect their lives or simply because said matters naturally arouse the interest of anordinary citizen.
8. Amended Complaint
Dionisio v. Linsangan, 644 SCRA 424 (2011)
An amended complaint that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is technically a newcomplaint. The action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such amended pleading,not on the date of the filing of its original version. An amendment which supplements or
amplifies the facts previously alleged does not affect the reckoning date of filing based onthe original complaint.
To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether suchamendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which iscompletely different from that stated in the original complaint.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
17/38
9. Res Judicata
Facura v. Court of Appeals, 643 SCRA 427 (2011)
The doctrine in Montemayor, 405 SCRA 264 (2003) that res
judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and
not to administrative case has been abandoned in subsequentcases so that the prevailing rule now is that the rule on res judicata
also applies to administrative cases.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
18/38
10. Summary Judgment
10.1. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Go, 642 SCRA 693 (February 14,
2011)
The determinative factor in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absenceof a genuine issue as to any material fact. A genuine issue is an issue of fact which
requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived
or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there
is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called
for. The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating
clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaintis patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts
have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the
parties are disputed or contested, proceeding for summary judgment cannot take the
place of trial.
10.2. Ybiernas v. Gabaldon, 650 SCRA 154 (2011)
A summary judgment may not be rendered on the amount of damages to be awarded but
it can rule on the issue of the right of a party to claim for damages.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
19/38
11. Judgment, Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgment
11.1. Genato v. Viola, 611 SCRA 677 (2010)
Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgment: General Rule
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be
modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of
fact or law and whether it was made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the
land.
11.2. Marmosy Trading Corp., Inc. v. CA, 620 SCRA 315 (2010)Exception: Correction of Clerical Error.
11.3. Pea Ping Wee v. Lee Hiong Wee, 629 SCRA 145 (2010)
Exception: The court may consider supervening events or facts or circumstances which
transpired after judgment has become final and executory which makes execution of judgment
unfair and unjust.
11.4. League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, 628 SCRA 819 (2010)
Exception: Even if a judgment has already been entered as final, the court is allowed to
accept further submission and to alter the judgment to avoid injustice.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
20/38
12. Writ of Execution
12.1. Parel v. Prudencio, 644 SCRA 496 (2011)
This case reiterates the ruling in Banaga v. Majaducon, 494 SCRA 153 (2006) which held that a writ ofexecution may be appealed in the following instances:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties
making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt
from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject of the judgment of the court; 5)
the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it
appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued; or that it is defective in substance, or is
issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writwas issued without authority.
12.2. Golden Sun Finance Corp. v. Marmito, A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011
Can a mortgaged property be levied on execution?
A realty which has been mortgaged may stil l be levied on execution for the satisfact ion of the judgment
obligation. Reason: The beneficial owner remains to be the mortgagor. (See Sec. 9 (b) Rule 39, R.C.)Note: In Coya v. Manquil, 481 Phil. 488 (2004) the sheriff levied upon the mortgaged property of
judgment-debtor; the sheriff was administratively found culpable because he did not previously check
whether judgment-debtor had personal properties which should first be levied on.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
21/38
PART TWO
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
I. Leviste v. Alameda, 626 SCRA 515 (August 3, 2010)
A. Facts:
1. Leviste was charged of Homicide; he posted bail.
2. Private complainants, with the conformity of theprosecutor, moved, for reinvestigation to determine theproper offense. RTC granted the motion.
3. Leviste filed a MR on the Order allowing the
reinvestigation but was denied. Leviste filed a petition forcertiorari with CA questioning the order of the RTC denyinghis MR and prayed for injunctive relief.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
22/38
Facts of Leviste Case, continuation
4. Despite the filing of the petition for certiorari, the prosecutionconducted the reinvestigation. Leviste refused to participate on theground that it would compromise his petition for certiorari.
5. Without receiving any new evidence or considering any new matter,
the prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause for murderagainst Leviste.
6. Without conducting a new preliminary investigation, prosecutor filed amotion to amend and attaching the Amended Information chargingLeviste with murder.
7. The RTC granted the motion and admitted the Amended Informationfor murder. The court then issued a warrant of arrest against Leviste andthen set the case for arraignment.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
23/38
Facts of Leviste Case, continuation
8. Leviste filed a motion to conduct a judicial inquiry to
determine probable cause for murder. The court denied
the motion.
9. Leviste was arraigned but he refused to make a plea.
The court entered a plea of not guilty for him, Levistethen filed a petition for bail. This was granted because
after hearing the court determined that the evidence of
guilt was not strong. He posted the bail of Php
300,000.00.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
24/38
B. Issues and Rulings
Issue No. 1 After an information has already been filed, can a private
complainant, with the consent of the prosecutor, move for reinvestigation?
Contentions of Leviste:
a) Only the accused can ask for a reinvestigation.
b) The remedy of the offended party is not to ask for reinvestigation but to appealthe resolution of the prosecutor to the DOJ on a petition for review.
Rulings:
a) There is no rule that prohibits the private complainant through the prosecutorto ask the court to allow the prosecutor to reinvestigate the criminal case. In factit is the duty of the prosecutor handling the case to do that if he finds a necessityfor it.
It is also discretionary for the court to grant or deny a motion forreinvestigation.
b) Reinvestigation and appeal are alternative remedies; they are not mutuallyexclusive.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
25/38
Issues and Rulings, continuation
Issue No. 2 In a reinvestigation of a criminal charge, is itnecessary that additional evidence or new matters should beintroduced to justify an upgrading of the criminal charge?
Contention of LevisteIt is necessary.
RulingIn a reinvestigation the presentation of additional or newevidence is not an indispensable requirement In factreinvestigation simply means a proceeding whereby theprosecution reviews or reevaluates the evidence on hand to findout whether its first determination was correct or not.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
26/38
Issues and Rulings, continuation
Issue No. 3 Was it legal and proper for the RTC to act upon the motion toamend information, admit the amended information and set the arraignment overthe objection of Leviste on the ground that his petition for certiorari has not yetbeen resolved?
Ruling - Yes, because the CA did not issue a TRO much less a WPI. In fact theRTC was under obligation to continue the proceedings absent any TRO or WPIrestraining it.
Issue No. 4 Was the amendment of the Information upgrading homicide tomurder a substantial or formal amendment? (If it is substantial, it would require anew preliminary investigation.)
Rulings: a) Substantial, citing Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy, 108 SCRA 736, 738 (1981),which pronounced that an amendment of a charge from homicide to murder is nota matter of form; it is one of substance with very serious consequence. (Obiter
Dictum)b) However, when the amendment was the result of reinvestigation in which nonew matter or new evidence was introduced but the proceeding consisted only inreevaluating the evidence or record, a new preliminary investigation does notserve any useful purpose.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
27/38
Issues and Rulings, continuation
Issue No. 5 Is a motion for judicial inquiry to determine probable cause a
necessary remedy of an accused?RulingA motion for determination of probable cause by the court is a superfluity.Whether there is a motion or not, the court is duty bound to conduct a judicialinquiry.
Issue No. 6 When Leviste participated in the arraignment and went through theprocess of trial, did he in effect waive his right to question the regularity of thepreliminary investigation or reinvestigation and his arrest?Ruling Levistes actions or omissions did not amount to a waiver of his right toquestion the legality of his arrest and the regularity of his preliminary investigation.
The principle that after arraignment, an accused is precluded from questioning theillegality of his arrest or irregularity in the preliminary investigation applies only ifhe voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial without previously
invoking his objection thereto.(Bartongan v. Pena, 538 SCRA 221 [2007])In this case Leviste did not voluntarily enter a plea precisely because he
questioned the regularity of the preliminary investigation.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
28/38
II. PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN,
665 SCRA 1 (2012)
Facts:
Accused was charged before the SB with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. After trial, he was acquitted. The People filed with SC a petition for certiorari (R65)
assailing the decision of acquittal as having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The grave abuse of discretion consisted of the alleged
failure of the SB to consider the evidence showing bad faith of the accused in his refusal topay the RATA of the complainant.
Ratio Decedendi:
An erroneous evaluation of the evidence constitutes error in the exercise of jurisdiction
which is correctible by appeal. A petition for certiorari deals only with errors in jurisdiction
which is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ofjurisdiction.
The petition was dismissed.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
29/38
People v. Sandiganbayan, continuation
Obiter Dicta:1. Generally, only a decision of conviction can be the subject of review by theappellate court. Allowing a review of a decision of acquittal is offensive to theconstitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy.
Exception: Petition for certiorari which attacks the validity of a decision ofacquittal on jurisdictional grounds.
2. There are 3 modes of review of a decision of the trial court in a criminal caseby the SC:
a) Ordinary appeal (notice of appeal) under sec. 3, Rule 122, R.C.;
(Note: This rule has been superseded by People v. Mateo and theimplementing circular of the SC)
b) Petition for review on certiorari (R 45)
c) Petition for certiorari (R 65)
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
30/38
People v. Sandiganbayan, continuation
3. Differences Between the Different Modes of Review:
a) Ordinary Appeal
SC reviews factual and legal issues whether raised or not provided that they are material in
the resolution of the case.
b) Petition for Review on Certiorari (R 145)SCs review is generally limited to the review of legal issues raised by the parties; the court
determines whether a correct application of the law was made by the trial court on a given set
of facts
c) Petition for Certiorari (R 65)
SC determines the propriety of the trial court s jurisdiction whether it has jurisdiction over thecase and if it has, whether the exercise of that jurisdiction was attended by grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
31/38
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
32/38
Ab el lana v. Peop le, cont in uat ion
Judgment (dispositive portion) of the trial court:
1. Abellana was sentenced to imprisonment.
2. Abellana was ordered to secure reconveyance ofthe lot from the third person and convey it to the
Alonto spouses. Once, the Alonto spouses werefully restored of the lot, they should pay the accusedP130,000.00, the cost of the lot plus legal interest.
3. However, if accused fails to restore full ownership
and possession of the lot to the Alontos within 6months, Abellana should pay the AlontosP1,103,000.00 plus P115,000.00 attorneys feesand damages.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
33/38
Abel lana v. People, cont inuat ion
Ruling of the CA:
1. It was wrong for the trial court to find Abellana guilty ofthe crime of violation of Art. 172 (i) in relation to Art.171 (2), RPC because that was not the crime charged;
what was charged was violation of Art. 171 (i), RPC.The information should have charged violation of Art.171 (2). (Causing it to appear that persons haveparticipated in any act or proceeding when they didnot in fact so participate) The decision violated theright of Abellana to be informed of the accusationagainst him.
2. However, the civil liability portion of the appealeddecision was affirmed.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
34/38
Abel lana v. Peop le, cont in uat ion
Ruling of the SC:
1. The CA was correct in acquitting Abellana.
2. The CA was wrong and sustaining the civil liability imposed by thetrial judge. Reasons:
a) The Deed of Sale was signed by the Alontos but since they did notappear before the Notary Public for the notarization of the deed, thedeed did not become a public document and so it was just a privatedocument. A private document is a valid deed of conveyance of a realproperty. Therefore, Abellana became the rightful owner and has theright to sell the lot to the third person. So there was no estafa.
b) There can be no civil liability because the Alontos did not suffer anyactual damage. The sale was valid and so they validly conveyed the lotto Abellana.
c) The judgment which required Abellana to do something or if he fails topay a certain amount is in the nature of alternative judgments which isnot allowed.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
35/38
IV. YAMBOT V. TUGUERRO, 640 SCRA
249 (MARCH 23, 2011)A . Facts :
Judge Cruz, Jr. filed a libel case against a reporter and membersof the editorial staff of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) for thenews item in that newspaper that Judge Cruz, Jr. was facing acharge of sexual harassment before the SC which he claimed tobe untrue. The prosecutor who conducted the preliminaryinvestigation found probable cause. The information for libel wasfiled. The PDI respondents appealed the resolution of theprosecutor to the DOJ. The DOJ sustained the resolution of the
prosecutor and dismissed the petition of the PDI respondents.The PDI respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Courtof Appeals questioning the decision of the DOJ. The CAdismissed the petition and sustained the DOJ.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
36/38
B. Issu e and Rul ing
Issue Is certiorari proper to question the resolution of the DOJ
after the information has already been filed in court.
Ruling:
1. In Advincula v. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 589 (2000), the
Court ruled that once an Information is filed in court, petition forcertiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the resolution of
the DOJ in a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor
is not a proper remedy. Anyone aggrieved by the resolution of
DOJ should bring that matter to the trial court which has
discretion on the disposition of the criminal action filed with it.For example, the aggrieved party can file a motion to quash the
information, or demurrer to evidence after prosecutor has
presented its case.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
37/38
Yambot v. Tug uerro, con t inu at ion
2. Advincula however cannot be read completely to disallow the
institution of certiorari against the DOJ Secretarys
determination of probable cause when the information hasalready been filed in court. It cited Mendoza-Arce v.Ombudsman, 481 SCRA 609 (2006) where the SC stated thateven if an information has already been filed, the Resolutionof the DOJ Secretary can still be the subject of certiorari under
the following circumstances:
a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to theconstitutional rights of the accused;
b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice;
c) when the act of the officer is without or in excess of authority;d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance;
e) no clear prima facie case against the accused.
-
8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013
38/38
V. ANGELES V. GAITE, 648 SCRA 309
(MARCH 23, 2011)
1. Judge Angeles appealed the Resolution of the DOJ Secretaryto the Office of the President. The appeal was dismissedbecause Memorandum Circular No. 58 of the O.P. allows such
appeal only when the offense involved is punishable by reclusionperpetua to death.
2. The proper remedy of Judge Angeles was to have filed apetition for certiorari before the CA but this she could no longerdo because 60 days from notice of the resolution sought to be
nullified has already expired. Note that, the filing of the petitionfor review with the O.P. did not toll the running of thereglementary period to file a certiorari.