Remedial Law I: Atty. Zehan Loren Tocao, REB
Remedial Law I: Atty. Zehan Loren Tocao, REB
Remedial Law I: Atty. Zehan Loren Tocao, REB
• Alfonso Singson Cortal vs Inaki Larrazabal, G.R. No. 199107. August 30,
2017
• Vivencio, Eugenio, Joji and Myrna, All Surnamed Mateo vs. Department of
Agrarian Reform, Land Bank of the Philippines and Mariano T. Rodriguez, et
al., G.R. No. 186339, February 15, 2017
• Priscilla Alma Jose v. Ramon C. Javellana, et al., G.R. No. 158239, January
25, 2012
• Nature of remedial law
Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G. R. No. L-286, March 28, 1946
• Substantive law vis a vis remedial law
Rodante Guyamin, et.al. v. Jacinto Flores, et.al., G.R. No.
202189, April 25, 2017
Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949
• Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the
time of promulgation
• Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
• SM Land, Inc., et al. v. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 197151, October 22, 2012
• Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006
• In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of
Lilibeth Ladaga v. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, et al., G.R. No. 189689/G.R.
No. 189691, November 13, 2012
• Nature of Philippine Courts
• BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc., Petitioner vs.Total
Distribution Logistic Systems, Inc., Respondents, G.R. No. 214406, February
6, 2017
• Senator Leila de Lima vs Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al, G.R. No. 229781,
October 10, 2017
• Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007
• Delos Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006
• COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002
• Transcendental importance
• United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration, G.R. No.
187107, January 31, 2012
• Jessica de la Pena, and Jaime Antonio de la Pena, G.R. No. 202448, December 13,
2017
• Union Bank of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Regional Agrarian Reform
Officer, G.R. No. 200369, March 1, 2017
• Jonathan Y. Dee v. Harvest All Investment Limited, et al., v. Alliance Select Foods
• Fe V. Rapsing, et al. v. Hon. Judge Maximino R.Ables, et al., G.R. No. 171855,
October 15, 2012
• Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010
• Remedios Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City, et al., G.R. No.
185663, June 20, 2012
• Loloy Unduran, et.al. v. Ramon Aberarturi, et.al., G.R. No. 181284, April 18, 2017
• Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
• Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010
• Supreme Court
• Court of Appeals
• Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 168065/G.R. No. 168070.
September 6, 2017
• Sandiganbayan
• Regional Trial Courts
• Philippine Bank of Communications, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Honorio
E. Guanlao, Jr., In his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
Branch 56, Traveller Kids Inc., Cely L. Gabaldon-Co and Jeannie L. Lugmoc, Respondents,
G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017
• Mercedita C. Coombs v.Victoria C. Castaneda, Virgilio Veloso Santos, Sps. Pancho & Edith
Leviste, BPI Family Savings Bank and the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City, G.R. No.
192353 March 15, 2017
• Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Court
• Shari’a Court
• The Municipality Of Tangkal, Province Of Lanao Del Norte, Petitioner, Vs. Hon.
Rasad B. Balindong, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Shari’a District Court,
4th Judicial
• District, Marawi City, and Heirs Of The Late Macalabo Alompo, represented
by Sultan Dimnang B. Alompo, Respondents, G.R. No. 193340, January 11,
2017
• Fiorello R. Jose v. Roberto Alfuerto, et al., G.R. No. 69380, November 26, 2012
• 1. Jose Audie Abagatnan et al vs.Spouses Jonathan Clarito And Elsa Clarito, G.R. No.
211966. August 7, 2017
• 2. Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907, September 13, 1989
• 3. Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690, February 29, 1988
• 4. Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277, November 29, 1983
• 5. Peregrina v. Panis, 133 SCRA 75
• 6. Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008
• 7. Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012
• Totality rule
Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377
• Revised Rules on Continuous Trial
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (RULE 110 to RULE 127)
• (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
• (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
• Compliance with these conditions: (a) probable cause; and (b) good faith of arresting
officers (Umil v. Ramos)
• Also, warrantless arrest valid:
• (a) Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or
• is rescued, Sec. 13, Rule 113;
• (b) Where arrest is by the bondsmen for the purpose of
• surrendering an accused out on bail, Sec. 23, Rule 114;
• (c) Where the accused out on bail attempts to leave the country
• without permission of the court, Sec. 23, Par. 2, Rule 114
• Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, Sec. 26, Rule 114
• Overturns
• Rolito Go v. CA (That once the accused has posted bail, he waived his right to question any defect in the issuance of
the warrant of arrest)
• Almonte v. Judge Bien, 461 SCRA 218
• Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13, Rule 126
• - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without search warrant
• - Scope of search should be limited to the area within which the arrestee can reach for a
weapon or for evidence in order to destroy it
•
(Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752)
• People v. Mortos, G.R. No. 103632, Sep. 1, 1993: Buy-bust operation
• People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401
•
• Inquest, Sec.6, Rule 112, When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant.
• Inquest, defined: “An informal and summary investigation
• conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
• involving persons arrested without the benefit of a
• warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
• determining whether or not said persons should remain
• under the custody and correspondingly be charged before
• the court.” (2008 Revised Manual of Prosecutors)
• - Involves an offense which requires a P.I. (mandatory)
• - Accused lawfully detained without a warrant
• - He refuses to sign a waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C.
• Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation, R.A. No. 7438 (April 27, 1992)
• “Custodial investigation” includes practice of issuing an “invitation” to a suspected person
•
• Waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C. (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities) 12-18-36
hours
•
• - In the presence of accused’s counsel
• - P.I. must be conducted and terminated within 15 days from inception
•
• Bail during P.I., Sec. 17(c), Rule 114: Any person in custody
• who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with
• any court in the province, city or municipality where he
• is held.
•
• Motion for Reinvestigation or Motion for P.I., Sec. 6, Par. 3,
• Rule 112
• - Must be filed within five (5) days from the time the
• accused learns of the filing of information or complaint
• without a P.I. conducted
• RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE
• General rule: Search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant
•
• Reasonable warrantless searches and seizures, per jurisprudence:
• 1. Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13
• 2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view”
• Padilla v. CA, G.R. No. 121917, Mar. 12, 1997
• Elements of Plain View Doctrine:
• (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
• arrest in which the police are legally present in the
• pursuit of their official duties;
• (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
• Police who had the right to be where they are;
• (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
• (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence with-
• out further search
• 3. Search of a moving vehicle (also, vessels and aircrafts)
• Reason: vessel, aircraft, motor vehicle can quickly move
• out of the jurisdiction before a warrant is secured
• Qualification for motor vehicles: Officers to conduct the
• extensive search had probable cause to believe that
• they will find instruments/evidence of a crime on
• the vehicle (People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218,
• Sep. 18, 1992)
•
• 4. Consented warrantless search
• People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936)
•
• 5. Customs search
(Under the Tariff and Customs Code: persons exercising police authority
under the customs laws, in the enforcement of customs laws)
• Exception: search of a dwelling house
• 6. Stop and frisk (Terry searches, from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) –
conducted to prevent occurrence of crime
Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, Sep. 29, 1989 (En Banc)
• 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
• Definition of “probable cause” for warrantless searches: “a reasonable
• ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
• strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
• the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
• charged”, People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998)
•
• Cases where police officers, using their senses, observed facts that led
• to the suspicion:
• Manalili v. CA, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)
• People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)
•
• Search warrant defined, Sec. 1
• “An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
• the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
• officer, commanding him to search for personal property des-
• cribed therein and bring it before the court.”
•
• Requisites for issuing search warrant, Sec. 4
• If criminal action already filed: With the court where the criminal action is pending
• Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file, Sec. 14
• Where to file motion:
• (a) In the court where the criminal action is instituted;
• (b) If no criminal action instituted, in the court that
• issued the search warrant;
• (c) If court that issued the warrant fails to resolve the
• motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
• another court, in the latter court
•
• The Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
• or Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
• Stonehill v. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738 (1967, per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc)
• - Abandoned Moncado v. People’s Court, 80 Phil.
• 1, which allowed admissibility of unlawfully
• seized evidence (American common law rule)
• - Prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
• encourage law enforcers to go on fishing
• expeditions (“A fishing expedition is indicative of
• the absence of evidence to establish probable cause”)
• People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, Jul. 30, 2014
• Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to immunity of
one’s person from interference by government; it cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
•
• A corporation is entitled to immunity against unreasonable
• searches and seizures, but the legality of the seizure can
• be contested only by the party whose rights have been
• impaired thereby and such objection cannot be availed
• of by third parties.
•
• Right to break door or window to effect search, Sec. 7
• Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses, Sec. 8
• Requisites for search with warrant: (mandatory)
• (a) Presence of the lawful occupant, or any member of
• his family; or
• (b) Presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
• discretion residing in the same locality, in the absence
• a member of his family
• People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743: Violation of this rule led to acquittal of the accused
• Time of making search, Sec. 9
• General rule: Warrant must direct that it be served at day time
• Exception: Where complainant’s affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or
in the place to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served
at any time of the day or night
•
• Validity of search warrant, Sec. 10
• Search warrant valid for ten (10) days from its date; thereafter, It shall be void
• - Cannot be used every day for the period of 10 days
• - Once articles have been seized under the warrant, it cannot
• be used again for another search and seizure
• - But when the search conducted on one day was interrupted,
• the same may be continued under the same warrant on
• the following day
•
• Receipt for the property seized, Sec. 11 (mandatory)
•
• (a) Officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a
• detailed receipt to the lawful occupant present during the
• search; or
• (b) In the absence of lawful occupant, officer must leave a
• receipt in the place where the seized property is found, in the
• presence of at least two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
• discretion residing in the same locality
•
• Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
• proceedings thereon, Sec. 12
• - Violation or non-compliance constitutes contempt of court
• (Cf., Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, chain in the custody of evidence)
•
• RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• (Amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005)
Alfredo Mendoza v People GR 197293 April 21, 2014
• Reyes v Ombudsman GR 212593-94 March 15, 2016
• Maza v Turla GR 187094 February 15, 2017
• Quisay v People GR 216920 January 13, 2016
• Fortaleza v Gonzales GR 179287 and 182090 February 1, 2016
• People v Delos Santos GR 220685 November 29, 2017
Sales v Adapon GR 171420 October 5, 2016Ient v Tullett Prebon GR 189158 and
189530 January 11, 2017
Pemberton v Delima GR 217508 April 18, 2016
Young v People GR 213910 February 3, 2016
Wilson Fenix v CA GR 189878 July 11, 2016
Napoles v Delima GR 213529 July 13, 2016
• Preliminary investigation defined; when required, Sec. 1
• Definition: An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that (a) a crime has been committed and (b) therespondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
• Quantum of evidence required: existence of “probable
cause”
• Buchanan v. Vda. De Esteban, 32 Phil. 365 (1915)
• Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)
• NBI Microsoft Corp. v. Hwang, 460 SCRA 429 (2005)
• Mandatory or matter of right in cases cognizable by RTC; and in MTC where
penalty for offense is at least 4 years, 2 months, 1 day (prision correccional,
maximum)
• Where the law provides for P.I. and such right is claimed by the accused, denial
thereof is denial of due process
• Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736
• Cojuangco v. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226 (1990)
•
• Right to P.I. is a personal right, which may be waived expressly or impliedly (e.g.,
failure to demand such right; non- appearance at the investigation)
• - Entry of plea on arraignment is waiver of right to P .I.
• - In warrantless arrest, refusal to waive Art. 125, R.P.C.
• is waiver of right to P.I.
• Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349 (1993)
• Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, Sec. 2
• As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005:
Judgesof MTC/MCTC are no longer included