[Musika] A pleasant day to all our law students and barristers across the Philippines. This is the Central Books Best Free Week Ever. I am Pavel from the PUP College of Law, your host for today.

Our bar lecture series is a compilation and discussion of the codal provisions and latest jurisprudence as decided by The Supreme Court. This is presented by Central Books in partnership with the Philippine Association of Law Schools, or PALS, the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, or PUP, College of Law, and the Association of National Students of the Philippines, or ALSP National.

This is just one of our many lectures for the Central Books Best Free Week Ever. As we also have those for Political and Public International Law, Commercial Law, Taxation Law, Criminal Law, Civil Law, and also we have our Legal and Judicial Ethics with practical exercises. All this happening this September 2024.

Of course, for updates, like and follow the Facebook page of Central Books to remain updated with the dates and speakers for each program. We would also like to recognize our main sponsor for this initiative, Central Books, and our main collaborators for this initiative as well: PALS, PUP College of Law, and ALSP National.

Without further ado, to everyone, let me introduce our esteemed lecturer today for Remedial Law. Our lecturer is the founding dean of Thomas Claudio Colleges, the first law school in the province of Rizal. He is the Chairman of the Remedial Law Department in the Tarlac State University School of Law and the New Era University College of Law. He teaches many subjects, including Criminal Law, Remedial Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Election Law, Administrative Law, Conflicts of Laws, Natural Resources and Environmental Law and Procedure. He is also a managing partner of Moya, Ablola, Ebr Law Firm.

In 2022, he earned his degree in Doctor of Civil Law from The University of Santo Tomas Graduate School of Law. He obtained his degree in the Master of Laws program from the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Graduate School in 2016. He also received his degree in Bachelor of Laws from San Sebastian College, Recoletos de Manila School of Law in 1993, as well as a Bachelor of Science in Commerce, Major in Accounting, from The University of Santo Tomas in 1988.

Additionally, he has been a long-time member of the expert committee in Criminal Law and Remedial Law at the UP Law Center. He was also a lecturer in MCLE, or the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, and a bar reviewer in Remedial Law and Criminal Law in numerous review centers. Our lecturer has also authored numerous books published by the Central Book Supply, Incorporated, namely: The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases, 2017 Edition; Barnes and Cases in Criminal Law, 2018; The Revised Guidelines and Continuous Uh Trial in Criminal Cases in relation to the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, 2018; The Pre-Week Bar Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, 2018; Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volumes 1 to 4, 2019; We also have Pre-Week Barnes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volumes 1 to 2, 2019; Barnes and Cases in Criminal Law, Second Edition, 2019; Notes and Cases in Criminal Law, Book 1, Articles 1 to 113, 2020; Um, Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volume 1, Part 1 to 4, in 2020 and 2021; and finally, A Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Volumes 1 to 4, 2021. Wow!

To everyone, let us virtually welcome our esteemed lecturer for today, Atty. De la Cruz.

[Musika]

The Okay, thank you very much for that very exhaustive introduction, Atty. Dela Cruz. To our barristers from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. So, before I start the lecture, I want to introduce to you maybe 25% questions in Remedial Law will be my contribution to both Civil and Criminal Procedure. Now, in the glass board is the famous Moya tree. So, we start with jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to try, hear, and decide cases. Jurisdiction is vested by the Constitution because the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, ah, is Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution. BP 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA Number 7691, and further amended by RA Number 1176.

Now, in the glass board are the courts of the Philippines. We have the Municipal or Metropolitan Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Now, jurisdiction for personal action is 2 million and below, excluding interest or charges or damages. Now, real action, the jurisdiction is 400,000 and below. Question: Where will you get the value of the real property? So, nandito tayo. Number one is the assessed value, can be taken from the City or Municipal Assessor. Then you have the zonal valuation from the BIR. Kung wala pa rin, ah, you can check the documents executed by the parties, ah, at wala pa rin, value of the property of adjoining owners.

Now, absent the allegations of the value of the property is a ground for motu proprio dismissal under Section 3, Rule 9 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Ah, law on jurisdiction, it is provided by Section 33, BP 129, as amended by 7691 and further amended by RA 1176. Now, rule on appeal, ah, under Rule 40. Ha, kaya ito is the combination of jurisdiction and appeal.

Now, we go to the RTC. Ah, it is provided by Section 19 of BP 129, as amended by 7691 and further amended by 1156. 76. Now, what is the jurisdiction for personal action? 2 million plus one or more than 2 million. For real action, 400,000 plus one or more than 400,000. Now, uh, what is the rule governing the RTC? Take note that the RTC is not only a trial court, but it is also an appellate court. If the case is originally filed with the RTC, you utilize Rule 41. Now, if the RTC, ah, is performing its duty as an appellate court, you utilize Rule 42.

Now, akyat, ha, you have the Court of Appeals. Then nandoon naman sa kaliwa mo yung Sandiganbayan and sa kanan yung Court of Tax Appeals. Now, Sandiganbayan, there are seven divisions. Jurisdiction: public officers or employees with salary grade of 27 and above, and a crime was committed in the performance of its official duties. Then you file the information with the Sandiganbayan. There are two landmark decisions na kailangang alam natin. Ah, pinakasikat is the case of Delima versus Guerrero, decided in 2017. It is an en banc decision by The Supreme Court per Mr. Justice Ah. Now, ano ba nangyari sa Delima? Now, Delima was formerly the Secretary of the Department of Justice. In view of her entanglement with former President Duterte, a case for violation of 9165 was filed by the CIDG with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice. Delima's center team of lawyers questioned the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Ah, sorry, by the Department of Justice, saying that when she was the Secretary of Justice, her salary grade is 31, and therefore, pursuant to RA 6770, the original charter of the Ombudsman, ah, in case there is a criminal charge against him or against her, it must be filed with the Ombudsman. It was denied, ah, by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and eventually, an information was filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Upon learning that the information was already filed, Delima filed a motion to quash, for Section 3 of Rule 117, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Now, the case was raffled up to the sala of Judge Guerrero. Judge Guerrero issued an order determining the judicial probable cause for the issuance of the warrant with no bail recommended. Now, without awaiting the resolution of the motion to quash, Delima went to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Now, what was the ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court said that there is no law, rule, or jurisprudence which provides that if the court receives a motion to quash and at the same time an information, the court is duty-bound to solve the motion to quash. The primary duty of the court is provided by Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. It provides that no warrant of arrest or search warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause to be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be seized. So, that is the primary duty of the court, at to judicially determine whether there is a probable cause and not to resolve the motion to quash. Now, the rest is history. All the cases against Delima, ah, were dismissed by the RTC of Muntinlupa City.

Now, the second case is the case of Ampongan versus Sandiganbayan. Now, ano naman yung kaso ni Ampongan? Ampongan was formerly the City Vice Mayor of Iriga. Now, considering that Ampongan is that the party-mate of the sitting Mayor, when Ampongan requested for the position of Secretary of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, it was taken for granted by the Director of the HR. On his own, Ampongan conducted the recruitment, and after the attestation by the Civil Service of Camarines Sur, a case against Ampongan was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of RA 3019, Section 3(e), usurpation of authority, and falsification of public document. After PI, there was probable cause. The information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Ampongan filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because, according to him, he was only a Vice Mayor, and therefore, the salary grade is only 26. Ah, the motion to quash was denied. Mr. denied. Ampongan went to the Supreme Court per Mr. Justice Peralta, later to become ah, Chief Justice. Ah, ah, The Supreme Court said that under the original charter of the Sandiganbayan, ayun, PD Number 1606, ah, the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over violation of RA 3019. Again, the rest is history because Ampongan was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. Now, I just don't know whether it is by accident or coincidence. Delima is from San Agustin, Iriga City. Ampongan is from San Isidro, Iriga City. And I am also from San Nicolas, Iriga City. So, if you are coming from Manila, madadaanan mo yung tatlong baryo yon. So, maybe it's just a coincidence.

Now, akyat tayo sa Supreme Court. Ah, you need to remember two cases. Now, the Supreme Court is composed of three divisions and an en banc. Now, the first case is the case of Laya Jr. versus Philippine Veterans Bank. Ano naman yung kaso ni Laya? L.J.R. was formerly the Director of Legal of Philippine Veterans Bank. PBB offered an ERP, or Early Retirement Program. At that time, ah, Laya Jr. was of my age, 57 going 58. Now, when Laya Jr., or Attorney Laya, for that matter, did not avail, ah, the early retirement program, ah, he was dismissed, ah, from the service. Laya Jr. filed an illegal dismissal case, ah, from the labor arbiter. Natalo siya. Then appealed to the NLRC. Ah, Natalo siya. Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals. Talo ulit. Ah, then Rule 45, raffled up to the First Division. Talo uli. Unperturbed, Laya Jr. filed, ha, a motion to repair the case to the bank. So, in other words, a second motion for reconsideration. Now, remember that a second MR is a prohibited pleading, except at to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court, ah, will exercise its discretionary, ah, jurisdiction. Now, the bank accepted the second MR, or motion to repair the case to the bank, per Mr. Chief Justice, ah, Lucas Bersamin. The Supreme Court said that an ERP, or Early Retirement Program, must be voluntary and not compulsory.

Now, another case, ah, ito, ah, itataya ko yung dulo ng daliri ko pag hindi ito itinanong ngayong 2024 bar. Suo versus Quantum Leap Security Agency, ha, decided May 5 of 2021, by Mr. Justice Mario Lopez, the Chairman of the 2024 bar. The issue raised, or the legal issue raised to the Supreme Court, is whether or not a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent for a Rule 45 petition, if you lose at the Court of Appeals. Now, according to Mr. Justice Mario Lopez, under Section 2 of Rule 45, there is a word, "or upon receipt of the adverse decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration." In other words, the petitioner has the option, ha, after, uh, receiving the adverse decision, he has 15 days to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, or he or she may file also, ah, a motion for reconsideration, and after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, elevate the case to the Supreme Court. Therefore, ah, MR is no longer a condition precedent, ah, in elevating the case to the Supreme Court. For one to repeat, Suo versus Quantum Leap Security Agency, May 5, 2021. So, natapos na natin ito, including itong Sandiganbayan.

Now, bago yan, punta tayo sa Court of Tax Appeals. What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals? Either civil or criminal, ano lang ang titingnan? The amount. If the amount is 1 million, you file it with the Court of Tax Appeals. Now, dumating ang People versus Mendez. For sure, itatanong ito, decided March 23, 2023, en banc, Mr. Justice Mario Lopez. Now, is there a difference between an en banc decision and a division decision? While it is true that whether it is en banc or a division decision of the Supreme Court, it is the same decision of the Supreme Court. However, an en banc decision is more doctrinal in character, considering that 15 justices of the Supreme Court, presided by the Chief Justice, deliberated upon over the case. Now, People versus Mendez. The Supreme Court said that if the amount involved is below 1 million, in view of the amendment made by RA 1176, you need to file it with the MTC. If you lose in the MTC, you go to the RTC by a notice of appeal. And if you lose again, you go to the Court of Tax Appeals via Rule 42. So, mamaya, ipapakita natin, ah, idi-discuss lang natin muna lahat ng nandito.

Now, baba muna tayo sa MTC. In view of the rule on expedited procedure, hinahati sa dalawa. Ha, ung Part 1 ay RSP, or Rules of Summary Procedure. Mamaya, idi-discuss ko rin yung sa criminal, ah, including the latest decision. Now, ano ang covered ng RSP? Ah, if the amount involved is 2 million pababa. Now, iung number two, or Roman numeral number two, ah, doon sa RSP ay Small Claims. Ano ang jurisdiction niya? Ah, 1 million pababa, purely sum of money, ibig sabihin, utang. Now, doon sa RSP, kailangan malaman natin that Rule 70 on ejectment is also covered by the RSP. Now, ejectment is divided into two. You have the forcible entry, in other words, from the start, the possession is illegal. Then you have unlawful detainer, from the start, legal ang possession ng property, and it becomes illegal in two instances: number one, expiration of the lease contract, and number two, upon demand to pay and to vacate. Considering that an ejectment suit, ah, is covered by the RSP, the decision is immediately executory, ha. Now, from MTC, in going to the RTC, you can still stop the execution, ah, of an ejectment suit. How do you do that? Number one, by filing a notice of appeal. Number two, payment of docket fee, pursuant to the landmark decision in the case of Sun Insurance Company, Ltd. versus Judge Maximiano Asuncion, 1989 decision. Ah, it is not only the filing, but it must be coupled with the payment of docket fee. Now, if the case is elevated to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, for one to, sa Sec. 19 in relation to Section 21 of Rule 70, you need to apply for a TRO, or injunction. Otherwise, the decision will be immediately executed. Now, there is another issue. If the case is covered by the RSP, MR is a prohibited pleading. However, in the two landmark decisions, in the case of Huben versus Court of Appeals, 1992, reiterate in the case of Lee versus Pabros, 2001, motion for reconsideration is allowed if it involves an interlocutory order. So, in other words, it does not finally dispose of the case.

Now, there are three constitutional commissions. You have the Civil Service Commission, you have the COMELEC, and you have the Commission on Audit. Now, among the three, ah, ang nahiwalay sa kanya, ah, ay yung Civil Service. Ah, covered siya ng Rule 43. The Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the Republic of the Philippines. It is the biggest employment agency. Now, you need to deduct from Rule 43, ah, iyung CIAC, or yung Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and yung CTA. Wala na yan. However, sa codal natin, nandoon pa yung CTA, kasi nandoon na.

Now, there are also two landmark decisions pertaining to CIAC. This is for one to Global Medical Center of Laguna, Incorporated versus Rose Systems, Inc. or International, Incorporated, decided, ah, on May 11, 2021, ha. Now, if there is a purely question of law, ah, you go to the Supreme Court. PQL, ah, under Rule 45. Now, if there is grave abuse of discretion, GAD, you go by Rule 65. Pupunta ka sa Court of Appeals. Now, the decision in Global Medical Center of Laguna was reiterated in the case of DHY Realty, ah, and Development Corporation versus Court of Appeals, decided January 11, ah, 2023. Now, among the three constitutional commissions, only the Civil Service is given a double appellate review. Bakit? Ah, from Civil Service, you go to the Court of Appeals, at pag natalo ka, pwede ka pang umakyat sa Supreme Court. Now, what is the reason for this? Ah, This is provided, class, by the Constitution, ah, ah, social justice clause. Those who have less in life must have more in law. So, galing Civil Service, ah, Natalo ka, akyat ka ngayon Court of Appeals. Natalo ka uli, ah, akyat ka sa Supreme Court.

Okay, now we go to the COMELEC. The COMELEC has two divisions, first, second. Jurisdiction: National, Regional, Provincial, City. Ha, now, National, anong example mo rito? Ito, PET, or Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Ah, ah, Marcos versus Robredo. Now, it includes also SET, or the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and HRET, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. However, while you initially file the case with the COMELEC, upon proclamation of the winning candidate and constitution of the PET, SET, and HRET, the COMELEC is divested of its jurisdiction. In other words, the COMELEC need to transmit the entire records of the case. There are two divisions, first, second, and en banc. You cannot go to the Supreme Court, ah, without passing through the en banc. It is considered as a condition precedent, non-negotiable. Non-negotiable. Ano ang rule ang nakakasakop? Rule 64 and Rule 65. Ano ang ground mo kung aakyat ka sa Supreme Court? Grave abuse of discretion. Now, in going to the Supreme Court, you need to apply for a TRO, injunction, or status quo ante order. Absent TRO, injunction, or SQA, the decision of the COMELEC en banc must be executed. Reason, ha, Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God.

Now, let us go to the COA. Now, COA, Commissioner 1, Commissioner 2, and you have the Presiding Commissioner. Mayong tinatawag under the 2009 IRR of the Commission on Audit, 6 months and 5 days rule. In other words, manggagaling kasi yung notice of disallowance or findings sa auditor, ha, then you go to the RD, then you go to the COA Proper. Now, you don't need to wait for the six-month period. Now, if it is already six months and no decision has been out, you can go to the COA Proper, and you are given a leeway of 5 days. Kaya ang tawag sa kanya, six months and 5 days rule. Now, remember also that the decision of The COA, meaning after the denial of your MR, it shall be immediately executory. In going to the Supreme Court, you utilize also Rule 64 and 65. The same ground: grave abuse of discretion. Now, in going to the Supreme Court en banc, you need to apply also for a TRO, injunction, or status quo ante order. Absent TRO, injunction, or SQA, then the decision of the COA Proper shall be immediately executed. Reason: The Commission on Audit is the guardian of the purse of the people. Your money, my money. So, the reason why it has to be immediately executed, absent any TRO, injunction, or status quo ante order.

It has been my policy, ah, that after enumerating and explaining, ah, what is stated in the Moya Tree, I will give you 10 minutes to copy, ah, then after that, itutuloy natin yung lecture, kasi doom ito. So, habang malinis, kopyahin ninyo, ah, then after, kung, ah, ah, mag-lecture, ah, ah, sa sarili mo, i-drawing mo rin. So, isang bato, ah, dalawang ibon ang tatamaan mo. Ah, you have the jurisdiction and you have the appeal. Makikita natin dito, 40, 41, 42, ah, 43, and doon, ah, yung 44, ah, yung administrative procedure sa Court of Appeals. Yung 46, original jurisdiction ng Court of Appeals, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and the three special rules. Now, pagdating mo naman sa Supreme Court, dalawang rule. You have Rule 45, you merely raise purely question of law. Exception to the rule: R.I.T.A., BAMPARO, HABEAS DATA, and KALIKASAN. Now, Rule 56, ah, if the Supreme Court is in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Nahahati sa dalawa ito. Yung letter A, the Supreme Court in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Ano yun? Ah, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, and the three special rules. In addition, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases against Consul, Vice Consul, Consular Official, Ambassadors, other public ministers. Now, yung letter B, is the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It pertains also to Rule 45. Okay, so 10 minutes, ah, gawin muna ninyo, at then itutuloy ko yung lecture ko.

[Musika]

So, ito yung jurisdiction ng MTC. Ito yon. Now, ano jurisdiction niya? Personal, 2 million. Real action, 400,000. Ito yung basis. Natalo ka sa MTC. Now, remember, ah, MR is not prohibited if the case is not covered by the RSP. So, pwede ka pa ring mag-MR. But if it is RSP, prohibited ang MR sa decision, resolutions, or final orders. So, from MTC, ah, you will go to the RTC. What should you do? Ha, notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. So, tapos na agad yung papel ng Rule 40. O, nakatipid ka na ngayon ng oras.

Now, sabi naman natin, the jurisdiction of the RTC, more than 2 million sa personal. Pagka real naman, ay more than 400,000. Now, Natalo ka sa RTC. Now, remember, ah, may tinatawag na NACE rule, ah, o yung press period rule. After the denial of the MR, you will be given a 15-day period, ah, then you go to the Court of Appeals. Ano naman ang gagawin mo? Notice of appeal, at plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. Okay, tapos na. Ah, yung Rule 41 mo.

Now, MTC, inakyat mo sa RTC, talo ka uli. Now, you want the case to be elevated to the Court of Appeals. Ano gagawin mo? Akyat ka ng RTC, ha, petition for review. How many days do you have? 15. Is it extendable? Yes, plus 15 equals 30. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee. Now, the motion for extension plus the payment of docket fee must be made within the 15-day period. Because if it is made after the lapse of the 15-day period, the decision becomes final and executory. Pasok yung Section 1 ng Rule 39. So, tapos na. Ah, yung papel ng Rule 42 ngayon.

May nagtatanong, e, din, pwede bang galing RTC, akyat kami sa Supreme Court? Answer: Yes, kung PQL, purely questionable. Ah, pwede bang 30 days? Answer: Yes, magiging 30 days yan sa special proceedings or multiple appeals. Other than that, kung single lang ang kaso, kinakailangan within the 15-day period. Pag nag-42 ka, 15, extendable to 15 equals 30. Pero, you need to file a motion for extension and pay the corresponding docket fee within the 15-day period.

Now, yung 44, nilagay lang natin diyan palamuti. And yung 46, if the Court of Appeals is exercising its original jurisdiction, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and the three special rules. Okay. Nandito na yung kaso mo, Court of Appeals. Talo ka uli. Now, remember, papasok si Suo. Sabi SAO, yung MR is no longer a condition. In view of Section 2, ah, of Rule 45, upon receipt of the adverse decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Now, galing Court of Appeals, pupunta ka, ah, sa Supreme Court. Remember, ah, makakaakyat ka lang as a rule, ha, sa Supreme Court under Rule 45, raising purely question of law. So, galing Court of Appeals, appeal, ah, by petition for review on certiorari, ah, as distinguished from Rule 65. Kaya dapat ang term mo ay appeal by petition for review on certiorari. How many days do you have? You have 15. Is it extendable? Yes, plus 30 equals 45. Rule 45. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee. Ah, you need to do that within the 15-day period, ah, to get the extension of 30 days. Okay, so nandoon na ngayon yung kaso mo sa Supreme Court.

Now, kanina, naipaliwanag ko na yung 56, ah, nahahati sa A saka B. Pagka A, original jurisdiction ng Supreme Court. Pagka B, appellate jurisdiction ng Supreme Court, pertains also to Rule 45 petition, ha. So, tapos na from MTC papunta ng Supreme Court.

Now, punta tayo sa Sandiganbayan muna. Now, ano yung rule na nag-a-apply dito? Ulitin natin. To sa criminal procedure, ha, Section, ah, 3(e), Rule 122, in relation to Section 13, ah, C ng Rule 124. Now, if the case is originally filed with the Sandiganbayan, ibig sabihin, nandito siya, ah, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan, if it is originally filed with the Sandiganbayan, in going to the Supreme Court, you merely file a notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days.

Now, saan ngayon mag-iiba ang appellate, ah, ah, Paano ka mag-a-appeal kung Sandiganbayan? Now, it will now be dependent on the salary grade. Below 27, you file it with the RTC. Now, assuming na plunder ang kaso, below 27, iyung salary grade, convicted by the RTC. Ano gagawin mo? From RTC, you go to the Sandiganbayan, merely by filing a notice of appeal plus payment, with 15 days. Affirm yung penalty, or life. Doctrine of double review. In going to the Supreme Court, you also file a notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. That is pursuant to Section 3(e) ng 122, in relation to Section 13(c) ng 124.

Now, halwa, below reclusion perpetua, or light. Example, 3019, below 27, ipin mo sa RTC. Convicted ngayon ng RTC. In going through Sandiganbayan, you file a notice of appeal. Affirm ng Sandiganbayan. In going to the Supreme Court, Rule 45 ka, PQL ka, purely question of law. So, the modes of appeal will be dependent if what was the penalty imposed by the trial court. Tapos ngayon, ah, iyung Sandiganbayan mo.

Now, punta tayo sa Court of Tax Appeals. Lumabas yung Mendez, ito yon. Okay. So, ang sabi sa Mendez, ang jurisdiction kasi ng CTA ay 1 million pataas. Now, kung below 1 million, ipa-file mo ngayon sa MTC. Ah, convicted ka, or Natalo ka, kung may deficiency claim sa'yo ang BIR. Ah, from MTC, you go to the RTC. Ano gagawin mo? Notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. Natalo ka uli sa RTC. MR mo denied. Pasok yung NACE. Akyat ka ngayon, ah, sa Court of Tax Appeals. Ano ngayon ang gagawin mo? Ah, petition for review. How many days? 15. Extendable ba? Yes, plus 15 equals 30. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee, which you need to do within the 15-day period, ha. Nandito na. Now, remember, may tatlong division yan. Ah, so first, second, third. Natalo ka. Ah, pwede ka na bang pumunta sa Supreme Court? Answer: No. What should you do? Akyat ka ngayon sa en banc. Petition for review within 15 days. Natalo ka uli sa en banc. Saan ka ngayon pupunta? Supreme Court ka. Anong rule? Rule 45. PQL ka, purely question of law.

Now, assuming, ah, na 1 million pataas, ah, saan ipa-file? Court of Tax Appeals. Ira raffle, first, second, third. Ah, Natalo ka, first, second, third. Ano gagawin mo? Akyat ka sa en banc. Petition for review within 15 days. Natalo ka uli sa en banc. Saan ka ngayon pupunta? Supreme Court. Rule 45, raising purely question of law. Okay, tapos yung lahat ng courts, ha, jurisdiction plus appeal.

Okay, punta tayo sa tatlong constitutional commissions. At dito muna tayo sa Civil Service. Tandaan, yung CIAC, wala na, saka CTA. Ha. Now, Civil Service, na Natalo ka, ah, when I say Natalo, your MR is denied. From the Civil Service Commission, you will go to the Court of Appeals. Ayun. What should you do? Petition for review within 15 days. Extendable ba? Yes, plus 15 equals 30. Ano ngayon ang gagawin mo? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee, which you need to do within the 15-day period, doc of double appellate review. Talo ka uli sa Court of Appeals. Remember, ayaw mong mag-MR. Kung gusto mo, MR. Pwede. Kung ayaw mo, MR. Pwede rin. For two and vi of Section 2 of Rule 45. In going to the Supreme Court, Rule 45 ka, PQL ka, purely question of law. So, ulitin natin. Mayroon kang 15, extendable to 30 equals 45. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee para makuha mo yung 30-day period. Tapos yung Civil Service mo, ah.

Now, punta tayo ngayon sa COMELEC. Ang sabi natin, jurisdiction: National, Regional, Provincial, City. Ha, there are two divisions, first, second. Natalo ka sa first or second. Can you go to the Supreme Court directly? Answer: No. What should you do? Ah, you go to the en banc. Motion for reconsideration within 15 days. Ah, it is a condition precedent. Non-negotiable. Non-negotiable. Now, en banc, ha, talo ka uli. Saan ka pupunta? You go to the Supreme Court. Ano gagawin mo? Petition for review. How many days do you have? Only 30. Extendable? No. Naka-fix yan under the Constitution. Ah, the provision or the period is provided by Article 9 of the Constitution. Ah, it is fixed to 30-day period. No extension. Uh, the Rules of Court cannot amend the Constitution, the Constitution being the fundamental law of the land. Ano ground mo? Grave abuse of discretion. In going to the Supreme Court, you need to apply for a TRO, injunction, or status quo ante order. Absent TRO, injunction, or SQA, then the decision of the COMELEC en banc must be executed. Reason, ha, Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God.

Now, let us go to the COA. Now, COA, sabi natin, may 6 months and 5 days rule. Now, ano rule sa IRR 2009 rules ng COA? Ah, binibigyan lang sila, lalo na yung ND, notice of disallowance, ha, ng 6 months. Kung matatapos na yung 6 months, wala pang decision coming from auditor or RD, you can go to the COA Proper. Ah, now, assuming na nasa six months ka na, ah, can you still file it with the COA? Answer: Yes. Binibigyan ka ng leeway na 5-day period. Natalo ka sa COA, ibig sabihin, ah, iyung MR mo, ah, denied din. Where will you go? You go to the Supreme Court. Ah, anong rule ang gagamitin mo? 64. How many days do you have? 30. Extendable? No. Naka-fix yan under the Constitution. Now, in going to the Supreme Court, you need to apply also for TRO, injunction, or status quo ante order. If there is no TRO, injunction, or status quo, the order issued by The Supreme Court, the decision of the COA Proper, meaning after the denial of your MR, then it shall be executed. Remember, ang reason nyo, the Commission is the guardian of the purse of the people. Your money, my money. Kaya immediately executory. Tapos natin yung 1 ng Civil Procedure. Okay, yung 75% sa inyo, akin yung 25%. After nito, idrawing uli natin yung roadmap naman sa Criminal Procedure. Okay.

[Musika]

Okay, resume. So, this is now the road map of Criminal Procedure. The famous Moya Tree. So, again, we go to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the MTCs are crimes punishable by six years and below, including covered by the RSP. Now, remember, Uh, there is a new Rules of Expedited Procedure. So, what is the crime or crimes covered by the RSP? Ah, whether violation of the RPC, mala in se, or violation of special law, including city or municipal ordinances, as mala prohibita, it has to be punishable by one year and below, or a fine of 50,000 and below. Now, RTC, crimes committed punishable by more than 6 years, or 6 plus one. Now, Uh, under Rule 125 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, you can read that the procedure on appeal in civil and criminal cases are uniform. So, MTC on appeal is still governed by Rule 40. RTC, if the RTC is in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, Uh, governed by Rule 41. RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, Rule 42. Court of Appeals, ah, governed by Rule 44, and original action, governed by Rule 46. The Supreme Court, the same, governed by Rule 45, and original action by Rule 56. Take note, ha, that under Rule 45, there are three exceptions, ah, under Rule 45, purely question A. Ah, now, in so far as writ of amparo, writ of habeas data, and writ of kalikasan, you can raise mixed question of facts and law.

Okay, dito muna tayo sa MTC. There are four decisions. One is Concha versus Bernardo, 2011. Under Section 2 of Rule 112, who are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation? They are as follows: Number one, City, Provincial, and their Assistant Prosecutors. Number two, National, Regional, State Prosecutors. And number three, other officers as may be authorized by law. Now, who are the other officers? Number one is the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to RA Number 6770. And legal officers of the Commission on Election, who are members of the bar, during election period. So, remember, there will be election comes May of 2025. Ah, however, ah, they are allowed to conduct PI for violation of the OEC, or the Omnibus Election Code. Now, what happened in Bernardo? Despite the prohibition under Section 2 of 112, Judge Bernardo of Bocaue, Bulacan, still conducted a PI and eventually issued a warrant of arrest. Now, an administrative case was filed against him by Conquilla, and he was penalized by The Supreme Court for gross ignorance of the law.

Jadewell Parking System versus Lidua. This, the three cases, ha, are those governing prescriptive period. Remember that prescription under Article 90 and 91 of the Penal Code, and in, Uh, special laws, number 3326, it is a matter of right. Now, what happened in Jadewell? So, this is a case of illegal parking in Baguio City. Now, supposed to be, no PI should be conducted because under Section 1, ito, 110 in relation to 112, under the doctrine of 4-2-1, crimes punishable by at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, PI is a matter of right. Now, contra, ah, if the crime committed is punishable less than 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, then it is a matter of discretion. So, in Jadewell, the public prosecutor still conducted a PI. Ha. Now, what is the prescriptive period? Ah, if it is covered by the RSP, ah, the prescriptive period is 60 days. Record from the commission of the crime. So, when the information was filed, the crime had already prescribed. So, The Supreme Court, the case reached the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that violation of city or municipal ordinances prescribed in 60 days. So, the case was dismissed.

Now, hindi pa rin to sinusunod ng mga first level courts kasi ang sinasabi nila, violation ng city, ah, ordinance yan. Dumating ngayon ang kaso ng People versus Desierto, decided in January 2023. Okay. Now, ano sinasabi sa Desierto? Ah, ah, filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office in Metro Manila for cases covered by the RSP, ibig sabihin, ah, punishable by one year and below, or with a fine of 50,000 and below, ah, does not toll the running of the prescriptive period. It is the filing of the complaint or information in court. Now, hindi pa rin, ah, kasi nakalagay, paano naman yung sa probinsya? Eh, ang Desierto, nakalagay Metro Manila. By August of 2023, although hindi na to kasama sa coverage, because the coverage for the 2024 bar are decisions of the Supreme Court up to June 30 of 2024, ah, there is a possibility na itanong ito because, ah, kalalabas lang, ha. So, in Corpus Junior versus People, the Supreme Court now clarified. There is no more distinction whether in Metro Manila or in the province. Now, what is the gauge? Now, it is the imposable penalty. So, if the crime committed has an imposable penalty of one year and below, or 50,000 and below, it is covered by the RSP. Therefore, the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office does not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Now, ah, huhulaan ko, dalawa dito ang possible na lumabas, either kay Desierto, within the coverage, January 2023, or ibahin ang problem, papasok si Corpus Junior versus People.

Okay, now, dito muna tayo, ah, so effective October 3 of 2005, dalawa na lang ang pinanggagalingan ng criminal cases natin: yung fiscal at yung Ombudsman. So, ACP, Assistant City Prosecutor. APP, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. OCP, Office of the City Prosecutor. OP, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Now, panik, ha, in 2017, nagkaroon ng DOJ Circular 018. 14 in 2022, nagkaroon ng DOJ Circular 0272. Ano yung PG? Prosecutor General. Yung PG sa Metro Manila lang, for the reason na wala namang RSP sa Metro Manila. R is the Regional State Prosecutor. Ha, so lahat ng Region, mayroon, except Metro Manila. Now, SOJ, Secretary of Justice. The appeal to the SOJ is governed by DOJ Circular 70 and DOJ Circular 70-A. Akyat uli, OP, Office of the President. It is governed by Rule 43, reason, if the OP reviews the findings of the SOJ, the OP is exercising a quasi-judicial function. Okay, baba uli, ha. So, doctrine of 4-2-1 is governed by Section 1 of 110 in relation to Section 1 of 112. Now, there are two controversial decisions in so far as Section 4, 112 is concerned. The case of Tolentino versus Pao in 2007. Ano itong kaso ito? Non-remittance of SSS contribution. Tolentino was the RSP of Region 5 at that time. He conducted a PI for violation of the SSS law. After the PI, the information was filed with the MTC of Naga City. Now, ah, ano controversy, ah, dito sa Pao? No complaint or information shall be filed and or be dismissed without the prior conformity of the City or Provincial Prosecutor. The information filed with the MTC of Naga City has no approval by City Prosecutor of Naga or of Camarines Sur. Therefore, the dismissal was affirmed by The Supreme Court.

Here comes now the 2020 decision of Villagomez versus Pagal. Ah, sorry, Villagomez versus People. Now, ano ang nangyari sa Villagomez? After the case was submitted for decision, The RTC Judge of Makati City issued an order dismissing the case for the reason that the information does not bear prior approval of City Prosecutor, ASP of Makati City. The Solicitor General went to the Supreme Court. Now, per Mr. Chief Justice, ah, Gesmundo, deponente, The Supreme Court said that provided, number one, the resolution of the findings of probable cause by the City or Provincial Prosecutor or the Ombudsman is on record, and number two, the said resolution bears the imprimatur or approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the information filed in court, even if it has no prior approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the same is valid. This is 2023 bar.

Now, Rule 116 in relation to 118. Ano, Ano ang sunod after arraignment sa 116? So, pre-trial follows. Now, what happened in Pagal? This Supreme Court issued guidelines. If the accused, ah, enter an improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense, what is the duty of the trial court? What is the duty of the appellate court? If the conviction of the accused, ah, is based solely on his improvident plea of guilty, ah, then the case is on appeal. The appellate court is duty-bound to remand, ah, the case to the trial court. The trial court must order the prosecution to present its evidence, and the defense also to adduce his evidence. Now, if despite giving chance to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to present evidence, ha, then the case shall be dismissed, and the accused must be acquitted. Now, in so far as the accused is concerned, the court is duty-bound also to scrutinize and ask questions to the accused whether the accused will be adding evidence in his behalf. Now, what is the meaning of this? Now, remember, class, that if the prosecution or the accused, for that matter, enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the voluntary will bear mitigating circumstance. Now, also, if the accused will be adding evidence on his behalf, ah, it will be also a deduction to the imposable penalty. Now, if despite giving chance to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to present evidence, ah, then the case shall be dismissed, or the accused be acquitted. Okay, so tapos natin, ah, iyung dito mula sa OCP, PG, SOJ, then you have the Office of the President. Okay. Doon naman tayo, ha, sa kabila. So, GRAP, Investigator. Ah, so Overall Deputy Ombudsman, nasa QC. Ah, Deputy Ombudsman, ah, for Luzon, Quezon City. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, Cebu. Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Cagayan de Oro. And MOLEO, Military and Other Uniform Personnel. Ah, nandito ka ngayon, papasok, ah, sa MOLEO. Now, akyat Ombudsman. Law that governs RA 6770, IRR niya, Administrative Order Number 7, and later on, Administrative Order Number 1, Series of 2020, ah, kasi medyo tumatanda na rin, kaya medyo malambot na.

Okay, we go to the Court of Tax Appeals. Ano ang jurisdiction niya? Criminal jurisdiction. The amount, 1 million and below. 1 million, pupunta ka ngayon sa MTC. 12 Expanded Jurisdiction Act, or RA Number 1076. Okay. Now, press period rule in civil cases, Peace versus Court of Appeals. In criminal cases, meron tayong You versus Tatad. What happened in this case? After the conviction of You by Judge Tatad, you filed an MR. Now, when the MR was denied, he was sent to jail by Judge, by Judge Tatad. They went to the Supreme Court. Now, what was the ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court said that in criminal case, the rule also applies because remember under Rule 125, the procedure in civil and in criminal cases, if the case on appeal is the same. Okay, na natin idiscuss yung Delima versus Guerrero and Ampongan versus C. Na natin yan.

Now, let us go to the Supreme Court. So, in the case of Anthony versus People, a rape case. Uh, after the conviction of Anthony by the RTC, he filed the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, ha, and it was denied. Okay, so hindi na siya pwedeng mag-appeal. Ha. Now, ano ngayon ang sumunod dito? Ha, ah, dumating ngayon, Nung 2022, ung kaso ng People versus Olpindo, rape din. Ah, now, The Supreme Court en banc, ah, enumerated the remedies now available. If the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, if the trial court transmitted the record either to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, and it was transmitted within the 15-day period, the court or the Supreme Court must notify the accused to manifest within 10 days whether the transmittal of the record from the RTC will be considered as his notice of appeal. Now, pangalawa, ah, if the trial court transmitted the record either to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court after the lapse of the 15-day period, then the judgment of conviction shall be entered. So, nagkaroon na ngayon ng third remedy, ah, if the accused, ah, filed an appeal by petition for review on certiorari, ah, then it is equally important, ah, that, ah, in this case, ah, the accused must also be given a chance. So, kapagka nag-appeal si ng Rule 45, the accused is duty-bound only to raise purely question of law. If the accused raises mixed question of facts and law, then the petition shall be dismissed. Okay. So, again, I will give you 10 minutes to copy, then after 10 minutes, then we will resume.

[Musika]

Okay, so in all criminal cases under Section 1 of 110 in relation to Section 1 of 112, ha, if it is punishable by 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, matter of right. Therefore, if the imposable penalty is lower than 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, matter of discretion. Okay, so ipa-file mo ngayon dito, kung nasa City ka, Office of the City Prosecutor. Kung nasa probinsya ka, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Now, ira-raffle yan, ibababa dito sa Assistant City or Assistant Provincial. Question: Is the finding of probable cause by the Assistant City or Assistant Provincial appealable? Answer: Yes. What should you do? Ah, akyat ka ngayon. You file an MR, ah, within 15 days.

Now, dumating ngayon ang DOJ Circular 018-1 saka DOJ Circular 0272. If the crime committed is punishable by 6 years and below, ibig sabihin, MTC, ha, na-deny yung MR mo ng OCP or na-deny ng OPP, may isang step ka pa. In Metro Manila, you can go to the PG. In the province, you can go to the RSP. What should you do? Petition for review within 15 days. Now, if the crime committed is punishable by more than 6 years, or RP, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, from the OCP or OPP, akyat ka ngayon sa SOJ, pareho ha, under DOJ Circular 70.

In 70-a, you can file a petition for review within 15 days. Now, as a rule, the findings of the PG or the RSP is final and executory. However, it will not preclude the Secretary of Justice from reviewing the findings of the PG or RSP.

Example: Bong Navaro case. Now, if your petition for review is denied, ha, magkakaroon ng isang step. Ha, if the impossible penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, example, murder, rape, 9165, ah, from the SOJ, pwede ka pang pumunta sa OP. Ah, what should you do? Memorandum of appeal within 15 days.

Now, balik tayo. If the crime committed is punishable less than reclusion perpetua or life, the findings of the SOJ is final and executory. Now, papasok iyung 14 elements ng Rule 65. If there is no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, ah, there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction from SOJ, you can go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65. How many days do you have? You have 60. Can it be extended? If there is or there are compelling reasons, pwedeng ma-extend ng 15, equal 75.

Now, if your, uh, memorandum of appeal is denied by the OP, ah, the findings of the OP is appealable. If the Office of the President reviews the findings of the Cabinet Secretary, like the Secretary of the Department of Justice, the OP is performing a quasi-judicial function and therefore appealable. From OP, you can go to the Court of Appeals. What rule? Rule 43. What should you do? Petition for review. How many days? 15, extendable? Yes, plus 15, equal 30. Ah, now, paano ka magpa-exam of docket fee within the 15-day period? Para ma-extend ng 50, may total kang 30.

Okay, so ito iyung hierarchy. Now, tandaan na natin. Ah, if the case reach the Court of Appeals, there is only one rule, ah, that you can reach the Supreme Court, and that is Rule 45. What should you do? Appeal by for review on certiorari. You have 15, extendable to 30, equal 45. Rule 45, rising purely question of law. So, ito yung hierarchy hanggang makarating sa Supreme Court.

Sa fiscal, effective October 3, 2005, hwag niyong kakalimutan yung kaso ng Kila versus Judge Bernard. Judge Bernardo was penalized by the Supreme Court for conducting a PI despite the prohibition under Section 2 of 112. Okay, so effective October 3, fiscal. Ombudsman. Lipat tayo sa Ombudsman. GI is Graft Investigator, overall deputy ombudsman, naka-base sa Quezon City. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, nandiyan din sa Quezon City. Visayas, nasa Cebu. Ah, Mindanao, nasa CDO, Cagayan de Oro. Moleo, Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Uniform Personnel. Now, ibababa ngayon sa GI. Kaya yung GI, kapantay niya, ha, yung Assistant City or Assistant Provincial.

If the complainant failed to inform the Office of the Ombudsman that there is an administrative case, ah, filed against him, uh, in other government agencies like the Civil Service Commission or NAPOLCOM, then the Ombudsman will come up with a twin resolution. Okay, isang administrative at isang criminal. Question, ha, is the findings in the admin and criminal case appealable? Answer: Yes. In administrative cases, you can file an MR to the Ombudsman within 10 days. Ah, now, in criminal cases, you can also file an MR to the Office of the Ombudsman within 5 days. Kaya magkaiba, admin 10 araw, criminal limang araw.

Now, nandito na ngayon sa Ombudsman, dinay yung MR mo. So, in criminal cases, it is final and executory. Again, papasok si Rule 65. So, from the Ombudsman in criminal, you go to the Supreme Court. Rule 65 ka ngayon. Mayroon kang 60, extendable sa 15, equal 75.

Now, how about in administrative cases? Ha, in administrative cases, it is appealable because if the Ombudsman conducts an investigation, ah, in administrative cases, the Ombudsman is performing a quasi-judicial function. So, from the Ombudsman, na-deny yung MR mo, pupunta ka ngayon sa Court of Appeals. Anong rule? Rule 43. How many days? 15, extendable? Yes, plus 15, equal 30. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee. Okay.

Now, exception to the rule in administrative cases. If the penalty imposed is admonition, reprimand, fine, or suspension of not more than 30 days, it is final and executory. There is no appeal. Now, you've been in the government service for the last 30 years, you don't want your name to be tainted. What is your remedy? You want to question the admonition, the reprimand, the fine, or the suspension of 30 days. So, you can go to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, equal 60 days plus 15, 75.

Okay, so tapos ngayon yung criminal mo saka admin kung sa Ombudsman. Now, can a private individual be included in the case with Ombudsman? Because ang ceiling niya ay 27 above, ah, and the crime was committed in relation to the performance of his official duty. Now, the answer is yes, if there is an allegation of conspiracy.

Now, in 2020, the Ombudsman issued Administrative Order Number 1, Series of 2020. Ha, in conducting a fact-finding investigation, hindi na dapat lalagpas ang period sa isang taon. Hanggang 2 years kung fact-finding. Pagka lumagpas ito dito, there will be violation of the right to speedy disposition on the part of the respondent and therefore a ground for dismissal. So, tapos ngayon yung dalawa na pinanggagalingan ng criminal cases.

Punta na tayo dito sa court, MTC. Remember, as what I have stated a while ago, the appeal in civil and in criminal cases under Rule 125 is the same. So, convicted ka ng MTC. Ah, anong sabi natin kanina? Pagka RSP, MR is prohibited if it pertains to decision, resolution, or final order. So, if it is interlocutory, in other words, it does not finally dispose the case. For to the case of Huen versus Court of Appeals and Lucas versus Fabros, pwede kang mag-MR.

Na-convict ka ng MTC. Aakyat ka ngayon sa RTC. Simple lang. Notice of appeal plus days. Okay, so tapos ul ang Rule 40 mo. Walang saysay. More than 6 years, ang impossible penalty up to RP or LI, nasa RTC ka. MR mo denied. Pasok ngayon versus tat. In to the RTC, what you do? Notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. Remember that the 15-day period is extendable. After the lapse of the 15-day period, the decision will become final and executory.

So, sabi natin, the RTC is not only a trial court but it is also an appellate court. So, if the RTC is in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, meaning doon mo mismo i-file sa RTC, huwag kayong malilito. Ah, Rule 41 yan. Tapos na. Notice of appeal lang. Appellate, galing MTC na convicted, ina-appeal sa RTC, affirm ang conviction. Aakyat ka ngayon sa Court of Appeals. Now, ano gagawin mo? Petition for review. How many days? 15, extendable? Yes, plus 15, equal 30. What should you do? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee. Huwag niyong kakalimutan yung payment of docket fee.

So, tapos na ngayon yung Rule 42 mo. Nakatipid ka na. Now, in going to the Supreme Court, isang rule lang, ah, Rule 45. Ah, so remember kanina, in the case of Suo versus First Quantum Lep Security Agency, under Section 2, mayroon or ah, so it's either upon receipt of the adverse decision, assuming na yung conviction mo ay na-affirm, or denial of your MR kung nag-MR ka. So, in going to the Court of Appeals, I, you utilize a Rule 45 petition, appeal by petition for review on certiorari. You have 15 days, extendable to 30, equal 45. Ah, Rule 45. Paano mong makakalimutan? Ah, motion for extension plus payment of docket fee. Ha.

Now, remember, you merely raise pure question of law. Exception to the rule: R. of Amparo, R. of Obvious Data, or R. of Kalikasan. Okay.

In so far as Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals, in-explain na natin kanina, pero ulitin muna natin para hindi natin makalimutan. Ah, punta muna tayo dito sa CTA, kasi ako, sigurado ako, itatanong ito. Ah, ano titingnan niyo sa problem? Magkano? Ha, so below 1 million, MTC. Convicted ng MTC, akyat ka RTC, notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. Convicted uli ng RTC. Saan ka aakyat? Pupunta ka sa CTA. It will be raffled to the first, second, or third. Ah, anong gagawin mo? Petition for review. Ilang araw? 15, extendable ba? Yes, plus 15, equal 30. Ano gagawin mo? Motion for extension plus payment of docket fee.

Now, remember, Ira raffle sa first, second, saka third. Ah, convicted ka pa rin. Pwede ka na bang umakyat sa Supreme Court? No. You still need to go to the en banc. What should you do? Petition for review. Ilang araw? 15, extendable ba? No, naka-fix. Affirm ang conviction mo. Ah, wala pa naman kasi kong nabalitaan na na-convict ng CTA na reclusion perpetua or life. Inaabangan ko si Manny Pacquiao. Ah, eh binayaran naman. So, hindi na convict. So, in to the Supreme Court, Rule 65. Ah, sorry, Rule 45, appeal by petition for review on certiorari, rising purely question of law.

Tapos yung Court of Tax Appeals mo ngayon, ulitin natin. Inulit ko na to kanina. Ano tatandaan mo? P, ang kaso ay nasa Sandiganbayan. Numberless of the penalty imposed. Ah, after the denial of your MR, in going to the Supreme Court from the Sandiganbayan, notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days.

Now, sa Sandiganbayan, kung saan mag-iiba. Ah, so kung nanggaling sa RTC, ah, and the penalty imposed, ah, is less than reclusion perpetua or life. So, convicted ka, assuming 309. Ah, so less than reclusion yan. Ah, akyat ka ngayon Sandiganbayan. Ano gagawin mo? Notice of appeal plus payment of docket fee within 15 days. Yung conviction mo, MR mo denied. Akyat ka ngayon Supreme Court. Ano gagawin mo? Rule 45.

Now, sa Sandiganbayan, kung saan uli mag-iiba? Pler, reclusion perpetua or life. Ha, dito i-penalize because the salary grade is less than 27. Akyat ka ngayon, notice of appeal. Ah, doctrine of double appellate review. Ina-affirm ng Sandiganbayan. Akyat ka ng Supreme Court, notice of appeal uli iyan within 15 days.

O, tapos iyung criminal process. Fiscal, Ombudsman, yyung court MTC, RTC, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals. Oh, so timbang na ngayon yung civil procedure saka criminal procedure. O, may points na tayo sa Rem. Sigurado naman ako na merong lalabas diyan. Abangan niyo yung apat na kaso ito, tapos pati yung Mendes. Abangan niyo rin yung kaso dito. Abangan niyo rin yung exception to the rule, ah, dito sa Ombudsman. Ah, admonition, reprimand, suspension of not more than 30 days, final. Ano ang remedy mo? Rule 65, papuntang Court of Appeals. Pagka criminal at denied yung MR mo from the Ombudsman, akyat ka sa Supreme Court, Rule 65. Administrative case, more than admonition, reprimand, fine, or suspension of 30 days, from the Ombudsman, Rule 43 ka, Court of Appeals ka lang. Rule 65 ka pagka ulit-ulitin ko, admonition, reprimand, fine, suspension of not more than 30 days. Okay.

[Music]

Okay, good afternoon again. Now, it has been my policy and tradition that after lecturing, especially this free week, uh, the most three in civil and in criminal procedure, I will show to the reviewers or bar examiners what happened in the previous bar exam para may idea kayo. So, let us, uh, take a look at what happened in the 2023 bar examination. So, here is the first question. At take a look at the question first. So, kung makikita ninyo, ah, press na press yung moya 3, ha, doon sa jurisdiction. So, test paid the filing fee of permissive counterclaim. Are the counterclaims within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City? Discuss your answer. So, balik ka ngayon doon sa pinaka-problem mismo. Tingan mo muna yung tanong, then balik ka sa problem. In the meantime, umaandar na yung utak mo, nandon na yung sagot.

So, Vice filed an action for recovery of the sum of 2.5 million against Test in the RTC of Taguig City. So, jurisdiction, tama, ha, kasi ang jurisdiction based doon sa moya 3, under Section 19 of BP 129, as amended by 7691 and 1176, is more than 2 million. Okay, so tama. Attached to the complaint was the promissory note, the check issued by Raphael Beatrice to T covering said amount, and a copy of the withdrawal slip of Test up from Banco de Oro Rockwell branch, Makati City. In her answer, Test raised as her compulsory counterclaim the recovery of attorney's fee in the amount of PHP 500,000 arising from the case, and permissive counterclaim against Raphael Beatrice for rescission of contract of sale involving Arturo Loose painting valued at PH million.

Now, remember, there are two kinds of counterclaim, ha. In so far as compulsory, wala tayong problema doon, regardless of the amount yon. In so far as permissive counterclaim, it must be within the jurisdiction of the trial court. So, ano jurisdiction ng RTC? More than 2 million. Ang hinihingi niya na permissive counterclaim, I less than the jurisdictional amount of the RTC. Now, remember that if the permissive counterclaim is denied, you can institute it as an independent action. So, ano yung sagot?

Okay, so the answer is yes. The compulsory counterclaim, tama, within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig, while a permissive counterclaim is not, kasi nga, ah, more than 2 million ang jurisdiction ng RTC, eh 500 lang iyung nakalagay doon, and therefore, it is within the jurisdiction of the MTC. So, legal basis nung answer, ah, Rule 6, Section 7. Again, ah, taken, ah, from the decision of Justice Fernando, the Chairman of the 2023 bar exam, ah, in the case of PNTC Colleges versus Times Realty, September 27, 2021. Now, it is or it may be found on page 22, ha, of the pre-week reviewer in remedial law, ah, ni Moya. So, hindi tayo ang may sabi niyan. You can check the book, ah, kasi, ano naman yan eh, ah, makikita naman sa libro mismo, may page naman o. Sampalin niyo ako pag wala doon sa libro yan. Okay, next.

Okay, number two. Ah, so again, ah, titingnan mo yung tanong muna. Was the dismissal by Judge Risa proper? Explain your answer. Punta ka ngayon sa tanong. Trina borrowed 1.5 million from Aida. Trina executed a PN promising to pay Aida in three equal monthly installments. When Trina failed to pay her obligation, Aida filed an action for recovery of sum of money against her in the MTC of Pasay City. The case was raffled to Judge Risa, who upon reading the complaint, noticed that Trina and Aida were neighbors in Barangay 189 in Pasay City, and that there was no prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation. Hence, Judge Risa dismissed the case motu proprio for failure to comply with a condition precedent.

Okay, so kailangan alam natin yung three dismissal rule. So, what are these? Number one, Section 1 of Rule 9. Ano iyung grounds? Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, Litis pendentia, Res judicata, and prescription. Number two, while Rule 16 was already deleted and or transposed under Section 12, letter a, 1, 2, 3 of Rule 15, you can still file a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, Litis pendentia, Res judicata, and prescription. Now, kung walang motu proprio dismissal ang court, hindi when nakapag-file ng motion to dismiss, ah, pwede pa bang ma-dismiss ang kaso? The answer is yes. Ah, this is provided by Rule 6, Section 5, letter b, last paragraph. Allege it as affirmative defenses, because lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, Litis pendentia, Res judicata, in prescription, ah, are also grounds for affirmative defenses. Now, remember that if the answer has an affirmative defense, at the trial court is duty-bound to rule on the affirmative defenses.

Now, tingan natin yung sagot. So, prior recourse to barangay reconciliation is not a jurisdictional requirement. That non-compliance therewith would deprive the court of jurisdiction either over the subject matter or the person of the defendant. Ah, kasi nga, limitado na ngayon. Ah, saan kinuha yung tanong? Ah, so this is the case of Ngo versus Gabelo et al., August 24, 2020, by Mr. Justice Hernando. So, again, it can be found on page 277 and 278 of the pre-week bar reviewer ni Moya. Ah, so you can check, o, nandoon ba talaga yan? O, hindi naman yata magsisinungaling yan. O, pag nagkita tayo, sampalin mo ako kung wala yan doon. Oh, pero pag nakita ko naman, ikaw ang sasampalin ko. Ganun lang naman kasimple. Okay, joke lang yun, but you can check in my pre-week reviewer.

Okay, number three. Ah, so tingin uli sa baba. Hence, the trial court erred when it ruled on both causes of action instead of dismissing the petition. Is Attorney Terry correct? Explain your answer. Punta ka ah. Pauline and Regine had a dispute over a 500 square meter parcel of land that they inherited from their deceased parents, Mike and James. During the barangay conciliation proceedings, both Pauline and Regine agreed to partition the lot in equal shares. As a result, the title to the property was cancelled and new titles were issued in favor of Pauline and Regine as to their respective lots. However, Regine discovered that the lot covered by her title was on the eastern portion rather than the northern portion, contrary at to their agreement. Hence, Regine filed the petition for annulment of transfer of certificate of title and barangay partition with prayer for judicial partition of the interstate estate of the spouses Milka and James against Pauline. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Regine. Uh, Pauline then consulted a newly minted lawyer, Attorney Terry, who explained to her that there was a misjoinder of causes of action when Regine included both annulment of TCT and the barangay partition, as well as judicial partition in the petition. Now, the question is whether or not a misjoinder of parties, ah, or misjoinder of causes of action, a ground for dismissal. So, sinabi na natin kanina na limited grounds na lang, ah, ang ground sa dismissal. Pwedeng motu proprio under Section 1 of Rule 9, pwedeng motion to dismiss, ah, under Section 12, letter a, 1, 2, 3, Rule 15, pwedeng affirmative under Rule 6, Section 1, o Section 5, paragraph b, last paragraph.

Now, ano sagot?

Okay, so Attorney Terry is correct, ha, that there was misjoinder of the causes of action. However, Attorney Terry is incorrect that the trial court should have dismissed the petition of Regine. Under Section 6 of Rule 2 states that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of the action, kasi nga, limitado na. Again, it is a decision of the Supreme Court, taken from the case of UN Capital Incorporated versus King, ah, so September 11, 2013, by Madam Justice Perlas Bernabe. Ah, so this may be found on page 169, ha, of the bar reviewer in remedial law, 2021 edition, by Moya. Again, you can check the bar reviewer kung talagang nandoon yan, ah, kasi printed naman yan. Ah, o hindi ko lang alam kung pinagkakitaan na pala. Ha, so, re-conclude in this case, there was no motion of the party, nor in action or inactive from the court at to sever the mjoy causes of action, thus, there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of both causes of action.

Okay, so number four. Ah, tingin uli sa baba. Should the RTC grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping? Explain your answer. O, panic ka ngayon doon sa taas. Hana Corporation is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Capitolyo, Pasig City. St. Aeron School occupied said lot by mere tolerance since 1992 until December 2018. Ha, HC, or Hana Corporation, informed SAS that beginning January 1, 2019, it will be charging 100,000 per month for the use and occupation of the property. SAS refused to pay the monthly rentals. Fronting, uh, HC to issue a demand letter for the payment, ah, of the amount of 4.8 million representing the unpaid rentals from January 2019 to December 2022. SAS failed at to heed the demand of HC. Hence, HC, uh, which holds a business in Quezon City, filed the complaint for collection sum of money against SAS in the RTC of Quezon City. SAS filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping, since HC had also filed an ejectment case against it before the MTC of Pasig City.

Now, remember, if one case is covered by the RSP and the other case is covered by the regular procedure, there is no forum shopping. Okay, dapat naka-drawing na doon sa utak mo yan habang binabasa mo yung question. Okay, so ano yung sagot?

The answer is no. Ha, did not violate the rule on forum shopping. Take note and memorize. This is Section 5 of Rule 7. When it filed the collection case while ejectment case is pending, the determinative factor in the violation of the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of Litis pendentia are present or whether the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata, ah, in another. So, walang Litis pendentia. Ah, yyung ejectment saka yyung collection ay magkaiba yun. Ah, so this is the case of Asis et al. versus Heirs of Galingone et al., September 15, 2021. Mr. Justice Hernando, again. This can be, uh, you can check it. You may find it on page 25 and 26, ah, sa bar reviewer, pre-week bar reviewer ni Moya, 2023 edition. Kaya hindi tayo nagbubuo.

Okay, number five. Ah, so tingin uli sa tanong. Was the RTC rendered a decision granting the petition which eventually became final and executory? Was the August 27, 2020 order of the RTC proper? Explain your answer. Okay, punta ka sa tanong. Andan and Pam were married in 1996. However, in November 2003, P left for the US due to her alleged irreconcilable differences with Anjan. In 2020, Andan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Pam before the RTC, ah, of Makati City, where he resides. Subsequently, Andan filed a motion for issuance of summons by publication because Pam already resided abroad. The RTC issued an order dated August 27, 2020, granting the motion and directed the summons to be served upon Pam by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the US. However, the copies of the order, summons, and complaint were not served at their last known address. Meanwhile, no answer was filed up by Pam.

So, balik ka ngayon sa question. Ano ba ang sagot mo? So, in other words, CL, this is Rule 14. When can there be summons by publication? When is summons by publication allowed? O, yun ang tanong ha. So, ano yung answer?

The answer is no. Ha, if the defendant is out of the country like Pam, summons should be served through substituted service under Section 6, extra-territorial service under Section 17, or under Section 18 when residents, ah, are temporarily out of the Philippines. Ah, Rule 14 of the amended rules of civil procedure. So, the question and the answer was taken, ah, from the case of Sabado versus Sabado, May 12, 2021. Ah, again, it is in the pre-week, ah, reviewer in remedial law, page 46. Ah, so what I am telling you here, ah, that if not all, majority of the questions, naging tradition na, ah, is taken from the ponencia of the Chairman of the bar examination. Now, take note, extra-territorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem, kay, in rem, but not if an action in personam. So, annulment of marriage is action in personam, or personal action. Gison et al. versus Cyron Philippines Incorporated et al., October 14, 2020. You can find it on page 45 of the pre-week reviewer in remedial law ni Moya.

Okay, number six. Ah, tingin uli sa baba. The RTC granted the motion of the OSG. Was the action of the RTC proper? Ha, discuss your answer. O, panic ka ngayon sa taas uli. Clarice and Myra offered Gaita a job as a domestic helper in Indonesia. Ah, Claris gave Gaita airplane ticket and luggage to bring on her trip. Upon reaching the air, ah, or the airport of Jakarta in Indonesia, she was apprehended by the police for allegedly carrying 2 kg of heroine inside the luggage.

Now, ito class, yyung hinulaan ko na sabi ko, eksakto. Ipapupulis class, People versus Serio and Lacanilao. Ano ba nangyari dito? Ha, Mary Jane Beloso, ah, is a beautiful lass, ah, from Nueva Ecija. She was recruited by Serio and Lacanilao to work, ah, in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Now, uh, it is known that member countries of the ASEAN, including the Philippines, ah, in going to the foreign country like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, you don't need a visa. However, you have a limited period to stay. Now, upon reaching KL, Mary Jane was told by the counterpart of Serio and Lacanilao that the employer was out of the country. So, she was asked to exit first at yuga Indonesia. However, she was asked by the counterpart of Serio and Lacanilao to bring with her a luggage without asking what was inside the luggage. Mary Jane went to Jakarta. So, upon reaching Jakarta International Airport, she was apprehended by the immigration police. Upon checking the x-ray and later on examining what was inside the luggage, it was found out that it was dangerous drugs called cocaine. Mary Jane was prosecuted in Jakarta. In Indonesia, illegal trafficking of drugs is punishable by death through firing squad. So, upon representation of the Philippine government through the DFA, the PEDA, in personal call of President Duterte to President Widodo, Mary Jane Beloso was given a reprieve, ah, so in other words, pinagpaliban, ah, yung sentensya, but all her counterparts were already shot to death. Ha, now, in the meantime, a case for, ah, Article 315, paragraph 1(b), estafa, illegal recruitment, violation of the Migrant Workers Act was filed by the NBI, ah, before the, uh, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan. After PI, the information was filed before the RTC in Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Now, the prosecution filed a motion to take deposition, ah, granted by the RTC, reversed by the Court of Appeals, and reissued by the Supreme Court. Ah, now, what was the reason for this? A person who is about to die will not tell a lie. The testimony of Mary Jane can be likened at to a dying declaration. Now, for want also to Rule 119, Section 13, 14, and 15, ha, you can take the deposition, ha, before the judge. Prior to, uh, this case of Mary Jane Beloso, or the case of People versus Serio and Lacanilao, mayong kaso ang Go All versus People, at dito sa MTC ng Manila, where in the Supreme Court did not allow the taking of the deposition because it will violate the right of the accused, or constitutional right of the accused, to confrontation. Now, pagdating dito sa Serio, it was allowed by the Supreme Court. So, deposition is allowed both in civil and in criminal cases. So, ayan, yyung kaso, eksakto, People versus Serio and Lacanilao, ah, October 9, 2019. It is on page 68 to 70 of the pre-week bar reviewer in remedial law, Moya. Again, the term or the word dying declaration is there. It must be mentioned that a dying declaration is one of the recognized exceptions to the right to confrontation, okay, kasi nga naman, under the new rules of evidence, there are 13 exceptions to the hearsay rule, including dying declaration. Okay.

Okay, we go to number seven. So, tingin uli sa tanong. If you are the counsel of Kina, what will you file? Where and in what court? Ah, explain briefly. So, punta ka uli sa tanong. Kina, a resident of Antipolo City, is the registered owner of a house and lot located in Tondo, Manila, with an assessed value of 900,000. So, take note, ah, andoon yan sa moya 3, personal real action. Now, Kina claimed that she allowed Sarah, her sister-in-law, to stay in the house out of compassion. Years later, Kina decided to distribute the property to her children. So, she demanded that Sarah vacate the premises. However, Sarah ignored the demand. She even filed a case against Kina questioning her ownership of the property and contending that she obtained title over the property through fraud, deceit, and falsification. On August 23, 202, Kina sent a formal demand letter to Sarah to vacate the property, but this remained unheeded. Kina wants to commence an action against Sarah not or no later than May 16, 2024, before Kina leaves and temporarily stays in the United States.

So, saan dapat i-file yung kaso?

Okay, now, I will file an action for unlawful detainer before the MTC of Manila, an ejectment case based on the allegation of possession by tolerance. So, nandoon to sa baba nung moya 3, covered na ng rep, ah, ah, Roman numeral number one, Rule 70. Dalawang klase ang ejectment, isang unlawful detainer saka isang forcible entry. Now, where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his or her property by tolerance, without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he or she will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie. So, this is the case of Eversley Childs Sanitarium versus Spouses Barbarona, April 4, 2018. Again, you can check page 621 to 622 of the bar reviewer, Volume 1, ni Moya, 2021 edition. So, you can check if you want, nandoon yan.

Okay, number eight. Ah, tingin uli. According to Kina, has using the name Garcia Lapos since childhood, will the petition of Karina prosper? Now, remember, from Rule 72 up to 109 of the Rules on Special Proceedings is still at the 1964 Rules of Court, exception, yung Rule 103 in relation to 108. Now, remember further that we have or there is an amendment, ah, to the clerical error act. Ah, pwede ng magpapalit ng first name, middle name, ah, ah, family name, ah, because, ah, hindi ako nagkakamali, 10172, ah, inamyendahan, ah, yung Rule 103 saka 108. Now, out of 16 questions, ah, in the 2023 bar, isa lang ang lumabas sa special proceedings. Now, pito, ah, sa civil procedure, anim sa criminal procedure, at apat, ah, ah, o tatlo sa evidence. Ay forecast na mas marami ang tanong sa criminal procedure ngayon. So, abangan niyo maigi.

Okay, ano ang sagot?

Okay, so the answer is no, ba. So, nakalagay na diyan, RA 9048, ah, that amended 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, bested primary jurisdiction over correction of certain clerical or typographical error. So, hindi pa nagmimintis yung memorya ko. RA number 10172, ah, expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure, ah, include correction in the day and or month in the date of birth or in the sex of the person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake, ah, in the entry. Ah, so, nag-iisa lang ong tanong na 'to. Now, presently, ah, when the entry falls within the coverage of 9048, as amended by 10172, person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under 103 or 108 after the petition in the administrative proceedings is first filed, in later denied. In other words, you cannot go to the court. You need to exhaust your administrative remedies. Again, it can be found on page 745 to 746 of the pre-week bar reviewer, 2023 edition. I am not marketing myself. I am just telling and laying down what is the truth, nothing but the truth, but the whole truth. Okay, number nine. Ha, so ano yung tanong? Is William correct? William and several other persons were charged with of the aning act. So, criminal procedure ito. During their arraignment, William and thus pleaded not guilty to the charge that they unlawfully subjected Carding Cruz toing. The information was later amended by adding the suffix "the third" to the name Carding Cruz. Trial proceeded without the accused having been rearraigned on the amended information. After the accused were convicted by the trial court, William appealed, contending that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when he was not rearraigned after the amendment of the information.

Now, take note that there are two kinds of amendment of the information under 116. One is formal, and to substantial. When it is merely formal and does not affect the substantial rights of the accused, there is no need for rearraignment. When it is substantial amendment, ha, there must be prior leave of court. Ha, now, remember also the exception to the rule, ha, in case of supervening event. Now, what does it mean? If A is charged for frustrated murder, now after or during the arraignment, A pleaded not guilty. One week before, ah, the prosecution's presentation of evidence, A died because of the 27 stab wounds caused by the accused. Ha, question: Can the information be amended? So, there will be substantial amendments, ah. Now, the answer is yes. You can amend the information of frustrated murder to murder. So, there will be rearraignment on the part of B.

Now, dito ba, kailangan ba ng rearraignment? So, the answer is no. Ha, any amendment on information which only states with precision something which has already been included in the original information and therefore adds nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only formal amendment. Okay, so you can check it on page 60 to 61 of the bar reviewer, ah, 2021 edition. Ah, uh, also the case of Villarba versus Court of Appeals, by Mr. Justice Leonen. It is also on page 68 of the bar reviewer in remedial law. Okay, hence, William is not correct.

Okay, 10. Tingin uli sa baba. Did the RTC have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel? Discuss your answer. So, Angel was charged with murder before RTC. After trial, the court convicted her of homicide due to the absence of qualifying circumstance of treachery. She then filed a notice of appeal and applied for bail with the RTC. Transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals. The prosecution opposed the application, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction to act on the application for bail. The RTC granted the application for bail on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the five bail negating circumstances.

Now, bail is a matter of right if the crime committed is punishable less than reclusion perpetua or life. So, in other words, as a general rule, all offenses are bailable, except if the crime committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Now, bail is a matter of discretion after conviction by the RTC, and the penalty imposed is more than 6 years. Now, what is the rule if after conviction, there was a change of the crime charged from a non-bailable offense to a bailable offense? Under 114, the trial court has no more jurisdiction. You need to file your petition for bail to the appellate court. Reason: the trial court is already biased. So, you need to go to the appellate court, na hindi pa nila alam kung ano nangyari. Of course, if you are in the trial court, it will be granted, ah, kasi from murder, naging homicide, from non-bailable, it becomes bailable offense.

Okay, so what is the answer? The answer is no. The RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel. This is provided under Section 5 of 114. Again, you can check it, na, on page 185 up to 186 of the bar reviewer in remedial law, syllabus base.

Okay, number 11. Is the position of Erica tenable? On October 18, 2021, a warrant of arrest was issued against Erica. At 11 PM on October 30, 2021, police officers arrested Erica at their house pursuant to the arrest warrant. Before arraignment, ah, Erica moved to quash the information on the grounds that the warrant was served at nighttime and beyond the 10-day period.

Okay, this is Rule 113. Okay, now, what is the rule in serving a warrant? The warrant of arrest can be served, class, at any time of the day or night. Okay, walang nakalagay, ah, so Monday to Sunday. Now, uh, how about the lifetime of a warrant of arrest? Ah, now, you need to compare it to Rule 126. The warrant of arrest issued by the from the MTC up to the Supreme Court remains outstanding until the accused is arrested. Now, uh, how about search warrant? The lifetime of a search warrant is 10 days up from the date of issuance, and after the 10-day period, it becomes functus officio and has no more force and effect. So, dapat hindi kayo malilito doon. Ah, now, kung maalala ninyo, ah, under the 2024 bar syllabus, magkadikit na ngayon yung 113 saka yung 126. Ah, just a matter of tip. The question is, ah, can an MTC issue a warrant of arrest or search warrant for violation of 9165? Ah, remember that 9165 is punishable by more than 6 years. Ah, now, this is the case of People versus Castillo. Ano ba nangyari doon? The PNP of Tuguegarao, Cagayan applied for a search warrant before the MTC of the municipality of Gattaran in Cagayan. After complying with the examination under affirmation of the applicant and the judge found a probable cause, the judge issued a search warrant. The search warrant was implemented in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and yielded positive. The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Ruling by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, ah, that the search warrant was valid because the word "judge" under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, ha, did not distinguish whether the judge is an MTC or an RTC. It was used, uh, in its generic sense. No warrant of arrest or search warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause to be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath and affirmation of the complainant and his or her witnesses, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be seized. So, the word judge did not qualify whether the judge is an RTC judge or an MTC judge. Okay, so hindi pa tinatanong yung People versus Castillo. Abangan niyo dahil baka itanong ngayon.

Okay, so ano yung answer natin dito? No, the position of Erica is not tenable. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled, or quashed. Now, the 10-day period provided under this rule is only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to the court. However, it is natural to assume that an arresting officer who under the law is given 10 days to serve an arrest warrant would serve it as soon as possible. Again, this is on page 255, ha, of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure by yours truly, 2017 edition. This is also the case of People versus Guerra, ah, January 18, 2001. It is an old case. Ah, you can check, ah, the 2017 edition. I think it's, uh, almost in all law libraries in all law schools in the Philippines. Okay, so Erica was served with a warrant at nighttime beyond the 10-day period is of no moment. Ah, so Section 6 of 113, ah, you can check, is also on page 267, ah, of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. So, hindi tayo nambobola rito. Ah, now, we go to number 12. Ha, the trial court explained that the lack of authority to file an information is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. So, ito, hinulaan ko rin. This is the case of Villagomez versus People. It reverses the decision as early as 1951. The leading case was the case of Tolentino versus Pao, because all information shall bear the authority or approval of the city or provincial prosecutor. So, diniscuss ko ito a while ago. Sabi ko, ilalabas o eksakto, ilalabas. Ayan, Villagomez versus People. Ah, so dito, after the case was submitted for decision, the RTC judge of Makati City issued an order upon findings that the information does not bear the approval of City Prosecutor ASP. Now, on certiorari to the Supreme Court, ano sinabi ng Supreme Court? Ah, number one, provided that the resolution of the findings of probable cause be the approval or signature of the city or provincial prosecutor, and it is on record, the information is valid. Okay, so this is an en banc decision. Again, you can check it on page 342 to 343 of the pre-week reviewer in remedial ni Moya.

Okay, so 13. The trial court allowed Rock to testify. Is the trial court correct? So, this is a rule on evidence. So, can a child testify? Now, what is the qualification for a witness? Provided that the witness, take note of this codal provision. Ayan, Section 21 of 13. Perceiving and can make known his or her perception. So, codal yung tanong. So, in the Q&A, you can found it on page 172 and 173 of the reviewer, revised rules of evidence that took effect on May 1, 2020. Ang ng examiner dito, yung word na perceive, perceiving, can make known, ah, their perception. So, there is no political, religious qualification, ha. Now, take note, even a child of tender age can be a witness.

Okay, number 14. Ah, ah, tingin. Confident of an acquittal, Ted recommended that Erica file a demurrer to evidence because there is no corpus delicti due to the failure to recover the gun and the body of Lee, and two, the prosecution failed to prove that Erica fired due to the lack of paraffin test. Is Ted correct? Ha, so this is a murder case. Ah, kung nawawala yung ginamit, ah, na baril, o nawawala yung bangkay nung binaril, ah, now, can you file a demurrer? So, this is Section 23 of Rule 119, Rule 33 in civil cases. Now, what is demurrer to evidence? Demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Okay, what is the answer?

The answer is no. Again, this is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People versus Briones, January 22, 2020, citing the case of People versus Taco. Now, to prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution only needs to show that number one, a certain result has been established, and number two, is criminally liable. So, take note of that. In People versus Guzman, the Supreme Court ruled that paraffin testing is conclusive only as to the presence of nitrate particles in a person, but not as to its source, such as firing from a gun. Lumang na bago rin at pinag-combine nila.

Okay, 15. Ha, during the trial, in apart from the medical legal certificate, the prosecution also offered in evidence the testimony of Robert to prove at the utterances of Cash in the statement of case. Or is the statement of case admissible as a dying declaration? Ah, so dito, paborito ni Justice Hernando. Itinanong doon sa People versus Serio and Lacanilao, yung dying declaration. Itinanong na naman dito. Ha, now, dying declaration, remember, is one of the 13 exceptions of the hearsay rule. Ha, it is an evidence of its highest order for the reason that a person who is about to die will not tell a lie. A person who is about to face, ah, his creator, ah, will tell the truth. Ha, walang pinag-iba ito sa marriage in articulo mortis, regardless whether the person who is about to die survives, the marriage remains valid. Ha, so, ano ngayon pala ang pinag-iba dito? Wala ring pinag-iba. So, the answer is yes. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay rule, ah, four conditions must concur. Number one, declaration must concern as to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. Number two, that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was conscious of his impending death. Number three, declarant was competent as a witness, and lastly, the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide or parricide where the declarant is the victim. So, this is the case of People versus Palanas. Ito yung pulis na inambush, nung kinuha, ambulansya, at tinatanong siya kung sino mga bumaril sa kanya. Ah, binuksan pa niya yung cellphone niya at nag-book siya. Nasabi niya, reaching the hospital, nalagutan ng hininga. Ah, so yung imbestigador, kinuha yung right thumb, idiniin doon sa tama, kasi ang tao, pag nabaril, bumubulwak yung dugo. So, idiniin. The question is, is it as admissible as evidence? The answer is yes. So, the case of People versus Palanas, June 17, 2015. People versus Alyas Amay Bisaya, January 13, 2013. So, dying declaration is an evidence of highest order. It is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. In no person who is about to die will tell a lie. Okay, so again, ah, you can check this on page 555 to 556, ah, of the pre-week reviewer, 2023 edition.

Okay, 16. Ha, rule on the admissibility and sufficiency of the documents as evidence of acts or declarations about pedigree. Ah, so again, pedigree is one of the 13 exceptions to the hearsay rule. Ah, BJ filed an action for compulsory recognition with prayer for support against J, her putative father. During trial, she presented and identified the following documents on the witness stand: Number one, birth certificate. Number two, letter from siblings of J. Ah, so rule on the admissibility. Ah, admissible ba? Ah, now, take note of the answer. As to admissibility, the birth certificate is admissible, reason, it is a public document. Whereas, the letters from the siblings are not. The relationship between the declarant or the actor in the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration was made ante litem motam or prior to the controversy. So, this is the old case of Tandog et al. versus Makalgal, September 11, 2007. Okay, so take note further of filiation proceedings.

Now, you can check this on page 192 to 193 of the remedial law syllabus base, Volume 4, page 562 to 563, n preek reviewer. So, nandoon halos lahat. Okay, so thank you. Tapos yung remedial law. I think, kidding aside, I contributed a little in obtaining your attorney. I pray for all of you that you will reach the unreachable star. I want to see all of you at the PICC before or after Christmas. And as I always said, before the end of my lecture, pray very, very hard as if it is all dependent to God, and study very, very hard as if it is all dependent on you. Good luck, everyone. Thank you, Dean Moya, for a very enlightening and comprehensive lecture on remedial law, specifically, know, we were really, uh, enlightened and refreshed on the legal concepts of remedial law, specifically on the jurisdictions of our first level courts, the RTC, the CA.

The Supreme Court, as well as other remedial procedures under our Rules of Procedure in Criminal Cases and Civil Cases.

Now, for this part of our program, Dean, we have here some questions from our online participants. And first, we have, uh, Dean, given your extensive years as a professor for remedial law, what do you think are the top three priority topics that will be asked in the Lopez bar examination?

Okay, ah, Justice Lopez, ah, uh, started from the lower court up to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. We were given a chance, uh, uh, for an audience with him during the DENs convention in Cagayan de Oro. He told us that, uh, actually, he wants to deduct 5% ah from remedial law and add it to Criminal Law. So, isa ng hint iyon, ano? Ibig kong sabihin, mababaliktad ngayon ang questions in the 2023 bar. There are seven questions in civil procedure, ha, then five questions in criminal procedure, then three questions in evidence, and one question onal proceedings. Now, ngayon, mababaliktad. Ah, it might be seven or eight questions in criminal procedure. Bakit? Mas maraming development sa criminal procedure. Number one, take note nung People versus Mendez, ha, regarding jurisdiction. If the amount is less than 1 million, in view of the amendment of BP 29 o 129, ah, by RA number 1176, which increased at the personal action with the MTC to 2 million, you now file it with the MTC. You lose in the MTC, notice of appeal to the RTC, you lose again, petition for review on the Rule 42 to the Court of Tax Appeals until you reach the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Now, another one on prescription, ha. So, sinabi na natin, Jadewell, ah, hindi effective dumating ang diserto, ah, ng January of 2023. Ah, then after deserto, while it is August 2023, yyung Corpus Junior versus, ah, People. Ah, take note that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office for cases covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure will not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Ah, it is the filing of the information in court that tolls the running of the prescriptive period.

Now, another case, People versus Olpindo, ah, which reversed at the 2017 decision in the case of Anthony versus People. Now, remember in criminal cases, if the penalty imposed by the trial court is reclusion perpetua, section 3 letter E, Rule 122 in relation to section 13C of Rule 124, you merely file a notice of appeal. Now, dumating ngayon yung Olpindo, an inb decision. Mr. Justice, niyo yung tatlong remedies. Number one, if the trial court transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall notify the accused whether he will adopt the transmittal of the records as his or her notice of appeal within 10 days. Number two, if the records is transmitted by the trial to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court after the lapse of the 15-day period, then the judgment of conviction shall be entered. Reason: The decision is already final and executory. And lastly, if the accused opted to utilize a Rule 45 petition, the accused must raise only purely questions of law. If the accused raises mixed questions of facts and law, then the petition shall be dismissed. It reverses the 2017 decision in Anthony versus People. Yung Anthony versus People ay rape case din. After the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, Anthony went to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. And therefore, it is violative of section 3E of 122 and section 13C, ah, of 124. Ah, kaya tapos na. So, nakita ng Supreme Court yon. After 5 years, nagkaroon ng inbang yyung People versus Olpindo.

Now, yyung Villa Gomez, tinanong na, ipinakita natin ha, ah, naitanong. Now, hindi natin alam kasi favorite, ah, ni Justice Law ang criminal, ah, baka itanong na naman uli. Ah, tandaan na ninyo yung Villa Gomez, ni-reverse as early as 1951. Yung pinakasikat na kaso kasing na-reverse nung 2013, ah, yung Tolentino versus Paco, that the information must bear the approval or imprimatur, ah, of the city prosecutor. Ngayon, hindi. Ah, ano ang role? Provided that the resolution of the findings of probable cause, number one, is on record of the case, and number two, bears the approval or imprimatur of the City Prosecutor or Ombudsman. The information, less than the signature of the City Prosecutor or Ombudsman, is valid.

Okay, all right. To our barristers, no, watch out for those topics and, um, cases. So, for our next question, Dean, basically, we have just more or less a month before the Lopez bar examination. So, what are your tips to our barristers when it comes to studying remedial law? Like, do they, um, start first with the codal or just get through with moat tre?

Well, uh, I started conducting a bar review in 2017. In 2017, I introduced the moat tre on jurisdiction and appeals. Lagi naman na may lumalabas diyan. Okay, ano, tip ko? Master the moat tre in civil procedure and in criminal procedure. I will be coming up with a Q&A arranged by topic of the Lopez decision. So, wherever review center you are, ah, pag ilabas yon, ah, makikita niyo naman yan, ah, sa internet. Ah, so mag po-forecast ako sa Legal Eds, Albano, Magnificos, ah, di ko lang alam sa PUP, etc. Ah, so tayo naman, ah, kaya it is my tradition na ipinapakita natin yung previous bar, then yung suggested answer, then saan kinuha yung tanong, saan yung sagot. Ah, ah, I am not marketing my book because I have 13 law schools using my books. Ah, so just to, uh, disseminate it further, if you can purchase, why not? Ah, now, if you can view and watch, ah, 3 to 10 times moat tre, ah, before remedial law. And remember, remedial law is 25%, and therefore, it is 1/4, ah, of your grade, ah, in the bar. Ah, uh, you need to obtain a grade of 85 and above, ah, in order to be safe, ah, that by, ah, January of 2025, yung pangalan mo, ay may honorific na kaakibat na 8y period. Kasi pag hindi, 80 lang, walang y saka period, okay? So, I will see you again in the bar review. So, I want to see everyone during the outtaking.

Okay, all right. I think that's basically it for our Q&A portion, Dean. Thank you so much. So, as I mentioned, the while ago, our lecture for today is just one of the many lectures that we have prepared for you under the Central Books Best Pre-Week Ever. As we also have those for Political and Public International Law, we also have for Commercial and Taxation Law, as well as with Civil Law and Criminal Law, and lastly for Legal and Judicial Ethics with practical exercises. All this happening in September 2024. So, for updates, don't forget to like and follow the Facebook page of Central Books to remain updated with the speakers and the dates of our programs. We would also like to recognize our main sponsor for this initiative, Central Books, and our main collaborators, PALS, the PUP College of Law, and ALSP National. So, I guess that's it for today. This has been Shello Pabel, your host today. And I guess, see you, ah, sa susunod pa nating mga lectures. God bless everyone.

[Music]

C H

[Music]

Get Our Mobile App

Remedial Law Pre-Week Lecture with Dean Salvador N. Moya II 📚⚖️

Transcription