PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

116 Phil. 839 [ G. R. No. L-17898. October 31, 1962 ] PASTOR D. AGO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OP APPEALS, HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF SURIGAO AND GRACE PARK ENGINEERING, INC., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N LABRADOR, J.: Appeal by certiorari to review the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 26723-R entitled "Pastor D. Ago.  vs.  The Provincial Sheriff of Surigao, et al." which in part reads: "In this case for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, it appears from the records that the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan rendered judgment (Annex 'A') in open court on January 28, 1959, basing said judgment on a compromise agreement between the parties. "On August 15, 1959, upon petition, the Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution. "Petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated October 12, 1959 alleges t

The PJP Coaching Program was launched by an organization of lawyers for the following purposes: To assist law students and law enthusiasts in the proper or acceptable approaches to legal questions in order to prepare them for examinations and to guide their study of the law and jurisprudence; To assist law students and law enthusiasts to form, maintain and improve on sustainable and outcome-based learning habits geared toward the accumulation of knowledge and understanding of the law and jurisprudence; To prepare students for future law school and other law-related examinations, especially in essay questions and other questions that require higher-order thinking skills; and To issue Certificates of Completion to those who successfully finish a certain course, session, seminar, program or other related training or educational activities conducted to attain the above-mentioned goals. HOW CAN I JOIN THE COACHING PROGRAM?

In the case of Anlud Metal Recycling v. Ang[1], the Supreme Court ruled that the real party in interest in a criminal case is the People of the Philippines . Hence, if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court, the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.[2] As a qualification, however, the High Court recognizes that the private offended party has an interest in the civil aspect of the case.[3] Logically, the capability of the private complainant to question the dismissal of the criminal proceedings is limited only to questions relating to the civil aspect of the case .[4] It should ideally be along this thin framework that we may entertain questions regarding the dismissals of criminal cases instituted by private offended parties. Enlarging this scope may result in wanton disregard of the OSG's personality, as well as the clogging of our dockets, which the Supreme Court is keen to avoid. Therefore, the litmus test in

Once a judgment becomes immutable and unalterable by virtue of its finality, its execution should follow as a matter of course. A supervening event, to be sufficient to stay or stop the execution, must alter or modify the situation of the parties under the decision as to render the execution inequitable, impossible, or unfair. The supervening event cannot rest on unproved or uncertain facts.[1] This is pursuant to the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment, which may be relaxed only to serve the ends of substantial justice in order to consider certain circumstances like:  (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property;  (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;  (c) the merits of the case;  (d) the cause not being entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the doctrine;  (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; or  (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced by th

The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration .[1] It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations[2] – ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit .[3] If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove it by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. More specifically, allegations of a defect in or lack of valid consent to a contract by reason of fraud or undue influence are never presumed but must be established not by mere preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing evidence.[4] For the circumstances evidencing fraud and misrepresentation are as varied as the people who perpetrate it in each case,

Due process dictates that before any decision can be validly rendered in a case, the following safeguards must be met:  (a) the court or tribunal must be clothed with judicial authority to hear and determine the matter before it;  (b) it must have jurisdiction over the person of the party or over the property subject of the controversy;  (c) the parties thereto must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf ; and   (d) such evidence must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the case.[1]

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 239878. February 28, 2022 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), ALFONSO SERVANA CASURRA, LEONARDO LUIB EDERA, JR., JOCELYN ELEAZAR MONTEROS, MARIA SEPARA GEOTINA, ARMANDO MAPA ELUMBA, CARLO REYNALDO FAROLAN LOZADA, JR., AND ROSEMARIE V. PALACIO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N HERNANDO, J.: This petition for  certiorari [1]  assails the November 27, 2017 Resolution [2]  and April 18, 2018 Resolution [3]  of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1669 for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Resolutions granted the motion to quash information/dismiss the case [4]  and motion (A) to quash/hold in abeyance the release of the warrant of arrest; and (B) to defer arraignment and other proceedings [5]  filed by respondent Jocelyn Eleazar Monteros (Monteros), and the omnibus motion to quash informati

EN BANC [ G.R. No. 240337. January 04, 2022 ] FRANCIS O. MORALES PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT. R E S O L U T I O N CARANDANG, J.: Before Us is a Motion for Reconsideration [1]  of this Court's Resolution [2]  dated September 21, 2020, which affirmed the Decision [3]  dated March 15, 2018 and the Resolution [4]  dated June 22, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39341. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Branch 56 in Criminal Case No. R-ANG-15-02275-CR (MTCC Case No. 13-8513), which affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch III for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property and Multiple Serious Physical Injuries is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: