REMEDIAL LAW I

I. JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint

2. Over the subject matter
3. Over the person
4. Over the res
5. Original, concurrent & appellate jurisdiction of SC, CA, RTC & MTC
6. Sec 9 bp 129 (3) - only in civil cases
- If crim case: remedy to annul the case based on lack of juris is petition for
habeas corpus
7. Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation:
- specific performance,
- support, or
- foreclosure of mortgage or
- annulment of judgment;
- validity of a mortgage,
- annulling a deed of sale or
- conveyance and
- to recover the price paid and
- for rescission, which is a counterpart of specific performance.
- expropriation (just compensation is merely incidental)
8. 2 tests in determining WON the action is capable of pecuniary estimation:
1. Nature of principal action
2. Ultimate purpose test
9. Lapitan v. Scandia - nature of principal action
Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation (Nature of question test): when the claim
for recovery is conditioned upon a specific fact or matters which demand the
inquiry into other facts; money claim purely incidental
- if not conditioned upon any fact or matter - capable
10. Incapable of pecuniary estimation v. Real Action
- look at the main action or basic issue
- If principally for the recovery of property- real
1. Russel v Vestil
Vestil: basic issue: to declare the plaintiffs as heirs. Partition merely
incidental. Hence, incapable of pecuniary estimation. BUT GENERAL RULE
IS PARTITION IS A REAL ACTION
2. Examples of Real Action:
- reconveyance
- quieting of title (BP 129 > Rule 63)
3. Action for damages based on QD
- primarily and effectively actions to recover sum of money
- subject matter is capable of pecuniary estimation. Cause of action will not
determine WON it is capable of pecuniary estimation
4. HLURB cases
5. 2 tests in determining the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan (“IN RELATION
TO OFFICE”)
1. Public office is an essential ingredient of the offense charged
2. Intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office, such
that the offense could not have been committed were it not been in the
performance of the accused’s public office (There must be factual allegations
in the info that the offense was committed in relation to office)
6. Plunder always with SB
7. GOCCs- with SB regardless of the manner of creation
8. Jurisdiction of RTC in re: SB law
1. info does not allege damage to govt or bribery
2. if there is an allegation, the amount involved does not exceed 1m
(must be a public officer covered by the SB Law, if not the case may fall under
MTC or RTC- test of juris then is penalty)
9. Jurisdiction of Family Courts
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Jurisdiction:

MTC:
(1) offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 yrs
(2) damage to property through criminal negligence
(3) violation of city or municipal ordinance

RULE 110

(1) Oral complaint - allowed in Katarungang Pambarangay cases

Provided: the penalty does not exceed 1 year or a FINE not exceeding 5K
(4) prescription in criminal cases is a matter of substantive law
• When the prosecutor deems it proper to conduct a reinvestigation at the stage
where the info is filed, the permission of the court must be first obtained
(3) Preliminary investigation cannot be stayed by injunction (see expos Brocka
case)

SEC 5
• Conditions for prosecuting adultery and concubinage
• Private offenses
GR: complaint must be filed by the offended party
- this is however, not jurisdictional.
- can be waived
- merely a condition precedent for the exercise by the proper authorities of the
power to prosecute
- relate to omnibus motion rule
• The rule on private offenses under Rule 110 sec 5 has been imposed out of
consideration for the aggrieved part (in case of adultery or concubinage),
offended woman (in case of seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness) and
her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go
through with the scandal of public trial hence, non-compliance is not fatal and
may therefore be waived
- the implication is that, the defect cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
(omnibus motion rule rule 117 sec 3)
• The overriding consideration in determining whether the condition precedent
has been complied with is the intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial
redress
• private offense once complexed with a public offense loses its character as a
private offense

SEC. 9
• Test of sufficiency of a compliant or info: WON the facts if hypothetically
admitted would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law
• amending the info to include aggravating circumstances is only an amendment
as to form. it will not prejudice the accused

SEC. 11
• great disparity as to date is prejudicial
• would violate the right of the accused to be informed of the accusations against
him

SEC 12
• GR: Crime against property- describe the property with particularity to properly
identify the offense charged
• EXP: generic and not identifiable property- error in the designation of the
offended party is fatal (Lahoylahoy case)

SEC 14
• formal and substantial amendments
• Tubongbanua case: aggravating circumstance- merely formal. merely relates to
the range of penalty which the court may impose. It will NOT change the nature
of the offense
• Buhat v CA: qualifying generally is substantial. The case is an exception to the
rule as the qualifying circumstance is factually alleged
• GR: substantial amendments after plea - not allowed
EXP: if it is beneficial to the accused

RULE 111

SEC 1
• Reservation of civil action- shall be made BEFORE the prosecution presents it
evidence
• reservation & prior filing will suspend the civil action until the entry of
judgment in the civil case (conviction)
• kung inappeal- you have to wait
• Extinction (acquittal) - does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action
unless there is a declaration that the act or omission from which the civil action
may arise did not exist

SEC 3
• The acquittal of the accused does not prevent a judgment against him on the civil
aspect of the case where:
- the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
- the court declared that the accused is only civilly liable
- when the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the crime
• DY v. PEOPLE: Our law states that every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable. This civil liability ex delicto may be recovered through a
civil action which, under our Rules of Court, is deemed instituted with the
criminal action. While they are actions mandatorily fused, 1 they are, in truth,
separate actions whose existences are not dependent on each other. Thus, civil
liability ex delicto survives an acquittal in a criminal case for failure to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Rules of Court limits this
mandatory fusion to a civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto. It,
by no means, includes a civil liability arising from a different source of
obligation, as in the case of a contract. Where the civil liability is ex contractu,
the court hearing the criminal case has no authority to award damages.

SEC 6
• Elements of prejudicial question

RULE 112

SEC 1
• Lack of PI does not affect the jurisdiction of the court
• if motion was made before the accused enters his plea- the court, instead of
dismissing the case, order the conduct of PI

SEC 5
• issuance of warrant of arrest is NOT a ministerial function, it calls for the
exercise of judicial discretion
• the judge cannot just rely on the certification of the prosecutor
• “personally examine” - exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge to
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
• Resolution and evidence must be presented before the judge. If resolution alone,
that is hearsay
Memorize the periods provided under this Rule

SEC 8 (b)
• the judge must personally examine the evidence or personally examine in writing
and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers

RULE 113

• execution of warrant — within 10 days from receipt

RULE 114

• Constitutional right against excessive bail.

• you cannot impose a condition that is more burdensome upon the bondsman
• however, you can lighten it

SEC 2
• conditions

ARRAIGNMENT

remember:
1. plea of guilt to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
- during arraignment
- after arraignment but before trial
- during or after trial when the prosecution has no sufficient evidence
10. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty
- before the judgment of conviction becomes final
11. Duty of the court to inform the accused of his right to counsel
- before arraignment
12. Bill of particulars
- before arraignment

MTQ

Before the accused enters his plea

Discharge of a state witness- before the prosecution rest its case

Demurrer to evidence- after the prosecution rests its case