Topic of discussion later will be the powerpoint I sent! And also, we’ll touch on these topic daw!

Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

A. Burden of Proof - duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases.

B. Evidence - refers to the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

C. Admissibility and Relevance

Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue and if not excluded by the provision
of law or by the Rules of Court. With regard to relevance, such evidence must have such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

D. Testimony of Witnesses

Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge and therefore excludes hearsay. Under
the Revised Rules on Evidence, A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows
of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.

A Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral or
written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an
assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in the ROC.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the
declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial
hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's testimony and
is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or
improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him
or her.

a. Judicial Affidavit Rule

One of the simplest legal documents is an affidavit. It is a written, out-of-court statement taken
before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oath. It is a document that a
freshman law student can easily learn to prepare. It contains two special notations, a scilicet and
a jurat. A scilicet, which appears at the upper left hand of the affidavit, indicates the country of
its execution. It also has an “s.s.” beside it to specify the venue of its execution; for example, the
Republic of the Philippines, specifically Manila or Quezon City. On the other hand, the jurat
appears at the bottom of the affidavit. It is a statement by the notary or the person who
administered the oath that the affiant who made the assertions in the affidavit appeared before
him on a certain day and presented his identification document such as a valid government ID or
passport.

Some affidavits we commonly encounter are: affidavits of loss to show a loss of a personal
belonging; affidavits of adverse claim on a piece of land; affidavits of legitimation to show a
change in status of a child; affidavits of no income; affidavits of no operation for a business;
affidavits of good faith; affidavits of desistance to cause the dismissal of a criminal case; and
affidavits of no pending criminal, civil or administrative case.

In 1991, the Rule on Summary Procedure introduced the use of witness affidavits in the
presentation of evidence without the need for trial. These affidavits were submitted with position
papers in civil cases, and in criminal cases constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses
subject to cross-examination (Section 9, Rule II; Section 15, Rule III). The submission of witness
affidavits was easy to accept then, because the cases were limited to small money claims,
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases; as well as violations of traffic law, rental law and
ordinance.

The predisposition of some to file cases at the inception of an apparent dispute contributed to the
clogging of the court dockets. This prompted the Supreme Court to look into avenues to plumb
the clogs. In 2001, it issued the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate
Controversies (Interim Rules) wherein all facts material and relevant to the plaintiff’s cause or
causes of action in a Complaint or the defendant’s defenses in an Answer shall be supported by
affidavits of the plaintiff or defendant and their witnesses, as well as by and copies of
documentary and other evidence (Sections 4 and 6 Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).

For the first time, the form of the judicial affidavit was presented in the Interim Rules stating that
the “affidavits shall be in question and answer form, and shall comply with the rules on
admissibility of evidence” (Section 8, Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC). It further stated that
“[O]nly persons whose affidavits were submitted may be presented as witnesses… [t]he
affidavits of the witnesses shall serve as their direct testimonies, subject to cross-examination in
accordance with existing rules on evidence” (Section 1, Rule 5, A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).

The Supreme Court was giving an unequivocal message that intra-corporate cases be resolved
expeditiously because it will be a reflection of the confidence of the business community in the
judicial system. By 2003, the use of judicial affidavits as direct testimonies of witnesses was
introduced in the nullification and annulment of marriage cases. The Rule required the Pre-Trial
Brief to be accompanied by the witnesses’ affidavits (Section 12, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC).

The effectiveness of the use of judicial affidavits in specialized cases may have caused the
Supreme Court to pilot test the use of judicial affidavits in Quezon City in February 21, 2012
under its Guidelines for Litigation in Trial Courts (A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC). The use of judicial
affidavits in criminal cases in Quezon City was allowed only when the parties agree and if the
matter to be proven is the civil liability of the offense (C(6)(a), A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC).

The proven gains in the Quezon City Trial Courts pilot testing brought the Supreme Court to
approve on September 4, 2012 the use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of
witnesses. In issuing the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), the Supreme Court said “that such
piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the
testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases.”

Under the JAR, the parties shall file the judicial affidavits of their witnesses with the court and
serve the same on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five
days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions.
The judicial affidavits of their witnesses shall take the place of the witnesses' direct testimonies;
and the parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, shall be attached to the judicial affidavits
(Section 2, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC).

The judicial affidavit will allege, among others: (a) the name, age, address, and occupation of the
witness; (b) the name and address of the lawyer who supervised the examination of the witness
as well as the place of examination; (c) a statement that the witness is answering the questions
asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability
for false testimony or perjury if he were to violate this; and (d) the questions asked of the witness
and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered (Section 3, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC).

The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who
supervised the examination of the witness that says: (1) he faithfully recorded or caused to be
recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and (2)
neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him or her coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers. A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to
disciplinary action, including disbarment (Section 4, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC).

The JAR will apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence
before: (a) First Level Courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts), but shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC; (b) Second Level Courts (Regional Trial
Courts); (c) Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and Court of Appeals; and (d) quasi-judicial
bodies, or investigating offices (Section 1, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC). In simpler words, the JAR will
apply to all civil and administrative cases

In criminal cases, the JAR will only apply when: (a) the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years; (b) the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or (c) with respect to the civil aspect of criminal actions (Section 9, A.M. No.
12-8-8-SC). In 2017, the JAR was supplemented and amended by the Revised Guidelines on
Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases.

For First Level Courts, the testimonies of witnesses shall consist of the duly subscribed written
statements given to law enforcement or peace officers; or the affidavits or counter-affidavits
submitted before the investigating prosecutor. If these are not available, testimonies shall be in
the form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross-examination questions
(Section 11, A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC).

On the other hand, for Second Level Courts where the demeanor of the witness in criminal cases
is not essential in determining the credibility of said witness, the affidavits to be submitted shall
be the same as the First Level Courts. This type of witness includes forensic chemists,
medico-legal officers, accountants, expert witnesses, and other similar witnesses who will testify
on the authenticity, due execution, and contents of public documents (Section 11, A.M. No.
15-06-10-SC).

The same affidavits shall also be allowed if the offense is transactional in character, such as
falsification, malversation, estafa, or other crimes where the culpability or innocence of the
accused can be established through documents. In all other cases where the culpability or the
innocence of the accused is based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the testimonies of these
witnesses shall be in oral form (Section 11, A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC). The use of judicial
affidavits in civil cases was recently affirmed in the 2019 Amendment to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (Section 7, Rule 18).

There are certain disadvantages to the use of judicial affidavits, one of which is the use of
professionally-prepared affidavits despite the lawyer’s attestation that he did not coach or assist
the witness. Because of this risk, the direct oral examination is still the ideal test of the personal
knowledge, credibility and demeanor of the witness on the stand. In addition to this, the use of
judicial affidavits in lieu of direct oral examination will result in the extinction of the “true
litigator.”

However, the advantages of requiring the use of judicial affidavits outweigh the disadvantages.
With the use of judicial affidavits in lieu of the direct examination of witnesses, the proceedings
are swift, giving the parties and their lawyers ample time to prepare for trial, and minimizing the
delay during trial caused by repeated objections of the opposing party to the questions of the
direct examiner. The use of judicial affidavits will be effective only if the lawyer will abide by
his attestation that he will not coach or assist the witness.

E. Expert Testimony - statements made by individuals who are considered experts in a

A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is

F. Examination of a witness

Rule 132 p. 20

THE DECISION

A. Judicial Review

The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary
enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. For a court to exercise this power,
certain requirements must first be met, namely:

(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;

(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement;

(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and

(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

B. Stare Decisis - when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a precedent which
should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court.

Art. 8, NCC - judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall for part
of the legal system of the Philippines
C. Res Judicata and Double Jeopardy

Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or
their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent
jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.

The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2)
the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must
be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action

As defined by jurisprudence, double jeopardy simply means that a person cannot be charged
with a same or identical crime when such person was already previously convicted or acquitted
of a similar crime (See Carmelo vs People, GR L-3580, 22 March 1950, En Banc). The rule
against double jeopardy is constitutionally-protected as it is enshrined in Article III, Section 21
of the Fundamental Law. Notwithstanding, the rule against double jeopardy is not without
exceptions, both as to a previous conviction or acquittal.

First, as to conviction. Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court expressly provides three
instances wherein an accused may still be subsequently charged with an offense “which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint” despite a previous conviction.
This is commonly called as the Doctrine of Supervening Event:

(a) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;

(b) The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea
was entered in the former complaint or information; or

(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of
the offended party except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116.

Second, as to acquittal. As a rule, once an accused is acquitted, the prosecution may no longer
file an appeal on account of double jeopardy (See Villareal vs Aliga, GR 166995, 13 January
2014).
Nevertheless, (1) where there has been deprivation of due process, (2) where there is a finding of
a mistrial, or (3) where there has been a grave abuse of discretion, the rule against double
jeopardy does NOT apply (People vs Alejandro, GR 223099, 11 January 2018). The aggrieved
party may file a petition for certiorari to assail the wrongful acquittal of an accused on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion (See People vs Laguio, GR 128587, 16 March 2007).

D. Law of the Case

Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal.
The “law of the case doctrine” provides that an appellate court's determination of a legal issue
binds both the trial court and the court on appeal in any subsequent retrial or appeal involving the
same case and substantially the same facts.

E. Form and Parts of a Decision

a. Dispositive Portion - The dispositive portion or the fallo is what actually constitutes the
resolution of the court and which is the subject of execution, although the other parts of the
decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi for such a resolution.

b. Syllabus - In the legal profession, a Syllabus is a preliminary section of a court ruling that
outlines the core facts and issues of the case and the path that the case has taken prior to
reaching the present court.

c. Certification - A procedural first step in class action litigation in which a court determines if
the action at issue is amenable to class action proceedings.

F. Kinds of Decision
a. Per Curiam - In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate
court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a
majority of the court) acting collectively (and typically, though not necessarily, unanimously). In
contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for
authoring the decision, but minority concurring and dissenting opinions are signed.

Under the law, unless otherwise requested by the Member assigned to write the opinion of the
Court, the decision or resolution shall be rendered per curiam

(a) where the penalty imposed is dismissal from service, disbarment, or indefinite suspension in
administrative cases; or

(b) in any other case by agreement of the majority of the Members or upon request of a Member.
b. Minute Resolutions - A minute resolution is signed only by the clerk of court by authority
of the justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the certification of the Chief Justice.
Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the Philippine Reports.

c. Memorandum Decision - The judgment or final resolution of a court in appealed cases may
adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision or final
order appealed from.

G. Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

Ratio decidendi - Latin, "rationale for the decision." The term refers to a key factual point or
chain of reasoning in a case that drives the final judgment. When considering earlier cases as
precedent, courts often ask parties to be very clear about how they interpret the main guiding
principle or ratio decidendi of the earlier case.

Obiter Dictum - An obiter dictum is an opinion "uttered by the way, not upon the point or
question pending, as if turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects".

An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law
which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it.

H. Appeals and Other Remedies

Rule 47.

I. Execution

Rule 39. Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no
appeal has been duly perfected. (1a)

If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be
applied for in thecourtoforigin, on motionofthe judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified
true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the
entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.