Handbook on Laws Circulars and Jurisprudence on Speedy Trial

Part II – Original Actions……………………………………. 41 Rule IV – Sessions and Trials……………………………….. 41 Rule VII – Motions…………………………………………… 42 Rule VIII – Rendition of Judgment or Final Order……….. 42 Part IV – Provisions Common to Original and Appealed Cases and Petitions for Review……….. 43 Rule XII – Assignment, Distribution and

Consolidation of Cases…………………………….. 43

C. Commercial and Intellectual Property Courts……………. 46

1. Re: Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, November 21, 2000)………………………………… 46

Rule 3 – General Provisions……………………….. 46 Rule 4 – Rehabilitation……………………………… 47

Appendix “A” – A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC, Resolution Designating Certain Branches Of Regional Trial Courts to Try and Decide Cases Formerly Cognizable by The Securities and Exchange Commission……… 49

2. Re: Proposed Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies Under RA 8799 (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, March 13, 2001)………… 51

Rule 1 – General Provisions………………………. 51 Rule 2 – Commencement of Action and Pleadings 53 Rule 3 – Modes of Discovery………………………. 56 Rule 4 – Pre-Trial……………………………………. 56 Rule 5 – Trial…………………………………………. 57 Rule 10 – Provisional Remedies…………………… 58

D. Regional Trial Courts………………………………………… 58

Pre-Trial: Criminal Cases…………………………………… 58

VI. CASES ON SPEEDY TRIAL/DISPOSITION OF CASES……….. 62

1. Lilany Yulo y Billones v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 142762, March 4, 2005…………………… 62

2. Domingo Neypes, Luz, Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito Victoriano, Jacob Obania and Domingo Cabacungan v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Heirs of Bernardo del Mundo, namely: Fe, Corazon, Josefa, Salvador and Carmen,

I. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON SPEEDY TRIAL

Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides: “(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.”

II. PERTINENT LAWS ON SPEEDY TRIAL/DISPOSITION OF CASES

A. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act)

1. What is R.A. No. 8493?

A: R.A. No. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act), which took effect on February 12, 1998, ensures the speedy trial of all criminal cases.

2. To what courts does the Act apply?

A: The Act applies to cases tried before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

3. When shall arraignment take place?

A: The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30) days from the filing

of the information, or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.1

4. How long is the time limit given for trial?

A: In no case shall the entire tria l period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days

from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.2

5. When shall trial commence?

A: Where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from arraignment as fixed by the court.3

1 Section 7, R.A. No. 8493 2 Section 6, R.A. No. 8493 3 Section 7, R.A. No. 8493

Handbook on Laws, Circulars and Jurisprudence on Speedy Trial and Disposition of Criminal Cases 2

6. How long is the extended time limit given for trial?

A: For the first twelve-calendar-month per iod following the effectivity of the Act, the time limit with respect to the period from the arraignment to the trial shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and, for the third twelve-month period, the time limit with respect to the period from the arraignment to the trial shall be eighty (80) days.4

7. What are the periods of delay to be excluded from the computation of the time within which the trial must commence?

A: The following periods of delay are to be excluded:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following:

(1) delay resulting from an examination of the accused, and hearing on his/her mental competency, or physical incapacity;

(2) delay resulting from trials with respect to charges against the accused;

(3) delay resulting from interlocutory appeals; (4) delay resulting from hearings on pre-trial motions: provided that the

delay does not exceed thirty (30) days, (5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to

change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts; (6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial

question; and (7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30)

days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.5

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the accused or an essential witness.

(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, or any offense required to be joined with that offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.

4 Section 9, R.A. No. 8493 5 Section 10, R.A. No. 8493

3 Handbook on Laws, Circulars and Jurisprudence on Speedy Trial and Disposition of Criminal Cases

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any justice or judge motu proprio or on motion of the accused or his/her counsel or at the request of the public prosecutor, if the justice or judge granted such continuance on the basis of his/her findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this subparagraph shall be excludable under this section unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.

8. How long is the time limit given following an order for new trial?

A: Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but in any case shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from the passage of time shall make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.6

Implementing Circular on RA 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act)

CIRCULAR NO. 38-987

1. When is pre-trial mandatory in criminal cases?

A: In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Court shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:

(a) Plea bargaining; (b) Stipulation of facts; (c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties; (d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and (e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the

criminal and civil aspects of the case.8

6 Section 8, R.A. No. 8493 7 Issued August 15, 1998; took effect on September 15, 1998 8 Section 3, Circular No. 38-98


2. What are the factors to be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a continuance?

A: The following factors are considered:

(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the period of time established herein.

No continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 9 hereof shall be granted because of congestion of the court's calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor.9

3. What are the public attorney’s duties where the accused is imprisoned?

A: If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the accused is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or is charged with a non-bailable crime, or is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution:

(a) The public attorney shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public attorney.

(c) Upon receipt of that notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

(d) When the person having custody of t he prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall be made available accordingly. 10

4. In what instances can counsel be sanctioned under these Rules?

A: In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney or the public prosecutor:

9 Section 10, Circular No. 38-98 10 Section 12, Circular No. 38-98


(a) Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

(b) Files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(c) Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(d) Otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provision hereof, the court may punish any such counsel, attorney or prosecutor, as follows:

(1) in the case of a counsel privately retained in connection with the defense of an accused, by imposing a fine not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);

(2) by imposing on any appointe d counsel de officio, public attorney or public prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and

(3) by denying any defense counsel or public prosecutor the right to practice before the court considering the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days.11

5. What is the remedy if the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit?

A: If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving such motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of time. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.

Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss.12

B. OTHER LAWS RELATIVE TO SPEEDY TRIAL/DISPOSITION OF CASES

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

1. Which court has jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)?

A: Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165.

11 Section 13, Circular No. 38-98 12 Section 14, Circular No. 38-98


The number of courts designated in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdictions, while the DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165.

2. What is the time period given for preliminary investigation of cases filed under R.A. No. 9165?

A: Preliminary investigation of cases filed under R.A. No. 9165 shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing.13

3. When should the information be issued?

A: After the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case.14

4. When shall trial commence?

A: Trial of the case under R.A. No. 9165 shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision on the case shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the case for resolution.15

III. RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULARS

A. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-99 16 (Strict Observance of Session Hours of Trial Courts and Effective Management of Cases to Ensure their Speedy Disposition)

1. To what Courts does Admini strative Circular No. 3-99 apply?

A: A.C. Circular No. 3-99 applies to all trial court judges, their personnel and the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

2. What are the session hours of the trial courts?

13 Section 90, R.A. No. 9165 14

Ibid.

15

Ibid.

16 Issued January 15, 1999; took effect February 1, 1999.


A: The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from Monday to Friday. The hours in the morning s hall be devoted to the conduct of trial, while the hours in the afternoon shall be utilized for (1) the conduct of pre-trial conferences; (2) writing of decisions, resolutions, or orders; or (3) the continuation of trial on the merits whenever rendered necessary, as may be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified cases.

However, in multi-sala courts in places where there are few practicing lawyers, the schedule may be modified upon request of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines such that one-half of the branches may hold their trial in the morning and the other half in the afternoon. Except those requiring immediate action, all motions should be scheduled for hearing on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the afternoon of the next business day. The unauthorized practice of some judges of entertaining motions or setting them for hearing on any other day or time must be immediately stopped.

3. With what provision should the Clerk of Court comply as to calendar of cases?

A: The Clerk of Court, under the direct supervision of the Judge, must comply with Rule 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure17 regarding the calendar of cases.

4. What provisions of the Rules of Court must be followed to avoid postponements and needless delay?

A: Section 2 (adjournments and postponements), Section 3 (requisites of a motion to postpone trial for absence of evidence) and Section 4 (requisites of a motion to postpone trial for illness of a party or counsel) of Rule 30, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure,18 should be faithfully observed.

17 Rule 20. Calendar of Cases: SECTION 1. Calendar of cases. — The clerk of court, under the direct supervision of the

judge, shall keep a calendar of cases for pre-trial, for trial, those whose trials were adjourned or postponed, and those with motions to set for hearing. Preference shall be given to habeas corpus cases, election cases, special civil actions, and those so required by law. (1a, R22)

SECTION 2. Assignment of cases. — The assignment of cases to the different branches of a court shall be done exclusively by raffle. The assignment shall be done in open session of which adequate notice shall be given so as to afford interested parties the opportunity to be present. (7a, R22) 18 Rule 30. Trial:

SECTION 2. Adjournments and postponements. — A court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and convenient transaction of business may require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court. (3a, R22)


5. When shall the case be set for pre-trial?

A: Within five (5) days after the last pleading joining the issues has been filed and served, the plaintiff must move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference.

6. What must the pre-trial briefs contain?

A: The pre-trial briefs should contain the following:

a. A statement of their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement indicating the desired terms thereof, or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of dispute resolution;

b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts; c. The issues to be tried or resolved; d. The number and names of the witnesses to be presented, an abstract of their

testimonies, and the approximate number of hours that will be required by the parties for the presentation of their respective evidence;

e. Copies of all documents intended to be presented with a statement of the purpose of their offer;

f. A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of any discovery procedure, or of the need of referral of any issues to commissioners;

g. Applicable laws and jurisprudence; h. The available trial dates of counsel for complete presentation of evidence,

which must be within a period of three months from the first day of trial.

7. What must the judge do before the pre-trial conference?

A: The judge must study the pleadings of every case, and determine the issues thereof and the respective positions of the parties thereon to enable him to intelligently steer the parties toward a possible amicable settlement of the case or, at the very least, to help reduce and limit the issues. The judge should avoid the undesirable practice of terminating the pre-trial as soon as the parties have indicated that they cannot settle the controversy. He must be mindful that there

SECTION 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence of evidence. — A motion to

postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence has been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits the facts to be given in evidence, even if he objects or reserves the right to object to their admissibility, the trial shall not be postponed. (4a, R22) (Corrected by Bar Matter No. 803, Resolution of the Supreme Court dated July 21, 1998)

SECTION 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or counsel. — A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a party or counsel may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character of his illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable. (5a, R22)


are other important aspects of the pre-trail that ought to be taken up to expedite the disposition of the case.

8. What must be done during pre-trial conference?

A: During pre-trial conference, the following shall be done:

a. The judge with all tact, patience and impartiality shall endeavor to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute; if no amicable settlement is reached, then he must effectively direct the parties toward the achievement of the other objectives or goals of pre-trail set forth in Section 2 Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

b. If warranted by the disclosures at the pre-trial, the judge may either forthwith dismiss the action, or determine the propriety of rendering a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment.

c. The judge shall define the factual issues arising from the pleadings and endeavor to cull the material issues.

d. If only legal issues are presented, the judge shall require the parties to submit their respective memoranda and thereafter render judgment.

e. If trial is necessary, the judge shall fix the trial dates required to complete presentation of evidence by both parties within ninety (90) days from the date of initial hearing.

9. What must the judge do after the pre-trial conference?

A: The judge should not fail to prepare and issue the requisite pre-trial order, which shall embody the matters mentioned in Sec. 7, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

10. What are the causes for dismissal of the action?

A: Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial shall be a cause for dismissal of the action. A similar failure of the defendant shall be a cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.

Failure to file pre-trial briefs shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

11. How many cases may be scheduled for trial per day?

A: Unless the docket of the court requires otherwise, not more than four (4) cases shall be scheduled for trial daily.


12. How should the judge conduct trial?

A: The judge shall conduct trial with utmost dispatch, with judicious exercise of the court’s power to control trial proceedings to avoid delay.

The judge must take notes of the material and relevant testimonies of witnesses to facilitate his decision making.

13. How long should trial be determined?

A: The trial shall be determined within ninety (90) days from initial hearing. Appropriate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on the judge and the lawyers for failure to comply with this requirement due to causes attributable to them.

14. When may the judge allow additional trial dates?

A: Each party is bound to complete the presentation of his evidence within the trial dates assigned to him. After the lapse of said dates, the party is deemed to have completed the presentation of evidence. However, upon verified motion based on compelling reasons, the judge may allow a party additional trial dates in the afternoon; provided that said extension will not go beyond the three-month limit computed from the first trial date except when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.

15. What must the judge do to keep track of cases?

A: As a constant reminder of what cases must be decided or resolved, the judge must keep a calendar of cases submitted for decision, noting therein the exact day, month and year when the 90-day period is to expire. As soon as a case is submitted for decision, it must be noted in the calendar of the judge; moreover, the records shall be duly collected with the exhibits and the transcripts of stenographic notes, as well as the trial notes of the judge, and placed in the judge's chamber.

16. When are decisions promulgated?

A: The date of the promulgation of the decision should be set within ninety (90) days from the submission of the case for decision.


B. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 58-2002 19

1. What is mandated under Administrative Circular No. 58-2002?

A: This Circular requires the speedy disposition of cases of all persons before judicial bodies, as mandated by the Constitution. It also gives priority to cases involving tourists, whose stay in the country is temporary or for a short time only.

2. What measures has the Supreme Court undertaken for the speedy disposition of cases?

A: The Supreme Court has adopted the following measures:

(a) The reopening/revival of night courts in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila “to try and decide all special cases enumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure” under Administrative Order No. 72 dated 30 June 1988; and

(b) The opening of two branches of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City as night courts to be assigned “cases involving nighttime apprehensions” and “special cases enumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure” under the Resolution of 2 October 1990 in A.M. No. 90-9-1437-MeTC.20

Note - Administrative Circular No. 2-99 dated 15 January 1999 also requires (1) judges, assisted by a skeletal force of personnel, to be on duty, on rotation basis, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays to act on petitions for bail and other urgent matters, as well as to act on bailable offenses on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and non-working holidays; and (2) court offices and units that deal directly with the public to provide for a skeletal force of personnel from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays.

3. What measures has the Supreme Court undertaken for the speedy disposition of cases?

A: Pursuant to the Resolution of 10 September 2002 in A.M. No. 02-8-12-SC,21 the Supreme Court directs that:

1. Criminal cases where the offended party or complainant is a tourist or transient in this country shall be given priority in disposition in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and decided within twenty-four (24) hours from the date of filing in court,

2. All Executive Judges are directed to inform the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Prosecutor’s Office of the provisions of Administrative Circular

19 Issued November 14, 2002 20

Re Request for the Opening of Two Branches of the Metropolitan Trial Court to Conduct

Night Sessions 21

Re: In the Matter of the Creation of Night Courts or Special Tourist Courts Exclusively to

Attend to Tourist-Related Crimes


No. 2-99 dated 15 January 1999, specifically the assignment of judges on duty every Saturday and the court’s duty to act on bailable Offenses on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and non-working holidays; and

3. The Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City shall (a) inform the PNP and the Prosecutor’s Office within their jurisdiction of the schedule of the branches of the first level courts assigned to hold night sessions; and (b) make representations with the PNP and local government units to ensure that appropriate security measures are adopted to protect judges and their staff on night sessions.

C. RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE CASES (October 10, 2003)

1. What do the rules mandate as to the trial of child abuse cases?

A: Section 21 of Implementing Rules and Regulations 10-1993 provides that the trial of child abuse cases shall take precedence over all other cases before the courts, except election and habeas corpus cases.

2. When does trial commence for child abuse cases?

A: Trial in child abuse cases shall commence within three (3) days from the date the accused is arraigned. No postponement of the initial hearing is granted except for illness of the accused or other grounds beyond his control.


IV. STAGES IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS

Filing of Complaint before the Fiscal’s office for Preliminary Investigation, or no Preliminary Investigation

Filing of Complaint or Information

The accused must be arraigned within thirty (30) days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over the

person of the accused.

Thirty (30) days after parties’ receipt of the pre-trial order, trial shall commence, but parties are given 15

days to prepare for trial.

After the arraignment, the court shall order a pre-trial.

Trial is terminated within 180 days from initial trial.

Within ten (10) days from filing of Complaint or Information, warrant of arrest or commitment order may issue

Within ninety (90) days from termination of trial, judgment shall be rendered/promulgated.

Preliminary Investigation


A. Preliminary Investigation

1. When required

Preliminary Investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of an information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine.22

There is no right of preliminary investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant unless there is a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.23

2. Procedure The complaint is filed accompanied by the affidavits and supporting documents. Within ten (10) days after the filing, the investigating officer shall either dismiss or issue subpoena. If subpoena is issued, the respondent shall submit a counter-affidavit and other supporting documents within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Hearing, if any, shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of counter-affidavits or from the expiration of the period of their submission.24 The investigating prosecutor shall then prepare the resolution and information.25

B. Filing of Complaint or Information

1. Procedure

For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, the complaint is filed with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.26 Except as provided in section 7 of Rule 112, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint of information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.27

For all other offenses, the complaint or information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or with the office of the

22 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 112, Section 1, 23

Id., Id., Sec.7, now Section 6 under A.M. 05-8-26-SC.

24

Id.,

Id., Sec. 3.

25

Id.,

Id. , Sec.4.

26

Id., Rule 110,

Sec. 1.

27

Id., Rule 112, Sec. 1.


prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the public prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters.28

The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.29

2. Causes of delay after receipt of the information and before arraignment, and remedies therefor

When a judge receives the Information, he has ten (10) days to act on the Information. If he does not find the existence of probable cause, he can immediately dismiss the case for lack of probable cause. This dismissal is without prejudice. If, however, he finds th e existence of probable cause, the judge should issue an order finding probable cause and issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest against the accused. Thus, if an accused then files a motion for judicial determination of probable cause, the judge can deny the motion outrightly because he has already issued an order whereby he determined the existence of probable cause.

Under DOJ Circular No. 70, 30 an aggrieved party may appeal the resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice by filing a verified petition for review. The Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition outrightly if he finds it to be patently without merit or manifestly intended for delay, or when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed

resolution, the petition shall not be given due course if the accused had already been arraigned. Any arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising his power of review.31

Unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise, the appeal shall not hold

the filing of the corresponding information in court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution. The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that, pending resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court are held in abeyance.32

If the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary to reinvestigate the case, the

reinvestigation shall be held by the investigating prosecutor, unless, for

28

Id., Rule 110, Sec. 1.

29

Id. 30 Dated July 3, 2000 (2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal).

31 DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 7 32

Id., Section 9


compelling reasons, another public prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.33

The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of the grounds stated in Section 12.34

The accused may file a motion for preliminary investigation within five (5) days from knowledge of filing of the Information. However, where the accused files a motion for preliminary investigation and the judge finds from the records that the former was given the chance to present countervailing evidence, the judge should deny the motion.

The accused may also file a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation. Where a motion for reconsideration was filed with the prosecutor but the same was left unresolved and the case was filed in court, the judge may deny the motion considering that he has already acquired jurisdiction over the case and has the discretion whether or not to suspend proceedings until the public prosecutor resolves the motion for reconsideration.

When a motion for reinvestigation is filed by the accused, the judge should determine first whether the accused was afforded a regular preliminary investigation. If a preliminary investigation was conducted and the accused had the opportunity to file his counter-affidavit and he would raise no new matters of evidence or defense, the motion for reinvestigation should be denied. If, however, there was no preliminary investigation or that the same was incomplete, jurisprudence has held that the judge should first allow a preliminary investigation and suspend the proceedings.

Since the absence of a preliminary investigation does not invalidate an information already filed in court and the judge has the discretion to deny a motion for reinvestigation when the accused was not given a preliminary investigation or when the preliminary investigation is not complete, it is part of due process to allow preliminary investigation or reinvestigation as a matter of due process. The judge should consider al so that if the reinvestigation would only delay the proceedings and defense counsel believes that his client has a good defense or that the evidence against his client is weak, the judge can order trial to proceed.

If there is a motion to withdraw the Information, the judge must determine if grounds exist to allow the motion. The preliminary investigation conducted by the public prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. While it is true that the

33

Id., Section 11

34

Id., Section 12


public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court, whatever disposition the public prosecutor may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court once the case had already been brought to Court.35

The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, or the right of the People to due process of law. Thus, the Court, once it has acquired jurisdiction over the case, has the discretion whether or not to allow the withdrawal of the information.

The accused may also file a motion for determination of prejudicial question. It is up to the judge to determine whether there exists a prejudicial question that may warrant a suspension of the proceedings under Section 6, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures. The elements of a prejudicial question as provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are, to wit: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Where the accused does not get a favorable resolution from the Court, or his motions are denied, he may file a petition for certiorari and then ask for a suspension of the proceedings to enable him to avail of his remedy under Rule 65.

Rule 65 allows a 60-day period fr om notice of the judgment, order or resolution, or from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, to file a petition for certiorari if the subject matter is an interlocutory order that does not dispose of the case.

Suppose, the accused files a petition for certiorari on the 15th day from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration and then pleads that he was still entitled to the full 60-day period during which the trial court should suspend its proceedings. What can the trial judge do? Under Section 7, Rule 65, as amended,36 the mere filing of the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued by the higher court where the petition is filed, enjoining the trial judge from further proceeding with the case. The same rule mandates the trial judge to proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of respondent trial judge to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.

35 See Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987) 36 A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 4, 2007.


Under Section 8, Rule 65,37 disciplinary actions may now be taken against patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. The lawyer and the party represented by the lawyer may be required to pay solidarily triple judicial cost. The lawyer may also be subjected to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and other disciplinary actions based on res ipsa loquitur.38

C. Arraignment

1. Procedure

The accused must be arraigned before the court where the Complaint or Information is filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment is made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the Complaint or Information, reading it in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The Prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the Complaint or Information.

The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his/her plea. Both arraignment and plea are made of record, but failure to do so does not affect the validity of the proceedings.39

Before the reading of the Information, the court should inform the accused who is not assisted by counsel de officio of his/her right to counsel and inquire from him/her if he/she desires to engage his/her own counsel. Unless the accused is allowed to defend in person (pro se), and the accused is amenable to a counsel de officio, the court should appoint a competent and responsible counsel de officio for him/her.40

37 Rule 65. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

SECTION 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. — After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If, after such hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to which the petitioner is entitled.

However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the Rules of Court.

The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious petitions for certiorari. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 4, 2007) 38 Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys. 39 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 116, Sec.1. 40

Id. Sec.6.


A counsel de officio appointed to defend the accused at the arraignment shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his/her plea before proceeding with the arraignment.41

2. Plea bargaining

At arraignment, the accused may be allowed by the trial court, with the consent of the offended party and the public prosecutor, to plead guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense after withdrawing his/her plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. 42

If the accused is under preventive detention, the pre-trial conference of the case is held within ten (10) days after arraignment.43

In other cases, the arraignment is held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment is excluded in computing the period.44

There is no plea bargaining in pros ecutions involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.45

In prosecutions involving violat ions of B.P. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law), the complainant cannot file a separate civil action to recover civil liability, but there can be a compromise as to the civil liability.

According to People v. Macalalag,46 the accused’s subsequent payment of the amount of the check during the pendency of the cases will not free him/her from criminal liability that already attached upon dishonor of the check. Such subsequent payments only affect the civil, not criminal, liability. A subsequent payment by the accused would not obliterate the criminal liability theretofore already incurred.

41

Id. Sec.8.

42 SC Circular No. 38-98, Sec. 4. 43 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 116, Sec.1(e). 44 SC Circular No. 38-98, Sec. 2. 45 Section 90, R.A. No. 9165. 46 G.R. No. 164358, December 20, 2006.


3. Causes of delay during arraignment and remedies therefor

When the accused files a motion to quash prior to arraignment, the judge must not immediately suspend the proceedings. He must first determine the grounds for such motion. The accused cannot use a ground that cannot be read in the Information because the bottomline is that when a motion to quash is filed, the allegations in the information are deemed hypothetically admitted. Where the ground invoked by the accused in the motion to quash is not one of the grounds under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the judge may outrightly deny the motion for lack of merit and proceed with the arraignment.

If the ground relied upon in the motion to quash is based on the alleged defect in the information or complaint that can be cured by amendment, the judge should order the amendment of the complaint or information,47 after which he can set the arraignment.

Before arraignment, the accused may move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.48 If the judge finds that the allegations of the information are sufficient in form and substance and that the accused can enter an intelligent plea without prejudicing his rights, or that the matters raised in the motion for bill of particulars are evidentiary in nature, the judge can deny the motion and proceed with the arraignment.

Where the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental

condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently to the charge, the court shall order the mental examination of the accused and, if necessary, the confinement of the accused. Consequently, the trial judge shall suspend the arraignment until such time that the mental condition of the accused is determined.49

Where the accused moves for the suspension of the arraignment on the

ground that he has not secured the services of counsel, the court may reset the arraignment and give the accused time to secure a counsel of his/her own choice. If, at the next setting, the accused still has not secured the services of counsel, then the court should appoint a counsel de officio for the accused for purposes of the arraignment in order not to unduly delay the proceedings.

The appointment of a counsel de officio for the accused for purposes of

arraignment also applies where a counsel has entered his appearance for an

47 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 4 48

Id., Rule 116, Section 9

49

Id., Id., Section 11


accused and was, in fact, duly notified of the date of arraignment but fails to appear to assist his client.

D. Pre-Trial

1. When mandatory

Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.50

2. Remedies to avoid delay

It is suggested that the judge should include in his order of arraignment a flow chart of the trial of the case. After arraignment has been set, the judge marks 2 dates for the preliminary conference, as well as pre-trial, then sets the dates when the Prosecution is to present and terminate its evidence and the dates when the accused should present and terminate his/her evidence.

The judge can already determine from the Information how many trial dates may be needed. In so doing, he can control the flow of trial and when the case may be submitted for decision.

Pre-trial should be held within a month or 30 days from the arraignment while the preliminary conference is held at least 3 days before pre-trial. Then, after pre-trial, the judge can probably set 8 trial dates which will not exceed two months.

The judge can expedite cases by par ticipating actively and requiring the parties to enter into stipulations or admissions. Among the purposes of pre-trial is the admission of the due execution and authenticity of relevant documents in order to do away with the time-consuming process of authenticating relevant documents during the trial.

In People vs. Judge Tac-an,51 the Supreme Court held that the absence during the pre-trial of any Prosecution witness listed in the Information, whether or not such witness is the offended party or the complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of the criminal action. Although pre-trial is mandatory in a criminal case under Section 2, Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998), the presence in court of the private complainant or the complainant during pre-trial is not required. Even the presence of the accused during pre-trial is not required, unless the court has ordered the accused to

50 Section 3, Circular No. 38-98. 51 G. R. No. 148000, February 27, 2003.


appear. It is enough that the accused is represented by counsel. Accordingly, even if none of the State’s witnesses appear, pre-trial should proceed. The public prosecutor is vested with the authority to consider the matters catalogued in Sec. 2, R. A. 8493.

E. Trial

1. Periods to be observed for trial

a. Length of Trial – In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except when otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.52

b. Preparation for Trial – Where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused has at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from arraignment as fixed by the court.53

c. Time limit following an order for new trial – Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but in any case the extension shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from passage of time shall make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.54

d. Extended time limit given for trial – For the first twelve-calendar-month

period following the effectivity of R.A. No. 8493, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial was one hundred eighty (180) days; for the second twelve-month period, the time limit was one hundred twenty (120) days; and for the third twelve-month period, the time limit with was eighty (80) days.55

2. Causes of delay and remedies therefor

The filing of a motion to discharge the accused as state witness does not suspend the proceedings because it does affect the evidence of the Prosecution. Hence, under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of

52 Section 6, R.A. No. 8493. 53 Section 7, R.A. No. 8493. 54 Section 8, R.A. No. 8493. 55 Section 9, R.A. No. 8493.


Criminal Procedure, the judge has the discretion whether or not to grant the motion to discharge.

The denial or grant of bail does not stop the trial because the denial or grant of bail does not affect the main case. Proceedings on petitions for bail filed by the accused do not suspend the trial, for, in fact, the evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, subject to the right of either party, upon motion, to recall any witness for additional examination (unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify).56

After the Prosecution rests its case , the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the Prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.57 When a motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence is filed, the first thing that the judge has to determine is whether the motion is filed within the mandatory non-extendible 5-day period after the Prosecution has rested its case.58 If not, the judge can then deny the motion for leave at once. If the motion is filed within the 5-day period, the judge must then look into the ground or grounds relied upon by the accused. If the ground or grounds are not meritorious, or if, upon its assessment, the court finds that the demurer to evidence does not warrant the acquittal of the accused, then the judge should deny the motion for leave.

Should the judge deny the motion for leave of court, the accused has no remedy except to present his/her evidence. He/She cannot file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because a denial of a demurrer to evidence cannot be the subject matter of a petition for certiorari considering that there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the accused, that is, to present his/her evidence.59

During trial, an accused may fail to appear despite due notice. Where the accused is duly notified and required by the court to appear but fails to do so, the court may order the accused and/or the bonding company to explain why the bailbond should not be forfeited. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the court can order the cancellation of the bailbond and render judgment on the bond. The court can then consider the accused to have waived the right to present evidence or to cross-examine the Prosecution’s witnesses and proceed to render its judgment.

56 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 8. 57 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 119, Section 23. 58

Id.

59

Id.; note that Sec. 23 now expressly provides in its last paragraph that: “The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.”


If, during trial, the accused appears without counsel who is duly notified of the hearing or if counsel fails to appear without justification, the remedy is not to suspend the proceedings to another date but to continue with the trial, with the court appointing a counsel de officio for the accused for purposes of trial provided that such appointment does not prejudice the defense of the accused. The court can then cite counsel de parte for contempt of court or render a fine for said counsel’s failure to appear despite due notice.

If, during trial, an accused appears without counsel because he/she still has not secured one or he/she cannot afford private counsel, the court should appoint a counsel de officio from the Public Attorney’s Office or from the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

After presentation of evidence, a party is required to make an offer of evidence pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Testimonial evidence is offered at the time the witness is called to testify.60 On the other hand, documentary evidence and object evidence are offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. To expedite proceedings, the judge must require the formal offer of documentary evidence and object evidence to be done orally pursuant to Section 35, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, unless they are so voluminous that it is not practical to make an oral offer of them. Objections to the evidence formally offered must also be done orally immediately after the offer is made.61

F. Promulgation of judgment

1. Procedure

Judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it is rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.

62

If the accused is confined or detai ned in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court rendering the judgment.63

60 Section 35, Rule 132, Rules of Court 61 Section 36, Rule 132, Rules of Court. 62 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 120, Sec. 6. 63 Id.


2. Remedies

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear at the promulgation is without justifiable cause, the accused loses the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of said remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.64

If the court renders a judgment of conviction and accused appears without counsel or if counsel fails to appear despite due notice, the court need not reset the promulgation and should instead appoint a counsel de officio for purposes of promulgation.

In case the accused fails to appear during promulgation despite due notice but his counsel is present, judgment is promulgated by recording it in the criminal docket of the court and with the Clerk of Court who shall enter the judgment in the judgment book and furnish copy of the judgment to counsel.65

V. RULES OF PROCEDURE IN DI FFERENT COURTS RELATIVE TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

A. COURT OF APPEALS

2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS66

Pursuant to Section 12 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129), as amended, the Court of Appeals hereby adopts and promulgates these rules governing its internal operating procedures. These rules shall be known and may be cited as the 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (IRCA).

RULE I

THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS

SECTION. 1. Composition of the Court of Appeals. Unless otherwise provided by law, the Court of Appeals is composed of a Presiding Justice and sixty eight (68)

64 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 120, Sec. 6, last paragraph. 65 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 120, Sec. 6, fourth paragraph. 66 Effective February 28, 2005.


Associate Justices. It shall sit en banc, or in twenty-three (23) Divisions of three (3) Justices each. The members of the Court are classified into three groups according to the order of their seniority. The first twenty-three most senior members, including the Presiding Justice, shall be Chairmen of the twenty-three Divisions in consecutive numerical sequence. The next twenty-three members shall be the senior members of the Divisions, while the rest shall be the junior members. (Sec. 1, Rule 1, RIRCA [a])

Until the full implementation of Republic Act No. 8246, the Court shall sit in seventeen (17) Divisions of three (3) justices each in Manila, as presently constituted.

When a senior member is designated to act as Chairman of a Division, he shall be an “Acting Chairman”. In like manner, a junior member designated to act as senior member of a Division shall be an “Acting Senior Member”. (Sec. 5 [c], Rule 1, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 2. Station and Place of Holding Sessions. —

(a) Upon full implementation of Republic Act No. 8246, the Court shall have its permanent stations as follows: the first seventeen (17) Divisions shall be in the City of Manila for cases coming from the National Capital Judicial Region and the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Judicial Regions; the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth Divisions shall be in Cebu City for cases coming from the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Judicial Regions; and the twenty-first, twenty-second and twenty-third Divisions shall be in Cagayan de Oro City for cases coming from the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Regions.

(b) Whenever demanded by public interest, or whenever justified by an increase

in case load, the Supreme Court, upon its own initiative or upon recommendation of the Presiding Justice, may authorize any division of the Court to hold sessions periodically, or for such periods and at such places as the Supreme Court may determine, for the purpose of hearing and deciding cases. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8246)

SEC. 3. Exercise of Powers and Functions. — The Court of Appeals shall

exercise its adjudicative powers, functions and duties through its Divisions. It sits en banc in the exercise of administrative, ceremonial and non-adjudicative functions. (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 6. Division of the Court. — A Division of the Court shall be presided by the Chairman or, in his absence, by the senior member thereof. If the substitute member is the most senior, he shall be the Acting Chairman. (Sec. 3, Rule 1, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 8. Jurisdiction and Manner of Exercise of Adjudicative Powers of the Court

by Divisions. — The Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided for by law.


In the exercise and discharge of the adjudicative powers, functions and duties of the Court, the Divisions shall hold consultations. (Sec. 3, Rule 2 RIRCA [a])

SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. —

(a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by him in writing.

xxx

In the exigencies of the service, the Presiding Justice may temporarily assign any Associate Justice to any station, or defer the reorganization of the Divisions.

(b) Should appointments to the Court require the creation of a new Division or Divisions, the most ranking senior members shall be the Chairman or Chairmen of such new Division or Divisions, and the resulting vacancies in the senior membership shall be filled by the most ranking junior members, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.. The new appointees shall be assigned to the resulting vacancies as junior members. (Sec. 5[a], Rule 1, RIRCA)

(c) A permanent vacancy in the ranks of junior members shall be filled by the

most junior member as acting junior member of the Division where the vacancy exists pending reorganization of the Divisions, in addition to his duties as regular member of his current Division. (Sec. 5, Rule 1, RIRCA [a])

(d) When the members of a Division fail to reach a unanimous vote, its Chairman

shall direct the Raffle Committee to designate by raffle two (2) additional members to constitute a Special Division of Five. In the selection of the additional members, the rule on equal assignment shall be observed. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, RIRCA [a])

RULE II

RULE ON PRECEDENCE AND PROTOCOL

SEC. 5. Conduct of Hearing in Divisions . - The Chairman controls the proceedings during the hearing. He shall rule on all moti ons and objections interposed therein in consultation with the members. He may, however, yield the conduct of the proceedings to any member who shall exercise the powers of the Chairman. (n)

SEC. 6. Attendance of Justices in Hearings. — Except where a hearing to receive the

evidence of the parties is referred by a Division to one of its members, the members of a Division shall be present at all hearings of the Division, otherwise the hearings shall


be postponed. Unexplained or unjustified absence shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

RULE IV

PROCESSING OF CASES AND ACTION ON INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS

SEC. 1. Procedure in the Disposition of Pleadings, Motions and Other Papers. –

(a) Within two (2) working days, all pleadings, motions and other papers filed with the Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Division shall be entered in the docket book, stitched

to

the rollo of the case, paged consecutively and then forwarded to the Division Clerk of Court concerned.

(b) If the Division Clerk of Court has no authority to act on such pleadings, motions and other papers, he shall prepare the agenda and submit the same to the Division, thru the Justice concerned, within three (3) working days from receipt in his office of the rollo, together with the pleadings, motions or other papers.

(c) The Division Clerk of Court shall state in the agenda, with page references, the antecedents of the case which are necessary for an understanding thereof, a synopsis of the motion or incident and the opposition thereto, if any, the issues involved and his remarks or recommendations. (Rule 3, Sec. 12, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 2. Action by the Presiding Justice or Executive Justice. – When a petition involves an urgent matter, such as an application for writ of habeas corpus or temporary restraining order, and there is no way of convening the Raffle Committee or calling any of its members, the Presiding Justice or the Executive Justice, as the case may be, or in their absence, the most senior Justice present, may conduct the raffle or act on the petition, subject to raffle on the next working day in accordance with Rule III hereof. (n)

SEC. 4. Processing of Ordinary Appeals. –

(a) In Civil Cases. –

(1) Upon receipt of the original record, whether by personal delivery or by mail, the Civil Cases Section of the Judicial Records Division shall immediately:

(1.1) Check proof of payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees and deposits for costs to the clerk of court of the court which rendered the appealed judgment or order;

(1.2) Check if all the documents and papers required under the Rules of Court have been transmitted, prepare the corresponding rollo, docket the case and assign the corresponding CA-G.R. CV number;


(1.3) Submit the case to the raffle staff for inclusion in the list of cases for raffle;

(1.4) After the raffle, report to the Division Clerk of Court concerned the lacking portions of the records for appropriate action, if the records transmitted are incomplete;

(1.5) Write the branch clerk of the court which rendered the appealed judgment or order, copy furnished the appellant, if the incomplete record is received by mail without explanation for its incompleteness, for him to get the records personally from the Court or submit the missing parts of the records; and

(1.6) Within ten (10) days from completion of the records, issue a notice to file appellant’s brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof. The notice shall require that a certified true copy of the appealed decision or order be appended to the brief. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, RIRCA [a])

(2) If the records are being transmitted personally, the Civil Cases Section shall immediately examine the same in the presence of the filer and, if incomplete, issue a list of the missing portions.

(3) If the transcript of stenographic notes are incomplete , the Civil Cases Section

shall send a notice to the stenographic reporter concerned to submit the missing transcripts within thirty (30) days from notice. A notice shall also be issued to the appellant’s counsel with a warning that failure on his part to take the necessary steps to complete the transcripts within thirty (30) days from notice may result in the dismissal of the appeal. (Rule 4, Sec. 2, RIRCA [a])

(4) Issuance of Notices. – All notices mentioned in this Rule shall be issued in

the name of the Clerk of Court by the Division Clerk of Court or the Chief, Judicial Records Division. (Sec. 3, Rule 4, RIRCA)

(5) When Case Deemed Submitted. – After the briefs have been filed or the

period for their filing has expired, the Judicial Records Division shall immediately forward the rollo to the Division Clerk of Court with a certification that the records of the case are complete. The Division Clerk of Court shall then report to the Division that the case may be deemed submitted for decision. (n)

(b) In Criminal Cases. –

The original records of criminal cases shall be processed by the Criminal Cases

Section in accordance with this Section, insofar as applicable, and assigned a corresponding CA-G.R. CR number. (Rule 5, Sec. 2, RIRCA [a])


(1) Docket and Other Lawful Fees and Deposit for Costs. – No payment of

docket and other lawful fees, and deposit for costs shall be required in criminal cases except in petitions for review of criminal cases and appeals from confiscation or forfeiture of bail bonds. (Rule 5, Sec. 3, RIRCA [a])

(2)

Appeals from Confiscation of Bond. –

Appeals from orders of confiscation or

forfeiture of bail bonds shall be treated as appeals in civil cases. The green-colored rollo cover for civil cases shall be used over the cream-colored cover for criminal cases. The case shall be re-captioned “Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, versus (the name of the bondsman/surety), defendant-appellant”. (Rule 5, Sec. 7, RIRCA)

(3) Appeals from Contempt of Court. – Appeals from orders finding a person in indirect contempt of court shall be treated as appeals in criminal cases. [n]

SEC. 5. Processing of Petitions for Review and Original Actions. -

(a) The petition shall be accompanied by an amount sufficient to cover payment of the prescribed docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs, unless the petitioner is exempt from such payment and deposit. (Rule 6, Sec. 1, RIRCA [a])

(b) Upon filing of the petition and payment of the docket and other lawful fees as well as the deposit for costs, the Special Cases Section shall prepare the rollo, record the same in the docket book for special cases and then assign the corresponding CA-G.R. SP number. Upon payment of the full docket fee, the Special Cases Section shall assign the petition a docket number, otherwise a UDK-SP number. A notation of the payment or non-payment of the other lawful fee and deposit for costs or the insufficiency thereof shall be made by the Special Cases Section on the first page of the rollo. The rollo shall then be forwarded to the Raffle Staff for assignment to a Justice for appropriate action. The Special Cases Section, through the Division Clerk of Court, shall likewise make a simultaneous report to the Justice concerned of the non-payment of the docket fee and other lawful fees and deposit for costs or the insufficiency thereof. (Rule 6, Sec. 1[b] RIRCA [a])

(c) Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Quo Warranto. - The provisions of Rule

46 as far as applicable, Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of Court shall govern petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and petitions for quo warranto, respectively. (n)

(d) Habeas corpus. - The provisions of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court shall

govern petitions for habeas corpus. (n)


Rule VI

PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION

SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. – Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. – In the determination of the two other Justices who shall participate in the adjudication of cases, the following shall be observed:

(a) The case shall be the subject of consultation among the members of the Division;

(b) If the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report is disqualified, his replacement shall be chosen by raffle from among the Justices in the same station;

(c) If one or both of the other members of the Division is/are on leave of absence, disqualified, transferred or no longer members of the Court, his/their replacement shall be chosen by raffle from among the Justices in the same station. The Division shall be called Special (No.) Division;

(d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or

proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station.

(e) If only one member of the Division who participated in any of the actions or

proceedings mentioned in the preceding paragraph remains, the Raffle Committee shall automatically assign the case to him;

(f) In situations under paragraph (d) hereof, and if the ponente is no longer a

member of the Court or has transferred to another station but at least one member of his Division remains, the Division Clerk of Court of the former shall request the Raffle Committee for substitution of said ponente. However, if all the members of said Division are no longer with the Court or in the same station, the Judicial Records Division shall make said request. (n)

(g) Where the composition of a Division which decided a case has changed, the Division which shall subsequently act on the case shall be called the Former (No.) Division; and (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])


SEC. 3. Power of the Court to Receive Evidence. —

The Court may receive evidence in the following cases:

(a) In actions falling within its original jurisdiction, such as: (1) certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rules 46 and 65 of the Rules of Court; (2) action for annulment of judgment or final order under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court; (3) quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court; and (4) habeas corpus under Sections 2 and 12, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court;

(b) In appeals in civil cases where the court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court;

(c) In appeals in criminal cases where the court grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court; and

(d) In appeals involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies.

Sec. 4. Hearing on Preliminary Injunction . — The requirement of a hearing on an application for preliminary injunction is satisfied with the issuance by the Court of a resolution served upon the party sought to be enjoined requiring him to comment on said application within a period of not more than ten (10) days from notice. Said party may attach to his comment documents which may show why the application for preliminary injunction should be denied. The Court may require the party seeking the injunctive relief to file his reply to the comment within five (5) days from receipt of the latter.

If the party sought to be enjoined fails to file his comment as provided for in the

preceding paragraph, the Court may resolve the application on the basis of the petition and its annexes.

The preceding paragraphs, notwithstanding, the Court may, in its sound

discretion, set the application for a preliminary injunction for hearing during which the parties may present their respective positions or submit evidence in support thereof. (n)

SEC. 5. Action by a Justice. — All members of the Division shall act upon an application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. However, if the matter is of extreme urgency, and a Justice is absent, the two other justices shall act upon the application. If only the ponente is present, then he shall act alone upon the application. The action of the two Justices or of the ponente shall however be submitted on the next working day to the absent member or members of the Division for ratification, modification or recall.

SEC. 6. Judicial Action on Certain Petitions. — (a) In petitions for review, after the receipt of the respondent’s comment on the petition, or if no comment is filed upon the


expiration of the time to file it, the Court may dismiss the petit ion if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration, otherwise, it shall give due course to it.

Before a petition is given due course, the Court shall not require the court a quo or quasi-judicial agency to elevate the original records of the case. The Court, however, may require the court a quo or quasi-judicial agency to supply it with copies of relevant pleadings and documents which the Court needs in acting upon the petition at that stage of the proceedings.

If the petition is given due course, the Court may consider the case submitted for decision or require the parties to submit their memoranda or set the case for oral argument. The Court may require the court a quo or quasi-judicial agency to elevate the records of the case. After the oral argument or upon submission of the memoranda or upon the expiration of the time to file it, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision.

(b) In petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus , the provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court shall apply. (n)

SEC. 7. The Justices Who Shall Act on Motions. –

(a) If during the completion-of-record stage in both appealed civil and criminal cases, there is no unanimous concurrence of the members of the Division on the resolution disposing of an interlocutory matter and a Division of Five is constituted, the latter shall act on said matter only up to the resolution of a motion for reconsideration thereof. The adjudication on the merits of the appeal shall be made by the current members of the Division of the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report.

(b) A motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution shall be acted

upon by the ponente and the other members of the Division, whether of three or five, and whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, irrespective of whether such members are already in other Divisions at the time the motion for reconsideration is filed or acted upon, provided that they are still in the same station; otherwise Sec. 2, Rule VI shall apply.

(c) If the ponente is no longer a member of the Court or has inhibited himself from acting on the motion or has transferred to another station, he shall be replaced by another Justice who shall be chosen by raffle from among the remaining members of the Division in the same station, whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution, and the resulting vacancy therein shall be filled by raffle from among the other Justices in the same station.


If only one member of the Division, whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution, remains, the motion shall be sent to him by the Raffle Committee and he shall act thereon with the participation of the other members of his Division.

(d) If the ponente and all the members of the Division, whether regular or acting, who rendered the decision or resolution are no longer members of the Court or no longer in the same station, the case shall be raffled to any Justice in the same station

and the motion shall be acted upon by him with the participation of the other members of his Division.

SEC. 8. Priorities in Adjudication of Cases. – Subject to existing laws and as far as

practicable, cases shall be adjudicated in accordance with the following priorities:

(a) In Civil Cases. – (1) Those where temporary restraining orders, writs of preliminary injunction or

execution pending appeal or other auxiliary writs were issued; (2) Those involving a prejudicial question; and (3) The oldest cases submitted for decision.

(b) In Criminal Cases. – (1) Those where the accused is detained; (2) Those where the Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of the accused;

and (3) The oldest cases submitted for decision.

(c) In Original Actions and Petitions for Review. – (1) Habeas corpus cases; (2) Agrarian cases; (3) Original petitions where injunctive reliefs have been granted; and (4) Petitions for review which have been pending in the Court for a long time.

(Sec. 3, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 9. Study, Report and Deliberation on the Case. –

The Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report shall submit a

written report thereon to the other members of his Division for consultation. The Chairman of the Division shall include the case in an agenda for a meeting of the Division for its deliberation. After such deliberation, if the other members agree with the report, the ponente shall write the decision for signature and immediate promulgation. Minutes of the meeting shall be kept. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 10. Procedure in Case of Dissent. - When the unanimous vote of the members of the Division cannot be attained, the following shall be observed:


(a) Within fifteen (15) days from the date of the deliberation, the dissenting Justice shall furnish a copy of his written dissent to the two other members of his Division. The written dissenting opinion shall not be attached to the rollo. The Chairman of the Division shall then in writing refer the case, together with the rollo, to the Raffle Committee which shall designate two Justices by raffle from among the Justices in the same station

to sit temporarily with them, forming a Special Division of Five.

However, for compelling reasons, the Chairman, without awaiting the written dissenting opinion, may forthwith request the Raffle Committee to designate by raffle the two additional members. The dissenting Justice, however, shall submit his written dissenting opinion to all members of the Special Division of Five within ten (10) days from its constitution.

(b) The Special Division of Five shall retain the case until its final disposition regardless of reorganization provided that all the members thereof remain in the same station. Any member of the Division of Five may write a separate concurring or dissenting opinion. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

(c) After a member of the Division has expressed his dissent in writing and the Special Division of Five is thus constituted, it shall retain the case until its final disposition despite changes in its membership caused by reorganization or other causes, provided that they remain in the same station. (Supreme Court Resolution dated May 25, 1993)

(d) The concurrence of a majority shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a

decision or resolution of the Special Division of Five. The most senior among the five members shall be the Chairman.

(e) After due consultation, the members of the Special Division of Five whose

opinions constitute the majority shall choose from among them the ponente.

(f) Any member of the Special Division of Five may write a separate concurring or dissenting opinion which, together with the majority opinion, shall be promulgated and attached to the rollo. (n)

(g) If the consultation in the Special Division of Five results in a unanimous

concurrence, all its members shall sign the decision or resolution.

SEC. 11. Certification —

Every decision shall be accompanied by a certification signed by the Chairman or the most senior member as the Acting Chairman of the Division in the following form:


“CERTIFICATION

“Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.” (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 12. Resolutions . –

Any disposition other than on the merits shall be embodied in a resolution. (Sec. 6, Rule 8, RIRCA) Any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Division shall be denominated as “ Amended Decision.” (n)

SEC. 13. Promulgation of Decisions and Resolutions. — Promulgation of decisions and resolutions shall be the direct responsibility of the Division Clerk of Court.

(a) Promulgation is made by filing the decision or resolution with the Division Clerk of Court who shall forthwith annotate the date and time thereof and attest to it by his signature thereon.

(b) The Division Clerk of Court shall record in the Promulgation Book the docket number, title of the case, the ponente and other members, nature of the document (whether decision or resolution), and the action taken by the Division. The Promulgation Book shall be under his care and custody.

(c) Within one working day from promulgation of a decision or resolution, the

Division Clerk of Court shall send notices and copies thereof in sealed envelopes to the parties through their counsel, either personally or by registered mail. However, a judgment of acquittal of an accused who is detained, shall, whenever practicable, be served personally on the Director of Prisons or whoever has official custody of said accused.

(d) Immediately after promulgation of a decision or resolution, the Division

Clerk of Court shall forward the original and two copies thereof to the Court Reporter and a copy each to the Information and Statistical Data Division and the Judicial Records Division, the latter to forward the same copy to the Archives Section. (Sec. 8, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

SEC. 15. Effect of Filing an Appeal in the Supreme Court. — No motion for

reconsideration or rehearing shall be acted upon if the movant has previously filed in the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari or a motion for extension of time to file such petition. If such petition or motion is subsequently filed, the motion for reconsideration pending in this Court shall be deemed abandoned. (Sec. 8, Rule 9, RIRCA)


RULE VII

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND REMAND OF CASES

SEC. 1. Entry of Judgment. – Unless a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed or an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, judgments and final resolutions of the Court shall be entered upon expiration of fifteen (15) days from notice to the parties.

(a) With respect to the criminal aspect, entry of judgment in criminal cases shall be made immediately when the accused is acquitted or his withdrawal of appeal is granted. However, if the motion withdrawing an appeal is si gned by the appellant only, the Court shall first take steps to ensure that the motion is made voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly or may require his counsel to comment thereon.

When there are several accused in a case, some of whom appealed and others did not, entry of judgment shall be made only as to those who did not appeal. The same rule shall apply where there are several accused in a case, some of whom withdrew their appeal and others did not.

(b) Entry of judgment in civil cases shall be made immediately when an appeal is withdrawn or when a decision based on a compromise agreement is rendered. (Secs. 1 and 7, Rule 11, RIRCA [a])

Sec. 5. Entry of Judgment and Final Resolution. — If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its entry. The record shall cont ain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final resolution has become final and executory.

SEC. 6. Transmittal of Records. – Within five (5) working days from receipt of the rollo , the Chief of the Archives Section shall cause the remand of the original records to the court or quasi-judicial agency of origin. (Sec. 8, Rule 11, RIRCA [a])

B. SANDIGANBAYAN

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606

REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486 CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS "SANDIGANBAYAN" AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (As amended

by RA 7975 and RA 8249)

SECTION 5. Proceedings, how conducted; votes required. — The unanimous vote of the three justices in a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a


judgment. In the event that the three justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Judge shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment.

SECTION 6. Maximum period for termination of cases. — As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision.

SECTION 7. Form, finality and enforcement of decisions. — Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of facts on all issues properly raised before it.

A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment, and such petition for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.

Decisions and final orders shall be subject to review on certiorari by the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court shall decide any case on appeal promptly and without the necessity of placing it upon the regular calendar. Whenever, in any case decided, the death penalty shall have been imposed, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court, whether the accused shall have appealed or not, for review and judgment, as law and justice shall dictate.

Final judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and

enforced in the manner provided by law.

SECTION 8. Transfer of cases. — As of the date of the effectivity of this decree, any case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan within its exclusive jurisdiction where none of the accused has been arraigned shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan.

\SECTION 9. Rule-making Power. — The Sandiganbayan shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings.

SECTION 10. Authority over internal affairs. — The Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and may adopt such rules governing the constitution of its divisions, the allocation of cases among them, the rotation of justices and other matters relating to its business.


REVISED INTERNAL RULES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

PURSUANT to Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan adopts and promulgates the following REVISED INTERNAL RULES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN.

RULE III

Powers and Functions of the Sandiganbayan

SECTION 1. Exercise of Adjudicatory Powers and Functions. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise its adjudicatory powers, functions and duties through its five (5) Divisions. It sits en banc for the exercise of its administrative, ceremonial and non-adjudicatory functions.

SECTION 2. Matters Cognizable by the Sandiganbayan En banc. — The Sandiganbayan shall sit en banc to:

(a) Promulgate rules or orders, amend, revise or repeal existing rules or orders or parts thereof, and formulate and adopt policies relative to administrative matters, such as the distribution of cases and the internal operation and management of the Court.

(b) Recommend to the Supreme Court the appointment of the Clerk of Court,

Division Clerks of Court and other court employees chosen from a list of all qualified applicants for each vacant position prepared in accordance with the Civil Service Law rules and regulations, except for positions that are confidential in nature and co-terminous with the term of office of a particu lar Associate Justice to whom they are assigned who shall make the proper endorsement to the Sandiganbayan en banc for recommendation to the Supreme Court.

(c) Act on organizational matters, such as the creation or abolition of offices,

unit or service or their regrouping or merger as the exigencies of the service may require.

(d) Receive foreign and local dignitaries, important guests and visitors, honor

a colleague or retiring member of the Sandiganbayan, and hold appropriate funeral services for deceased members.

(e) Adopt uniform administrative measures, procedures, and policies for the protection and preservation of the integrity of the judicial processes, the speedy disposition of cases and the promotion of efficiency of the personnel.

(f) Provide a forum for discussion of various issues or matters.


(g) Take up other administrative matters which the Presiding Justice or any member of the Sandiganbayan may suggest for consideration.

SECTION 3. Supreme Court Creation of Special Division. — The Sandiganbayan en banc may request or recommend to the Supreme Court the creation of a Special Division to try cases where compelling reasons and the interest of justice so require.

PART II

Original Actions

RULE IV

Sessions and Trials

SECTION 1. Official Station; Place of Holding Sessions. — The Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office in the Metro Manila area and shall hold sessions thereat for the trial and resolution of cases filed with it: Provided, however, that cases originating from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, shall be heard in the region of origin, except only when the greater convenience of the parties and of the witnesses or other compelling considerations require the contrary, in which instance a case originating from one region may be heard in another region: Provided, further, that for this purpose the Presiding Justice shall authorize any Division or Divisions of the Sandiganbayan to hold sessions at any time and place outside Metro Manila, and; where the greater interest of justice so requires, outside the Philippines.

SECTION 2. Support Personnel and Facilities In Sessions Outside of Principal Office in Metro Manila. — In sessions outside of its principal office in Metro Manila, the Sandiganbayan may require the services of the personnel and the use of facilities of the courts or other government offices where any of the Divisions is holding sessions and the personnel of such courts or offices shall be subject to the orders of the Sandiganbayan acting through the Chairman of the Division.

SECTION 3. Regular Court Sessions. —

(a) Sandiganbayan En banc — The regular sessions of the Sandiganbayan

en banc shall be held at least twice a month on a Friday morning, particularly on the first and third week of the month. The Presiding Justice or at least eight (8) Associate Justices may call a special session at another date and time.

(b) Divisions — Regular sessions for trial of cases brought to and cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be from 8:30 A.M. to 12:00 noon or from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from Monday to Friday. The Divisi on Chairman, however, for urgent and valid reasons, may schedule the hearing of a case assigned to his Division on other dates and time after consultation with the parties.


RULE VII

Motions

SECTION 1. Motion Day. — Except for motions which may be acted upon ex parte, all motions shall be scheduled for hearings on a Friday, or if that day is a non-working holiday, on the next working day.

Motions requiring immediate action may be acted upon on shorter notice.

In appealed cases, the provision of Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on Motions shall apply.

SECTION 2. Resolution on Interlocutory or Incidental Motions. — Rulings on all written motions on interlocutory or incidental matters submitted to any regular Division for resolution shall be reached in consultation among and by the unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices participating in the consideration thereof: Provided, however, that rulings on oral motions or objections made in the course of the trial or hearing shall be made by the Chairman of the Division: Provided, further, that oral motions or objections on substantial but interlocutory or incidental matters may be ordered reduced into writing and shall likewise be resolved by the unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices of the Division.

In case a unanimous vote cannot be obtained, a Special Division of five (5)

Justices shall be constituted pursuant to Section 1 (b), Rule VIII. A majority vote of such Special Division shall suffice to decide interlocutory or incidental motions.

A demurrer to evidence shall be resolved or decided within ninety (90) days from

its submission.

RULE VIII

Rendition of Judgment or Final Order

SECTION 1. Votes Required to Decide. —

(a) En banc — The vote of at least eight (8) members of the Sandiganbayan

shall be required for the adoption of a resolution.

(b) In Division — The unanimous vote of three (3) Justices in a Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or final order. In the event a unanimous vote is not obtained, the Presiding Justice shall designate by raffle and on rotation basis two (2) Justices from all the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with


them, forming a Special Division of five (5) Justices, and the vote of a majority of such Special Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or final order.

SECTION 2. Procedure in Deciding Cases. — The conclusions of a regular or Special Division of the Sandiganbayan in any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation among the members thereof before the case is assigned to one of them for the writing of the opinion of the Division.

A certification to this effect signed by the Presiding Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, dissented or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor.

SECTION 3. Judgment in Joint Trials. — In a joint trial involving more than one case, the Division may render a joint or separate judgment when appropriate. In case there are more than one (1) accused, the Division may also render judgment, for or against one or more of the accused, when proper. In either case, where the required unanimous vote is not secured, a Special Division of five (5) Justices shall be constituted to resolve the remaining case or the criminal or civil liability of the remaining accused. In such case, a vote of the majority shall be required.

SECTION 4. Promulgation of Judgment. — A judgment in a criminal case of a Division of the Sandiganbayan shall be promulgated by reading the judgment or sentence in the presence of the accused and any member of the Division which rendered the judgment.

In case an incident arises during the promulgation, the same shall be submitted

in writing for resolution to the Division which rendered the judgment.

Where the judgment is promulgated outside Metro Manila, the Division which

rendered the judgment may authorize another Division sitting outside Metro Manila to promulgate the judgment and resolve all incidents during the promulgation therein.

In the absence of the accused, Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court

shall apply.

PART IV

Provisions Common to Original and Appealed Cases and Petitions for Review

RULE XII

Assignment, Distribution and Consolidation of Cases


SECTION 1. Distribution of Cases. — All cases filed with the Sandiganbayan shall be distributed among the five (5) Divisions for hearing and decision by regular raffle at 1:30 P.M. of every Friday or if that day is a non-working day, on the next succeeding working day, at the session hall of the First Division. A special raffle of a case may be conducted by the Raffle Committee before the next regular raffle day for valid and urgent reasons determined by the Chairman of the Raffle Committee or, in his absence, by any of the members thereof.

SECTION 2. Consolidation of Cases. — Cases arising from the same incident or series of incidents, or involving common questions of fact and law, may be consolidated in the Division to which the case bearing the lowest docket number is raffled.

(a) Before Cases Are Raffled — Should the propriety of consolidation appear upon the filing of the cases concerned as determined by the Raffle Committee, all such cases shall be consolidated and considered as one case for purposes of the raffle and inventory of pending cases assigned to each of the Divisions.

(b) After Cases Are Raffled — Should the propriety of such consolidation become apparent only after the cases are raffled, consolidation may be effected upon written motion of a litigant concerned filed with the Divisi on taking cognizance of the case to be consolidated. If the motion is granted, consolidation shall be made to the Division in which the case with the lowest docket number is assigned. The Division to which the cases are consolidated shall transfer to the Division from which the consolidated cases came, an equivalent number of cases of approximately the same age, nature and stage in the proceedings, with proper notice to the parties in said cases.

SECTION 3. Assignment of Cases; Permanent. — Cases assigned to a Division of the Sandiganbayan shall remain with said Division notwithstanding changes in its composition. All matters raised therein shall be resolved by all the Justices who are members of the Division at the time said matters were submitted for resolution. However, only such Justices who are members of the Division at the time the case is submitted for decision shall take part in the resolution of the case. If a member of the Division ceases to be a member of the Sandiganbayan for any reason whatsoever, the Associate Justice chosen to fill the vacancy in accordance with the manner provided in Sec. 4 or 5, Rule II of these Rules shall participate in the resolution of said case.

SECTION 4. Cases Submitted for Decision; Assignment to Ponente. —

(a) In original actions, a case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the Sandiganbayan or the expiration of the period to do so.

(b) In appealed cases and petitions for review, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Revised Rules of Court or by the Court itself.


(c) Motions and other incidents in a case shall be deemed submitted for resolution when so declared by the Court.

(d) Within five (5) days from submittal of the case or matter for decision or resolution, the Chairman of the Division shall assign by raffle a member thereof to study and make a report on the case or matter. If the Chairman fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the one to study and report on the case.

(e) Within ninety (90) days from the time the case was submitted for decision or resolution, the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report shall submit a written report thereon to the other members of the Division for consultation. The Chairman shall include the case in an agenda for a meeting of the Division for its deliberation.

(f) After such deliberation, if the other members of the Division agree with the report, the member to whom the case is assigned for study and report shall write the decision for signature and immediate promulgation. Minutes of the meeting shall be kept.

(g) Within ten (10) days from the date of the deliberation, a justice may submit his dissent to the other members of the Division. The written dissenting opinion shall not be attached to the rollo. The Chairman of the Division shall then refer the case to the Presiding Justice who shall designate by raffle two justices on rotation basis from all the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them, forming a Special Division of Five.

(h) After a member of the Division has expressed his dissent in writing and

the Special Division of Five is thus constituted, it shall retain the case until its final disposition despite changes in its membership caused by reorganization or other causes.

(i) After due consultation, the members of the Special Division of Five whose opinion constitute the majority shall choose from among them the ponente. Any member may write a separate concurring or dissenting opinion, which, together with the majority opinion shall be duly promulgated and attached to the rollo.

(j) If the consultation in the Special Division of Five results in a unanimous

concurrence, all its members shall sign the decision or resolution.

(k) If the justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report is transferred to another Division as its permanent member, he shall bring with him and write his report of the cases assigned to him in his original Division together with the other members of the Division to which the case was submitted for decision.


The Division from which the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report came shall be known as a Special Division.

(l) If the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report ceases to be a member of the Sandiganbayan, due to retirement, resignation or for any other cause, his pending cases shall remain with the Division to which they were assigned. However, in appropriate cases and for compelling reasons, the Chairman may assign said cases to the new appointee for study and report.

(m) An Associate Justice who is about to retire shall not be assigned cases for study and report three (3) months before his retirement date.

C. COMMERCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COURTS

1. RE: INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION [A.M. No. 00- 8-10-SC. November 21, 2000.]

RULE 3

General Provisions

SECTION 1. Nature of Proceedings. — Any proceeding initiated under these Rules shall be considered in rem. Jurisdiction over all those a ffected by the proceedings shall be considered as acquired upon publication of the notice of the commencement of the proceedings in any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines in the manner prescribed by these Rules.

The proceedings shall also be summary and non-adversarial in nature.

The following pleadings are prohibited:

a. Motion to dismiss; b. Motion for a bill of particulars; c. Motion for new trial or for reconsideration; d. Petition for relief; e. Motion for extension; f. Memorandum; g. Motion for postponement; h. Reply or Rejoinder; i. Third party complaint; and j. Intervention.

Any pleading, motion, opposition, defense, or claim filed by any interested party shall be supported by verified statements that the affiant has read the same and that the factual allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on


authentic records and shall contain as annexes such documents as may be deemed by the party submitting the same as supportive of the allegations in the affidavits. The court may decide matters on the basis of affidavits and other documentary evidence. Where necessary, the court shall conduct clarificatory hearings before resolving any matter submitted to it for resolution.

SECTION 2. Venue. — Petitions for rehabilitation pursuant to these Rules shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the territory where the debtor's principal office is located.

SECTION 3. Service of Pleadings and Documents. — When so authorized by the court, any pleading and/or document required by these Rules may be filed with the court and/or served upon the other parties by facsimile transmission (fax) or electronic mail (e-mail). In such cases, the date of transmission shall be deemed to be the date of service. In case of a voluminous pleading or document, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion, waive the requirement of service, provided, a copy thereof together with all its attachments is duly filed with the court and is made available for examination and reproduction by any party, and provided, fu rther, that a notice of such filing and availability is duly served on the parties.

SECTION 4. Trade Secrets and Other Confidential Information. — On motion or on its own initiative, the court may issue an order to protect trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information belonging to the debtor.

SECTION 5. Executory Nature of Orders. — Any order issued by the court under these Rules is immediately executory. A petition for review or an appeal therefrom shall not stay the execution of the order unless restrained or enjoined by the appellate court. The review of any order or decision of the court or an appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court; Provided, however, that the reliefs ordered by the trial or appellate courts shall take into account the need for resolution of proceedings in a just, equitable, and speedy manner.

RULE 4

Rehabilitation

SECTION 1. Who May Petition. — Any debtor who foresees the impossibility of meeting its debts when they respectively fall due, or any creditor or creditors holding at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the debtor's total liabilities, may petition the proper Regional Trial Court to have the debtor placed under rehabilitation.

SECTION 5. Rehabilitation Plan. — The rehabilitation plan shall include (a) the desired business targets or goals and the duration and coverage of the rehabilitation; (b) the terms and conditions of such rehabilitation which shall include the manner of its implementation, giving due regard to the interests of secured creditors; (c) the material


financial commitments to support the rehabilitation plan; (d) the means for the execution of the rehabilitation plan, which may include conversion of the debts or any portion thereof to equity, restructuring of the debts, dacion en pago, or sale of assets or of the controlling interest; (e) a liquidation analysis that estimates the proportion of the claims that the creditors and shareholders would receive if the debtor's properties were liquidated; and (f) such other relevant information to enable a reasonable investor to make an informed decision on the feasibility of the rehabilitation plan.

SECTION 6. Stay Order. — If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, it shall, not later than five (5) days from the filing of the petition, issue an Order (a) appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver and fixing his bond; (b) staying enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against the debtor, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor; (c) prohibiting the debtor from selling, encumbering, transferring, or disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of business; (d) prohibiting the debtor from making any payment of its liabilities outstanding as at the date of filing of the petition; (e) prohibiting the debtor's suppliers of goods or services from withholding supply of goods and services in the ordinary course of business for as long as the debtor makes payments for the services and goods supplied after the issuance of the stay order; (f) directing the payment in full of all administrative expenses incurred after the issuance of the stay order; (g) fixing the initial hearing on the petition not earlier than forty five (45) days but not later than sixty (60) days from the filing thereof; (h) directing the petitioner to publish the Order in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks; (i) directing all creditors and all interested parties (including the Securities and Exchange Commission) to file and serve on the debtor a verified comment on or opposition to the petition, with supporting affidavits and documents, not later than ten (10) days before the date of the initial hearing and putting them on notice that their failure to do so will bar them from participating in the proceedings; and (j) directing the creditors and interested parties to secure from the court copies of the petition and its annexes within such time as to enable themselves to file their comment on or opposition to the petition and to prepare for the initial hearing of the petition.

SECTION 7. Service of Stay Order on Rehabilitation Receiver. — The petitioner shall immediately serve a copy of the stay order on the Rehabilitation Receiver appointed by the court, who shall manifest his acceptance or non-acceptance of his appointment not later than ten (10) days from receipt of the order.

SECTION 9. Initial Hearing. — On or before the initial hearing, the petitioner shall file the publisher's affidavit showing that the publication requirements specified above had been complied with. If the court is satisfied that said jurisdictional requirement had been complied with, it shall summarily hear the parties on any matter relating to the petition as well as any comment and/or opposition filed in connection therewith. The court may hold additional clarificatory hearings where there is need to further clarify matters but in no event shall such additional hearings be held beyond one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the initial hearing.


If, after the initial hearing, the court is satisfied that there is merit in the petition, it shall give due course to the petition and immediately refer the petition and its annexes to the Rehabilitation Receiver who shall evaluate the rehabilitation plan and submit his recommendations to the court not later than one hundred twenty ( 120) days from the date of the initial hearing.

SECTION 11. Period of the Stay Order. — The stay order sha ll be effective from the date of its issuance until the dismissal of the petition or the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings.

The petition shall be dismissed if no rehabilitation plan is approved by the court upon the lapse of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the initial hearing. The court may grant an extension beyond this period only if it appears by convincing and compelling evidence that the debtor may successfully be rehabilitated. In no instance, however, shall the period for approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan exceed eighteen (18) months from the date of filing of the petition.

SECTION 12. Relief from, Modification, or Termination of Stay Order . — The court may, on motion or motu proprio, terminate, modify, or set conditions for the continuance of the stay order, or relieve a claim from the coverage thereof upon showing that (a) any of the allegations in the petition, or any of the contents of any attachment, or the verification thereof has ceased to be true; (b) a creditor does not have adequate protection over property securing its claim; or (c) the debtor's secured obligation is more than the fair market value of the property subject of the stay and such property is not necessary for the rehabilitation of the debtor.

Appendix "A"

A.M. NO. 00-11-03-SC RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN BRANCHES OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO TRY AND DECIDE CASES FORMERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

To implement the provisions of Sec. 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799 (The

Securities Regulation Code), and in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice and subject to the guidelines hereinafter set forth, the following branches of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) are hereby designated to try and decide Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cases enumerated in Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A (Reorganization of t he Securities and Exchange Commission), arising within their respective territorial jurisdictions with respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the respective provinces in the First to the Twelfth Judicial Regions:


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

NINTH JUDICIAL REGION

TENTH JUDICIAL REGION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION

The following guidelines shall be observed:

1. In multiple sala courts where one (1) or more branches of the RTC are

herein designated as special courts, there will be no unloading of cases already pending in the branches designated. They shall continue to try and decide the said cases in addition to the SEC cases. In the meantime, in view of the temporary imbalance of caseload as a result of the transfer of SEC cases, the Executive Judge concerned shall exclude them in the raffle of newly filed cases in their station until their workload equals to that of the other branches, in which event they shall be included in the raffle of other civil and criminal cases.

2. The trial and disposition of SEC cases shall be in accordance with the

procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

3. In case of temporary incapacity, absence, disability or inhibition of the judge

of the designated special court in multiple sala courts where one (1) or more branches of the RTC have been designated, the pairing system for multiple


sala stations subject of Circular No. 7 dated 23 September 1974, as amended, shall apply.

4. The branches herein designated shall continue to perform the functions of special courts even after they shall have become vacant due to retirement, death, incapacity, dismissal, resignation, transfer, detail or promotion of the incumbent judges herein named. Their successors, whether permanent or temporary, shall act as Presiding Judges of these special courts unless the Court directs otherwise.

5. In provinces (for the First to the Twelfth Judicial Regions) where there are no designated special courts, the Executive Judge of the station where new SEC cases will be filed shall consult the Supreme Court thru the Office of the Court Administrator.

6. This Resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of December, 2000 and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not later than the 28th day of November 2000.

Promulgated this 21st day of November 2000.

2. RE: PROPOSED INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES UNDER R.A. 8799 (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, March 13, 2001)

RULE 1

General Provisions

SECTION 1. (a) Cases covered — These Rules shall gov ern the procedure to be observed in civil cases involving the following:

(1) Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the board of directors,

business associates, officers or partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation, partnership, or association;

(2) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate, partnership, or association

relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; and between, any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively;

(3) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of corporations, partnerships, or associations;


(4) Derivative suits; and

(5) Inspection of corporate books.

(b) Prohibition against nuisance and harassment suits. — Nuisance and harassment suits are prohibited. In determining whether a suit is a nuisance or harassment suit, the court shall consider, among others, the following:

(1) The extent of the shareholding or interest of the initiating stockholder or member,

(2) Subject matter of the suit; (3) Legal and factual basis of the complaint; (4) Availability of appraisal rights for the act or acts complained of; and (5) Prejudice or damage to the corporation, partnership, or association in relation

to the relief sought.

In case of nuisance or harassment suits, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion, forthwith dismiss the case.

SECTION 2. Suppletory application of the Rules of Court. — The Rules of Court, in so far as they may be applicable and are not inconsistent with these Rules, are hereby adopted to form an integral part of these Rules.

SECTION 3. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, summary, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.

SECTION 4. Executory nature of decisions and orders. — All decisions and orders issued under these Rules shall immediately be executory. No appeal or petition taken therefrom shall stay the enforcement or implementation of the decision or order, unless restrained by an appellate court. Interlocutory orders shall not be subject to appeal.

SECTION 5. Venue. — All actions covered by these Rules shall be commenced and tried in the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the corporation, partnership, or association concerned. Where the principal office of the corporation, partnership or association is registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission as Metro Manila, the action must be filed in the city or municipality where the head office is located.

SECTION 6. Service of pleadings. — When so authorized by the court, any pleading and/or document required by these Rules may be filed with the court and/or served upon the other parties by facsimile transmission (fax) or electronic mail (e-mail). In such cases, the date of transmission shall be deemed to be prima facie the date of service.

SECTION 7. Signing of pleadings, motions and other papers. — Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at


least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address.

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by the signer that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing jurisprudence; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken off the record unless it is promptly signed by the pleader or movant, after he is notified of the omission.

SECTION 8. Prohibited pleadings. — The following pleadings are prohibited:

(1) Motion to dismiss;

(2) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial;

(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper,

except those filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath; and

(5) Motion for postponement and other motions of similar intent, except those

filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath.

SECTION 9. Assignment of cases. — All cases filed under these Rules shall be tried by judges designated by the Supreme Court to hear and decide cases transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Regional Trial Courts and filed directly with said courts pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities and Regulation Code.

RULE 2

Commencement of Action and Pleadings

SECTION 1. Commencement of action. — An action under these Rules is commenced by the filing of a verified complaint with the proper Regional Trial Court.


SECTION 2. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be filed under these Rules are the complaint, answer, compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims pleaded in the answer, and the answer to the counterclaims or cross-claims.

SECTION 3. Verification. — The complaint and the answer shall be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and the allegations therein are true and correct based on his own personal knowledge or on authentic records.

SECTION 4. Complaint. — The complaint shall state or contain:

(1) the names, addresses, and other relevant personal or juridical circumstances of the parties;

(2) all facts material and relevant to the plaintiff's cause or causes of action, which shall be supported by affidavits of the plaintiff or his witnesses and copies of documentary and other evidence supportive of such cause or causes of action;

(3) the law, rule, or regulation relied upon, violated, or sought to be enforced; (4) a certification that (a) the plaintiff has not theretofore commenced any action

or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court; and

(5) the relief sought.

SECTION 5. Summons. — The summons and the complaint shall be served together not later than five (5) days from the date of filing of the complaint.

(a) Service upon domestic private juridical entities. — If the defendant is a

domestic corporation, service shall be deemed adequate if made upon any of the statutory or corporate officers as fixed by the by-laws or their respective secretaries. If the defendant is a partnership, service shall be deemed adequate if made upon any of the managing or general partners or upon their respective secretaries. If the defendant is an association, service shall be deemed adequate if made upon any of its officers or their respective secretaries.

(b) Service upon foreign private juridical entity. — When the defendant is a

foreign private juridical entity which is transacting or has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.


SECTION 6. Answer. — The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint, serving a copy thereof on the plaintiff, within fifteen (15) days from service of summons.

In the answer, the defendant shall:

(1) Specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he admits;

(2) Specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit. Where the defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as true and material and shall deny only the remainder,

(3) Specify each material allegation of fact as to which truth he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and this shall have the effect of a denial;

(4) State the defenses, including grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court;

(5) State the law, rule, or regulation relied upon;

(6) Address each of the causes of action stated in the complaint;

(7) State the facts upon which he relies for his defense, including affidavits of witnesses and copies of documentary and other evidence supportive of such cause or causes of action;

(8) State any compulsory counterclaim/s and cross-claim/s; and

(9) State the relief sought.

The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed within ten (10) days

from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.

SECTION 7. Effect of failure to answer. — If the defendant fails to answer within the period above provided, he shall be considered in default. Upon motion or motu proprio, the court shall render judgment either dismissing the complaint or granting the relief prayed for as the records may warrant. In no case shall the court award a relief beyond or different from that prayed for.

SECTION 8. Affidavits, documentary and other evidence. — Affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated therein. The affidavits shall be in question and answer form, and shall comply with the rules on admissibility of evidence.


Affidavits of witnesses as well as documentary and other evidence shall be attached to the appropriate pleading; Provided, however, that affidavits, documentary and other evidence not so submitted may be attached to the pre-trial brief required under these Rules. Affidavits and other evidence not so submitted shall not be admitted in evidence, except in the following cases:

(1) Testimony of unwilling, hostile, or adverse party witnesses. A witness is presumed prima facie hostile if he fails or refuses to execute an affidavit after a written request therefor,

(2) If the failure to submit the evidence is for meritorious and compelling reasons; and

(3) Newly discovered evidence.

In case of (2) and (3) above, the affidavit and evidence must be submitted not later than five (5) days prior to its introduction in evidence.

RULE 3

Modes of Discovery

SECTION 1. In general. — A party can only avail of an y of the modes of discovery not later than fifteen (15) days from the joinder of issues.

RULE 4

Pre-Trial

SECTION 1. Pre-trial conference; mandatory nature. — Within five (5) days after the period for availment of, and compliance with, the modes of discovery prescribed in Rule 3 hereof, whichever comes later, the court shall issue and serve an order immediately setting the case for pre-trial conference and directing the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs. The parties shall file with the court and furnish each other copies of their respective pre-trial brief in such manner as to ensure its receipt by the court and the other party at least five (5) days before the date set for the pre-trial.

SECTION 3. Termination . — The preliminary conference shall be terminated not later than ten (10) days after its commencement, whether or not the parties have agreed to settle amicably.

SECTION 4. Judgment before pre-trial. — If, after submission of the pre-trial briefs, the court determines that, upon consideration of the pleadings, the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the parties, a judgment may be rendered, the court may order the parties to file simultaneously their respective memoranda within a non extendible period of twenty (20) days from receipt of the order. Thereafter, the court shall render


judgment, either full or otherwise, not later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the period to file the memoranda.

SECTION 5. Pre-trial order; judgment after pre-trial. — The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the actions taken thereon, the amendments allowed in the pleadings, and the agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. The court shall rule on all objections to or comments on the admissibility of any documentary or other evidence, including any affidavit or any part thereof. Should the action proceed

to trial, the order shall explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried and shall strictly follow the form set forth in Annex "A" of these Rules.

The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.

After the pre-trial, the court may render judgment, either full or partial, as the evidence presented during the pre-trial may warrant.

RULE 5

Trial

SECTION 1. Witnesses. — If the court deems necessary to hold hearings to determine specific factual matters before rendering judgment, it shall, in the pre-trial order, set the case for trial on the dates agreed upon by the parties.

Only persons whose affidavits were submitted may be presented as witnesses,

except in cases specified in section 8, Rule 2 of these Rules. The affidavits of the witnesses shall serve as their direct testimonies, subject to cross-examination in accordance with existing rules on evidence.

SECTION 2. Trial schedule. — Unless judgment is rendered pursuant to Rule 4 of these Rules, the initial hearing shall be held not later than thirty (30) days from the date of the pre-trial order. The hearings shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the initial hearing, thirty (30) days of which shall be allotted to the plaintiffs and thirty (30) days to the defendants in the manner prescribed in the pre-trial order. The failure of a party to present a witness on a scheduled hearing date shall be deemed a waiver of such hearing date. However, a party may present such witness or witnesses within his remaining allotted hearing dates.

SECTION 3. Written offer of evidence. — Evidence not otherwise admitted by the parties or ruled upon by the court during the pre-trial conference shall be offered in writing not later than five (5) days from the completion of the presentation of evidence of the party concerned. The opposing party shall have five (5) days from receipt of the


offer to file his comments or objections. The court shall make its ruling on the offer within five (5) days from the expiration of the period to file comments or objections.

SECTION 4. Memoranda. — Immediately after ruling on the last offer of evidence, the court shall order the parties to simultaneously file, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order, their respective memoranda..

SECTION 5. Decision after trial. — The court shall render a decision not later than (90) days from the lapse of the period to file the memoranda, with or without said pleading having been filed.

RULE 10

Provisional Remedies

SECTION 1. Provisional remedies. — A party may apply for any of the provisional remedies provided in the Rules of Court as may be available for the purposes. However, no temporary restraining order or status quo order shall be issued save in exceptional cases and only after hearing the parties and the posting of a bond.

SECTION 2. Disciplinary sanctions on the judge. — The presiding judge may, upon a verified complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, be subject to disciplinary action under any of the following cases:

(1) Failure to observe the special summary procedures prescribed in these

Rules; or

(2) Failure to issue a pre-trial order in the form prescribed in these Rules.

D. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

RULE ON GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE CONDUCT OF PRE-TRIAL AND USE OF DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY MEASURES (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Effective August 16, 2004)

PRE-TRIAL:

Criminal Cases

1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an order directing the public prosecutor to submit the record of the preliminary investigation to the Branch COC for the latter to


attach the same to the record of the criminal case. Where the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three days from the filing of the complaint or information. The accused shall be arraigned within ten days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial of his case shall be held within ten days after arraignment unless a shorter period is provided for by law. (SEC. 1, RULE 116, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED)

“ SECTION 1, RULE 116. Arraignment and plea; how made.-

(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. T he arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in a language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.

(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.

(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a

plea of guilty shall be entered for him.

(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.

(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be

raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment.

(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the

arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.

(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days form the


date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying the suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period.”

2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set the pre-trial conference within thirty days from the date of arraignment, and issue an order: (a) requiring the private offended party to appear thereat for purposes of plea-bargaining except for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for other matters requiring his presence; (SECTION 1, RULE 118, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) (b) referring the case to the Branch COC, if warranted, for a preliminary conference to be set at least three days prior to the pre-trial to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the records after comparison and to consider other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition; and (c) informing the parties that no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial other than those identified and marked during the pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good cause shown. A copy of the order is hereto attached as Annex "E". In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel to the PMC unit for purposes of mediation if available.

“SECTION 1, RULE 118 – Pre-trial, mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:

(a) plea bargaining; (b) stipulation of facts; (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but

interposes a lawful defense; and (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal

and civil aspects of the case.”

3. During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC shall assist the parties in

reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of the case, mark the documents to be presented as exhibits and copies thereof attached to the records after comparison, ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked as exhibits and consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case. The proceedings during the


preliminary conference shall be recorded in the Minutes of Preliminary Conference to be signed both parties and counsel. (Please see Annex "B")

The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record before the pre-trial.

4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must study the allegations of the information, the statements in the affidavits of witnesses and other documentary evidence which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation.

5. During the pre-trial, the trial judge shall consider plea-bargaining arrangements except in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Where the prosecution and the offended party agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court shall:

a. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;

b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and

c. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or damages duly established by the evidence.

6. When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:

a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial

proceedings, confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents and list object and testimonial evidence;

b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the statements in the

affidavits and other documents which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation and other documents identified and marked as exhibits in determining further admissions of facts, documents and in particular as to the following:

1. the identity of the accused; 2. court's territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense/s charged; 3. qualification of expert witness/es; 4. amount of damages; 5. genuineness and due execution of documents; 6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases; 7. adoption of any evidence presented during the preliminary

investigation; 8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-defense, exercise of public

authority and justifying or exempting circumstances; and 9. such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.


c. Define factual and legal issues;

d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time frames for the different stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates;

e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena; and

f. Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.

7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities between parties.

8. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters (referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118 shall be approved by the court. (Section 2, Rule 118)

9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded, the transcripts prepared and

the minutes signed by the parties and/or their counsels.

The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial. Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of the action during the trial.

VI. CASES ON SPEEDY TRIAL/DISPOSITION OF CASES

1. LILANY YULO y BILLONES vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 142762. March 4, 2005

Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Under the foregoing provision, any party to a case has the right to demand from all officials tasked with the administration of justice to expedite its disposition. However, the concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and


must necessarily be a flexible concept. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. In applying the Constitutional guarantee, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances of each case.

The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. To determine whether or not the right has been violated, the following factors may be considered: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for such delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right on the part of the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the delay was sufficiently explained by the Court of Appeals. The ponente in CA-G.R. CR No. 17513, Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul, retired during the pendency of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed on March 4, 1997. However, the case was assigned to Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole only on February 28, 2000 and brought to her attention only on March 2, 2000. The Supreme Court noted that Justice Gozo-Dadole took only two (2) weeks from notice to resolve the motion. Clearly, Justice Gozo-Dadole did not incur any delay. Thus, the Supreme Court rules that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was not violated.

2 . DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ FAUSTI NO, ROGELIO FAUSTINO, LOLITO VICTORIANO, JACOB OBANIA AND DOMINGO CABACUNGAN vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF BERNARDO DEL MUNDO, namely: FE, CORAZON, JOSEFA, SALVADOR and CARM EN, all surnamed DEL MUNDO, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. ANTONIO N. ROSALES, Presiding Judge, Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. 141524. September 14, 2005

The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all courts. It has the

sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases. In the rules governing appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals, particularly Rules 42, 43 and 45, the Supreme Court allows extensions of time for parties to file their appeals, based on justifiable and compelling reasons. These extensions may consist of 15 days or more.

3. REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, ILIGAN CITY, A.M. No. 02-10-628-RTC, October 1, 2004


Failure of a judge to decide and resolve cases on time is an outright disregard of the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and to decide cases within the required period. Judges are tasked to perform all their duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness as prerequisites to the due performance of their judicial office.

When a judge assumes office, duties and restrictions that are peculiar to his position are cast upon him. He should be punctual in the performance of his duties, should exhibit an industry and application commensurate with the duties imposed on him, and should be prompt in disposing all matters submitted to him.

As stated in Cadauan vs. Judge Alivia,

Decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial duty of a member of the bench. The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of the judiciary so the ends of justice may not be compromised and the judiciary will be true to its commitment of providing all persons the right to a speedy, impartial and public trial and to a speedy disposition of cases.

This is because delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the Judiciary, lowers its standard and brings it into disrepute. As is often stated, justice delayed is justice denied. Thus, the periods within which decisions and resolutions should be rendered should not to be treated lightly.

It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court, upon proper application and in

meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the 90-day period. All that a judge really needs to do, in cases of great difficulty, is to request an extension of time over which the Court has, almost invariably, been sympathetic. Judge Libre did not avail of such remedy, however, which only manifests his failure to be on top of the cases assigned to him.

4. ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICENTE Q. ROXAS, IRENE AGBADA-CRUZ, SIXTO AGBADA CRUZ, MERCEDES ARISTORENAS and ROMEO GOMEZ and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004

We emphasize our ruling in Ty-Dazo vs. Sandiganbayan where we held that:

The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy

trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without


cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of the delay the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. In the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.

Thus, we shall examine how such aforementioned factors affected herein petitioner's right.

As to the length of delay, it is established that the prosecution did not take any action on petitioner's case for two years. From the time that Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037 was dismissed on August 23, 1991, the prosecution failed to effect the very simple remedy of filing two separate informations against petitioner until October of 1993. Indeed, there was a delay in the refiling of the proper informations. However, the prosecution was never given the opportunity to explain the circumstances that may have caused such delay precisely because petitioner never raised the issue of the length of time it took the prosecution to revive the case. There is nothing on record to show what happened during the two-year lull before the filing of the proper informations. Hence, it could not be ascertained that peculiar situations existed to prove that the delay was vexatious, capricious and oppressive, and therefore, a violation of petitioner's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

What the records clearly show is that petitioner never asserted his right to a

speedy disposition of his case. The only ground he raised in assailing the subsequent filing of the two informations is that he will be subjected to double jeopardy. It was only the OSG that brought to light the issue on petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of his case, and only when the case was brought to the appellate court on certiorari. Even in this petition before us, petitioner did not raise the issue of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Again, it was only the OSG that presented such issue to us in the Brief for the State which was only then adopted by petitioner through a Manifestation dated August 3, 1999. We are not convinced that the filing of the informations against petitioner after two years was an unreasonable delay. Petitioner himself did not really believe that there was any violation of his right to a speedy disposition of the case against him.

The case which is more in point with the present one before us is Dela Peña vs. Sandiganbayan where we ruled that petitioner therein, for failing to assert their right to a speedy disposition of their cases, was deemed to have waived such right and thus, not entitled to the "radical relief" granted by the Court in the cases of Tatad and Angchangco. The factual circumstances surrounding herein


petitioner's case do not demonstrate that there was any violation of petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of his case.

5. THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE IBP BAGUIO-BENGUET CHAPTER, CESAR G. ORACION, PRESIDENT vs. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch III, Baguio City, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691, January 16, 2004

In Surla vs. Dimla (Civil Case No. 3322-R), the respondent judge resolved an unopposed motion for reconsideration after almost four (4) months. Again, this contravened the mandate of the Constitution that "all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of cases."

Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provide:

Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 enjoins that:

3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from dates of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so . . .

Further, SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 reads:

6.1. All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all

motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts ...

Conformably with the foregoing mandate, this Court has pronounced —

The office of a judge exists for one solemn end — to promote the

ends of justice by administering it speedily and impartially. The judge as the person presiding over that court is the visible representation of the law and justice. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.


The unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motions submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of the parties' constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases.

6. ANASTACIO E. GAUDENCIO vs. Judge EDWARD D. PACIS, MTC, Branch 3, Marilao, Bulacan, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1502, August 6, 2003, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1121-MTJ)

Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 mandates the "Strict Observance Of Session Hours Of Trial Courts And Effective Management Of Cases To Ensure Their Speedy Disposition." Thus —

To insure speedy disposition of cases, the following guidelines must be faithfully observed:

1. The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from Monday to Friday. The hours in the morning shall be devoted to the conduct of trial, while the hours in the afternoon shall be utilized for (1) the conduct of pre-trial conferences; (2) writing of decisions, resolutions or orders; or (3) the continuation of trial on the merits, whenever rendered necessary, as may be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified cases.

xxx xxx xxx

II. Judges must be punctual at all times.

xxx xxx xxx

IV. There should be strict adherence to the policy on avoiding

postponements and needless delay.

xxx xxx xxx

VI. All trial judges must strictly comply with Circular No. 38-98,

entitled "Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493" ("An Act to Ensure a Speedy Trial of All Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes") issued by the Honorable Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa on 11 August 1998 and which took effect on 15 September 1998.

These cited circulars are restatements of fundamentals in the Canons of Judicial Ethics which enjoin judges to be punctual in the performance of their judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys are


of value, and that if the judge is not punctual in the performance of his functions, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create public dissatisfaction in the administration of justice.

7. REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN, A.M. No. 00-3-50-MTC, July 21, 2003

Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. The Constitution in fact mandates that lower courts should resolve cases within 3 months, clearly intended to prevent delay in the administration of justice which erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute.

Respondent did not indicate in his undated Manifestation of Compliance when he decided a total of 115 cases. Unquestionably, though, they were decided beyond the reglementary period. Why he did not comply with the reglementary period of 90 days to render a decision, he did not also explain.

When judges are unable to render a decision within the required period, they are not without remedy. It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the 90-day period. 30 In respondent's case however, he never requested for additional time to decide the cases submitted for decision. As correctly observed by the OCA, the only instance that he attempted to seek approval for additional time was when he submitted certificates of service after the conduct of the audit.

8. SOCORRO R. HOEHNE vs. JUDGE RUBEN R. PLATA, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1458. October 10, 2002, (formerly OCA I.P.I No. 00-951-MTJ)

Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999 directs:

To insure speedy disposition of cases, the following guidelines must

be faithfully observed: . . .

IV. There should be [a] strict adherence to the policy on avoiding

postponements and needless delay.

Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional

errors, for public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.


In the recent case of Monterola vs. Caoibes, Jr., this Court imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for gross ignorance of procedural law and unreasonable delay in the issuance of an order for the execution of judgment.

That the respondent finally issued the writ of execution on 14 June 1999 is of no moment because undue delay and prejudice had already been done. It may be recalled that in A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC, respondent was severely reprimanded for failure to act with dispatch on the criminal and civil issues pending in his court. Accordingly, we adop t the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, with the modification that the penalty is hereby increased from P1,000 to P10,000.

9. DATUKAN M. GUIANI, ET AL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), ET AL., G.R. Nos. 146897-917, August 6, 2002

In the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. 21 Well-settled is the rule that the right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delay. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

The right to a speedy trial as well as other rights conferred by the Constitution

or statute, except when otherwise expressly so provided by law, may be waived. It must therefore be asserted. Thus, if there was a delay in the trial of the case, petitioners are not entirely without blame.

Furthermore, the right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed to him by

the Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. While accused persons do have rights, many of them choose to forget that the aggrieved also have the same rights. It secures rights to a defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. A party's individual rights should not work against and preclude the people's equally important right to public justice.

Given the particular facts of this case, we find that there was no unreasonable, vexatious and oppressive delay in the preliminary investigation. Therefore, petitioners' right to speedy disposition of the case was not infringed.


10. Spouses KIAT & TERESA REAPORT vs. Judge EFREN S. MARIANO, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Zamboanga City, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253, July 11, 2001

Justice delayed is justice denied. A magistrate who deliberately consents to or abets needless, groundless and obviously unmeritorious motions for postponement, especially in ejectment cases, is administratively liable.

Respondent does not deny that after the last Answer had been filed, the preliminary conference was first set only after 84 days and actually held only after almost two years. He was duty-bound to comply with the summary rules, considering that their very purpose is the speedy disposition of cases falling under the procedure. Yet, his actions clearly and directly contravened them.

Consequently, respondent also violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges should administer justice without delay. "Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions on them."

11. LUZ CADAUAN and CLARO CADAUAN vs. JUDGE ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAUAYAN, ISABELA, BRANCH 19 , A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595, October 24, 2000, (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-881-RTJ)

Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges

to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. All judges must be reminded that a case should be decided within ninety (90) days from its submission, otherwise, the judge would be guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Failure to render a decision beyond the ninety (90) day period from the submission of the case for decision is detrimental to the honor and integrity of his office and in derogation of a speedy administration of justice.

The members of the judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice

without undue delay. For failing to do so, respondent Judge has to suffer the consequences of his omission. Any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. The Court has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. It is the duty of every judge to resolve cases filed before him with good dispatch. Failure to decide the case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.


Decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial duty of a member of the bench. The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of the judiciary so the ends of justice may not be compromised and the judiciary will be true to its commitment of providing all persons the right to a speedy, impartial and public trial and to a speedy disposition of cases.

12. RICARDO CASTILLO, DEMETRIO CABISON JR., and RODOLFO AGDEPPA vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SECO ND DIVISION), and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HONORABLE CONRADO VASQUEZ, OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 109271. March 14, 2000

In the case Binay v. Sandiganbayan and Magsaysay v. Sandiganbayan , this Court has held that:

A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. In the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.

While petitioners certainly have the right to a speedy disposition of their case, the structural reorganization of the prosecutorial agencies, the procedural changes brought about by the Zaldivar case as well as the Sandiganbayan's heavy caseload certainly are valid reasons for the delay in the disposition of petitioners' case. For those reasons, the delay certainly cannot be considered as vexatious, capricious and oppressive. Neither is it unreasonable nor inordinate.

13. JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL, RAFAEL T. FLORES, HERMINIO C. ELIZON, ARNULFO S. SOLORIA vs. THE HON. GIL P. FE RNANDEZ, SR., in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 217 and BENIGNO S. MONTERA, G.R. No. 126814, March 2, 2000

The protection under the right to a speedy disposition of cases should not

operate as to deprive the government of its inherent prerogative in prosecuting criminal cases or generally in seeing to it that all who approach the bar of justice be afforded a fair opportunity to present their side.

Contrary to the stance of the Solicitor General, the delay adverted to in the

cases under consideration does not measure up to the unreasonableness of the delay of disposition in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan , and other allied cases. It cannot be said that the petitioners found themselves in a situation oppressive to their rights simply by reason of the delay and without more.

14. Re: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, En Banc, November 28, 2001


It need not be overemphasized that any delay in the determination or resolution of a case no matter how insignificant is, at the bottom line, delay in the administration of justice in general. The suffering endured by just one person — whether plaintiff, defendant or accused — while awaiting a judgment that may affect his life, honor, liberty or property taints the entire judiciary's performance in its solemn task of administering justice. Inefficient, indolent or neglectful judges are as equally impermissible in the Judiciary as the incompetent and dishonest ones. Any of them tarnishes the image of the judiciary or brings it to public contempt, dishonor or disrespect and must then be administratively dealt with or criminally prosecuted, if warranted, and punished accordingly.

The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the aforestated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?

a. Period to Decide/Resolve Cases.

There are two views. The first view is that from the time a case is submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it. The second view is that as a court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide the case from the date of submission for decision.

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or

resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision

refers to regular courts of lower co llegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.

The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court.


Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure. However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan’s power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.

“Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari’a Courts.”

Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandig anbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions, functions as a trial court. The term “trial” is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it. The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.

The Sandiganbayan is a special court created “in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption.” We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long. We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened.

We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena’s excuse that

one case alone comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division’s backlog and that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000. As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, “para muestra, basta un boton.” (for an example, one button suffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is ev en one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994). The compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court Administrator likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice and the OCA. According to the Court Administrator, the cases submitted for decision that were still pending promulgation before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:


We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.

b. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Circular 10-94 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets.

Administrative sanctions must be imposed. Mora decidendi reprobatur in lege. Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency. As we said in Canson, unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary.

Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative work as Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he can devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not later than six (6) months from the promulgation of this resolution.

15. RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, January 31, 2002, En Banc

PJ Garchitorena could not complain that he “did not know he was at peril of

sanctions.” A judge worthy of the office ought to know that he is in peril of administrative sanctions, including removal from office, the moment he incurs delay in deciding cases. Mora decidendi reprobatur in lege. In Canson v. Garchitorena, we admonished PJ Garchitorena that any act that would deprive a party of the right to a just and speedy trial shall be dealt with severely. Furthermore, in the case of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, we said that Presiding Justice Garchitorena was in danger of chastisement for delay in the decision in that case, forcing the Supreme Court to dismiss the charges against the accused for violation of his Constitutional right to speedy disposition of the case.

PJ Garchitorena complains that “he was singled out.” Begrudged is how it

appears to him. Truth is, it was PJ Garchitorena’s actions and inactions that singled him out. PJ Garchitorena stands out in the entire judiciary. He gave the


backlogs to the other justices unloading to them cases already submitted for decision long ago in the guise of reorganization. Such unloading of cases submitted to PJ Garchitorena and re-assignment to the newly appointed justices was not warranted under the law creating additional divisions of the Sandiganbayan. First, he has been Presiding Justice for the last sixteen (16) years. Second, the First Division he chairs suffers from the biggest backlog of both pending and unassigned cases. He has not assigned the cases, or worse, he chose the cases to be re-assigned or unloaded.

More, we said, “a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence. He should administer justice impartially and without delay. A magistrate should dispose of t he court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required period. For justice delayed is often justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the institution of justice, lowers standards and brings them into disrepute. It has been held that every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decisions. He must not delay by slothfulness of mind or body, the judgment which a party justly deserves. For the public trust character of a judge’s office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice. No less than the fundamental law requires that cases be decided with dispatch. The requirement that cases be decided within a specified period from their submission is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice. In fact, a judge may even be held criminally liable for malicious delay in the administration of justice.”

PJ Garchitorena recognizes that it is the Division Chairman who is tasked

with the duty to assign cases. The duty arises as soon as the case is raffled to the division, if not to a specific member.

Since he failed to make the assignment, he is deemed to have taken on the

task of writing the decision himself. He shall be deemed the ponente. While there was “no advantage to PJ Garchitorena in not distributing the cases at an earlier time” as he submits, still the administration of justice is disadvantaged to the prejudice of the parties.

oooOOOooo



INDEX

- A - Actions, causes for dismissal………………………………………… 10 Arraignment……………………………………………………………. A-21 - causes of delay………………………………………………. 21, A-23

- duties of judge………………………………………………… A-27 - how made……………………………………………………… 59-60 - plea bargaining………………………………………………… 20 - procedure………………………………………………………. 19-20 - suspension of………………………………………………….. A-23- when held………………………………………………………. 2

Arrest, warrant - when issued……………………………………………………. A-11 - B - Bail, hearing required…………………………………………………… A-28 Bill of particulars………………………………………………………… 21 - C - Calendar of cases………………………………………………………. 8 Certiorari, petition for…………………………………………………… 18-9 Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus & quo warranto…………………. 31 Child abuse cases - precedence over all cases…………………………………… 13 - when commenced…………………………………………….. 13 Clerk of Court - duties in calendaring cases…………………………………… 8 Complaint or information

- causes of delay after receipt………………………………….. 16 -motion to withdraw………………………………………………. 17-18 -petition for review……………………………………………….. 16 - procedure……………………………………………………….. 15-16

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act……………………………….. 6-7 Corporate rehabilitation - confidentiality of trade secrets and information……………. 47 - executory nature of orders…………………………………… 47 - guidelines to be observed by designated RTCs…………… 49-51 - interim rules of procedure……………………………………. 46 - nature of proceedings………………………………………… 46-47 - rehabilitation…………………………………………………… 47-48

- service of pleadings and documents……………………….. 47 - venue………………………………………………………… 47 Counsel - de oficio……………………………………………………… 21 - when sanctioned, instances………………………………. 5-6 Court of Appeals

- action on certain petitions…………………………………. 33-34 - action on motions…………………………………………… 34-35 - adjudication, process of……………………………………. 32 - action by a justice…………………………………… 33 - who may participate………………………………… 32 - assignment of justice for study and report……………….. 32 - confiscation of bond………………………………………… 31 - contempt of court…………………………………………… 31 - decisions, certification of…………………………………… 36-37 - division………………………………………………………. 27-28 - docket and other lawful fees………………………………… 31 - effect of an appeal to the Supreme Court…………………. 37 - entry of judgment…………………………………………….. 38 - jurisdiction and manner of exercise………………………… 27-28 - organization and officials……………………………………. 26-7 - power to receive evidence………………………………….. 33 - powers and functions………………………………………… 27 - precedence and protocol……………………………………. 28-29 - procedure in disposition of pleadings, motions and papers 29 - processing of cases and interlocutory matters……………. 29 - processing of ordinary appeals……………………………… 29-31 - civil cases……………………………………………… 29-30 - criminal cases………………………………………… 30-31 - processing of petitions for review and original actions…… 31 - priorities in adjudication of cases…………………………… 35 - promulgation of decisions and resolutions………………… 37 - reorganization of divisions…………………………………… 28 - resolution, definition of……………………………………….. 37 - station and place of holding sessions………………………. 27 - study, report and deliberation on the case………………… 35-36 - transmittal of records………………………………………… 38

Criminal cases - party or complainant is a tourist……………………………. 12-13 - stages in………………………………………………………. 14

- D - Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

- jurisdiction of courts…………………………………………. 6

- preliminary investigation, conduct of………………………. 7 - trial period…………………………………………………….. 7

Decisions, when promulgated…………………………………….. 11 Delay

- causes of during arraignment…………………………… A-23 - length of…………………………………………………… 65 - periods excluded…………………………………………. 3-4 - remedies…………………………………………………… A-23

Demurrer to evidence……………………………………………… 24 - constitutes a valid acquittal……………………………… A-29 - when denied………………………………………………. A-30 Due process of law - temporary appointment of counsel de oficio…………… A-32 - E - Evidence - offer to be made when witness testified………………… A-33 - H - Habeas Corpus……………………………………………………… 31 - I - Information, when issued…………………………………………… 7 Intra-Corporate Controversies Under RA 8799

- assignment of cases……………………………………….. 53 - cases covered………………………………………………. 51-52 - commencement of action and pleadings………………… 53-56 - affidavits, documentary and other evidence…….. 55-56 - answer………………………………………………. 55 - complaint……………………………………………. 54 - pleadings allowed………………………………….. 54 - summons……………………………………………. 54 - verification…………………………………………… 54 - executory nature of decisions and orders……………….. 52 - interim rules of procedure…………………………………. 51-58 - liberal construction of rules………………………………… 52 - modes of discovery………………………………………… 56 - pre-trial………………………………………………………. 56-57 - prohibited pleadings………………………………………… 53 - service of pleadings………………………………………… 52 - signing of pleadings………………………………………… 52-3 - suppletory application of Rules of Court…………………. 52

LAWS CITED

CONSTITUTION Art.III, sec. 2............................................................................ A-8 sec.14(2)................. ..................................................... A-30 Art. VIII sec. 15....................................................................... 2, 66

sec. 15 (1) (2)............................................................ 72 sec. 16....................................................................... 62 Art. IX, sec. 12........................................................................ A-18 ACTS, REPUBLIC ACTS, ETC. Rev. Penal Code Art. 8(1), par. 2 (former Art. 12(1), par. 2.................... A-24 Art. 125............. .......................................................... 15 Pres. Decree No. 1606 (as amended by RA 7975 and RA 8249)............. ....................................................... 38 Rep. Act No. 6770, sec. 13................................................... A-18

Rep. Act No. 8246, sec.3 .................................................... 27 Rep. Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act).. ................................. sec. 6.......................................................................... 2, 23

sec. 7.......................................................................... 2, 23 sec. 9…………………………………………………….. 3, 23 sec. 10…………………………………………………… 3

Rep. Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), sec. 90 …………………………………………… 6, 20 Revised Rules of Court 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30, sec. 2……………………………………. 8 secs. 3 & 4………………………………. 9 Rule 20, secs. 1 & 2……………………………. 8 Rules 42, 43 & 45……………………………… 63 Rule 65, sec. 7………………………………….. 18 sec. 8…………………………………….. 19

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 110, sec. 2, 6-11………………………… A-5 sec. 3 ………………………………….. A-4 sec. 13………………………………….. A-3 Rule 111 secs. 6 & 7…………………………… 18 Rule 112, sec. 1………………………………… 15, sec. 3……………………………….. A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6 sec. 6…………………………………….. A-11 sec. 7…………………………………….. 15, A-1 sec. 8(a)…………………………………. A-10 sec. 9…………………………………….. A-2 Rule 113, sec. 5…………………………………. A-1

Rule 114, sec. 2………………………………… A-38 sec. 8…………………………………….. 24 Rule 116, sec. 1………………………………… 19, 20 sec. 2…………………………………….. A -21, A-22 sec. 6…………………………………….. 19 sec. 9……………………………………... 21 sec. 11…………………………………… 21, A-23 sec. 12…………………………………… A-26 Rule 117, sec. 3…………………………………. A-5 sec. 4……………………………………… 21 Rule 118, sec. 1…………………………………. 60 secs. 1 & 2………………………………… A-21 Rule 119, sec. 9…………………………………. A-28 sec. 23……………………………………. 24 Rule 120, sec. 6…………………………….. .25, A-34, A-38

Revised Rules on Evidence Rule 132, sec. 34……………………………….. A-33 Rule 132, secs. 35 & 36……………………….. 2, 5 Legal Ethics Rule 139-B – Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys………………………………………… 19 Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Rule 1.02………………………………………… 66 Canon 3, Rule 3.05…………………….. 66, 68 Supreme Court Issuances Administrative Order No. 72-88………………………. 8 Administrative circular No. 13-87…………………….. 66 No. 1-88…………………………………………. 66 No. 10-94………………………………………… 74 No. 38-98………………………………………… 20, 22, 67 No. 2-99………………………………………….. 12, 13 No. 3-99………………………………………….. 7, 67, 68 No. 58-2002……………………………………… 12 A.M. No. 00-11-03-SCReso lution Designating

Certain Branches of Regional Trial Courts to Try and Decide Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Promulgated

November 21, 2000…………………………………….. 49-51 Resolution on the Creation of Night Courts or Special Tourist Courts Exclusively to Attend to Tourist-Related Crimes , A.M. No. 02-8-12-SC, Dated September 10, 2002…………………………….. 12 (Re: Proposed) Interim Rules of Procedure Governing

Intra-Corporate Controversies Under RA 8799, A.M. No. 1-2-04-SC, March 13, 2001…………………. 51

Re: Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, November 21, 2000…………………………………… 46 Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, effective August 16, 2004………………………………………. 58, A-21 Rule on Summary Procedure, A.M. No. 90-9-1437- MetTC, dated October 2, 1990……………………… 12

Court of Appeals 2002 Internal Rules, effective February 28, 2005……………………………………. 26 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan……. 40

Administrative Agencies DOJ Circular No. 70, dated July 3, 2000………….. A-11

sec. 3………………………………………….. A-16 sec. 7…………………………………...……….16, A-12, A-15 sec. 9…………………………………………… 16 sec. 11………………………………………….. 17 sec. 12……………………………………17, A-12, A-13, A-16

Implementing Circular No. 38-98, re RA 8493, took effect on September 15, 1998…………………. 4 sec. 8…………………………………………… 3 sec. 12…………………………………………. 5 sec. 13………………………………………….. 6 sec. 14………………………………………….. 6

TITLE OF CASE

CASES CITED

PAGE - B - Barker v. Wingo, 33 L. ED. 101 (1972)…………………………….. A-19 Bautista v. Dy Bun Chin, 49 O.G. 179 (1952)…………………….. A-37 Bayani v. People, G.R. No. 155619, August. 14, 2007……….. A-33 Bernardo v. Abeto, C.A.-G.R. No. 6076, January 31, 1940……… A-36 Binay v. Sandiganbayan; Magsaysay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120681-83 & 128136, October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 65 …….…………………………………………………. 71 - C - Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 158033, July 30, 2004,

435 SCRA 624………………………………………………… A-33 Cadauan v. Alivia, A.M. No. RT J-00-1595, October 24, 2000,

344 SCRA 174 ……….………………................................... 64, 70 Castillo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division, et al., G.R. No. 109271, March 14, 2000, 328 SCRA 69 ……….. 71 Cea, et al. v. Cinco, 96 Phil. 31 (1954)…………………………….. A-36 Cinco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 92362-67, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 726 ……………………………………………….. A-5 Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126363, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 385 ……………………………………………….. A-29 Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 294 ……………………………………….. A-18 Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. 53373, June 30, 1987,

151 SCRA 462…………………………………………...18, A-17, A-19, A-20

- D - Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008. A-21 Dansal, et al. v. Fernandez, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 126814, March 2, 2000, 327 SCRA 145 ….…………………………… 71 De Vera v. Layague, A.M. No. RTJ-93-986, September 26, 2000, 341 SCRA 67 ………………………………………………….. A-19 De Vera v. Pineda, G.R. No. 96333, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 434 ……….………………………………………… A-29 Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 91 Phil. 608 (1952)……… A-14 Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 121 ….……………………………. 64 Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354 (1989)………………. A-2

Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 4 L. ED 2d 824, 80 S. Ct 788 (1960) A-25 - E - Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371, August 25, 2005 468 SCRA 233 ……………………………………………….. A-30 - F - Fernandez v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 143256, August 28, 2001, 416 Phil. 322 …………………………………………………. A-31 Florendo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110886, December 30, 1994, 239 SCRA 325 ……………………………………….. A-38, A-39 - G - Gamas v. Oco, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1231, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 588 ………..………………………………………. A-27 Gaudencio v. Pacis, A.M. No . MTJ-03-1502, August 6, 2003, 408 SCRA 350 …….………………………………………. 67 Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 297……………………… A-16 Gonzales v. Presiding Judge of Branch I of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, G.R. No. 75856, June 4, 1990 186 SCRA 101 ……………………………………………….. A-36 Gorlon v. Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 17, G.R. No. 102131, August 31, 1992, 213 SCRA 138 q A-15 Government v. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil. 399 (1927)……………. A-14 Guiani, et al. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), et al., G.R. Nos. 146897-917, August 6, 2002, 386 SCRA 436 69 Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co, et .al, v. Reyes, et. al, 92 Phil.

177 (1952)………………………………………….……… A-37 - H - Ho v. People, G.R. Nos. 106632 & 106678, October 9, 1997, 280 SCRA 365 ……..………………………………………… A-10 Hodges v. U.S., 408 F. 2d 543 (1969)…………………………….... A-19 Hoehne v. Plata, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1458, October 10, 2002, 390 SCRA 555 ……..………………………………………… 68 - J - Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 773 ……………………………………………… A-20

- K - Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 140619-24, March 9, 2000, 354 SCRA 158 …………………………………………………. A-16 - L - Ladino v. Garcia, 333 Phil. 254 (1996)…………………………….. A-21 Ladlad, et al. v. Velasco, et. al., G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76

& 175013, June 1, 2007, 523 SCRA 318…….……………. A-5 Larranaga v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 130644, March 13, 1998, 287 SCRA 581 ……….……………………………….. A-2 Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 610 ………………………………………………. A-32 Lim, Sr. v. Felix, G.R . Nos. 94054-77, 94266-69, February 19, 1991, 194 SCRA 292 ……….……………….. A-11 Lugtu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42037, March 21, 1990, 183 SCRA 388 ……….………………………………………. A-27 - M - Maguddatu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000, 326 SCRA 362 ……….…………….. A-38 Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 60613-20, April 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 732 …….……………………………….. A-28 Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112387, October 13, 1994, 237 SCRA 575 …….……………………………….. A-19 Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 176 …….……………………………………….. A-5 Maunlad Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 590 (2000)……………………………………….. A-33 Monterola v. Caoibes, Jr., A. M. No. RTJ-01-1620, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA 334 ……………………………………… 69 Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 213 …….……………………………… A-31 - N - Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633 …………………… 63 - O - Office of the Ombudsman v. Castro, G.R. No. 164678, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 608 ……..………………… A-16 Officers and Members of the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter,

Cesar G. Oracion, President v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 1 …….…………………………………………. 66 Okabe v. Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 685 ……………………………………………. A-8 Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 102420, December 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 283 …………………… A-4 Ong v. People, G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000, 342 SCRA 372 ……………………………………………. A-29 Oporto, Jr. v. Monserate, 408 Phil. 561 (2001)…………………… A-4 - P - Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 86 …….………………………………………… A-3 Pascua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 197…….……………………………….. A-34 People of the Philippines v. Aniñon, G.R. No. 39083, March 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 701 ………………………… A-28 People of the Philippines v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, April 3, 1988, 288 SCRA 626 …………………………………….. A-9 People of the Philippines v. Baluran, 143 Phil. 36 (1981)………. A-16 People of the Philippines v. Bariquit, G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 600 ……………………….. A-27 People of the Philippines v. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389 (1926)………. A-27 People of the Philippines v. Bautista, 106 Phil. 39 (1959)………. A-27 People of the Philippines v. Besonia, 466 Phil. 822 (2004)……… A-22 People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 52 O.G. 5825 (1956)………………………………………………………….. A-35 People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006…………………………………………. A-38 People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159261, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 383 ……………………… A-23 People of the Philippines v. Dawaton, 437 Phil. 861 (2002)…….. A-22 People of the Philippines v. Historillo, 389 Phil. 141 (2000)…….. A-4 People of the Philippines v. Ibañez, 92 Phil. 936 (1953)………… A-27 People of the Philippines v. Inting, G.R. No. 88919, July 25, 1990, 187 SCRA 788 ……….……………………………….. A-9, A-10 People of the Philippines v. Jaranilla, G.R. No. 28547 February 22, 1974, 55 SCRA 563 ……….…………………. A-36 People of the Philippines v. Jose, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000……………………………………………………………. A-23 People of the Philippines v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75,

February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530 ……..………………….. A-31 People of the Philippines v. Macalalag, G.R. No. 164358, December 20, 2006………………………………………… 20

People of the Philippines v. Magpalao, G.R. No. 92415, May 14, 1991, 197 SCRA 79 ……….……………………… A-31 People of the Philippines v. Mamarion, 459 Phil. 51 (2003)…… A-22 People of the Philippines v. Mendiola, 82 Phil. 740 (1949)……. A-28 People of the Philippines v. Poculan, 167 SCRA 176 (1988)…. A-9, A-11 People of the Philippines v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 411………..……………………………… A-39 People of the Philippines v. Serzo, Jr., G.R. No. 118435, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 553 …………………………… A-32 People of the Philippines v. Tabag, G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997, 268 SCRA 115 ………………………. A-30 People of the Philippines v. Tabayoyong, G.R. No. 31084, May 29, 1981, 104 SCRA 724 …………………………….. A-27 People of the Philippines v. Tac-an, G.R. No. 148000 February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 373 ……………………….. 22 People of the Philippines v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992, 210 SCRA 246 ……..…………………….. A-21, A-22 People of the Philippines v. Vitancur, G.R. No. 128872, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 414 ……..………………. A-32 Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No.12620, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 588 ……..………………………………… A-20 Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132864, October 24, 2005, 473 SCRA 639 …………………………. A-15 Po Sun Tun v. Prize, 54 Phil. 192 (1929)………………………….. A-37 Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, En Banc, November 28, 2001……… 71 January 31, 2002, En Banc………………………………….. 74 - R - Ramos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990, 191 SCRA 671 ….………………………………….………… A-27 Register of Deeds of Manila v. Tinoco Vda. De Druz, 95 Phil.

818 (1954)……………………………………..………….…… A-39 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan, A.M. No. 00-3-50-MTC, July 21, 2003, 407 SCRA 1 ….…………………..………….. 68 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Iligan City, A.M. No. 02-10-628-RTC, October 1, 2004……………………………………………….. 63 People v. Kayanan, 172 Phil. 728 (1978)…………………………. A-22 Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74851, December 9, 1999, 320 SCRA 279 …… A-12 Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeal s, 324 Phil. 568 (1996), 254 SCRA 307 (1996)………………………………………………………. A-17

Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004, 435 SCRA 371 …………………………………………………. A-23 - S - Sales v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 176 (2001)……………………… A-17 San Agustin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158211, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 392 (2004)…………………….. A-1 Santos v. Orda, Jr., G.R. No. 158236, September 1, 2004, 437 SCRA 504 …….………………………………………….. A-19 Santos-Cancio v. Gonzalez, et al., G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008……………………………………………… A-2 Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 51745, October 28, 1988, 160 SCRA 680……………………………………………………………… A-33 Seron v. Rodriguez, 110 Phil. 548 (1960)………………………….. A-38 Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R . Nos. 82585, 82827 & 83979, November 24, 1988, 167 SCRA 394 ……………………….. A-10 Soriano v. Casanova, G.R. No. 163400, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 431 ………………………………………………… A-3 Spouses Kiat & Reaport v. Mariano, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 1 ………………………………….. 70 - T - Tayaban v. People, G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 488 …….…………………………………………... A-4 Ty-Dazo v. Sandiganbayan, 424 Ph il. 945, 374 SCRA 200 (2002)… 64 - U - U.S. v. Beecham, 28 Phil. 258 (1914)………………………………… A-36 U.S. v. Bibal, 4 Phil. 369 (1905)………………………………………. A-4 U.S. v. Guendia, 37 Phil. 337 (1917)………………………………… A-24 U.S. v. Sermon, 228 F. Supp. 972 (1964)…………………………… A-25 - V - Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005, 473 SCRA 279 ..……….………………………………. A-29 Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555 (1962)…………………………………………… A-12 Villaflor v. Viva, G.R. No. 134744, January 16, 2001, 349 SCRA 194 ………………………………………………… A-2

- W – Webb v. De Leon, G.R. Nos. 121234, 121245 & 121297, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)…………………… A-9, A-10 - Y - Youtsey v. U.S., 97 F. 937 (1989)…………………………………… A-25 Yulo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 142762, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 705 ………………………………………… 62 - Z - Zuño v. Cabebe, A.M. OCA No . 03-1800-RTJ, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 382 ………………………………………… A-28