Week 12 Coverage Table
The table below mirrors the coverage sheet's assigned cases for Week 12 and links each item to its digest page. Entries marked supra re-assign a case already listed earlier in the week under a later subtopic; they point at the same digest.
0 of 38 assigned cases have digests. The remaining 38 are marked
digest pending.Class. records how the case actually stands to the subtopic it was assigned under — DIRECT (the Court squarely applies the doctrine), ANALOGOUS (it decides the point under a different provision or doctrine), REJECTED (the Court found the doctrine not established), INCIDENTAL (the doctrine is mentioned but the disposition rests elsewhere). Reciting a REJECTED case as if it were DIRECT inverts the holding.
| # | Assigned Case | Topic/Subtopic | Class. | Digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 2 | Chua-Burce vs. CA, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 3 | People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 142431, January 14, 2004 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 4 | Bayas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 5 | People vs. Pepito, G.R. Nos. 147650-52, October 16, 2003 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 6 | People vs. Abelita, G.R. No. 96318, June 26, 1992 | 5 — Cases | digest pending | |
| 7 | Jaylo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 111502-04, November 22, 2001 | 4 — Application for Examination of Witness for Accused Before Trial | digest pending | |
| 8 | Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012 | 7 — Examination of Witness for the Prosecution | digest pending | |
| 9 | Vda. de Manguerra vs. Risos, G.R. No. 152643, August 28, 2008 | 7 — Examination of Witness for the Prosecution | digest pending | |
| 10 | Jaylo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 111502-04, November 22, 2001 | 7 — Examination of Witness for the Prosecution | digest pending | |
| 11 | Jimenez, Jr. vs. People, G.R. Nos. 209195 & 209215, September 17, 2014 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 12 | Chua vs. CA, G.R. No. 103397, August 28, 1996 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 13 | Monge vs. People, G.R. No. 170308, March 7, 2008 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 14 | Ampatuan vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 15 | People vs. Chavez, G.R. No. 131377, February 11, 2003 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 16 | Webb vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995 | 9 — Discharge of Accused to be a State Witness | digest pending | |
| 17 | Monge vs. People, G.R. No. 170308, March 7, 2008 | 10 — Discharge of Accused Operates as Acquittal | digest pending | |
| 18 | Galvez vs. CA, G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994 | 11.a — When Mistake Has Been Made in Charging the Proper Offense: Distinguished from Rule 110, Sec. 14 | digest pending | |
| 19 | People vs. Molero, G.R. No. L-67842, September 24, 1986 | 11.a — When Mistake Has Been Made in Charging the Proper Offense: Distinguished from Rule 110, Sec. 14 | digest pending | |
| 20 | People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407, July 7, 1997 | 12 — Consolidation | digest pending | |
| 21 | Magleo vs. De Juan-Quinagoran, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2336, November 12, 2014 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 22 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 23 | People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 197953, August 5, 2015 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 24 | Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 224162, February 6, 2018 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 25 | Singian vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 26 | People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 27 | People vs. Cristobal, G.R. No. 159450, March 30, 2011 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 28 | Hun Hyung Park vs. Eun Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 29 | Cabador vs. People, G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 30 | Mupas vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189365, October 12, 2011 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 31 | People vs. Alcanzado, G.R. No. 138335, May 20, 2004 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 32 | Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 33 | People vs. Sayabac, G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 34 | Ong vs. People, G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 35 | People vs. Turingan, G.R. No. 121628, December 4, 1997 | 13 — Demurrer to Evidence | digest pending | |
| 36 | Alegre vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-56923, May 9, 1988 | 14 — Reopening and Motion for New Trial | digest pending | |
| 37 | Re: Complaint against Ofelia Pinto, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289, October 2, 2012 | 14 — Reopening and Motion for New Trial | digest pending | |
| 38 | Cabarles vs. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007 | 14 — Reopening and Motion for New Trial | digest pending |
Topic Notes
Explanatory notes carried in the coverage sheet for the outline items themselves, as distinct from the assigned cases.
1. Pre-Trial Agreement
Pre-trial in criminal cases is mandatory (RTC, MTC, and Sandiganbayan) and covers plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking of evidence, waiver of objections to admissibility, and other matters to expedite trial; all admissions made during pre-trial must be in writing and signed by the accused and counsel to be used against him.
2. Non-Appearance at Pre-Trial Conference
Non-appearance of the accused's counsel or the prosecutor at pre-trial, without a valid excuse, may subject them to sanctions under the Rules of Court.
3. Pre-Trial Order
The court issues a pre-trial order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and the issues to be tried, which binds the parties and controls the subsequent course of the trial unless modified to prevent manifest injustice.
4. Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution
Applicable to the civil aspect of certain criminal cases (e.g., B.P. 22, quasi-offenses, estafa, libel, theft) — if settlement terms exceed one year, the case may be archived upon motion of the prosecution; if no settlement is reached, the case is returned for raffle.
1. Time to Prepare for Trial
After a plea of not guilty, the accused is entitled to at least 15 days to prepare for trial, and trial must commence within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order (or, if by reason of a new trial, within 30 days from notice of the order granting it).
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial), 2017
Supreme Court guidelines mandating strict, continuous trial dates, limiting postponements, and setting a maximum aggregate trial period (generally 180 days from the first day of trial, subject to excludable delays), to address case backlog and protect the right to speedy trial.
b. Exclusions
Periods of delay resulting from the unavailability of an essential witness (whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined by due diligence) may be excluded from the mandatory trial period; congestion of the court's calendar and lack of diligent trial preparation are, by contrast, PROHIBITED grounds for postponement.
3. Order of Trial
As a rule: prosecution presents evidence first to prove the charge and civil liability; accused then presents evidence to prove his defense and civil liability, if any; parties may then present rebuttal/sur-rebuttal evidence; the order may be modified where the accused admits the act/omission charged but interposes a lawful defense.
5. Examination of Defense Witness
Conditional examination of a defense witness may be conducted before a court authorized to do so, in the presence of (or after due notice to) the prosecutor, who has the right to cross-examine.
6. Bail to Secure Appearance of Material Witness
Either party may move for an order requiring a material witness who may not testify when required to post bail for his appearance; refusal to post bail may result in his commitment until compliance.
8. Judicial Affidavit Rule
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC requires that testimonies of witnesses (in lieu of direct testimony) be submitted through judicial affidavits, subject to cross-examination in open court, to expedite the presentation of evidence in criminal (and civil) trials.
a. Distinguished from Rule 110, Sec. 14
Rule 119, Sec. 19 (mistake in charging the proper offense, discovered before judgment) results in DISMISSAL of the original complaint (once the new one is filed) provided the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy — this is the trial-stage analog of "substitution" under Rule 110, Sec. 14, applicable once the case is already being tried.