1.

) Automatic Review in certain Crim Cases

*PEOPLE vs ESPEJON (Rape; father-daughter)

(1) An automatic review is a remedy provided y law for the benefit of the accused.

(2) An appeal in a criminal case is a review de novo and is not limited to the asigned errors ( failure to
allege minority in the information was also reviewed)

2.) Questions of law vs Questions of fact; certiorari as a special civil action contradistinguished from
certiorari as a mode of appeal

* JOSEFA vs. ZHANDONG TRADING CORP.

GENERAL RULE: "Only questions of law may be entertained by the Supreme Court in a petition for
review on certiorari."

EXCEPTIONS:

(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;

(2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) there is grave abuse of discretion;

(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;

(7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;

(8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;

(9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion;

(10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and

(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.

In this case:

-The trial court and the Court of Appeals MISAPPREHENDED AND OVERLOOKED relevant and
established facts.

-Tan bought the hardboards from respondent and, in turn, sold them to petitioner. However, both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals ignored this glaring reality and instead held that petitioner
purchased the boards directly from respondent.

*SANTOS vs COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

(1) Questions of fact - exists when the doubt or difference arises from the truth or the falsity of the
allegations of facts

-exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query
invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and
to the whole, and the probability of the situation
 (2) Questions of law- exists when there is doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain state
of facts

- exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.

(3) GENERAL RULE: APPEALS on PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW are brought to the Court since Sec. 5 (2)
(e), Art. VIII of the Constitution includes in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction “all cases in
which only an error or question of law is involved."

(4) EXCEPTION: Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Appeals); Basis: "Sec. 5 (2), Art. VIII of
the Constitution"

Sec. 5 (2), Art. VIII of the Constitution -"Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide”

Rule 43, Rules of Civil Procedure

- provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be sought in
the CA instead of this Court.

- A question of fact or question of law alone or a mix question of fact and law may be appealed to
the Court of Appeals (CA).

- Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies even only on questions of law may be brought to the CA.

- Shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions

*DEL PRADO vs PEOPLE

(1) RULE 45: In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.

(2) A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants.

(3) A question of law which we may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants.

*MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA vs NLRC

(1) A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be
resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. (SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION)

(2) GENERAL RULE: A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment of a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. It is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any
actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the
case.

(3) The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is
appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of
discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and
availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certioraribecause one of the requirements for
the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal. (CIVIL PROCEDURE)

(4) Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is
available but was lost through fault or negligence.
 (5) It is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. Only
established or admitted facts can be considered. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

"Grave Abuse of Discretion"

- has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion “too patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of
law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
personal hostility.”

- It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the
contending parties’ respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight.

(6) Findings of fact made by Labor Arbiters and affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission
are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality, and are considered binding if the same are
supported by substantial evidence.

*People vs. Sola

(1) The Supreme Court has the power to order a change of venue to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

- to compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to
reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for
which courts have been established.

(2) In case of doubt, administrative transfer of venue shall be ordered having in mind the aim and
interest of the Constitution.

- It may be added that there may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some
individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses
who will testify.