A AUTONOMIA DA LAVAGEM DE ATIVOS ILÍCITOS NO CONTEXTO DO PROCESSO PENAL

WITNESS, A COMMAND THAT HAS A TENDENCY TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT AGAINST INVASION OF PRIVACY – BUT NOT FOR QUASHING A SUBPOENA AS TESTIFICANDUM. (EMMA K. LEE VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 177861, JULY 13, 2010, ABAD, J.)

4. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE CURED BY EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED. (SWAGMAN HOTELS AND TRAVEL, INC. VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 161135, APRIL 8, 2005, DAVIDE, JR., C.J.)

5. DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE: WHEN THE DUE EXECUTION AND GENUINENESS OF AN INSTRUMENT ARE DEEMED ADMITTED BECAUSE OF THE ADVERSE PARTY’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC VERIFIED DENIAL THEREOF, THE INSTRUMENT NEED NOT BE PRESENTED AND MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN RESOLVING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. (CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. PHILBANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 150731, SEPTEMBER 14, 2007, VELASCO, JR., J.)

6. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT UPON THE DISMISSAL OF THE DEMURRER IN THE APPELLATE COURT, THE DEFENDANT LOSES THE RIGHT TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE AND THE APPELLATE COURT SHALL THEN PROCEED TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS ON THE BASIS OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JUAN C. TUVERA, G.R.

NO. 148246, FEBRUARY 16, 2007, TINGA, J.)

JUDGMENT

1. DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final. (ANGELA-PAHILA-GARRIDO VS. ELIZA M. TORTOGO ET AL, G.R. NO. 156358, AUGUST 17, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.).

1.1. A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT, NO MATTER HOW ERRONEOUS, CANNOT BE CHANGED EVEN BY THIS COURT (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. RINA PARAYNO LIM, G.R. NO. 171677, JANUARY 30, 2013, REYES, J.)

1.2. THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT IS NOT AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, BUT A FINAL ORDER. (SILVERIO, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 178933, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, VELASCO, J.).

2. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS: AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS IS INTERLOCUTORY. (MARMO VS. ANACAY, G.R. NO.182585, NOVEMBER 27, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.).

2.1. ORDERS GRANTING EXECUTION ARE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS.

(SPOUSES RICARDO AND ELENA GOLEZ VS. SPOUSES CARLOS AND AMELITA NAVARRO, G.R. NO. 192532, JANUARY 30, 2013, REYES, J.)

2.2. THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, AS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL UNTIL A FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER IS RENDERED IN THE MAIN CASE. (SPOUSES EUGENE L. LIM VS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 192615, JANUARY 30, 2013, BRION, J.)

3. WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OR FALLO OF A DECISION AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT CONTAINED IN THE TEXT OR BODY OF THE JUDGMENT, THE FORMER PREVAILS OVER THE LATTER. THE EXCEPTION IS WHERE THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE BODY OF THE DECISION IS SO CLEAR AS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION, THE BODY OF THE DECISION WILL PREVAIL. (THE LAW FIRM OF RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT VS.

COURT OF APPEALS & BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDING, INC., G. R. NO. 154559, OCT. 5, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.).

4. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT: A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT INTENDED TO RESOLVE A MATTER ALREADY UNDER LITIGATION IS A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE. HAVING JUDICIAL MANDATE AND ENTERED AS ITS DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY, SUCH JUDICIAL COMPROMISE HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT. (RAÑOLA V. RAÑOLA, G.R. NO.

185095, JULY 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 788, 794).

5. MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE: A MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE IS ONE THAT CEASES TO PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BY VIRTUE OF SUPERVENING EVENTS, SO THAT A DECLARATION THEREON WOULD BE OF NO PRACTICAL USE OR VALUE. (BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 148483, JUNE 29, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

5.1 A CASE BECOMES MOOT AND ACADEMIC ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR NO USEFUL PURPOSE CAN BE SERVED IN PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

(PAGANO V. NAZARRO, JR., OMBUDSMAN VS. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., G.R.

NO. 16467, JULY 27, 2011, BRION, J.).

6. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: WHERE AN ANSWER FAILS TO TENDER AN ISSUE, OR OTHERWISE ADMITS THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE ADVERSE PARTY’S PLEADING, THE COURT MAY, ON MOTION OF THAT PARTY, DIRECT JUDGMENT ON SUCH PLEADING. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MERELO V. AZNAR ET AL, G.R. NO. 171805 MAY 30, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.).

6.1. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MAY BE SOUGHT ONLY BY A CLAIMANT, WHO IS THE PARTY SEEKING TO RECOVER UPON A CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-CLAIM; OR TO OBTAIN A DECLARATORY RELIEF. (ANACLETO R. MENESES VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. NO. 156304, OCTOBER 23, 2006, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.)

6.2. BOTH THE RULES ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENTS HAVE NO PLACE IN CASES OF DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, LEGAL SEPARATION AND EVEN IN ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE. (JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS vs. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL, also known as FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL VDA. DE CARLOS, and TEOFILO CARLOS II, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008, REYES, R.T., J.)

7. SUMMARY JUDGMENT: A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ACCELERATED JUDGMENT, IS A PROCEDURAL TECHNIQUE TO PROMPTLY DISPOSE OF CASES WHERE THE FACTS APPEAR UNDISPUTED AND CERTAIN FROM THE PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ADMISSIONS AND AFFIDAVITS ON RECORD, OR FOR WEEDING OUT SHAM CLAIMS OR DEFENSES AT AN EARLY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION TO AVOID THE EXPENSE AND LOSS OF TIME INVOLVED IN A TRIAL. (PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK VS. FELIPE CHUA, G.R. NO. 178899, NOVEMBER 15, 2010, BRION, J.).

7.1. SUMMARY JUDGMENTS ARE PROPER WHEN, UPON MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE ANSWER FILED BY THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT TENDER A GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT AND THAT ONE PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

(ANICETO CALUBAQUIB, ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC, G.R. NO. 170658, JUNE 22, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.)

7.2. WHEN THE FACTS AS PLEADED APPEAR UNCONTESTED OR UNDISPUTED, THEN THERE IS NO REAL OR GENUINE ISSUE OR QUESTION AS TO THE FACTS, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS CALLED FOR. (ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, G.R. NO. 153827, APRIL 25, 2006, GARCIA, J.).

7.3. THE TRIAL COURT CANNOT MOTU PROPRIO DECIDE THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON AN ACTION IS IN ORDER. UNDER RULE 35, THE DEFENDING PARTY OR THE CLAIMANT, MUST INVOKE THE RULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY FILING A MOTION. (FLORENTINO PINEDA VS. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA, G.R. NO. 143188, FEBRUARY 14, 2007, TINGA, J.)

7.4. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT: A PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALABLE SEPARATELY FROM THE JUDGMENT IN THE ENTIRE CASE, UNLESS ALLOWED BY THE COURT UNDER SECTION 1 (G), RULE 41.

HENCE THE FAILURE TO APPEAL SEPARATELY FROM A PARTIAL SUMMARY