ERRORS OF LAW MR

And in our resolution of the motion for reconsideration in the case of People vs. Romero,
89 Phil., 672, we have already laid down the ruling, in which the
two dissenters concurred, that in criminal cases a motion for reconsideration on the
ground of errors of law in the judgment is equivalent to a motion for new trial, and
interrupts the period of fifteen days for the perfection of an appeal.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all
criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty
involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five
days before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or
public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he
may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit,
documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits
of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those
of his witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a
copy of each on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object
evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as
direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to
testify.

When does a motion for new trial may be properly called a motion for reconsideration?
A motion of new trial on the ground of errors of law in the judgment may be properly
called a motion for reconsideration, because the court is not asked to reopen the case for
further proceeding, but only to reconsider its findings or conditions of law and make them
conformable to the law applicable to the case in the judgment the court has to render
anew. Such a motion for reconsideration has the same effect as a motion for new trial, of
interrupting the period for perfecting an appeal after which the judgment becomes final.

As errors of law in the judgment do not affect or invalidate the whole proceeding prior to
the judgment, but only the judgment itself, to correct such errors no new trial is required
but only a reconsideration of the original and rendition of a new judgment, without
necessity of granting new trial. (People vs. Enriquez and Salud, G.R. No. L-4934,
November 28, 1951)

The term pro forma (Latin for "as a matter of form" or "for the sake of form") is most
often used to describe a practice or document that is provided as a courtesy and/or
satisfies minimum requirements, conforms to a norm or doctrine, tends to be performed
perfunctorily and/or is considered a formality.

Certiorari Not the Proper Remedy if Appeal Is Available

Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be
entertained. Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are
mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. [52] Hence, certiorari is not and
cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if ones own negligence or error in ones
choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. [53] One of the requisites of certiorari is
that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. [54] Where
an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave
abuse of discretion.cralaw

As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is

generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the
tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain
and adequate remedy expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required
before appealing a judgment or final order.

Memorandum Decision. A court's decision that gives the ruling (what it decides and
orders done), but no opinion (reasons for the decision). A memorandum decision is not
subject to appeal by the dissatisfied party.
In its Memorandum,21 the petitioner alleges that the Decision of the Office of the
President, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which merely adopted by reference the
Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, without a recitation of the facts and
law on which it was based, runs afoul of the mandate of Section 14, Article VIII of the

1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that: "No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is
based." The Office of the President, being a government agency, should have adhered to
this principle.
The constitutional mandate that, "no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based," 22 does
not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions," which adopt by reference the
findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior
tribunals.23 In fact, in Yao v. Court of Appeals,24 this Court has sanctioned the use of
"memorandum decisions," a specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in
accordance with the provisions of Section 40,25 B.P. Blg. 129, as amended,26 on the
grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and docket status of our courts. This
Court likewise declared that "memorandum decisions" comply with the constitutional
mandate

"We have, therefore, carefully reviewed the evidence and made a re-assessment of the
same, and We are persuaded, nay compelled, to affirm the correctness of the trial courts
factual findings and the soundness of its conclusion. For judicial convenience and
expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the findings of facts and
conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as integral part of this Our
decision."
After a careful perusal, evaluation and study of the records of this case, this Court hereby
adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63 and finds that there
is no cogent reason to disturb the same.
"WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.
After a careful perusal, evaluation and study of the records of this case, this Court hereby
adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63 and finds that there
is no cogent reason to disturb the same.
"WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.
After a careful perusal, evaluation and study of the records of this case, this Court hereby
adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63 and finds that there
is no cogent reason to disturb the same.
"WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri20After%20a%20careful%20perusal,%20evaluation
%20and%20study%20of%20the%20records%20of%20this%20case,%20this%20Court
%20hereby%20adopts%20by%20reference%20the%20findings%20of%20fact%20and
%20conclusions%20of%20law%20contained%20in%20the%20decision%20of%20the
%20Metropolitan%20Trial%20Court%20of%20Makati,%20Metro%20Manila,
%20Branch%2063%20and%20finds%20that%20there%20is%20no%20cogent
%20reason%20to%20disturb%20the%20same.%20%22WHEREFORE,%20judgment
%20appealed%20from%20is%20hereby%20affirmed%20in
%20toto.08/apr2008/gr_166051_2008.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri20After
%20a%20careful%20perusal,%20evaluation%20and%20study%20of%20the%20records
%20of%20this%20case,%20this%20Court%20hereby%20adopts%20by%20reference
%20the%20findings%20of%20fact%20and%20conclusions%20of%20law%20contained
%20in%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20Metropolitan%20Trial%20Court%20of
%20Makati,%20Metro%20Manila,%20Branch%2063%20and%20finds%20that%20there
%20is%20no%20cogent%20reason%20to%20disturb%20the%20same.
%20%22WHEREFORE,%20judgment%20appealed%20from%20is%20hereby
%20affirmed%20in%20toto.08/apr2008/gr_166051_2008.html