RULE 18 – PRE-TRIAL

G.R. No. 79094 June 22, 1988

MANOLO P. FULE, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the judgment of the RTC of
Lucena City convicting petitioner (the accused-appellant) of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 on the basis
of the Stipulation of Facts entered into between the parties during the pre-trial conference in the Trial Court.

FACTS:

A certain Roy Nadera sued Manolo Fule for violation of BP 22. The parties during pre-trial entered into a
stipulation of facts. Prosecution presented evidence but the defense, in lieu thereof, only submitted a
Memorandum confirming the stipulation of facts. It appears, however, that neither Fule nor his counsel
signed the stipulation of facts.

ISSUE BEFORE THE RTC:

Whether or not Fule is guilty of violating BP 22

DECISION OF THE RTC:

Petitioner is guilty, based on the stipulation of facts.

MODE OF APPEAL TO THE CA:

Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

ISSUE BEFORE THE CA:

Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting petitioner based on the stipulation of facts

DECISION OF THE CA:

Negative. The RTC’s conviction of petitioner is proper.

MODE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT:

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the judgment of the RTC convicting petitioner based solely on the
stipulation of facts

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

Affirmative. The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the
Rules, renders the stipulation of facts inadmissible in evidence. The confirmation by the defense of the said
stipulation of facts by a memorandum does not cure the defect because the Rules require both the accused
and his counsel to sign such stipulation of facts.