suggested answers to 2014 remedial law b

7/25/2019 Suggested Answers to 2014 Remedial Law b

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/suggested-answers-to-2014-remedial-law-b 1/9

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2014 REMEDIAL LAW BAR EXAMI.

Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court announced that the case was considered submitted fordecision. Subsequently, the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludongand his lawyer appeared. he lawyers of Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to satisfactorily e!plain their absence

when queried by the court. hus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all the accused. "ithrespect to Balatong and Labong, the judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. helawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary period a #oint $otion for %econsideration. he court favorably granted themotion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%)(A) "as the court correct in taking cogni&ance of the #oint $otion for %econsideration'(B) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide' A(S")%S* +A (o, the court was not correct in taking cogni&ance of the #oint $otion for %econsideration insofar as Balatong and Labong were concerned. -nder Section %ule /01, if the judgment was for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, heshall lose the remedies available under the %ules of Court and the court shall order his arrest. he accused may regain the remedies only if hesurrenders and files a motion for leave to avail of the remedies under the %ules of Court. 2ere the failure of Balatong and Labong to appear was without justifiable cause as even their lawyers were not aware of the reason fortheir absence. 2ence they lost their remedies under the %ules. Since Balatong and Labong did not surrender and file a motion for leave to avail oremedies, it was incorrect for the trial court to take cogni&ance of the joint motion for reconsideration insofar as Balatong and Labong wereconcerned. he trial court should instead have ordered their arrest. +3eople v. 4e 5rano, 6 #une 0117, 3eralta, #..

On the other hand, it was correct for the trial court to take cogni&ance of the joint motion for reconsideration insofar as Ludong wasconcerned since he and his lawyer were present during the promulgation.

+8 (o, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide.Since Balatong and Labong failed to appear during the promulgation of the conviction without justifiable cause, they lost the remedies under

the %ules of Court including the remedy of an appeal.

II.McJolly is a trouble9maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. :n one incident, he drove his 2umvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab whichsent its driver and passengers in different directions. he pedicab driver died, while two +0 of the passengers suffered slight physical injuries. wo+0 :nformations were then filed against McJolly . One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property , and two, foReckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Inuries . he latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJollyimmediately pleaded guilty. 2e was meted out the penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide

was also set for arraignment. :nstead of pleading, McJolly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. %esolve. (4%) A(S")%* he defense of double jeopardy is meritorious and the second information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide should be quashed

on the ground of double jeopardy.he Supreme Court has held that reckless imprudence is a single crime and that its consequences on persons and property are material only

to determine the penalty.2ere there was only one act and crime of reckless imprudence. he death, the physical injuries, and the damage to the tricycle are only

consequences of the same reckless act of $c#olly. 2ence there was double jeopardy when a second information arising from the same reckless ac was brought against the accused. +:vler v. $odesto9San 3edro, /; (ovember 01/1.

III."hile passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay , P!" #sintado observed shadows and heard screams from a distance. P!"

#sintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recogni&ed as his neighbor, $ulasa. "hen $ulasa was already inagony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. he man hurriedly left thereafter.

P!" #sintado immediately went to $ulasa<s rescue. $ulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to P!" #sintado =SRene% gusto akong patayin& Sinaksak niya ako& > "hen P!" #sintado was about to carry her, $ulasa refused and said =$aya ko' Mababa( lang to'Habulin mo si Rene')

he following day, Rene learned of $ulasa<s death and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As hissurrender was broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which goes*

=: believe that : am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although : admit that performed acts that may take one<s life away, : hope and pray that justice wil l be served the right way. 5od bless us all.+Sgd.%ene> he trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of P!" #sintado<s testimony, $ulasa*s statements, and Rene<s statement to thepress. On appeal, Rene raises the following errors* /. he trial court erred in giving weight to P!" #sintado*s testimony, as the latter did not have any personal knowledge of the facts in issue, andviolated Rene<s right to due process when it considered $ulasa<s statements despite lack of opportunity for her cross9e!amination.0. he trial court erred in holding that Rene<s statement to the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrantconviction.%esolve. (4%)



A(S")%* Rene* s appeal is denied for lack of merit. /. he contention that the trial court erred in giving weight to P!" #sintado<s testimony since he did not have personal knowledge of the factsin issue is without merit. he contention in effect challenges $ulasa*s statement for being hearsay. -nder the %ules of )vidence, a statement made immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence is e!cepted from the hearsay rule as parof the res gestae.

2ere ?ulasa<s statement was made immediately subsequent to a starling occurrence, that is, her stabbing by %ene, and was made in a stateof hysteria, showing that she was under the influence of the startling occurrence. 2ence testimony regarding the statement is e!cepted from thehearsay rule.

Since ?ulasa<s statement is an e!ception to the hearsay rule, %ene cannot complain that his right to due process was violated when the trialcourt considered ?ulasa<s statement despite lack of opportunity to cross9e!amine her.

here should be no serious question about the admissibility against an accused of hearsay where this hearsay falls under an e!ception tothe hearsay rule, especially here where the declarant is dead and thus unavailable to testify. +A(O(:O %. 8A-:SA, 8AS:C )@:4)(C) 0/90/6B011 ed.. :n +'S' v' ,il , /D 3hil. 6D1 +/717, the Supreme Court upheld dying declarations as an e!ception to the confrontation clause since =suchdeclarations have always been regarded as an e!ception to the general rule regarding hearsay evidence.>0. he argument that the trial court erred in holding that Rene<s statement to the press was a confession which, standing alone, would besufficient to warrant conviction is meritorious.

Eirstly, %ene<s statement is not a confession but an admission. A confession is one wherein a person acknowledges his guilt of a crime which %ene did not do. Secondly, even assuming it is a confession, standing alone i t would not be sufficient to warrant conviction since it is ane!trajudicial confession which is not sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. +SD %/DD.

(onetheless this was a harmless error since the admission of %ene was corroborated by the testimony of 3O0 Asintado on ?ulasa<sstatement.

IV.An order of the court requiring a retroactive re9dating of an order, judgment or document filing be entered or recorded in a judgment is* (1%)(A) pro hac vice(B) non pro tunc(C) con-ession relicta veri-icatione(D) nolle prose.ui A(S")%* +8 +(ote* Should be =nunc pro tunc.>.

V.Landlord , a resident of Fue&on City, entered into a lease contract with /enant , a resident of $arikina City, over a residential house in Gas 3iHas Cityhe lease contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental of 306,111.11, plus ten percent +/1I interest rate in case of non9payment on itsdue date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the -nited States of America ++S# but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorneyto manage the property and file and defend suits over the property rented out to /enant . /enant failed to pay the rentals due for five +6 months

Maria asks your legal advice on how she can e!peditiously collect from /enant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%)(A) "hat judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria'(B) "here is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you recommended'(C) :f Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against /enant% when do you reckon the one +/9year period within which to file the action' A(S")%S* +A he judicial remedy that : would recommend to $aria is to file a collection suit for the 3/06,111 rentals in arrears and the 3/0,611interest due. he remedy would be e!peditious since it would be governed by the %ules on Summary 3rocedure as the amount of the demande!cluding interest, does not e!ceed 3011,111.+8 he proper venue of the collection suit would be in $arikina City, where enant resides. -nder the %ules of Civil 3rocedure, venue in personal actions is with the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiff<selection. Since the 3laintiff does not reside in the 3hilippines, venue may be laid only in $arikina City where the defendant enant resides.+C :f $aria insists on filing an ejectment suit against enant, the one9year period within which to file the action shall be reckoned from thee!piration of 69days from notice of the last demand to pay and vacate. +Cru& v. Atencio, 0J Eebruary /767K Sy Oh v. 5arcia, D1 #une /77.

VI.As a rule, courts may not grant an application for provisional remedy without complying with the requirements of notice and hearing. heserequirements, however, may be dispensed with in an application for* (1%)(A) writ of preliminary injunction(B) writ for preliminary attachment(C) an order granting support pendente lite(D) a writ of replevinA(S")%* +8 VII.0o Batong, a aipan, filed a civi l action for damages with the %egional rial Court +R/0 of 3araHaque City against Jose Penduko, a news reporter othe 3hilippine imes, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in 3araHaque City. he complaint alleged, among others, that Jose

Penduko wrote malicious and defamatory imputations against 0o BatongK that 0o Batong<s business address is in $akati CityK and that the libelous



article was first printed and published in 3araHaque City. he complaint prayed that Jose Penduko be held liable to pay 3011,111.11, as moradamagesK 3/61,111.11, as e!emplary damagesK and 361,111.11, as attorney<s fees. Jose Penduko filed a $otion to 4ismiss on the following grounds*/. he %C is without jurisdiction because under the otality %ule, the claim for damages in the amount of 3D61,111.11 fall within the e!clusiveoriginal jurisdiction of the $etropolitan rial Court +Me/0 of 3araHaque City.0. he venue is improperly laid because what the complaint alleged is 0o Batong<s business address and not his residence address.Are the grounds invoked in the $otion to 4ismiss proper' (4%) A(S")%* (o, the grounds invoked in the motion to dismiss improper ./. he invocation of the otality %ule is misplaced. -nder Art. D1 of the %evised 3enal Code, jurisdiction over a civil action for damages incase of libel is with the Court of Eirst :nstance, now the %egional rial Court. +(ocum v. an, 0D September 0116. he said provision does nomention any jurisdictional amount over such actionK hence the otality %ule is inapplicable.0. he ground that the complaint mentioned the complainant<s office address rather than his residence is of no moment since the complainalso stated that the libelous article was printed and first published in 3aranaque City. -nder Article D1 of the %evised 3enal Code, venue in a civiaction for libel also lies in the place where the libelous article was printed and first published.

VIII. Johnny , a naturali&ed citi&en of the -nited States of America ++S# but formerly a Eilipino citi&en, e!ecuted a notarial will in accordance with the lawsof the State of California, -SA. Johnny , at the time of his death, was survived by his niece #nastacia, an American citi&en residing at thecondominium unit of Johnny located at Eort 8onifacio, aguig CityK a younger brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnny*s fish pond in Gingayen3angasinanK and a younger sister, 0hristina, who manages Johnny*s rentalcondominium units in $akati City. Johnny*s entire estate which he inherited from his parents is valued at 3011 million. Johnny appointed #nastaciaas e!ecutri! of his will. (4%)(A) Can Johnny <s notarial will be probated before the proper court in the 3hilippines'

(B) :s #nastacia qualified to be the e!ecutri! of Johnny <s notarial will' A(S")%S*+A Les, the formal validity of a will is governed also by the national law of the decedent. +Article J/;, Civil Code.A will proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper %egional riaCourt in the 3hilippines. +S/ %;;.+8 Les, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is qualified to be an e!ecutor although an alien because she is a resident of the 3hilippines. +S/%;J. IX.

Bayani , an overseas worker based in 4ubai, issued in favor of #gente, a special power of attorney to sell his house and lot. #gente wasable to sell the property but failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani , as agreed upon. On his return to the 3hilippines, Bayani , by way of a demandletter duly received by #gente, sought to recover the amount due him. #gente failed to return the amount as he had used it for the construction of hisown house.

hus, Bayani filed an action against #gente for sum of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an e12parte motion for theissuance of a writ of preliminary attachment duly supported by an affidavit. he court granted the e12parte motion and issued a writ of preliminaryattachment upon Bayani <s posting of the required bond. Bayani prayed that the court<s sheriff be deputi&ed to serve and implement the writ oattachment. On (ovember /7, 01/D, the Sheriff served upon #gente the writ of attachment and levied on the latter<s house and lot. On (ovember01, 01/D, the Sheriff served on #gente summons and a copy of the complaint. On (ovember 00, 01/D, #gente filed an #ns(er (ith Motion toDischarge the 3rit o- #ttachment alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, he has not been served with summons andtherefore, it was improperly issued. (4%)(A) :s #gente correct'(B) "as the writ of preliminary attachment properly e!ecuted' A(S")%S*+A (o, Agente is not correct.

-nder the %ules of Civil 3rocedure, a writ of attachment may issue even before service of summons upon the defendant. +S0 %6;.+8 (o, the writ of preliminary attachment not properly e!ecuted.

-nder S6 %6;, no levy on preliminary attachment shall be enforced unless there is prior or simultaneous service of the summons and theaccompanying papers. +S6 % he Supreme Court has held that subsequent service of summons will not cure the irregularity that attended theenforcement of the writ +Onate v. Abrogar, 0D Eebruary /776.

2ere the sheriff levied upon the house and lot prior to the service of the summons and the complaint upon Agente. 2ence the writ opreliminary attachment was not properly e!ecuted. he subsequent service of summons and the complaint did not cure the irregularity in theenforcement of the writ.

X.Prince 0hong entered into a lease contract with $ing $ong over a commercial building where the former conducted his hardware business. helease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of 361,111.11 for a four +9year period commencing on #anuary /, 01/1. On #anuary /,01/D, Prince 0hong died. $in Il 0hong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince 0hong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for themonths of #anuary to #une 01/D despite $ing $ong*s written demands.hus, on #uly /, 01/D, $ing $ong filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 an action for rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued

rentals as of #une D1, 01/D. (4%)



(A) Can $in Il 0hong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the %C is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only3D11,111.11'(B) :f the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince 0hong% and $ing $ong also filed the complaint for sum of money during that time, will theaction be dismissible upon Prince 0hong<s death during the pendency of the case' A(S")%S*+A (o, ?in :: Chong cannot move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the %C is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only3D11,111. -nder 8.3. 8lg. /07, the %C has original and e!clusive jurisdiction over actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.2ere the action is for rescission which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. he 3D11,111 accrued rentals is only incidental to the main purpose othe action which is to rescind the lease contract.+8 (o, the action will not be dismissible upon 3rince Chong<s death during the pendency of the case. -nder S01 %D, when the action is on a contractual money claim and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment, the action shall notbe dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. 2ere the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a claim for rentals based on a lease contract. 2ence it shall be allowed to continue untifinal judgment. +S01 %D, S6 %J.

XI.A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of #ss2asin, a notorious gun for hire. "hen the policeserved the warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to look at other portions of the premises around thehouse. :n a nipa hut thirty +D1 meters away from the house of #ss2asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped innewsprint. 2e took it and this was later used by the authorities to charge #ss2asin with i llegal possession of marijuana. #ss2asin objected to theintroduction of such evidence claiming that it was illegally sei&ed. :s the objection of #ssasin valid' (4%) A(S")%* Les, the objection of Ass9asin is valid.

-nder the Constitution, the right of the people against unlawful search is inviolable e!cept in cases where a valid search warrant was issuedor in e!ceptional cases where the law provides for a warrantless search. +Sec. 0, Art. :::, Constitution. -nder the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrineitems sei&ed by virtue of an unlawful search are inadmissible in evidence. +Sec. DB0, Art. :::, Constitution.

2ere the the sei&ure of the marijuana was illegal since it was not pursuant to a search warrant. he search warrant was for the search andsei&ure of unlicensed firearms not marijuana. (or would the e!ception regarding items sei&ed under plain view apply. he marijuana was wrappedin newsprint and clearly not in plain sight. 2ence the marijuana may not be introduced in evidence over Ass9asin<s objection.

XII.Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency where they both applied for overseas employment. hey e!changed pleasantries, includingdetails of their personal circumstances. Eortunately, Mary Jane was deployed to work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu 4habi where shemet Sultan #hmed who proposed marriage, to which she readily accepted. -nfortunately for Shiela May , she was not deployed to work abroad, andthis made her envious of Mary Jane.Mary Jane returned to the 3hilippines to prepare for her wedding. She secured from the (ational Statistics Office +4S! a Certificate of (o $arriage

:t turned out from the (SO records that Mary Jane had previously contracted marriage with John Starr , a 8ritish citi&en, which she never did. hepurported marriage between Mary Jane and John Starr contained all the required pertinent details on Mary Jane. Mary Jane later on learned thaShiela May is the best friend of John Starr .As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her predicament. "hat legal remedy will you avail to enable Mary Jane to contract marriage withSultan #hmed ' (4%) A(S")%* he legal remedy : would avail to enable $ary #ane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed is to file a petition under %ule /1J to canceentries in the marriage contract between #ohn Starr and $ary #ane, particularly the portion and entries thereon relating to the wife.

%ule /1J may be availed of to cancel erroneous or invalid entries in the Civil %egistry. 2ere the entry of $ary #ane as the wife of #ohn Staris clearly erroneous and invalid as she never contracted marriage with anybody, much less #ohn Starr. here is no need to file a petition fodeclaration of nullity of marriage since there was no marriage to speak of in the first place, the marriage contract being a sham contract. +%epublic vOlaybar, /1 Eebruary 01/, 3eralta, #..

XIII.A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from packages, was hired by 5DP 0orporation, a door to door forwarder company, to sniff packages intheir depot at the international airport. :n one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting to be sent to the -nited States of America + +S#, thedog sat beside one of the packages, a signal that the package contained dangerous drugs. hereafter, the guards opened the package and foundtwo +0 kilograms of cocaine. he o(ner of the package was arrested and charges were filed against him. 4uring the trial, the prosecution, throughthe trainer who was present during the incident and an e!pert in this kind of field, testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages todetermine if the contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing technique of these highly trained dogs was accepted worldwide and had beensuccessful in dangerous drugs operations. he prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the opening of the package. he accusedobjected on the grounds that* +i the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was openedK +ii the testimony of thetrainer of the dog is hearsayK and +iii the accused could not cross9e!amine the dog. 4ecide. (4%) A(S")%*he accused<s objections are overruled. he objection that the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was opened is misplaced. he onetestifying is the trainer not the guards and he had personal knowledge of the circumstances since he was present during the incident. 8esides there



is no rule of evidence that one cannot testify about the contents of a package if he did not have prior personal knowledge of its contents beforeopening it.

he objection that the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay is not valid. 2earsay is an out9of9court declaration made by a person which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

2ere what is involved is a dog who is not a person who can make an out9of9court declaration. +Gempert M Salt&burg, A $O4)%(A33%OAC2 O )@:4)(C) D;19D;/ B/7J0. A dog is not treated as a declarant or witness who can be cross9e!amined. +3eople v. CentolellaD16 (.L.S.0d 0;7. 2ence testimony that the dog sat beside the package is not testimony about an out9of9court declaration and thus not hearsay.

he objection that the accused could not cross9e!amine the dog is without merit. -nder the Constitution, the accused<s right of confrontationrefers to witnesses. As previously discussed, a dog is not a witness who can be cross9e!amined.

(ote* :t is urged that utmost liberality be e!ercised in grading this number. he answer is not found in 3hilippine law and jurisprudence andeven in commentaries by writers on evidence.

XIV."hen a $unicipal rial Court +M/0, pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an application for land registration, theaggrieved party<s remedy is* (1%)(A) ordinary appeal to the %egional rial Court(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals A(S")%* +C +See Sec. D, 8.3. 8lg. /07 XV.he Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, found probable cause to charge ,ov' Matigas in conspiracy with

0arpintero, a private individual, for violating Section D+e of %epublic Act +R# (o. D1/7 + #nti2,ra-t and 0orrupt Practices #ct , as amended.8efore the information could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, ,ov' Matigas was killed in an ambush. his, notwithstanding, an information was filedagainst ,ov' Matigas and 0arpintero.At the Sandiganbayan, 0arpintero through counsel, filed a $otion to Fuash the :nformation, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan, arguing that with the death of ,ov' Matigas, there is no public officer charged in the information.:s the motion to quash legally tenable' (4%) A(S")%* (o, the motion to quash is not legally tenable.:n a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of the public officer did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy betweenthe public officer and the private person can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already e!punged. he only thing e!tinguished bythe death of the public officer was his criminal liability. 2is death did not e!tinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracybetween him and the private person. 2ence the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged. +3eople v. 5o, 06 $arch 01/, 3eralta#.

XVI.Plainti-- filed a complaint denominated as accion publiciana, against de-endant . :n his answer, de-endant alleged that he had no interest over the landin question, e!cept as lessee of 6 . Plainti-- subsequently filed an affidavit of 6 , the lessor of de-endant , stating that 6 had sold to plainti-- all his rightsand interests in the property as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the affidavit. hus, plainti-- may ask the court to render* (1%)(A) summary judgment(B) judgment on the pleadings(C) partial judgment(D) judgment by default A(S")%* +A +S/ M D, %D6 XVII.

# was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non9bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant forhis arrest. "ithout # being arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to 7uash #rrest 3arrant and to 5i1 Bail , arguing that the allegations in the informationdid not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a bailable offense. he court denied the motion on the ground that it had not yetacquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be under the custody of the court since the crime charged wasnonbailable.

he accused<s lawyer counter9argued that the court can rule on the motion even if the accused was at9large because it had jurisdictionover the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because what

was filed was a Motion to 7uash #rrest and to 5i1 Bail , not a Petition -or Bail .(A) :f you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion' (3%)(B) :f the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should the accused undertake' (2%) A(S")%S* +A :f : were the Sandiganbayan, : would deny the $otion to Fuash Arrest "arrant and to Ei! 8ail. he motion to quash warrant of arrest may be considered since only jurisdiction over the person not custody of the law is required.#urisdiction over the person of A was obtained by his voluntary appearance made through the filing of the motion seeking affirmative relief. +See$iranda v. uliao, D/ $arch 011.



(onetheless : would still deny the motion to quash arrest warrant. he ground that the offense charged is malversation not plunder is not avalid ground to quash the arrest warrant. A should simply file an application for bail and contend that he is entitled thereto as a matter of right.

he motion to fi! amount of bail, which is in effect an application for bail cannot be granted unless the accused is in custody of the law.+$iranda v. uliao, D/ $arch 011. 2ere A was not in custody of the law but still at large. 2ence the motion to fi! the amount of bail should bedenied.+8 :f the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the judicial remedy that the accused should undertake is to file a petition for certiorari under %ule6 with the Supreme Court. Certiorari is available to challenge interlocutory orders rendered with grave abuse of discretion since appeal isunavailable. 2ere the order denying the $otion to Fuash Arrest "arrant and to Ei! 8ail is interlocutory since it does not completely dispose of the case.2ence certiorari is available. A should aver that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or e!cess of

jurisdiction in denying his motion.

XVIII. # was charged with murder in the lower court. 2is Petition -or Bail was denied after a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution hadestablished a strong evidence of guilt. (o Motion -or Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition -or Bail . 4uring the reception of theevidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shownthat no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. he court denied the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that* +i theevidence of guilt is strongK +ii the resolution for the Petition -or Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecutionK and +iii no $otionfor %econsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition -or Bail . (6%)(A) :f you are the #udge, how will you resolve the incident'(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of homicide and the accused filed a (otice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail' A(S")%S*+A :f : were the judge, : will grant the 3etition for 8ail if the evidence does not show any qualifying aggravating circumstance. :n such a case

the offense would be only homicide which is bailable.+i he ground that the court had already ruled that the evidence of guilt is strong is improper. An order denying an application for bail isinterlocutory and remains at the control of the court until final judgment. 2ence the court is not bound by its earlier ruling and may reconsider thesame if the evidence or law warrants the same. +ii he ground that the resolution for the 3etition for 8ail is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecution is improper. "hile SJ %//provides that the prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the evidence of guilt is strong, it should not be taken to mean that the resolution ofthe bail application is based solely on the prosecution evidence. At the hearing for the bail application, both the prosecution and the accused musbe given reasonable opportunity to prove or to disprove, respectively, that the evidence of guilt is strong. +Santos v. Ofilada, 06 SC%A 6.+iii he ground that no motion for reconsideration was filed from the order denying the petition for bail is improper. As previously discussed, anorder denying bail is merely interlocutory. 2ence the failure to move for reconsideration thereof during the trial will not render the order final andconclusive.+8 (o, after conviction by the %C of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail isdiscretionary. +S6 %//.

XIX.A vicarious admission is considered an e!ception to the hearsay rule. :t, however, does not cover* (1%)(A) admission by a conspirator(B) admission by a privy(C) judicial admission(D) adoptive admission = +C (ote* a vicarious admission is an e!trajudicial admission. 2ence C is not covered by the rule regarding vicarious admissions.

XX./om 3allis filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 a 3etition for 4eclaration of (ullity of his marriage with Debi 3allis on the ground opsychological incapacity of the latter. 8efore filing the petition, /om 3allis had told Debi 3allis that he wanted the annulment of their marriagebecause he was already fed up with her irrational and eccentric behaviour. 2owever, in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the correctresidential address of Debi 3allis was deliberately not alleged and instead, the residential address of their married son was stated. Summons wasserved by substituted service at the address stated in the petition. Eor failure to file an answer, Debi 3allis was declared in de-ault and /om 3allispresented evidence e12parte. he %C rendered judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of Deb3allis. hree +D years after the %C judgment was rendered, Debi 3allis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to have the %C judgment reversedand set aside.:f you are the lawyer of Debi 3allis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you take' 4iscuss and specify the ground or grounds for said remedy orremedies. (5%) A(S")%*:f : were the lawyer of 4ebi "allis, the judicial remedy : would take is to file with the Court of Appeals an action for annulment of the %C judgmentunder %ule ;. An action for annulment of judgment may be resorted to since the remedies of appeal and petition for relief are no longer availablethrough no fault of 4ebi "allis. +S/ %;.

he ground for annulment of judgment would be lack of jurisdiction. Gack of jurisdiction also covers lack of jurisdiction over the person of thedefendant since the judgment would be void. +/ EGO%)(N 4. %)5AGA4O, %)$)4:AG GA" CO$3)(4:-$ 66J B;th rev. ed., Drd printing.



2ere the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of 4ebi since there was no valid substituted service of summons. Substitutedservice of summons should have been made at 4ebi<s residence. +S; %/. 2ence the judgment of the %C was void. Since the judgment is voidthe petition for annulment thereof is imprescriptible. +SD %;. Eurthermore, default judgments are not allowed in declaration of nullity of marriage. +SDBe %7. 2ence the trial court<s rendition of a defaul

judgment was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

XXI.,ood-eather 0orporation, through its 3resident, #l Pakino, filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 a complaint for specific performance againsRobert 3hite. :nstead of filing an answer to the complaint, Robert 3hite filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of theappropriate board resolution from the 8oard of 4irectors of ,ood-eather 0orporation to show the authority of #l Pakino to represent the corporationand file the complaint in its behalf. he %C granted the motion to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the dismissal of the complaint. #l Pakino fileda motion for reconsideration which the %C denied. As nothing more could be done by #l Pakino before the %C, he filed an appeal before the Courof Appeals +0#. Robert 3hite moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same involved purely a question of law and should havebeen filed with the Supreme Court +S0. 2owever, #l Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mi!ed questions of fact and law because there mustbe a factual determination if, indeed, #l Pakino was duly authori&ed by ,ood-eather 0orporation to file the complaint. "hose position is correct')!plain. (4%) A(S")%* %obert "hite<s position is correct. :n a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the issue of whether or not the trial courerred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the person who filed the complaint in behalf of the plaintiff corporation was not authori&ed to doso is a legal issue, reviewable only by the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under %ule 6. +amondong v. Court of Appeals, 0(ovember 011.

+(ote* An alternative answer would be that the appeal raises a factual question of whether or not Al 3akino was indeed authori&ed to file thecomplaint in behalf of 5oodfeather Corporation. A reading of /amondong would show that the appellant only raised a legal question of whether i

was proper to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action but did not raise a factual issue as to whether the filer was in fact authori&edby the corporation.. XXII."hich of the following decisions may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court +S0' +Assume that the issues to be raised on appeal involve purelyquestions of law (1%)(A) 4ecision of the %egional rial Court +R/0 rendered in the e!ercise of its appellate jurisdiction.(B) 4ecision of the %C rendered in the e!ercise of its original jurisdiction.(C) 4ecision of the Civil Service Commission.(D) 4ecision of the Office of the 3resident. A(S")%*+8 (ote* :n an appeal from %C judgment in the e!ercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should be to the CA even if the questions are onlylegal. 2ence A should be e!cluded. +S0Bc %0.

XXIII.Mr' Humpty filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 a complaint against Ms' Dumpty for damages. he %C, after due proceedings, rendered adecision granting the complaint and ordering Ms' Dumpty to pay damages to Mr' Humpty . Ms' Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the Court ofAppeals +0#, questioning the %C decision. $eanwhile, the %C granted Mr' Humpty*s motion for e!ecution pending appeal. -pon receipt of the%C<s order granting e!ecution pending appeal, Ms' Dumpty filed with theCA another case, this time a special civil action for certiorari assailing said %C order. :s there a violation of the rule against forum shoppingconsidering that two +0 actions emanating from the same case with the %C were filed by Ms' Dumpty with the CA' )!plain. (4%) A(S")%*(o, there is no violation of the rule against forum shopping.Eorum shopping applies where two or more initiatory pleadings were filed by the same party. his is discernible from the use of the phrase=commenced any action or filed any claim> in S6 %;.2ere the first case involves the filing by $s. 4umpty of a notice of appeal which is not an initiatory pleading. 2ence there is no forum shopping.

XXIV.Solomon and 5aith got married in 0116. :n 01/1, Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope. "hen 5aith found out about the secondmarriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the %egional rial Court +R/0 of $anila sometime in 01//.$eanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first marriage with 5aith in 01/0, while the case for bigamy before the %C of$anila is ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of prejudicial question. 2easserts that the proceedings in the criminal case should be suspended because if his first marriage with 5aith will be declared null and void, it wilhave the effect of e!culpating him from the crime of bigamy. 4ecide. (4%)A(S")%*$otion to suspend proceedings denied.-nder the %ules of Criminal 3rocedure, a prejudicial question arises if there has been a previously filed civil action. 2ere the civil action was filedafter the criminal action. 2ence no prejudicial question will arise.$oreover the Supreme Court has held that a pending case for declaration of nullity of marriage does not raise a prejudicial question to a charge ofbigamy since a person who contracts a second marriage without first awaiting a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage has already

committed bigamy. +3eople v. Odtuhan, /; #uly 01/D, 3eralta, #..



XXV.Mr' Boa8 filed an action for ejectment against Mr' Jachin before the $etropolitan rial Court +Me/0. Mr' Jachin actively participated in every stage othe proceedings knowing fully well that the $eC had no jurisdiction over the action. :n his mind, Mr' Jachin was thinking that if the $eC rendered

judgment against him, he could always raise the issue on the jurisdiction of the $eC. After trial, the $eC rendered judgment against Mr' Jachin"hat is the remedy of Mr' Jachin' (1%)(A) Eile an appeal(B) Eile an action for nullif ication of judgment(C) Eile a motion for reconsideration(D) Eile a petition for certiorari under %ule 6A(S")%*+A See SJ %1. %; is not available since appeal is still available. (ot C since a prohibited pleading. XXVI.3arole evidence is an* (1%)(A) agreement not included in the document(B) oral agreement not included in the document(C) agreement included in the document(D) oral agreement included in the documentA(S")%*+A (ote* :t is suggested that either A or 8 be considered as correct. Strictly speaking parol evidence does not have to be an agreementK it issimply any evidence, whether written or oral, which is not contained in a written agreement subject of a case and which seeks to modify, alter, ore!plain the terms of the written agreement.

XXVII.Mr' #venger filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 a complaint against Ms' Bright for annulment of deed of sale and other documents. Ms' Brighfiled a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr' #venger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. State anddiscuss the appropriate remedyremedies under each of the following situations* (6%)(A) :f the %C grants Ms' Bright <s motion to dismiss and dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, what will be theremedyremedies of Mr' #venger '(B) :f the %C denies Ms' Bright <s motion to dismiss, what will be her remedyremedies'(C) :f the %C denies Ms' Bright <s motion to dismiss and, further proceedings, including trial on the merits, are conducted until the %C renders adecision in favor of Mr' #venger , what will be the remedyremedies of Ms' Bright 'A(S")%S*+A :f the %C grants $s. 8rights<s motion to dismiss, the remedies of $r. Avenger are*+a Eile a motion for reconsideration under %ule D;.

+b %e9file the complaint. he dismissal does not bar the re9filing of the case +S6 %/.+c Appeal from the order of dismissal. he dismissal order is a final order as it completely disposes of the caseK hence it is appealable.+d Eile an amended complaint as a matter of right curing the defect of lack of cause of action before the dismissal order becomes final. his isbecause a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleadingK hence $r. Avenger can amend the complaint as a matter of right. +S0 %/1.+8 :f the %C denies $s. 8right<s motion to dismiss, her remedies are*+a Eile a motion for reconsideration.+b 3roceed to trial and if she loses, appeal and assign the failure to dismiss as a reversible error.+c Eile a special civil action for certiorari andor mandamus if the denial of the order to dismiss is made with grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack of or e!cess of jurisdiction.+C :f the %C renders a decision in favor of $r. Avenger, $s. 8right<s remedies are*+a Eile a motion for reconsideration or new trial under %ule D;.+b Eile an appeal to the Court of Appeals under %ule /.+c Eile an appeal to the Supreme Court under %ule 6 if the appeal will raise only questions of law.+d Eile a petition for relief from judgment under %ule DJ.+e Eile an action for annulment of judgment under %ule ; on the ground of e!trinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

XXVIII. # was adopted by B and 0 when # was only a toddler. Gater on in life, # filed with the %egional rial Court +R/0 a petition for change of name unde%ule /1D of the %ules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his natural parents because the surname of his adoptive parents soundedoffensive and was seriously affecting his business and social life.he adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of name. $ay # file a petition for change of name' :f the %C grants the petitionfor change of name, what, if any, will be the effect on the respective relations of # with his adoptive parents and with his natural parents' 4iscuss(4%)A(S")%*

Les, A may file a petition for change of name. Changing name on the ground that it is offensive and seriously affects the petitioner<sbusiness and social life is a valid ground especially where the adoptive parents had given their consent.

he grant of the petition will not change A<s relations with his adoptive and natural parents. he Supreme Court has held that change o

name under %ule /1D affects only the name and not the status of the petitioner. +%epublic v. CA, 0/ $ay /770.



XXIX.

9strella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet . 2owever, when she visitedthe property after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house onher property.

8oth 9strella and John were residents of the same barangay . o recover possession, 9strella filed a complaint for ejectment with the$unicipal rial Court +M/0, alleging that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her certificate of title and ta! declaration which showedthe assessed value of the property as 30/,111.11. On the other hand, John refuted 9strella*s claim of ownership and submitted in evidence a 4eedof Absolute Sale between him and 9strella. After the filing of John<s answer, the $C observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not opossession. 2ence, the $C dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal by 9strella to the %egional rial Court +R/0, a full9blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. he %Creasoned that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court of proper jurisdiction. )ventually, the %C rendered a judgment declaring

John as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (4%)(A) "as the $C correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction' "hy or why not'(B) "as the %C correct in ruling that based on the assessed value of the property, the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence, it mayconduct a full9blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed with it' "hy or why not' A(S")%S*+A (o, the $C was not correct in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. he Supreme Court has held that an allegation of ownership asa defense in the answer will not oust the $C of jurisdiction in an ejectment case. +Subano v. @allecer, 0 $arch /767. "hat determines subjectmatter jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint and not those in the answer. Eurthermore, the $C is empowered under S/ %;1 to resolvethe issue of ownership, albeit for the purpose only of resolving the issue of possession.+8 (o the %C was not correct in ruling that the case was within its original jurisdiction and that hence it may conduct a full9blown trial of theappealed case as if it were originally filed with it.

-nder SJ %1, if an appeal is taken from an $C order dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction without a trial on the merits, the %C onappeal may affirm the dismissal order and i- it has urisdiction thereover , try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. 2ere the %C did not have jurisdiction over the case since it is an ejectment suit cogni&able e!clusively by the $C. he assessed value othe land is irrelevant for the purpose of determining jurisdiction in ejectment suits and would not oust the $C of jurisdiction in the same manner asallegations of ownership would not oust the $C of jurisdiction.

he %C should have reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case to the $C for further proceedings. +SJ %1.(ote* -tmost liberality should be given to the e!aminee on this question as it does not appear to be within the coverage of the remedial law

e!amination per the bar e!amination syllabus given by the Supreme Court.

!!!0!!!All rights reserved 01/ by #urists 8ar %eview Center. -nauthori&ed copying, dissemination, printing or downloading or uploading is strictly

prohibited.5E A&ucena Arcade, 066 Alabang9Napote %oad, 3amplona, Gas 3iHas City

el. (o. +10JD7D;K J;/6;7K D7//D1JCell* 17D7.D.0DK 177J 6;D6/JK 17/; 661D67/

"ebsite* juristsbar.com.ph)9mail* juristsbarPjuristsbar.com.ph

Copyright Q 01/0by %n% website administrator

mailto:[email protected]



suggested answers to 2014 remedial law b

Documents