suggested answers to the 2015 remedial law bar examination

8/16/2019 Suggested Answers to the 2015 Remedial Law Bar Examination

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/suggested-answers-to-the-2015-remedial-law-bar-examination 1/17

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2015 REMEDIAL LAW BAR EXAMINATION

I. Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory

note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a

promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secred by areal estate mortgage on his land valed at P!00,000.00. Borrower de"alted on

his payments when the loans matred. #espite demand to pay the P!00,000.00

loan, Borrower re"sed to pay. Lender, applying the totality rle, $led against

Borrower with the %egional &rial 'ort (%&') o" *anila, a collection sit "or

P!00,000.00.

a.) #id Lender correctly apply the totality rle and the rle on +oinder o" cases

o" action (-)

/t the trial, Borrowers lawyer, while crossexamining Lender, sccess"llyelicited an admission "rom the latter that the two promissory notes have beenpaid. &herea"ter, Borrowers lawyer $led a motion to dismiss the case on thegrond that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amont de to Lender andwhich claim is within the exclsive original +risdiction o" the *etropolitan &rial'ort. 2e "rther arged that lac o" +risdiction over the sb+ect matter can beraised at any stage o" the proceedings.

b.) Shold the cort dismiss the case (3)

/4S56%S7

a) 8es Lender correctly applied the totality rle and the rle on +oinder o" caseso" action.

9nder the rle on +oinder o" cases o" action, a party may in one pleadingassert as many cases o" action as he may have against an opposing party.9nder the totality rle, where the claims in all the cases o" action are principally"or recovery o" money, the aggregate amont claimed shall be the test o"

+risdiction.

2ere the cases o" action by Lender are all against borrower and all theclaims are principally "or recovery o" money.

2ence the aggregate amont claimed, which is P!00,000 shall be the testo" +risdiction and ths it is the %&' o" *anila which has +risdiction.

/lthogh the rles on +oinder o" cases o" action state that the +oindershall not inclde special civil actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to thethird loan was not "oreclosre bt collection. 2ence +oinder o" cases o" actionwold still be proper.

b) 4o, the cort shold not dismiss the case.

&he Spreme 'ort has held that sb+ectmatter +risdiction is

determined by the amont o" the claim alleged in the complaint and not the



amont sbstantiated dring the trial. (#ionisio v Sioson Perto, 31 :ctober1;<=).

2ere the amont claimed was P!00,000. 6ven i" the claim sbstantiateddring the trial was only P300,000 that is not determinative o" sb+ectmatter

+risdiction.

2ence the argment that lac o" sb+ectmatter +risdiction can be raisedat any time is misplaced since in the $rst place the %&' has +risdiction. II. 'irce $led with the %&' a complaint "or the "oreclosre o" real estate mortgageagainst siblings Scylla and 'harybdis, coowners o" the property andcosignatories to the mortgage deed. &he siblings permanently reside in /thens,>reece. 'irce tipped o? Sheri? Plto that Scylla is on a balibayan trip and isbilleted at the 'entry Pla@a 2otel in Pasay 'ity. Sheri? Plto went to the hoteland personally served Scylla the smmons, bt the latter re"sed to receivesmmons "or 'harybdis as she was not athori@ed to do so. Sheri? Plto

reAested Scylla "or the email address and "ax nmber o" 'harybdis which thelatter readily gave. Sheri? Plto, in his retrn o" the smmons, stated thatSmmons "or Scylla was served personally as shown by her signatre on thereceiving copy o" the smmons. Smmons on 'harybdis was served prsant tothe amendment o" %le 1= by "acsimile transmittal o" the smmons andcomplaint on de"endants "ax nmber as evidenced by transmission veri$cationreport atomatically generated by the "ax machine indicating that it wasreceived by the "ax nmber to which it was sent on the date and time indicatedtherein.

'irce, sixty (C0) days a"ter her receipt o" Sheri? Pltos retrn, $led a*otion to #eclare 'harybdis in de"alt as 'harybdis did not $le any responsivepleading.

a.) Shold the cort declare 'harybdis in de"alt (-)

Scylla seasonably $led her answer setting "orth therein as a de"ense that'harybdis had paid the mortgage debt. b.) :n the premise that 'harybdis was properly declared in de"alt, what isthe e?ect o" Scyllas answer to the complaint (-)

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, the cort shold not declare 'harybdis in de"alt.

9nder the %les o" 'ort, the amendment o" %le 1= allowing service o"smmons by "acsimile transmittal re"ers only to service o" smmons pon a"oreign private +ridical entity nder Section 1- o" %le 1=, not to a nonresidentde"endant nder Section 1! o" %le 1=. Service o" smmons by "acsimile cannotbe e?ected nder Section 1! nless leave o" cort was obtained speci$callypermitting service by "acsimile transmittal.

2ere the de"endant is not a "oreign private +ridical entity bt a nonresident de"endant and no leave o" cort was obtained to serve smmons by"acsimile.



2ence there was no valid service o" smmons and ths the cort cold notdeclare 'harybdis in de"alt.

b) &he e?ect o" ScyllaDs answer to the complaint is that the cort shall try thecase against both Scylla and 'harybdis pon the answer $led by Scylla.

9nder Section 3(c) o" %le ;, when a pleading asserting a claim states acommon case o" action against several de"ending parties, some o" whomanswer and the others "ail to do so, the cort shall try the case against all ponthe answers ths $led and render +dgment pon the evidence presented.

2ere there was a common case o" action against Scylla and 'harybdissince both were cosignatories to the mortgage deed.

2ence the cort shold not render +dgment by de"alt against 'harybdisbt shold proceed to try the case pon the answer $led and the evidencepresented by Scylla.

III. Eliet invoing the provisions o" the %le on Fiolence /gainst 5omen and their'hildren $led with the %&' designated as a Gamily 'ort a petition "or issance o" a &emporary Protection :rder (&P:) against her hsband, %omeo. &he Gamily'ort issed a 30day &P: against %omeo. / day be"ore the expiration o" the

&P:, Eliet $led a motion "or extension. %omeo in his opposition raised, amongothers, the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (&he F/5' Law) arging that thelaw athori@ing the issance o" a &P: violates the eAal protection and deprocess clases o" the 1;H< 'onstittion. &he Gamily 'ort +dge, in granting themotion "or extension o" the &P:, declined to rle on the constittionality o" %./.4o. ;-C-. &he Gamily 'ort +dge reasoned that Gamily 'orts are withot

+risdiction to pass pon constittional isses, being a special cort o" limited

+risdiction and %./. 4o. H3C;, the law creating the Gamily 'orts, does notprovide "or sch +risdiction. Is the Gamily 'ort +dge correct when he declinedto resolve the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (3)

/4S56%7

4o, the Gamily 'ort +dge was not correct when he declined to resolvethe constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C-.

&he Spreme 'ort has held that despite its designation as a Gamily'ort, a %egional &rial 'ort remains possessed o" athority as a cort o" general

+risdiction to resolve the constittionality o" a statte. (>arcia v. #rilon, -! Ene-013) IF. Strass $led a complaint against 5agner "or cancellation o" title. 5agnermoved to dismiss the complaint becase >rieg, to whom he mortgaged theproperty as dly annotated in the &'&, was not impleaded as de"endant.

a.) Shold the complaint be dismissed (3)b.) I" the case shold proceed to trial withot >rieg being impleaded as aparty to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest (-) /4S56%S7

a) 4o, the complaint shold not be dismissed.



&he Spreme 'ort has held that non+oinder o" an indispensable party isnot a grond o" a motion to dismiss. (Fesagas v. '/, 3<1 S'%/ !0H).

2ere althogh >rieg, the registered mortgagee, is an indispensable party(*etroban v. /le+o, 3C= S'%/ H13 -001J), his non+oinder does not warrant thedismissal o" the complaint.

b) &he remedy o" >rieg is to $le a motion "or leave to intervene.

9nder %le 1;, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigationmay intervene in the action.

2ere >rieg is a mortgagee and sch "act was annotated in the title.

2ence he has a legal interest in the title sb+ectmatter o" the litigationand may ths intervene in the case.

F. 6rnie $led a petition "or gardianship over the person and properties o" his"ather, 6rnesto. 9pon receipt o" the notice o" hearing, 6rnesto $led an oppositionto the petition. 6rnie, be"ore the hearing o" the petition, $led a motion to order6rnesto to sbmit himsel" "or mental and physical examination which the cortgranted.

/"ter 6rnies lawyer completed the presentation o" evidence in spport o"the petition and the corts rling on the "ormal o?er o" evidence, 6rnestoslawyer $led a demrrer to evidence.

6rnies lawyer ob+ected on the grond that a demrrer to evidence is notproper in a special proceeding.

a.) 5as 6rnies consels ob+ection proper (-)b.) I" 6rnesto de$es the corts order directing him to sbmit to physical

and mental examinations, can the cort order his arrest (-) /4S56%S7

a) 4o, 6rnieDs conselDs ob+ection was not proper.

9nder the %le on Special Proceedings, in the absence o" specialprovisions, the rles provided "or in ordinary actions, shall be, as "ar as

practicable, applicable in special proceedings.

2ere there are no special provisions on demrrer to evidence in the rleson gardianship. 2ence the provisions on demrrer to evidence in ordinaryactions are applicable to special proceedings. Sch application is practicablesince it wold be a waste o" time to contine hearing the case i" pon the "actsand the law, gardianship wold not be proper.

b) 4o, the cort cannot order 6rnestoDs arrest.

9nder Section 3(d) o" %le -;, a cort cannot direct the arrest o" a party"or disobeying an order to sbmit to a physical or mental examination. &he

cort may impose other penalties sch as rendering +dgment by de"alt orissing an order that the physical or mental condition o" the disobedient party



shall be taen as established in accordance with the claim o" the party obtainingthe order.

FI. / law was passed declaring *t. Karbngo as a protected area since it was ama+or watershed. &he protected area covered a portion located in *nicipality /o" the Province I and a portion located in the 'ity o" o" Province II. *aingat isthe leader o" Samahan ng &agapagingat ng Karbngo (S&K), a peoplesorgani@ation. 2e learned that a portion o" the montain located in the 'ity o" o" Province II was extremely damaged when it was blldo@ed and leveled to thegrond, and several trees and plants were ct down and brned by worers o"5orld Pleasre %esorts, Inc. (5P%I) "or the constrction o" a hotel and gol"corse. 9pon inAiry with the pro+ect site engineer i" they had a permit "or thepro+ect, *aingat was shown a copy o" the 6nvironmental 'ompliance 'erti$cate(6'') issed by the #64%6*B, %egional #irector (%##64%6*B). Immediately,*aingat and S&K $led a petition "or the issance o" a writ o" continingmandams against %##64%6*B and 5P%I with the %&' o" Province I, adesignated environmental cort, as the %##64%6*B negligently issed the 6''

to 5P%I.

:n scrtiny o" the petition, the cort determined that the area where thealleged actionable neglect or omission sb+ect o" the petition too place in the'ity o" o" Province II, and there"ore cogni@able by the %&' o" Province II. &hs,the cort dismissed otright the petition "or lac o" +risdiction.

a.) 5as the cort correct in mot proprio dismissing the petition (3)

/ssming that the cort did not dismiss the petition, the %##64%6*B inhis 'omment moved to dismiss the petition on the grond that petitioners "ailedto appeal the issance o" the 6'' and to exhast administrative remedies

provided in the #64% %les and %eglations.

b.) Shold the cort dismiss the petition (3) /4S56%S7

a) 4o, the cort was not correct in mot proprio dismissing the petition"or lac o" +risdiction.

In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that thereAirement that the petition be $led in the area where the actionable neglect or

omission too place relates to vene and not to sb+ectmatter +risdiction.Since what is involved is improper vene and not sb+ectmatter +risdiction, itwas wrong "or the cort to dismiss otright the petition since vene may bewaived. (#olot v. Pa+e, -< /gst -013).

b) 4o, the cort shold not dismiss the petition.

&he Spreme 'ort has held that in environmental cases, the de"ense o""ailre to exhast administrative remedies by appealing the 6'' issance woldapply only i" the de"ect in the issance o" the 6'' does not have any casalrelation to the environmental damage.

2ere the issance o" the 6'' has a direct casal relation to the

environmental damage since it permitted the blldo@ing o" a portion o" the



montain and the ctting down and bring o" several trees and plants. (See Pajev. Casiño, 3 Gebrary -01!).

FII. Plainti? sed de"endant "or collection o" P1 million based on the latterspromissory note. &he complaint alleges, among others7

1) #e"endant borrowed P1 million "rom plainti? as evidenced by a dlyexected promissory noteM

-) &he promissory note reads7

*aati, Philippines#ec. 30, -01= Gor vale received "rom plainti?, de"endant promises to payplainti? P1 million, twelve (1-) months "rom the above indicateddate withot necessity o" demand.

Signed#e"endant / copy o" the promissory note is attached as /nnex /.

#e"endant, in his veri$ed answer, alleged among others7

1) #e"endant speci$cally denies the allegation in paragraphs 1and - o" the complaint, the trth being de"endant did notexecte any promissory note in "avor o" plainti?, or

-) #e"endant has paid the P1 million claimed in the promissory

note (/nnex / o" the 'omplaint) as evidenced by an/cnowledgment %eceipt dly exected by plainti? on

Eanary 30, -01! in *anila with his spose signing aswitness.

/ copy o" the /cnowledgment %eceipt is attached as /nnex 1hereo".

Plainti? $led a motion "or +dgment on the pleadings on the grond thatde"endants answer "ailed to tender an isse as the allegations therein on hisde"enses are sham "or being inconsistentM hence, no de"ense at all. #e"endant

$ledan opposition claiming his answer tendered an isse.

a.) Is +dgment on the pleadings proper (3)

#e"endant $led a motion "or smmary +dgment on the grond that there areno longer any triable genine isses o" "acts.

b.) Shold the cort grant de"endants motion "or smmary +dgment (3)

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, +dgment on the pleadings is not proper.



9nder Section - o" %le H, a party may set "orth two or more statements o" a de"ense alternatively or hypothetically. &he Spreme 'ort has held thatinconsistent de"enses may be pleaded alternatively or hypothetically providedthat each de"ense is consistent with itsel". (Baclayon v. 'ort o" /ppeals, -CGebrary 1;;0).

2ence Plainti?Ds contention that de"endantDs answer "ailed to tender anisse as his de"enses are sham "or being inconsistent is withot merit.

b) 8es, the cort shold grant #e"endantDs motion "or smmary +dgment.

9nder Section - o" %le 3!, a de"endant may at any time, move withspporting admissions "or a smmary +dgment in his "avor.

2ere the Plainti? had impliedly admitted the genineness and deexection o" the acnowledgment receipt, which was the basis o" #e"endantDs

de"ense, by "ailing to speci$cally deny it nder oath.

2ence the #e"endant may move "or a smmary +dgment on the basisthat Plainti? had admitted that #e"endant had already paid the P1 millionobligation.

FIII. /ldrin entered into a contract to sell with 4eil over a parcel o" land. &hecontract stiplated a P!00,000.00 down payment pon signing and the balancepayable in twelve (1-) monthly installments o" P100,000.00. /ldrin paid thedown payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he "ond otthat 4eil had sold the same property to 8ri "or P1.! million paid in cash. /ldrin

sed 4eil "or speci$c per"ormance with damages with the %&'. 8ri, with leave o"cort, $led an answerinintervention as he had already obtained a &'& in hisname. /"ter trial, the cort rendered +dgment ordering /ldrin to pay all theinstallments de, the cancellation o" 8ris title, and 4eil to execte a deed o"sale in "avor o" /ldrin. 5hen the +dgment became $nal and exectory, /ldrinpaid 4eil all the installments bt the latter re"sed to execte the deed o" sale in"avor o" the "ormer. /ldrin $led a Petition "or the Issance o" a 5rit o" 6xectionwith proper notice o" hearing. &he petition alleged, among others, that thedecision had become $nal and exectory and he is entitled to the issance o" thewrit o" exection as a matter o" right. 4eil $led a motion to dismiss the petitionon the grond that it laced the reAired certi$cation against "orm shopping.

a.) Shold the cort grant 4eils *otion to #ismiss (3)

#espite the issance o" the writ o" exection directing 4eil to execte thedeed o" sale in "avor o" /ldrin, the "ormer obstinately re"sed to execte thedeed.

b.) 5hat is /ldrins remedy (-)

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, the cort shold not grant 4eilDs *otion to #ismiss.



9nder Section ! o" %le <, a certi$cation against "orm shopping isreAired only "or initiatory pleadings or petitions. 2ere the NPetition "or the Issance o" a 5rit o" 6xection,O althogherroneosly denominated as a petition is actally a motion "or issance o" a writo" exection nder %le 3;.

2ence the motion to dismiss on the grond o" lac o" a certi$cationagainst "orm shopping shold be denied.

b) /ldrinDs remedy is to $le a motion "or +dgment "or speci$c act nderSection 10(a) o" %le 3;.

9nder Section 10(a) o" %le 3;, i" a +dgment directs a party to execte aconveyance o" land and the party "ails to comply, the cort may direct the act tobe done at the disobedient partyDs cost by some other person appointed by thecort or the cort may by an order divest the title o" the party and vest it in themovant or other person.

I. 2ades, an /merican citi@en, throgh a dating website, got acAainted withPersephone, a Gilipina. 2ades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Bagio'ity where Persephone resides. 2ades and Persephone contracted marriage,solemni@ed by the *etropolitan &rial 'ort +dge o" *aati 'ity. /"ter thewedding, 2ades Qew bac to 'ali"ornia, 9nited States o" /merica, to wind p hisbsiness a?airs. :n his retrn to the Philippines, 2ades discovered thatPersephone had an illicit a?air with Phanes. Immediately, 2ades retrned to the9nited States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree "rom the Sperior'ort o" the 'onty o" San *ateo, 'ali"ornia, a cort o" competent +risdictionagainst Persephone. 2ades desires to marry 2estia, also a Gilipina, whom he metat Baccs >rill in Pasay 'ity.

a.) /s 2ades lawyer, what petition shold yo $le in order that yor clientcan avoid prosection "or bigamy i" he desires to marry 2estia (-)

b.) In what cort shold yo $le the petition (1 )

c.) 5hat is the essential reAisite that yo mst comply with "or theprposeo" establishing +risdictional "acts be"ore the cort can hear the petition (3) /4S56%S7

a) /s 2adeDs lawyer, I wold $le a petition "or cancellation o" entry o"marriage nder %le 10H with prayer "or recognition o" "oreign divorce +dgment.

In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that a "oreigndivorce decree mst $rst be recogni@ed be"ore it can be given e?ect. &heSpreme 'ort stated that the recognition may be prayed "or in the petition "orcancellation o" the marriage entry nder %le 10H. ('orp@ v. Sto. &omas, C-HS'%/ -CC).

b) I wold $le the petition in the regional trial cort o" *aati 'ity, wherethe corresponding civil registry is located. (Section 1 o" %le 10H).

c) Gor the %le 10H petition, the +risdictional "acts are the "ollowing7



1. Eoinder o" the local civil registrar and all persons who have or claim

any interest which wold be a?ected by petition.-. 4otice o" the order o" hearing to the persons named in the petition.3. Pblication o" the order o" hearing in a newspaper o" general

circlation in the province.

. /n in"ormation "or mrder was $led against %apido. &he %&' +dge, a"terpersonally evalating the prosectors resoltion, docments and partiesaRdavits sbmitted by the prosector, "ond probable case and issed awarrant o" arrest. %apidos lawyer examined the rollo o" the case and "ond thatit only contained the copy o" the in"ormation, the sbmissions o" the prosectorand a copy o" the warrant o" arrest. Immediately, %apidos consel $led a motionto Aash the arrest warrant "or being void, citing as gronds7

a.) &he +dge be"ore issing the warrant did not personally condct a

searching examination o" the prosection witnesses in violation o" his clientsconstittionallymandated rightsM

b.) &here was no prior order $nding probable case be"ore the +dgeissed the arrest warrant.

*ay the warrant o" arrest be Aashed on the gronds cited by %apido sconsel State yor reason "or each grond. (=) /4S56%7

4o, the warrant o" arrest may not be Aashed on the gronds cited by%apidoDs consel.

a) &he Spreme 'ort has held in Soliven v. Makasiar , 1C< S'%/ 3;3(1;HH) that Section - o" /rt. III o" the 'onstittion does not mandatorily reAirethe +dge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. &he +dgemay opt to personally evalate the report and spporting docments sbmittedby the regarding the existence o" probable case and on the basis thereo" isse awarrant o" arrest.

b) &here is no reAirement o" a prior order by the +dge $nding probablecase. &he S' has held that the +dge may rely pon the resoltion o" theinvestigating prosector provided that he personally evalates the same and theaRdavits and spporting docments, which he did. (People v. >rey, -C Ely

-010).

I. &he :mbdsman "ond probable case to charge with plnder the provincialgovernor, vice governor, treasrer, bdget oRcer, and accontant. /nIn"ormation "or plnder was $led with the Sandiganbayan against the provincialoRcials except "or the treasrer who was granted immnity when he agreed tocooperate with the :mbdsman in the prosection o" the case. Immediately, thegovernor $led with the Sandiganbayan a petition "or certiorari against the:mbdsman claiming there was grave abse o" discretion in exclding thetreasrer "rom the In"ormation.

a.) 5as the remedy taen by the governor correct (-)b.) 5ill the writ o" mandams lie to compel the :mbdsman to inclde the



treasrer in the In"ormation (3)c.) 'an the Special Prosector move "or the discharge o" the bdget oRcer

to corroborate the testimony o" the treasrer in the corse o" presenting itsevidence (-)

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, the remedy taen by the governor was not correct.

&he S' has held that the proper remedy "rom the :mbdsmanDs orders orresoltions in criminal cases is a petition "or certiorari nder %le C! $led withthe Spreme 'ort. (arto v :*B, ! :ct -011M 'ortes v. :*B, 10 Ene -013).

2ere the petition "or certiorari was $led not with the Spreme 'ort btthe Sandiganbayan.

2ence the remedy taen was not correct.

b) 4o, the writ o" mandams will not lie to compel the :mbdsman to

inclde the &reasrer in the in"ormation.

&he Spreme 'ort has held that mandams will lie only i" the exclsiono" a person "rom the in"ormation was arbitrary.

2ere the exclsion was not arbitrary bt based on Sec. 1< o" %/ C<<0which empowers the :mbdsman to grant immnity to witnesses. (Id.).

c) 4o, the Special Prosector cannot move "or the discharge o" thebdget oRcer to corroborate the testimony o" the treasrer.

9nder Section 1< o" %le 11;, a reAirement "or discharge is that there isno other direct evidence available "or the prosection o" the o?ense and thatthere is absolte necessity "or the testimony o" the accsed whose discharge isreAested.

2ere since the bdget oRcerDs testimony is merely corroborative, there isno absolte necessity "or it. 4ecessity is not there when the testimony woldsimply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosectionDs evidence. (Eimene@v People, 1< September -01=).

2ence the Special Prosector cannot move "or the discharge o" the bdgetoRcer.

II. Pa@ was awaened by a commotion coming "rom a condo nit next to hers./larmed, she called p the nearby police station. P: 1 %ems and P0- %omlsproceeded to the condo nit identi$ed by Pa@. P: 1 %ems noced at the doorand when a man opened the door, P:I %ems and his companions introdcedthemselves as police oRcers. &he man readily identi$ed himsel" as :asis Engand gestred to them to come in. Inside, the police oRcers saw a yong ladywith her nose bleeding and "ace swollen. /sed by P0- %omls what happened,the lady responded that she was beaten p by :asis Eng. &he police oRcersarrested :asis Eng and broght him and the yong lady bac to the police

station. P: 1 %ems too the yong ladys statement who identi$ed hersel" as//. She narrated that she is a sixteenyearold high school stdentM that previos



to the incident, she had sexal intercorse with :asis Eng at least $ve times ondi?erent occasions and she was paid P!,000.00 each time and it was the $rsttime that :asis Eng physically hrt her. P0- %omls detained :asis Eng at thestations +ail. /"ter the inAest proceeding, the pblic prosector $led anin"ormation "or Fiolation o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (&he F/5' Law) "or physical violenceand $ve separate in"ormations "or violation o" %./. 4o. <C10 (&he 'hild /bseLaw). :asis Engs lawyer $led a motion to be admitted to bail bt the cortissed an order that approval o" his bail bond shall be made only a"ter hisarraignment.

a.) #id the cort properly impose that bail condition (3)

Be"ore arraignment, :asis Engs lawyer moved to Aash the other "orseparate in"ormations "or violation o" the child abse law invoing the singlelarceny rle.

b.) Shold the motion to Aash be granted (-)

c.) /"ter his release "rom detention on bail, can :asis Eng still Aestion thevalidity o" his arrest (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the cort did not properly impose the condition that the approval o" thebail bond shall be made only a"ter the arraignment.

In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that in caseswhere it is athori@ed, bail shold be granted be"ore arraignment, otherwise theaccsed may be hindered "rom $ling a motion to Aash since his arraignment

wold necessarily be de"erred pending the resoltion o" the motion to Aash. &his wold amont to a sbstantial diltion o" his right to $le a motion to Aash.(Lavides v. 'ort o" /ppeals, 1 Gebrary -000). b) 4o, the motion to Aash shold not be granted.

In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that each act o"sexal intercorse with a minor is a separate and distinct o?ense nder %./. 4o.<C10. 2ence the single larceny or single o?ense rle is not applicable. (Id.).

c) 8es, :asis Eng can still Aestion the validity o" his arrest a"ter his release"rom detention on bail.

9nder the %les on 'riminal Procedre, admission to bail shall not bar theaccsed "rom challenging the validity o" his arrest provided that he does sobe"ore entering his plea. (Sec. -C, %le 11=).

III. Eaime was convicted "or mrder by the %egional &rial 'ort o" #avao 'ity in adecision promlgated on September 30, -01!. :n :ctober !, -01!, Eaime $led a*otion "or 4ew &rial on the grond that errors o" law and irreglarities pre+dicialto his rights were committed dring his trial. :n :ctober <, -01!, the privateprosector, with the con"ormity o" the pblic prosector, $led an :pposition to

Eaimes motion. :n :ctober ;, -01!, the cort granted Eaimes motion. :n:ctober 1-, -01!, the pblic prosector $led a motion "or reconsideration. &he



b.) Is Pedros lawyer correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial aRdavit o" Ean(-)

/t the conclsion o" the prosections presentation o" evidence, Prosector*arilag orally o?ered the receipt attached to Eans +dicial aRdavit, which thecort admitted over the ob+ection o" Pedros lawyer.

/"ter Pedros presentation o" his evidence, the cort rendered +dgment$nding him gilty as charged and holding him civilly liable "or P-0,000.00.

Pedros lawyer seasonably $led a motion "or reconsideration o" thedecision asserting that the cort erred in awarding the civil liability on the basiso" Eans +dicial aRdavit, a docmentary evidence which Prosector *arilag"ailed to orally o?er.

c.) Is the motion "or reconsideration meritorios (-)

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, PedroDs lawyer is not correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial aRdavit o"

*ario.

&he Edicial /Rdavit %le applies to criminal actions where the maximmo" the imposable penalty does not exceed six years.

2ere the penalty "or the"t o" property not exceeding P1-,000 does notexceed C years.

2ence the Edicial /Rdavit %le applies.

b) 4o, Pedros lawyer is not correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial aRdavit o" Ean.

&he Edicial /Rdavit %le applies with respect to the civil aspect o" thecriminal actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

2ere the prpose o" introdcing the +dicial aRdavit o" Ean was to provehis civil liability.

c) 4o, the motion "or reconsideration is not meritorios.

/ +dicial aRdavit is not a docmentary evidence bt is testimonialevidence. It is simply a witnessDs testimony redced to writing in aRdavit "orm. &his is shown by Section C o" the Edicial /Rdavit %le which states that the o?ero" testimony in +dicial aRdavit shall be made at the start o" the presentation o"the witness.

2ence the motion "or reconsideration on the grond that EanDs +dicialaRdavit was a docmentary evidence which was not orally o?ered is withotmerit.F. 5ater Bilders, a constrction company based in *aati 'ity, entered into aconstrction agreement with Sper Powers, Inc., an energy company based in*anila, "or the constrction o" a mini hydro electric plant. 5ater Bilders "ailed to

complete the pro+ect within the stiplated dration. Sper Powers cancelled thecontract. 5ater Bilders $led a reAest "or arbitration with the 'onstrction



Indstry /rbitration 'ommission ('I/'). /"ter de proceedings, 'I/' rendered +dgment in "avor o" Sper Powers, Inc. ordering 5ater Bilders to pay the"ormer P 10 million, the "ll amont o" the down payment paid, and P- million byway o" liAidated damages. #issatis$ed with the 'I/'s +dgment, 5aterBilders, prsant to the Special %les o" 'ort on /lternative #ispte %esoltion(/#% %les) $led with the %&' o" Pasay 'ity a petition to vacate the arbitralaward. Sper Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the petition,invoing the /#% %les, on the grond o" improper vene as neither o" theparties were doing bsiness in Pasay 'ity.

Shold 5ater Bilders petition be dismissed (3)

/4S56%7

8es 5ater BildersD petition shold be dismissed.

9nder %le 11.3 o" the Special /#% %les, the petition "or vacation o" a

domestic arbitral award may be $led with the %egional &rial 'ort having +risdiction over the place in which one o" the parties is doing bsiness, whereany o" the parties reside or where arbitration proceedings were condcted.

2ere neither o" the parties were doing bsiness in Pasay 'ity nor wasthere a showing that arbitration proceedings were condcted in Pasay 'ity.

FI. //, a twelveyearold girl, while waling alone met BB, a teenage boy whobe"riended her. Later, BB broght // to a nearby shanty where he raped her. &heIn"ormation "or rape $led against BB states7

:n or abot :ctober 30, -01!, in the 'ity o" S.P. and withinthe +risdiction o" this 2onorable 'ort, the accsed, a minor, $"teen

(1!) years old with lewd design and by means o" "orce, violence andintimidation, did then and there, will"lly, nlaw"lly and "elonioslyhad sexal intercorse with //, a minor, twelve (1-) years oldagainst the latters will and consent.

/t the trial, the prosector called to the witness stand // as his $rstwitness and mani"ested that he be allowed to as leading Aestions incondcting his direct examination prsant to the %le on the 6xamination o" a'hild 5itness. BBs consel ob+ected on the grond that the prosector has notcondcted a competency examination on the witness, a reAirement be"ore therle cited can be applied in the case.

a.) Is BBs consel correct (3)

In order to obviate the consels argment on the competency o" // asprosection witness, the +dge mot proprio condcted his voir dire examinationon //.

b.) 5as the action taen by the +dge proper (-)/"ter the prosection had rested its case, BB s consel $led with leave a

demrrer to evidence, seeing the dismissal o" the case on the grond that theprosector "ailed to present any evidence on BB s minority as alleged in theIn"ormation.

c.) Shold the cort grant the demrrer (3)



/4S56%S7

a) 4o, BBDs consel is not correct.

9nder the %les on 6xamination o" a 'hild 5itness, there is noreAirement that a competency examination o" the child witness be condctedbe"ore leading Aestions may be ased o" her. / competency examination maybe condcted by the cort (not the prosector) only i" sbstantial dobt exists asto the childDs competency to testi"y. (Section C, %6'5).

2ere there is no showing o" any sbstantial dobt as to the competencyo" // to testi"y. 2ence BBDs consel is not correct.

b) 4o, the action taen by the +dge was improper.

9nder the %les on 6xamination o" a 'hild 5itness, a competencyexamination may be condcted by the cort only i" sbstantial dobt exists as to

the childDs competency to testi"y. (Section C, %6'5).

2ere the +dgeDs voir dire is in e?ect a competency examination. 2oweverthere is no showing o" any sbstantial dobt as to the competency o" // totesti"y. 2ence the +dgeDs action was improper.

c) 4o the cort may not grant the demrrer.

9nder the %les o" 'riminal Procedre, a demrrer to evidence may begranted on the grond o" insRciency o" evidence.

2ere even assming that minority was not proved, BB may still be

convicted o" rape since minority is not an element o" rape.

FII. 2ercles was waling near a police station when a police oRcer signaled "orhim to approach. /s soon as 2ercles came near, the police oRcer "rised himbt the latter "ond no contraband. &he police oRcer told 2ercles to get insidethe police station. Inside the police station, 2ercles ased the police oRcer, Sir,may problema po ba Instead o" replying, the police oRcer loced p 2erclesinside the police station +ail.

a.) 5hat is the remedy available to 2ercles to secre his immediaterelease "rom detention (-)

b.) I" 2ercles $led with the :mbdsman a complaint "or warrantlesssearch, as consel "or the police oRcer, what de"ense will yo raise "or thedismissal o" the complaint (3)

c.) I" 2ercles opts to $le a civil action against the police oRcer, will hehave a case o" action (3)

/4S56%S7

a) &he remedy available to 2ercles to secre his immediate release"rom detention is a petition "or writ o" habeas corps.

9nder %le 10-, the writ o" habeas corps is available in cases o" illegal

detention. Section ! o" %le 10- provides that a cort or +dge athori@ed togrant the writ mst, when the petition there"or is presented and it appears that



the writ oght to isse, grant the same "orthwith, and immediately therepon thecler o" cort shall isse the writ or in case o" emergency, the +dge may issethe writ nder his own hand and may depte any oRcer or person to serve it.

&he cort or +dge be"ore whom the writ is retrned mst immediately proceedto hear and examine the retrn. (Section 1-, %le 10-).

b) I will raise the de"ense that the warrantless search was athori@ed as aNstop and "ris.O

NStop and "risO is the right o" a police oRcer to stop a citi@en on thestreet, interrogate him and pat him "or weapons and contraband whenever heobserves nsal condct which leads him to conclde that criminal activity maybe a"oot. (&erry v. :hio, 3;- 9.S. 1).

c) 8es 2ercles will have a case o" action.

9nder /rticle 3-(=) o" the 'ivil 'ode, any pblic oRcer who violates the

right o" a person to "reedom "rom arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable tothe latter "or damages. &he action to recover damages is an independent civilaction.

2ere 2ercles was illegally detained as there was no probable case toarrest him withot warrant.

FIII. &he residents o" *t. /hohoy, headed by *asigasig, "ormed anongovernmental organi@ation /lyansa Laban sa *inahan sa /hohoy (/L*/) toprotest the mining operations o" :ro 4egro *ining in the montain. /L*/members piceted daily at the entrance o" the mining site blocing the ingress

and egress o" trcs and eAipment o" :ro 4egro, hampering its operations.*asigasig had an altercation with *apso arising "rom the complaint o" themining engineer o" :ro 4egro that one o" their trcs was destroyed by /L*/members.

*apso is the leader o" the /ssociation o" Peace Keepers o" /hohoy(/PK/), a civilian volnteer organi@ation serving as axiliary "orce o" the localpolice to maintain peace and order in the area. SbseAently, *asigasigdisappeared. *aymi, the wi"e o" *asigasig, and the members o" /L*/ searched"or *asigasig, bt all their e?orts proved "tile. *apagmatyag, a member o"/L*/, learned "rom *aingay, a member o" /PK/, dring their binge drining that

*asigasig was abdcted by other members o" /PK/, on order o" *apso.*aymi and /L*/ soght the assistance o" the local police to search "or*asigasig, bt they re"sed to extend their cooperation.

Immediately, *aymi $led with the %&', a petition "or the issance o" thewrit o" amparo against *apso and /PK/. /L*/ also $led a petition "or theissance o" the writ o" amparo with the 'ort o" /ppeals against *apso and/PK/. %espondents *apso and /PK/, in their %etrn $led with the %&', raisedamong their de"enses that they are not agents o" the StateM hence, cannot beimpleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.

a.) Is their de"ense tenable (3)



%espondents *apso and /PK/, in their %etrn $led with the 'ort o"/ppeals, raised as their de"ense that the petition shold be dismissed on thegrond that /L*/ cannot $le the petition becase o" the earlier petition $led by*aymi with the %&'.

b.) /re respondents correct in raising their de"ense (3)

c.) *aymi later $led separate criminal and civil actions against *apso.2ow will the cases a?ect the amparo petition she earlier $led (1 )

/4S56%S7

a) 4o, the de"ense o" *apso and /PK/ that they are not agents o" theState and hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition isnot tenable.

&he writ o" amparo is available in cases where the en"orced or

involntary disappearance o" a persons is with the athori@ation, spport oracAiescence o" the State. (See Sec. 3gJ o" %./. 4o. ;H!1 and Navia v. Pardico,1; Ene -01-, e.b.).

2ere *apso and /PK/ may be considered as acting with the spport or

at least the acAiescence o" the State since /PK/ serves as an axiliary "orce o"

the police and the police re"sed to assist in the search "or *asigasig.

b) 8es respondents are correct in raising their de"ense.

9nder Section -(c) o" the %le on the 5rit o" /mparo, the $ling o" a

petition by an athori@ed party on behal" o" the aggrieved party sspends theright o" all others, observing the order in Section - o" the %le on the 5rit o"/mparo.

2ere the petition "or writ o" amparo had earlier been $led by the spose

o" the aggrieved party *asigasig. &hs it sspends the right o" all others,

inclding /L*/, to $le the petition.

c) &he amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

(Section -3, %le on the 5rit o" /mparo).

suggested answers to the 2015 remedial law bar examination

Documents