Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com Page 1 of 66
ANSWERS TO BAR
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
Bar Examination
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q
Q&&&A (1997-2006)))by:
AA (1997-2006
(1997-2006 by:
by:sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com Page4
Page
Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com 326Page
7Page
5of
ofof66
66
8966of
of 66
66 affairs.
Jurisdiction;
Witness;
Provisional This
Examination
Finality
Remedies; ais
of of
TRO
Judgment
Witnesses Default;
vs.
law,rendering
In the Status Remedies;
(2002)
(2005)
result Quo a of Party
Order
decision,the Declared
(2006) should
testing in cannot
Default
a court (2006)
be distinguished from REMEDIAL
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................ 47Witness;
.......................................................................................
60 33Parties;
Provisional
Utilized
Prosecution
LAW Remedies;
aswhich
Stateof
..............................................................................................
considered
TRO;
Offenses
Witness;
take
TRO;its
Offense
Default;
CA
19
into
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
and can
Procedure
(2000)
Demurrer
Duration
20
JusticeRemedies;
to be
consideration
be offered
(2002) to
Dept.
(2006)
the(2006)
(2006)
Evidence
fruit
inthe
FORWARD
TABLE
Substantial
theOF CONTENTS
evidence
(2001)
Compliance
of apossible
poisonous
to prove
(2000)
effecttree prescribes
the obtaining
..............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
of 1991, R.A. 7160.)
Plea Provisional
Local of Government
enforcing
Noinvasion
47
33
Guilty; toRemedies;
such prohibition
Reglementary
Prejudicial
a Lesser
................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
P.D. No. the 1508;method Sec.60 47of
415, 33 rights Code
Question
Period;v.
or
.................................................................................................................................
of verdict upon political stability redress for their (Bustos
SPECIAL
GENERAL
qualifying Demurrer PROCEEDINGS
toJudgment
Evidence; under
Civil ..................................................................................................................................
PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................
circumstance Case thevs.information
Criminal 61
Bar
and by
Supplemental
(1999) 20
economic Prior Pleadings welfare (2000) vs.
of theConclusiveness
nation? 4%Case (2003)
of Lucero, exists
G.R. in the
No. pre-trial
....................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
L-2068, 3347Remedies;
Prejudicial
negotiations
October Appeal
20, Question
to SC;
....................................................................................
under 8
for qualified
Judgment
Appeals
(2000)
SUGGESTED Discovery;
20 to(1997)
CA
ANSWER: rape
Modes
(2002) under
of R.A. No.
Discovery (2000) 8353. The
.....................................................................................................
the
1948). Rules of Court. 33 Remedies;
47 PrejudicialAppeal; Question;
RTC to
...................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
Cancellation or Correction; Entries Civil Registry (2005) ........................................................................................
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is
fruit,
No,
CA
Suspension
Bar
because
Discovery;
(1999)
Distinguish20
61
by
a court
Modes;
Criminal
Bar
Priortree doctrine
bySubpoena
Action is (1999)
prior
Judgmentrefers vs.
required
Duces
judgment
Escheat Tecumto take
..............................................................................
(1997)
from
Conclusiveness
of .....................................................................................................................
theof poisonous Remedial
Family Proceedings Law; 33Act
Courts
of
Concept
Remedies;
..................................................................................
8 Cause of action
Judgment
48 Pre-Trial
vs. Appeal;
ActionRule
(1997)
to ...............................................................................................
Agreement
45 vs.
(2002)
(1997)
that rule
Discovery; of evidence
Production and that
Inspection excludes of any
Documents (2002)
freeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily
into
Rule 65
(2004)
evidence
Remedy
vs.
and
SUGGESTED
21consideration
conclusiveness (1999)
Dismissal;
Civil
21
the which
(2004)
Case
evidence
ANSWER: Motion
(1997) may to
only
have been
Dismiss;
admitted
the
Res
legal
in derived
Judicata
the
issues
case.
(2006)
(2001)
What
a) How is the
should
.......................................................................................................
of judgment concept
34
..................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................ Remedies;
the of
records
48
8 61Civil remedial
Pre-Trial;
Void
Extra-judicial Decision;
Criminal
of
Actions Settlement child law?
Proper
vs. Special Case
and
..................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
or ................................................................................................
(2000) (2%)
.................................................................................................. Special
........................................................................................................
family
SUGGESTED cases 34
ANSWER:in the 48 Civil
Family Provisional
Action;
Courts Ejectment
Dismissal
or RTC
of
Estate
Proceedings (2005) ..............................................................................................................
(1998) 61 Habeas
........................................................................................................... 8 Corpus (1993)
Conciliation
intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of
acquired
Bar
The
Such
by
(1997)Proceedings;
(2002) 21 fromAdmissibility;
prior-judgment
Evidence; a tainted Photocopies
stability isorthe polluted
anddoctrine (2000)source.
economic of The concept by of Special
Remedial 61 Law
48 Remedies;
Civil Action;
Void lies at the
Ejectment
Judgment
.........................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
political designated 35 the
...........................................................................................................................................
evidence Katarungang
is inadmissible Pambarangay for vs. Pre-Trial Conference
having (1999) Supreme Habeas Court
........................................... 8 Corpus
Family to
res
(1998)judicata,
(2004) Forum
22 Shopping; which bars
Definition a second
(2006) action very core of procedural
Special Search
Civildue process,
Warrant;
Action; which
Foreclosure
Motion to
........................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................... 35 48
the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and its trend.
welfare
emanated of
(1998) from
Courts the nation are extraneous to handle Family Court cases
...........................................................................................................................................
Act spurious origins. of The doctrine, means a 35 lawSpecial which
be treated
61 Habeas8
(2001) ......................................................................................................................................... and
when
(2003)
Quash
the
however,
Forum
22 there
(2005) Shopping;
is Effects;
identity ofLack parties, Certification
subject
................................................................................................................
Corpus
case.
Interlocutory
does
...............................................................................................................
(2003)
They
not Orderapply can have persuasive dealt with? (3%) 49 Trial;
Civilb)hears
Action;
Trial
Under before
(2006) ...........................................................................................
inPetition
Absentia;
...........................................................................................................................................
(2006)to the results obtained what62 it
for
.......................................................................................................................................
It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who,
former
Certiorari
Automatic
matter
influence
pursuant
Rule
22 Rule
Gen.and (2002)
8Intestate
39).
Review
to but
39;
Principles;
cause Sec,
Proceedings
Sec. they
Judgment
1, Rule
47
ofQuestions
ofConviction[b]
action. of
of Law newvs.the
(1998) Questionsof of Fact condemns,
(2004)
..................................................................................................
(2002)
are
28, 1997 (Sec. 49[b]
vs.
Rules
which proceeds
.............................................................................
ofmain
Civil Opinion conditions may identitythe49 of upon inquiry
............................................................................
35of Special
the Civil Action; Venue
Quoparties
Warranto
(1997)
.................................................................................................................................
not Court in
(2001) Judgment;
22 Annulment
Intestate of Judgment; Grounds
Proceedings; (1998) and
SUGGESTED
Debts renders judgment
ANSWER: Special
.........................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................. 36 of Civilonly
49 after Mandamus
Actions;
the trial,Estateand
.............................................................................................
very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other
factors
Procedure, 62
(2006)
Conclusiveness
(2006) Judgment;
22
(2002)
thatas it should be considered
does not contemplate a search in child and family
................................................................................................................ 8 cases
Judicial
of ................................................................................................................
Enforcement; judgment
5-year period precludes contemplates anofopportunity
be divulged
Autonomy & (2%)
Impartiality
to ofbe Estate heard
(1997) .......................................................................................................
a) The records
the .................................................................................................. 62 Judicial child and family
Settlement cases36
deciding
within
Montilla,
EVIDENCE (2003) aG.R.
moaning case. No. ofAthe decision
law. (People
123872, should
January be
..................................................................................................................
v. 8 Katarungang Pambarangay;
................................................................................................................................................................ 50
unscrupulous
the
based
relitigation
Judgment;
22
Summons
(2005)
30,1998) of law
Enforcement; schools
a particular
Foreign Judgmentissueand in students.
(2005) before
in the Share
judgment
Family
on.......................................................................................................................
Objective
Admissibility
Judgment;
another
22 action
the(1999)
(1998)
Execution
between
to
Code isothers
62
law,..........................................................................................................
rules of procedure,
rendered
9 toLiberal
January
Probate handle this
..............................................................................................................................................................
G.R. No. L-19118, 30,Lost
of work
(Albert
Family
Construction; 36 v.
...............................................................................................
Wills
...............................................................................................................................................
pendingthe Appeal
same (2002)
parties University Publishing, 50
.........................................................................................................
Summons
(1999) (1999) 1965).
...................................................................................................................................................
Court cases shall be
................................................................................................................................... dealt with utmost
Probate ofLawWill
629 Remedial 37
JURISDICTION
and
justice
on 23
Summons;you
Rules
aPhil.
(2003)
ofand
Admissibility
Judgment; will
Court
Substituted
different
System
Admissibility
exceptional
(2002)
cause
of
be
(1998)
equity.
Interlocutory
Govt
(2004)
cases
Service
the
of richly
Order;
(2006)
court
(2004)
action. rewarded
However,
Partial Summary in by God
(2004) in heaven. It
............................................................................................................. is also very
...............................................................................................................................................
Judgments Remedial Law is that branch of law which in
50
......................................................................
...................................................................................................................
(Sec. 49 [c] confidentiality. (Sec. 12, Family963
............................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
may consider Probate
Courts
Remedial Act 37
Law
............................................................................................................................................... of
50of
Judgment;
23 Judgment on[c]theEffects
ofPleadings (1999) prescribes the method of enforcing the
.......................................................................................................
good
Summons;
of former
Will
vs. karma.
Validity
Rule
(2005)
Substantive
Venue;Admissibility;
the
Cause political
of action
Judgment;
23Improper
39; ofsec.
Service;
Admission
47
stability
vs.
Judgment
Venue; on of
Action theGuilt;
Compulsory
new (2006)
Rule
Requirements
andCounterclaim
Pleadings
39).
economic
b) The identity
1997) of parties in 963
............................................................................................................................................
Law (2006) ............................................................................................................... child
.........................................................................................................
Probate
Remedial
(2006)....................................................................................
(1998)
and
37
........................................................................................
rights
family cases or obtainingshall not be redressdivulged for unlesstheir
(2005) ....................................................................................................... 38
Jurisdiction
Katarungang
of Will Pambarangay;
(2006) Objective
............................................................................................................................................ 63
REMEDIAL LAW
welfare
(1997) Law;
51
Distinguish Concept
of Admissibility;
the
Cause (2006)
nation ................................................................................................................................
of Document;
when
action these
from Not
are raised in the Pleading Rights
9Lepanto
(2004)
Venue;
(1997)
(1999)
What Judgment;
24 Personal
courts
Probate is of Mandamus
Actions
have
Will; the (1997)
Mandatoryjurisdiction object
Nature over invasion
L-2068,
necessary October
and with v.20, 1948;
authority First
vs..............................................................................................................................
Quo Warranto (2001) the.....................................................................................................
(Bustos Lucero,
JURISDICTION....................................................................................................................................................... G.R. ofNo. the
of......................................................................................................
(2002) 38judge.
...............................................................................................................
10
capable
action of the Accused; Validity; HIV Test (2005)
...................................................................................
SUGGESTED ofANSWER:
being takenAttachment into judicial notice 51 Admissibility;
Ceramics, Electronic
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110571, Evidence 9
(2003)
Judgment;
24
following
Katarungang
63 cases Soundness;
filed
Pambarangay in Metro Law? (2002)
Settlement
Manila?
(2%) ............................................................................................................
a) (Id.) of Estate
A
of CAUSE
CRIMINAL
and Jurisdiction
are
Judgments;
24 OF
relevant ACTION
Enforcement; to the is
case.
Examination an act
of or
..............................................................................................................
Defendant (2002)March 10,511994).Admissibility;
PROCEDURE....................................................................................................................................
(1997) Object or Real Evidence
................................................................................................................................................. 38
..................................................................................
(2001)
An action
SUGGESTED ANSWER: specific performance or,the in Interlocutory
Rights of the vs. Order
....................................................................................................................................
for Accused; 64 Settlement
Validity;Objections
HIV Test (1997) of
omissionAcquittal;
(1994)
10 of Effect
one (2002)
........................................................................................................
party in violation of Admissibility;
..........................................................................................................................................
Jurisdiction 51 Venue
SUMMARY
The Jurisdiction;
24 object
Estate;
alternative,
the (2006) PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................................
Habeas
Administrator
for of Corpus;
damages the
(1998) Custody
in Katarungang
the of Minors
amount (2005)
of ........................................................................................
(2006)
What is an interlocutory
............................................................................................................. order? 64 Venue;65
legal 38 Actions; the BP22; Civil Under(2005)
............................................................................................................................
right Republic 51
Action
.................................................................................................................................
Jurisdiction; or Lack rights ofeffect
ofisJurisdiction; other
Proper (Maao
Action Act No.108353,
Admissibility;
deemed Offeronetoincluded
Jurisdiction; may CTA be
Marry;
Sugar
25
Pambarangay
Special
P180,000.00
Prohibited
(2001)
Circumstantial
Division
Central vs.
Law
Proceedings
b)
Pleadings
CTA
vs. An
Evidence
En
Barrios,
to
(1997)
action
(2004)
Banc (1998) for ana amicable
writ ofof the Court
..............................................................................................
(2006)
79 Phil.
(2%) (2004)
SUGGESTED
charged39with
.....................................................................
ANSWER:
........................................................................................................................
and found
Actions;
................................................................................ BP22;
52 guilty
Admissibility;
Demurrer
...............................................................................................
606; Sec. of10qualified
to
Offer 64to Pay
...................................................................................................................................
Evidence
Jurisdiction; rape
Parties; Death
25
settlement of(1997) of a Party;among
disputes Effect (1998) family An interlocutory order refers to an order
..................................................................................................................
injunction.
2 65
(2003)
Expenses
ofIncapable
new c) An action forEstimation
replevin ofand a ..........................................................................................
if he knew on 39
.........................................................................................................
Rule of or Actions;
..........................................................................................................
Pecuniary
2), causing damage (2000) to before52the commission
Commencement
Admissibility; ofan
Private
of 10the
Parties; members
25 Death of a Party; Effect (1999) ..................................................................................................................
issued between the commencement
MISCELLANEOUS.................................................................................................................................................
barangay at the barangay level and
65
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
motorcycle
Action;
Document valued at crime that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-
another.
without Parties;Double
Jurisdiction;
An ACTION
25 Death(2005)
judicial
Jeopardy
isIncapable
anof ordinary
Party; of(2004)
Pecuniary
Effect ............................................................................
suit (1999) Estimation
in a court 39 Actions;
a................................................................................................................. 52Discretionary
Admissibility;Power Proof
(2000) ..........................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
the end of Virus the suit(HIV)/Acquired
which is not a final
P150,000.00.
of of Filiation;
Fiscal
Administrative
11
Justice by (1999)
Action
which of
Jurisdiction;
Proceedings one Anrecourse
Partition (2005)
party action
(2000) and
d) ........................................................................................................
for Deficiency
.....................................................................................
Incapable of Pecuniary 39 Actions;
52 Immune
Admissibility;
Injunction
Estimation
........................................................................................................................
prosecutes
No. Parties; the
26
1508, Thirdformer Party Claim and (2000)
the ...........................................................................................................................
first Katarungang decision
Deficiency Syndrome of the whole controversy
(AIDS) 39 or any and
other
consequently
interpleader
(1999)
Rules
(2003)
65 to help
ofThird-Party determine
Evidence relieve
(1997) who the courts of
......................................................................................................................................
Congress; .................................................................................................................
Law
.......................................................................................... Expropriating 11al. v. People, Jurisdiction;
Property 53Arrest;
Best
MTC
(2006)
We would like (1997
another
docket
of
Parties;
26
Pambarangay
between
a (2002)
Liberal
for
2006)
to seek the
congestion.
Warrantless
Evidence
the
Law.)enforcement
theArrest;
forRule
defendants
(1997)
Claim
(Preamble
Preliminary
(2005)
indulgence of the reader for some Bar is
or...........................................................................................................................
P.D.
protection
of entitled
orInvestigation
to receive (Gallardo
leaves
sexually et
something
transmissible moredisease to G.R.
beand
redress of(2004) ..................................................................................
No.
donethe
.....................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
Petition
right,
26 or
Construction; Certiorari
the Rules(2000)
prevention of Court 65 RA 3019;Investments
........................................................................................................................................Mandatory Suspension 11
142030,
on
virus
Jurisdiction;
(2001)
..................................................................................................................................
April 21, 2005; Inc. v. Court
40
53its
of
or
amountthe
Arrest;
Burden of Warrantless
P190,000.00
of from the plaintiff. merits
disease is transmitted to the victim. Under
2).
a Office
Petition
26
wrong.
(1998)
How shall forProof
of
the
(Section the
Relief
Rules
vs.Solicitor
1 of &Arrests
Burden
Questions which are improperly classified under a topic and for
Action
of
former Court
&for
of Searches
Rule
Evidence
General
Annulment
be construed?
(1997)
(2004)
(2006)(2002) ......................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
................................................................................................................ 66 No. 60036, January 27, 1987 11
...................................................................................................
[2%] Appeals,
Section 17(a) G.R.
e) AJurisdiction;
40
54 petition
PetitionANSWER:
27 for
Arrest;
Ombudsman the probate
Case Warrantless of
Decisions a will
(2006)Character Arrests & of Republic Act No. 8504 the
Seizures Evidence
(2003)
..................................................................................................
for Relief; Injunction (2002) .......................................................................................................................
cited in Denso Phils, v. /AC, G.R. No. 75000,
some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the
SUGGESTED
Theestate
involving
Civil (2002)
Actions
12
Rules
Pleadings;
27 anof vs. valued
Special
Court
Amendment ofProceedings
should Complaint; beat By
.......................................................................................................
LeaveJurisdiction;
liberally of Court (2003)
court may compel the accused to submit
Feb.
himself 27, Arrest; Warrantless Arrests;
.....................................................................................................................................
401987).
to a blood test where blood Probate
54 Confession;
Objection
............................................................................
samples
(1998)P200,000.00.
(2000)
Affidavit
SUGGESTED
(2001)
Distinguish of
ANSWER: Recantation (1998) Judgment
........................................................................................................
civil actions vs. Opinion of the Court
Bail
...........................................................................................................
from special
................................................................................................................................... 41 12 Jurisdiction;54 (2002)
Facts;
RTC
authors are just Bar Reviewees who have prepared this work while
(a) An Pleadings;
27
construed action
Legislative
(2002)
proceedings.
in Amendment
for
Facts
order
specific
vs.
ofto Complaint;
promote
performance
Adjudicative
By
Edited
Facts
Leave
their
or,and
(2004)
of Court;
in Arranged Prescriptive
would
(2006)
What by:be
is
Period
extracted
the
(2000) .............................................
from
difference
.............................................................................................................................................................
his veins to
between
determine
...........................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
[3%] 12 41 54a
Bail;
Jurisdiction;
Pleadings;
27
objective of Amendment
securing of
a Complaint;
just,inspeedy Matter of Right (2005)
and .................................................................................
whether he has HIV. (8%)
reviewing for the Bar Exams under time constraints and within their
the
CIVIL
of
alternative,
PROCEDURE
Appeal
Hearsay
Subdivision
SUGGESTED
28
inexpensive
180,000.00
(1998)
Evidence
ANSWER:
Pleadings; Amendment
for damages
Homeowner
disposition
falls
(2002)
within of Complaint;
of every
the
the
(2006)
jurisdiction
amount
..............................................................................................................................................
version 1987-2003 judgment and an opinion of the
................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
To Conform
action of w/ vs. Evidence
a) Are (2004) the rights of the accused to court?
....................................................................................................................................... 13
41
12 be
..................................................................
A CIVIL
Bail;
54
Actions;
Pleadings;ACTION
Application;
Katarungang Cause Hearsay
Answer; of is
Pambarangay;Venueone
Action
Defense; vs.by
(2002) which
Lupon;Evidence
Action
Specific Extent
Silliman
(1999) a
Denial party
of Authority;
University
(2004) (2001)
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED
CollegeOpinion ANSWER: Evidence (2004)
..............................................................................................................................
............................................................................
limited knowledge of the law. We would like to seek the readers
sues
However,
28
ADDITIONAL
and proceeding.
Metropolitan
41 another
Pleadings;
13
28
ANSWER:
strict
Trial (Sec.
for Courts
Bail;
observance
Certification
Actions;
6, Rule
the Against
in 1
Metro
enforcement
of
Cause
1997 Rules
Forum the
of Law
Manila.
Forms
rules
Shopping
............................................................................................................
Batch
of
of
or
.....................................................................................................
13 is(2000)
..............................................................................................
2005
presumed
The judgment
Action;
to of Hearsay;
54
privacy,
innocent
and
or Exception;
Joinder
falloBail
against
of
is thethefinal
Dead
&
crime
Man
self-incrimination
charged,
disposition
Statute
(1999)
Splitting
.......................................................................................
Civil
AlthoughProcedure.)
an action for specific performance of the Court which is reflected in the
indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
is
(2001)
......................................................................................................................................
protection
an imperative
(1998)
Pleadings;
29
not
(1999)
Declaration
........................................................................................................
ofCounterclaim
a right,
necessity oragainst
the when prevention
the Counselthey of or
are the Plaintiff
.............................................................................................
capable (1998) of pecuniary estimation,
(2004)
violated
dispositive
13 Actions; 54
byportion Hearsay;41
Cause ofcompulsory
such
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................... of
Bail; Exception;
Matter of
Action; Joinder of testing?
55 the
Hearsay;
41 decision.
Bail;
Dying
Right
Action
......................................................................
Exception;
Matter of A
redress (1999)
considered
29 of................................................................................................
Pleadings; a Motions;
wrong.indispensable (See.
Bill 3[a], Rule
of Particulars 1, 1997
to(2003) the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
13 Actions; Cause of Action; Joinder of
.........................................................................................................
Explain.
since the Gestae;
alternative demand for damages is decision
No. The is
courtdirectly prepared by a judge and
Rules Right
Res
Pleadings;
Action
29
prevention vs.
of Civil (2005)Matter
ofReply; Opinion
of
Procedure), Discretionof
Effect ofdelays Ordinary
while (1999)
Non-Filing aand Witness
SPECIALUPDATED
of Reply (2005) BY: 13 Actions; Cause of Action; Splittingto
may compel
............................................................................................... the
...................................................................41 accused
55 Bail;
Hearsay;
Matter
(2000) ...........................................................................................
................................................................................................
needless to the
capable of of pecuniary
Exceptions
Right vs. Matter
(1999) estimation,
of Discretion it is within
(2006) signed
submit byhimselfhim, containing clearly and
Bail;
PROCEEDING
Prejudicial is a Ejectment
Question; remedy vs.bySpecific
of which a
Performance 14 to a Cause blood
...................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................... of test
42 55to
Dondee
orderly (1999)
29 and (2000) ..........................................................................
.............................................................................................................
speedy dispatch Judicial Actions; Action;
the
3[C]. jurisdiction
Witness
Hearsay;
Rule Posting
Exceptions;
1,1997 ofBail the
RulesDying
(1999)Metropolitan
ofDeclaration
Civil Trial.....................................................................................................
(1999) distinctly awhether
statement of the facts
...........................................................................................................................
determine he has HIV under proved 42
Sec.
party
businessPre-Trial;
Splitting
30 seeks Requirements
(2005)
(Alvero
. Metro to establish vs. Judge (2001)
a status,
de a 129right 14 Actions; Cause of
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
la Rosa, 76
Courts us.inTan,
Complaint
Procedure.)
Cruz 55 vs.
87 Manila.
Information
Phil. 627]. (Sec.
(1999) of BP as
Hearsay; and
Singson, the of law Adm. upon
No,Matter which His the rights
No.
17(a).........................................................
R.A. 8054. judgment
33 ...........................................................................................................................
Inapplicable
RTJ-91-758, to be is
Remedial
or a Provisional
Actions;
30 Law
particular Motion
in Remedies
Phil.
fact. to System (1999)
Dismiss; ofbar Govtby prior judgment (2002) 14 Actions;
.................................................................................................................................
Phil.
amended 428)
Conciliation
(2003)
42 by
(2006)Counterclaim
How 30
RA
remedial
No.
Proceedings; 7691:
Demurrer
(2002)
(Sec.
Katarungang
laws Attachment The RE-Take 2007
implemented toPambarangay based
inEvidence;presumedContract
September (Etoya 26,v.
are ..................................................................................................................................
Provisional Remedies; Abraham
1994).
innocent of the of Judicialcharged,
55 crime Carriage
Notice;
(1999) .............................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................ 14
(b) An
vs. Pre-Trialaction
(2004)
Evidence
Provisional Conference for injunction
(2005) (1999) is not capable
................................................................................................
Remedies; Demurrer to Evidence;
............................................................................................................................
Attachment (1999) to privacy 42 and against w/o
56
self-incrimination Leave
Judicial of
Actions;
30 Counterclaim
our system of government? (2%) vs. Crossclaim (1999) .............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
An opinion of the court is the informal
of pecuniary estimation and hence falls
The
FromAuthors
What
within
Court
Notice;
30
15
SUGGESTED
of
is the (1998)
Provisional Evidence;
ANSWER:
the ANSWERS
difference,
TO BAR
the jurisdiction
Memorandum
Court
Remedies;
(2001)
Actions;
EXAMINATION
(1996)
Foreign if any,
Attachment
of the RTCs.
Law (1997) .......................................................................................................
between
(2001)
Cross-Claims; the
..................................................................................................
are
Third not
expression of the
42 Demurrer
violated
Party
43 views
by tosuch
Claims
Demurrer
Evidence;
of tothe
w/o (1997)
compulsory Leave 56
.............................................................................................................
court w/o and
conciliation
RemedialProvisional
30 laws are
Remedies; ..................................................................................................
proceedings implemented
Attachment under the
................................................................................................. testing.15 Actions;
In an action Derivative in its vs.Evidence;
..............................................................................................................................................
(2005)in .............................................................................................................
our Suit final
which the Class Suit
physical
July 26, 2005
Leave
57
Katarungang ofgovernment
Court (2004)Attachment
Pambarangay
QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & Philippine Law
system Provisional
(2005)
30 Remedies; Offer Law vs.the and theof (1999) cannot
of.........................................................................................................
through pillars
Garnishment condition
prevail
16
ofthe
against
Evidence
..................................................................................................
Actions;is43
a party inDismissal;
Filing;
order.
Failure
Civil Actions
controversy, (1997) The
to
&
...................................................................................
the
(c) An action
Prosecute for(2003) replevin of a motorcycle opinion of
........................................................................................................................................
negotiations for an court
...................................................................................................................
amicable settlement (Look for citation of latest57 is contained
Offer
case, of
43
in Evidence; in
Dismissal; the
res
of Provisional
the
Criminal
31 judicial Remedies;
Action system,
(2005) Injunction including(2001) the Actions; Intervention;
................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
court may 16
Schools Association 2006
valued
during at
Provisional
inter the
Provisional
Requisites
31 150,000.00
aliospre-trial
acta
Dismissal(2003)
Remedies;
(2000) (2003) falls within the body of theorder decision the that
..........................................................................................................
conference
Injunction under
(2003) the
accused
57serves
to as
OfferActions;
................................................................................................................
2004)
submit
of 43 aDouble
guide
Evidence;Real
................................................................................................................
to
prosecutory service, our courts of justice
................................................................................................................
a physical examination. 16
(Sec. 1, Rule 28,
Jeopardy
Testimonial
jurisdiction
SUGGESTED ANSWER: &(2002)
of Documentary
the (1994)
Metropolitan Trial or
Mainenlightenment to
of determine 57 Opinion
.........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
Remedy vs. b) If the result such test the
shows ratio
Rule
44
that
Updated by Dondee
Rules
and
The
Courts
Remedial
Provisional
of Court?
Actions
31
quasi
difference
Double
(1994)in Law
judicial
Jeopardy;
Metro
ProvisionalDeath
Survives
31
Remedies;
& Personal
vs.
(2%) agencies.
between
Manila
Remedies;
Injunctions;
Actions
Upgrading;
Substantive (Sec.
of theInjunctions;
(2006)Ancillary
the
Original
Law 33 conciliation
DefendantIssuance of Charges
(2000) w/out (2005)
1997
decidendi
Action
Rules (2006)
of Civil
of the
Procedure)
decision.
...............................................................................................................................................
he is HIV positive, and the The 57
Actions;
........................................................
................................................................................................... 16
opinion
prosecution
Bond (2006) ...........................................................................
................................................................................................... Parol
..........................................................................................
16
July 22, 2007
proceedings
(2006) Evidence
44
Provisional
Distinguish
Appeals;
31 July 22, 2007
Ruleunder
Remedies;
between
Period of(2001) the FreshKatarungang
Injunctions;
substantive
Appeal; Requisites
Period law Ruleand Extradition
(2006)
(2003) forms such no part of inthe judgment
....................................................................................................................................
offers result evidence to prove (2004)
even 58the
............................................................................................
............................................................................................. if
Preponderance
Pambarangay
Provisional
31
remedial law. (2%)
17 Law vs.
Remedies; Substantial
and
Certiorari; the
Receivership Evidence
negotiations
(2001) (2003)
..................................................................................................................................................
Mode of in one instrument,
Certiorari but Information
....................................................................................................
qualifying
combined circumstance 44 under may
(2006)
...........................................................................................................the
be
for (2001)
58
an amicable settlement Privilege during the 1947).
referred Communication
Information to for for qualified
the purpose rape,
................................................................................................................................................. of vs. should (1998)
construing 45the
Provisional
32 Remedies; Replevin (1999)
......................................................................................................................
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 17 Certiorari; Rule 45 Rule 65
..................................................................................................................
Information;
pre-trial
Provisional
(1998)
32 conference Amendment
Remedies; (2001)
Support the Rules ofLitethe of court reject
............................................................................................................................
SUBSTANTIVE LAW under is thatPendente part the judgment (Contreras such 58 Privilege
result on theCommunication;
ground
............................................................................................................................
(1999) .............................................................................................
..................................................................................................................... 17 Certiorari; Rule 45
v. Felix, G.R. vs. No. that
RuleL-
law
Court Marital
45
which
65
32 is
Provisionalthat
(2005) Privilege
Information;
creates, in thedefines
Remedies; (1989)
Support and
former, Amendment;
lawyers
Pendente regulatesLiteare it
Double is the
SUGGESTED fruit
ANSWER:of a poisonous
Jeopardy;
................................................................................................. Bailtree?
58 Death Explain.
Privilege
(2002)
(2001) .............................................................................................
477, June 30,
..................................................................................................................... 18 Contempt; of not
a
rights Communication;
Provisional
prohibited
Party;
32 from
Effect Remedies; Marital Privilege (2000)
........................................................................................
concerning 45Since
Judicial
Information;the rights &of Supervening
Autonomy
Amendment;
life,..............................................................................................................
appearing
(1998) liberty,
TRO for or
(2001) the property,
parties.
the accused
Impartiality Eventsare
Default (1997)
.................................................................................................
(2000)
........................................................................................................................
18 59
Privilege (2003) 45 because
violated the compulsory Bail 18 testing
or
Parties the mustCommunication;
powers
appear of Marital
person Privilege
agencies
only (2004)
...........................................................................................
Provisional
32 Remedies;inTRO (2006) Information; (2003)
or .................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
except
........................................................................................................................................................ Default
Privilege Communication; is authorized
Marital
.........................................................................................................................................
59 by the Privilege
45 Information; Motion
(2006) to
minors (2001)
33 or ........................................................................................................................................................
instrumentalities incompetents for the administration who may be of Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee 18
Quash (2000)
.................................................................................................
Default; Remedy; Lost
......................................................................................................................
59 Documents; 46 Secondary
Information; Evidence
Motion
public
assisted byOrder theirof next Default; ofEffects
kin who (1999)are ................................................................................................................
not
to Quash
(1992) (2005) ......................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
Default; 60 Testimony; Independent Relevant
46 Information;
Statement
lawyers 18 . (Formerly Sec. 9, Remedies; Party Declared in Default (1998)
Motion ..............................................................................................
(1999) to Quash; Grounds (1998) ......................................................................................................
.............................................................................................. 19 60 Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. 46
Judgment; of
Credibility Promulgation
the Witnessof (2004) Judgment (1997) ........................................................................................................
............................................................. 60 Witness; Examination of a Child
Witness;
46 via Live-Link Jurisdiction;
TV (2005) .........................................................................
Complex Crimes
60 Witness; Examination (2003) of
Witnesses (1997) ............................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................... 47 60
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 10 of 66
under the jurisdiction of the RTCs. (e) A petition for the probate of a will
(Russell v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738,[1999]). involving an estate valued at 200.000.00
falls within the Jurisdiction of the
However, the action for annulment is a Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila
personal action and the venue depends ADDITIONAL
(Sec. 19[4]ANSWER:
of BP 129, as amended).
on the residence of either A or B. Hence, (b) An application for a writ of
it should be brought in the RTC of the preliminary injunction may be granted by
place where either of the parties resides. a Municipal Court in an action of forcible
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation entry vs.
Day and RTC
unlawful
of detainer.
Zamboanga, 191
(Sec.33 of BP
(2000)
A files an action in the Municipal Trial SCRA610.
129;
Court against B, the natural son of As Jurisdiction vs. Venue
father, for the partition of a parcel of land (2006)
Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?
located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
JURISDICTION treats of the power of the
value of P20,000.00. B moves to dismiss Court to decide a case on the merits, while
the action on the ground that the case VENUE refers to the place where the suit
should have been brought in the RTC may be filed. In criminal actions, however,
because the action is one that is not venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a
capable of pecuniary estimation as it matter of substantive law; venue, of
involves primarily a determination of procedural law. Jurisdiction may be not be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hereditary
The motionrights shouldand
be not merelyThe
granted. theaction
bare conferred by consent through waiver upon
right to real property. Resolve the
for partition depends on a determination motion. a court,
G.R. No.but145022,
venue may be waived,23,
September except in
2005;
(2%) criminalIII
Santos cases (Nocum et al.
v. Northwest v. Tan, G.R. No.
Airlines,
of the hereditary rights of A and B, which
101538, June 23, 1992).
is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction; CTA Division vs. CTA En Banc
Hence, even though the assessed value of (2006)
Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal
the land is P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes
Vestil,
Court supra)
has no jurisdiction. (Russell v. paid, but it was not acted upon. So, he
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation filed a similar complaint with the Court of
(2003)
A filed with the MTC of Manila an action Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions.
for specific performance against B, a Mark's complaint was dismissed. Thus,
resident of Quezon City, to compel the he filed with the Court of Appeals a
latter to execute a deed of conveyance petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
covering a parcel of land situated in Does the Court of Appeals have
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quezon City having an assessed value of jurisdiction over Mark's petition? (2.5%)
No. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11
p19,000.00. B received the summons and of R. A. 9282. Decisions of a division of
a copy of the Complaint on 02 January the Court of Tax Appeals must be
2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals en
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the banc. Further, the CTA now has the same
ground of lack of jurisdiction contending rank as the Court of Appeals and is no
that the subject matter of the suit was longer considered a quasi-judicial agency.
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The It is likewise provided in the said law that
court denied the motion. In due time, B the decisions of the CTA en bane are
filed with the RTC a Petition for cognizable by the Supreme Court under
Certiorari praying that the said Order be Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
set aside because the MTC had no (2000)
A brings an action in the MTC of Manila
Procedure.
jurisdiction against B for the annulment of an
(a) Was theover the of
denial case.
the 6% On 13
Motion to
February 2003, A filed with the MTC a extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real
Dismiss the Complaint correct?
motion to declare B in default. The property with an assessed value of
(b) Resolve the Motion to Declare the
motion wasinopposed P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The
Defendant Default. by B on the ground
that his Petition
BP 129. as amended for Certiorari
by RA No.was still
complaint alleged prematurity of the sale
pending.
7691). for the reason that the mortgage was not
(d) An action for interpleader to yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
determine who between the defendants is case on the ground that the action should
The motion should be granted. The MTC
entitled to receive the amount of have been brought in the RTC of Laguna.
of Manila has no jurisdiction because the
P190,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction Decide with reason. (3%)
action for the annulment of the
(Makati Dev Corp. v. Trial
of the Metropolitan Tanjuatco
Courts27inSCRA
Metro
401)
extrajudicial foreclosure is not capable of
Manila. pecuniary estimation and is therefore
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 11 12
of 66of 66 Was the
billion. He announced to the public that municipal estimationcircuit and,trial court correct
therefore, the action in was
its
the VRIS project has been set aside. Two ruling? Why?
within the (5%)jurisdiction of RTC. (Russel v.
Commissioners sided with Chairman Go, Vestil,
SUGGESTED 304ANSWER:
SCRA 738 [1999]; Copioso v.
but the majority voted to uphold the Yes, the Municipal
Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, Circuit October
Trial Court was
28,2002;
Cabutihan
correct in v. Landcenter
proceeding to Construction,
hear the case. 383
It
contract. SCRA 353 [2002]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Meanwhile, Fotokina filed with the RTC a has exclusive jurisdiction in all matters of
If the action affects title to or possession
petition for mandamus compel the COMELEC probate, both testate and intestate, where
of real property then it is a real action
to implement the contract. The Office of the the value of the estate does not exceed
and jurisdiction is determined by the
Solicitor General (OSG), representing P100,000.00 (now P200,000.00). The
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the
assessed value of the property. It is
value in this case of P95,000.00 is within
ground that mandamus does not lie to within the jurisdiction therefore of the
its jurisdiction. In determining the
enforce contractual obligations. During the Metropolitan Trial Court.
jurisdictional
SUGGESTED ANSWER:amount, excluded are
proceedings, the majority Commissioners (B.P.Blg. 129, Sec. 33, as
attorneys
(b) The Court fees,could litigation
declare expenses
B in default and
filed a manifestation that Chairman Go was amended)
because these
costs; B did are not obtain a only
considered writ for of
not authorized Jurisdiction; RTC
May the OSGbyrepresent
the COMELEC En Banc
Chairman Goto preliminary the
determining injunction
filing fees.or a temporary
oppose the the petition. (2002)
P sued A in the RTC-Manila to recover the
before RTC notwithstanding that his restraining order from the RTC prohibiting
position is contrary to that of the
following
the judge from sums: (1) P200,000.00
proceeding in the caseon an
during
SUGGESTED ANSWER: overdue
the pendency promissory note, (2) P80,000.00
majority? (5%) (Sec. 7 of Ruleof65; theDiazpetition for certiorari.
v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302
Yes, the OSG may represent the COMELEC on the purchase
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:price of a computer, (3)
[2002].
Chairman before the RTC notwithstanding (4)
The P100,000.00
P150,000.00
Court should for
not attorneys
for damages to hisB car
declare fees
in andand
default
that his position is contrary to that of a litigation expenses. Can
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of MTC was A move to
majority of the Commission members in the dismiss the case on the ground
put in issue in the Petition For Certiorari that the
COMELEC because the OSG is an court has the
filed with no jurisdiction
RTC. The MTC overshould
the subject
defer
independent office; it's hands are not SUGGESTED
matter? ANSWER: (2%)
Explain.
further proceedings pending the result of
shackled to the cause of its client agency. No, because
Corporation v. Court
theof Appeals,
RTC-Manila has
such petition. (Eternal Gardens164 SCRA 421
Memorial
The primordial concern of the OSG is to see jurisdiction
[1988]). over the subject matter. P
Park
to it that the best interest
v. Quyano-Padilla, September 18, of the government may sue
Jurisdiction; A in one
MTC complaint asserting as
is upheld (COMELEC
2002). many
P suedcauses
(2002) A andofBaction in one as complaint
he may have in and
the
Jurisdiction; Ombudsman Case Decisions since
RTC-Manila, the cause of action againstfor
all the claims are principally A
(2006)
Does the Court of Appeals have recovery
being on of anmoney,
overdue the aggregatenote
promissory amountfor
jurisdiction to review the Decisions in claimed
P300,000.00 shalland be that
the test
againstof jurisdiction.
B being on
criminal and administrative cases of the an alleged
[Rule 5(d)]. The
2, sec.balance aggregate amount
of P300,000.00 on the
SUGGESTED
Ombudsman? ANSWER:
(2.5%) claimed
purchase isprice
P450,000.00,
of goods exclusive
sold on of the
credit.
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
amount
Does theof P100,000.00
RTC-Manila for
have attorneys
jurisdictionfees
jurisdiction over decisions of the Jurisdiction;
SUGGESTED Subdivision
ANSWER: Homeowner
Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, R.A. and
over expenses
the case? of
Explain.litigation.
(3%) Hence, the
(2006)
What
No, the court has
RTC-Manila jurisdiction
has no over an action
jurisdiction
6770). In administrative and disciplinary
RTC-Manila has jurisdiction.
for specific
over the case. A performance
and B could not filed by a
be joined
cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must be subdivision
as defendants homeowner in one complaint againstbecause a
taken to the
(Lanting Court of Appeals
v. Ombudsman, G.R.under Rule 43
No. 141426, subdivision
the right to developer?
relief against Choose
both the correct
defendants
May 6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 1
do not The
answer. Explain.
arise Housing
out of the same and transaction
Land Use or
129742, September 16, 1998; Sec. 14, RA. Regulatory Board
6770).
series of transactions and there is no
Jurisdiction; Probate 2
common The Securities
question of law and or factExchange
common
(2001)
Josefa filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Commission
to both. (Rule 3, sec. 6). Hence, separate
Court of Alicia and Mabini, a petition for 3
complaintsThe Regional
will haveTrial to beCourtfiles and they
144
4
would SCRAThe
fall377 (1986)].
Commercial
under the Court
jurisdiction orof the
the
the probate of the will of her husband,
Martin, who died in the Municipality of Regional
Metropolitan Trial Court
Trial designated
Court.
Jurisdiction; Office of the Solicitor General by
[Flores the v.
Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The Supreme
Mallare-Philipps,
(2006) Court to
In 1996, Congress passed Republic Acthear and decide
probable value of the estate which "commercial
No. 8189, otherwise cases." known as the Voter's
consisted mainly of a house and lot was Registration Act of 1996, providing for
placed at P95,000.00 and in the petition computerization of elections. Pursuant
for the allowance
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of the will, attorneys thereto, the COMELEC approved the
fees
(a) The in denial
the of amount
the Motion of P10,000.00,
to Dismiss Voter's Registration and Identification
litigation
the Complaint expenses
was not in correct.
the amountAlthough of System (VRIS) Project. It issued
P5,000.00
the assessed andvalue
costs ofweretheincluded.
parcel ofPedro,
land invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the
the
involvednext was of kin of Martin,
P19,000.00, filed the
within an project. After the public bidding, Fotokina
opposition to the probate
jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, the of the will on was declared the winning bidder with a
the ground that the total amount
action filed by A for Specific Performance included bid of P6 billion and was issued a Notice
in the relief of the petition is
against B to compel the latter to execute a more than of Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener
P100,000.00,
Deed of Conveyance the maximum jurisdictional
of said parcel of land Go objected to the award on the ground
amount for municipal
was not capable circuit trial courts.
of pecuniary that under the Appropriations Act, the
The court overruled the opposition and budget for the COMELEC's modernization
proceeded to hear the case. is only P1
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
Katarungang Pambarangay; Lupon; Extent of
Authority; (2001)
An amicable settlement was signed before
a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3,
2001. On July 6, 2001, the prevailing party
asked the Lupon to execute the amicable
settlement because of the non-compliance
by the other party of the terms of the
agreement. The Lupon concerned refused
to execute the settlement/agreement. a) Is
settlement/agreement? (3%) b)
the Lupon correct in refusing What
to execute
should
the be the course of action of the
prevailing party in such a case?
(2%) ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
a) Yes, the Lupon is correct in refusing to
execute the settlement/agreement
because the execution sought is already
beyond the period of six months from the
date of the settlement within which the
1991)
Lupon is authorized to execute. (Sec. 417,
Local Government Code of
b) After the six-month period, the
prevailing party should move to execute
the settlement/agreement in the
appropriate city or municipal trial court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Id.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. There is improper venue. The case for
a sum of money, which was filed in
Quezon City, is a personal action. It must
be filed in the residence of either the
plaintiff, which is in Pangasinan, or of the
defendant, which is in San Fernando, La
Union. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4) The fact that it was
not raised in a motion to dismiss does not
matter because the rule that if improper
venue is not raised in a motion to dismiss
it is deemed waived was removed from
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The
new Rules provide that if no motion to
dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds
for dismissal may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer. (Sec. 6
of Rule 16.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 39 40 ofof6666hewithout filed his a
a) To
If the afford
judgment
adequate ofprotection
acquittal toin thethe warrant
demurrerofto arrest evidence and without
searched leavehis of house
court.
constitutional
criminal case rights finds ofthat the the accused;act b) (Sec. 23 ofaRule
or without 119). warrant. a) Can the gun
search
When
omission necessary
from whichforthe the orderly used by B in shooting A, which was seized
civil liability
mayjustice
arise or
administration does toofnot
avoid oppression
exist, the court or may
multiplicity Actions;
during theCommencement
search of ofthe an Action;
houseDouble of B, Jeopardy
be
actions;
last it c)
paragraph].
of
receive When double
in evidence over the jeopardy
objectionis admitted (2004) in evidence? b) Is the arrest of B
ALTERNATIVE
clearly ANSWER: d) Where the charges SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC can in Quezon
by Delia.apparent;
[Rule 111, sec. 2, legal? c) Under the circumstances, B be
If the judgment
are manifestly false of andacquittal is based on City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement
convicted of homicide?
reasonable
motivated by doubt,
the thelustcourt may receivee)it
for vengeance; duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an
in
Where there is clearly no case,
evidence because in such primathefacie civil actual resident
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Cebu City) with the
action
case the for damages which may
accused and a motion to quash on that offense of slight
against be (a) No. The gun physical
seized during injuries theallegedly
search
instituted requires
ground has been denied. only a preponderance of the house of B without
inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of a search
of the
(See evidence.
cases cited (Art.
in29, Civil Code).
Roberts, Jr., vs. Court warrant
Quezon City). is notThe admissible
Judge of the in evidence.
branch to
Actions; BP22; Civil
of Appeals, 254Action
SCRA deemed included and
307 [1996] (Secs. 2 and 3[2], Art. III of Constitution).
(2001)
Saturnino filed a criminal which the case was raffled thereupon
Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRAaction against
183 [1990].) Moreover, the search was not an incident
Alex for the latters bouncing check. On issued an order declaring that the case
to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec.
Arrest; date
the Warrantlessof Arrest; Preliminary after
the hearing Investigation
the shall be governed by the Rule on Summary
(b)
12 ofNo. A warrantless
Rule 126. arrest requires that
(2004)
arraignment, Saturnino manifested to the Procedure in criminal cases. Soon
the crime has in fact just been committed
AX
courtswindled
that he RY in the amount
is reserving his rightof P10,000
to file a thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal
and the police arresting has personal
sometime in mid-2003.
separate civil action. The court allowed On the strength of of the case for the reason that it was not
knowledge
Sometime later, of facts basedthatonthe theperson
same to factsbe
the
Saturninosworn statement
to file a civil action givenseparately
by RY commenced by information, as required by
arrested
giving rise hasto committed
the slight physical it. (Sec. injuries
5, Rule
personally
and proceeded to SPO1 to hearJuanthe Ramoscriminalsometime
case. said Rule.
case, Here,
113). the City the Prosecutor
crime has filed not just withbeen the
in mid-2004, and without
Alex filed a motion for reconsideration securing a committed
same MeTC-QC since a period of two days had
an information for
warrant,
contending the thatpolice
the civilofficeractionarrested
is deemed AX. already
attempted lapsed,
homicide and the policethe
against arresting
same
Forthwith
included inthe the police officer
criminal filedThe
case. withcourt
the has
RGR.noInsuch duepersonal
time, before knowledge because
arraignment,
City Prosecutor of Manila
reconsidered its order and ruled that a complaint for (c)
RGRYes.
he was
moved The
not to gun
present is not
quash theindispensable
when the incident
information onin
estafa
Saturnino supported by RY"s sworn
could not file a separate action. statement the conviction
happened.
the ground(Go of
of vs. A
double because
Court jeopardy the
of Appeals.and court
206 SCRA may
after
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and
Is the other
courts documentary
order granting evidence.
the After
motion rely
138). on testimonial or
due hearing, the Judge granted his other evidence.
Yes, the courts order granting the motion
due
for inquest, the prosecutor filed the
for reconsideration
reconsideration correct? is correct. Why? The (5%)
Rules motion. Was the dismissal of the
Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Seizures
requisite information with the MM RTC. complaint for slight physical
provide that the criminal action for
No preliminary investigation was (2003)
In a buy-bust
SUGGESTED ANSWER: operation, the injuries
police
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed proper?
Yes, the
operatives Was the
dismissal
arrested grant
of of
the
the the
complaint
accusedmotionand to
for
conducted either before or after the filing quash the attempted homicide
to include the corresponding civil action, slight
seized physical
from himinjuries a sachet is of
proper
shabubecause and an
of the information and the accused at no information correct? Reason (5%)
and that no reservation to file such civil in Metropolitan
unlicensed Manila
firearm. Theand in
accused chartered was
time asked for such an investigation.
Procedure]
action separately shall be allowed. [Sec. cities,
charged the case
in twohas to be commenced
Informations, one only
for
However, before arraignment,
1(b), Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal
the
accused
Actions; BP22; moved to quash
Demurrer the information
to Evidence by information.
violation of the Dangerous
(Sec. 11, Drug
Revised Act,
Rule as
on
No,
Summarythe grant
amended, Procedure).
and of the motion tofor
another quash the
illegal
on
(2003)
In an the actiongroundforthat the prosecutor
violation of Batas attempted homicide
The accused
possession of filed
firearms.an information
action for recovery on the
suffered
Pambansafrom Big.a22, want the of authority
court granted to the
file ground of double jeopardy was not
of the firearm in another court against
the information
accuseds
SUGGESTED demurrer
ANSWER: because of his failure
to evidence which he to correct, because there was no valid
the police officers
(Philbanking with an230
v. Tensuan. application
SCRA 413; for
No.
conduct
filed The awarrantless
without preliminary
leave of investigation
arrest is not before
court. Although valid
he prosecution
Unimasters forofslight
Conglomeration, physical injuries.
the issuance a writ of Inc. v. CA. CR-
replevin. He
because
filing thethe
was acquitted information,
alleged
of theoffenseas required
crime has not
charged, byjust
the
he, ALTERNATIVE
Actions;
119657, ANSWER:
Discretionary
Feb. 7, 1997) Power of that Fiscalhe was a
alleged
(c) No. in the
If his Complaint
parties stipulated that the
been
Rules
however, committed.
of Court.
was requiredIsThethecrime
warrantless
by the was
court allegedly
arrest
to pay (1999)
A filed with the Office of the Fiscal aa
military
venue informer
"shall be inwhothe had
courtsbeen in issued
Quezon
committed
of
theAX valid?complainant
private one
Is heyearentitled beforeto a
the the
preliminary
face arrest.
value of Complaint for estafa against B. After the
(Sec. written
City", authority
A cannot filetohiscarry
complaint said in firearm.
Pasay
5 (b) of The
investigation
the check. Rulebefore
113).
accusedthe filedfiling
a Motion of the of preliminary investigation, the Fiscal
Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary The
City police
because officers
the usemoved
of the to dismiss
word the
"shall"
information? Explain. (5%)
Reconsideration regarding the order to dismissed thetheComplaint forthelack of
criminal complaint on ground that subject
pay the aspect
investigation face becauseof the
value ofhecase;
thewas and
notb)lawfully
check at the
on the makes
merit. Quezon
May the City
Fiscal thebeexclusive
compelled venueby
very least,without
he was aentitled firearm was in custodia legis. The court
arrested
following grounds: a) theto demurrer
warrant adduce
(See Sec. 7 to of thereof.
SUGGESTED
mandamus
(a) Wasthe (Hoechst
ANSWER:
the Philippines
to seizure
file theinstead
ofcasethe vs.in Torres,
court? 83
controverting evidence on the civil denied
No. The motion
public and
prosecutor mayissued not the
be
He can move for a
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 112).
evidence applied only too the SCRA 297).
(b)
firearm
writ Was
Explain. the denial
(2%)
valid?
of replevin. of the motion to
liability. ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
reinvestigation. Resolve the Motion for compelled by mandamus to file the case in
He is not entitled dismiss proper? 6%
Reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (6%) to a preliminary court because the determination of
(a) The Motionbecause
investigation for Reconsideration
the penaltyshould for Acquittal; Effectis within the discretion of
probable cause
be denied.
estafa is the Thesum ground that the does
of P10,000 demurrernot (2002)
Delia sued
the prosecutor. Victor Thefor personal
remedy is aninjuries
appeal
to evidence
exceed 4 years applied
and 2 only months. to theUnder criminal
Sec. which she allegedly sustained when she
to the Secretary of Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule
aspect
1, second of the case
par., was112,
Rule not correct because
a preliminary was struck
Actions;
112.) by a car
Injunction driven by Victor. May
the criminal action
investigation is not for violation
required. of Batas
(Note: The the court
(1999)
Will receive inlieevidence,
injunction to restrain over proper the
Arrest; Warrantless
Pambansa
penalty Blg.Arrests
is not stated in the & Searches
22question.)included the and timely objection
commencement of a criminal action? by Delia, a certified
(1997)
A was killed bycivil
corresponding B during
action. a quarrel
(Sec. 1(b)over a
of Rule true
Explain.copy(2%)
SUGGESTED of a judgment of acquittal in a
ANSWER:
(b)
hostess
111). Thein accused
a nightclub. wasTwo notdays entitled
after the to As a general
criminal rule, injunction
prosecution charging will Victor notwith lie
adduce
incident, controverting
and upon complaint evidence on of the to restrain
SUGGESTED a criminal
ANSWER: prosecution
hit-and-run driving in connection with except:
civil liability,
widow of A, the because
police arrested B Delias injuries? Why? (3%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 42 41 of 66
or not. The
When bailmotionis to a recover
matterthe of firearm he could ANSWER:
SUGGESTED be convicted of the capital
Upon
shouldconviction
discretion: be filed in by the RTC courtofwhere an offensethe In criminal
offense. (Obosa procedure,
vs. Courta ofcomplaint Appeals, 266 is a
not
criminal punishable by death, reclusion
action is pending. sworn
ALTERNATIVE
SCRA 281.) written
ANSWER: statement charging a
perpetua or life imprisonment, on Under
person Circular
with an No.
offense,2-92, A is
subscribed entitled by to
the
Arrest; Warrantless
application of theArrests;
accused. Objection
If the penalty bail because
offended party, any he peace was officer convicted or other of
(2000)
FGimprisonment
of was arrestedexceeds withoutsixa years warrantbut notby homicide
peace and
officer hence the
charged evidence with of guilt
the
policemen
more than while
20 years,he was bailwalking
shall be in adenied
busy of murder is not
enforcement of strong.
the law violated. (Sec. 3,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
street.a After
upon showingpreliminary investigation,with
by the prosecution, he Rule
2. B,110,who 1985did Rulesnot of Criminal
appeal, Procedure);
can be
was
notice charged
to the accused, with ofrape and
the following theor while
benefited an information
by the decision is an of accusation
the Court ofin
1 That the
corresponding
other similar accused is awas
information
circumstances: recidivist,
filed in quasi-re-
the writing
Appeals charging a
which Contract person
is with
favorable an offenseand
cidivist Demurrer
subscribed to Evidence;
or hasapplicable to him. (Sec. 11 [a]. and
by the prosecutor of Carriage filed
RTC. On or habitual delinquent,
arraignment, he pleaded not Rule 122,
by thewith (2004)
AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of
committed
guilty. Trial the on the crimemerits aggravated
ensued. The Rules the court. (Sec.
of Criminal 4, Id.) The benefit will
Procedure.)
circumstance
court rendered of judgment
reiteration;convicting him. PBU, a public utility bus, died instantly on
also apply to on C account
even ifofhis the appeal is
2
On appeal, That FG theclaimsaccused
that the found tois haveboard
is judgment Bail;
dismissed
the bus
Application;
becauseVenue of his escape.
fatal head
previously
void because escaped
he was from illegally legal confinement,
arrested. If wounds
(2002) he sustained
If an information was as filed a result
in theofRTC- the
evaded
you were sentence, or has violated
the Solicitor General, the conditionsManila charging D with homicide and the
counsel
strong impact of the collision between he
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of
forhis the bailPeople
withoutofvalid the justification;
Philippines, how bus
was and arrested a dump truck that
in Quezon City, happened
in what
Any objection to the illegality of the arrest
3
would Thatrefute
the accused committed the offensewhilecourt the or bus courts wasmay still hetravelling
apply on for EDSAbail?
of theyou accused said claim?
without a(5%)warrant is towards
SUGGESTED Makati.
ANSWER: The foregoing facts,
while on probation, parole, or under conditionalExplain. (3%)
deemed waived when he pleaded not D may apply
among others,for werebail dulyin the RTC-Manila
established on
pardon;
guilty at the arraignment without raising where the
evidence-in-chief information by the was filed
plaintiff or TY,in the
sole
4 That the circumstances of the accused or
the question. T is too late to complain
his case indicate the probability of flight ifRTC-Quezon heir of AX, City in TYs where he was
action arrested,
against the
about a warrantless arrest after trial is or if no judge, thereof
subject common carrier for breach of is available, with
released on bail; or
commenced and completed and a any metropolitan trial judge, municipal
5
[1999]) That there is undue risk that during thecontract 114, sec.
of carriage. After
17).or municipal circuit trial judge
TY had rested
judgment of conviction rendered against trial
his judge
case, the common carrier filed a
pendency of the appeal, the accused may
the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA therein.
demurrer (Ruleto evidence, contending that
Bail
commit
Bail; Matter another
of Rightcrime. (Sec.
vs. Matter of 1, Id.)
Discretion Bail; Forms of Bail
199, plaintiffs evidence is insufficient because
(2002)
D was
(2006) charged with murder, a capital (1999)
In what forms may bail be given?
When is bail a matter of right and when it did not show (1) that defendant was
offense.
is it a matterAfterof arraignment,
discretion? (5%) he applied for (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
bail. The trial court ordered the negligent
No.
Bail The
may court
be andgiven (2) by
should that
not such defendant's
grant
a corporate negligence
surety,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosecution
Bail is a matter to present
of right its (a) evidence
before orin full
after was
demurrer
or the
through proximate
to a evidence
property causebecause
bond, of thethe
cash collision.
case is
deposit
on the ground
conviction by that only on the
the inferior basis(b)
courts; of Should
for breach
or recognizance. the of court
contract grant
of or
carriage. deny
Proof
such presentation
before conviction by couldthe itRTC determine
of an defendant's
that
Bail; the
Matter defendant
of demurrer
Right was to
negligent evidence?
and that
whether the such
(1999)
When
Reason negligence
the accused
briefly. was
(5%) isthe proximate
entitled as a cause
matter of
offense not evidence
punishable of Dsbyguilt was
death,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
strong forperpetuapurposesoroflife bail. Is the ruling the
of
Civil collision
rightCode; to is
bail, not
(Mendoza may required.
the
v. Court
Phil. refuse
(Articles
Airlines, 1170to
Inc.,
reclusion imprisonment.,
No, the prosecution is only required to and
90
grant 2201,Phil.
him bail 836 on the [1952];ground that Batangas
there
correct?
when theWhy? (3%) of guilt is not strong
evidence
present as much evidence as is necessary Transportation
exists a high degreeCo. ofv.probability Caguimbal, that he22
(Sec. 4, Rule 114, 2000 Rules of Criminal
to
Baildetermine whether Upon
is discretionary: the evidence
conviction of Dsby SCRA171
SUGGESTED U 968];
ANSWER: Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA
Procedure). will abscond or escape? Explain. (2%)
guilt is strong for purposes of bail .(Rule 489
If bail[1982];
is a Aboitiz
matter v.ofCourt right,ofitAppeals,
cannot 129 be
the RTC of an offense not punishable by Demurrer
SCRA 95onto Evidence; w/o Leave of Court
[1984]).
114,
death, sec. 8).reclusion perpetua or life denied the ground that there exists a
(1998)
Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a
Bail;
of Appeal
Criminal Procedure). high degree of probability that the
imprisonment (Sec. 5, Rule 114, 2000 Rules petition for bail. The petition was opposed
(1998)an information charging them of
In accused will abscond or escape. What the
Murder,
Bail; Witnesspolicemen
Posting Bail A, B and C were by the prosecution but after hearing the
court can do is to increase the amount of
convicted
(1999)
May the Courtof Homicide.
require aAwitness appealed from
to post court granted bail to X. On the first
the bail. One of the guidelines that the
the decision
bail? Explainbut your B answer.
and C did (2%)not. B started scheduled hearing on the merits, the
judge may use in fixing a reasonable
serving his
SUGGESTED sentence but C escaped and is
ANSWER: prosecution manifested that it was not
amount of bail is the probability of the
Yes. The court mayCourtrequireofa Appeals,
witness toA adducing additional
Bail; Matterappearing
of Right vs.inMatterevidence and that it
at large. In the accused trial. of Discretion
post
applied bailforif he
bailis buta material
was denied. witness and
Finally, was
(1999) resting its case. X
When is bail a matter of right and when filed a demurrer to
bail is needed
the Court to secure
of Appeals his appearance.
rendered a decision evidence
is it a matter without leave of court
of discretion? (2%) but it was
The
1 rulesWas provide
the that
Court when
of the
Appeal's court is
denial of 1. Did by
denied
SUGGESTED the thecourt
ANSWER: court. have the discretion to
acquitting A on the ground that the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
deny theBail demurrer
A's
satisfied,
applicationuponforproof bail When is a tomatter evidence ofunderwas the
evidence pointed to theproper?
or
NPAoath, as[2%]
thethat
killersa (a) Yes,
2. Ifpersons
All
the seizure
the answer
circumstances in to theof
mentioned
custody
the firearm
preceding
shall above?
(a) question
(2%)
before or
material
2 Canwitness
B andwill C be not benefited
testify when right:
by the valid because it was seized in the course
of the victim. is
after in conviction
the affirmative, by the can X adduce
metropolitan and
decision ofitthe
required, may,
Court uponof Appeals?
motion of [3%]
either of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: evidence
municipalin trial his defense
courts,after andthe (b)denial
before of
party, order the witness to post bail in (Sec. 12 and 13 of Rule 126) A [1%]
search warrant
1, Yes, the Court of Appeals properly 3.
his Without
demurrer
conviction by further
to evidence?
the RTC proceeding
of an offenseand not on
such sum as may be deemed proper. [1997]).
was not necessary.
denied A's application for bail. The court the sole
punishable basis
by death,of (People
thereclusion v. Salazar,
evidence of the
perpetua
266
Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall SCRA 607
had the himdiscretion to until
do so. prosecution, canofthe thecourt legally convict
commit to prison he Although
complies or A or
(b) life
Theimprisonment,
denial be admitted
motion to bail
to dismiss
Complaint
was convictedvs. of Information
homicide only, since he X
as for a Murder?
matter (2%)
of
was not proper. The court had no right, with sufficient
is legally discharged after his testimony Rule 114, Rules
(1999)
Distinguish
was charged a with
Complaint
a capital from Information.
offense, on sureties,
authority or beof released
Court, as amended by Circular
on recognizance
is taken. (Sec. 6, Rule 119) No. 12-94.) to issue the writ of replevin
(2%)
appeal as prescribed
whether the by
firearm law Updated
or Rule 114. (Sec. 4,
Version 1997-2006 was inby custodia
Dondee legis
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 43 of 66 The trial
a) Was the
evidence presented
provisionalby the
dismissal
prosecution
of the
at court denied the demurrer to evidence and
the hearing
case proper? for b) Resolve
bail was thenot
Motion
strong,
to deemed the accused as having waived his
without any
Quash.
SUGGESTED evidence for the defense, it
ANSWER: right to present evidence and submitted the
(a)
couldThebeprovisional
sufficient for dismissal of the case
conviction. case for judgment on the basis of the
was proper because the accused
2. No. Because he filed the demurrer gave histo prosecution evidence. In due time, the court
express consent thereto and the
the evidence without leave. (Sec. 15, Rule offended rendered judgment finding the accused guilty
party was of
119, Rules notified.
CriminalIt Procedure.)
was not necessary
However, of the offense charged beyond reasonable
for
the the offended
trial party toinquire
court should give heras consent
to why doubt and accordingly imposing on him the
thereto.
the accused (Sec. 8filed
of Rule
the117).
demurrer without penalty prescribed therefor. Is the judgment
(b)
leave Theandmotion
whether to quash the information
his lawyer knew that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the trial court valid and proper? Reason.
should be denied because,
the effect of filing it without leave while isthe
to Yes. The judgment of the trial court is
(5%)
provisional
62.) dismissal had already
waive the presentation of the evidence become
for valid. The accused did not ask for leave to
permanent, the prescriptive
the accused. (People period for
vs. Fores, 269 SCRA
file the demurrer to evidence. He is
3. Yes. the
filing Withoutmurderany evidence
charge fromhad the not deemed to have waived his right to
accused, theThere
prescribed. primawas facie
no evidence of the
double jeopardy 269 SCRAevidence.
present 62 [1997]; Bernardo
(Sec. 23 of v. Court
Rule of
119;
prosecution
because thehas been
first converted
case to proof
was dismissed Appeals, 278 SCRA 782 [1997]. However,
People v. Flores,
ALTERNATIVE
beyond the
before ANSWER:
reasonable
accused doubt.
had pleaded to the the judgment is not proper or is erroneous
If the evidence
charge. of guilt is not strong and
(Sec. 7 of Rule 117). because there was no showing from the
beyond reasonable doubt then the court proper office like the Firearms Explosive
cannot legally convict X for murder. Unit of the Philippine National Police that
the accused has a permit to own or
Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court
possess the firearm, which is fatal to the
(2001)
Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a
conviction of the to
Dismissal; Failure accused. (Mallari v. Court
Prosecute
demurrer to evidence without leave of of Appeals &People,265 SCRA 456[1996]).
court. The court denied the demurrer to (2003) a criminal case is dismissed on
When
evidence and Carlos moved to present his nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled?
evidence. The court denied Carlos (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, when a criminal case is
motion to present evidence and instead dismissed on nolle prosequi before the
judgment on the basis of the evidence for accused is placed on trial and before he is
the prosecution. Was the court correct in called on to plead, this is not equivalent to
preventing Carlos from presenting his an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent
evidence and rendering judgment on the prosecution
v. Court of for the same
Appeals, offense.
237 SCRA(Galvez
685
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
basis
Yes, of the evidence
because the for the prosecution?
demurrer to the [1994]).
Why? (5%)
evidence was filed without leave of court. Dismissal; Provisional Dismissal
(2003)
Before the arraignment for the crime of
The Rules provide that when the
demurrer to evidence is filed without murder, the private complainant executed
leave of court, the accused waives the an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she
right to present evidence and submits the was not sure if the accused was the man
119,
case Revised Rules of
for judgment on Criminal
the basis of the who killed her husband. The public
Procedure)
evidence for the prosecution. (Sec. 23 of prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the
Demurrer
Rule
to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court Information on the ground that with
(2004)
The information for illegal possession of private complainants desistance, he did
firearm filed against the accused not have evidence sufficient to convict the
specifically alleged that he had no license accused. On 02 January 2001, the court
or permit to possess the caliber .45 pistol without further proceedings granted the
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, motion and provisionally dismissed the
the prosecution established the fact that case. The accused gave his express
the subject firearm was lawfully seized by consent to the provisional dismissal of the
the police from the possession of the Subsequently, the private complainant
case. The offended party was notified of
accused, that is, while the pistol was urged the public prosecutor to refile the
the dismissal but she refused to give her
tucked at his waist in plain view, without murder charge because the accused failed
consent.
the accused being able to present any to pay the consideration which he had
license or permit to possess the firearm. promised for the execution of the Affidavit
The prosecution on such evidence rested of Desistance. The public prosecutor
its case and within a period of five days obliged and refiled the murder charge
therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to against the accused on 01 February 2003,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
evidence, in sum contending that the the
1. accused
Yes. ThefiledCourt a Motion
had theto Quash the
discretion to
prosecution evidence has not established Information on the ground
deny the demurrer to the evidence, that the
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable provisional dismissal
because although of bythe
theUpdated
Version 1997-2006
case had
Dondee
doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted already become permanent. (6%)
of the offense charged.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com Page45
sirdondee@gmail.comPage
Page 4644
ofof66
of6666
possession
was awareof
Information
a. Yes, there is a legal basis for the court an unlicensed
that B.theYes,
victim the.32had caliber
died two
prosecution gun,days canpunishable
earlier the
re-file by
on
(2001)
Thedeny
to prosecution
the motion filed to quash an the information
warrant account
prision correctional
of his stab
information for in wounds.
its maximum
murder in Because period
substitution of and his
of
against
of arrest Joseand to forwithdraw
slight physical
the information. injuries guilty
a fine
theplea,
ofinformation
notNoel less was thanforconvicted
P15.000.00.
homicideofbecause frustrated
It is the no
alleging
The courtthe actsbound
is not constituting
by the the offense
Resolution homicide
MTC thatand
double has meted
jeopardy exclusive
hasthe as corresponding
and original
yet attached.
butthe
Mogul,
of without 151anymore
Secretary SCRA
of Justice.alleging
462 (Crespo thatv.it was penalty.
jurisdiction
SCRA
[GalvezWhen
685v.over theall
(1994)].
Court prosecution
of offenses237
Appeals, punishable
learned of the by
[1987]).
committed after Joses unlawful entry in victim's death,not
imprisonment it filed
exceedingwithin six fifteen
years. (15) days
(Sec. 2,
b.
theIf I complainants
were the counselabode. for the accused, Was theI R.A. Information;
129)
No.
therefrom 7691, Amendment;
a amending
motion toB.P Supervening
. Blg.
amend Events
the information
(1997)
would surrender the
information correctly prepared by the accused and apply to A was accused
upgrade the of homicide
charge from for the killing
frustrated
Information; Motion totheQuash; Grounds
for bail because
SUGGESTED
prosecution? ANSWER: the offense is merely
Why? (5%) homicide to consummated homicide.public
of B. During trial, the Noel
No.
homicide, aggravating
The a non-capital circumstance offense. At the of (1998)
1
prosecutorGive two received(2) grounds a copy to quash
of the an
opposed the motion claiming that the
unlawful entry in
pre-trial, I would make a stipulation ofthe complainants Information.[2%]
marriage certificate of A and B.
admission of the amended information would
abode
facts with hasthetoprosecution be specified whichinwould the (a) Can
2
SUGGESTED If the the
ANSWER:publicInformation
prosecutor move is for
not
placeThe him inamended double jeopardy. information Resolve the toa
information;
show that no offense was committed. be
otherwise, it cannot the amendment
accompanied by of a the information
certification that to
Procedure) motion
(b) with
consummated reasons. (4%) of moving
homicide
Information; Motion
considered to Quash (Sec. 8 of Rule
as aggravating. chargeSuppose
preliminary A with instead
the crime offrom
investigation frustrated
parricide?
has for been the
ALTERNATIVE
(2000) ANSWER:
BC is
110, charged
Revised Ruleswith illegal possession of
of Criminal homicide
amendment
conducted. does
Isof the not
the placeinformation,
Information thevoid?accused [3%] the in
The information prepared by the
firearms under an Information signed by a double
public jeopardy.
prosecutor As presented
provided ininthe second
evidence
prosecutor is not correct because the
Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment paragraph
the marriage of certificate
Sec. 7, Rulewithout 117,2000 objection
Rules of
accused
Double should have been charged with
but before Jeopardypre-trial, BC found out that the on the part
Criminal Procedureof the , the conviction
defense, couldof Abe the
qualified
(2002)
D was trespass
charged towith
dwelling. slight physical SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Provincial
Information; Prosecutor
Amendmenthad no authority to accused
convictedshall not be a bar to another
of parricide?
injuries
sign andinfile the MTC. He pleaded itnot guilty (a) No. The forInformation cannotwhich be
(2001)
Amando wasthecharged information withas frustrated was the prosecution
amended to change
an
the
offense
offense charged
and went
City Prosecutor to trial. who After
has the
such prosecution
authority. necessarily includes the offense charged
homicide. Before he entered his plea and from
had presented
During
upon the the advice its evidence,
pre-trial, ofBChismoves
the trial
counsel, thatcourt the
he in thehomicide
former complaintto parricide. or Firstly,
information the
set the
case continuation
against him be ofdismissed
the hearing on on
the marriage is not a supervening
when: (a) the graver offense developed fact arising
manifested his willingness to admit from
another that
ground date.the OnInformation
the date scheduled
having committed the offense of serious is defective for due tothe act constituting
supervening facts arising the charge from the of
hearing,
because the officer
prosecutor failed to appear, homicide. (Sec. 7[a] of Rule 117). Secondly,
physical the injuries. The signing it lacked
prosecution the
then same act or omission constituting the
after plea,charge;
amendments
whereupon
authority tothe docourt, so.
filed an amended information for serious
on The motion of D,
Provincial former or may (b) bethe done facts only
dismissed
Prosecutor the case. Athe
opposes few minutes later, as to matters of form. The amendment is
physical injuries against motion Amando.onWhat the constituting
us. Dacuycuy.
substantial
the SCRA
108
because
graver 736). charge became
it will only change
the
ground prosecutor
of estoppel arrivedas
steps or action should the prosecution BC and did opposed
not move the
to known or were discovered afterthea
dismissal
quash of
the the case.
Information The court
before nature
plea of the
was entered offense. (Sec. 14 of Rule 110;
take so that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the amended information (b) No.
Dionaldo
A can in bethe former complaint
convicted only of
reconsidered its order areand directed for DBC, to
Iarraignment.
would Amando
against argueIf that youwhich since counsel
the Provincial
downgrades the or information.
homicide
Extradition not of Here, when
parricide the
which plea is to a
present
what
SUGGESTED his
isof yourevidence.
ANSWER: argument Before the
to to next
refute date
the frustrated
graver homicide
offense. was
The made,
accused neither
has the
the
Prosecutor
nature had offense
the no authority could be file the
validly (2004)
RP and State XX have a subsisting
In
of ordercame,
trial
opposition that
of the Provincial
however,
the amendedD moved information
that the
Prosecutor? court nor the
constitutional prosecution
rights of duewas processaware and thatto
information,
made? Why? the court did not acquire
(5%) Extradition Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP's
which
last
(5%)order downgrades
be set asidethe on thenature ground of thatthe the
be victim
informed had
of died
the two
nature days
and earlier
the cause on
jurisdiction over the person of the accused Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed a Petition
offense could beof the
the reinstatement validlycase made, had placed the Constitution),
account
of of his stabbefore wounds.
and over the subject matter of the offense
prosecution should file a Acceding
motion to ask for forthe accusation
Extradition against him.
the (Secs.
MM 1, RTC 14
him twice in jeopardy. to this (1) and (2} Art. III. 1987
charged. (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 alleging
leave of court with notice
motion, the court again dismissed the to the offended Information;that Juan Bail Kwan is the subject of
SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is an
party.
case. (Sec.14
The prosecutor
of Rule 110, then Revisedfiled Rules an of After the requisiteduly
(2003)arrest warrant issued by the
proceedings, the
not waived if not raised in a motion to proper criminal court of State XX in
The
information in the RTC, charging D with
Criminal Procedure). new rule is for the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information
quash and could be raised at the pretrial. connection
X. The latter, with a criminaltimely
however, case for filedtaxa
protection
direct
Information;assaultof the
Motion based intereston
to ofQuash of the
the same offended
facts for homicide against
(Sec. 8, Rule 117, Rules Court). evasion
party
alleged
(2005)
Rodolfo andisinto charged
prevent
the informationpossible abuse
with possession for by the
slight of Petition for Review of the Resolution to
and fraud before his return of RPthe
Information; Amendment; Double Jeopardy; Bail
prosecution. as a balikbayan. Petitioner
Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary prays that Juan
physical injuries
unlicensed firearms butin with an the added
Information
(2002)
A. D and E were charged with be extradited
of Justice who, and in delivered
due time, to the propera
issued
allegation
filed in the thatRTC. D inflicted
It was allegedthe injuries therein out
homicide in one information. Before they authorities reversing
Resolution of State XX thefor trial, andofthat
resolution the
of resentment
that Rodolfo
SUGGESTED ANSWER: wasfor what the complainant
in possession of two
could
Ds be arraigned, the beprosecution to preventProsecutor
Provincial Juan's flight andindirecting
the interim, him to a
had motion
done into
unlicensed thequash
firearms: should
performance
a .45 caliber ofgranted
hisand-adutieson.
moved
the to
groundUnder amend
of ofdouble the information
jeopardy because to warrant for
withdraw the Information.his immediate arrest be
as caliber.
32 chairman the
Republicboard ActofNo. election
8294,
exclude
the E therefrom.
first offense Can the court grant issued. Before
Before the Provincialthe RTC Prosecutorcould act on couldthe
inspectors.
possession
B. On the D an charged
of moved
facts to quash
unlicensed
above
is necessarily
stated, thesuppose
.45 second
caliber
the motion
included intothe amend?second Why? (2%) charged.
offense petition for
comply with extradition,
the directive Juan filedofbefore the
information
gun
the is punishable
prosecution, on the by ground
instead prision that
of filingmayor its
a filing
in
motion its
ALTERNATIVE
[Draculan ANSWER:
v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)]. it an urgent
Secretary of motion,
Justice, the in sum court praying
issued(1) a
had
minimum
to placed him
period in
and double
a fine jeopardy.
of P30.000.00, How
Ds amend,
motion tomoved quash to should withdraw
be denied the that
warrant SoJ'sof
SUGGESTED ANSWER: application
arrest against X.for an arrest
should
while
information Ds motion
possession
altogether to quash
of an
and its bemotion
unlicensed resolved? .32
was The Public Prosecutor filed and aandMotion to
because the two dismissals of the case warrant
Under the beExtradition
set for hearing Treaty (2)
Law,that the
(4%)
caliber
granted. gun
Canwere is
the punishable
prosecution byre-fileprision the Quash
against him on his motion (hence Juan be the
application ofWarrant
allowed the to post of bail
Secretary Arrest
ofinJustice
the and fortoa
event
correctional
information in its
although maximum
consent) this period
and histime and a
for Withdraw thearrest
Information, attaching
with his express right to the courtofwould
warrant issue need an not arrest setto for
bewarrant. it
fine
SUGGESTED
murder?
a speedy of not
ANSWER:
Explain less
trial was(3%) than
not violated.P15,000.00. As the Resolution
hearing, and Juan of thecannotSecretary
beorallowed of Justice.
to post
A. Yes,Jeopardy;
provided notice is givenCharges to file
thea Should the court grant deny Juan's
counsel
Double of the accused,
Upgrading; you intend
Original The
bail court denied
if theReason.
court would the motion. issue (6%) a warranta) Wasof
SUGGESTED
offended
ANSWER:
party and the court states its prayers? (5%)
motion
(2005)
For the
The to
ground quash
multiple for the themotion
stab Information.
wounds to sustained
quash What is motion?
arrest.
there aThe b) If
legal you
provisions
basis wereforinthe thecounsel
the Rules to
court fordeny
of the
Court
reasons
ground
by the
that more for
orthan
victim,granting
grounds the
should
Noeloffense
one same.isyou
was charged (Rule
charged 110,
invoke?
with in accused, what remedies, if any, would
on
the arrest and
(Government of thebail United are States not of basically
America
sec. 14). (4%)
Explain.
frustrated
the information. homicide (Sec. in the
3[f], Rule RTC. 117, Upon2000 you pursue? 389 SCRA 623 [2002])
applicable.
v. Puruganan,
arraignment,
Rules of Criminal he Procedure)
entered a Likewise,plea of guilty the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to said
RTC hascrime. Neither the
no jurisdiction over courtthe nor second the
prosecution
offense of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 47 of 66
criminal docket and a copy thereof Parties; Prosecution of Offenses
served upon the accused or counsel. (Sec. (2000)
Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old,
6. third par., Rule 120) seeks your legal advice. She tells you that
(b) No, the trial court cannot order the ZZ, her uncle, subjected her to acts of
arrest of X if the judgment is one of lasciviousness; that when she told her
acquittal and, in any event, his failure to grandparents, they told her to just keep
appear was with justifiable cause since quiet and not to file charges against ZZ,
he had to attend to another criminal case their son. Feeling very much aggrieved,
Jurisdiction;
against him.Complex Crimes she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be
(2003)
In complex crimes, how is the made to answer for his crime. a) What
jurisdiction of a court determined? 4% uncle
would ZZ advice
your is rape, be?witnessed
Explain. by (3%)your
b)
Suppose the crime committed against YY
mutual friend XX. But this time,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the YY
was
by her prevailed upon by her
whole complex crime must be lodged with grandparents not to file charges. XX
the trial court having jurisdiction to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
asks you if she can initiate the
impose the maximum and most serious 1.
SUGGESTEDTwoANSWER:grounds to quash an
complaint against ZZ. Would your
penalty imposable on an offense forming Information are: a) That the facts
[1988]).
part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v. (a) answer
I would
charged
be the same?
do advise
not constitute
Explain.
the minor, (2%). of
an orphan
an offense; and
Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 16 b)years That
of age, the to file trying
court the complaint
the case
Jurisdiction; Finality of a Judgment herself independently
has no jurisdiction over the of offense
her
(2005)
Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping grandparents,
charged or the because
person ofshe is not
the accused.
Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion c) That the
incompetent officer who
or incapable to filed
doing theso
perpetua. While serving sentence at the (b) information
upon rapehad
grounds
Since is no
other now authority
than her to do
asso;
minority.
classified a
National Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria d)5, Rule
(Sec. That itPersons
110, Rules does not Procedure.)
of Criminal conform
Crime Against under the Anti-
were married. Mariano filed a motion in said
Rapesubstantially
Law of 1997 to the(RAprescribed
8353), Iform;would
court for his release from the penitentiary on
e)
advise That
XX to more than the
initiate one complaint
offense is
his claim that under Republic Act No. 8353,
his marriage to Victoria extinguished the charged
against ZZ. except in those cases in
criminal action against him for rape, as well as which existing laws prescribe a single
the penalty imposed on him. However, the punishment for various offenses;
court denied the motion on the ground that it f) That the criminal action or
had lost jurisdiction over the case after its liability has been extinguished;
decision had become final and executory. (7%) g) That it contains averments
a) Is the filing of the court correct? which, if true, would constitute a legal
SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER: excuse or justification; and
No. The court can never lose jurisdiction h) That the accused has been
so long as its decision has not yet been previously convicted or in jeopardy of
fully implemented and satisfied. Finality of being convicted, or acquitted of the
a judgment cannot operate to divest a Rule charged.
offense 117. Rules (Sec. 3,of Criminal
court of its jurisdiction. The court retains Procedure.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
an interest in seeing the proper execution
2. No. The certification which is provided
and implementation of its judgments, and
in Sec. 4, Rule 112. Rules of Criminal
to that extent, may issue such orders
No. 13205, and
January 19, Procedure, is not an indispensable part of
necessary appropriate for these
1999) the information.
Lapura, 255 SCRA(People
85.) vs.
purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,
b)
G.R. What remedy/remedies should the Judgment; Promulgation of Judgment
counsel of Mariano take to secure his
(1997)
X, the accused in a homicide case before
proper and most expeditious release
from the National Penitentiary? Explain. the RTC. Dagupan Cay, was personally
SUGGESTED ANSWER: notified of the promulgation of judgment
To secure the proper and most in his case set for 10 December 1996. On
expeditious release of Mariano from the said date. X was not present as he had to
National Penitentiary, his counsel should attend to the trial of another criminal case
file: (a) a petition for habeas corpus for against him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The trial
the illegal confinement of Mariano (Rule court denied the motion of the counsel of
102), or (b) a motion in the court which (a)
X toHow shall the
postpone thepromulgation.
court promulgate the
convicted him, to nullify the execution of judgment in the absence of the accused?
his sentence or the order of his (b) Can the trial court also order the
commitment on the ground that a arrest of X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) In the absence of the accused, the
supervening development had occurred
(Melo v. People, G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, promulgation shall be made by recording
1950) despite the finality of the judgment. the Judgment
Version in the Updated by Dondee
1997-2006
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
depositing the amounts in his (CXs)
personal bank account. CX files a motion
to suspend proceedings pending
resolution of a civil case earlier filed in
court by CX against MM for accounting
and damages involving the amounts
subject of the criminal case. As the
prosecutor in the criminal case, briefly
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
discuss your grounds in support of your
As the prosecutor, I will argue that the
opposition to the motion to suspend
motion to suspend is not in order for the
proceedings. (5%).
Thereasons:
civil case filed by CX against MM
following
1
for accounting and damages does not involve
an issue similar to or intimately related to the
issue of estafa raised in the criminal action.
2 The resolution of the issue in the civil
case for accounting will not determine
whether or not the criminal action for estafa
may proceed. (Sec. 5, Rule