Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FEU Remedial Advance Tips (2005)
FEU Remedial Advance Tips (2005)
2005
FEU Institute of Law
1. JY was convicted of rape with homicide and sentenced to death by the trial court.
The trial court found that a Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) match exists between the semen
found in the victims vagina and the blood sample given by JY in open court. JY assailed the
admissibility of the DNA test contending that it was conducted in violation of his right
against self-incrimination.
Is the DNA evidence admissible in light of the fact that we are just beginning to
integrate these advances in science and technology in the Philippine criminal justice system?
Yes. Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. The DNA evidence obtained through PCR [Polymerase
chain reaction] testing and utilizing STR [Short Tandem Repeat] analysis, and which was appreciated by
the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of
human genetics and molecular biology. The right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal
process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. (People vs. Joel
Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004)
2. ABR Co. filed an unlawful detainer suit against A, B and C. The MTCC ruled in favor
of ABR Co., awarding only attorneys fees and litigation expenses. A, B, and C seasonably
filed an appeal to the RTC but failed to put up a supersedeas bond. Upon ABR Co.s ex parte
motion, the RTC issued a writ of execution pending appeal on the ground that because of the
failure of A, B and C to file such bond, the decision of the MTCC became final and
immediately executory.
Rule on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of execution.
The issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal is not proper. Since A, B and C had
seasonably filed an appeal, the judgment of the MTCC did not become final.
As a rule, the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and if not filed, the plaintiff is entitled as
a matter of right to the immediate execution of the judgment. An exception is where the trial court did
not make any finding with respect to any amount in arrears, damages or costs against the defendant, in
which case no bond is necessary to stay the execution of the judgment.
3. What damages can be awarded in ejectment cases?
In ejectment cases, the ONLY damages that can be recovered are the fair rental value or the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that the only issue
raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those which the
plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation
of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to
his loss of material possession.
4. Does the Court of Appeals have the authority to issue immediate execution
pending appeal of its own decision?
No. A judgment of the Court of Appeals cannot be executed pending appeal. Once final and
executory, the judgment must be remanded to the lower court, where a motion for its execution may be
filed only after its entry. In other words, before its finality, the judgment cannot be executed. There can
be no discretionary execution of a decision of the Court of Appeals. In the second place, even in
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 1 of 6
discretionary executions, the same must be firmly founded upon good reasons. The court must state in a
special order the "good reasons" justifying the issuance of the writ. The good reasons allowing execution
pending appeal must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the injuries
or damages to the adverse party if the decision is reversed.
5. When and how to apply for a writ of search and seizure in civil actions for
infringement of Intellectual Property Rights?
Where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the intellectual property right holder or where
there is demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed, the intellectual property right holder or his duly
authorized representative in a pending civil action for infringement or who intends to commence such an
action may apply ex parte for the issuance of a writ of search and seizure directing the alleged infringing
defendant or expected adverse party to admit into his premises the persons named in the order and to
allow the search, inspection, copying, photographing, audio and audiovisual recording or seizure of any
document and article specified in the order. (Sec. 2, Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, February 15, 2002)
6. What is the difference of preliminary injunction, main action of injunction and
temporary restraining order?
Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from
doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in
the main action.
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary
injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding.
As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether
prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment
embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional
remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits
can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the
court issuing a final injunction.
A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve the status quo until the hearing of
the application for preliminary injunction which cannot be issued ex parte. Under Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty (20) days
from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period the application for preliminary
injunction is denied, the temporary restraining order would be deemed automatically vacated. If no
action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said twenty (20) days,
the temporary restraining order would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer force of law,
no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary.
7. Doctrines and Principles
a. Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
even if the contract is divisible in its performance and the future periodic deliveries are not yet
due, if the obligor has already manifested his refusal to comply with his future obligations, the contract
is entire and the breach is total, hence there can only be one action for damages
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 2 of 6
if there is only one delict or wrong, there is a single cause of action, even if there are several
rights violated, and all of those rights violated must be prayed for in one complaint but the single delict or
wrong must be violative of one contract or transaction
b. Doctrine of Judicial Stability
no court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of
coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much as unjust a judgment of another court
c. Principle of Tacita Reconduccion
defense to an unlawful detainer suit, in case of rural lands, implied new lease is for period
necessary for gathering of fruits which the estate may yield once, in case of urban lands, for a period as
may be fixed by the court depending on length of prior occupation thereof by lessee
d. Principle of Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet
disregards a secondary description which is wrong and added to one that is complete and
sufficient whenever both descriptions are embodied in the same instrument
e. Principle of Falsus In Uno Falsus In Omnibus
when a witness lied in one part of his testimony, he is also presumed to have lied as to the
rest of his testimony
f. Requisites before application:
1.
witness deliberately and intentionally told a lie
2.
lie necessarily relates to the matter pertinent to the issue
3.
other portions of testimony not affected by the lie are not corroborated by other
evidence in the case
g. Isolated Jurisdiction Rule
only foreign corporations and not just any business organizations or entity can avail
themselves of the privilege of suing before Philippine courts even without a license
h. Doctrine of Preclusion of Issues or Collateral Estoppel
it is otherwise known as the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment where issues actually and
directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties
involving a different cause of action
i. Intervention Pro Interesse Suo
it is a mode of intervention where the stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of
asserting a property right in the rest, or thing, which is the subject matter of the litigation, without
becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant, and without acquiring the control over the course of a litigation,
which is conceded to the main action therein. The mode of intervention of which reference is now made
is denominated in equity procedure the intervention pro interesse suo, and is somewhat analogous to the
trial of a right of property in an action of law, its purpose being to enable a person whose property gets
into the clutches of a court, in a controversy between the others, to go into court and procure it or its
proceeds to be surrendered to him
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 3 of 6
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 4 of 6
published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. However, the Court did not violate the Best Evidence Rule. It
stated: Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial courts discretion, whenever in the
case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful
purpose will be served by requiring production.
9. A decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) became final and
executory when the defendants petition for certiorari was dismissed. Thereafter, the
defendant filed with the NLRC a motion to stay execution on the ground of absolute nullity
of decision. Pending such motion, the defendant filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a
petition for annulment of judgment of the NLRC. The CA dismissed the petition on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. Is the CA correct?
Yes. BP 129, as amended, only vests in the Court of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction over actions
for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. Moreover, annulment is allowed only where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of petitioners.
10. Is service of summons upon a domestic corporation through any of its employees,
other than those enumerated under Sec. 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a substantial
compliance with the rule?
No. Under Sec. 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, it is provided that the designation of persons or
officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited
to the following: president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or inhouse counsel. The enumeration is restricted, limited and exclusive following the rule expressio unios est
exclusio alterius. Hence, a service of summons upon not one of those enumerated is invalid.
11. Absolute Corp. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of
Appeals. Only a duplicate original copy of the challenged order of the trial court was
attached to the petition. This was challenged by the other party on the ground that such
attachment violated Sec. 1, Sec. 65 of the Rules of Court which states that the petition shall
be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject
thereof. Did the petition suffer from procedural infirmity which merits its dismissal?
No. Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, provides that either
a certified true copy or a duplicate original copy may be attached to the petition.
12. What is a mittimus?
It is the final process for carrying into effect the decision of the appellate court and the
transmittal to the court a quo. It is predicated upon the finality of the judgment.
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 5 of 6
CBO OVER-ALL CHAIR: Paolo Armas; CO-CHAIR: Beryl Vergara; HEAD-ACADS: Gina Lyn Rubio; CO-HEAD: Joan Bolina;
HEAD-SECRETARIAT: Evangeline Co; HEAD-LOGISTICS: Myrell Gargallo; HEAD-FINANCE: Donnabel Tenorio.
CRIMINAL LAW
Page 6 of 6