2015 Bar Exam Questions in Remedial Law
2015 Bar Exam Questions in Remedial Law
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%) Here the amount claimed
was P500,000. Even if the claim
substantiated during the trial was only
ANSWERS: P300,000 that is not determinative of
a) Yes, Lender correctly applied subject-matter jurisdiction.
the totality rule and the rule on joinder Hence, the argument that
of causes of action. lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can
be raised at any time is misplaced since
Under the rule on joinder
of causes of action, a party may in one
in the first place the RTC has effect of Scylla's answer to the complaint?
jurisdiction. (2%)
II ANSWERS:
Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the a) No, the court should not
foreclosure of real estate mortgage against declare Charybdis in default.
siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of
Under the Rules of Court, the
the property and cosignatories to the
amendment of Rule 14 allowing service
mortgage deed. The siblings permanently
of summons by facsimile transmittal
reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off
refers only to service of summons upon
Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan
a foreign private juridical entity under
trip and is billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel
Section 12 of Rule 14, not to a non-
in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel
resident defendant under Section 15 of
and personally, served Scylla the summons,
Rule 14. Service of summons by
but the latter refused to receive summons for
facsimile cannot be effected under
Charybdis as she was not authorized to do
Section 15 unless leave of court was
so. Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the
obtained specifically permitting service
email address and fax number of Charybdis
by facsimile transmittal.
which the latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in
his return of the summons, stated that Here the defendant is not a
"Summons for Scylla was served personally foreign private juridical entity but a
as shown by her signature on the receiving non-resident defendant and no leave of
copy of the summons. Summons on court was obtained to serve summons
Charybdis was served pursuant to the by facsimile.
amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile
transmittal of the summons and complaint Hence, there was no valid
on defendant's fax number as evidenced by service of summons and thus the court
transmission verification report automatically could not declare Charybdis in default.
generated by the fax machine indicating that b) The effect of Scyllas answer
it was received by the fax number to which to the complaint is that the court shall
it was sent on the date and time indicated try the case against both Scylla and
therein." Circe, sixty (60) days after her Charybdis upon the answer filed by
receipt of Sheriff Pluto's return, filed a Motion Scylla.
to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis
did not file any responsive pleading. Under Section 3(c) of Rule
9, when a pleading asserting a claim
a.) Should the court declare Charybdis in states a common cause of action
default? (2%) against several defending parties,
Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting some of whom answer and the others
forth therein as a defense that Charybdis had fail to do so, the court shall try the case
paid the mortgage debt. against all upon the answers thus filed
and render judgment upon the
b.) On the premise that Charybdis was evidence presented.
properly declared in default, what is the
Here there was a common to resolve the constitutionality of R.A.
cause of action against Scylla and No. 9262.
Charybdis since both were co-
The Supreme Court has held that
signatories to the mortgage deed.
despite its designation as a Family
Hence, the court should Court, a Regional Trial Court remains
not render judgment by default against possessed of authority as a court of
Charybdis but should proceed to try the general jurisdiction to resolve the
case upon the answer filed and the constitutionality of a statute. (Garcia v.
evidence presented by Scylla. Drilon, 25 June 2013)
III IV
Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for
Violence Against Women and their Children cancellation of title. Wagner moved to
filed with the RTC designated as a Family dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to
Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary whom he mortgaged the property as duly
Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as
Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day defendant.
TPO against Romeo. A day before the
a.) Should the complaint be dismissed?
expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion
(3%)
for extension. Romeo in his opposition
raised, among others, the constitutionality of b.) If the case should proceed to trial
R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that without Grieg being impleaded as a party to
the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO the case, what is his remedy to protect his
violates the equal protection and due process interest? (2%)
clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family
Court judge, in granting the motion for ANSWERS:
extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family
Court judge reasoned that Family Courts are a) No, the complaint should not
without jurisdiction to pass upon be dismissed.
constitutional issues, being a special court of
The Supreme Court has
limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the
held that non-joinder of an
law creating the Family Courts, does not
indispensable party is not a ground of
provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA,
Court judge correct when he declined to 371 SCRA 508).
resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. Here although Grieg, the
9262? (3%) registered mortgagee, is an
indispensable party (Metrobank v.
Alejo, 364 SCRA 813 [2001]), his non-
ANSWER: joinder does not warrant the dismissal
of the complaint.
No, the Family Court
judge was not correct when he declined b) The remedy of Grieg is to file
a motion for leave to intervene.
Under Rule 19, a person practicable, applicable in special
who has a legal interest in the matter proceedings.
in litigation may intervene in the
action. Here there are no special
provisions on demurrer to evidence in
Here Grieg is a mortgagee and the rules on guardianship.
such fact was annotated in the title.
Hence, the provisions on
Hence, he has a legal interest in demurrer to evidence in ordinary
the title subject-matter of the actions are applicable to special
litigation and may thus intervene in proceedings. Such application is
the case. practicable since it would be a waste
V of time to continue hearing the case if
Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over upon the facts and the law,
the person and properties of his father, guardianship would not be proper.
Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of
hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the
b) No, the court cannot order
petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the
Ernestos arrest.
petition, filed a motion to order Ernesto to
submit himself for mental and physical Under Section 3(d) of Rule 29, a
examination which the court granted. court cannot direct the arrest of a party
After Ernie's lawyer completed the for disobeying an order to submit to a
presentation of evidence in support of the
physical or mental examination. The
petition and the court's ruling on the formal
court may impose other penalties such
offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer filed a
demurrer to evidence. as rendering judgment by default or
Ernie's lawyer objected on the ground that issuing an order that the physical or
a demurrer to evidence is not proper in a mental condition of the disobedient
special proceeding. party shall be taken as established in
accordance with the claim of the party
a.) Was Ernie's counsel's objection proper? obtaining the order.
(2%)
VI
b.) If Ernesto defies the court's order A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko
directing him to submit to physical and as a protected area since it was a major
mental examinations, can the court order watershed. The protected area covered a
his arrest? (2%) portion located in Municipality A of the
Province I and a portion located in the City
ANSWERS: of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of
Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko
a) No, Ernies counsels (STK), a people's organization. He learned
objection was not proper. that a portion of the mountain located in
the City of Z of
Under the Rule on Special Province II was extremely damaged when it
Proceedings, in the absence of special was bulldozed and leveled to the ground,
provisions, the rules provided for in and several trees and plants were cut down
ordinary actions, shall be, as far as and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of
a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with and not to subject-matter jurisdiction.
the project site engineer if they had a Since what is involved is improper
permit for the project, Maingat was shown a venue and not subject-matter
copy of the Environmental Compliance jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court
Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, to dismiss outright the petition since
Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). venue may be waived. (Dolot v. Paje,
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a
27 August 2013).
petition for the issuance of a writ of
continuing mandamus against RD-DENR- b) No, the court should not
EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, dismiss the petition.
a designated environmental court, as the
RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC The Supreme Court has held that
to WPRI. On scrutiny of the petition, the in environmental cases, the defense of
court determined that the area where the failure to exhaust administrative
alleged actionable neglect or omission remedies by appealing the ECC
subject of the petition took place in the City issuance would apply only if the defect
of Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable in the issuance of the ECC does not
by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court have any causal relation to the
dismissed outright the petition for lack of
environmental damage.
jurisdiction.
Here the issuance of the ECC has
a.) Was the court correct in motu proprio a direct causal relation to the
dismissing the petition? (3%) environmental damage since it
permitted the bulldozing of a portion of
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the
the mountain and the cutting down and
petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment
burning of several trees and plants.
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance (See Paje v. Casio, 3 February 2015).
of the ECC and to exhaust administrative VII
remedies provided in the DENR Rules and
Regulations. Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1
million based on the latter's promissory note.
b.) Should the court dismiss the petition? The complaint alleges, among others:
(3%)
1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from
plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed
ANSWERS: promissory note;
2) The promissory note reads:
b.) Should the court grant defendant's Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil
motion for summary judgment? (3%) over a parcel of land. The contract stipulated
a P500,000.00 down payment upon signing
and the balance payable in twelve (12)
ANSWERS: monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin
a) No, judgment on the paid the down payment and had paid three
pleadings is not proper. (3) monthly installments when he found out
that Neil had sold the same property to Yuri
Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a for P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil
party may set forth two or more for specific performance with damages with
the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an issuance of a writ of execution under
answer-in-intervention as he had already Rule 39.
obtained a TCT in his name.
Hence the motion to dismiss on
After trial, the court rendered judgment the ground of lack of a certification
ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments against forum shopping should be
due, the cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil denied.
to execute a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin.
When the judgment became final and
executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the b) Aldrins remedy is to file a
installments but the latter refused to execute motion for judgment for specific act
the deed of sale in favor of the former. Aldrin under Section 10(a) of Rule 39.
filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39,
petition alleged, among others, that the if a judgment directs a party to execute
decision had become final and executory and a conveyance of land and the party fails
he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of to comply, the court may direct the act
execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a to be done at the disobedient partys
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground cost by some other person appointed
that it lacked the required certification by the court or the court may by an
against forum shopping. order divest the title of the party and
vest it in the movant or other person.
a.) Should the court grant Neil's Motion to
Dismiss? (3%) IX
Despite the issuance of the writ of execution Hades, an American citizen, through a
directing Neil to execute the deed of sale in dating website, got acquainted with
favor of Aldrin, the former obstinately Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the
refused to execute the deed. Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City
where Persephone resides. Hades and
b.) What is Aldrin's remedy? (2%) Persephone contracted marriage, solemnized
by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of
Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew
ANSWERS: back to California, United States of America,
to wind up his business affairs. On his return
a) No, the court should not grant
to the Philippines, Hades discovered that
Neils Motion to Dismiss.
Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes.
Under Section 5 of Rule 7, Immediately, Hades returned to the United
a certification against forum shopping States and was able to obtain a valid divorce
is required only for initiatory pleadings decree from the Superior Court of the County
or petitions. of San Mateo, California, a court of
competent jurisdiction against Persephone.
Here the Petition for the Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina,
Issuance of a Writ of Execution, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City.
although erroneously denominated as
a petition is actually a motion for a.) As Hades' lawyer, what petition should
you file in order that your client can avoid
prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry 3. Publication of the order of hearing
Hestia? (2%) in a newspaper of general circulation in
the province.
b.) In what court should you file the petition?
(1 %) X
c.) What is the essential requisite that you An information for murder was filed against
must comply with for the purpose of Rapido. The RTC judge, after personally
establishing jurisdictional facts before the evaluating the prosecutor's resolution,
court can hear the petition? (3%) documents and parties' affidavits submitted
by the prosecutor, found probable cause and
ANSWERS:
issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer
a) As Hades lawyer, I would file examined the rollo of the case and found that
a petition for cancellation of entry of it only contained the copy of the information,
marriage under Rule 108 with prayer the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy
for recognition of foreign divorce of the warrant of arrest. Immediately,
judgment. Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash the
arrest warrant for being void, citing as
In a case involving similar facts, grounds:
the Supreme Court held that a foreign
divorce decree must first be recognized a.) The judge before issuing the warrant did
before it can be given effect. The not personally conduct a
Supreme Court stated that the
searching examination of the prosecution
recognition may be prayed for in the
witnesses in violation of his client's
petition for cancellation of the
constitutionally-mandated rights;
marriage entry under Rule 108.
(Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266). b.) There was no prior order finding probable
cause before the judge issued the arrest
warrant. May the warrant of arrest be
b) I would file the quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido' s
petition in the regional trial court of counsel? State your reason for each ground.
Makati City, where the corresponding (4%)
civil registry is located. (Section 1 of
ANSWER:
Rule 108).
No, the warrant of arrest may
c) For the Rule 108 petition, the
not be quashed on the grounds cited by
jurisdictional facts are the following:
Rapidos counsel.
1. Joinder of the local civil registrar
a) The Supreme Court has held
and all persons who have or claim any
in Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393
interest which would be affected by
(1988) that Section 2 of Art. III of the
petition.
Constitution does not mandatorily
2. Notice of the order of hearing to the require the judge to personally
persons named in the petition. examine the complainant and his
witnesses. The judge may opt to
personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by a) No, the remedy taken by the
the regarding the existence of probable governor was not correct.
cause and on the basis thereof issue a
The SC has held that the proper
warrant of arrest.
remedy from the Ombudsmans orders
b) There is no requirement of a or resolutions in criminal cases is a
prior order by the judge finding petition for certiorari under Rule 65
probable cause. The SC has held that filed with the Supreme Court. (Quarto v
the judge may rely upon the resolution OMB, 5 Oct 2011; Cortes v. OMB, 10
of the investigating prosecutor June 2013).
provided that he personally evaluates
Here the petition for
the same and the affidavits and
certiorari was filed not with the
supporting documents, which he did.
Supreme Court but the Sandiganbayan.
(People v. Grey, 26 July 2010).
Hence, the remedy taken
was not correct.
XI
b) No, the writ of mandamus will
The Ombudsman found probable cause to not lie to compel the Ombudsman to
charge with plunder the provincial governor, include the Treasurer in the
vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and information.
accountant. An Information for plunder was
The Supreme Court has held
filed with the Sandiganbayan against the
that mandamus will lie only if the
provincial officials except for the treasurer
exclusion of a person from the
who was granted immunity when he agreed
information was arbitrary.
to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the
prosecution of the case. Immediately, the Here the exclusion was not
governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a arbitrary but based on Sec. 17 of RA
petition for certiorari against the 6770 which empowers the Ombudsman
Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse to grant immunity to witnesses. (Id.).
of discretion in excluding the treasurer from
the Information. c) No, the Special Prosecutor
cannot move for the discharge of the
a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor budget officer to corroborate the
correct? (2%) testimony of the treasurer.
b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel Under Section 17 of Rule 119, a
the Ombudsman to include the treasurer in requirement for discharge is that there
the Information? (3%) is no other direct evidence available for
the prosecution of the offense and that
c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the
there is absolute necessity for the
discharge of the budget officer to
testimony of the accused whose
corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in
discharge is requested.
the course of presenting its evidence? (2%)
Here since the budget officers
ANSWERS:
testimony is merely corroborative,
there is no absolute necessity for it.
Necessity is not there when the bond shall be made only after his
testimony would simply corroborate or arraignment.
otherwise strengthen the
prosecutions evidence. (Jimenez v a.) Did the court properly impose that bail
People, 17 September 2014). condition? (3%)
Paz was awakened by a commotion coming b.) Should the motion to quash be granted?
from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she (2%)
called up the nearby police station. PO 1 c.) After his release from detention on bail,
Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the can Oasis Jung still question the validity of
condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus his arrest? (2%)
knocked at the door and when a man opened
the door, POI Remus and his companions ANSWERS:
introduced themselves as police officers. The
a) No, the court did not properly
man readily identified himself as Oasis
impose the condition that the approval
Jungand gestured to them to come in.
of the bail bond shall be made only
Inside, the police officers saw a young lady
after the arraignment.
with her nose bleeding and face swollen.
Asked by P02 Romulus what happened, the In a case involving similar
lady responded that she was beaten up by facts, the Supreme Court held that in
Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis cases where it is authorized, bail
Jung and brought him and the young lady should be granted before arraignment,
back to the police station. PO 1 Remus took otherwise the accused may be hindered
the young lady's statement who identified from filing a motion to quash since his
herself as AA. She narrated that she is a arraignment would necessarily be
sixteen-year-old high school student; that deferred pending the resolution of the
previous to the incident, she had sexual motion to quash. This would amount to
intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five a substantial dilution of his right to file
times on different occasions and she was a motion to quash. (Lavides v. Court of
paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first Appeals, 1 February 2000).
time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02
b) No, the motion to quash
Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's
should not be granted.
jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public
prosecutor filed an information for Violation In a case involving similar
of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for facts, the Supreme Court held that each
physical violence and five separate act of sexual intercourse with a minor
informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 is a separate and distinct offense under
(The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer R.A. No. 7610.
filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the
court issued an order that approval of his bail
Hence, the single larceny ANSWERS:
or single offense rule is not applicable.
a) The remedy available to the
(Id.).
prosecution from the court's order
c) Yes, Oasis Jung can still
granting Jaime's motion for new trial is
question the validity of his arrest after
a special civil action for certiorari under
his release from detention on bail.
Rule 65.
Under the Rules on
Under Section 1(b) of Rule
Criminal Procedure, admission to bail
41, no appeal may be taken from an
shall not bar the accused from
interlocutory order and the aggrieved
challenging the validity of his arrest
party may file an appropriate special
provided that he does so before
civil action as provided in Rule 65.
entering his plea. (Sec. 26, Rule 114).
Here the order granting
XIII
the motion for new trial is an
Jaime was convicted for murder by the interlocutory order since it does not
Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a completely dispose of the case but still
decision promulgated on September 30, leaves something to be done, that is,
2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a conducting the new trial.
Motion for New Trial on the ground that
errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to Hence, the available
his rights were committed during his trial. remedy is the special civil action for
On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, certiorari under Rule 65.
with the conformity of the public
prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime's b) The special civil action for
motion. On October 9, 2015, the court certiorari should be filed with the Court
granted Jaime's motion. On October 12, of Appeals. It should be filed within 60
2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion days from receipt by the public
for reconsideration. The court issued an prosecutor of the order denying the
Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the motion for reconsideration pursuant to
public prosecutor's motion for Section 4 of Rule 65. The 60-day
reconsideration. The public prosecutor period should be reckoned from the
received his receipt by the public prosecutor who
copy of the order of denial on October 20,
has the direction and control of the
2015 while the private prosecutor received
prosecution pursuant to Section 5 of
his copy on October 26, 2015.
a.) What is the remedy available to the Rule 110.
prosecution from the court's order granting c) The remedy should be
Jaime's motion for new trial? (3%) pursued by the Office of the Solicitor
b.) In what court and within what period General.
should a remedy be availed of? Under Section 35(1),
(1%) Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the
1987 Administrative Code, the
c.) Who should pursue the remedy? (2%) authority to represent the government
in criminal cases before the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court is vested a) No, Pedros lawyer is not
solely in the Office of the Solicitor correct in objecting to the
General. (Cario v. De Castro, 30 April judicial affidavit of Mario.
2008).
b) The Judicial Affidavit Rule
XIV applies to criminal actions
where the maximum of the
Pedro was charged with theft for stealing imposable penalty does not
Juan's cellphone worth P10,000.00. exceed six years. Here the
Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted penalty for theft of property
the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the not exceeding P12,000 does
receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to not exceed 6 years.
prove civil liability. She also submitted the Hence, the Judicial Affidavit
judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who Rule applies.
narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan's
cellphone. At the trial, Pedro's lawyer b) No, Pedro's lawyer is
objected to the prosecution's use of judicial not correct in objecting to the judicial
affidavits of her witnesses considering the affidavit of Juan.
imposable penalty on the offense with which
his client was charged. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
applies with respect to the civil aspect
a.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to of the criminal actions, whatever the
the judicial affidavit of Mario? (2%) penalties involved are.
b.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to Here the purpose of
the judicial affidavit of Juan? (2%) introducing the judicial affidavit of
At the conclusion of the prosecution's Juan was to prove his civil liability.
presentation of evidence, Prosecutor c) No, the motion for
Marilag orally offered the receipt attached
reconsideration is not meritorious.
to Juan's judicial affidavit, which the court
admitted over the objection of Pedro's A judicial affidavit is not a
lawyer. After Pedro's presentation of his documentary evidence but is
evidence, the court rendered judgment testimonial evidence. It is simply a
finding him guilty as charged and holding witnesss testimony reduced to writing
him civilly liable for P20,000.00. Pedro's
in affidavit form. This is shown by
lawyer seasonably filed a motion for
Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
reconsideration of the decision asserting
that the court erred in awarding the civil which states that the offer of testimony
liability on the basis of Juan's judicial in judicial affidavit shall be made at the
affidavit, a documentary evidence which start of the presentation of the witness.
Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally offer.
Hence, the motion for
reconsideration on the ground that
c.) Is the motion for reconsideration
meritorious? (2%) Juans judicial affidavit was a
documentary evidence which was not
ANSWERS: orally offered is without merit.
XV
Water Builders, a construction company proceedings were conducted in Pasay
based in Makati City, entered into a City.
construction agreement with Super Powers,
Inc., an energy company based in Manila, XVI
for the construction of a mini hydro electric
AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking
plant. Water Builders failed to complete the
alone met BB, a teenage boy who
project within the stipulated duration. Super
befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a
Powers cancelled the contract. Water
nearby shanty where he raped her. The
Builders filed a request for arbitration with
Information for rape filed against BB states:
the Construction
"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this
After due proceedings, CIAC rendered
Honorable Court, the accused, a minor,
judgment in favor of Super Powers, Inc.
fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and
ordering Water Builders to pay the form P10
by means of force, violence and
million, the full amount of the down
intimidation, did then and there, willfully,
payment paid, and P2 million by way of
unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
liquidated damages. Dissatisfied with the
intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12)
CIAC's judgment, Water Builders, pursuant
years old against the latter's will and
to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative
consent."
Dispute Resolution (ADR Rules) filed with
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the
the RTC of Pasay City a petition to vacate
witness stand AA as his first witness and
the arbitral award. Super Powers, Inc., in its
manifested that he be allowed to ask
opposition, moved to dismiss the petition,
leading questions in conducting his direct
invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of
examination pursuant to the Rule on the
improper venue as neither of the parties
Examination of a Child Witness. BB's
were doing business in Pasay City.
counsel objected on the ground that the
Should Water Builders' petition be
prosecutor has not conducted a competency
dismissed? (3%) examination on the witness, a requirement
ANSWER: before the rule cited can be applied in the
case.
Yes, Water Builders petition
should be dismissed.
a.) Is BB's counsel correct? (3%)
Under Rule 11.3 of the
In order to obviate the counsel's argument
Special ADR Rules, the petition for
on the competency of AA as prosecution
vacation of a domestic arbitral award
witness, the judge motu proprio conducted
may be filed with the Regional Trial his voir dire examination on AA.
Court having jurisdiction over the place
in which one of the parties is doing b.) Was the action taken by the judge
business, where any of the parties proper? (2%)
reside or where arbitration
proceedings were conducted. After the prosecution had rested its case,
BB' s counsel filed with leave a demurrer to
Here neither of the parties evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case
were doing business in Pasay City nor on the ground that the prosecutor failed to
was there a showing that arbitration present any evidence on BB' s minority as
alleged in the Information.
Under the Rules of
c.) Should the court grant the demurrer? Criminal Procedure, a demurrer to
(3%) evidence may be granted on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence.
ANSWERS: Hence, even assuming that
a) No, BBs counsel is not minority was not proved, BB may still
correct. be convicted of rape since minority is
not an element of rape.
Under the Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness, there is XVII
no requirement that a competency Hercules was walking near a police station
examination of the child witness be when a police officer signaled for him to
conducted before leading questions approach. As soon as Hercules came near,
may be asked of her. A competency the police officer frisked him but the latter
examination may be conducted by the found no contraband. The police officer told
court (not the prosecutor) only if Hercules to get inside the police station.
substantial doubt exists as to the Inside the police station, Hercules asked the
childs competency to testify. (Section police officer, "Sir, may problema po ba?"
6, RECW). Instead of replying, the police officer locked
up Hercules inside the police station jail.
Here there is no showing a.) What is the remedy available to Hercules
of any substantial doubt as to the to secure his immediate release from
competency of AA to testify. Hence detention? (2%)
BBs counsel is not correct.
b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a
b) No, the action taken by the complaint for warrantless search, as counsel
judge was improper. for the police officer, what defense will you
raise for the dismissal of the complaint? (3%)
Under the Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness, a c.) If Hercules opts to file a civil action
competency examination may be against the police officer, will he have a
conducted by the court only if cause of action? (3%)
substantial doubt exists as to the
childs competency to testify. (Section
6, RECW). ANSWERS:
Here the judges voir dire a) The remedy available to
is in effect a competency examination. Hercules to secure his immediate
However there is no showing of any release from detention is a petition for
substantial doubt as to the competency writ of habeas corpus.
of AA to testify. Hence the judges
Under Rule 102, the writ
action was improper.
of habeas corpus is available in cases of
c) No the court may not grant illegal detention. Section 5 of Rule 102
the demurrer. provides that a court or judge
authorized to grant the writ must,
when the petition therefor is presented
and it appears that the writ ought to the entrance of the mining site blocking the
issue, grant the same forthwith, and ingress and
immediately thereupon the clerk of egress of trucks and equipment of Oro
court shall issue the writ or in case of Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig
emergency, the judge may issue the had an altercation with Mapusok arising
writ under his own hand and may from the complaint of the mining engineer
of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was
depute any officer or person to serve it.
destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is
The court or judge before whom the
the leader of the Association of Peace
writ is returned must immediately Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian
proceed to hear and examine the volunteer organization serving as auxiliary
return. (Section 12, Rule 102). force of the local police to maintain peace
and order in the area. Subsequently,
b) I will raise the defense that
Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of
the warrantless search was authorized
Masigasig, and the members of ALMA
as a stop and frisk. searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts
Stop and frisk is the proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of
right of a police officer to stop a citizen ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of
APKA, during their binge drinking that
on the street, interrogate him and pat
Masigasig was abducted by other members
him for weapons and contraband
of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and
whenever he observes unusual conduct ALMA sought the assistance of the local
which leads him to conclude that police to search for Masigasig, but they
criminal activity may be afoot. (Terry v. refused to extend their cooperation.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1). Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a
petition for the issuance of the writ of
c) Yes, Hercules will have a
amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA
cause of action. also filed a petition for the issuance of the
Under Article 32(4) of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals
Civil Code, any public officer who against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents
Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed
violates the right of a person to
with the RTC,
freedom from arbitrary or illegal
raised among their defenses that they are
detention shall be liable to the latter for not agents of the State; hence, cannot be
damages. The action to recover impleaded as respondents in an amparo
damages is an independent civil action. petition.
Hence, Hercules was illegally
detained as there was no probable a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%)
cause to arrest him without
warrant. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their
XVIII Return filed with the Court of Appeals,
raised as their defense that the petition
The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by should be dismissed on the ground that
Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental ALMA cannot file the petition because of the
organization - Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa earlier petition filed by Mayumi with the
Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining RTC.
operations of Oro Negro Mining in the
mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at
b.) Are respondents correct in raising their of all others, including ALMA, to file the
defense? (3%) petition.
c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and c) The amparo petition
civil actions against Mapusok. shall be consolidated with the criminal
action. (Section 23, Rule on the Writ of
How will the cases affect the amparo petition
Amparo).
she earlier filed? (1 %)
ANSWERS:
-oOo-
a) No, the defense of Mapusok
and APKA that they are not agents of
the State and hence cannot be
impleaded as respondents in an
amparo petition is not tenable.