The Supreme Court has held that a special commercial court is still a court of general

I.
jurisdiction and can hear and try a non-commercial case. [Concorde Condominium Inc. v.
What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following Baculio, 17 Feb 2016, Peralta, J.].
cases? Explain briefly your answers.
Hence the special commercial court had jurisdiction to try and decide the action for specific
(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being performance and to render a judgment therein.
occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last
Ill.
demand to vacate that was duly served upon and received by him on July 6,2016.
Answer the following briefly:
(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller's contractual
right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of P15,000.00. (a) What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) When is bail a matter of judicial discretion?
(a) (c) Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid
warrantless arrest.
It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending upon the assessed value of the apartment
unit. (d) What is a tender of excluded evidence?
Under B.P. Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions is vested in the MTC if the assessed value SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000 and in the RTC if such assessed value
(a)
exceeds P20,000. The action to recover possession can no longer be one for unlawful detainer
since it was brought beyond one year from the last demand to vacate. The following elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for
conviction:
(b)
a) There is more than one circumstance.
Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTC.
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
The Supreme Court has held that where the ultimate relief sought by an action is the assertion
of title to real property, the action is a real one and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation. c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
[Brgy. Piapi v. Talip, 7 Sep 2005] reasonable doubt. [S4 R133]
Here the ultimate relief sought by the complaint is the assertion of title since the seller seeks to (b)
exercise his right to repurchase. Hence the action is a real one and jurisdiction is vested in the
Bail is a matter of judicial discretion:
MTC since the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.
(1) Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
Alternative Answer:
life imprisonment.
(b)
(2) After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial Court. life imprisonment. [S4 & 5 R114]
The Supreme Court has held that an action to enforce the right of redemption is one which is (c)
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
The following are the instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid
RTC pursuant to B.P. Blg. 129. [Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, 10 March 2014]
warrantless arrest:
II.
(1) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying is attempting to commit an offense;
for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the
(2) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a
(jpp); and
regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to have the judgment annulled
for lack of jurisdiction. (3) When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner. [S5 R113]
What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer. (4%) (d)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tender of excluded evidence is the remedy of a party when the evidence he has offered is
excluded by the court.
The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for annulment of judgment on lack of
jurisdiction will not prosper. If documentary or object evidence is excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state
for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of of the validity of the contracts he assails. [Briones v. Cash Asia Credit Corp., 14 January 2015,
the proposed testimony. (S40 R132). Perlas-Bernabe, J.]
IV. VI.
Give brief answers to the following: Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land located
in Oriental Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but did
(a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents of Australia.
(b) What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?
Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without impleading all
(c) When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a preliminary investigation? indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer.
(a) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction Yes, the trial court has a reason to deny the motion to dismiss.
by courts over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of recourse to such
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, non-joinder of parties, even indispensable ones, is not a
courts beginning from the lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s
ground of a motion to dismiss. [S11 R3; Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508 (2001)]
original jurisdiction should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
therefor. [Montes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797, 4 May 2006] VII.
(b) Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory
note in favor of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house
The harmless error rule in relation to appeals provides that the appellate court should not
and lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant
reverse a judgment as a result of any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights
Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and
of the parties. [See S6 R51; Bersamin, Appeal & Review in the Philippines 362]
while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the
(c) principal sum of P3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously
executed by the latter.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the public prosecutor conducts an inquest instead of a
preliminary investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of a
offense which requires a preliminary investigation. [S6 R112] single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid
of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate contracts, namely,
V.
the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage.
After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to the Philippines to retire in
Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.
Manila, the place of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for
cash in his name a house and lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his house and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on
Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action.
the basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly executed in
favor of ABC Bank five years earlier. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a splitting of a single cause of action if two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. [S4 R2]. A cause of action is
Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of mortgage
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. [S2 R2].
were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying
that the subject documents be declared null and void. Here, both suits, the foreclosure and the collection suit, arose from the same cause of action,
that is, the non-payment by Elise of her P3 million loan from Merchant Bank. The fact that the
ABC Bank filed.a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the ground of improper venue on the
two actions were based on separate contracts is irrelevant, what matters is that both actions
basis of a stipulation in both documents designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the
arose from the same cause of action.
event of litigation between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage.
VIII.
Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your answer.
A.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie. When the lease expired, Laura
No, the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank should not be granted.
refused to vacate the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an action for unlawful
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a party is not bound by a venue detainer against Laura who failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period.
stipulation where he directly assails on the ground of forgery the validity of the contracts
Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should the motion be granted? Explain
containing the venue stipulation. The reason is that such a party cannot be expected to comply
your answer.
with the venue stipulation since his compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition
 B. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction over Salvador’s counterclaim even if it did not exceed the
jurisdictional amount of P400,000.
Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect P350,000.00, an
amount representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. X.
Realizing a jurisdictional error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of
On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter
dismissal before she was served with the answer of Yana. The RTC issued an order
filed a complaint for P950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of Davao City. In an
confirming the dismissal.
unverified answer, Harold specifically denied the genuineness of the promissory note.
Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the same cause of
During the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies of the following: (1) the testimony of
action this time in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha
an NBI handwriting expert to prove the forgery of his signature; and (2) the testimony of a
decided to have the complaint dismissed without prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal prior
credible witness to prove that if ever Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the
to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence, the case was dismissed by the MeTC.
same was not supported by a consideration.
A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC.
May Ramon validly object to the proposed testimonies? Give a brief explanation of your
May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? answer.
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Ramon may validly object to the proposed testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove
(A) forgery.
No, a Motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited motion in ejectment cases Under S8 R8, the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document is deemed
pursuant to S13.8 R70. admitted by the adverse party if he fails to specifically deny such genuineness and due
execution.
(B)
Here the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, which is an actionable
No, Yana may not successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third
document, was impliedly admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the same under oath, his
complaint
answer being unverified. Hence Harold is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery and
Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the thus Ramon may object to the proposed testimony seeking to prove forgery.
merits provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action
2) Ramon may not validly object to the proposed testimony showing that the note was not
based on or including the same claim. [S1 R17]
supported by a consideration.
Here the first dismissal by the plaintiff was not in a competent court as the RTC in Makati
The Supreme Court has held that an implied admission under S8 R8 does not preclude the
City did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action seeking to recover P350,000.
adverse party from introducing evidence that the actionable document was not supported by a
Hence Agatha’s third complaint is not barred by the Two-Dismissal Rule.
consideration. The reason is that such evidence is not inconsistent with the implied admission
IX. of genuineness and due execution. [Acabal v. Acabal, 31 March 2005]
Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of P750,000.00 against Salvador in the The fact that the defense of lack of consideration is inconsistent with Harold’s defense of
RTC in Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador forgery is also not objectionable.
promptly filed his answer, and included a counterclaim for P250,000.00 arising from the
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may set forth two or more statements of defense
allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to
alternatively or hypothetically. [S2 R8]
engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental anguish.
XI.
Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTC, Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground. A.
Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer. Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of a commercial
lot. After having been told by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out of town and would
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not be back until after a couple of days, the sheriff requested the wife to just receive the
No, the counterclaim of Salvador should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of summons in behalf of her husband. The wife acceded to the request, received the summons
jurisdiction. and a copy of the complaint, and signed for the same.
In an original action before the RTC, the RTC has jurisdiction over a compulsory (a) Was there a valid service of summons upon Buboy? Explain your answer briefly.
counterclaim regardless of its amount. [See S7 R6]
(b) If Buboy files a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the twin grounds of lack of
Here Salvador’s counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged malicious and baseless jurisdiction over his person and prescription of the cause of action, may he be deemed to have
claims of Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises from Abraham’s complaint.
voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court? Explain your answer briefly. B.
(3%)
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on September 20, 2017 by the RTC against
B. defendant Jeff enjoining him from entering the land of Regan, the plaintiff.
What is the mode of appeal applicable to the following cases, and what issues may be raised On October 9, 2017, upon application of Regan, the trial court, allegedly in the interest of
before the reviewing court/tribunal? justice, extended the TRO for another 20 days based on the same ground for which the TRO
was issued.
(a) The decision or final order of the National Labor Relations Commission.
On October 15, 2017, Jeff entered the land subject of the TRO.
(b) The judgment or final order of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
May Jeff be liable for contempt of court? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
(A)
(a)
No, as counsel for Jaypee I would not advise the posting of a supersedeas bond.
No, there was no valid service of summons upon Buboy.
Under the R70, a supersedeas bond is necessary to prevent immediate execution only if the
The Supreme Court has held that in order that there will be valid substituted service of
judgment awarded rents, damages, and costs.
summons, the sheriff must have exerted diligent efforts to effect personal service of summons
within a reasonable time. Here the judgment only ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney’s fees. A supersedeas
bond is not required to cover attorney’s fees. [Once v. Gonzalez, 31 March 1977]. Hence the
Here there were no such diligent efforts on the part of the sheriff since he effected substituted
posting of a supersedeas bond is not required.
service on his very first try. Hence there was no valid service of summons upon Buboy.
(B)
(b)
No, Jeff may not be liable for contempt.
No, Buboy may not be deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court. Under the Rule on Preliminary Injunction, a TRO is effective only for a period of 20 days
from service on the person sought to be enjoined. It is deemed automatically vacated if the
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the said period and no
aside from lack of personal jurisdiction shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. [S20
court shall have the authority to extend or renew the TRO on the same ground for which it was
R14]
issued. [S5 R58]
B.
Here the extension of the TRO by the RTC was invalid since it was for the same ground for
(a) which the TRO was issued. Hence the TRO was deemed automatically vacated and thus Jeff
may not be liable for contempt for ignoring it.
There is no mode of appeal from a decision or final order of the NLRC, since such decision or
final order is final and executory pursuant to the Labor Code. [Art. 223]. XIII.
The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action for certiorari with the Court Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10
of Appeals. [St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494]. Such special civil action sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth P5,000.00 used as the buy-bust
may raise questions both of fact and law. [Aggabao v. COMELEC, 449 SCRA 400]. money during the buy-bust operation.
(b) At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug
Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the
The mode of appeal applicable to judgments or final orders of the RTC in the exercise of its
confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr.
appellate jurisdiction is a petition for review under R42. The petition may raise questions both
Druggie had engaged at the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
of fact and law. [S2 R42]
XII. Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the
admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
A.
Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your
Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee in an action for unlawful detainer. The answer.
judgment ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney's fees in favor of Bart, the plaintiff.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To prevent the immediate execution of the judgment, would you advise the posting of a
No, the trial judge should not sustain the objection that invokes the best evidence rule.
supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee?
Explain your answer briefly. The Supreme Court has held that the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence,
not to object or testimonial evidence.
Here the marked money is object not documentary evidence since it is being offered to prove for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a conspiracy
not its contents but its existence and use in the buy-bust operation. [People v. Tandoy, 192 theory.
SCRA 28 (1990)]
While the charges were undergoing investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, Engr.
XIV. Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop immediately filed a motion to terminate the
investigation and to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that because he was charged in
Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest, Venancio told the attending
conspiracy with the deceased, there was no longer a conspiracy to speak of and, consequently,
physician, in a very feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him.
any legal ground to hold him for trial had been extinguished.
Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was
lying on the bed beside him. Rule on the motion to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons.
In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
statements of Venancio admissible as dying declarations? Explain your answer.
Mr. Pork Chop’s motion to terminate the investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: denied.
No, not all the statements of Venancio are admissible as dying declarations. In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of a co-conspirator,
even if he was the lone public officer, did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy to violate
Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay
the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be proved or that the alleged conspiracy was already
rule provided that such declaration relates to the cause of the declarant’s death.
expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of a co-conspirator was his criminal
Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who shot him is admissible as a dying declaration. liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
The same related to Venancio’s own demise. It may be inferred that Venancio had conspiracy between him and private respondent. [People v. Go, 25 March 2014, Peralta, J.]
consciousness of his impending death since he suffered gunshot wounds to his chest which
XVII.
would necessarily be mortal wounds.
Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned under an information for homicide. To
However, Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who shot Vicente is not admissible as a
determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court allowed Juancho to present evidence
dying declaration since it did not relate to the cause of the declarant’s death but to the death of
proving any mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was able to establish complete self-
another person.
defense.
XV.
Convinced by the evidence adduced by Juancho, the trial court rendered a verdict of acquittal.
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution witness in a homicide case, the defense
May the Prosecution assail the acquittal without infringing the constitutional guarantee against
counsel called to the stand a person who had been the boyhood friend and next-door neighbor
double jeopardy in favor of Juancho? Explain your answer.
of the Prosecution witness for 30 years. One question that the defense counsel asked of the
impeaching witness was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about the general reputation of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the prosecution witness in your community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?"
Yes, the Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing upon the constitutional
Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the question of the defense guarantee against double jeopardy.
counsel? Explain your answer.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a requirement for a first jeopardy to attach is that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: there must have been a valid plea by the accused. Said rules also provide that when the
accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn
Yes, I as the trial prosecutor, would interpose my objection to defense counsel’s question on
and a plea of guilty shall be entered for him.
the ground of improper impeachment.
Here Juancho’s plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn when he presented exculpatory evidence
Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party’s witness may be properly impeached by
to the effect that he acted in self-defense. Hence his plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn and
reputation evidence provided that it is to the effect that the witness’s general reputation for
a plea of guilty should have been entered for him by the court, which however was not done.
honesty, truth, or integrity was bad. [S11 R132] The reputation must only be on character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness. [Cordial v. People, 166 SCRA 17] Since there was no standing plea, a first jeopardy did not attach and thus the Prosecution may
assail the acquittal without infringing upon Juancho’s right against double jeopardy. [People v.
Here the evidence is not on the Prosecution witness’s general reputation for honesty, truth, or
Balisacan, 31 August 1966]
integrity but on his aggressive and violent tendencies. The evidence had nothing to do with the
witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Hence the impeachment was improper. XVIII.
XVI. Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical injuries allegedly committed against
Darvin. During the pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for
Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso,
damages based on the injuries he had sustained.
and Mr. Pork Chop, a private contractor, were both charged in the Office of the Ombudsman
Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, search. [Villanueva v. People, 17 Nov 2014, Sereno, C.J.] The Constitution provides that
pointing out that when the criminal action was filed against him, the civil action to recover the evidence seized in violation of the right against illegal search is inadmissible in evidence.
civil liability from the offense charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of
Hence the evidence seized was by virtue of an illegal search since the arrest was illegal. Hence
the separate civil action was the very same act that gave rise to the criminal action.
such evidence may be suppressed.
Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief reasons.
-oOo-
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tomas’s motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia should be denied.
In cases of physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal action (Art. 33, Civil Code; S3 R111) and hence may not be
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.
XIX.
Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he
was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched immediately
after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner
linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy Maton was watching a basketball game
being played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He was
subsequently charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not
guilty when he was arraigned.
During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the information on the ground that the
facts revealed that he had been illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the
evidence confiscated from him as being the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit
of the poisonous tree.
The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the motions
were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of the legality of the
arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton, as the
accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest before entering his plea to the
information. Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged illegal
arrest had also been equally waived.
Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ruling of the court denying the motion for dismissal of the information on the ground of
illegal arrest is proper.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused’s failure to file a motion to quash before
plea is a waiver of the objection to lack of personal jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal
arrest. [S9 R117]
Here Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of
personal jurisdiction. Hence he is deemed to have waived the ground of illegal arrest which is
subsumed under lack of personal jurisdiction.
However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress evidence is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with
it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
[People v. Racho, 3 Aug 2010]. A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal