totality rule, where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2015 REMEDIAL LAW BAR EXAMINATION money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
               Here the causes of action by Lender are all against borrower and all the claims
are principally for recovery of money.
              Hence the aggregate amount claimed, which is P500,000 shall be the test of
 By Prof. Manuel R. Riguera jurisdiction and thus it is the RTC of Manila which has jurisdiction.
            Although the rules on joinder of causes of action state that the joinder shall
  not include special civil actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the third loan
was not foreclosure but collection.  Hence joinder of causes of action would still be
I.
proper. 
Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory  
note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a             b)  No, the court should not dismiss the case.
promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real             The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by
estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his the amount of the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amount substantiated
payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, during the trial. (Dionisio v Sioson Puerto, 31 October 1974).
Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower             Here the amount claimed was P500,000.  Even if the claim substantiated
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00. during the trial was only P300,000 that is not determinative of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of             Hence the argument that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at
causes of action? (2%) any time is misplaced since in the first place the RTC has jurisdiction.
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully  
elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid.  
Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that II.
as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the foreclosure of real estate
further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any mortgage against siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and
stage of the proceedings. cosignatories to the mortgage deed. The siblings permanently reside in Athens,
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)  Greece. Circe tipped off Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is
  billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel
ANSWERS: and personally served Scylla the summons, but the latter refused to receive
  summons for Charybdis as she was not authorized to do so. Sheriff Pluto
            a)  Yes Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of requested Scylla for the email address and fax number of Charybdis which the
causes of action. latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the summons, stated that
            Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading "Summons for Scylla was served personally as shown by her signature on the
assert as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party.  Under the receiving copy of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to
the amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the summons and complaint
 on defendant's fax number as evidenced by transmission verification report             Hence the court should not render judgment by default against Charybdis but
automatically generated by the fax machine indicating that it was received by the should proceed to try the case upon the answer filed and the evidence presented by
fax number to which it was sent on the date and time indicated therein." Scylla.      
Circe, sixty (60) days after her receipt of Sheriff Pluto's return, filed a III.
Motion to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis did not file any responsive
pleading. Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and
a.)  Should the court declare Charybdis in default? (2%)  their Children filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for .
Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting forth therein as a defense that issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo.
Charybdis had paid the mortgage debt. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the
      b.) On the premise that Charybdis was properly declared in default, what is expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition
the effect of Scylla's answer to the complaint? (2%)  raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law)
  arguing that the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection
ANSWERS: and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in
  granting the motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the
a) No, the court should not declare Charybdis in default. constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that Family
Under the Rules of Court, the amendment of Rule 14 allowing service of Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special
summons by facsimile transmittal refers only to service of summons upon a foreign court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family
private juridical entity under Section 12 of Rule 14, not to a non-resident defendant Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct
under Section 15 of Rule 14.  Service of summons by facsimile cannot be effected when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (3%)
under Section 15 unless leave of court was obtained specifically permitting service by  
facsimile transmittal. ANSWER:
Here the defendant is not a foreign private juridical entity but a non-resident             No, the Family Court judge was not correct when he declined to resolve the
defendant and no leave of court was obtained to serve summons by facsimile.   constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262.
Hence there was no valid service of summons  and thus the court could not             The Supreme Court has held that despite its designation as a Family Court, a
declare Charybdis in default.  Regional Trial Court remains possessed of authority as a court of general jurisdiction
  to resolve the constitutionality of a statute.  (Garcia v. Drilon, 25 June 2013)
            b)  The effect of Scylla’s answer to the complaint is that the court shall try the  
case against both Scylla and Charybdis upon the answer filed by Scylla.  
            Under Section 3(c) of Rule 9, when a pleading asserting a claim states a IV.
common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer
and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answers Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner
thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.  moved to dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the
            Here there was a common cause of action against Scylla and Charybdis since property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant.
both were co-signatories to the mortgage deed.   a.) Should the complaint be dismissed? (3%)
b.) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded as a
party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest? (2%)
              a)  No, Ernie’s counsel’s objection was not proper.
ANSWERS:             Under the Rule on Special Proceedings, in the absence of special provisions,
  the rules provided for in ordinary actions, shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in
            a)  No, the complaint should not be dismissed. special proceedings.
            The Supreme Court has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a             Here there are no special provisions on demurrer to evidence in the rules on
ground of a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508). guardianship.  Hence the provisions on demurrer to evidence in ordinary actions are
            Here although Grieg, the registered mortgagee, is an indispensable party applicable to special proceedings.  Such application is practicable since it would be a
(Metrobank v. Alejo, 364 SCRA 813 [2001]), his non-joinder does not warrant the waste of time to continue hearing the case if upon the facts and the law, guardianship
dismissal of the complaint.  would not be proper.
             
            b)  The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave to intervene. b)  No, the court cannot order Ernesto’s arrest.
            Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation may Under Section 3(d) of Rule 29, a court cannot direct the arrest of a party for
intervene in the action. disobeying an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.    The court may
            Here Grieg is a mortgagee and such fact was annotated in the title. impose other penalties such as rendering judgment by default or issuing an order that
            Hence he has a legal interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation and the physical or mental condition of the disobedient party shall be taken as
may thus intervene in the case. established in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.
   
   
V. VI.

Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a
father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition major watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A
to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a motion to order of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is
Ernesto to submit himself for mental and physical examination which the court the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's
granted. organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in the City of Z of
After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of evidence in support of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
the petition and the court's ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of
filed a demurrer to evidence. World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf
Ernie's lawyer objected on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for the
proper in a special proceeding. project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate
a.) Was Ernie's counsel's objection proper? (2%) (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB).
b.) If Ernesto defies the court's order directing him to submit to physical Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
and mental examinations, can the court order his arrest? (2%) continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of
  Province I, a designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently
ANSWERS: issued the ECC to WPRI.
  On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the
 alleged actionable neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City 1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by a duly
of Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the executed promissory note;
court dismissed outright the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2) The promissory note reads:
a.)  Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition? (3%)  
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in "Makati, Philippines
his Comment moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to Dec. 30, 2014
appeal the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in  
the DENR Rules and Regulations. For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay
     b.) Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%) plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) months from the above indicated
  date without necessity of demand.
ANSWERS:  
  Signed
            a)  No, the court was not correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition for Defendant"
lack of jurisdiction.   
            In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the requirement A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex "A."
that the petition be filed in the area where the actionable neglect or omission took  
place relates to venue and not to subject-matter jurisdiction.  Since what is involved is Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others:
improper venue and not subject-matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to  
dismiss outright the petition since venue may be waived.  (Dolot v. Paje, 27 August 1) Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1
2013). and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not
  execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or
b) No, the court should not dismiss the petition. 2) Defendant has paid the P1 million claimed in the promissory
The Supreme Court has held that in environmental cases, the defense of note (Annex "A" of the Complaint) as evidenced by an
failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the ECC issuance would apply "Acknowledgment Receipt" duly executed by plaintiff on
only if the defect in the issuance of the ECC does not have any causal relation to the January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse signing as
environmental damage.  witness.
Here the issuance of the ECC has a direct causal relation to the A copy of the "Acknowledgment Receipt" is attached as Annex "1"
environmental damage since it permitted the bulldozing of a portion of the mountain hereof.
and the cutting down and buring of several trees and plants.  (See Paje v. Casiño, 3  
February 2015). Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that
  defendant's answer failed to tender an issue as the allegations therein on his
  defenses are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. Defendant filed
VII. an opposition claiming his answer tendered an issue.
a.)  Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%)
Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million based on the latter's Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there are
promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others: no longer any triable genuine issues of facts.
       b.) Should the court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment? installments but the latter refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the former.
(3%)   Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution" with proper
  notice of hearing. The petition alleged, among others, that the decision had
ANSWERS: become final and executory and he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of
  execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
            a)  No, judgment on the pleadings is not proper.  ground that it lacked the required certification against forum shopping.
Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a party may set forth two or more statements of a a.)  Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss? (3%) 
defense alternatively or hypothetically.  The Supreme Court has held that Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing Neil to execute the
inconsistent defenses may be pleaded alternatively or hypothetically provided that deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the former obstinately refused to execute the deed.
each defense is consistent with itself.    (Baclayon v. Court of Appeals, 26 February       b.) What is Aldrin's remedy? (2%) 
1990).  
            Hence Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s answer failed to tender an issue ANSWERS:
as his defenses are sham for being inconsistent is without merit.  
              a)  No, the court should not grant Neil’s Motion to Dismiss.
            b)  Yes, the court should grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.             Under Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification against forum shopping is required
            Under Section 2 of Rule 35, a defendant may at any time, move with only for initiatory pleadings or petitions.
supporting admissions for a summary judgment in his favor.             Here the “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution,” although
            Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the genuineness and due execution of erroneously denominated as a petition is actually a motion for issuance of a writ of
the acknowledgment receipt, which was the basis of Defendant’s defense, by failing execution under Rule 39.
to specifically deny it under oath.             Hence the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of a certification against
            Hence the Defendant may move for a summary judgment on the basis that forum shopping should be denied.   
Plaintiff had admitted that Defendant had already paid the P1 million obligation.                
  b)  Aldrin’s remedy is to file a motion for judgment for specific act under
  Section 10(a) of Rule 39.
VIII.             Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39, if a judgment directs a party to execute a
conveyance of land and the party fails to comply, the court may direct the act to be
Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of land. The done at the disobedient party’s cost by some other person appointed by the court or
contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment upon signing and the balance the court may by an order divest the title of the party and vest it in the movant or
payable in twelve (12) monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the down other person.
payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he found out that Neil  
had sold the same property to Yuri for P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil  
for specific performance with damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, IX.
filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his name.
After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with
due, the cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale in favor of Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio
Aldrin. When the judgment became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage,
solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the
wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC judge, after
business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that personally evaluating the prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties' affidavits
Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the submitted by the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest.
United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior Rapido's lawyer examined the rollo of the case and found that it only contained the
Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction copy of the information, the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy of the
against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest
at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. warrant for being void, citing as grounds:
a.) As Hades' lawyer, what petition should you file in order that your client a.) The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a
can avoid prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry Hestia? (2%) searching examination of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client's
b.) In what court should you file the petition? (1 %)  constitutionally-mandated rights;
c.) What is the essential requisite that you must comply with for the purpose b.) There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued
of establishing jurisdictional facts before the court can hear the petition? (3%) the arrest warrant.
  May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido' s
ANSWERS: counsel? State your reason for each ground. (4%)
   
a)  As Hade’s lawyer, I would file a petition for cancellation of entry of ANSWER:
marriage under Rule 108 with prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment.  
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a foreign No, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed on the grounds cited by
divorce decree must first be recognized before it can be given effect.  The Supreme Rapido’s counsel.
Court stated that the recognition may be prayed for in the petition for cancellation of a)  The Supreme Court has held in Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)
the marriage entry under Rule 108.  (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266). that Section 2 of Art. III of the Constitution does not mandatorily require the judge to
  personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.  The judge may opt to
            b)  I would file the petition in the regional trial court of Makati City, where the personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the regarding
corresponding civil registry is located. (Section 1 of Rule 108). the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest.
  b)  There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable
            c)  For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional facts are the following: cause.  The SC has held that the judge may rely upon the resolution of the
  investigating prosecutor provided that he personally evaluates the same and the
1.    Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any affidavits and supporting documents, which he did.  (People v. Grey, 26 July 2010). 
interest which would be affected by petition.  
2.    Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in the petition.  
3.    Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation XI.
in the province.    
  The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial
  governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information
X. for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials
except for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosecution’s evidence. (Jimenez v People,
with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor 17 September 2014).
filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman Hence the Special Prosecutor cannot move for the discharge of the budget
claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the officer. 
Information.  
a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)  
b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the XII.
treasurer in the Information? (3%) 
c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the discharge of the budget officer Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers.
to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in the course of presenting its Alarmed, she called up the nearby police station. PO 1 Remus and P02 Romulus
evidence? (2%)     proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the door
  and when a man opened the door, POI Remus and his companions introduced
ANSWERS: themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis Jung
  and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with
a)    No, the remedy taken by the governor was not correct. her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus what happened, the
The SC has held that the proper remedy from the Ombudsman’s orders or lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested
resolutions in criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO 1
Supreme Court. (Quarto v OMB, 5 Oct 2011; Cortes v. OMB, 10 June 2013). Remus took the young lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated
            Here the petition for certiorari was filed not with the Supreme Court but the that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she
Sandiganbayan.  had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions
            Hence the remedy taken was not correct. and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung
  physically hurt her. P02 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After
b)  No, the writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information for Violation of
include the Treasurer in the information.  R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five separate
            The Supreme Court has held that mandamus will lie only if the exclusion of a informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's
person from the information was arbitrary.  lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that
Here the exclusion was not arbitrary but based on Sec. 17 of RA 6770 which approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment.
empowers the Ombudsman to grant immunity to witnesses. (Id.).  a.)  Did the court properly impose that bail condition? (3%)
  Before arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to quash the other four
            c)  No, the Special Prosecutor cannot move for the discharge of the budget separate informations for violation of the child abuse law invoking the single
officer to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer. larceny rule.
            Under Section 17 of Rule 119, a requirement for discharge is that there is no      b.) Should the motion to quash be granted? (2%)  
other direct evidence available for the prosecution of the offense and that there is      c.) After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the
absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.  validity of his arrest? (2%)
Here since the budget officer’s testimony is merely corroborative, there is no  
absolute necessity for it.  Necessity is not there when the testimony would simply ANSWERS:
  granting Jaime's motion for new trial? (3%)
            a)  No, the court did not properly impose the condition that the approval of the b.) In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of?
bail bond shall be made only after the arraignment.  (1%) 
            In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that in cases where it c.) Who should pursue the remedy? (2%) 
is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may  
be hindered from filing a motion to quash since his arraignment would necessarily be ANSWERS:
deferred pending the resolution of the motion to quash.  This would amount to a  
substantial dilution of his right to file a motion to quash.   (Lavides v. Court of             a)  The remedy available to the prosecution from the court's order
Appeals, 1 February 2000). granting Jaime's motion for new trial is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
  65.
            b)  No, the motion to quash should not be granted.              Under Section 1(b) of Rule 41, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory
            In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that each act of sexual order and the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided
intercourse with a minor is a separate and distinct offense under R.A. No. 7610. in Rule 65.
            Hence the single larceny or single offense rule is not applicable. (Id.).                Here the order granting the motion for new trial is an interlocutory order since
  it does not completely dispose of the case but still leaves something to be done, that
            c)  Yes, Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest after his release is, conducting the new trial.
from detention on bail.             Hence the available remedy is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule
            Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, admission to bail shall not bar the 65.          
accused from challenging the validity of his arrest provided that he does so before b)   The special civil action for certiorari should be filed with the Court of
entering his plea. (Sec. 26, Rule 114).       Appeals.   It should be filed within 60 days from receipt by the public prosecutor of
  the order denying the motion for reconsideration pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65.  
  The 60-day period should be reckoned from the receipt by the public prosecutor who
XIII. has the direction and control of the prosecution pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 110. 
 
Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in             c)  The remedy should be pursued by the Office of the Solicitor General. 
a decision promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime             Under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative
filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law and irregularities Code, the authority to represent the government in criminal cases before the Court
prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the of Appeals and Supreme Court is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General.
private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an (Cario v. De Castro, 30 April 2008).    
Opposition to Jaime's motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime's  
motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for  
reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the XIV.
public prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his
copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private prosecutor Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's cellphone worth
received his copy on October 26, 2015. P10,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of
a.) What is the remedy available to the prosecution from the court's order Juan attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability.
She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated             c)  No, the motion for reconsideration is not meritorious. 
therein how Pedro stole Juan's cellphone.             A judicial affidavit is not a documentary evidence but is testimonial evidence. 
At the trial, Pedro's lawyer objected to the prosecution's use of judicial It is simply a witness’s testimony reduced to writing in affidavit form.  This is shown
affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the offense with by Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule which states that the offer of testimony in
which his client was charged. judicial affidavit shall be made at the start of the presentation of the witness. 
a.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario?             Hence the motion for reconsideration on the ground that Juan’s judicial
(2%) affidavit was a documentary evidence which was not orally offered is without merit.   
b.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan?  
(2%)  XV.
At the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation of evidence, Prosecutor
Marilag orally offered the receipt attached to Juan's judicial affidavit, which the Water Builders, a construction company based in Makati City, entered into a
court admitted over the objection of Pedro's lawyer. construction agreement with Super Powers, Inc., an energy company based in
After Pedro's presentation of his evidence, the court rendered judgment Manila, for the construction of a mini hydro electric plant. Water Builders failed
finding him guilty as charged and holding him civilly liable for P20,000.00. to complete the project within the stipulated duration. Super Powers cancelled the
Pedro's lawyer seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision contract. Water Builders filed a request for arbitration with the Construction
asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil liability on the basis of Juan's Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). After due proceedings, CIAC rendered
judicial affidavit, a documentary evidence which Prosecutor Marilag failed to judgment in favor of Super Powers, Inc. ordering Water Builders to pay the former
orally offer. P 10 million, the full amount of the down payment paid, and P2 million by way of
c.) Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious? (2%)  liquidated damages. Dissatisfied with the CIAC's judgment, Water Builders,
  pursuant to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR
ANSWERS: Rules) filed with the RTC of Pasay City a petition to vacate the arbitral award.
  Super Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the petition, invoking the
            a) No, Pedro’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of ADR Rules, on the ground of improper venue as neither of the parties were doing
Mario. business in Pasay City.
            The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to criminal actions where the maximum of Should Water Builders' petition be dismissed? (3%) 
the imposable penalty does not exceed six years.  
            Here the penalty for theft of property not exceeding P12,000 does not exceed             ANSWER:
6 years.  
Hence the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies.             Yes Water Builders’ petition should be dismissed.
              Under Rule 11.3 of the Special ADR Rules, the petition for vacation of a
            b)  No, Pedro's lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan. domestic arbitral award may be filed with the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
            The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies with respect to the civil aspect of the criminal over the place in which one of the parties is doing business, where any of the parties
actions, whatever the penalties involved are.  reside or where arbitration proceedings were conducted.
            Here the purpose of introducing the judicial affidavit of Juan was to prove his             Here neither of the parties were doing business in Pasay City nor was there a
civil liability.   showing that arbitration proceedings were conducted in Pasay City.
   
  court (not the prosecutor) only if substantial doubt exists as to the child’s
XVI. competency to testify. (Section 6, RECW).
            Here there is no showing of any substantial doubt as to the competency of AA
AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who to testify.  Hence BB’s counsel is not correct.  
befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The  
Information for rape filed against BB states:             b)  No, the action taken by the judge was improper.
"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within             Under the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, a competency examination
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen may be conducted by the court only if substantial doubt exists as to the child’s
(15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and competency to testify. (Section 6, RECW).
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously             Here the judge’s voir dire is in effect a competency examination.  However
had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old there is no showing of any substantial doubt as to the competency of AA to testify. 
against the latter's will and consent." Hence the judge’s action was improper.  
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness  
and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct             c)  No the court may not grant the  demurrer. 
examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB's             Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a demurrer to evidence may be
counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
competency examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be             Here even assuming that minority was not proved, BB may still be convicted of
applied in the case. rape since minority is not an element of rape. 
a.) Is BB's counsel correct? (3%)  
In order to obviate the counsel's argument on the competency of AA as  
prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted his voir dire examination XVII.
on AA.
b.) Was the action taken by the judge proper? (2%)  Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for
After the prosecution had rested its case, BB' s counsel filed with leave a him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him
demurrer to evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside
prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BB' s minority as alleged in the the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir,
Information. may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police officer locked up Hercules
c.) Should the court grant the demurrer? (3%)  inside the police station jail.
  a.) What is the remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate release
ANSWERS: from detention? (2%)
  b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless
            a)  No, BB’s counsel is not correct. search, as counsel for the police officer, what defense will you raise for the
            Under the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, there is no requirement dismissal of the complaint? (3%)    
that a competency examination of the child witness be conducted before leading c.) If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police officer, will he
questions may be asked of her.  A competency examination may be conducted by the have a cause of action? (3%)    
 
 ANSWERS: of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members.
  Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy
            a)  The remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate release from (APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police
detention is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. to
            Under Rule 102, the writ of habeas corpus is available in cases of illegal maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared.
detention.  Section 5 of Rule 102 provides that a court or judge authorized to grant Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for
the writ must, when the petition therefor is presented and it appears that the writ Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA,
ought to issue, grant the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that
court shall issue the writ or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok.
his own hand and may depute any officer or person to serve it.  The court or judge Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for
before whom the writ is returned must immediately proceed to hear and examine Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation.
the return.  (Section 12, Rule 102). Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the
            writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the
b)  I will raise the defense that the warrantless search was authorized as a issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and
“stop and frisk.”  APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC,
            “Stop and frisk” is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence, cannot be
interrogate him and pat him for weapons and contraband whenever he observes impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.
unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%)
(Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1).  Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of
  Appeals, raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the ground
            c)  Yes Hercules will have a cause of action.  that ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi
            Under Article 32(4) of the Civil Code, any public officer who violates the right of with the RTC.
a person to freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable to the latter for b.) Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%)
damages.  The action to recover damages is an independent civil action. c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil actions against Mapusok.
            Here Hercules was illegally detained as there was no probable cause to arrest How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier filed? (1 %)
him without warrant.   ANSWERS:
   
              a)  No, the defense of Mapusok and APKA that they are not agents of the State
XVIII. and hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is not tenable.
            The writ of amparo is available in cases where the enforced or involuntary
The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a disappearance of a persons is with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
nongovernmental organization - Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to State.   (See Sec. 3[g] of R.A. No. 9851 and  Navia v. Pardico, 19 June 2012, e.b.).
protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA             Here Mapusok and APKA may be considered as acting with the support or at
members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and least the acquiescence of the State since APKA serves as an auxiliary force of the
egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig police and the police refused to assist in the search for Masigasig.
had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer             b)  Yes respondents are correct in raising their defense.
            Under Section 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by
an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order in Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.    
            Here the petition for writ of amparo had earlier been filed by the  spouse of
the aggrieved party Masigasig.  Thus it suspends the right of all others, including
ALMA, to file the petition. 
            c)  The amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.  (Section
23, Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
 
-oOo-