I. 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 promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secred by a real estate mortgage on his land valed at P!00,000.00. Borrower de"alted on his payments when the loans matred. #espite demand to pay the P!00,000.00 loan, Borrower re"sed to pay. pay. Lender, applying the totality rle, $led against Borrower with the %egional &rial 'ort (%&') o" *anila, a collection sit "or P!00,000.00. a.) #id Lender correctly apply the totality rle and the th e rle on +oinder o" cases o" action (-) /t the trial, Borrowers lawyer, while crossexamining Lender, sccess"lly elicited an admission "rom the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. &herea"ter, Borrowers Borrowers lawyer $led a motion motion to dismiss the case on the grond that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amont de d e to Lender and which claim is within the exclsive original +risdiction o" the *etropolitan &rial &rial 'ort. 2e "rther arged that lac o" +risdiction over the sb+ect matter can be raised at any stage o" the proceedings. b.) Shold the cort dismiss the case (3) /4S56%S7 a) 8es Lender correctly correctly applied the totality rle and the the rle on +oinder o" cases o" action. 9nder the rle on +oinder o" cases o" action, a party may in one pleading assert as many cases o" action as he may have against an opposing party. party. 9nder the totality rle, where the claims in all the cases o" action are principally "or recovery o" money, the aggregate amont claimed shall be the test o" +risdiction. 2ere the cases o" action by Lender are all against borrower and all the claims are principally "or recovery o" money. 2ence the aggregate amont claimed, which is P!00,000 shall be the test o" +risdiction and ths it is the %& %&' o" *anila which has +risdiction. +risdiction. /lthogh the rles on +oinder o" cases o" action state that the +oinder shall not inclde special civil actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the third loan was not "oreclosre "oreclosre bt collection. 2ence +oinder o" cases o" action action wold still be proper. b) 4o, the cort shold not dismiss the case. case.
&he Spreme 'ort has held that sb+ectmatter +risdiction is determined by the amont o" the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amont sbstantiated dring the trial. (#ionisio v Sioson Perto, 31 :ctober 1;<=). 2ere the amont claimed was P!00,000. 6ven i" the claim sbstantiated dring the trial was only P300,000 that is not determinative o" sb+ectmatter +risdiction. 2ence the argment that lac o" sb+ectmatter +risdiction can be raised at any time is misplaced since in the $rst place the %&' has +risdiction.
II. 'irce $led with the %&' a complaint "or the "oreclosre o" real estate mortgage against siblings Scylla and 'harybdis, coowners o" the property and cosignatories to the mortgage deed. &he siblings permanently reside in /thens, >reece. 'irce tipped o? Sheri? Plto that Scylla is on a balibayan trip and is billeted at the 'entry Pla@a 2otel in Pasay 'ity. Sheri? Plto went to the hotel and personally served Scylla the smmons, bt the latter re"sed to receive smmons "or 'harybdis as she was not athori@ed to do so. Sheri? Plto reAested Scylla "or the email address and "ax nmber o" 'harybdis which the latter readily gave. Sheri? Plto, in his retrn o" the smmons, stated that Smmons "or Scylla was served personally as shown by her signatre on the receiving copy o" the smmons. Smmons on 'harybdis was served prsant to the amendment o" %le 1= by "acsimile transmittal o" the smmons and complaint on de"endants "ax nmber as evidenced by transmission veri$cation report atomatically generated by the "ax machine indicating that it was received by the "ax nmber to which it was sent on the date and time indicated therein. 'irce, sixty (C0) days a"ter her receipt o" Sheri? Pltos retrn, $led a *otion to #eclare 'harybdis in de"alt as 'harybdis did not $le any responsive pleading. a.) Shold the cort declare 'harybdis in de"alt (-) Scylla seasonably $led her answer setting "orth therein as a de"ense that 'harybdis had paid the mortgage debt. b.) :n the premise that 'harybdis was properly declared in de"alt, what is the e?ect o" Scyllas answer to the complaint (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the cort shold not declare 'harybdis in de"alt. 9nder the %les o" 'ort, the amendment o" %le 1= allowing service o" smmons by "acsimile transmittal re"ers only to service o" smmons pon a "oreign private +ridical entity nder Section 1- o" %le 1=, not to a nonresident de"endant nder Section 1! o" %le 1=. Service o" smmons by "acsimile cannot be e?ected nder Section 1! nless leave o" cort was obtained speci$cally permitting service by "acsimile transmittal.
2ere the de"endant is not a "oreign private +ridical entity bt a nonresident de"endant and no leave o" cort was obtained to serve smmons by "acsimile. 2ence there was no valid service o" smmons and ths the cort cold not declare 'harybdis in de"alt. b) &he e?ect o" ScyllaDs answer to the complaint is that the cort shall try the case against both Scylla and 'harybdis pon the answer $led by Scylla. 9nder Section 3(c) o" %le ;, when a pleading asserting a claim states a common case o" action against several de"ending parties, some o" whom answer and the others "ail to do so, the cort shall try the case against all pon the answers ths $led and render +dgment pon the evidence presented. 2ere there was a common case o" action against Scylla and 'harybdis since both were cosignatories to the mortgage deed. 2ence the cort shold not render +dgment by de"alt against 'harybdis bt shold proceed to try the case pon the answer $led and the evidence presented by Scylla.
III. Eliet invoing the provisions o" the %le on Fiolence /gainst 5omen and their 'hildren $led with the %&' designated as a Gamily 'ort a petition "or . issance o" a &emporary Protection :rder (&P:) against her hsband, %omeo. &he Gamily 'ort issed a 30day &P: against %omeo. / day be"ore the expiration o" the &P:, Eliet $led a motion "or extension. %omeo in his opposition raised, among others, the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (&he F/5' Law) arging that the law athori@ing the issance o" a &P: violates the eAal protection and de process clases o" the 1;H< 'onstittion. &he Gamily 'ort +dge, in granting the motion "or extension o" the &P:, declined to rle on the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C-. &he Gamily 'ort +dge reasoned that Gamily 'orts are withot +risdiction to pass pon constittional isses, being a special cort o" limited +risdiction and %./. 4o. H3C;, the law creating the Gamily 'orts, does not provide "or sch +risdiction. Is the Gamily 'ort +dge correct when he declined to resolve the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (3) /4S56%7 4o, the Gamily 'ort +dge was not correct when he declined to resolve the constittionality o" %./. 4o. ;-C-. &he Spreme 'ort has held that despite its designation as a Gamily 'ort, a %egional &rial 'ort remains possessed o" athority as a cort o" general +risdiction to resolve the constittionality o" a statte. (>arcia v. #rilon, -! Ene -013)
IF. Strass $led a complaint against 5agner "or cancellation o" title. 5agner moved to dismiss the complaint becase >rieg, to whom he mortgaged the
property as dly annotated in the &'&, was not impleaded as de"endant. a.) Shold the complaint be dismissed (3) b.) I" the case shold proceed to trial withot >rieg being impleaded as a party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the complaint shold not be dismissed. &he Spreme 'ort has held that non+oinder o" an indispensable party is not a grond o" a motion to dismiss. (Fesagas v. '/, 3<1 S'%/ !0H). 2ere althogh >rieg, the registered mortgagee, is an indispensable party (*etroban v. /le+o, 3C= S'%/ H13 -001J), his non+oinder does not warrant the dismissal o" the complaint. b) &he remedy o" >rieg is to $le a motion "or leave to intervene. 9nder %le 1;, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in the action. 2ere >rieg is a mortgagee and sch "act was annotated in the title. 2ence he has a legal interest in the title sb+ectmatter o" the litigation and may ths intervene in the case.
F. 6rnie $led a petition "or gardianship over the person and properties o" his "ather, 6rnesto. 9pon receipt o" the notice o" hearing, 6rnesto $led an opposition to the petition. 6rnie, be"ore the hearing o" the petition, $led a motion to order 6rnesto to sbmit himsel" "or mental and physical examination which the cort granted. /"ter 6rnies lawyer completed the presentation o" evidence in spport o" the petition and the corts rling on the "ormal o?er o" evidence, 6rnestos lawyer $led a demrrer to evidence. 6rnies lawyer ob+ected on the grond that a demrrer to evidence is not proper in a special proceeding. a.) 5as 6rnies consels ob+ection proper (-) b.) I" 6rnesto de$es the corts order directing him to sbmit to physical and mental examinations, can the cort order his arrest (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, 6rnieDs conselDs ob+ection was not proper. 9nder the %le on Special Proceedings, in the absence o" special provisions, the rles provided "or in ordinary actions, shall be, as "ar as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. 2ere there are no special provisions on demrrer to evidence in the rles on gardianship. 2ence the provisions on demrrer to evidence in ordinary actions are
applicable to special proceedings. Sch application is practicable since it wold be a waste o" time to contine hearing the case i" pon the "acts and the law, gardianship wold not be proper. b) 4o, the cort cannot order 6rnestoDs arrest. 9nder Section 3(d) o" %le -;, a cort cannot direct the arrest o" a party "or disobeying an order to sbmit to a physical or mental examination. &he cort may impose other penalties sch as rendering +dgment by de"alt or issing an order that the physical or mental condition o" the disobedient party shall be taen as established in accordance with the claim o" the party obtaining the order.
FI. / law was passed declaring *t. Karbngo as a protected area since it was a ma+or watershed. &he protected area covered a portion located in *nicipality / o" the Province I and a portion located in the 'ity o" o" Province II. *aingat is the leader o" Samahan ng &agapagingat ng Karbngo (S&K), a peoples organi@ation. 2e learned that a portion o" the montain located in the 'ity o" o" Province II was extremely damaged when it was blldo@ed and leveled to the grond, and several trees and plants were ct down and brned by worers o" 5orld Pleasre %esorts, Inc. (5P%I) "or the constrction o" a hotel and gol" corse. 9pon inAiry with the pro+ect site engineer i" they had a permit "or the pro+ect, *aingat was shown a copy o" the 6nvironmental 'ompliance 'erti$cate (6'') issed by the #64%6*B, %egional #irector (%##64%6*B). Immediately, *aingat and S&K $led a petition "or the issance o" a writ o" contining mandams against %##64%6*B and 5P%I with the %&' o" Province I, a designated environmental cort, as the %##64%6*B negligently issed the 6'' to 5P%I. :n scrtiny o" the petition, the cort determined that the area where the alleged actionable neglect or omission sb+ect o" the petition too place in the 'ity o" o" Province II, and there"ore cogni@able by the %&' o" Province II. &hs, the cort dismissed otright the petition "or lac o" +risdiction. a.) 5as the cort correct in mot proprio dismissing the petition (3) /ssming that the cort did not dismiss the petition, the %##64%6*B in his 'omment moved to dismiss the petition on the grond that petitioners "ailed to appeal the issance o" the 6'' and to exhast administrative remedies provided in the #64% %les and %eglations. b.) Shold the cort dismiss the petition (3) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the cort was not correct in mot proprio dismissing the petition "or lac o" +risdiction. In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that the reAirement that the petition be $led in the area where the actionable neglect or
omission too place relates to vene and not to sb+ectmatter +risdiction. Since what is involved is improper vene and not sb+ectmatter +risdiction, it was wrong "or the cort to dismiss otright the petition since vene may be waived. (#olot v. Pa+e, -< /gst -013). b) 4o, the cort shold not dismiss the petition. &he Spreme 'ort has held that in environmental cases, the de"ense o" "ailre to exhast administrative remedies by appealing the 6'' issance wold apply only i" the de"ect in the issance o" the 6'' does not have any casal relation to the environmental damage. 2ere the issance o" the 6'' has a direct casal relation to the environmental damage since it permitted the blldo@ing o" a portion o" the montain and the ctting down and bring o" several trees and plants. (See Pa+e v. 'asiMo, 3 Gebrary -01!).
FII. Plainti? sed de"endant "or collection o" P1 million based on the latters promissory note. &he complaint alleges, among others7 1) #e"endant borrowed P1 million "rom plainti? as evidenced by a dly exected promissory noteN -) &he promissory note reads7 *aati, Philippines #ec. 30, -01= Gor vale received "rom plainti?, de"endant promises to pay plainti? P1 million, twelve (1-) months "rom the above indicated date withot necessity o" demand. Signed #e"endant / copy o" the promissory note is attached as /nnex /. #e"endant, in his veri$ed answer, alleged among others7 1) #e"endant speci$cally denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and - o" the complaint, the trth being de"endant did not execte any promissory note in "avor o" plainti?, or -) #e"endant has paid the P1 million claimed in the promissory note (/nnex / o" the 'omplaint) as evidenced by an /cnowledgment %eceipt dly exected by plainti? on Eanary 30, -01! in *anila with his spose signing as witness.
/ copy o" the /cnowledgment %eceipt is attached as /nnex 1 hereo". Plainti? $led a motion "or +dgment on the pleadings on the grond that de"endants answer "ailed to tender an isse as the allegations therein on his de"enses are sham "or being inconsistentN hence, no de"ense at all. #e"endant $led an opposition claiming his answer tendered an isse. a.) Is +dgment on the pleadings proper (3) #e"endant $led a motion "or smmary +dgment on the grond that there are no longer any triable genine isses o" "acts. b.) Shold the cort grant de"endants motion "or smmary +dgment (3) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, +dgment on the pleadings is not proper. 9nder Section - o" %le H, a party may set "orth two or more statements o" a de"ense alternatively or hypothetically. &he Spreme 'ort has held that inconsistent de"enses may be pleaded alternatively or hypothetically provided that each de"ense is consistent with itsel". (Baclayon v. 'ort o" /ppeals, -C Gebrary 1;;0). 2ence Plainti?Ds contention that de"endantDs answer "ailed to tender an isse as his de"enses are sham "or being inconsistent is withot merit. b) 8es, the cort shold grant #e"endantDs motion "or smmary +dgment. 9nder Section - o" %le 3!, a de"endant may at any time, move with spporting admissions "or a smmary +dgment in his "avor. 2ere the Plainti? had impliedly admitted the genineness and de exection o" the acnowledgment receipt, which was the basis o" #e"endantDs de"ense, by "ailing to speci$cally deny it nder oath. 2ence the #e"endant may move "or a smmary +dgment on the basis that Plainti? had admitted that #e"endant had already paid the P1 million obligation.
FIII. /ldrin entered into a contract to sell with 4eil over a parcel o" land. &he contract stiplated a P!00,000.00 down payment pon signing and the balance payable in twelve (1-) monthly installments o" P100,000.00. /ldrin paid the down payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he "ond ot that 4eil had sold the same property to 8ri "or P1.! million paid in cash. /ldrin sed 4eil "or speci$c per"ormance with damages with the %&'. 8ri, with leave o" cort, $led an answerinintervention as he had already obtained a &'& in his name. /"ter trial, the cort rendered +dgment ordering /ldrin to pay all the installments de, the cancellation o" 8ris title, and 4eil to execte a deed o" sale in "avor o" /ldrin. 5hen the +dgment became $nal and exectory, /ldrin paid 4eil all the installments bt the latter re"sed to execte the deed o" sale in "avor o" the "ormer.
/ldrin $led a Petition "or the Issance o" a 5rit o" 6xection with proper notice o" hearing. &he petition alleged, among others, that the decision had become $nal and exectory and he is entitled to the issance o" the writ o" exection as a matter o" right. 4eil $led a motion to dismiss the petition on the grond that it laced the reAired certi$cation against "orm shopping. a.) Shold the cort grant 4eils *otion to #ismiss (3) #espite the issance o" the writ o" exection directing 4eil to execte the deed o" sale in "avor o" /ldrin, the "ormer obstinately re"sed to execte the deed. b.) 5hat is /ldrins remedy (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the cort shold not grant 4eilDs *otion to #ismiss. 9nder Section ! o" %le <, a certi$cation against "orm shopping is reAired only "or initiatory pleadings or petitions. 2ere the OPetition "or the Issance o" a 5rit o" 6xection, althogh erroneosly denominated as a petition is actally a motion "or issance o" a writ o" exection nder %le 3;. 2ence the motion to dismiss on the grond o" lac o" a certi$cation against "orm shopping shold be denied. b) /ldrinDs remedy is to $le a motion "or +dgment "or speci$c act nder Section 10(a) o" %le 3;. 9nder Section 10(a) o" %le 3;, i" a +dgment directs a party to execte a conveyance o" land and the party "ails to comply, the cort may direct the act to be done at the disobedient partyDs cost by some other person appointed by the cort or the cort may by an order divest the title o" the party and vest it in the movant or other person.
IQ. 2ades, an /merican citi@en, throgh a dating website, got acAainted with Persephone, a Gilipina. 2ades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Bagio 'ity where Persephone resides. 2ades and Persephone contracted marriage, solemni@ed by the *etropolitan &rial 'ort +dge o" *aati 'ity. /"ter the wedding, 2ades Rew bac to 'ali"ornia, 9nited States o" /merica, to wind p his bsiness a?airs. :n his retrn to the Philippines, 2ades discovered that Persephone had an illicit a?air with Phanes. Immediately, 2ades retrned to the 9nited States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree "rom the Sperior 'ort o" the 'onty o" San *ateo, 'ali"ornia, a cort o" competent +risdiction against Persephone. 2ades desires to marry 2estia, also a Gilipina, whom he met at Baccs >rill in Pasay 'ity. a.) /s 2ades lawyer, what petition shold yo $le in order that yor client can avoid prosection "or bigamy i" he desires to marry 2estia (-) b.) In what cort shold yo $le the petition (1 )
c.) 5hat is the essential reAisite that yo mst comply with "or the prpose o" establishing +risdictional "acts be"ore the cort can hear the petition (3) /4S56%S7 a) /s 2adeDs lawyer, I wold $le a petition "or cancellation o" entry o" marriage nder %le 10H with prayer "or recognition o" "oreign divorce +dgment. In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that a "oreign divorce decree mst $rst be recogni@ed be"ore it can be given e?ect. &he Spreme 'ort stated that the recognition may be prayed "or in the petition "or cancellation o" the marriage entry nder %le 10H. ('orp@ v. Sto. &omas, C-H S'%/ -CC). b) I wold $le the petition in the regional trial cort o" *aati 'ity, where the corresponding civil registry is located. (Section 1 o" %le 10H). c) Gor the %le 10H petition, the +risdictional "acts are the "ollowing7 1. Eoinder o" the local civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which wold be a?ected by petition. -. 4otice o" the order o" hearing to the persons named in the petition. 3. Pblication o" the order o" hearing in a newspaper o" general circlation in the province.
Q. /n in"ormation "or mrder was $led against %apido. &he %&' +dge, a"ter personally evalating the prosectors resoltion, docments and parties adavits sbmitted by the prosector, "ond probable case and issed a warrant o" arrest. %apidos lawyer examined the rollo o" the case and "ond that it only contained the copy o" the in"ormation, the sbmissions o" the prosector and a copy o" the warrant o" arrest. Immediately, %apidos consel $led a motion to Aash the arrest warrant "or being void, citing as gronds7 a.) &he +dge be"ore issing the warrant did not personally condct a searching examination o" the prosection witnesses in violation o" his clients constittionallymandated rightsN b.) &here was no prior order $nding probable case be"ore the +dge issed the arrest warrant. *ay the warrant o" arrest be Aashed on the gronds cited by %apido s consel State yor reason "or each grond. (=) /4S56%7 4o, the warrant o" arrest may not be Aashed on the gronds cited by %apidoDs consel.
a) &he Spreme 'ort has held in Soliven v. *aasiar, 1C< S'%/ 3;3 (1;HH) that Section - o" /rt. III o" the 'onstittion does not mandatorily reAire the +dge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. &he +dge may opt to personally evalate the report and spporting docments sbmitted by the regarding the existence o" probable case and on the basis thereo" isse a warrant o" arrest. b) &here is no reAirement o" a prior order by the +dge $nding probable case. &he S' has held that the +dge may rely pon the resoltion o" the investigating prosector provided that he personally evalates the same and the adavits and spporting docments, which he did. (People v. >rey, -C Ely -010).
QI. &he :mbdsman "ond probable case to charge with plnder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasrer, bdget ocer, and accontant. /n In"ormation "or plnder was $led with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial ocials except "or the treasrer who was granted immnity when he agreed to cooperate with the :mbdsman in the prosection o" the case. Immediately, the governor $led with the Sandiganbayan a petition "or certiorari against the :mbdsman claiming there was grave abse o" discretion in exclding the treasrer "rom the In"ormation. a.) 5as the remedy taen by the governor correct (-) b.) 5ill the writ o" mandams lie to compel the :mbdsman to inclde the treasrer in the In"ormation (3) c.) 'an the Special Prosector move "or the discharge o" the bdget ocer to corroborate the testimony o" the treasrer in the corse o" presenting its evidence (-) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the remedy taen by the governor was not correct. &he S' has held that the proper remedy "rom the :mbdsmanDs orders or resoltions in criminal cases is a petition "or certiorari nder %le C! $led with the Spreme 'ort. (Tarto v :*B, ! :ct -011N 'ortes v. :*B, 10 Ene -013). 2ere the petition "or certiorari was $led not with the Spreme 'ort bt the Sandiganbayan. 2ence the remedy taen was not correct. b) 4o, the writ o" mandams will not lie to compel the :mbdsman to inclde the &reasrer in the in"ormation. &he Spreme 'ort has held that mandams will lie only i" the exclsion o" a person "rom the in"ormation was arbitrary. 2ere the exclsion was not arbitrary bt based on Sec. 1< o" %/ C<<0 which empowers the :mbdsman to grant immnity to witnesses. (Id.).
c) 4o, the Special Prosector cannot move "or the discharge o" the bdget ocer to corroborate the testimony o" the treasrer. 9nder Section 1< o" %le 11;, a reAirement "or discharge is that there is no other direct evidence available "or the prosection o" the o?ense and that there is absolte necessity "or the testimony o" the accsed whose discharge is reAested. 2ere since the bdget ocerDs testimony is merely corroborative, there is no absolte necessity "or it. 4ecessity is not there when the testimony wold simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosectionDs evidence. (Eimene@ v People, 1< September -01=). 2ence the Special Prosector cannot move "or the discharge o" the bdget ocer.
QII. Pa@ was awaened by a commotion coming "rom a condo nit next to hers. /larmed, she called p the nearby police station. P: 1 %ems and P0- %omls proceeded to the condo nit identi$ed by Pa@. P: 1 %ems noced at the door and when a man opened the door, P:I %ems and his companions introdced themselves as police ocers. &he man readily identi$ed himsel" as :asis Eng and gestred to them to come in. Inside, the police ocers saw a yong lady with her nose bleeding and "ace swollen. /sed by P0- %omls what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten p by :asis Eng. &he police ocers arrested :asis Eng and broght him and the yong lady bac to the police station. P: 1 %ems too the yong ladys statement who identi$ed hersel" as //. She narrated that she is a sixteenyearold high school stdentN that previos to the incident, she had sexal intercorse with :asis Eng at least $ve times on di?erent occasions and she was paid P!,000.00 each time and it was the $rst time that :asis Eng physically hrt her. P0- %omls detained :asis Eng at the stations +ail. /"ter the inAest proceeding, the pblic prosector $led an in"ormation "or Fiolation o" %./. 4o. ;-C- (&he F/5' Law) "or physical violence and $ve separate in"ormations "or violation o" %./. 4o.
In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that in cases where it is athori@ed, bail shold be granted be"ore arraignment, otherwise the accsed may be hindered "rom $ling a motion to Aash since his arraignment wold necessarily be de"erred pending the resoltion o" the motion to Aash. &his wold amont to a sbstantial diltion o" his right to $le a motion to Aash. (Lavides v. 'ort o" /ppeals, 1 Gebrary -000). b) 4o, the motion to Aash shold not be granted. In a case involving similar "acts, the Spreme 'ort held that each act o" sexal intercorse with a minor is a separate and distinct o?ense nder %./. 4o.
QIII. Eaime was convicted "or mrder by the %egional &rial 'ort o" #avao 'ity in a decision promlgated on September 30, -01!. :n :ctober !, -01!, Eaime $led a *otion "or 4ew &rial on the grond that errors o" law and irreglarities pre+dicial to his rights were committed dring his trial. :n :ctober <, -01!, the private prosector, with the con"ormity o" the pblic prosector, $led an :pposition to Eaimes motion. :n :ctober ;, -01!, the cort granted Eaimes motion. :n :ctober 1-, -01!, the pblic prosector $led a motion "or reconsideration. &he cort issed an :rder dated :ctober 1C, -01! denying the pblic prosectors motion "or reconsideration. &he pblic prosector received his copy o" the order o" denial on :ctober -0, -01! while the private prosector received his copy on :ctober -C, -01!. a.) 5hat is the remedy available to the prosection "rom the corts order granting Eaimes motion "or new trial (3) b.) In what cort and within what period shold a remedy be availed o" (1) c.) 5ho shold prse the remedy (-) /4S56%S7 a) &he remedy available to the prosection "rom the corts order granting Eaimes motion "or new trial is a special civil action "or certiorari nder %le C!.
9nder Section 1(b) o" %le =1, no appeal may be taen "rom an interloctory order and the aggrieved party may $le an appropriate special civil action as provided in %le C!. 2ere the order granting the motion "or new trial is an interloctory order since it does not completely dispose o" the case bt still leaves something to be done, that is, condcting the new trial. 2ence the available remedy is the special civil action "or certiorari nder %le C!. b) &he special civil action "or certiorari shold be $led with the 'ort o" /ppeals. It shold be $led within C0 days "rom receipt by the pblic prosector o" the order denying the motion "or reconsideration prsant to Section = o" %le C!. &he C0 day period shold be reconed "rom the receipt by the pblic prosector who has the direction and control o" the prosection prsant to Section ! o" %le 110. c) &he remedy shold be prsed by the :ce o" the Solicitor >eneral. 9nder Section 3!(1), 'hapter 1-, &itle III o" Boo IF o" the 1;H< /dministrative 'ode, the athority to represent the government in criminal cases be"ore the 'ort o" /ppeals and Spreme 'ort is vested solely in the :ce o" the Solicitor >eneral. ('ario v. #e 'astro, 30 /pril -00H).
QIF. Pedro was charged with the"t "or stealing Eans cellphone worth P10,000.00. Prosector *arilag at the pretrial sbmitted the +dicial adavit o" Ean attaching the receipt "or the prchase o" the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also sbmitted the +dicial adavit o" *ario, an eyewitness who narrated therein how Pedro stole Eans cellphone. /t the trial, Pedros lawyer ob+ected to the prosections se o" +dicial adavits o" her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the o?ense with which his client was charged. a.) Is Pedros lawyer correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial adavit o" *ario (-) b.) Is Pedros lawyer correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial adavit o" Ean (-) /t the conclsion o" the prosections presentation o" evidence, Prosector *arilag orally o?ered the receipt attached to Eans +dicial adavit, which the cort admitted over the ob+ection o" Pedros lawyer. /"ter Pedros presentation o" his evidence, the cort rendered +dgment $nding him gilty as charged and holding him civilly liable "or P-0,000.00. Pedros lawyer seasonably $led a motion "or reconsideration o" the decision asserting that the cort erred in awarding the civil liability on the basis o" Eans +dicial adavit, a docmentary evidence which Prosector *arilag "ailed to orally o?er. c.) Is the motion "or reconsideration meritorios (-)
/4S56%S7 a) 4o, PedroDs lawyer is not correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial adavit o" *ario. &he Edicial /davit %le applies to criminal actions where the maximm o" the imposable penalty does not exceed six years. 2ere the penalty "or the"t o" property not exceeding P1-,000 does not exceed C years. 2ence the Edicial /davit %le applies. b) 4o, Pedros lawyer is not correct in ob+ecting to the +dicial adavit o" Ean. &he Edicial /davit %le applies with respect to the civil aspect o" the criminal actions, whatever the penalties involved are. 2ere the prpose o" introdcing the +dicial adavit o" Ean was to prove his civil liability. c) 4o, the motion "or reconsideration is not meritorios. / +dicial adavit is not a docmentary evidence bt is testimonial evidence. It is simply a witnessDs testimony redced to writing in adavit "orm. &his is shown by Section C o" the Edicial /davit %le which states that the o?er o" testimony in +dicial adavit shall be made at the start o" the presentation o" the witness. 2ence the motion "or reconsideration on the grond that EanDs +dicial adavit was a docmentary evidence which was not orally o?ered is withot merit. QF. 5ater Bilders, a constrction company based in *aati 'ity, entered into a constrction agreement with Sper Powers, Inc., an energy company based in *anila, "or the constrction o" a mini hydro electric plant. 5ater Bilders "ailed to complete the pro+ect within the stiplated dration. Sper Powers cancelled the contract. 5ater Bilders $led a reAest "or arbitration with the 'onstrction Indstry /rbitration 'ommission ('I/'). /"ter de proceedings, 'I/' rendered +dgment in "avor o" Sper Powers, Inc. ordering 5ater Bilders to pay the "ormer P 10 million, the "ll amont o" the down payment paid, and P- million by way o" liAidated damages. #issatis$ed with the 'I/'s +dgment, 5ater Bilders, prsant to the Special %les o" 'ort on /lternative #ispte %esoltion (/#% %les) $led with the %&' o" Pasay 'ity a petition to vacate the arbitral award. Sper Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the petition, invoing the /#% %les, on the grond o" improper vene as neither o" the parties were doing bsiness in Pasay 'ity. Shold 5ater Bilders petition be dismissed (3) /4S56%7
8es 5ater BildersD petition shold be dismissed. 9nder %le 11.3 o" the Special /#% %les, the petition "or vacation o" a domestic arbitral award may be $led with the %egional &rial 'ort having +risdiction over the place in which one o" the parties is doing bsiness, where any o" the parties reside or where arbitration proceedings were condcted. 2ere neither o" the parties were doing bsiness in Pasay 'ity nor was there a showing that arbitration proceedings were condcted in Pasay 'ity.
QFI. //, a twelveyearold girl, while waling alone met BB, a teenage boy who be"riended her. Later, BB broght // to a nearby shanty where he raped her. &he In"ormation "or rape $led against BB states7 :n or abot :ctober 30, -01!, in the 'ity o" S.P. and within the +risdiction o" this 2onorable 'ort, the accsed, a minor, $"teen (1!) years old with lewd design and by means o" "orce, violence and intimidation, did then and there, will"lly, nlaw"lly and "eloniosly had sexal intercorse with //, a minor, twelve (1-) years old against the latters will and consent. /t the trial, the prosector called to the witness stand // as his $rst witness and mani"ested that he be allowed to as leading Aestions in condcting his direct examination prsant to the %le on the 6xamination o" a 'hild 5itness. BBs consel ob+ected on the grond that the prosector has not condcted a competency examination on the witness, a reAirement be"ore the rle cited can be applied in the case. a.) Is BBs consel correct (3) In order to obviate the consels argment on the competency o" // as prosection witness, the +dge mot proprio condcted his voir dire examination on //. b.) 5as the action taen by the +dge proper (-) /"ter the prosection had rested its case, BB s consel $led with leave a demrrer to evidence, seeing the dismissal o" the case on the grond that the prosector "ailed to present any evidence on BB s minority as alleged in the In"ormation. c.) Shold the cort grant the demrrer (3) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, BBDs consel is not correct. 9nder the %les on 6xamination o" a 'hild 5itness, there is no reAirement that a competency examination o" the child witness be condcted be"ore leading Aestions may be ased o" her. / competency examination may be condcted by the cort (not the prosector) only i" sbstantial dobt exists as to the childDs competency to testi"y. (Section C, %6'5).
2ere there is no showing o" any sbstantial dobt as to the competency o" // to testi"y. 2ence BBDs consel is not correct. b) 4o, the action taen by the +dge was improper. 9nder the %les on 6xamination o" a 'hild 5itness, a competency examination may be condcted by the cort only i" sbstantial dobt exists as to the childDs competency to testi"y. (Section C, %6'5). 2ere the +dgeDs voir dire is in e?ect a competency examination. 2owever there is no showing o" any sbstantial dobt as to the competency o" // to testi"y. 2ence the +dgeDs action was improper. c) 4o the cort may not grant the demrrer. 9nder the %les o" 'riminal Procedre, a demrrer to evidence may be granted on the grond o" insciency o" evidence. 2ere even assming that minority was not proved, BB may still be convicted o" rape since minority is not an element o" rape.
QFII. 2ercles was waling near a police station when a police ocer signaled "or him to approach. /s soon as 2ercles came near, the police ocer "rised him bt the latter "ond no contraband. &he police ocer told 2ercles to get inside the police station. Inside the police station, 2ercles ased the police ocer, Sir, may problema po ba Instead o" replying, the police ocer loced p 2ercles inside the police station +ail. a.) 5hat is the remedy available to 2ercles to secre his immediate release "rom detention (-) b.) I" 2ercles $led with the :mbdsman a complaint "or warrantless search, as consel "or the police ocer, what de"ense will yo raise "or the dismissal o" the complaint (3) c.) I" 2ercles opts to $le a civil action against the police ocer, will he have a case o" action (3) /4S56%S7 a) &he remedy available to 2ercles to secre his immediate release "rom detention is a petition "or writ o" habeas corps. 9nder %le 10-, the writ o" habeas corps is available in cases o" illegal detention. Section ! o" %le 10- provides that a cort or +dge athori@ed to grant the writ mst, when the petition there"or is presented and it appears that the writ oght to isse, grant the same "orthwith, and immediately therepon the cler o" cort shall isse the writ or in case o" emergency, the +dge may isse the writ nder his own hand and may depte any ocer or person to serve it. &he cort or +dge be"ore whom the writ is retrned mst immediately proceed to hear and examine the retrn. (Section 1-, %le 10-).
b) I will raise the de"ense that the warrantless search was athori@ed as a Ostop and "ris. OStop and "ris is the right o" a police ocer to stop a citi@en on the street, interrogate him and pat him "or weapons and contraband whenever he observes nsal condct which leads him to conclde that criminal activity may be a"oot. (&erry v. :hio, 3;- 9.S. 1). c) 8es 2ercles will have a case o" action. 9nder /rticle 3-(=) o" the 'ivil 'ode, any pblic ocer who violates the right o" a person to "reedom "rom arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable to the latter "or damages. &he action to recover damages is an independent civil action. 2ere 2ercles was illegally detained as there was no probable case to arrest him withot warrant.
QFIII. &he residents o" *t. /hohoy, headed by *asigasig, "ormed a nongovernmental organi@ation /lyansa Laban sa *inahan sa /hohoy (/L*/) to protest the mining operations o" :ro 4egro *ining in the montain. /L*/ members piceted daily at the entrance o" the mining site blocing the ingress and egress o" trcs and eAipment o" :ro 4egro, hampering its operations. *asigasig had an altercation with *apso arising "rom the complaint o" the mining engineer o" :ro 4egro that one o" their trcs was destroyed by /L*/ members. *apso is the leader o" the /ssociation o" Peace Keepers o" /hohoy (/PK/), a civilian volnteer organi@ation serving as axiliary "orce o" the local police to maintain peace and order in the area. SbseAently, *asigasig disappeared. *aymi, the wi"e o" *asigasig, and the members o" /L*/ searched "or *asigasig, bt all their e?orts proved "tile. *apagmatyag, a member o" /L*/, learned "rom *aingay, a member o" /PK/, dring their binge drining that *asigasig was abdcted by other members o" /PK/, on order o" *apso. *aymi and /L*/ soght the assistance o" the local police to search "or *asigasig, bt they re"sed to extend their cooperation. Immediately, *aymi $led with the %&', a petition "or the issance o" the writ o" amparo against *apso and /PK/. /L*/ also $led a petition "or the issance o" the writ o" amparo with the 'ort o" /ppeals against *apso and /PK/. %espondents *apso and /PK/, in their %etrn $led with the %&', raised among their de"enses that they are not agents o" the StateN hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition. a.) Is their de"ense tenable (3) %espondents *apso and /PK/, in their %etrn $led with the 'ort o" /ppeals, raised as their de"ense that the petition shold be dismissed on the grond that /L*/ cannot $le the petition becase o" the earlier petition $led by *aymi with the %&'. b.) /re respondents correct in raising their de"ense (3)
c.) *aymi later $led separate criminal and civil actions against *apso. 2ow will the cases a?ect the amparo petition she earlier $led (1 ) /4S56%S7 a) 4o, the de"ense o" *apso and /PK/ that they are not agents o" the State and hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is not tenable. &he writ o" amparo is available in cases where the en"orced or involntary disappearance o" a persons is with the athori@ation, spport or acAiescence o" the State. (See Sec. 3gJ o" %./. 4o. ;H!1 and 4avia v. Pardico, 1; Ene -01-, e.b.). 2ere *apso and /PK/ may be considered as acting with the spport or at least the acAiescence o" the State since /PK/ serves as an axiliary "orce o" the police and the police re"sed to assist in the search "or *asigasig. b) 8es respondents are correct in raising their de"ense. 9nder Section -(c) o" the %le on the 5rit o" /mparo, the $ling o" a petition by an athori@ed party on behal" o" the aggrieved party sspends the right o" all others, observing the order in Section - o" the %le on the 5rit o" /mparo. 2ere the petition "or writ o" amparo had earlier been $led by the spose o" the aggrieved party *asigasig. &hs it sspends the right o" all others, inclding /L*/, to $le the petition. c) &he amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. (Section -3, %le on the 5rit o" /mparo).
