GENERAL PRINCIPLES b) An action for a writ of injunction.

Bar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment (1997) c) An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at
Distinguish Bar by prior judgment from conclusiveness P150,000.00.
of judgment d) An action for interpleader to determine who between the
defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00
from the plaintiff.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
e) A petition for the probate of a will involving an estate
Bar by prior-judgment is the doctrine of res judicata, valued at P200,000.00.
which bars a second action when there is identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action. (Sec. 49[b] of Actions; Cross-Claims; Third Party Claims (1997)
former Rule 39; Sec, 47 [b] of new Rule 39). B and C borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The promissory
Conclusiveness of judgment precludes the relitigation of note was executed by B and C in a Joint and several
a particular issue in another action between the same capacity. B, who received the money from A, gave C
parties on a different cause of action. (Sec. 49 [c] of P200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned P100,000.00 out of the
former Rule 39; sec. 47 [c] of new Rule 39). P200,000.00 he received to D. a) In an action filed by A
against B and C with the
Cause of action vs. Action (1997) RTC of Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for
Distinguish Cause of action from action the amount of P200,000.00? b) Can C file a third party
complaint against D for the amount of P 100,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission of one party SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in violation of the legal right or rights of the other (Maao (a) Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount
Sugar Central vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 606; Sec. 2 of new Rule 2), of 200,000.00 given to C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by
causing damage to another. one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action
An ACTION is an ordinary suit in a court of Justice by or a counterclaim therein and may include a claim that the
which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted against the
wrong.(Section 1 of former Rule 2). cross claimant. (Sec. 8 Rule 6)
Civil Actions vs. Special Proceedings (1998) (b) No, C cannot file a third-party complaint against
Distinguish civil actions from special proceedings. [3%] D because the loan of P100,000 has no connection with the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: opponent's claim. C could have loaned the money out of
A CIVIL ACTION is one by which a party sues another for other funds in his possession.
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention
or redress of a wrong. (See. 3[a], Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1998)
Procedure), while a SPECIAL PROCEEDING is a remedy Differentiate certiorari as an original action from certiorari
by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a as a mode of appeal. |3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
particular fact. (Sec. 3[C]. Rule 1,1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)
Certiorari as an original action and certiorari as a mode of
Liberal Construction; Rules of Court (1998) appeal may be distinguished as follows:
How shall the Rules of Court be construed? [2%]
1. The first is a special civil action under Rule 65 of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rules of Court, while the second is an appeal to the
The Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and and the RTC under Rule 45.
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
(Sec. 6, Rule 1 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)
The first can be filed only on the grounds of lack or excess
ADDITIONAL ANSWER: of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
However, strict observance of the rules is an imperative lack or excess of jurisdiction, while the second is based on
necessity when they are considered indispensable to the the errors of law of the lower court.
prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy
dispatch of judicial business. (Alvero vs. Judge de The first should be filed within sixty (60) days from notice
la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428) of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed
(Sec. 4. Rule 65), while the second should be filed within
Jurisdiction (1997) fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order
What courts have jurisdiction over the following cases filed or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the
in Metro Manila? petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
a) An action for specific performance or, in the alternative, due time after notice of the judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 45)
for damages in the amount of P180,000.00
The first cannot generally be availed of as a substitute for a (b) A may institute the proceeding in a MTCwhich has
lost appeal under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45. jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved
is situated. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4).
Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as a party
respondent (Sec. 5 of Rule 65), while under the second, the Parties; Death of a Party; Effect (1998)
lower court is not impleaded. A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of land
against B who was represented by her counsel X. In the
Discovery; Modes; Subpoena Duces Tecum (1997) course of the trial, B died. However, X failed to notify the
In an admiralty case filed by A against Y Shipping court of B's death. The court proceeded to hear the case and
Lines (whose principal offices are in Manila) in the rendered judgment against B. After the Judgment became
RTC, Davao City, the court issued a subpoena duces final, a writ of execution was issued against C, who being
tecum directing Y, the president of the shipping company, B's sole heir, acquired the property. If you were counsel of
to appear and testify at the trial and to bring with him C, what course of action would you take? [3%]
several documents.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) On what valid ground can Y refuse to comply with the
As counsel of C, I would move to set aside the writ of
subpoena duces tecum? execution and the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and lack of
(b) How can A take the testimony of Y and present the due process in the same court because the judgment is void. If
documents as exhibits other than through the subpoena X had notified the court of B's death, the court would have
from the RTC? ordered the substitution of the deceased by C, the sole heir of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. (Sec. 16 of Rule 3) The court acquired no jurisdiction over C
(a) Y can refuse to comply with the subpoena duces upon whom the trial and the judgment are not binding.
(Ferreira us. Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales, 104 Phil. 143; Vda. De la
tecum on the ground that he resides more than 50 (now Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 88 SCRA 695; Lawas us. Court of
100) kilometers from the place where he is to testify, (Sec. 9 Appeals, 146 SCRA 173.)
of former Rule 23; Sec. 10 of new Rule 21).
I could also file an action to annul the judgment for lack of
(b) A can take the testimony of Y and present the jurisdiction because C, as the successor of B, was deprived
documents as exhibits by taking his deposition through oral of due process and should have been heard before
examination or written interrogatories. (Rule 24; new Rule 23) judgment.
He may also file a motion for the production or inspection (Rule 47)
of documents. (Rule 27).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) The witness can also refuse to comply with the While there are decisions of the Supreme Court which hold
subpoena duces tecum on the ground that the documents that if the lawyer failed to notify the court of his client's
are not relevant and there was no tender of fees for one death, the court may proceed even without substitution of
day's attendance and the kilometrage allowed by the rules. heirs and the judgment is valid and binding on the heirs of
the deceased (Florendo vs. Coloma, 129 SCRA 30.), as counsel
Judgment; Enforcement; 5-year period (1997) of C, I will assail the judgment and execution for lack of
A, a resident of Dagupan City, secured a favorable due process.
judgment in an ejectment case against X, a resident of
Quezon City, from the MTCof Manila. The judgment, Special Civil Action; Ejectment (1997)
entered on 15 June 1991, had not as yet been executed. On 10 January 1990, X leased the warehouse of A under a
lease contract with a period of five years. On 08 June 1996,
a) In July 1996, A decided to enforce the judgment of the A filed an unlawful detainer case against X without a prior
MTCof Manila. What is the procedure to be followed by A demand for X to vacate the premises.
in enforcing the judgment? (a) Can X contest his ejectment on the ground that there
b) With what court should A institute the proceedings? was no prior demand for him to vacate the premises?
(b) In case the Municipal Trial Court renders judgment in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: favor of A, is the judgment immediately executory?
(a) A can enforce the judgment by another action reviving
the Judgment because it can no longer be enforced by SUGGESTED ANSWER:
motion as the five-year period within which a judgment (a) Yes. X can contest his ejectment on the ground that
may be enforced by motion has already expired. (Sec. 6 of there was no prior demand to vacate the premises. ( Sec. 2 of
former and new Rule 39). Rule 70; Casilan vs.Tomassi l0 SCRA 261; Iesaca vs.Cuevas. 125
SCRA 335).
(b) A may institute the proceedings in the RTC in
accordance with the rules of venue because the (b) Yes, because the judgment of the Municipal Trial
enforcement of the Judgment is a personal action incapable Court against the defendant X is immediately executory
of pecuniary estimation. upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected, a
supersedeas bond has been filed and the periodic deposits
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of current rentals. If any, as determined by the judgment
will be made with the appellate court. (Sec. 8 of former Rule not raised in a motion to dismiss it is deemed waived
70; Sec. 19 of new Rule 70). was removed from the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The new Rules provide that if no motion to dismiss has
(a) Yes, X can contest his ejectment on the ground that been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal may be
since he continued enjoying the thing leased for fifteen pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer. (Sec. 6 of
days after the termination of the lease on January 9, 1995 Rule 16.)
with the acquiescence of the lessor without a notice to the
contrary, there was an IMPLIED NEW LEASE. (Art. 1670. 2. The motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
Civil Code). jurisdiction over the subject matter should be denied. The
counterclaim for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
Special Civil Action; Ejectment (1998) is a compulsory counterclaim because it necessarily arose
In an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal out of and is connected with the complaint. In an original
Trial Court (MTC), defendant X raised in his Answer the action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
defense that plaintiff A is not the real owner of the house compulsory regardless of the amount. (Sec. 7 of Rule 6)
subject of the suit. X filed a counterclaim against A for the
collection of a debt of P80,000 plus accrued interest of Venue; Personal Actions (1997)
P15,000 and attorney's fees of P20,000. X, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed P300,000.00 from
A, a resident of Pasay City. In the loan agreement, the
1. Is X's defense tenable? [3%] parties stipulated that "the parties agree to sue and be sued
2. Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the counterclaim? in the City of Manila." a) In case of nonpayment of the
loan, can A file his complaint to collect the loan from X in
[2%] SUGGESTED ANSWER:: Angeles City?
1. No. X's defense is not tenable if the action is filed by a
lessor against a lessee. However, if the right of possession b) Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan
of the plaintiff depends on his ownership then the defense agreement as to the venue, where can A file his complaint
is tenable. against X?

2. The counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the c) Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan agreement
Municipal Trial Court which does not exceed P100,000, that "venue for all suits arising from this contract shall be
because the principal demand is P80,000, exclusive of the courts in Quezon City," can A file his complaint against
interest and attorney's fees. (Sec. 33, B.P. Big. 129, as amended.) X in Pasay City?
However, inasmuch as all actions of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer are subject to procedure and since the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
counterclaim is only permissive, it cannot be entertained by (a) Yes, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that
the Municipal Court. (Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.) "the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of
Manila" does not make Manila the "exclusive venue
Venue; Improper Venue; Compulsory Counterclaim (1998) thereof." (Sec, 4 of Rule 4, as amended by Circular No. 13
A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan sued X, a resident of 95: Sec. 4 of new Rule 4) Hence, A can file his complaint in
San Fernando La Union in the RTC (RTC) of Quezon City Angeles City where he resides, (Sec, 2 of Rule 4).
for the collection of a debt of P1 million. X did not file a
motion to dismiss for improper venue but filed his answer (b) If the parties did not stipulate on the venue, A can file
raising therein improper venue as an affirmative defense. his complaint either in Angeles City where he resides or in
He also filed a counterclaim for P80,000 against A for Pasay City where X resides, (Id).
attorney's fees and expenses for litigation. X moved for a
preliminary hearing on said affirmative defense. For his (c) Yes, because the wording of the stipulation does not
part, A filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack make Quezon City the exclusive venue.
of jurisdiction.
(Philbanking v. Tensuan. 230 SCRA 413; Unimasters
Conglomeration, Inc. v. CA. CR-119657, Feb. 7, 1997)
1 Rule on the affirmative defense of improper venue.
2 Rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (1997)
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a
nightclub. Two days after the incident, and upon complaint
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the widow of A, the police arrested B without a warrant
1. There is improper venue. The case for a sum of
of arrest and searched his house without a search warrant.
money, which was filed in Quezon City, is a personal
a)
action. It must be filed in the residence of either the
Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was seized
plaintiff, which is in Pangasinan, or of the defendant,
during the search of the house of B, be admitted in
which is in San Fernando, La Union. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4) The
evidence? b) Is the arrest of B legal? c) Under the
fact that it was not raised in a motion to dismiss does
circumstances, can B be convicted of homicide?
not matter because the rule that if improper venue is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: c) That the officer who filed the information had no
(a) No. The gun seized during the search of the house of B authority to do so;
without a search warrant is not admissible in evidence. d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
(Secs. 2 and 3[2], Art. III of Constitution). Moreover, the search form;
was not an incident to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec.
12 of Rule 126. e) That more than one offense is charged except in those
cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment
(b) No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in for various offenses;
fact just been committed and the police arresting has f) That the criminal action or liability has been
personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested extinguished;
has committed it. (Sec. 5, Rule 113). Here, the crime has not
just been committed since a period of two days had already g) That it contains averments which, if true, would
lapsed, and the police arresting has no such personal constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
knowledge because he was not present when the incident
happened. (Go vs. Court of Appeals. 206 SCRA 138). h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense
(c) Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A charged. (Sec. 3, Rule 117. Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
because the court may rely on testimonial or other
evidence. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. No. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule
Information; Amendment; Supervening Events (1997) 112. Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not an indispensable
A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. During the part of the information. (People vs. Lapura, 255 SCRA 85.)
trial, the public prosecutor received a copy of the marriage
certificate of A and B. Judgment; Promulgation of Judgment (1997)
(a) Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment of X, the accused in a homicide case before the RTC.
the information to charge A with the crime of parricide? Dagupan Cay, was personally notified of the promulgation
(b) Suppose instead of moving for the amendment of the of judgment in his case set for 10 December 1996. On said
information, the public prosecutor presented in evidence date. X was not present as he had to attend to the trial of
the marriage certificate without objection on the part of the another criminal case against him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The
defense, could Abe convicted of parricide? trial court denied the motion of the counsel of X to
postpone the promulgation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) How shall the court promulgate the judgment in the
(a) No. The Information cannot be amended to change the absence of the accused?
offense charged from homicide to parricide. Firstly, the (b) Can the trial court also order the arrest of X?
marriage is not a supervening fact arising from the act
constituting the charge of homicide. (Sec. 7[a] of Rule SUGGESTED ANSWER:
117). Secondly, after plea, amendments may be done only as (a) In the absence of the accused, the promulgation shall be
to matters of form. The amendment is substantial because it made by recording the Judgment in the criminal docket and
will change the nature of the offense. (Sec. 14 of Rule 110; a copy thereof served upon the accused or counsel. (Sec. 6.
Dionaldo us. Dacuycuy. 108 SCRA 736). third par., Rule 120)

(b) No. A can be convicted only of homicide not of (b) No, the trial court cannot order the arrest of X if the
parricide which is a graver offense. The accused has the judgment is one of acquittal and, in any event, his failure to
constitutional rights of due process and to be informed of appear was with justifiable cause since he had to attend to
the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. another criminal case against him.
(Secs. 1, 14 (1) and (2} Art. III. 1987
Constitution) Pre-Trial; Criminal Case vs. Civil Case (1997)
Give three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal
Information; Motion to Quash; Grounds (1998) case and a pre-trial in a civil case.
1 Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information.[2%]
2 If the Information is not accompanied by a certification SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that a preliminary investigation has been conducted. Is the Three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case and
Information void? [3%] a pre-trial in a civil case are as follows:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The pre-trial in a criminal case is conducted only "where

1. Two grounds to quash an Information are: the accused and counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec. 1): while the
a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and pre-trial in a civil case is mandatory. (Sec. 1 of former Rule 20;
Sec, 1 of new Rule 18).
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged or the person of the accused. 2. The pre-trial in a criminal case does not consider the
possibility of a compromise, which is one important aspect
of the pre-trial in a civil case. (Sec. 1 of former Rule 20; Sec. 2 Calamba or Makati which have concurrent territorial
of new Rule 18). Jurisdiction. (Catingub vs. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 106).
3. In a criminal case, a pre-trial agreement is required to be (c) The proper court is the Sandiganbayan which has
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and his jurisdiction over crimes committed by a consul or higher
counsel (See; Rule 118, Sec. 4); while in a civil case, the official in the diplomatic service. (Sec. 4(c). PD 1606, as
agreement may be contained in the pretrial order. (Sec. 4 of amended by RA. No. 7975). The Sandiganbayan is a national
former Rule
court. (Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433
20; See 7 of new Rule 78).
[1982]. It has only one venue at present, which is in Metro
Trial; Trial in Absentia; Automatic Review of Conviction Manila, until RA. No. 7975, providing for two other
(1998) branches in Cebu and in Cagayan de Oro, is implemented.
1. What are the requisites of a trial in absentia? [2%] Alternative Answers:
2. If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is (b) The information may be filed either in Calamba or
there still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court to review in Makati City, not in Tagaytay City where no offense had
the decision of his conviction? as yet been committed,
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
1. The requisites of trial in absentia are: (a) the accused has (c) Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction,
already been arraigned; (b) he has been duly notified of the the proper venue is the first RTC in which the charge is
trial; and (c) his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14 filed (Sec. 15(d). Rule 110).
[2], Article III. Constitution; Parada vs. Veneracion, 269 SCRA
371 [1997].) Admissibility (1998)
The barangay captain reported to the police that X was
2. Yes, there is still a legal necessity for the Supreme illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an Armalite
Court (as of 2004 the Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police
such review) to review the decision of conviction sentencing conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said
the accused to death, because he is entitled to an automatic rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought X to
review of the death sentence. (Sees. the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily
3[e] and 10, Rule 122, Rules of Criminal Procedure; People signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle
vs. Espargas, 260 SCRA 539.) without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of
Right to Counsel. During the trial of X for illegal
Venue (1997)
possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in
Where is the proper venue for the filing of an information
evidence the rifle. Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right to
in the following cases? a) The theft of a car in Pasig City
Counsel, individually rule on the admissibility in evidence
which was brought to Obando, Bulacan, where it was
of the:
cannibalized.
1. Rifle; [2%]
2. Sworn Statement; and [2%1
b) The theft by X, a bill collector of ABC Company, with
3. Waiver of Right to Counsel of X. [1%]
main offices in Makati City, of his collections from SUGGESTED ANSWER:
customers in Tagaytay City. In the contract of employment, 1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was
X was detailed to the Calamba branch office, Laguna, seized without a proper search warrant. A warrantless
where he was to turn in his collections. search is not justified. There was time to secure a search
warrant. (People us. Encinada G.R. No. 116720,
c) The malversation of public funds by a October 2. 1997 and other cases)
Philippine consul detailed in the Philippine Embassy in 2. The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence
London. because it was taken without informing him of his custodial
rights and without the assistance of counsel which should
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be independent and competent and preferably of the choice
(a) The proper venue is in Pasig City where the theft of the
of the accused. (People us. Januario, 267 SCRA 608.)
car was committed, not in Obando where it was
cannibalized. Theft is not a continuing offense. (People v Admissibility; Objections (1997)
Mercado, 65 Phil 665).
What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each briefly.
Given an example of each.
(b) If the crime charged is theft, the venue is in Calamba
where he did not turn in his collections. If the crime of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
X is estafa, the essential ingredients of the offense took Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being
place in Tagaytay City where he received his collections, in presented is not relevant to the issue; and (2) the evidence
Calamba where he should have turned in his collections, is incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules, (Sec. 3,
and in Makati City where the ABC Company was based. Rule 138). An example of the first is when the prosecution
The information may therefore be filed in Tagaytay City or offers as evidence the alleged offer ofan Insurance
company to pay for the damages suffered by the victim in a
homicide case. (See 1997 No. 14). Examples of the second
are evidence obtained in violation of the Constitutional SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and (a) The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B
confessions and admissions in violation of the rights of a is not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both the
person under custodial Investigation. civil and criminal cases. (Rule 130,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: Sec. 27, fourth par.).
1) Specific objections: Example: parol evidence and best
evidence rule (b) No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance
company is based on the contract of insurance and is not
General Objections: Example: continuing objections (Sec. admissible in evidence against the accused because it was
37 of Rule 132). not offered by the accused but by the insurance company
which is not his agent.
2) The two kinds of objections are: (1) objection to a
question propounded in the course of the oral examination Admissibility; Rules of Evidence (1997)
of the witness and (2) objection to an offer of evidence in Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the
writing. Objection to a question propounded in the course following rules of evidence:
of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon (a) Dead Man Rule
as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent (b) Parol Evidence Rule
otherwise, it is waived. An offer of objection in writing (c) Best Evidence Rule
shall be made within three (3) days after notice of the offer, (d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained
unless a different period is allowed by the court. In both extrajudicial confession
instances the grounds for objection must be specified. An (e) The rule against the admission of an offer of
example of the first is when the witness is being cross- compromise in civil cases
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
examined and the cross examination is on a matter not
relevant. An example of the second is that the evidence The reasons behind the following rules are as follows:
offered is not the best evidence. (a) DEAD MAN RULE: if death has closed the lips of
one party, the policy of the law is to close the lips of the
Admissibility; Offer to Marry; Circumstantial Evidence other. (Goni v. Court ofAppeals, L-77434. September 23,
(1998) 1986, 144 SCRA 222). This is to prevent the temptation to
A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility perjury because death has already sealed the lips of the
of the following pieces of evidence: party.
1 an offer of A to marry X; and (3%] (b) PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: It is designed to
2 a pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime give certainty to a transaction which has been reduced
which the court, over the objection of A, required him to to writing, because written evidence is much more
put on, and when he did, it fit him well. [2%] certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting
memory only. (Francisco, Rules of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p. 154)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A's offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an (c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is adopted
Implied admission of guilt because rape cases are not for the prevention of fraud and is declared to be
allowed to be compromised. (Sec. 27 of Rule 13O; People vs. essential to the pure administration of justice. (Moran,
Domingo, 226 SCRA 156.) Vol. 5, p. 12.) If a party is in possession of such evidence
and withholds it, the presumption naturally arises that
2. The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes.
circumstantial evidence of his guilt, although standing (Francisco. Rules of Court, vol. VII. Part I,
alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused pp, 121,122)
cannot object to the court requiring him to put the short (d) An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
pants on. It is not part of his right against self-incrimination nullifies the intrinsic validity of the confession and
because it is a mere physical act. renders it unreliable as evidence of the truth. (Moran, vol.
5, p. 257) it is the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Admissibility; Offer to Pay Expenses (1997) (e) The reason for the rule against the admission of an
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the offer of compromise in civil case as an admission of any
hospital and offered to pay for his hospitalization expenses. liability is that parties are encouraged to enter into
After the filing of the criminal case against A for serious compromises. Courts should endeavor to persuade the
physical injuries through reckless imprudence. A's litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair
insurance carrier offered to pay for the injuries and compromise. (Art. 2029, Civil Code). During pre-trial, courts
damages suffered by B. The offer was rejected because B should direct the parties to consider the possibility of an
considered the amount offered as inadequate. a) Is the offer amicable settlement. (Sec. 1[a] of
by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B admissible in former Rule 20: Sec. 2 [a] of new Rule 16).
evidence? b) Is the offer by A's insurance carrier to pay for
Best Evidence Rule (1997)
the injuries and damages of B admissible in evidence?
When A loaned a sum of money to B. A typed a single the time competent as a witness; (c) the declaration concerns
copy of the promissory note, which they both signed A the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's
made two photo (xeroxed) copies of the promissory death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a (criminal) case
note, giving one copy to B and retaining the other wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry.
copy. A entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel
(People vs. Santos, 270 SCRA 650.)
for safekeeping. The copy with A's counsel was ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
destroyed when the law office was burned. a) In an The declaration of a dying person, made under the
action to collect on the promissory note, consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
which is deemed to be the "original" copy for the any case wherein his death is the subject of Inquiry, as
purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule"? b) Can the evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
photocopies in the hands of the parties be considered such death. (Sec. 37 of Rule 13O.)
"duplicate original copies"? c) As counsel for A, how
will you prove the loan given to A and B? Judicial Notice; Evidence; Foreign Law (1997)
a) Give three instances when a Philippine court can take
SUGGESTED ANSWER: judicial notice of a foreign law. b) How do you prove a
(a) The copy that was signed and lost is the only written foreign law? c) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded
"original" copy for purposes of the Best Evidence as part of the defense of defendant but no evidence was
Rule. (Sec. 4 [b] of Rule 130). presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the
(b) No, They are not duplicate original copies because presumption to be taken by the court as to the wordings of
there are photocopies which were not signed (Mahilum v. said law"?
Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 482), They constitute secondary
evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) The loan given by A to B may be proved by (a) The three instances when a Philippine court can take
secondary evidence through the xeroxed copies of the judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1) when the
promissory note. The rules provide that when the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law
original document is lost or destroyed, or cannot be (Moran. Vol. 5, p. 34, 1980 edition); (2) when the foreign law
produced in court, the offerer, upon proof of its refers to the law of nations (Sec. 1 of Rule 129) and (3) when
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability it refers to a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by the subject of law if the court takes judicial notice of the
a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic fact that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order calling as expert on the subject (Sec. 46. Rule 130).
stated. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
(b) A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official
Confession; Affidavit of Recantation (1998) publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
1 If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, with
uncounseled extrajudicial confession implicating his
a certificate that such officer has the custody, if the office in
coaccused in the crime charged, is that testimony which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate
admissible in evidence against the latter? [3%] may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
2 What is the probative value of a witness' Affidavit of consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by
Recantation? [2%] any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec. 24, Rule 132,
1. Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier Zalamea v. CA, 228SCRA 23).
uncounseled extrajudicial confession, because he can be (c) The presumption is that the wordings of the
subjected to cross-examination. foreign law are the same as the local law. (Northwest
Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192; Moran,
2. On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, Vol. 6. page 34, 1980 edition; Lim v. Collector of Customs,
courts look with disfavor upon recantations because they 36 Phil. 472). This is known as the PROCESSUAL
can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through PRESUMPTION.
intimidation or for a monetary consideration, Recanted
testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the Privilege Communication (1998)
probability that it will be repudiated. (Molina vs. People. 259 C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife
SCRA 138.) W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the
Hearsay; Exception; Dying Declaration (1998) following testified over the objection of W: C, H and
Requisites of Dying Declaration. [2%) D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on
SUGGESTED ANSWER: W's objections which are the following:
The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration are: 1. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on
(a) the declaration is made by the deceased under the marital privilege; [1%]
consciousness of his impending death; (b) the deceased was at 2. C cannot testify against her because of the
doctrine on parental privilege; and [2%] 1. Yes. W, the live-in partner of A, has the personality
3. D cannot testify against her because of the to file the petition for habeas corpus because it may be
doctrine of privileged communication between filed by "some person in his behalf." (Sec. 3. Rule 102. Rules
patient and physician. [2%] of Court.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in 2. No. The petition is not tenable because the warrant
the annulment case under Rule 36 of the Family Code of arrest was issued by a court which had Jurisdiction
because it is a civil case filed by one against the other, to issue it (Sec. 4, Rule 102 Rules of Court)
(Sec. 22 , Rule 130. Rules of Court.)
2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be Settlement of Estate; Administrator (1998)
invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their A, claiming to be an illegitimate child of the deceased
child. C may not be compelled to testify but is free to D, instituted an Intestate proceeding to settle the estate
testify against her. (Sec. 25. Rule 130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, of the latter. He also prayed that he be appointed
Family Code.) administrator of said estate. S, the surviving spouse,
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to opposed
testify against W over her objection as to any advice or the petition and A's application to be appointed the
treatment given by him or any information which he administrator on the ground that he was not the child of her
may have acquired in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24 deceased husband D. The court, however, appointed A as
[c], Rule 130. Rules of Court.) the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
administrator of said estate. Subsequently, S, claiming to be
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the requirement the sole heir of D, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication,
of establishing the psychological incapacity of W, and he adjudicating unto herself the entire estate of her deceased
is the expert called upon to testify for the purpose, then husband D. S then sold the entire estate to X. Was the
it should be allowed. appointment of A as administrator proper? [2%] Was the
(Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 26S SCRA 198.)
action of S in adjudicating the entire estate of her late
Witness; Examination of Witnesses (1997) husband to herself legal? [3%]
a) Aside from asking a witness to explain and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
supplement his answer in the cross-examination, can
1. Yes, unless it is shown that the court gravely-abused
the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions
its discretion in appointing the illegitimate child as
on matters not dealt with during cross-examination? administrator, instead of the spouse. While the spouse
b) Aside from asking the witness on matters enjoys preference, it appears that the spouse has neglected
stated in his re-direct examination, can the opponent in to apply for letters of administration within thirty (30) days
his re-cross-examination ask questions on matters not from the death of the decedent. (Sec. 6, Rule 78, Rules of
dealt with during the re-direct? Court;
c) After plaintiff has formally submitted his Gaspay, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals. 238 SCRA 163.)
evidence, he realized that he had forgotten to present ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
what he considered an important evidence. Can he S, the surviving spouse, should have been appointed
recall a witness? administratrix of the estate, in as much as she enjoys
SUGGESTED ANSWER: first preference in such appointment under the rules.
(a) Yes, on redirect examination, questions on matters (Sec. 6(a) of Rule 78, Rules of Court.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not dealt with during the cross-examination may be
2. No. An affidavit of self-adjudication is allowed only
allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 7 of Rule 132).
if the affiant is the sole heir of the. deceased. (Sec. 1, Rule
(b) Yes, the opponent in his re-cross-examination may
74, Rules of Court). In this case, A also claims to be an heir.
also ask questions on such other matters as may be
Moreover, it is not legal because there is already a
allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 8. Rule 132).
pending juridical proceeding for the settlement of the
(c) Yes, after formally submitting his evidence, the
estate.
plaintiff can recall a witness with leave of court. The
court may grant or withhold leave in its discretion as
Venue; Special Proceedings (1997)
the interests of justice may require. (Sec. 9. Rule 132).
Give the proper venue for the following special
Habeas Corpus (1998) proceedings: a) A petition to declare as escheated a
A was arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest parcel of land
issued by the RTC in connection with an Information owned by a resident of the Philippines who died
for Homicide. W, the live-in partner of A filed a intestate and without heirs or persons entitled to
petition for habeas corpus against A's jailer and police the property.
investigators with the Court of Appeals. b) A petition for the appointment of an
1. Does W have the personality to file the petition for administrator over the land and building left by an
habeas corpus? [2%] American citizen residing in California, who had been
2. Is the petition tenable? [3%] declared an incompetent by an American court.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: c) A petition for the adoption of a minor
residing in Pampanga.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The venue of the escheat proceedings of a parcel of
land in this case is the place where the deceased last
resided. (Sec. 1. Rule 91, Rules of Court).
(b) The venue for the appointment of an administrator
over land and building of an American citizen residing
in California, declared Incompetent by an American Court,
is the RTC of the place where
his property or part thereof is situated. (Sec. 1. Rule 92).
(c) The venue of a petition for the adoption of a minor
residing in Pampanga is the RTC of the place in which
the petitioner resides. (Sec. 1. Rule 99)