Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rights of the Accused
Q. What are the rights of the offended party in a cri ina! action" #$%%% &ina!s '() A. The following:

a. To take part in the prosecution of the offense; b. To recover civil liability from the accused arising from the crime; and c. To appeal from any judgment or order adversely affecting his claim to such civil liability. (Gon ales v. !"# of $ulacan% &' (hil. )*&; (eople v. +rais% &, (hil. -**; (eople v. .ele % -- (hil. /01&2 Q. Does a cri ina! defendant *ai+e the pri+i!ege against se!f,incri ination *hen he ta-es the stand in his (eha!f d.ring the tria!" #$%%% &ina!s $/a) A. 3ot completely. 4ee 5ule //,% 4ec. /(d2. Police Investigation Q0 Where the infor ation for ho icide did not a!!ege that the acc.sed -ne* (efore or at the ti e of assa.!t that the +icti *as an agent of a person in a.thority1 can acc.sed (e con+icted of ho icide *ith assa.!t .pon an agent of a person in a.thority *here e+idence *as ad itted at the tria! *itho.t any o(2ection on the part of the acc.sed sho*ing that he -ne* at the ti e of the -i!!ing that the +icti *as an agent of a person in a.thority" #34) (2000) A: 3o. 4uch conviction would violate the !onstitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. ((eople vs. 5egala% //' 4!5A &/' 6en banc; /)7182. Q0 May a se!f,incri inating state ent ade (y an acc.sed *hi!e .nder po!ice c.stodia! in+estigation (.t *itho.t ha+ing (een gi+en Miranda *arnings (e ad itted in e+idence at his tria!" #34) (2000) A: 9es. :;clusionary 5ule here merely renders inadmissible such statements as evidence against the party making them. #n other words% the statements are admissible for impeachment purposes or against co<accused. ((hilippine !onstitution% Art. ###% 4ec. /16'82 Arrest, Search & Seizure Q0 A co.rt iss.ed a search *arrant on the (asis of an affida+it of a po!ice officer *ho dec!ared that he fo.nd seditio.s p.(!ications in the office of the acc.sed. Was the search *arrant +a!id!y iss.ed" #34) (2000) A: 3o. #t was issued on no probable cause because the affidavit contained mere conclusions of law. A finding of probable cause must be based on facts. (!orro vs. =ising% /'- 4!5A ,*/ 6/)7,82

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

Q0 A search *arrant *as iss.ed (y the R5C for the sei6.re of opi. *hich ay (e fo.nd at No. 3'7 Maa*ain 8t.1 5eacher9s :i!!age1 Q.C. (e!onging to ;. 5he searching party raided the pre ises and fo.nd1 instead1 se+era! Ar a!ites. May the raiding party sei6e these Ar a!ites" (1999) A: 3ot under the warrant% because the sei ure thereof is limited to the property therein described. $ut possibly under the >plain view? doctrine or as an incident to an arrest of @ for illegal possession of firearms. Q0 A search *arrant *as iss.ed (y the R5C for the sei6.re of opi. *hich ay (e fo.nd at No. 3'7 Maa*in 8t.1 5eachers :i!!age1 Q.e6on City (e!onging to ;. 5he searching party raided the pre ises and fo.nd1 instead se+era! Ar a!ites. May the raiding party sei6e these Ar a!ites" #$%%% &ina!s <a) A. 3ot under the warrant% because the sei ure thereof is limited to the property therein described. $ut possibly under the >plain view? doctrine or as an incident to an arrest of @ for illegal possession of firearms. o!"laint & Infor!ation Q0 Infor ation for defa ation a!!eged that acc.sed ca!!ed ; =a *hore> and =the para o.r of y h.s(and.> Acc.sed o+ed to ?.ash the infor ation on the gro.nd that the co.rt had no 2.risdiction o+er the offense (eca.se the infor ation *as not fi!ed .pon the co p!aint of ;. R.!ing" #34) (2000) A: Aotion to Buash granted. The alleged defamation contains an imputation of adultery and cannot therefore be prosecuted de oficio. (5ule //0% 4ec. ,; (eople vs. Cui ada% /&0 4!5A ,/- 6/)7782 Q0 A *as charged in an infor ation for !ess serio.s physica! in2.ries *hich a!!eged that a had de!i(erate!y hac-ed P *ith a (o!o. A p!eaded g.i!ty to this infor ation and *as according!y con+icted. 8.(se?.ent!y1 A *as again charged in an infor ation for assa.!t .pon a person in a.thority (y a!!eging the sa e act of (o!o hac-ing on P *hich *as a!!eged in the first infor ation (.t *ith the additiona! a!!egation that P *as then a .nicipa! ayor and therefore a person in a.thority and *as attac-ed *hi!e engaged in the perfor ance of his officia! d.ties. A o+es to ?.ash the second infor ation on the gro.nd of do.(!e 2eopardy. Reso!+e A9s otion to ?.ash. (199#) A: Aotion to Buash granted. !harge of assault necessarily includes the offense of less serious physical injuries charged in the first information. $oth informations therefore charge but one offense% being the comple; offense of assault upon a person in authority with less serious physical injuries. (4ee Tacas v. !ariaso% -1 4!5A ,1- 6/)-&82 Q0 A *as charged *ith rape .nder an infor ation *hich a!!eged that1 *ith the .se of force and inti idation1 he had se@.a! interco.rse *ith :1 a $<,year,o!d gir! *ith a good ora! character and rep.tation in the co .nity *ho *as his st.dent at the !oca! p.(!ic high schoo!. &inding the a!!egation of force and inti idation not to ha+e (een pro+ed1 the co.rt nonethe!ess con+icted A of ?.a!ified sed.ction. Is the con+iction proper" (199#)

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

A: 9es. Dhile the charge is nominally for rape% the information alleges the elements of Bualified seduction. #t is not the designation of the offense in the information that is controlling; what is decisive are the allegations therein which apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 4o% while a charge of rape need not include Bualified seduction or a charge of Bualified seduction include rape% conviction for Bualified seduction in the case at bar is proper because the information contains allegations of Bualified seduction and there can be no Buestion therefore that the accused was definitively and sBuarely charged with Bualified seduction although it was denominated as rape. !ompare (eople vs. 4amillano% ,& 4!5A ,-' (/)-*2 with (eople vs. !astro% ,7 4!5A *-' (/)-*2. Q0 A *as charged *ith ad.!tery .nder an infor ation *hich did not a!!ege that A -ne* the *o an *as arried at the ti e of coha(itation. Ao*e+er1 this -no*!edge (y A *as esta(!ished at the tria! and so A *as con+icted. On appea!1 A assigns as error the ins.fficiency of the infor ation to a!!ege the offense of ad.!tery. Is the assigned error tena(!e" (199#) A: 3o. +bjections to the sufficiency of the information are waived after trial and conviction. 4ee E.4. v. Festrito% 1' (hil. 17 (/)/12. Q0 Can an acc.sed (e con+icted .nder an infor ation charging theft of an a.to o(i!e a!!eged in the infor ation to (e!ong to A *hen the proof *as that the a.to o(i!e (e!onged to B" (199#) A: 9es. Fesignation of the name of the party is immaterial to the description of the offense which could otherwise be described by an allegation of the type and serial number of the automobile. Q0 Where the infor ation charged the acc.sed *ith ro((ery (.t the e+idence sho*ed that the cri e co itted *as (ri(ery1 *hat sho.!d the co.rt do" No answer.

$he ivil As"ect

Q0 P s.ed D for da ages1 P a!!eging that D de!i(erate!y shot P9s h.s(and to death. 5en days !ater1 an infor ation for ho icide *as fi!ed against D (ased on the sa e act of shooting. May (oth actions (e prosec.ted si .!taneo.s!y" 9es. 4ince the civil action was filed before the criminal action% this civil action was not impliedly instituted in the criminal action. (5ule ///% 4ec. /2. $esides% FGs act of shooting is also actionable under Article '' of the !ivil !ode% the term >physical injuries? in this provision having been construed to include bodily injuries causing death. (Fulay v !A% 1*' 4!5A 110% 6/)),; 1nd Fiv.82 May the co.rt proper!y a!!o* the offended party to present e+idence to pro+e the ci+i! !ia(i!ity of the acc.sed *ho had p!eaded g.i!ty" 9es% because of the implied institution in this criminal action of the civil action. (4ee .eloso v !armona% -- 4!5A *,0 6/)--82

A:

Q0 A:

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

%ail
Q0 In *hat co.rt ay an acc.sed fi!e an app!ication for (ai!" #34) (2000)

A: Dhen he is already charged in court% the accused may file an application for bail with the particular court where the case is pending whether for preliminary investigation% trial or court on appeal% and in no other court. $ut if he is not yet charged in court but is held in custody% he may apply with any court in the province% city or municipality where he is held. 65ule //*% 4ec. /- (b2 H (c28

Arraign!ent & Plea

Q0 Can an acc.sed (e con+icted of an offense not necessari!y inc!.ded in the offense charged" (1999) A: 3o. (4ee 5ule /10% 4ec. *2 Dhile under 5ule //& 4ec. 1% the accused% with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal% may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged% this provision has been amended by 4upreme !ourt !ircular 3o. '7<)7% effective on /, 4eptember /))7 (to implement 5A 7*)'% the >4peedy Trial Act of /))7?2% which provides in its 4ec. * that the agreement on the plea of the accused >should be to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged.?

&uashal
Q0 A *as charged and con+icted .nder an infor ation for a!ar and scanda! *hich a!!eged that he had discharged his re+o!+er and there(y ca.sed a!ar .pon the genera! p.(!ic. 8.(se?.ent!y1 A *as again charged for discharge of firear (ased on the sa e act of discharging his re+o!+er1 *ith the added a!!egation that A discharged the re+o!+er at P *itho.t intent to -i!!. A o+es to ?.ash the second infor ation on the gro.nd of do.(!e 2eopardy. Reso!+e A9s otion to ?.ash. (199#) A: Aotion to Buash denied. The offense of discharge of firearm is in no way identical to the crime of alarm and scandal% nor is it an attempt or frustration of the latter felony. 3either may it be asserted that every crime of discharge of firearm produces the offense of alarm and scandal; nor could the reverse be true. The protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offense. Iere% one act constitutes two different offenses. 4ee (eople v. Forigue % 1* 4!5A /&' (/)&72.

$rial
Q0 Where se+era! acc.sed are 2oint!y charged *ith an offense1 a!!o*ed a separate tria!" #34) (2000) ay any of the acc.sed (e

A: 9es% if so ordered by the court in its discretion upon motion by the fiscal or any of the accused. (5ule //)% 4ec. 72. A joint trial would probably be prejudicial to the rights of one or more of the accused where the defenses or interests of two or more of them are antagonistic. Iowever% section * of (F 3o. /&0& as amended% reBuires joint trial of private individuals who are charged as co<principals% accomplices or accessories with public officers or employees% although attendant circumstances may make such joint trial impossible or impractical as% say%

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

where the accused public officers or employees have already been convicted or are already serving sentence. (4ee $ondoc vs. 4andiganbayan% /)/ 4!5A 1,1 6en banc; /))082 Q. What is the re edy of an acc.sed *hose right to speedy tria! is (eing +io!ated (eca.se the prosec.tion -eeps on postponing the case" #$%%% &ina!s 3() A. The following: a. The accused should oppose the postponement and insist on trial. #f the court denies the postponement and directs the public prosecutor to proceed and cannot do so because he does not have the evidence% the accused should move for dismissal on the ground of failure to prosecute or insufficiency of evidence. (Jaca v. $lanco% 7& (hil. *,1; Gandicela v. =utero% 77 (hil. 1)); (eople v. Fia % )* (hil. -/*2; b. #f the court grants the postponement every time the public prosecutor asks for it% over the protest of the accused% the latterGs remedy is mandamus to compel dismissal of the case (Aercado v. 4antos% && (hil. 1/,2; or c. #f the accused is restrained of his liberty% his remedy is habeas corpus to obtain his freedom (ibid.; !onde v. 5ivera% *, (hil. &,02.

Q0 At the tria! of a cri ina! case for estafa *here the co p!ainant *as sched.!ed to testify1 the co p!ainant *as a(sent. 5his !ed the acc.sed to o+e for the dis issa! of the case1 in+o-ing his right to a speedy tria!1 and his otion *as granted. Co p!ainant too- .p the dis issa! order to the Co.rt of Appea!s on a R.!e C3 petition for certiorari. Ao* sho.!d the Co.rt of Appea!s reso!+e the petition" A: No answer.

'udg!ent
Q. May a 2.dg ent in a cri ina! case (e A. #t depends: a. A judgment of acBuittal cannot be modified because it is final upon promulgation. ((eople v. 9elo% 7' (hil. &/7; !ea v. !inco% supra.; !atilo v. Abaya% )* (hil. /0/*2 b. A judgment of conviction may be modified at any time before it has become final. (4ec. -% 5ule /10; (eople v. Tamayo% 7& (hil. 10)2 odified" #$%%% &ina!s %()

A""eal
Q0 What is the !itti!us" (1999) A: (4ee 5ule /1* 4ec. /&2 The mittimus is a process issued by the court after conviction to carry out the final judgment% such as commanding a prison warden to hold the accused in accordance with the terms of the judgment. The mittimus is the final process for carrying into effect the decision of the appellate court% and the transmittal thereof to the court of origin is predicated upon the finality of the judgment. (!lemente<Fe Gu man vs. 5eyes% //* 4!5A ,)& 61nd Fiv.% /)7182

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

Q. May the offended party appea! fro an order dis issing a cri ina! case iss.ed (y the co.rt on otion of the p.(!ic prosec.tor" #$%%% &ina!s D() A. The rules on the matter are: a. #f the dismissal is on the ground of insufficiency of evidence% the offended party cannot appeal% because% otherwise% the prosecution of the offense would be thrown beyond the direction and control of the public prosecutor. ((eople v. =ipana% -1 (hil. /&&; (eople v. =iggayu% )- (hil. 7&,2 b. #f the dismissal is on a Buestion of law% as dismissal on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint or information do not constitute an offense% the offended party may appeal ((eople v. Aaceda% -, (hil. &-)2% provided however that he has a right to civil indemnity and this right has not been waived or reserved. ((eople v. .ele % -- (hil. /01&; (eople v. "lorendo% -, (hil. &-)2 c. #f it appears that the public prosecutor gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence% the remedy of the offended party is mandamus to compel the fiscal to prosecute. ((eople v. +rais% &, (hil. -**; Gon ales v. !"# of $ulacan% &' (hil. )*&; $agatua v. 5evilla% /0* (hil. ')1; (eople v. 3ato a% /00 (hil. ,''2 D did not appea! a 2.dg ent con+icting hi of a pro(ationa(!e offense and instead a!!o*ed the appea! period to !apse and thereafter i ediate!y app!ied for pro(ation. May his app!ication for pro(ation (e fa+ora(!y acted .pon" 3o. Application is time<barred% as it shouldGve been filed >within the period for perfecting an appeal.? ((F )&7% 4ec. *2 May the Depart ent of E.stice ta-e cogni6ance of an appea! (y an acc.sed fro an .nfa+ora(!e r.!ing of the in+estigating prosec.tor e+en after the infor ation had a!ready (een fi!ed in co.rt" 9es% although such action is discouraged. Dhat matters is that the dismissal of the case or withdrawal of the information is no longer subject to the directive of the 4ecretary of Justice but is reserved for the e;clusive discretion of the court. (5oberts v !A% G5 3o. //')'0% Aarch ,% /))&% en banc)

Q0

A:

Q0

A:

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

8PECIAL PROCEEDINF8
Settle!ent of deceased(s estate
Q. What are the !ia(i!ities of the distri(.tees and the estate after e@tra2.dicia! or s. sett!e ent" &or ho* !ong sha!! these !ia(i!ities s.(sist" #$%%% &ina!s 'a)

ary

A. The distributes and the estate shall be liable for the following claims within a period of two (12 years after settlement and distribution of an estate% whether e;trajudicially or summarily: a. "or the claim of an heir or other person who has been judicially deprived of his lawful participation in the estate; b. "or the claim of an heir or other person who has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate payable in money; and c. "or debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid. (4ec. *% 5ule -*2.

Q0 D.ring his !ifeti e1 5 e@ec.ted a doc. ent *hich he sty!ed as =!ast *i!! and testa ent> (.t *hich1 a!tho.gh in type*ritten for and d.!y notari6ed1 *as not e@ec.ted *ith the for a!ities prescri(ed for a *i!!. In this doc. ent1 5 di+ided his estate1 *hich consisted of one parce! of !and on!y1 (et*een his t*o da.ghters1 G to one and H to the other. Upon his death1 59s da.ghters di+ided the property (et*een the (y a deed of e@tra2.dicia! partition fo!!o*ing the distri(.tion ade in 59s s.pposed =!ast *i!! and testa ent>1 (.t *hich doc. ent *as not s.( itted for pro(ate. Can the da.ghters ac?.ire tit!e to their respecti+e shares in 59s !ot (y +irt.e of the e@tra2.dicia! partition" #34) (2000) A: 9es. The >will? not having been probated% is no will at all and the daughters take the property not by virtue of this supposed will but by virtue of the e;trajudicial partition. (4ee Aang<oy v. !A% /** 4!5A '' 6/)7&82 Q0 A I B fi!ed a petition for partition of their deceased father9s estate against their sisters1 C I D. 5he (rothers a!!eged that the fo.r of the are the on!y heirs of their deceased fatherJ that they co.!d not agree as to ho* their father9s estate sho.!d (e di+idedJ that their father !eft no *i!! and that he !eft no de(ts *hatsoe+er. C I D fi!ed a otion to dis iss insisting that the proper action sho.!d (e a petition for the iss.ance of !etters of ad inistration and not an ordinary action for partition. Is the otion eritorio.s" (199#) A: /)7& bar e;am. 3o. precisely their disagreement under the circumstances should be threshed out in an ordinary action for partition since the deceased left no debts and no will. (5ule *- 4ec./2

lai!s Against the )state

Q. Ao* sha!! an e@ec.tor or ad inistrator fi!e his c!ai against the estate" When s.ch c!ai is fi!ed1 ho* sha!! the co.rt ad2.dicate the c!ai " #$%%% &ina!s 3a) A. #f the e;ecutor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents% he shall give notice thereof% in writing to the court% and the court shall appoint a special administrator% who shall% in the adjustment of the claim% have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator or e;ecutor in the settlement of other claims. The court may

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

order the e;ecutor or administrator to pay the special administrator funds to defend such claim. (5ule 7&% 4ec. 72

Pro*ate
Q0 May the pro(ate co.rt deter ine the intrinsic +a!idity of the *i!!" A: No answer. Q. Aas the pro(ate co.rt 2.risdiction to deter ine *hether certain properties (e!ong to the con2.ga! partnership or to the s.r+i+ing spo.se a!one" #$%%% &ina!s Da) A. The Buestion of whether or not certain properties belong to the conjugal partnership or to the surviving spouse alone is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liBuidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent to be distributed among the heirs. ($ernardo v. !ourt of Appeals% - 4!5A '&6/)&'82 Q0 5*o years after testator9s *i!! *as ad itted to pro(ate1 his co p.!sory heirs fi!ed a otion in the sa e proceeding to ha+e the *i!! dec!ared intrinsica!!y +oid1 and after notice and hearing1 the tria! co.rt granted this otion. Is the order dec!aring the *i!! intrinsica!!y n.!! and +oid +a!id" #34) (2000) A: 9es. This order is not precluded by the order admitting probate% which order is conclusive only as regards the e;trinsic validity of the will. (4ee Cuintana v. Angas% )/ +.G. p. 707/; 6!A;/))182 Q0 A petition for pro(ate of a *i!! o itted the na e of ;1 a co p.!sory heir. Aence1 no notice of the hearing on pro(ate *as sent to ;. Notice1 ho*e+er *as sent to a!! other heirs. No*1 another heir1 K1 c!ai ing a!so not to ha+e (een notified of the hearing1 (rings an action to ha+e the order a!!o*ing the *i!! dec!ared to ha+e (eco e ipso facto n.!! and +oid for *ant of 2.risdiction. Is K correct" (199#) A: 3o. The court acBuires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the publication of the petition in the newspaper. 4ervice and notice on individual heirs is a matter of procedural convenience% not a jurisdictional reBuisite. ((ere vs. (ere % /0, (hi;. //'1 6/),)82 Q0 Is it possi(!e to set aside a fina! order ad itting a *i!! to pro(ate" (199#) A: 9es. $y a 5ule '7 petition for relief. (5iera v. (almaroli% *0 (hil. /0, 6/)/)82 Q0 Before the hearing on a petition for pro(ate of a *i!!1 the parties s.( itted a stip.!ation *ithdra*ing the app!ication for pro(ate and di+iding the estate a ong the se!+es. 5hereafter1 the co.rt appro+ed the stip.!ation and rendered 2.dg ent ho!ding that the *i!! co.!d not (e pro(ated and a*arding the estate in accordance *ith the stip.!ation. Eight onths !ater1 one c!ai ing to (e an heir1 fi!ed a ne* app!ication for pro(ate of the sa e *i!!. May this ne* petition (e entertained" (199#) A: 3o. The order denying probate is one in rem. #f the petitioner was not satisfied with the order denying probate% he should have timely appealed therefrom. (Aanalo vs. (aredes% /*- (hil. )') 6/)1,82

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

Q0 On otion of the ad inistrator1 the pro(ate co.rt directed the sa!e of of the estate to pay the ortgage de(t. Correct" (1999)

ortgaged rea!ty

A: 3o. The 5ules state the conditions under which real estate of the deceased may be sold for the payment of debts. There is nothing in these 5ules which indicated that the probate court has any power to order the sale of a specific piece of real estate for the purpose of paying a mortgage debt which is a lien thereon. The probate court may authori e the sale of the property% subject to the mortgage lien% for the purpose of paying other debts of the estate% but it has no authority to sell it for the purpose of paying that specific debt. Aoreover% the sale here did not comply with the notice reBuirements in 5ule 7) 4ection -. (:state of Gamboa vs. "loran a% /1 (hil. /)/ 6/)0782 Q0 Petition for pro(ate of a *i!! is opposed (y B1 adopted son of the deceased1 on the gro.nd that he *as disinherited in the *i!! and (y C1 da.ghter1 on the gro.nd that she *as preterited in the *i!!. Reso!+e the oppositions. #34) (2000) A: $Gs opposition should be upheld. #n preterition the annulment of the will is generally total% whereas in disinheritance the nullity is limited to the portion of the estate of which the disinherited has been legally deprived. (robate of a will deals solely with its e;trinsic validity and the court will not pass upon its intrinsic validity unless probate might become an idle ceremony if it appears on its face to be intrinsically void. (Aaninang v. !A% //* 4!5A *-7 6/)7182 Q0 ; dies *ith a p.rported *i!!. A and B are !egatees .nder this *i!!. If ; dies *itho.t a *i!!1 C and D1 *ho are ;9s co p.!sory heirs1 *i!! inherit the *ho!e estate to the tota! e@c!.sion of A and B. C and D (ring an action to contest the *i!!. Can any of the L A1 B1 C and D L testify o+er o(2ection respecting the circ. stances s.rro.nding the e@ec.tion of the s.pposed *i!!" (199#) A: Fead AanGs 4tatute might preclude such testimony on the ground that all such persons are claimants against @Gs estate.

)+ecutors , Ad!inistrators
Q0 Petition for pro(ate of a!!eged *i!! of C instit.ting P as the so!e and .ni+ersa! heir and na ing hi as e@ec.tor. ;1 K and M o+ed to dis iss the petition on the gro.nd that a!! the properties of the estate are no* o*ned (y the (y +irt.e of a deed of donation e@ec.ted (y C in their fa+or. 5he pro(ate co.rt deferred reso!.tion of the otion to dis iss .nti! presentation of e+idence and in the ean*hi!e it denied the otion for appoint ent of a specia! ad inistrator on the gro.nd that ;1 K and M are a!ready in possession of the estate properties. Did the pro(ate co.rt r.!e correct!y" #$/4) (2000) A: 3o. The probate court should have appointed a special administrator. The phrase >by any cause? in 5ule 70 4ection / includes instances like here where there is a delay in the probate of the will and in granting of letters testamentary. The appointment of a special administrator is justified because the deed of donation may have to be annulled in an action for this purpose filed by (. The possession by @% 9 and K is a partisan possession of litigants and is different from a neutral possession of a special administrator. (Fe Gu man vs. Guadi % Jr.% )& 4!5A )'7 6/)7082 Q0 F died !ea+ing an a!!eged *i!! in *hich he na ed P as e@ec.tor thereof and disinherited his *ido* and their son. P d.!y fi!ed a petition for pro(ate of the *i!! and1

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

10

on his otion1 *as appointed specia! ad inistrator. 5he *ido* as-ed that she (e appointed as specia! ad inistratri@. Was the appoint ent of P as specia! ad inistrator correct" (1999) A: 9es. The appointment of ( as special administrator is correct. The preference for the surviving spouse in 5ule -7% 4ection & refers to the appointment of a reg.!ar administrator% not to that of a specia! administrator. The order appointing a special administrator lies within the discretion of the probate court and is not appealable. Anyway% by language of 5ule -7% 4ection &% the widow does not Bualify as special administratri; because an e;ecutor had been named in the will and this e;ecutor did not refuse the trust. ((ijuan vs. .da. Fe Gurrea% /7 4!5A 7)7 6/)&&82 Q0 In the proceedings for the sett!e ent of an estate1 the heirs of the decedent fi!ed a otion as-ing that the ad inistrator (e dec!ared in conte pt for his fai!.re to render an acco.nting of his ad inistration. 5he ad inistrator rep!ied that no acco.nting co.!d (e s.( itted .nti! ;1 one of the heirs1 de!i+er to hi a f!eet of ta@ica(s (e!onging to the estate. 5he ad inistrator co.nter, o+ed for the ret.rn of these ta@ica(s after *hich the pro(ate co.rt ordered ; to de!i+er the ta@ica(s to the estate and for this p.rpose iss.ed the corresponding e@ec.tion *rit. Was the e@ec.tion *rit proper!y iss.ed" (1999) A: 3o. The probate court determination of title was merely provisional and so it could not be the subject of e;ecution as against the possessor who had set up title in himself or in another adversely to the decedent. (.alera v. #nserto% /*) 4!5A ,11 6/)7-82

Ad!inistration
Q0 Why sho.!d an heir opt to petition for !etters of ad inistration *here the decedent !eft no de(ts and no *i!!" A: No answer. Q0 When is anci!!ary ad inistration proper" A: Dhere the decedent dies in a country other than that of his domicile and he leaves property to be administered in that country. Q. Is e@ec.tion a proper proced.re for pay ent of de(ts and e@penses of ad inistration" #$%%% &ina!s C() A. 3o% because the specific procedure provided by the 5ules is for the court to order the sale of personal estate or the sale or mortgage of real property of the deceased and all debts shall be paid out of the proceeds of said sale or mortgage. (Aldami v. !"# of Aindoro% 7, (hil. 1172 :;ecution may issue only where the heirs% devisees and legatees have entered into the possession of their respective portions in the estate prior to payment of debts and e;penses of administration and it is later ascertained that there are still debts and e;penses to be paid% in which case the court having jurisdiction% after hearing% may order the heirs% devisees and legatees to contribute to the payment% and may issue e;ecution if circumstances reBuire. (4ec. &% 5ule 772

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

11

Q0 ; as ad inistrator of the deceased D1 after s.( itting his in+entory1 fi!es a otion in the ad inistration proceedings praying for an order directing K to de!i+er to ; the ho.se and !ot inc!.ded in ;9s in+entory. Ao* sho.!d the co.rt reso!+e the otion" (199#) A: "avorably% if 9 does not claim title adverse to F. +therwise% i.e.% if 9 has such an adverse claim of the title% the issue cannot be determined by the probate court in the course of administration proceedings unless 9 is an heir and all the heirs agree to submit the issue of title to the probate court.

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

E:IDENCE
o!"etenc- of .itnesses
Q0 A:

12

In a s.it (y h.s(and against ; for da ages1 can the h.s(and ca!! his *ife to testify for hi on a non,confidentia! atter" 9es. #n this case% the husband will be the >affected spouse? within the meaning of 4ection 11% 5ule /'0 and since he is the one calling the witness to the stand% his consent to the testimony of the witness is implicit. Iowever% the husband may not be able to assert the marital privilege during the cross<e;amination of his wife. Does o.r !a* of e+idence recogni6e any e@ec.ti+e pri+i!ege" No answer. Suggestion: See case of Almonte v. Vasquez on state secrets. P!aintiff P,$ *as riding a car dri+en (y his co,p!aintiff P,D *hen a co!!ision occ.rred (et*een that car and one dri+en (y D. P,$ and P,D s.ed D on the theory that D *as neg!igent1 (.t D denied neg!igence and c!ai ed that it *as P,D9s neg!igence *hich *as the so!e ca.se of the co!!ision. After the tria!1 D offered the testi ony of a po!ice officer1 that on the day of the accident1 P,D to!d hi that he did not see the stop sign *hich indicated that he sho.!d ha+e stopped (efore he entered the intersection and therefore he entered this intersection *itho.t stopping. Is the po!ice officer9s testi ony ad issi(!e o+er proper and ti e!y o(2ection" No answer.

Q0 A: Q0

A:

Q. A.s(and *as charged *ith .rder *hen his *ife *as fo.nd f!oating face do*n in the fa i!y s*i ing poo!. At the tria!1 the prosec.tion ca!!s a te!ephone operator *ho p!aced a co!!ect te!ephone ca!! fro the h.s(and to the !a*yer *ho ref.sed to ta-e his case. When the officer as-ed the operator =did yo. e+er hear any of their con+ersation"1> h.s(and9s co.nse! o(2ects0 attorney,c!ient pri+i!ege" R.!e on this o(2ection. #$%%% &ina!s Ca) A. The attorney<client privilege does not apply because the statement is not confidential since the eavesdropper was able to overhear it. +therwise% the privilege would apply even if the attorney was not ultimately hired by the client.

)+a!ination of .itnesses
Q0 Acc.sed1 charged *ith ro((ery *ith rape1 ta-es the stand and testifies on the atter of the ro((ery. Can the prosec.tor cross,e@a ine hi in respect to a prior rape con+iction" 9es. The purpose of the Buestion is to test merely the credibility of the accused as a witness. :very witness is bound to answer a Buestion re his prior conviction. (5ule /'1% 4ec. '6,82

A:

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

haracter )vidence & the Si!ilar Acts Rule
Q0 Where an acc.sed in a rape prosec.tion testifies in his o*n (eha!f1 e@a ined in respect to a prior rape con+iction" #34) (2000)

13

ay he (e cross,

A: 9es% a witness is always bound to answer to the fact of his previous final conviction of an offense. (5ule /'1% 4ec. ' 6,82 Q0 Da age action (y P against D for an a!!eged !i(e! *hich appeared in D9s ne*spaper. 5he ne*spaper artic!e asserted that P *as a traitor to his co.ntry. May P introd.ce1 o+er ti e!y and proper o(2ection1 the testi ony of se+era! *itnesses that he has a rep.tation as a =good and !oya! &i!ipino>" (199#) A: 9es. (Gs reputation is relevant to the Buestion of damages he suffered as a result of FGs alleged libel. Iis character is in issue and therefore proof in respect to character is relevant. Q0 Action (y P against D for da ages arising fro an a!!eged defa ation in that D a!!eged!y ca!!ed P a =*hore>. May e+idence of P9s e@tra, arita! affairs (e ad issi(!e o+er ti e!y and proper o(2ection" A: 3o. Dhile evidence of (Gs character may be relevant on the issue of truth or falsity of FGs imputation% this character is not provable by evidence of particular acts and% at any rate% evidence of (Gs e;tra<marital affairs lacks the element of prostitution or of se; for pay.

/ffer & /*0ection

Q0 P!aintiff offers e+idence *hich she c!ai s is re!e+ant in the case. An o(2ection to the ad ission of the e+idence is s.stained. On appea!1 ho* can p!aintiff (est o(tain appe!!ate re+ie* of the co.rt r.!ing s.staining the o(2ection" #34) (2000) A: (laintiff should make a tender of the e;cluded evidence% and this he is allowed to do under 4ection *0 of 5ule /'1.

Ad!ission & onfessions

Q0 In his origina! ans*er1 defendant ad itted his de(t c!ai ed (y the p!aintiff. Ae s.(se?.ent!y a ends his ans*er and denies the *ho!e de(t. May the ad ission contained in the origina! ans*er (e recei+ed in e+idence against defendant" (1999) A: 9es% it is a judicial admission. Although an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading which thereby disappears from the records% an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not reBuire proof although it may be contradicted by showing that it was made through culpable mistake or that no admission was made. (5ule /1)% 4ec. *2 Q. In his origina! ans*er1 defendant ad itted his de(t c!ai ed (y the p!aintiff. Ae s.(se?.ent!y a ends his ans*er and denies the *ho!e de(t. May the ad ission contained in the origina! ans*er (e recei+ed in e+idence against the p!aintiff" #$%%% &ina!s 7a)

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

14

A. 9es% it is a judicial admission. Although an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading which thereby disappears from the records% an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not reBuire proof although it may be contradicted by showing that it was made through culpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (5ule /1)% 4ec. *2 Q. P *as in2.red *hen he s!ipped and fe!! on the f!oor of a s.per ar-et. As he *as seated in the store a*aiting edica! attention1 he had a con+ersation *ith the store anager. P co p!ained to the anager a(o.t his an-!e and (ac- and stated that he co.!d not stand .p. Ae a!so added that his c!othes *ere r.ined. 5he anager responded to these state ents0 =Don9t *orry1 *e9!! pay yo.r (i!!s. 5his *as rea!!y care!ess on o.r part.> Is P9s testi ony a(o.t the anager9s state ent ad issi(!e" #$%%% &ina!s N() A. 3o. 4ee 5ule /'0% 4ec. 1-% last par.

$he 1earsa- Rule & its )+ce"tions

Q0 At the tria! of D for ro((ery1 W1 a po!ice detecti+e1 testified that he interrogated ;1 one of the ro((ers *ho *as arrested and ta-en into c.stody. Upon this interrogation ; said that D *as one of his fe!!o* ro((ers. May W testify to ;9s state ent identifying D as one of the ro((ers" #34) (2000) A: 3o% hearsay. 3ot a vicarious admission because the statement was made at the end of the supposed conspiracy. Q0 P s.es D for persona! in2.ries res.!ting fro a car accident. As part of his defense1 D offers a proper!y a.thenticated po!ice report *hich contains the fo!!o*ing state ent0 =Bystander stated that P ran thro.gh a red !ight.> Is this po!ice report ad issi(!e o+er proper and ti e!y o(2ection" #34) (2000) A: 3o. Fouble hearsay. $ystander had no official duty to report such a statement to the police. Q0 D is charged *ith ho icide for fata!!y shooting ; *ho had (een s!eeping in a h.t in a deserted ricefie!d at appro@i ate!y $$0// a. .1 5.esday1 D7 E.!y. D c!ai s that he is not g.i!ty1 and he *ants to offer e+idence s.ggesting that t*o #D) teenage (oys co itted the cri e. Ae ca!!s to the stand W1 a (arangay tanod *ho offers to testify as fo!!o*s0 =8hort!y after $$0// a. .1 5.esday1 D7 E.!y1 I o(ser+ed D teenage (oys near the h.t. 5hey *ere r.nning a*ay fro it.> If yo. *ere the prosec.tion attorney1 *o.!d yo. o(2ect to W9s testi ony" (1999) A: 9es. #t is hearsay and% also possibly% opinion. Iearsay constituted of the implied assertion of guilt to be derived from the conduct of fleeing% the teenage boys not having been presented for cross<e;amination. +pinion% because the teenage boys may not have been >fleing? from the scene of the crime but were jogging by when D happened to notice them; this flight >opinion? may be broken down into its component parts% e.g.% the location of the teenage boys in relation to the crime scene% the direction in which they were going% and how fast they were going.

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

15

Q0 Prosec.tion for da age to property thr. rec-!ess i pr.dence. At the tria!1 a copy #d.!y a.thenticated) of the po!ice (!otter report *as offered in e+idence. In this report the o*nership of the +ehic!e in ?.estion *as set forth together *ith other detai!s of the accident. 5he officer *ho ade the report *as not an eye*itness to the accident1 (.t the report p!ain!y stated that it *as (ased on a s. ary of state ents gi+en (y (ystander *itnesses. R.!e on the ad issi(i!ity of the copy of the po!ice (!otter report. (1999) A: #nadmissible for being hearsay. 3ot an official record because the informants to the entrant of the record are under no duty to make a truthful account of the facts therein recorded. Q0 Prosec.tion of D for -i!!ing :. P!ea of se!f,defense. No* W,$ testifies that he heard W, D say to D1 =: has -nifed 7 peop!e since !ast year.> #a) Is this testi ony of W,$ ad issi(!e to pro+e the p!ea of se!f,defense" #() Is the sa e testi ony ad issi(!e to pro+e that : *as the aggressor" A: (a2 9es% the tenor of the statement has independent relevance as it tends to prove FGs fear of . and therefore% the probability of his having acted in self<defense. (b2 3o. D</Gs testimony is hearsay even for the limited purpose of proving the truth what D</ supposedly heard D<1 say to F. of

Q. When the *itness testifies that his friend to!d hi that the defendant said that she had r.n the red !ight1 is the *itness9 testi ony ad issi(!e o+er ti e!y and proper o(2ection" #$%%% &ina!s $/() A. 3o% unless a hearsay e;ception applies to the friendGs statement to the witness% although the defendantGs statement would be an admission of a party<opponent if it could be properly proven. #f a piece of evidence contains multiple layers of hearsay% the evidence is not admissible unless e;ceptions to the rule against hearsay can be applied to each level. Q0 A *itness states .nder oath in a *ritten state ent to the po!ice that the acc.sed -i!!ed the +icti . At the tria!1 the *itness testifies that the acc.sed did not -i!! the +icti . May the *itness9 prior inconsistent state ent (e introd.ced to pro+e the tr.th of *hat it asserts" 3o. Iearsay: admissible for impeachment purposes only.

A:

.eight and Sufficienc- of )vidence

Q. May a !etter (e a.thenticated (y circ. stantia! e+idence" #$%%% &ina!s %a) A. 9es% as under the >reply letter doctrine%? i.e.% by showing that% in its contents% the letter purports to respond to an earlier letter sent by the person top whom this letter is addressed.

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

CI:IL PROCEDURE ("or additional Buestions% refer to the mid<term e;am compilation2 'urisdiction

16

Q0 Action (y P against D for .n!a*f.! detainer in the M5C for fai!.re to +acate pre ises (eing !eased on a onth,to, onth (asis after notice of ter ination. D ans*ered1 a!!eging as affir ati+e defense !ac- of 2.risdiction of the M5C for fai!.re of P to a-e on hi a prior de and to +acate and co.nterc!ai ing for P $/1///.// attorney9s fees. D.ring the pre,tria!1 it t.rned o.t that P sent his notice to +acate (y registered ai! (.t this *as not effecti+e!y de!i+ered to D1 and so the M5C dis issed the case for !ac- of 2.risdiction (.t a*arded D attorney9s fees of P 31///.//. Did the M5C act correct!y" A: No answer.

o!"laint , Su""le!ental

o!"laint
that prayed

Q. May the tria! co.rt grant a party re!ief in e@cess of or different in -ind fro for in his p!eading" #$%%% &ina!s $a)

A. Generally yes% where the evidence so warrants (rule /0% 4ec. ,2. :;ception: where the party has been declared in default (5ule )% 4ec. '6d82. Q0 In May $%%C P s.ed D for !anda!us a!!eging that he *as the !o*est or (est (idder for 2anitoria! ser+ices for $%%C (.t that D .n2.stifia(!y ref.sed to a*ard the contract to hi and prayed that the 2.dg ent (e rendered co pe!!ing D to a*ard hi the contract. 5he year $%%C !apsed1 P o+ing for the ad ission of a s.pp!e enta! co p!aint a!!eging that he sho.!d instead (e a*arded da ages for .nrea!i6ed profits. 8ho.!d P9s otion to ad it s.pp!e enta! co p!aint (e ad itted" A: No answer.

ounterclai!
Q. Action on a fire po!icy against an ins.rance co pany *hich iss.ed it. 5he defendant ins.rer fi!ed a third,party co p!aint against a re,ins.rer *hich set .p in his ans*er the defense a!!eged (y the defendant ins.rer that the !oss *as ca.sed (y the *i!!f.! act of conni+ance of the p!aintiff ins.red. May the third,party defendant re,ins.rer co.nterc!ai against the p!aintiff" #$%%% &ina!s Na) A. 9es% provided that the counterclaim be in respect to the plaintiffGs claim against the third<party plaintiff. (5ule &% 4ec. /'2 Q. Upon p!aintiff9s fai!.re to appear at the pre,tria! despite notice1 *hat is the proper reco.rse for the defendant *ho *o.!d !i-e to p.rs.e his co p.!sory co.nterc!ai in the sa e proceeding" #$%%% &ina!s 7() A. Ie should not move for dismissal of the complaint under 4ection '% 5ule /-% because this will automatically carry with it the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim. #nstead% defendant should only move to have plaintiff declared non<suited on the complaint so that the latter can no longer present his evidence thereon% and simultaneously move that he be declared as in

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

17

default on the compulsory counterclaim% and reserve the right to present evidence e;<party on his counterclaim. ($A "inance !orp. v. !o% 11* 4!5A /&' 6en banc8 L/))'M2 2222 $his ans3er is 3rong4 See Sec4 5, Rule 164 It !ust *e noted that this 7uestion 3as ta8en fro! a "re21996 Rules e+a!, and the rules 3ere different then4

Su!!ons
Q0 ; co pany1 an A erican fir 1 engaged in the an.fact.re of ath!etic .nifor s1 i ported soccer 2erseys fro P co pany1 a Phi!ippine te@ti!e i!!1 (.t ref.sed to pay for the . Aence1 P co pany fi!ed in the R5C an action against ; co pany for the co!!ection of the price of the soccer 2erseys1 the co p!aint a!!eging that ; co pany *as doing (.siness in the Phi!ippines and that s. ons (e ser+ed .pon its agent in the Phi!ippines. ; co pany entered its specia! appearance and cha!!enged the +a!idity of the ser+ice of s. ons on the gro.nd that it *as not doing (.siness in the Phi!ippines and that the transaction s.ed .pon *as an iso!ated transaction. Was the s. ons +a!id!y ser+ed" A: 9es% under 5ule /*% 4ection /*% @ company >was doing business? in the (hilippines because its purchase of the soccer jerseys was in the ordinary course of its business considering that it was engaged in the manufacture of athletic uniforms. (=itton Aills% #nc. v !A% G5 3o. )*)70% Aay /,% /))&% 1nd Fiv.2 o!!ent: 9ote that under the 1996 Rules, the ter! is :has transacted *usiness4; $hus, even isolated transactions can *e litigated4 Q0 A: In an action for partition of rea! properties against a non,resident defendant *ho is not fo.nd in the Phi!ippines1 ho* ay this defendant (e ser+ed s. ons" No answer.

)+ecution
Q. Who ay fi!e a =terceria1> *ith *ho &ina!s <() is it fi!ed and *hat is the effect of its fi!ing" #$%%%

A. A >terceria? is a third<party claim under 4ection /-% 5ule ') and is filed by a third<party claimant with the officer making the levy and it is an affidavit of the claimantGs title with copy thereof served upon the judgment creditor. Dith the filing of this affidavit% the officer is not bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor indemnifies the officer against such claim by an adeBuate bond. Q0 An e2ect ent action for non,pay ent of renta!s *as co pro ised (y the parties. 5heir co pro ise agree ent1 *hich the M5C appro+ed1 pro+ided for pay ent to the p!aintiff (y defendant of specified a o.nts e+ery onth for $< consec.ti+e onths1 and that the fai!.re of defendant to pay 7 consec.ti+e insta!! ents sha!! entit!e the p!aintiff to a *rit of e@ec.tion. Defendant ha+ing fai!ed to pay the first 7 stip.!ated insta!! ents1 the M5C on p!aintiff9s otion iss.ed a *rit of e@ec.tion. Acting on this *rit1 the sheriff ser+ed on defendant a notice to +acate the pre ises. Any *ay for defendant to resist the i p!e entation of the e@ec.tion *rit" A: No answer.

Remedial Law Review Compilation of Final Exams (2001 edition)

A""eal and other Post2'udg!ent Re!edies

18

Q0 5he appe!!ant *as de!ayed for one #$) onth in paying to the Co.rt of Appea!s his doc-et fee. Appe!!ee therefore o+ed to dis iss his appea! (.t appe!!ant co.ntered (y saying that he neg!ected to pay the doc-et fee on ti e (eca.se he *as to (.sy. R.!e on the otion to dis iss appea!. A: Aotion to dismiss appeal granted. "ailure of the appellant to pay the docketing fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. (5ule ,0% 4ec. /2 Appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. AppellantGs e;cuse for delayed payment is a poor e;cuse. ((edrosa v Gil% G5 3o. /1070*% June /*% /))&; / st Fiv.2 Q. By *hat ode can a party see- the re+ie* of an order denying his petition for re!ief fro 2.dg ent" #$%%% &ina!s $() A. +nly by an appropriate special civil action under 5ule &, and not by an appeal. (5ule */% 4ec. /6b82