POINTERS FOR MIDTERM EXAMS 2019

PRACTICE COURT 1
JUDGE GLOBERT J. JUSTALERO

1. Enumerate the requisites for circumstantial evidence.

2. Give the distinctions between pre-trial in civil cases and pre-trial in criminal cases.
3. Explain the following:

(a) One day examination of Witness Rule.

(b) Most Important Witness Rule.

4. What is the effect on the failure of the parties to appear during the pre-trial?
5. What are the matters subject to mandatory judicial notice?
6. Give at least five (5) examples of substantive objections.
7. In a prosecution for murder, the prosecution asks accused Darwin if he had been
previously arrested for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As defense
counsel, you object. The trial court asks you on what ground/s. Respond.
8. Give the distinctions between the Best Evidence Rule and the Parol Evidence Rule.
9. Enumerate the requisites for the admissibility of an object or real evidence.
10. At the trial of Ace for the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked bills used in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects
to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original. Is the photocopy
admissible in evidence? Explain.
11. Explain the following:

(a) Principle of judicial hierarchy.

(b) Doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

12. How jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired?

13. What are the different aspects of jurisdiction, and discuss each.

14. Distinguish “Real action” from “Personal action.”

15. Enumerate the elements of a cause of action.

16. “A” sued XX Corporation (XXC), a corporation organized under the Philippine laws, for
specific performance when the latter failed to deliver T-shirts to the former as stipulated
 in the contract of sale. Summons was served on the corporation’s cashier and director.
Would you consider service of summons on either officer sufficient?

17. Are the rules on summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court applicable equally in
actions before the Regional Trial Courts as well as in the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts?

18. “A,” a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan sued “X,” a resident of San Fernando, La Union
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the collection of a debt of Php1
million.

“X’ did not file a motion to dismiss for improper venue but filed his answer raising
therein improper venue as an affirmative defense. He also filed a counterclaim for Php200, 000.
00 against “A” for attorney’s fees and expenses for litigation. “X” moved for a preliminary
hearing on said affirmative defense. For his part, “A” filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim
for lack of jurisdiction. Rule on the affirmative defense of improper venue.
19. Angelina sued Armando before the Regional Trial Court of Manila to recover the
ownership and possession of two parcels of land; one situated in Pampanga, and the
other in Bulacan. May the action prosper? Explain.

20. Within the period for filing a responsive pleading, the defendant filed a motion for bill
of particulars that he set for hearing on a certain date. However, the defendant was
surprised to find on the date set for hearing that the trial court had already denied the
motion on the day of its filing, stating that the allegations of the complaint were
sufficiently made.

Did the judge gravely abuse his discretion in acting on the motion without waiting for
the hearing set for the motion? Explain.
21. Is pre-trial mandatory in all trial courts.
22. What are the effects on the parties’ failure to appear at the pre-trial conference?
23. Give the distinctions between pre-trial in civil cases and pre-trial in criminal cases.
24. What are the different Modes of Discovery under the Rules of Court?
25. Can civil cases be adjudicated without trial?
26. List the distinctions between demurrer in a civil case from demurrer in a criminal case.
27. Give the distinctions between a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment.
28. May a judgment which has become final and executory still be questioned, attacked or set
aside?
29. Distinguish a petition for certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 from a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65.
30. Not satisfied with the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which affirmed the decision
of the City Court (MTCC) on appeal, “X” wants to have the RTC’s decision passed upon by a
higher court. On what ground or grounds may he do so, if any? To what court should he go, and
by what mode? Reasons.
31. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
32. Explain the so called “duplicity of the offense.”
33. What are the requisites for a prejudicial question?
34. Enumerate the instances when a warrantless arrest is lawful.
35. Expound on the meaning and importance of arraignment.
36. What are the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.
37. When A loaned a sum of money to B, A typed a single copy of the promissory note, which
they both signed. A made two photocopies of the promissory note, giving one copy to B and
retaining the other copy. A entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel for safekeeping. The
copy with A’s counsel was destroyed when the law office was burned. As counsel for A, how will
you prove the loan given by A to B? Reason.
38. A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following piece of
evidence: a pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime scene, which the court, over the
objection of A, required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.
39. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report of the reporter
who was present during the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. Is the
newspaper clipping admissible against X? Why?
40. Fallen by a bullet upon being fired at, Santos before expiring told Romero, a passerby who
came to his rescue, “I was shot by Pablo, our neighbour.” May Romero’s testimony on what was
told him by Santos be offered and admitted in evidence in the separate civil action for damages
brought by the heirs against Pablo? Discuss.
THANK YOU