Bar Answer TechniquesBar Answer Techniques

7/23/2019 Bar Answer TechniquesBar Answer Techniques

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bar-answer-techniquesbar-answer-techniques 1/115

1

TECHNIQUES IN ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONSBY ATTY. REY TATAD JR.

REASON/S BEHIND THE LAW

1. The purpose of the law is…

2. The law is designed to…3. It is intended to shield …4. It is primarily aimed at protecting

____________ from unwarranted __________ 5. The rationale behind the law is…. The spirit of the law is to the

e!ect that…

DEFINITION / EXPLANATION

1. ________________ is a comprehensi"e termused to describe _________.2. _________________# in its generally

accepted sense# refers to ….3. … It is a safeguard and guaranteepro"ided by the 1$%& 'onstitution..4. … It is a (ind of relief granted to a

______________ by the …5. ________________ is a branch of publiclaw )or pri"ate law* which deals with... It pertains to…&. It connotes a ….%. … is a doctrine in )i.e. 'i"il +aw* whichrefers to…$. … is a principle in )i.e. 'riminal +aw*which states that…



2

1,. It presupposes…

11. Its principal identifying feature is..12. It is a(in to…13. The function of which is to…14. The o-ce of which is to…

2. ENUMERATION

1. In capsule form# the following are the elementsof the crime of

2. In a nutshell# the following are theelements of the crime of

3. The following elements aregenerally considered in the

determination ofthe presence of )i.e.employeremployee relationship*

4. /mong the )i.e.defenses0remedies* a"ailable to )i.e.r. * as pro"ided for by0in the )i.e.'i"il 'ode* are

)1*…

)2*…5. The following are the reuisites for…

. In order that a case for )i.e. .6.22* to prosper# the followingelements mustbe attendant0present

&. To constitute )i.e. homicide*# the

following reuisites must concur%. )i.e. +egal compensation* reuires

the concurrence of the followingconditions



3

$. To establish a person7s culpability

under )i.e. estafa*# it is indispensablethat…

8 Tips on answers that reuire enumeratingsomething. )i.e. elements*. If you can enumerateall# write it in bulleted or numbered form

to highlight the fact that you (now all of them andfor more con"enientreading purposes. If youcannot enumerate all# write it in paragraph formso that it would not easily be noticeable that youmissed something. )I got the abo"e tip from ourmentor /tty. 9afar +utian*DISTINCTION

:hen being as(ed to distinguish# do not state itsde;nition. If you gi"e its de;nition# you are ine!ect as(ing the e<aminer to e<tract out thedi!erences of the two =or more> from yourde;nition. ?o not also gi"e their similarities. @ouare as(ed to di!erentiate and contrast# sosimilarities are not included )That was a tip I

learned from my professor in 'i"il +aw Ae"iew I#/tty. Birgilio 9esmundo*.The number of distinctions you will gi"e must also beproportionate on the points allotted for such. If itis only worth two points# do not gi"e % distinctions.

The e<aminer cannot gi"e you % points for that….Cor a two point distinction uestion# perhaps#

three would be enough )four is not too much*.

• The )i.e. two* may be distinguished fromeach other in the followingsways



4

• In the ;rst# it is necessary that

there be…..# whereas in the secondit is su-cient that there be ….

• In the former# … while in thelatter…

• The former reuires … while thelatter…

• … on the other hand ______________ is…

ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH VAGUEFACTS (or !"#! r$%&"r$' %&)"*#+"o,-

ut if the facts are complete in itself# do notattempt to add facts or assume anything.

1. :e must distinguish. If… )or /s far as the __________ is concerned*2. It depends. If…)or /s far as the __________ is

concerned*3. The uestion reuires a uali;edanswer. If…

4. I will ualify. If…5. Dn the assumption that…. y answer must be uali;ed.

JURISDICTION

1. The case is beyond the ambit of the Eurisdictionof the )i.e. Aegional Trial'ourt*2. It is within the ambit of the )i.e. Fecretary of +abor7s* power.



5

3. It is not within the pro"ince of the )i.e. unicipal

Trial 'ourt*4. It is clearly within the powers of the )i.e. +abor/rbiter* to…

5. The case of )i.e. eEectment* lieswith the unicipal Trial 'ourt.

. The case is cogniGable by the )i.e.

Aegional Trial 'ourt*&. The case is co"ered by the )Aules

on Fummary 6rocedure*.%. The law "ests upon the )i.e.

Fecretary of Hustice* the power to…

ELABORATING/EXPOUNDING ANSWERS

9o straight to the point. The length of answersand e<pounding the same# must always beproportionate to the points allotted for suchparticular uestion. The higher the points# themore indepth the elaboration should be.owe"er# it must not appear Jna nambobola (a

naK. Fometimes# if your answer is too long# it is anindication that you are not sure of the answer sothere is that need of getting around thebush. Aemember that most of the times# DAL

T/+M# DAL IFT/MLNNN )I got this tip from myprofessor in 6olitical +aw# ?ean ariano C.agsalin# Hr.*

1. It should be borne in mind that…2. It must be noted that…3. It may be recalled that…4. It is worth obser"ing…



5. It must be ta(en into consideration that…

. ore importantly# ….&. Figni;cantly#…%. 'orollarily#…$. Curthermore#…1,. oreo"er#…11. Fimilarly#…12. 6arenthetically#…

13. In other words#…14. Dtherwise stated#…15. Fimply put#…1. Fimply stated#…1&. Ftated more concretely…1%. The reasons are ob"ious. )e<pound*1$. The reasons are well(nown. )e<pound*

2,. The reasons are plain. )e<pound*21. Onder the same line of reasoning#…22. /s regards…

3. :ith regard to… )it is error to stateJwith regards toK*

24. /nent the )i.e. ;rst issue*#…25. /s far as the ________________ is concerned#…

2. This is indicated by the fact that…2&. The language of the law lea"es no room fordoubt that#…2%. Hustice and fairplay dictates that#…2$. /pplying the principle of….3,. Cor all its conceded merits# )i.e. euity isa"ailable in the absence of lawand not as itsreplacement*…31. The law is categorical with regard to…32. Potwithstanding the… )i.e. e<ecution of thedocument*33. It is beyond debate that#…34. It is imperati"e to loo( at#…



&

This is consistent with the timehonored ma<im

)i.e. nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege*. /s it is imbued with public interest#…3&. In li(e manner#3%. In the same manner#3$. In the same "ein#4,. In the same breath#41. +i(ewise#..

42. In ;ne#43. It bears articulating that44. The controlling element in the )i.e. crime ofestafa* is…45. y analogy#…4. Fu-ce it to state that..4&. Lmphasis must also be placed at…

4%. anifestly# there was )i.e. gra"e abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lac( or e<cess of Eurisdiction*4$. Peedless to stress that…5,. It goes without saying that51. The Fupreme 'ourt frowns upon the )i.e.illegal practice of forum shopping as it erodes the

administration of Eustice and ma(es a moc(ery ofthe Eustice system*.52. There is no denying in this case# that )i.e. thepetitioner ne"er raised the issue of Eurisdictionthroughout the entire proceedings in the trialcourtQ case of TiEam "s. Fibonghanoy*53. It is now too late in the day for therespondent0defendant to )i.e. raise the issueof …*54. Lually telling is the )i.e. factual ;nding of thelower court* that…55. The gra"amen of the )i.e. the crime ofrebellion is an armed public uprising against the



%

go"ernment*

5. It cannot be denied that )i.e. the petitioner isalso guilty of negligence*…5&. /ttention must be drawn to the fact that…5%. ___________ and ____________ are two mutuallye<clusi"e remedies. /n application of oneprecludes the application of the other.5$. To amplify#…

,. It must be pointed out that…1. Potably#…2. /t the outset# the )i.e. defendant*…3. 'oming now to the issue of )i.e. prescription*#… CITING LAW PROVISIONS

1. Po less than the )i.e. 1$%& 'onstitution*pro"ides for the…2. The )i.e. Aules of 'ourt* substantially pro"idesin part that…3. Onder the broad principles of )i.e. due processclause*…

4. Onder the allencompassing doctrine of )i.e.incontestability clause*…5. Onder the law…. /ccording to the )i.e. Camily 'ode*…&. The law is e<plicit on the matter.%. The law e<plicitly e<presses in part that…$. y e<press pro"ision of law#…1,. y operation of law…11. /s a matter of law…12. :orth remembering is the rule on

_______________ which pro"ides in part that…13. ?ecisi"e on the matter is the pertinentpro"ision of the )i.e. +aw on 6roperty*



$

14. The law prescribes certain rules on…

15. y legislati"e ;at…

QUOTING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

2. The Fupreme 'ourt in one case# had theoccasion to rule that…

3. In a longline of cases decided by the

Fupreme 'ourt# it has alwaysbeen )consistently* held that…

4. In a litany of cases decided by theFupreme 'ourt#

5. In a longstring of cases decided by thehighest court of the land#

. /ccording to se"eral cases decided by the

Fupreme 'ourt#…&. In a series of cases decided by theFupreme 'ourt# 8 ?o not use the wordsseries# litany or longline if there is onlyone decision0Eurisprudence for that topic.

%. In one case decided by the highest courtof the land# it was held that

$. In one case# the Fupreme 'ourt ruled that1,. It has been said that…11. In a recent case# the Fupreme 'ourt has

laid to rest the issue of whether or not…11. It is well settled in this Eurisdiction…

12. It is well settled in this country…13. The Fupreme 'ourt has steadfastly

adhered to the doctrine which states that14. In a case with similar facts# the Fupreme

'ourt ruled that…15. In se"eral notable Fupreme 'ourt

decisions# the highest court declaredthat…



1,

1. The Fupreme 'ourt has often stressed

that…1&. In the landmar( case of _____________# )if thecase is so famous* the Fupreme 'ourt laid downthe doctrine which substantially pro"ides that…1%. In the leading case of …1$. /s enunciated by the Fupreme 'ourt in onecase#…

2,. The court has repeatedly ruled…21. / case in point is a case already decided by noother than the highest court of the land# where theFupreme 'ourt held that…22. There is li(ewise an array of cases in this

Eurisdiction where the Fupreme 'ourt hasconsistently declared that…

23. ?eeply rooted is the Eurisprudence whichpro"ides that…24. In one case# the Fupreme 'ourt was emphaticwhen it ruled that….

EMPHASIING CASE DOCTRINES / JURISPRUDENCE

It is hornboo( doctrine in )i.e. 'i"il +aw*that…

Immortal is the rule that…

:ell settled is the rule…

:ell entrenched is the principle that..

Llementary is the rule that..

The cardinal rule in )i.e. labor law* is that It is a familiar canon in )i.e. political law*

that y well settled public law…

asic is the rule in )i.e. 'riminal +aw*…



11

It is an elementary principle in…

It is a fundamental doctrine in… :ell accepted is the rule that…

It is a<iomatic in )i.e. 'i"il +aw* that

Lnshrined in the 1$%& 'onstitution is therule that )i.e. no person shall be depri"edof life# liberty or 6roperty without due

process of law* 'onsonant with the rule on…

It is a recogniGed doctrine in )i.e. 'i"il law*that…

It is a basic tenet in )i.e. 'ommercial +aw*

'onsistent with current Eurisprudence

It is a legal presumption# born of wisdom

and e<perience# that )i.e. o-cial duty hasbeen regularly performedQ that theproceedings of a Eudicial tribunalare regular and "alid and that Eudicial actsand duties ha"e been and will be duly andproperly performed. The burden of pro"ingirregularity in o-cial conduct is on the

part of the petitioners.* It is an oftrepeated rule that…

The 6hilippines adhere to the principle of…

REFERRING BAC TO THECASE (#orr$)+",0 +!$ #+' "+! +!$

)/2&r"'3r&4$,#$-

Pote In my personal opinion# it is not properto use the statements Jin the case at benchKor Jin the case at barK when answering.



12

/lthough I guess it is "ery tempting because it

sounds good and professional to state# Jin thecase at bar0benchK# we must not forget thatthe cases gi"en in the ar are only theoretical.

The statements Jin the case at benchK and Jinthe case at barK are more appropriately usedin pleadings in court. /fter all# you can use thestatements JIn the instant case# In the facts

gi"en# Inthe problem gi"en and In the uestionpresented.K

1. /pplying the said law0doctrine in the instantcase#

2. Crom the facts gi"en# noteworthy isthe …

3. Crom the facts of the case# it isreadily obser"able that…4. In the instant case# it may be

obser"ed that…5. It is crystal clear from the facts

presented that )i.e. the crime of treason* is present )or was

committed*.. In the present case# it isimmediately noticeable that theelement of __________ is wanting )orlac(ing*.

&. Onder the circumstances# theproper remedy would be…

%. The case obtaining indicates acase of )i.e. .6. 22*

$. It logically follows…1,. It goes without saying…



13

1. L"en assuming arguendo# for the

sa(e of argument that…12. The situation in the case at hand…13. The situation presented e"inces a case of…14. The facts su-ciently indicated …15. In the gi"en facts# it is immediately apparentthat…1. It is e"ident that…

1&. In the same to(en…1%. Onder the facts stated in the problem#…1$. In the case under consideration#…2,. :orth stressing is the fact that21. :orth emphasiGing is the fact that22. The facts would re"eal that…23. / careful perusal of the facts of the case would

re"eal that…24. / careful scrutiny of the actuations of theaccused would re"eal that…25. / careful reading of the )i.e. ?eed of /bsoluteFale* would re"eal that…2. / cursory e<amination of the…

ANSWERING IN THE POSITIVE

1. The petition is meritorious.2. The contention has legal basis.3. The case will prosper.4. The argument is proper.5. The pro"ision is perfectly applicable.. The action is tenable.&. The motion should be granted.%. The Hudge is correct.$. The petition is impressed with merit.1,. @es. It is a )i.e. patent "iolation* of the11. There is merit in the petition.



14

12. The petitioner7s contention is

sustainable.

ANSWERING IN THE NEGATIVE

1. The contention does not holdwater.

2. :ith all due respect to the Eudge#

his decision is apparently erroneousor is not in accord with law ande<isting Eurisprudence.

3. The contention is totallymisplaced.

4. It is now too late in the day toraise the issue of…

5. The petition is not meritorious.. The e"idence presented deser"esscant consideration.

&. The contention has no legal basis.%. The argument is bereft of merit.$. The petition is de"oid of merit.1,. 6etitioner7s reliance on the )i.e.

doctrine of…* is inappropriate. Thedoctrine of … does not apply incases where 0 of…

11. It is a futile gesture on the part of the respondent to in"o(e the ruleon…

12. The theory0argument has noground to stand upon.

13. The contention has no leg withwhich to stand on.

14. The position of the petitioner runs counter withthe doctrine of…15. The case will not prosper.



15

1. The case is not tenable.

1&. The act of the accused in… is of no moment.1%. The assertion lac(s substance.1$. The decision is erroneous.2,. The court cannot countenance the )i.e.inconsistent postures of the petitioner*21. The testimony that…# cannot be gi"encredence.

22. The e"idence presented has no probati"e"alue.23. The allegation is belied by the fact that…24. To put it otherwise would be to render the lawon _____________ useless0futile.25. The actuations of the accused in )i.e. Reeingand hiding* negates )i.e. innocence*

2. :hile it is true that _______________ is a )i.e.constitutional guaranteed right of a person*# itdoesnot# howe"er mean…2&. It is not correct to say that…2%. It is not proper to state that…2$. It is not accurate to conclude outright that…

3,. / contrary conclusion would erode the rulethat pro"ides in part that…31. To sustain the contention would be to renderthe law on ____________ nugatory.32. It would be absurd and incongruous to sustainthe argument that…33. It is not enough that…34. The fact that … is immaterial since…35. The fact that … is irrele"ant since…3. In itself# mere …… is not su-cient )i.e. towarrant con"iction*….3&. The petitioner cannot gi"e any additionalmeaning to the clear and plain language of the



1

law.

3%. The Fupreme 'ourt# in se"eral cases# hasstruc( down the )i.e. defense of alibi*3$. The attendant circumstances of the case arecontrary to the petitioner7s assertion.4,. The e"idence does not support the theory of the petitioners.41. There is no cogent reason to disturb the ruling

of the )i.e. 'ourt of /ppeals*42. The claim for )i.e. moral damages* mustnecessarily fail.43. The )i.e. respondent* cannot rely on )i.e. merealibis* to aid his cause.

CONCLUDING WORDS

1. Crom the gamut of e"idence on hand# it can begathered0deduced that#…2. Ta(en all together#…3. Cinally# …4. ence# …

5. Therefore# …. Crom the foregoing# it can be deduced thatthere is really )i.e. a "iolation of…*&. Crom the foregoing# it is now safe to concludethat….%. +astly# …$. 'onseuently#…1,. /s a necessary conseuence…11. The logical implication is that…12. /t any rate#…13. In "iew of the foregoing#…14. /s an ine"itable conclusion#…15. In the light of the circumstances#…



1&

1. Ondoubtedly#…

1&. Indubitably#…1%. 'learly# the case at hand falls suarely withinthe pur"iew of…1$. Berily# he0she has committed…2,. Cor this0these reason0s# it is una"oidable toconclude that…21. ased on the facts obtaining#…

22. In this light#…23. This being the case…24. 'learly therefore# applying the aforecitedruling in the case at hand#…

25. In light of the foregoing# it is beyond ca"il)doubt* that#…

2. There is no doubt that…

2&. To the unpreEudiced mind# the actuations of the three# when analyGed and ta(en together#leads to no other conclusion e<cept that )i.e.conspiracy among them e<isted*

2%. Inescapably# therefore#…2$. /ll things considered#…3,. It follows therefore that…31. /s a logical result…32. In sum#..33. In "iew of the fact that…#34. /ll told#…

35. 9i"en the pre"ailing facts…3. a"ing stated the foregoing premises#…3&. Dne ;nal point#…3%. /ccordingly#…



1%

MY PERSONAL ADVICE FOR FUTURE BARCANDIDATES DURING THE REVIEW

/lways pray before and after studying.S Turn o! your cellular phones. )Turn it on onlyduring your brea(*. ost or a signi;cant part of

our time re"iewing is sometimes spent on nonsense )or not so important* te<tingreplyingte<tingreplying. There is a time for e"erything.ut when you re"iew# a"oid interruptions. 'ellularphone# belie"e me# is one of the maEorinterruptions. /lthough it is hard# why not sacri;cea little for the sa(e of being a lawyer.S elie"e in

yourself. If you will not# then who do you e<pectwould belie"e in you. )Tip from Fir ubut 'ayco*S'hoose a study buddy if you want. ut sometimesit is better that you do not ha"e one. ore studybuddies# more interruptions )more (wento*.:ithout you (nowing it# Jtapos na araw orFeptember naK. S efore starting your re"iew# be

sure that the tension has already subsided.)Fpeci;cally starting the month of Huly whentensions really soars high for most ar candidates*ear in mind that we can comprehend more if weare in a rela<ed state of mind.

S Fet your own pace. ?o not compare your pace

with others )li(e as(ing others# Jilang reading (anaK* This is not a rat race. Uualityreading)studying0re"iewing actually* is what isneeded. ar does not dwell on the amount of pages0boo(s you ha"e read# it is more of howmuch you ha"e mastered.



1$

S ?o not memoriGe without comprehending. :hen

mental bloc( occurs# you cannot recall e"en asingle thing. oreo"er# in applying the law in agi"en theoretical case problem# for sure you canhardly answer the same if you ha"e memoriGedwithout understanding.

S ?o not highlight the entire re"iewer . Fometimes#

the problem with highlighting is that it becomesour security blan(et that we ha"e readand understood what we ha"e read. ut moreoften# we ha"e not.S :hen you ha"e a uery orsome matters in mind that needs clari;cation# Eustwrite it in a piece of paper# pag marami na# as( itto a professor you belie"e is competent in that

;eld. ?on7t as( your cobarristers. It might onlyend in a debate and waste of time# when noreliable answer is concluded. Aemember# time isprecious during the prebar re"iew.S Fet one day for recreations alone. It couldreEu"enate your energy and create hunger forre"iew the following day.S /ttend to the needs of

your entire being. 6hysically#mentally# emotionally and spiritually. This will alsohelp you a"oid being e<hausted in the re"iew.S

Ta(e "itamins and ta(e your meals on time.

BEFORE THE BAR EXAM PROPER

S a(e sure you ha"e enough and complete sleep./ well rested mind can answer and articulatebetter.



2,

S 6rayS Ae"iew the material you personally belie"e is agood last minute tip for you.

S 'ompose yourself# your mind# heart and spirit.Cocus on the e<am alone and not on the fear of failing. Ftop or reduce your tension. Tension is

normal# as long as it is at a moderate le"el. /fterall# you will already be ta(ing the bar# no turningbac(. Fo might as well do your best. /nd you canonly perform well if you are in a composed mindand heart. )I suggest you close your eyes. Inhalethen e<hale as you count one to ten. It might help*

S oost your con;dence by telling yourself J:alang )your surname* na di magaling.K Dr tellyourself J:hat (ind of celebration will I do if I topor at least pass the barK at least you might laugh(ahit (abado

DURING THE BAR EXAM PROPER

S I suggest that before answering# formulate onyour mind what will be placed on your ;rst#second and third paragraphs. The ;rst paragraphnormally contains a onesentence direct to the

point answer to the uestion. Thesecond paragraph commonly contains legal basis)pro"ision of law in point# Eurisprudence# corelation of the Eurisprudence0pro"ision with thefacts of the case and application*.Third paragraph



21

normally contains the conclusion. :hen you are

already decided of your answer# write it accordingto your thoughts. In this approach# you willnot only be a"oiding unnecessary re"isions anderasures# you will also maintain the cleanliness of your boo(let. ear in mind that# a dirty boo(let isirritating to the eyes of the person chec(ing thesame.

S /llocate the time depending on the number of uestions.

S /nswer each uestion one at a time. Cocus onone uestion before thin(ing or bothering yourself of the succeeding uestions.

S ?o not stay in a number for so long. +ea"e atleast a sheet for a 5point uestion. 9o to the ne<tnumber if you do not (now the answer. If I amnot mista(en# more than one )1* bar candidatehad not succeeded because of stoc(ing himself 0herself in an item he0she does not (now theanswer of. /s a necessary result# he0she failed to

;nish the e<am. /s one of my friends told me# JPomatter how grossly wrong your answer may be# donot e"er lea"e an item unanswered. alay mo#may points for the e!ort0in( .Midding aside# ablan( sheet will surely get an automatic , point.Fo better answer all.K

S ?on7t blame yourself or don7t panic if you failedto answer an item or two. It7s perfectly normal.:hat is abnormal is if you failed to answeruestions that you (now the answer of Eustbecause you bothered0blamed yourself so much



22

on the items you don7t (now. In short# if you failed

to ;nish the e<am.S /s my professor /tty. Crancis Fababan told usbefore# Jmga bata# a"oid passing your boo(let tooearly. The time allocated for each subEect may betoo much# but it must be used wisely to )1* writelegibly# )2* compose your answers properly# )3*a"oid erasures# )4* obser"e proper margin# and )5*

re"iew your answers. /fter all there are no priGesfor early ;nishers.K

AFTER A BAR SUBJECT (OR ENTIRE BAREXAM-

S ?o not discuss answers. It is futile because theboo(lets had already been submitted and it couldgreatly a!ect your performance for theremaining subEects. If your noble reason on as(ingabout the answers is for you to (now the same# Isuggest that you wait until the e<am results ha"ebeen already released. Cor selfpreser"ation

reasons# for sure you will be an<ious and fearful if you would disco"er that you ha"e incurred )Eustfor e<ample* 1, mista(es.

IMPORTANT REMINDER IN ANSWERING

If you are so sure of the answer, you can

directly answer yes or no. But if you are just guessing or not so sure of the answer, youbetter start citing law provisionsand jurisprudence rst.



23

+ogic behind If you answer yes or no and ithappened to be wrong# chances are# you will getan automatic VLAD ),* for that item. Thee<aminer might not read your answer anymore.'ome to thin( of it# it would be a waste of his timereading e<planation of a wrong answer. esides#there are so many boo(lets to chec(. Dn the other

hand# if you cite the law pro"isions and Eurisprudence ;rst# e"en though your yes or noanswer placed in the last paragraph0sentence iswrong# you might get some credit. )The e<aminermight say# Jmay alam tong batang to#nalito langK*. Cinally# at least# the e<aminer hasread all your answer and e<planation

before grading you for that item.

CARDINAL RULES IN TAING THE BAR. ?o not forget your test permits# Fupreme 'ourtcolor coded Identi;cation card# and otherpertinent documents0things as reuired in

the letter coming from the F' allowing you to ta(ethe ar.. ring a watch with you to (eep you updated ofthe time left.. Pe"er be tempted to cheat.. Meep your focus.. 'arefully read and comprehend the instructions

and uestions.. /nswer one at a time.. /nswer straight to the point. e responsi"e tothe uestion. /nswer only what is beingas(ed. Though it is tempting to showcase your(nowledge# do not o"erelaborate.



24

. /"oid erasures.

. ?o not hurry at the e<pense of substance )andreadability* of your answers.. +ea"e a space before starting a new paragraph.. Ae"iew your answers. Fcan your boo(let beforesubmitting the same. e sure you ha"e not leftany uestion unanswered.. ring e<tra sign0fountain pens.

. Dbser"e proper margin.

DISCLAIMER555

This is only a guide material and will not andcannot assure anyone of passing or e"en toppingthe /A. :hat is assured only is that it will greatly

facilitate the candidates7 presentation of his0heranswers.

WWX9D D ? +O'MN N N WW

6718 BAR EXAMS QUESTIONS ANDALTERNATIVE

ANSWERS IN REMEDIAL LAW

I. Ludong# Balatong# and Labong were charged with

murder. /fter trial# the court announced that thecase was considered submitted for decision.Fubseuently# the 'ler( of 'ourt issued thenotices of promulgation of Eudgment which wereduly recei"ed. Dn promulgation day# Ludong and



25

his lawyer appeared. The lawyers

of Balatong and Labong appeared but without theirclients and failed to satisfactorily e<plain theirabsence when ueried by the court. Thus# the

Eudge ordered the 'ler( of 'ourt to proceed withthe reading of the Eudgment con"icting all theaccused. :ith respect to Balatong and Labong#the Eudge ordered that the Eudgment be entered in

the criminal doc(et and copies be furnished theirlawyers. The lawyers of Ludong#Balatong#and Labong ;led within the reglementary period a

Hoint otion for Aeconsideration. The courtfa"orably granted the motionof Ludong downgrading his con"iction frommurder to homicide but denied the motion as

regards Balatong andLabong. (89-(A- :as the court correct in ta(ing cogniGance of the Hoint otion for Aeconsideration No, the court was not correct intaking cognizance of the Joint otion for !econsideration. "nder the !ules of #ri$inal

%rocedure, if the judg$ent is for convictionand the failure of the accused to appear waswithout justiable cause, the accused shall lose the available re$edies. &owever, theaccused $ay surrender within '( days fro$ pro$ulgation of the judg$ent and le a$otion for leave of court to avail of there$edies. &ere, Balatong and )abong neither appeared during the pro$ulgation of their judg$ent, presented a justiable cause nor surrender within the '(*day period, losingall the available re$edies provided in the



2

!ules. &ence, the court has e+ceeded its

jurisdiction when it allowed the Joint otionfor !econsideration. (B- 'an Balatong and Labong appeal theircon"iction in case Ludong accepts his con"ictionfor homicide No, Balatong and )abong cannot appeal their conviction in case )udong

accepts his conviction. "nder the !ules of #ri$inal %rocedure, when an accused fails to appear during the pro$ulgation of the judg$ent of conviction without justiable cause, he losesall available re$edies in the !ules includingthe re$edy of appeal.

&ence, Balatong and )abong arenot allowed by the !ules to appeal their conviction.

II. McJolly is a troublema(er of sorts# always gettinginto brushes with the law. In one incident# he

dro"e his um"ee rec(lessly# hitting a pedicabwhich sent its river and passengers in di!erentdirections. The pedicab driver died# while two )2*of the passengers su!ered slight physical inEuries.

Two )2* Informations were then ;ledagainst McJolly . Dne# for Reckless ImprudenceResulting in Homicide and Damage to Property #and two# for Reckless Imprudence Resulting inSlight Physical Inuries. The latter case wasscheduled for arraignment earlier# on whichoccasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. ewas meted out the penalty of public censure. /month later# the case for rec(less imprudence



2&

resulting in homicide was also set for arraignment.

Instead of pleading# McJolly interposed thedefense of double Eeopardy. Aesol"e. (89-

cJolly $ay not uash the infor$ation onthe ground of double jeopardy.

-ettled is the doctrine that prior conviction

or acuittal of reckless i$prudence bars thesubseuent prosecution for the sa$e uasi*oense regardless of its various resultingacts/ otherwise, prosecution of the second uasi*oense would place the accused indouble jeopardy. In such a case, the accused $ay $ove to uash the infor$ation for the

second uasi*oense.

&ence, cJolly $ay $ove to uash theinfor$ation for !eckless I$prudence!esulting in &o$icide on the ground of double jeopardy.

III.

:hile passing by a dar( uninhabited part of their barangay # P!" #sintado obser"ed shadowsand heard screams from a distance. P!"

#sintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw aman beating a woman whom he recogniGed as hisneighbor# $ulasa. :hen $ulasa was already inagony# the man stabbed her and she fell on theground. The man hurriedly left thereafter. P!"

#sintado immediately went to $ulasa7srescue. $ulasa# who was then in a state of hysteria# (ept mentioning to P!" #sintado JSi



2%

Rene% gusto akong patayin& Sinaksak niya ako&K

:hen P!" #sintado was about to carryher# $ulasa refused and said J$aya ko' Mababa(lang to' Habulin mo si Rene') The following day# Rene learned of $ulasa7s deathand# bothered by his conscience# surrendered tothe authorities with his counsel. /s his surrenderwas broadcasted all o"er media# Rene opted to

release his statement to the press which goes JI belie"e that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is pro"en beyondreasonable doubt. /lthough I admit that Iperformed acts that may ta(e one7s life away# Ihope and pray that Eustice will be ser"ed the rightway. 9od bless us all. )Fgd.* AeneK

The trial court con"icted Rene of homicide on thebasis of P!" #sintado7stestimony#$ulasa*s statements# and Rene7sstatement to the press. Dn appeal# Rene raisesthe following errors 1. The trial court erred in gi"ing weight to P!"

#sintado*s testimony# as the latter did not ha"eany personal (nowledge of the facts in issue# and"iolated Rene7s right to due process when itconsidered $ulasa7s statements despite lac( of opportunity for her crosse<amination.2. The trial court erred in holding that Rene7sstatement to the press was a confession which#

standing alone# would be su-cient to warrantcon"iction. Aesol"e. (89- !ene0s contentions have no legsto stand on. "nder the !ules of 1vidence,testi$onies based on personal knowledge



2$

and part of res gestae are given probative

value to convict the accused. %ersonal knowledge pertains to a witness0 testi$ony derived fro$ is own perception of thecri$inal acts, while part of res gestae whishis an e+ception to the hearsay rule pertainsto a state$ent $ade by a victi$ before,during or i$$ediately after the co$$ission

of a cri$e by the accused. 2n the other hand, confessions to be taken as $itigatingcircu$stance $ust be $ade with theacknowledg$ent of the confessant0s guilt. &ere, %23 4sintado0s testi$onieswere based on personal knowledge as well as a part of res gestae, hence su5cient to

convict !ene. 2n the other hand, the pressrelease cannot be considered as aconfession absent !ene0s acknowledg$ent of guilt. &ence, !ene0s contentions should be denied.

IV.

/n order of the court reuiring a retroacti"e redating of an order# Eudgment or document ;ling beentered or recorded in a Eudgment is (19- (A- pro hac vice(B- non pro tunc(C- con+ession relicta veri,catione(D- nolle prose-ui B

V.



3,

Landlord# a resident of UueGon 'ity# entered intoa lease contract with .enant # a resident of ari(ina 'ity# o"er a residential house in +as 6iYas'ity. The lease contract pro"ided# among others#for a monthly rental of 625#,,,.,,# plus tenpercent )1,Z* interest rate in case of nonpayment on its due date.

Fubseuently# Landlord migrated to the OnitedFtates of /merica )/S#* but granted in fa"or of hissister Maria# a special power of attorney tomanage the property and ;le and defend suitso"er the property rented outto .enant . .enant failed to pay the rentals due for;"e )5* months.

Maria as(s your legal ad"ice on how she cane<peditiously collect from .enant the unpaidrentals plus interests due. (:9- (A- :hat Eudicial remedy would you recommendto Maria %ursuant to the !ules on #ivil %rocedure, I would reco$$end to aria to

send the 6enant a de$and for the pay$ent of the rentals plus interests, then le for an"nlawful 7etainer ve days fro$ the6enant0s receipt of the de$and and failureto $ake a pay$ent.(B- :here is the proper "enue of the Eudicialremedy which you recommended 4pplying the !ules of 1ject$ent tothis case, the co$plaint for "nlawful 7etainer shall be led before the unicipal 6rail #ourt 86#9 where the real property involved is situated, hence in )as %inas #ity.



31

(C- If Maria insists on ;ling an eEectment suit

against .enant% when do you rec(on the one )1*year period within which to ;le the action "nder !ule :; of the !ules of #ivil %rocedure, the one*year period is reckoned fro$ the date of de$and and failure to $akea pay$ent.

VI. /s a rule# courts may not grant an application forpro"isional remedy without complying with thereuirements of notice and hearing. Thesereuirements# howe"er# may be dispensed with inan application for (19- (A- writ of preliminary inEunction

(B- writ for preliminary attachment(C- an order granting support pendente lite(D- a writ of reple"in 7

VII. 0o Batong# a Taipan# ;led a ci"il action fordamages with the Aegional Trial 'ourt )R.0* of

6araYaue 'ity against Jose Penduko# a newsreporter of the 6hilippine Times# a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in6araYaue 'ity. The complaint alleged# amongothers# that Jose Penduko wrote malicious anddefamatory imputations against 0o BatongQthat 0o Batong7s business address is in a(ati'ityQ and that the libelous article was ;rst printedand published in 6araYaue 'ity. The complaintprayed that Jose Penduko be held liable to pay62,,#,,,.,,# as moral damagesQ 615,#,,,.,,# ase<emplary damagesQ and 65,#,,,.,,# asattorney7s fees.



32

Jose Penduko ;led a otion to ?ismiss on the

following grounds 1. The AT' is without Eurisdiction because underthe Totality Aule# the claim for damages in theamount of 635,#,,,.,, fall within the e<clusi"eoriginal Eurisdiction of the etropolitan Trial 'ourt)Me.0* of 6araYaue 'ity.2. The "enue is improperly laid because what the

complaint alleged is 0o Batong7s business addressand not his residence address. /re the grounds in"o(ed in the otion to ?ismissproper (89- No, the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and i$proper venue invoked inthe otion to 7is$iss are not proper.

-ettled is the rule that in cases where theclai$ for da$ages is the $ain action, t he clai$ co$prises all kinds of da$ages,including attorney0s fees. 2n the other hand, the venue for the co$plaint for

da$ages arising fro$ )ibel is the !6# of the province where the libelous $aterial was published.

&ere, the total jurisdictional a$ount of clai$ for da$ages including attorney0s feesfalls within the jurisdiction of the !6#, and the libelous $aterial was published in%aranaue #ity. &ence, the case was properly led in the !6# of %aranaue #ity.

VIII.



33

Johnny # a naturaliGed citiGen of the Onited Ftates

of /merica )/S#* but formerly a Cilipino citiGen#e<ecuted a notarial will in accordance with thelaws of the Ftate of 'alifornia# OF/. Johnny # at thetime of his death# was sur"i"ed by hisniece #nastacia# an /merican citiGen residing atthe condominium unit of Johnny located at Cortonifacio# Taguig 'ityQ a younger

brother# Bartolome# who manages Johnny*s ;shpond in +ingayen# 6angasinanQ and a youngersister# 0hristina# who manages Johnny*srentalcondominium units in a(ati 'ity. Johnny*s entireestate which he inherited from his parents is"alued at 62,,million. Johnny appointed #nastacia as e<ecutri<

of his will. (89- (A- 'an Johnny 7s notarial will be probated beforethe proper court in the 6hilippines <es, Johnny0s notarial will can be probated before the proper court in the %hilippines.

"nder the !uled of -pecial %roceedings, awill of a non*resident alien who left anestate in the %hilippines $ay be probated before the !6# of the province or city wherethe estate is located. &ere, the testator Johnny was a non*resident alien who left so$e estates in the6aguig #ity, akati #ity, and %angasinan.&ence, his will can be probated before the!6# of any of these cities and province inthe %hilippines.



34

(B- Is #nastacia uali;ed to be the e<ecutri<

of Johnny 7s notarial will <es, 4nastacia is ualied to be thee+ecutri+ of Johnny0s notarial will. "nder the !ules of -pecial %roceedings, any

e+ecutor na$ed in a will and who is not inco$petent=$inor, non*resident, or unt

to e+ecute the trust=is ualied to serve ase+ecutor or e+ecutri+. &ere, 4nastaciais the person na$ed in thewill/ she is not inco$petent to serve. &ence, 4nastacia is ualieid to be the e+ecutri+ of Johnny0s will.

IX.

Bayani# an o"erseas wor(er based in ?ubai#issued in fa"or of #gente# a special power of attorney to sell his house and lot. #gente was ableto sell the property but failed to remit the

proceeds to Bayani# as agreed upon. Dn his returnto the 6hilippines# Bayani# by way of a demandletter duly recei"ed by #gente# sought to reco"erthe amount due him. #gente failed to return theamount as he had used it for the construction of his own house. Thus# Bayani ;led an actionagainst #gente for sum of money withdamages. Bayani subseuently ;led an e12

parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment duly supported by ana-da"it. The court granted the e12parte motionand issued a writ of preliminary attachment



35

uponBayani7s posting of the reuired

bond. Bayani prayed that the court7s sheri! be deputiGed to ser"e and implement the writ of attachment. Dn Po"ember 1$# 2,13# the Fheri! ser"ed upon #gente the writ of attachment andle"ied on the latter7s house and lot. Dn Po"ember2,# 2,13# the Fheri! ser"ed on #gente summonsand a copy of the complaint. Dn Po"ember 22#

2,13# #gente ;led an #ns(er (ith Motion toDischarge the 3rit o+ #ttachment alleging that atthe time the writ of preliminary attachment wasissued# he has not been ser"ed with summonsand# therefore# it was improperly issued. (89- (A- Is #gente correct <es, 4gente is correct in $oving

for the discharge of the writ of attach$ent. "nder the !ules of #ri$inal %rocedure, the party whose property hasbeen ordered attached $ay le a $otion todischarge the attach$ent on the ground that the writ was i$properly enforced, suchas when the rule on prior or

conte$poraneous service of su$$ons wasnot observed. &ere, the writ of attach$ent wasenforced prior to instead of subseuent or conte$poraneous with the service of su$$ons upon the defendant 4gente.&ence, the writ of attach$ent should bedischarged on the ground of i$proper enforce$ent of the writ of attach$ent.(B- :as the writ of preliminary attachmentproperly e<ecuted No, the writ of preli$inary attach$ent was not properly e+ecuted.



3

%ursuant to the !ules on #ivil

%rocedure, no levy on attach$ent shall beenforced unless it is preceded or conte$poraneous ly acco$panied by serviceof su$$ons together with a copy of theco$plaint. &ere, the writ of preli$inary attach$ent

was served and levied prior to the service of su$$ons with a copy of the co$plaint.&ence, the writ was i$properly e+ecuted.

X.

Prince 0hong entered into a lease contract

with $ing $ong o"er a commercial building wherethe former conducted his hardware business. Thelease contract stipulated# among others# amonthly rental of 65,#,,,.,, for a four )4*yearperiod commencing on Hanuary 1# 2,1,. Dn

Hanuary 1# 2,13# Prince 0hong died. $in Il0hong was appointed administrator of the estate

of Prince 0hong# but the former failed to pay therentals for the months of Hanuary to Hune 2,13despite $ing $ong*s written demands. Thus# on

Huly 1# 2,13# $ing $ong ;led with the Aegional Trial'ourt )R.0* an action for rescission of contractwith damages and payment of accrued rentals asof Hune 3,# 2,13. (89- (A- 'an $in Il 0hong mo"e to dismiss thecomplaint on the ground that the AT' is without

Eurisdiction since the amount claimed is only63,,#,,,.,,



3&

No, >in Il #hong cannot $ove to

dis$iss the co$plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. -ettled is the rule in #ivil %rocedure that an action for specic perfor$ance and da$ages is incapable of pecuniary esti$ation that falls under the jurisdiction of the !6#.

&ere, the action is for specic perfor$ance and da$ages which isincapable of pecuniary esti$ation. 6hus, theco$plaint falls suarely within the jurisdiction of the !6#, rendering the $otionto dis$iss without $erit.(B- If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of

6rince 'hong# and Ming Mong also ;led thecomplaint for sum of money during that time# willthe action be dismissible upon 6rince 'hong7sdeath during the pendency of the case <es, the co$plaint will bedis$issible if it is for su$ of $oney only inthe a$ount of %?;;,;;;.

6he -upre$e #ourt has held several ti$es that the totality of the a$ount clai$ed is deter$inative of what court has jurisdiction/ where the total a$ount of theclai$ is only %?;;,;;;, the jurisdiction iswith the 6#. &ence, the $otion to dis$iss onthe ground of lack of jurisdiction will beuntenable insofar as the total a$ount of theclai$ is %?;;,;;;.XI. / search warrant was issued for the purpose of loo(ing for unlicensed ;rearms in the house



3%

of #ss2asin# a notorious gun for hire. :hen the

police ser"ed the warrant# they also sought theassistance of barangay tanods who were assignedto loo( at other portions of the premises aroundthe house. In a nipa hut thirty )3,* meters awayfrom the house of #ss2asin# a barangay tanod came upon a (ilo of mariEuana that waswrapped in newsprint. e too( it and this was later

used by the authorities to charge #ss2asin withillegal possession of mariEuana. #ss2asin obEectedto the introduction of such e"idence claiming thatit was illegally seiGed. Is the obEectionof #ssasin "alid(89- <es, the objection of 4ss*asin isvalid.

It is basic hornbook doctrine in#ri$inal %rocedure that articles that areseized illegally are inad$issible in evidence,based on the constitutional guideline that articles to be seized should be particularly described in the search warrant. &ere, the kilo of $arijuana seized

was not particularly described in the searchwarrant. 6herefore, the seized kilo of $arijuana is inad$issible in evidence, and the objection is valid.

XII. Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitmentagency where they both applied for o"erseasemployment. They e<changed pleasantries#including details of their personal circumstances.Cortunately# Mary Jane was deployed to wor( asfront des( receptionist at a hotel in /bu ?habiwhere she met Sultan #hmed who proposed



3$

marriage# to which she readily accepted.

Onfortunately for Shiela May # she was notdeployed to wor( abroad# and this made heren"ious of Mary Jane. Mary Jane returned to the 6hilippines to preparefor her wedding. Fhe secured from the PationalFtatistics D-ce )4S!* a 'erti;cate of Po arriage.It turned out from the PFD records that Mary

Jane had pre"iously contracted marriage with JohnStarr # a ritish citiGen# which she ne"er did. Thepurported marriage between Mary Jane and JohnStarr contained all the reuired pertinent detailson Mary Jane. Mary Jane later on learnedthat Shiela May is the best friend of John Starr ./s a lawyer# Mary Jane see(s your ad"ice on her

predicament. :hat legal remedy will you a"ail toenable Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan #hmed (89- I will advise ary Jane to avail of !ule ';@ to cancel the fake certicate of $arriage. "nder the !ules of -pecial

%roceedings, any interested party $ay lefor the cancellation of entry of $arriagebefore the !6# in the province where thecorresponding civil registry is located. 6he-upre$e #ourt has held that there is noneed to le a petition for declaration of nullity of $arriage since there was no$arriage to speak of in the rst place. &ence, ary Jane should le a petition for the cancellation of entry of $arriage before the !6# of the provincewhere the local civil registry is located.



4,

XIII.

/ foreign dog trained to sni! dangerous drugsfrom pac(ages# was hired by 5DP 0orporation# adoor to door forwarder company# to sni! pac(agesin their depot at the international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of pac(ages waiting tobe sent to the Onited Ftates of /merica )/S#*#

the dog sat beside one of the pac(ages# a signalthat the pac(age contained dangerous drugs.

Thereafter# the guards opened the pac(age andfound two )2* (ilograms of cocaine. The o(ner of the pac(age was arrested and charges were ;ledagainst him. ?uring the trial# the prosecution#through the trainer who was present during the

incident and an e<pert in this (ind of ;eld#testi;ed that the dog was highly trained to sni! pac(ages to determine if the contents weredangerous drugs and the sni-ng techniue of these highly trained dogs was accepted worldwideand had been successful in dangerous drugsoperations. The prosecution mo"ed to admit this

e"idence to Eustify the opening of the pac(age. The accused obEected on the grounds that )i* theguards had no personal (nowledge of the contentsof the pac(age before it was openedQ )ii* thetestimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsayQ and)iii* the accused could not crosse<amine the dog.?ecide.(89- 6he seized dangerous drugs aread$issible in evidence against the owner of the package. Aell*entrenched is the doctrinethat articles seized during an airport searchis an e+ception to the rule on illegal



41

searches and therefore ad$issible in

evidence. &ere, the dangerous drugs wereseized in an airport search setting. 1rgo,such articles are ad$issible in evidenceagainst the owner of the package where thearticles were seized.

XIV. :hen a unicipal Trial 'ourt )M.0*# pursuant toits delegated Eurisdiction# renders an ad"erse

Eudgment in an application for land registration#the aggrie"ed party7s remedy is (19- (A- ordinary appeal to the Aegional Trial 'ourt(B- petition for re"iew on certiorari to the

Fupreme 'ourt(C- ordinary appeal to the 'ourt of /ppeals(D- petition for re"iew to the 'ourt of /ppeals #

XV. The Dmbudsman# after conducting the reuisitepreliminary in"estigation# found probable cause to

charge 6ov' Matigas in conspiracy with 0arpintero#a pri"ate indi"idual# for "iolating Fection 3)e* of Aepublic /ct )R#* Po. 3,1$ ) #nti26ra+t and 0orrupt Practices #ct # as amended*. efore theinformation could be ;led with theFandiganbayan# 6ov' Matigas was (illed in anambush. This# notwithstanding# an informationwas ;led against 6ov' Matigas and 0arpintero. /t the Fandiganbayan# 0arpintero throughcounsel# ;led a otion to Uuash the Information#on the ground of lac( of Eurisdiction of theFandiganbayan# arguing that with the deathof 6ov' Matigas# there is no public o-cer charged



42

in the information. Is the motion to uash legally

tenable (89- No, the $otion to uash is not legally tenable. "nder the !ules of #ri$inal %rocedure, the -andiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual whoconspired with a public o5cial in co$$itting

any of the prohibited acts under !4 ?;'. &ence, the -andiganbayan can prosecute #arpintero for the cri$inal acts heco$$itted under !4 ?;' notwithstandingthe death of his co*conspirator publico5cial, rendering the $otion to uashwithout $erit.

XVI. Plainti7 ;led a complaint denominated as accion

publiciana# against de+endant . In hisanswer# de+endant alleged that he had no interesto"er the land in uestion# e<cept as lesseeof 8 . Plainti7 subseuently ;led an a-da"it of 8 #the lessor of de+endant # stating that 8 had sold

to plainti7 all his rights and interests in theproperty as shown by a deed of transfer attachedto the a-da"it. Thus# plainti7 may as( the court torender (19- (A- summary Eudgment(B- Eudgment on the pleadings(C- partial Eudgment(D- Eudgment by default 4

XVII. # was charged before the Fandiganbayan with acrime of plunder# a nonbailable o!ense# wherethe court had already issued a warrant for his



43

arrest. :ithout # being arrested# his lawyer ;led

a Motion to 9uash #rrest 3arrant and to 5i1 Bail#arguing that the allegations in the information didnot charge the crime of plunder but a crime of mal"ersation# a bailable o!ense. The court deniedthe motion on the ground that it had not yetacuired Eurisdiction o"er the person of theaccused and that the accused should be under the

custody of the court since the crime charged wasnonbailable The accused7s lawyer counterarguedthat the court can rule on the motion e"en if theaccused was atlarge because it had Eurisdictiono"er the subEect matter of the case. /ccording tosaid lawyer# there was no need for the accused tobe under the custody of the court because what

was ;led was a Motion to 9uash #rrest and to 5i1 Bail# not aPetition +or Bail. (A- If you are the Fandiganbayan# how will yourule on the motion (;9- I will deny the $otion to uash and + bail. 6he !ules of #ri$inal %rocedure is

clear that a $otion to uash can be availed of only when a ground or grounds set therein are available as when the factscharged do not constitute an oense.oreover, an application for bail sets in only when the accused has already acuired custody of the accused. &ere, the infor$ation charges anoense which is the nonbailable cri$e of plunder. Besides, the warrant of arrest hasyet to be led, $eaning that 4 is not yet under the custody of the court. 6herefore,



44

the $otion to uash and + bail has no basis

hence should be denied. (B- If the Fandiganbayan denies the motion# what

Eudicial remedy should the accusedunderta(e (69- If the -andiganbayan denies the$otion, the accused should proceed to trial. "nder the !ules of #ri$inal

%rocedure, an order denying a $otion touash is an interlocutory order which isneither appealable nor subject to a petitionfor certiorari. 6herefore, the re$edy of theaccused is to proceed to trial, await its judg$ent, then appeal an unfavorable

judg$ent.

XVIII. # was charged with murder in the lower court.is Petition +or Bail was denied after a summaryhearing on the ground that the prosecution hadestablished a strong e"idence of guilt. Po Motion

+or Reconsideration was ;led from the denial of thePetition +or Bail. ?uring the reception of thee"idence of the accused# the accused reiteratedhis petition for bail on the ground that thewitnesses so far presented by the accused hadshown that no ualifying aggra"atingcircumstance attended the (illing. The courtdenied the petition on the grounds that it hadalready ruled that )i* the e"idence of guilt isstrongQ )ii* the resolution for the Petition +or Bail issolely based on the e"idence presented by theprosecutionQ and )iii* no otion for



45

Aeconsideration was ;led from the denial of

the Petition +or Bail. (:9- (A- If you are the Hudge# how will you resol"e theincident I will deny the petition for bail. Basic is the hornbook doctrinethat bail is not a $atter of right nor discretion when the oense charged is

punishable by reclusion perpetua and theevidence of guilt is strong. &ere, the oense charged is non*bailable, and the prosecution hasestablished a strong evidence of 40s guilt.6hus, 4 is not entitled to bail. (B- Fuppose the accused is con"icted of the

crime of homicide and the accused ;led a Poticeof /ppeal# is he entitled to bail No, 4 is not entitled to bail even pending appeal. 6he standing rule is that if the penalty i$posed by the trial court isi$prison$ent e+ceeding si+ years, the

application for bail pending appeal shall bedenied. &ere, the i$posable penalty for ho$icide to which 4 has been convicted isi$prison$ent e+ceeding si+ years, and hence not entitled to bail pending appeal. XIX. / "icarious admission is considered an e<ceptionto the hearsay rule. It# howe"er# does notco"er (19- (A- admission by a conspirator(B- admission by a pri"y



4

(C- Eudicial admission

(D- adopti"e admission # XX. .om 3allis ;led with the Aegional Trial 'ourt)R.0* a 6etition for ?eclaration of Pullity of hismarriage with Debi 3allis on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. efore ;ling

the petition# .om 3allis had told Debi 3allis thathe wanted the annulment of their marriagebecause he was already fed up with her irrationaland eccentric beha"iour. owe"er# in the petitionfor declaration of nullity of marriage# the correctresidential address of Debi 3allis was deliberatelynot alleged and instead# the residential address of

their married son was stated. Fummons wasser"ed by substituted ser"ice at the addressstated in the petition. Cor failure to ;le ananswer#Debi 3allis was declared inde+ault and .om 3allis presented e"idence e12

parte. The AT' rendered Eudgment declaring themarriage null and "oid on the ground of

psychological incapacity of Debi 3allis. Three )3*years after the AT' Eudgment was rendered# Debi3allis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted toha"e the AT' Eudgment re"ersed and set aside. If you are the lawyer of Debi 3allis# what Eudicialremedy or remedies will you ta(e ?iscuss andspecify the ground or grounds for said remedy orremedies. (<9- I will le for annul$ent of judg$ent on the ground of e+trinsic fraud. "nder !ule C: of the !ules of #ivil %rocedure, a petition for annul$ent of judg$ent on the ground of e+trinsic fraud



4&

$ay be led with the #ourt of 4ppeals

within four years fro$ the discovery of thee+trinsic fraud, when the other re$edies areno longer available. &ere, the other re$edies are nolonger available insofar as three years had lapsed since the pro$ulgation of the judg$ent, leaving 7ebi with annul$ent of

judg$ent as the re$aining availablere$edy. &ence, the ling of a petition for annul$ent of judg$ent on the ground of e+trinsic fraud shall be properly taken.

XXI. 6ood+eather 0orporation# through its 6resident# #l

Pakino# ;led with the Aegional Trial 'ourt )R.0* acomplaint for speci;c performance against Robert 3hite. Instead of ;ling an answer to thecomplaint# Robert 3hite ;led a motion to dismissthe complaint on the ground of lac( of theappropriate board resolution from the oard of ?irectors of 6ood+eather 0orporation to show the

authority of #l Pakino to represent the corporationand ;le the complaint in its behalf. The AT'granted the motion to dismiss and# accordingly# itordered the dismissal of the complaint. #lPakino ;led a motion for reconsideration which theAT' denied. /s nothing more could be done by #lPakinobefore the AT'# he ;led an appeal beforethe 'ourt of /ppeals )0#*. Robert 3hite mo"ed fordismissal of the appeal on the ground that thesame in"ol"ed purely a uestion of law and shouldha"e been ;led with the Fupreme 'ourt )S0*.owe"er# #l Pakino claimed that the appealin"ol"ed mi<ed uestions of fact and law because



4%

there must be a factual determination if#

indeed# #l Pakino was duly authoriGedby6ood+eather 0orporation to ;le the complaint.:hose position is correct L<plain.(89- 4l %arkino0s position is correct. %ursuant to the !ules of #ivil %rocedure, appeals involving uestions of law and of fact shall be led with the #ourt

of 4ppeals. 6he appeal in this case involvesdeter$ination of the authority of 4l %arkinoto le a co$plaint which is a uestion of fact. &ence, the appeal should properly bewith the #ourt of 4ppeals.

XXII. :hich of the following decisions may be appealeddirectly to the Fupreme 'ourt )S0* )/ssume thatthe issues to be raised on appeal in"ol"e purelyuestions of law*(19- (A- ?ecision of the Aegional Trial 'ourt )R.0*rendered in the e<ercise of its appellate

Eurisdiction(B- ?ecision of the AT' rendered in the e<ercise of its original Eurisdiction(C- ?ecision of the 'i"il Fer"ice 'ommission(D- ?ecision of the D-ce of the 6resident B

XXIII. Mr' Humpty ;led with the Aegional Trial 'ourt)R.0* a complaint against Ms' Dumpty fordamages. The AT'# after due proceedings#rendered a decision granting the complaint andordering Ms' Dumpty to pay damages to Mr'Humpty . Ms' Dumpty timely ;led an appeal before



4$

the 'ourt of /ppeals )0#*# uestioning the AT'

decision. eanwhile# the AT' granted Mr'Humpty*s motion for e<ecution pending appeal.Opon receipt of the AT'7s order granting e<ecutionpending appeal# Ms' Dumpty ;led with the '/another case# this time a special ci"il actionfor certiorari assailing said AT' order. Is there a"iolation of the rule against forum shopping

considering that two )2* actions emanating fromthe same case with the AT' were ;led by Ms'Dumpty with the '/ L<plain. (89- No, there is no violation of the ruleagainst foru$ shopping. 6he settled rule in #ivil %rocedureis that foru$ shopping applies only when

what is led are co$plaints or initiatory pleadings. &ere, the appeal and petition for certiorari are neither co$plaints nor initiatory pleadings. 6hus, the proscriptionagainst foru$ shopping does not apply.

XXIV. Solomon and 5aith got married in 2,,5. In2,1,# Solomon contracted a second marriagewith Hope. :hen 5aith found out about the secondmarriage of Solomon andHope# she ;led a criminalcase for bigamy before the Aegional Trial 'ourt)R.0* of anila sometime in 2,11.eanwhile# Solomon ;led a petition for declarationof nullity of his ;rst marriage with 5aith in 2,12#while the case for bigamy before the AT' of anilais ongoing. Fubseuently# Solomon ;led a motionto suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case onthe ground of preEudicial uestion. e asserts that



5,

the proceedings in the criminal case should be

suspended because if his ;rst marriagewith 5aith will be declared null and "oid# it willha"e the e!ect of e<culpating him from the crimeof bigamy. ?ecide. (89- 6he $otion to suspend the proceeding in the case for biga$y should bedenied.

6he established rule in #ri$inal %rocedure is that prejudicial uestion e+istswhen a civil action has been led prior to acri$inal action, and the resolution of thecivil action is deter$inative of whether thecri$inal action should proceed. oreover,the cri$e of biga$y is co$$itted by the

$ere contracting of a second $arriageduring the subsistence of a rst $arriagewith a dierent spouse notwithstanding thevoidness of the previous of subseuent $arriage. &ere, the civil action for thedeclaration of nullity of $arriage was led

not prior but subseuent to the cri$inal case for biga$y. I$portantly, -olo$on had contracted a second $arriage during thesubsistence of his rst $arriage withanother spouse. &ence, there e+ists no prejudicial uestion that $erits thesuspension of the cri$inal prosecution for biga$y.

XXV.

Mr' Boa: ;led an action for eEectment against Mr' Jachin before the etropolitan Trial 'ourt



51

)Me.0*. Mr' Jachin acti"ely participated in e"ery

stage of the proceedings (nowing fully well thatthe eT' had no Eurisdiction o"er the action. In hismind# Mr' Jachin was thin(ing that if the eT'rendered Eudgment against him# he could alwaysraise the issue on the Eurisdiction of the eT'./fter trial# the eT' rendered Eudgmentagainst Mr' Jachin. :hat is the remedy of Mr'

Jachin (19- (A- Cile an appeal(B- Cile an action for nulli;cation of Eudgment(C- Cile a motion for reconsideration(D- Cile a petition for certiorari under Aule 5 B

XXVI.

6arole e"idence is an (19- (A- agreement not included in the document(B- oral agreement not included in the document(C- agreement included in the document(D- oral agreement included in the document 4

XXVII.

Mr' #venger ;led with the Aegional Trial 'ourt)R.0* a complaint against Ms' Bright for annulmentof deed of sale and other documents. Ms'Bright ;led a motion to dismiss the complaint onthe ground of lac( of cause of action. Mr'

#venger ;led an opposition to the motion todismiss. Ftate and discuss the appropriateremedy0remedies under each of the followingsituations (:9- (A- If the AT' grants Ms' Bright 7s motion todismiss and dismisses the complaint on the



52

ground of lac( of cause of action# what will be the

remedy0remedies of Mr' #venger r. 4venger can re*le the case pursuant to !ule 'D of the !ules of #ivil %rocedure. (B- If the AT' denies Ms' Bright 7s motion todismiss# what will be her remedy0remedies 4pplying !ule 'D, s. Bright can

le an answer within the balance of the period but not less than ( days, or le a petition for certiorari under !ule D( predicated on a grave abuse of discretiona$ounting to lack or in e+cess of jurisdiction. (C- If the AT' denies Ms' Bright 7s motion to

dismiss and# further proceedings# including trial onthe merits# are conducted until the AT' renders adecision in fa"or of Mr' #venger # what will be theremedy0remedies of Ms' Bright s. Bright can le for a $otion for reconsideration and in case of the denial thereof to le an appeal fro$ te judg$ent or

nal order, likewise pursuant to !ule 'D. XXVIII.

# was adopted by B and 0 when # was only atoddler. +ater on in life# # ;led with the Aegional

Trial 'ourt )R.0* a petition for change of nameunder Aule 1,3 of the Aules of 'ourt# as hewanted to reassume the surname of his naturalparents because the surname of his adopti"eparents sounded o!ensi"e and was seriouslya!ecting his business and social life. The adopti"eparents ga"e their consent to the petition for



53

change of name. ay # ;le a petition for change

of name If the AT' grants the petition for changeof name# what# if any# will be the e!ect on therespecti"e relations of # with his adopti"e parentsand with his natural parents ?iscuss. (89- <es, 4 $ay le a petition for change of na$e. "nder the !ules of -u$$ary

%roceedings, a petition for change of na$e8surna$e9 $ay be led with the !6# on thegrounds that the na$e is ridiculous,dishonorable or e+tre$ely di5cult to writeor pronounce, and the change is a legal conseuence of adoption. &ence, 4 $ay le a petition for

change of na$e insofar as the grounds areavailable to hi$.

XXIX.

;strella was the registered owner of a huge parcelof land located in a remote part of

their barrio in Benguet . owe"er# when she "isitedthe property after she too( a long "acationabroad# she was surprised to see that herchildhood friend# John# had established a "acationhouse on her property. oth ;strella and John wereresidents of the same barangay . To reco"er possession# ;strella ;led a complaintfor eEectment with the unicipal Trial 'ourt )M.0*#alleging that she is the true owner of the land ase"idenced by her certi;cate of title and ta<declaration which showed the assessed "alue of the property as 621#,,,.,,. Dn the otherhand# John refuted ;strella*s claim of ownership



54

and submitted in e"idence a ?eed of /bsolute

Fale between him and ;strella. /fter the ;lingof John7s answer# the T' obser"ed that the realissue was one of ownership and not of possession.ence# the T' dismissed the complaint for lac(of Eurisdiction. Dn appeal by ;strella to the Aegional Trial 'ourt)R.0*# a fullblown trial was conducted as if the

case was originally ;led with it. The AT' reasonedthat based on the assessed "alue of the property#it was the court of proper Eurisdiction. L"entually#the AT' rendered a Eudgment declaring John as theowner of the land and# hence# entitled to thepossession thereof. (89- (A- :as the T' correct in dismissing the

complaint for lac( of Eurisdiction :hy or why not No, the 6# was not correct indis$issing the co$plaint for lack of jurisdiction. "nder the !ules on 1ject$ent, theaction for eject$ent is within the e+clusiveand original jurisdiction of the 6#

irrespective of total a$ount of the clai$s. &ence, it was erroneous for the6# to dis$iss the co$plaint for eject$ent as it falls properly within its jurisdiction.8B9 :as the AT' correct in ruling that based onthe assessed "alue of the property# the case waswithin its original Eurisdiction and# hence# it mayconduct a fullblown trial of the appealed case asif it was originally ;led with it :hy or why not No, the !6# ruling based on theassessed value is not correct. 6he -upre$e #ourt in applyingthe !ules has held that what deter$ines



55

jurisdiction of the court as conferred by law

is the nature of the action pleaded asappearing fro$ the allegations in theco$plaint. 6he aver$ents therein and thecharacter of the relief sought are the onesto be consulted. &ere, the jurisdiction over eject$ent cases is conferred by law

e+clusively and originally upon the 6#.Necessarily, the nature of the action isalleged by the facts in the co$plaint herein.&ence, the !6# should have re$anded thecase to the 6# since it is the latter that has jurisdiction over the case.

=ooo7ooo=

SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE CASE DOCTRINES. D$*,"+"o,

Camily 'ode# Title BIIIAr+. 1>8.Fupport comprises e"erything indispensable forsustenance# dwelling# clothing# medicalattendance# education and transportation# in(eeping with the ;nancial capacity of the family. The

education of the person entitled to be supportedreferred to in the preceding paragraph shallinclude his schooling or training for someprofession# trade or "ocation# e"en beyond theage of maEority. Transportation shall include



5

e<penses in going to and from school# or to and

from place of wor(. A33)"#+"o,

=9.A. Po. 43&$4. /ugust $# 1$35.>

6/ALPT /P? 'I+?Q FO66DAT DC 'I+? :I+LIF 'IBI+ FT/TOF IF IP+ITI9/TIDP. WIn the present case the action for support isbrought by a minor# through his guardian ad lite#who alleges that he is the son of the petitionerQtherefore it is necessary for him to pro"e his ci"il

status as such son . is alleged ci"il status beingin litigation# it is e"ident +!+ ,o+!",0 #, ?$+@$, or 0r,+$4 &3o, +!$ 3o",+ ","''&$. There "' ,o ) or r$'o, !"#!&+!or"$' +!$ 0r,+",0 o '&33or+ to a personwho claims to be a son in the same manner as toa person who establishes by legal proof that he is

such son.

I, +!$ )++$r #'$ )$0) $"4$,#$ r"'$' 3r$'&3+"o, o ) !")$ ", +!$ or$r+!$r$ "' ,o 3r$'&3+"o, # there is nothing but amere allegation# a fact in issue# and a simple factin issue must not be confounded with anestablished right recogniGed by a ;nal Eudgment. Theci"il status of sonship being denied and this ci"ilstatus# from which the right to support is deri"ed#being in issue# "+ "' 33r$,+ +!+ ,o $$#+ #,?$ 0"$, +o '&#! #)" &,+") ,&+!or"++"$ 4$#)r+"o, !' ?$$, 4$ '



5&

+o +!$ $"'+$,#$ o +!$ #&'$. It is also e"ident

that there is a substantial di!erence between thecapacity of a person after the rendition of a ;nal

Eudgment in which that person is declared to be inpossession of the status of a son and his capacityprior to such time when nothing e<ists other thathis suit or claim to be declared in possession of such a status. c.

@angco Bs Ahode =9.A. Po. $$ . Dctober 13#1$,2.> /AAI/9L /P? ?IBDA'LQ /+IDP@Q 6ADIITIDP. W:here the ,'$r +o #o3)",+ ))$0",0

rr"0$ ,4 3r",0 or 4"or#$ 4$,"$'+!$ #+ o rr"0$# the court e<ceeds its

Eurisdiction in granting alimony# and theenforcement of an order granting it will berestrained by the writ of prohibition. The right of awife to support 4$3$,4' &3o, !$r '++&' ''&#!# and where the e<istence of the status is put

in issue by the pleading it can not be presumed toe<ist for the purpose of granting alimony.

'ouia Bs altaGar =9.A. Po. +2$42. ?ecember2$# 1$4$.>

The action in the present case was not for supportbut for the reco"ery of the ownership andpossession of real property. anifestly such anaction is not the proper action contemplated byAule 3 of the Aules of 'ourt. The mere fact thatthe plainti!s ha"e legal and euitable rights in theproperty they see(s to reco"er )U .L. ?.* does not



5%

authoriGe the court to compel the defendants to

support the plainti!s pending the determination of the suit. Billanue"a Bs Billanue"a =9.A. Po. 2$$5$.?ecember 3# 1$2$.> OF/P? /P? :ICLQ IPCI?L+IT@ DC OF/P?Q

FL6/A/TL /IPTLP/P'LCDA :ICL. WIn order to entitle a wife to maintain a separatehome and to reuire separate maintenance fromher husband# "+ "' ,o+ ,$#$''r +!+ +!$!&'?,4 '!o&)4 ?r",0 #o,#&?",$ ",+o +!$r"+) 4o"#")$. R$3$+$4 "))"#"+ r$)+"o,'

"+! o$, o&+'"4$ o +!$ r"+)$'+?)"'!$,+ r$ $,o&0!. The law is not sounreasonable as to reuire a wife to li"e in maritalrelations with a husband whose propensitytowards other women ma(es common habitationwith him unbearable.

agoma Bs acadaeg =9.A. Po. +5153.?ecember 1,# 1$51.> OF/P? /P? :ICLQ /+IDP@ 6LP?LPTL +ITLQ/?O+TLA@ /F ?LCLPFLQOF/P?[F AI9T TD6ALFLPT LBI?LP'L DP /?O+TLA@# LCDALDA?LA DC/+IDP@ 6LP?LPTL +ITL. Wusband has not been gi"en an opportunity toadduce e"idence of the defenses he has set upagainst the motion for support pendente lite#among which is adultery. /fter the wife hadpresented her e"idence and before the hearing on



5$

the motion was completed# the trial Eudge ordered

payment of alimony pendente lite. There isnothing to show that the husband has resorted todilatory tactics in the presentation of his e"idence.

&eld

There is no other alternati"e than to remand this

case to the lower court inorder that immediatesteps may be ta(en r$)+"$ +o +!$ r$#$3+"o, o !&'?,4' $"4$,#$ ",'&33or+ o !"'o33o'"+"o, +o +!$ 0r,+ o '&33or+ pendente lite

)FancheG "s. Vulueta# %6hil.# 112*.g.

Aamos Bs '/ =9.A. Po. +31%$&. Hune 3,#1$&2.>ALL?I/+ +/:Q 6ADBIFIDP/+ ALL?ILFQFO66DAT 6LP?LPTL +ITLQ '/FL DC@/P9'D?IFTIP9OIFL? CAD IPFT/PT '/FL. W6etitioner[s assertion that support pendente lite

should not ha"e been ordered by the 'ourt of /ppeals# \there ha"ing been neither a recognitionof paternity by the petitioner nor its establishmentby ;nal Eudgment\ is without merit. The case of

@angco "s. Aohde upon which petitioner predicateshis contention is not in point# )"o, pendente lite !",0 ?$$, 0r,+$4 ", +!+#'$ without any evidence o, +!$ '++&' o +!$ 3)",+" ' ))$0$4 "$ o +!$ 4$$,4,+#who had denied such allegation# &,)"@$ ", +!$#'$ + ?r :here evidence relative toliation was introduced and found to be



,

su5cient # although the trial court[s decision is

still pending appeal.

T!$ R&)$' o Co&r+ #)$r) &+!or"$' +!$0r,+",0 o '&33or+ pendente lite $$,3r"or +o +!$ r$,4"+"o, o 2&40$,+ ?+!$ +r") #o&r+.

AI9T TLALTD :LAL TLAL IF HO?9LPT DCCI+I/TIDP /+TDO96LP?IP9 /66L/+. WIt goes without saying that if ?$or$ +!$r$,4"+"o, o 2&40$,++!$ +r") #o&r+ 3ro"'"o,)) 0r,+ )"o, pendente lite"+! or$ r$'o, , 33$))+$ #o&r+

$$r#"'$ '"")r &+!or"+# after a full dresstrial and a decision of the trial court on the merits;nding that the claim of ;liation and support hasbeen adeuatelypro"en in the case at bar# beyonddoubt e"en if such decision were still pendingappealta(en by the party adEudged to be bound togi"e such support. PDT /CCL'TL? @ ALCOF/+ DC

TAI/+ 'DOAT TD 9A/PT FO' FO66DAT. Therefusal of the trial court to grant said alimonypendente lite 4"4 ,o+ ,4 #,,o+ 4$3r"$ +!$33$))+$ #o&r+ o '"4 &+!or"+# or $$, 4$,++!$ "'4o o +!$ #+"o, +@$, ? +!$ )++$r#considering that the former did not gi"e anyplausible reason for it saforementi refusal and thatthe same may ha"e# in fact# been due to theappeal ta(en by the defendant#whose record onappeal had already been appro"ed. 9A/PT

TLALDC :ITDOT ALUOIAIP9 DP?. W



1

The grant to the minors who had merely as(ed \a

monthly support of 6&5.,, for each child#\ or615,.,, a month for both #and# through theirmother# had o!ered to ;le a bond Wof the aggregate sum of 64#&2&.5,# "+!o&+r$%&"r",0 ?o,4 +!$r$or$# 4"4 ,o+#o,'+"+&+$ 0r$ ?&'$ o 4"'#r$+"o,

amounting to e<cess of Eurisdiction# in the light of the circumstances surrounding the case and fromthe e"idence presented in the case from which thetrial court did not entertain doubt that the childrenCernando and +orraine# both surnamed +agos# arethe result of the illicit relationship betweenpetitioner and respondent Celisa +agos.

6DBLAT@ DC IPDAF HOFTIC@ FO66DAT 6LP?LPTL+ITL. WIn the present #'$ "+"' ,o+ 4"'3&+$4 that one of the plainti!s was born on /ugust 2&# 1$3 and theother on Hune21# 1$5. Dn the date of the

contested resolution# they were# therefore# and 4years of age #respecti"ely. T!$ ",or' r$ ,o #therefore# around $ and & years old# respecti"ely#or of school age. In addition thereto# they ha"ebeen litigating since Feptember 5# 1$5# oralmostse"en )&* years# ,4 +!$ 4$#"'"o, ", +!$"ror "' '+")) 3$,4",0 33$).

6araphrasing9arcia "s. 'ourt of /ppeals# thecircumstances obtaining in the present casesuggest that this is an ",'+,#$ !$r$ ", "$ o +!$ 3o$r+ o !$r$", 3r"+$r$'3o,4$,+' "+ o&)4 ?$ +r$'+ o



2

2&'+"#$ +o r$&'$ +!$ '&33or+ &,+") +!$

4$#"'"o, o +!$ +r") 2&40$ "' '&'+",$4 o,33$)..

angonon Bs '/ =9.A. Po. 125,41. Hune 3,#2,,.>

Onder this pro"ision# a court may temporarilygrant support pendente lite 3r"or +o +!$r$,4"+"o, o 2&40$,+ or *,) order. ecauseof its 3ro"'"o,) ,+&r$# #o&r+ 4o$' ,o+,$$4 +o 4$)$ &)) ",+o +!$ $r"+' o +!$#'$ ?$or$ "+ #, '$++)$ , 33)"#+"o, or+!"' r$)"$. /ll that a court is tas(ed to do is

determine the (ind and amount of e"idence whichmay su-ce to enable it to Eustly resol"e theapplication. It is enough that the facts beestablished by a-da"its or other documentarye"idence appearing in the record. /fter thehearings conducted on this matter as well as thee"idence presented# we ;nd that petitioner was

able to establish# ? pri$a facie 3roo # the*)"+"o,' o !$r +", 4&0!+$r' to pri"aterespondents and the twins[ entitlement to supportpendente lite.

S&33or+ ", Cr"",) C'$' R$'+"+&+"o,i.



3

Faa"edra Bs @baneG Lstrada =9.A. Po.

33&$5. Feptember 4# 1$31.>

The 4"'"'') o , #+"o, has the necessarye!ect of ?ro0+",0 any interlocutoryorderintended to be operati"e e<clusi"ely duringthe pendency of the litigation. /n action wasbrought by a wife against her husband for

maintenance of herself and children# and in thisaction an order was made for the payment of a;<ed monthly stipend pendente lite ?&+ +!$#+"o, ' '&?'$%&$,+) 4"'"''$4o)&,+r") ? +!$ "$. eld that# in '&?'$%&$,+ #+"o, ?ro&0!+ or +!$ '$3&r3o'$ as the ;rst# the husband could not be

held liable for nonpayment of the maintenancepro"ided in the order pendente lite# as anadEudicated right. / "$ "' $,+"+)$4 +o r$#o$rro !$r !&'?,4 compensation for paraphernalproperty which she has applied to the support of herself and children# during the period when theirmaintenance was not paid out of the conEugal

property by the husband. In an #+"o, or",+$,,#$ +!$ #o&r+ r$&'$4 +o 0r,+ ,",2&,#+"o, against the husband to pre"ent himfrom alienating the conEugal property without theconsent of the courtQ but there being anappreciable danger that an attempt to alienate thesame might be made in fraud of the wife and herchildren# the court directed that the obligation topay maintenance should be annotated in theproperty register as a lien upon such property.

FL'DP? ?IBIFIDP



4

G.R. No. 1<17:K M 61 6778

BENITO C. SALAAR petitioner#"s.HON. TOMAS R. ROMAQUIN ", !"' #3#"+' Pr$'"4",0 J&40$ o Br. 6 o +!$ R$0"o,)Tr") Co&r+ o )"?o A@), THE PEOPLE OFTHE PHILIPPINES r$3r$'$,+$4 ? ALANPROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR HON. LOURDESQUIMPOMAYOR HEIRS OF RAYMUNDORODRIGUE ,4 JODEL B.RENTILLOrespondents.

ALFD+OTIDP

CALLEJO SR. J.E

This is a petition for re"iew of the Aesolution1 of the 'ourt of /ppeals in '/9.A. F6 Po. &252denying due course and dismissing the petition forcertiorari of petitioner enito 'orteG FalaGar# on

the ground that he ser"ed a copy of his petition onthe respondent 6eople of the 6hilippines# throughthe 6ro"incial 6rosecutor# and not through theD-ce of the Folicitor 9eneralQ and# the resolutionof the appellate court denying the petitioner7smotion for reconsideration of the said resolution.

T!$ A,+$#$4$,+'

Dn ay 12# 2,,1# the 6ro"incial 6rosecutor of /(lan ;led an Information in the Aegional Trial



5

'ourt of Malibo# /(lan# charging the petitioner with

murder. The accusatory portion reads

That on or about %3, o7cloc( inthe morning of /pril 2# 2,,1# inarangay ?umaguit# unicipalityof Pew :ashington# 6ro"ince of /(lan# Aepublic of the 6hilippines#and within the Eurisdiction of thisonorable 'ourt# the abo"enamed accused# armed with agun# with treachery and use of superior strength# with intent to(ill and without any Eusti;ablecause# did then and there willfully#

unlawfully and feloniously attac(#assault and shoot one A/@OP?DAD?AI9OLV# hitting the latter onthe di!erent parts of his bodywhich caused his instantaneousdeath. ero<ed copy of the 6ostortem L<amination is hereto

attached as /nne< \/\ and madean integral part of thisinformation.

y reason of the unlawful acts of the accused# the family of the"ictim su!ered 61,,#,,,.,, actual

damages.

'DPTA/A@ TD +/:.2



The 6ro"incial 6rosecutor recommended no bail in

this case# doc(eted as 'riminal 'ase Po. ,,2.

arely three hours after ;ling the Information# the6ro"incial 6rosecutor ;led an Orgent L<Parte otion for Issuance of :arrant of /rrest inthe said case alleging# inter alia% that

There is an urgent need for theissuance of :arrant of /rrestagainst the accused as the li"es of some people are in dangerconsidering that the moti"e ispolitical and with the election dayon ay 14# 2,,1# there is anurgent need to protect the publicfrom anymore bloodshed and aswrongly or intentionally design bythe accused# if the moti"e isin;delity# to protect the life of herwife# Poli arie FalaGar# who isresiding on the same address in?umaguit# Pew :ashington#/(lan.3

Dn ay 12# 2,,1# L<ecuti"e Hudge Fheilaartelino'ortes issued an Drder granting themotion.4 Dn the same day# the trial court issued awarrant for the petitioner7s arrest.5 owe"er# thepetitioner was nowhere to be found# and as such#the police o-cers failed to ser"e the warrant onhim. The case was later ra]ed to ranch 2 of thecourt# presided by Hudge Tomas A. Aomauin.



&

Dn ay 15# 2,,1# the petitioner recei"ed a copy of

the Hoint Aesolution of the In"estigating 6rosecutor;nding probable cause for murder against himwhich formed the basis for the ;ling of theInformation.

Dn ay 1# 2,,1# the petitioner ;led in the AT' anOrgent otion to Fuspend 6roceedings and to +ift:arrant of /rrest. The petitioner alleged# inter alia# that he had ;led a petition for re"iew of the

Hoint Aesolution of the In"estigating 6rosecutor;nding probable cause for murder against him inthe D-ce of the Fecretary of Hustice. Thepetitioner cited Aule 112# Fection 4 of the Aules of 'ourt and the ruling of this 'ourt in Roberts% Jr' vs'

0ourt o+ #ppeals% to support his plea for thesuspension of the proceedings. To Eustify hismotion for the lifting of the warrant of arrestissued against him# the petitioner alleged# thus

... e further submits that this motion is inconsonance with his constitutional presumption of innocence and will not preEudice anyone. /ccusedis a person of good moral standing# a member of the bar and an o-cer of the court# a notedbusinessman# and had ser"ed the 6hilippinego"ernment until /pril 2,,1# as 6resident of theCood Terminal# Inc. e is innocent of the charges inthis case and has no intention whatsoe"er to a"oid

the Eurisdiction of the onorable 'ourt and theproceedings in this case.&

The pro"incial prosecutor opposed the motion#contending that the ;ling of a petition for re"iew



%

of the in"estigating prosecutor7s resolution in the

D-ce of the Fecretary of Hustice was not a Eusti;cation for the suspension of the enforcementof the warrant of arrest issued by the court. Thepetitioner# the 6ro"incial 6rosecutor a"erred#cannot rely on the ruling in Roberts% Jr' vs' 0ourt o+

#ppeals% because the facts therein are di!erentfrom those in the case before the court. oreo"er#

the 6ro"incial 6rosecutor a"erred# the petitionerhad not yet been arrestedQ hence# the court hadnot yet acuired Eurisdiction o"er his person. Theprosecution asserted that the petitioner7s ;ling of a motion for the lifting of the warrant of arrestagainst him did not constitute a "oluntaryappearance before the court.

The petitioner ;led on ay 2$# 2,,1 a supplementto his motion# alleging that since L<ecuti"e Hudgeartelino'ortes was the aunt of the wife of thedeceased# it was illegal for her to ha"e acted onthe pro"incial prosecutor7s motion for the issuanceof a warrant of arrest against him# and to

thereafter grant the motion and issue the saidwarrant. ence# according to the petitioner# theL<ecuti"e Hudge was disuali;ed to act on themotion# vi:

4. Cinally# the onorable L<ecuti"e Hudge is related within the ;fth

degree of consanguinity to Bi"ien @. ontogonAodrigueG# wife of thedeceased# Aaymundo AodrigueG.Bi"ien is the daughter of her ;rstcousin /ngela @apontogon# and



$

therefore# a niece of the onorable

L<ecuti"e Hudge. In "iew of thisrelationship# the onorableL<ecuti"e Hudge is disuali;ed tosit in any case or in anyproceedings in"ol"ing the death of Aaymundo AodrigueG. Fhe shouldha"e refused to act on 6rosecutor

ayor7s motion for issuance of thewarrants of arrest.$

The pro"incial prosecutor disagreed with thepetitioner and a"erred in his reply to thesupplement to the petition that the petitionerfailed to pro"e the relationship of the L<ecuti"e

Hudge to the wife of the deceased. e assertedthat the matter of the inhibition of the Eudgeshould ha"e been addressed to her# and that e"enwith her disuali;cation# the warrant of arrest andthe order she issued were "alid.

Dn /ugust 1,# 2,,1# Hudge Tomas A. Aomauin#who presided o"er ranch 2 of the court# issuedan Drder granting the petitioner7s motion tosuspend the proceedings. owe"er# thepetitioner7s motion to lift warrant of arrest wasdenied. The petitioner ;led a motion for partialreconsideration of the order# but the court deniedthe same. The trial court declared that the issues

raised by the petitioner had become moot andacademic since the Fecretary of Hustice haddenied his petition for re"iew and a-rmed the

Eoint resolution of the in"estigating prosecutor;nding probable cause against him.



&,

The petitioner forthwith ;led a petition for

certiorari in the 'ourt of /ppeals on Po"ember 5#2,,1# assailing the orders of the AT'. owe"er#the petitioner failed to submit proof of ser"ice of copies of his petition on the respondent AT'# the6eople of the 6hilippines and Hodel Aentillo.

Dn Po"ember 12# 2,,1# the 'ourt of /ppealsissued a Aesolution denying due course anddismissing the petition# on the ground that thepetitioner failed to show proof of ser"ice of thepetition on the respondents# as mandated by Aule4# Fection 3 in relation to Aules 5 and 13 of the1$$& Aules of 'ourt# as amended.

Dn Po"ember 2,# 2,,1# the 'ourt of /ppealsrecei"ed a anifestation and Fubmission whichthe petitioner ;led through registered mail onPo"ember 5# 2,,1 alleging that# on the latterdate# copies of the petition were ser"ed on therespondents through registered mail# as e"idencedby the a-da"it of ser"ice e<ecuted by ?anilo .Llardo# the messenger in the law o-ce of thepetitioner7s counsel. The petitioner also ;led amotion for reconsideration of the resolution of the'ourt of /ppeals# on the ground that he hadsubstantially complied with the reuirements of the Aules of 'ourt# as amended.

Dn ?ecember 13# 2,,1# the 'ourt of /ppealsissued a Aesolution denying the said motion# onthe ground that the petitioner failed to ser"e acopy of his petition on the Folicitor 9eneral# the



&1

counsel of the respondent 6eople of the

6hilippines.

The Issues

In his petition at bar# the petitioner contends that

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC/66L/+F ?L6/ATL? CAD TLOFO/+ 'DOAFL DC HO?I'I/+6AD'LL?IP9F# /P? ?L'I?L? /UOLFTIDP DC FOFT/P'L IP //PPLA PDT IP /''DA? :ITFL'TIDP 1 DC AO+L # /P?

FL'TIDP 4 DC AO+L 4# DC TLAO+LF DC 'DOAT# /F :L++ /FFL'TIDP 35)1*# '/6TLA 12#

TIT+L III DC DDM IB DC TL/?IPIFTA/TIBL 'D?L DC 1$%&#/P? /66+I'/+L ?L'IFIDPF DC

TL FO6ALL 'DOAT# :LP IT

I9PDAL? TL I6DAT/PT /P?FOFT/PTIBL +L9/+ IFFOLFA/IFL? @ 6LTITIDPLA# /P?ALCOFL? TD FLT /FI?L ITF?IFIFF/+ DC TL \6LTITIDP CDA'LATIDA/AI\ 6LTITIDPLA CI+L?LBLP /CTLA IT CDOP? T/T /'D6@ DC T/T FLABI'L DC TL\6LTITIDP CDA 'LATIDA/AI\ /?LLP /?L O6DP TL6ADBIP'I/+ 6ADFL'OTDA :D/? AL6ALFLPTL? TL 6LD6+LDC TL 6I+I66IPLF IP TL



&2

6AD'LL?IP9F :I' 9/BL AIFL

TD TL 6LTITIDP.1,

The petitioner a"ers that the e<clusi"e authority of the Folicitor 9eneral to represent the 6eople of the6hilippines in the 'ourt of /ppeals and in theFupreme 'ourt under Fection 35)1*# 'hapter 12#

Title III# oo( IB of the 1$%& Ae"ised/dministrati"e 'ode# comes into being only whenthe appellate court has already acuired

Eurisdiction o"er the case which# in turn# ta(esplace only upon the ser"ice on the Ftate of theorder or resolution of the appellate courtindicating its initial action on the petition# or bythe respondent7s "oluntary submission to such

Eurisdiction as pro"ided for in Aule 4# Fection 4 of the Aules of 'ourt# as amended# which reads

FL'. 4. Jurisdiction over the person o+ respondent% ho(ac-uired.W The court shall acuire

Eurisdiction o"er the person of therespondent by the ser"ice on himof its order or resolution indicatingits initial action on the petition orby his "oluntary submission tosuch Eurisdiction.

efore then# the petitioner submits# ser"ice of acopy of his petition on the respondent 6eople of the 6hilippines may be e!ected through the6ro"incial 6rosecutor who appeared as its counselin the trial court# conformably to Aule 13# Fection2 of the Aules of 'ourt# as amended.



&3

T!$ Co&r+' R&)",0

The contention of the petitioner is de"oid of merit.

The authority of the 6ro"incial 6rosecutor toappear for and represent the respondent 6eople of the 6hilippines is con;ned only to the proceedings

before the trial court. This is based on Fection 5#Aule 11, of the Ae"ised Aules of 'riminal6rocedure which pro"ides# vi:

FL'. 5. 3ho must prosecutecriminal actions' W /ll criminalactions commenced by a

complaint or information shall beprosecuted under the directionand control of the prosecutor.owe"er# in unicipal Trial 'ourtsor unicipal 'ircuit Trial 'ourtswhen the prosecutor assignedthereto or to the case is not

a"ailable# the o!ended party# anypeace o-cer# or public o-cercharged with the enforcement of the law "iolated may prosecutethe case. This authority shallcease upon actual inter"ention of the prosecutor or upon ele"ationof the case to the Aegional Trial'ourt.

The pleadings of the accused and copies of theorders or resolutions of the trial court are ser"ed



&4

on the 6eople of the 6hilippines through the

6ro"incial 6rosecutor. owe"er# in appeals beforethe 'ourt of /ppeals and the Fupreme 'ourt either)a* by writ of errorQ )b* "ia petition for re"iewQ )c*on automatic appealQ or# )d* in special ci"il actionswhere the 6eople of the 6hilippines is a party# thegeneral rule is that the D-ce of the Folicitor9eneral is the sole representati"e of the 6eople of

the 6hilippines. This is pro"ided for in Fection 35)1* 'hapter 12# Title III of oo( IB of the 1$%&/dministrati"e 'ode# vi:

)1* Aepresent the 9o"ernment inthe Fupreme 'ourt and the 'ourtof /ppeals in all criminal

proceedingsQ represent the9o"ernment and its o-cers in theFupreme 'ourt# the 'ourt of /ppeals# and all other courts ortribunals in all ci"il actions andspecial proceedings in which the9o"ernment or any o-cer thereof

in his o-cial capacity is a party.

/ copy of the petition in such action must beser"ed on the 6eople of the 6hilippines asmandated by Fection 3# Aule 4 of the Aules of 'ourt# through the D-ce of the Folicitor9eneral.11 The ser"ice of a copy of the petition on

the 6eople of the 6hilippines# through the6ro"incial 6rosecutor would be ine-cacious. Thepetitioner7s failure to ha"e a copy of his petitionser"ed on the respondent# through the !<ce o+ the Solicitor 6eneral# shall be su-cient ground for



&5

the dismissal of the petition as pro"ided in the last

paragraph of Fection 3# Aule 4 of the Aules of 'ourt. Onless and until copies of the petition areduly ser"ed on the respondent# the appellate courthas no other recourse but to dismiss the petition.

The purpose of the ser"ice of a copy of thepetition on the respondent in an original action inthe appellate court prior to the acuisition of

Eurisdiction o"er the person of the respondent is toapprise the latter of the ;ling of the petition andthe a"erments contained therein and# thus# enablethe respondent to ;le any appropriate pleadingthereon e"en before the appellate court can acton the said petition# or to ;le his comment thereon

if so ordered by the appellate court. ut if a copyof the petition is ser"ed on the ProvincialProsecutor who is not authoriGed to represent the6eople of the 6hilippines in the appellate court#any pleading ;led by the said 6rosecutor for and inbehalf of the 6eople of the 6hilippines isunauthoriGed# and may be e<punged from the

records.

Dn the petitioner7s plea that we brush aside hisprocedural lapse and order the appellate court tota(e cogniGance of and act on his petition forcertiorari# we are not persuaded. /s gleaned fromhis petitions in the 'ourt of /ppeals and in this

'ourt# the petitioner contends that the assailedorder of L<ecuti"e Hudge artelino'ortes dateday 12# 2,,1 and the warrant of arrest issued byher are null and "oid# considering that she was theaunt of Bi"ien ontogonAodrigueG# the wife of the



&

deceased Aaymundo AodrigueG# as /ngela

)Orgino* @apontogon# Bi"ien AodrigueG7 mother#is her ;rst cousin. Thus# the L<ecuti"e Hudge wasdisuali;ed to ta(e cogniGance of 'riminal 'asePo. ,,2 and to grant the motion of the pro"incialprosecutor. owe"er# we ha"e re"iewed thepleadings of the parties in the 'ourt of /ppealsand in this 'ourt# and ;nd that the petitioner

failed to adduce preponderant e"idence in the trialcourt to pro"e the said relationship of theL<ecuti"e Hudge to the deceased and the latter7swife# let alone append in his petition in the 'ourtof /ppeals and in this 'ourt# documents to pro"esuch relationship. The barefaced fact that thepro"incial prosecutor or the pri"ate prosecutor did

not speci;cally and categorically deny thepetitioner7s allegations in his supplement to hismotion for reconsideration# that the L<ecuti"e

Hudge and the deceased and his wife are related#did not relie"e the petitioner of his burden topro"e the same with the reuisite uantum of e"idence. Fuch allegation should ha"e been

pro"en during the hearing of the petitioner7smotion to suspend proceedings and to lift thewarrant of arrest# and of his supplement to thesaid motion for reconsideration.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING the petitionis DENIED due course for lac( of merit.

FD DA?LAL?.

Puno=% 9uisumbing==% #ustria2Martine:% and .inga% JJ'% concur.



&&

FL'DP? ?IBIFIDP

A.M. No. RTJ>1;K< J,&r K 1>>K

(or$r) OCA IPI No. >:181RTJ-

RAMON T. ARDOSA complainant#"s. JUDGE LOLITA O. GALLANG ,4 CLER OFCOURT NENITA R. GRIJALDO Br,#! 88R$0"o,) Tr") Co&r+ M,") respondents.

MENDOA J.E

This is a complaint against Hudge +olita D. 9al+ang of the Aegional Trial 'ourt at anila# ranch

44# for gra"e abuse of authority# manifest bias#gross ignorance of the law# (nowingly rendering allunEust Eudgment and gra"e misconduct and /tty.Penita A. 9riEaldo# branch cler( of court# for gra"emisconduct# gross ignorance# disrespect for theAules of 'ourt# malfeasance# and misfeasance inpublic o-ce.

'omplainant was complainant in 'riminal 'asePo. $51455$ for illegal recruitment# which wasassigned to respondent Hudge 9allang. Theprosecutor initially recommended bail for



&%

6%#,,,.,, for the pro"isional release of the

accused but later changed his recommendation to\no bail.\

Dn ?ecember 11# 1$$5# the accused ;led amotion for rein"estigation and prayed that in themeantime issuance of the warrant of arrest beheld in abeyance. It appears# howe"er# that thewarrant had already been issued on that day#although it could not be sewed on the accused)Aene '. Tabia# Auben F. CaEardo# 6er Hurgensen#irger Hurgensen# Hose . Pieto# Ldwin arasigan#Cran(lin Aoger +ee Fun# Aicardo H. Aomulo andAamon LspeEo# of the aers( Tabacalera 'rewing/gency* as they were not at the aers( o-ce on

$,, AomualdeG Ft.# Lrmita# anila.

Opon learning of the issuance of the warrantagainst them# the accused ;led on ?ecember 13#1$$5 an Orgent otion to Aecall the :arrant of /rrest. They alleged that the warrant of arrest hadbeen prematurely issued because they had apending opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest and motion for rein"estigation. The accusedargued that some of them were not o-cers andmembers of the board of the aers( Tabacalerayet when the act being complained of wasallegedly committed. 1

Fince the prosecutor was present and had beenfurnished copy of the motion# the Eudge decided tohear the motion on the same day it was ;led.'omplainant also happened to be in court at thattime to ;le a motion for the issuance of a hold



&$

order and an entry of appearance as pri"ate

prosecutor. e was persuaded by respondent cler(of court# Penita 9riEaldo# to attend the hearing onthe motion.

'omplainant appeared in court but reuested thatthe hearing be reset on another day because hehad not been informed of the hearing norfurnished copies of the motion beforehand. ecited the absence of his counsel. ut Hudge 9allang proceeded with the hearing. 6

Dn ?ecember 14# 1$$5# respondent Eudge grantedthe motion of the accused and recalled thewarrant of arrest# e"en as she ordered arein"estigation of the case.

Dn ?ecember 2,# 1$$5# complainant# as pri"ateprosecutor# mo"ed for a reconsideration of thecourt[s ruling. The hearing on his motion was heldon ?ecember 22# 1$$5. /n order purporting to

ha"e been made on the same day was laterissued# denying complainant[s motion.'omplainant claims that he recei"ed a copy of theolder only on Hanuary 1%# 1$$ despite the factthat he had been as(ing the court for a copy manytimes before. e accuses respondent Eudge of antedating her order to ma(e it appear it hadbeen made shortly after the hearing.

'omplainant also ta(es respondent Eudge to tas(for holding a hearing on the motion of the accusedfor the recall of the warrant of arrest despite the



%,

fact that it was ser"ed only on the day of the

hearing. 'omplainant claims that cler( of court9riEaldo# in collusion with the counsel of theaccused# in"eigled him to attend the hearing.

In their comment# respondents allege that Hudge9allang heard the motion to recall warrant of arrest on ?ecember 13# 1$$5 because of itsurgent character. Fhe points out that anyway thepublic prosecutor had been furnished copy of themotion and was present# as were the counsel forthe accused and the complainant himself.Aespondents further contend that complainantand his counsel ;led a motion for reconsiderationof the order recalling the warrant of arrest without

the conformity of the public prosecutor# who hadcontrol of the prosecution of cases# and thatduring the hearing of his motion complainantmade o!ensi"e gestures at the court for which hiscounsel had to ma(e an apology.

Aespondent Eudge denies she antedated her orderof ?ecember 22# 1$$5 denying complainant[smotion for reconsideration. Fhe claims that sheprepared the order in the afternoon of ?ecember22# 1$$5 but it was released only on Hanuary 3#1$$ because ?ecember 22# 1$$5 was a Cridayand# on the ne<t business day# she went on"acation lea"e. 'opy of the order was sent to

complainant and his counsel by registered mail on Hanuary 3# 1$$# presumably after respondent hadreturned from her "acation. Aespondents claimthat when complainant followed up the resolution



%1

of his motion by phone on Hanuary %# 1$$# he was

told that the order had been sent by mail.

Aespondents deny that they were preEudicedagainst complainant. They claim that anywayrespondent Eudge has inhibited herself from theconsideration of the criminal case and thereshould be no further uestion regarding this case.Dn Hune 1$# 1$$& they informed the 'ourt that thecriminal case against the accused had beendismissed by the Aegional Trial 'ourt of anila#ranch 4$. The dismissal was based on theresolution of the Fecretary of Hustice re"ersing andsetting aside the resolution of the 'ity 6rosecutorof anila and ordering the withdrawal of the

information ;led in court against the accused.

The D-ce of the 'ourt /dministrator ;ndsrespondent Eudge guilty of abuse of discretion inhearing the motion to recall the warrant of arreston the same day the motion was ;led andrecommends that respondent be admonished tobe more circumspect and warned that repetition of the incident would be dealt with more se"erely.:hile holding that the pro"ision of Aule 15# ^4 onthe threeday notice is too basic for respondent

Eudge not to (now# the D'/ nonetheless ;ndsrespondent Eudge[s liability somewhat mitigatedby the fact that notice of the motion was at least

gi"en to complainant. Thus# ?eputy 'ourt/dministrator Aeynaldo +. FuareG states in hismemorandum



%2

'omplainant was ne"er

depri"ed of thefundamental rule of dueprocess which reuiresthat a person be accordednotice and an opportunityto be heard. )Aubenecia ".'F'# 244 F'A/ 4,* e

was properly representedby counsels in the personsof 6rosecutors Lrlinda/l"aro and Pestor9onGales. Potice was alsoser"ed to the D-ce of the6rosecutor and both

parties were allowed toargue during the hearingof the motions dated?ecember 13# 1$$5. Thiswill mitigate respondent[sactuation.

:ith respect to respondent cler( of court# the D'/;nds no e"idence to support the charge againsther.

5irst . 'omplainant charges that respondent Eudgeantedated her order denying reconsideration of her pre"ious order recalling the warrant of arrest

by ma(ing it appear that it was made on?ecember 22# 1$$5 when the fact was that in the;rst wee( of Hanuary 1$$# when complainantcalled up the court to inuire about the resolutionof his motion for reconsideration# he was told by



%3

respondent Eudge \to Eust wait.\ /s already stated#

respondent Eudge denies the allegation. Fheclaims that her order was actually prepared on?ecember 22# 1$$5 but it was mailed tocomplainant only on Hanuary 3# 1$$ because shehad gone on lea"e the wee( after ?ecember 22#1$$5.

If the order of ?ecember 22# 1$$5 was reallymade on that day# it is hard to see why a copycould not ha"e been sent to complainant earlier.

The ser"ice of orders and other court processesafter all is the ministerial function of the cler( of court. The fact that the Eudge had to go on lea"ewas not a reason for court employees to wait for

her return. It would therefore appear that theorder was prepared only on Hanuary 3# 1$$ andnot on ?ecember 22# 1$$5 as it purports to ha"ebeen made. e that as it may# we ;nd no delay intile resolution of complainant[s motion. etween?ecember 22# 1$$5 )date of hearing* and Hanuary3# 1$$ )date of mailing of the order* was Eust 12

days.

Second. :e agree with the D-ce of the 'ourt/dministrator that respondent Eudge committed anabuse of discretion in hearing the motion of theaccused on the same day the motion was ;led.Aule 15# ^4 of the former Aules of 'ourt states

4otice. W Potice of amotion shall be ser"ed bythe applicant to all partiesconcerned# at least three



%4

)3* days before the

hearing thereof# togetherwith a copy of the motion#and of any a-da"its andother papersaccompanying it. Thecourt# howe"er# for goodcause may hear a motion

on shorter notice# speciallyon matters which the courtmay dispose of on its own.

Thus# although a motion may be heard on shortnotice )i.e.# less than three days after it is ;led* itmust be for \good cause\ shown. In this case#

respondent Eudge defends her decision to hear themotion of the accused for the recall of the warrantof arrest on the same day it was ;led on theground that anyway the public prosecutor waspresent. This is not a good reason for hearing themotion on short notice. Df course the opposingparty must be ser"ed a copy of the motion. ut

the uestion is whether he was gi"en su-cienttime to prepare for the hearing. That the publicprosecutor was present was a mere happenstance.In fact he as(ed for ;fteen )15* days to commenton the motion to recall the order of arrest againstthe accused because ob"iously he wasunprepared.

Indeed the failure to obser"e the threeday noticerule is not e<cused by the fact that parties happento be present. The only e<cuse for dispensing withit is if the matter to be heard is urgent. In this case



%5

a hearing on the pre"ious motion of the accused

for rein"estigation and their opposition to theissuance of a warrant of arrest was set the ne<tday# ?ecember 14# 1$$5. There is no reason whythe matter could not Eust wait for that hearingduring which respondent could ha"e also heardthe motion to recall the warrant of arrest. /fter all#the grounds for the two motions were

substantially the same. That the accused mightha"e appeared to respondent Eudge to be innocentof the charges# as indeed the case against themwas subseuently dismissed# was no reason forrespondent Eudge to resort to proceduralshortcuts.

.hird. Aespondent Eudge contends thatcomplainant[s motion for reconsideration of theorder of ?ecember 13# 1$$5 recalling the warrantof arrest did not ha"e the conformity of the publicprosecutor. This is another matter# howe"er. Theuestion here is whether respondent Eudgedelayed the dispositions of complainant[s motion

for reconsideration.

oreo"er# complainant# through the pri"ateprosecutor# had been allowed to inter"ene. :hilehis intention was subEect to the super"ision of thepublic prosecutor# it cannot be said that oppositionto the recall of the warrant of arrest was

something the public prosecutor did not li(e. Thefact is that he as(ed for time to oppose or at leastcomment on the motion to recall the warrant of arrest.



%

5ourth. /s already stated# the D'/ ;nds no

e"idence to hold respondent cler( of courtadministrati"ely liable. Indeed# the only act she isaccused of is that of con"incing complainant toattend the hearing of ?ecember 13# 1$$5.'omplainant was not forced to attend the hearingby respondent cler( of court. If he appeared incourt on ?ecember 13# 1$$5 it was because he

had decided to. is decision was "oluntary.

'onsidering the foregoing# as recommended bythe D-ce of the 'ourt /dministrator# the 'ourt;nds respondent Eudge 9OI+T@ of misconduct andhereby AL6AI/P?F her# with warning thatrepetition of the same conduct will be dealt with

more se"erely in the future. The complaint againstrespondent cler( of court is dismissed for lac( of merit.

FD DA?LAL?.

Regalado% Puno and Martine:% JJ'% concur'

CIAFT ?IBIFIDP

G.R. No. 1<;;1 A3r") 16 677:

ARNOLD ALVA 6etitioner#"s.HON. COURT OF APPEALS Aespondent.

? L ' I F I D P



%&

CHICONAARIO J.E

efore us is a petition for re"iewon certiorari under Aule 45 of the Aules of 'ourt#as amended# assailing the twin Aesolutions of the'ourt of /ppeals )'/*# dated 1% Dctober2,,21 and 1$ Cebruary 2,,3#2 respecti"ely# in '/9.A. 'A Po. 24,&&# entitled People o+ thePhilippines v' #rnold #lva'

The '/# in the assailed resolutions# dismissedpetitioner7s appeal of the trial court7s Eudgment of con"iction for failing to post a new bail bond tosecure his pro"isional liberty on appeal.

.he 5acts

The present petition stemmed from anInformation3 charging petitioner with ha"ingcommitted the crime of estafa de;ned under/rticle 315# 6aragraph 2)a* of the Ae"ised 6enal

'ode# alleging as follows

The undersigned accuses /APD+? /+B/ of thecrime of LFT/C/# committed as follows

That in or about and during the period co"eredbetween Dctober 1%# 1$$3 up to ?ecember 1%#1$$3# inclusi"e# in the 'ity of anila# 6hilippines#the said accused# did then and there willfully )sic*#unlawfully and feloniously defraud @OI BLA/P9/y LABLA/ in the following manner# to wit thesaid accused# by means of false manifestation and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_157331_2006.html#fnt1











%%

fraudulent representation which he made to said

@OI BLA/P9/ y LABLA/ to the e!ect that hecould process the latter7s application for O.F. Bisapro"ided she would gi"e the amountof 612,#,,,.,,# and by means of other similardeceit# induced and succeeded in inducing said

@OI BLA/P9/ y LABLA/ to gi"e and deli"er# asin fact she ga"e and deli"ered to said accused the

amount of 612,#,,,.,, on the strength of saidmanifestation and representation said accusedwell (nowing that the same were false and untruefor the reason that the O.F. Bisa is not genuineand were made solely to obtain# as in fact he didobtain the amount of612,#,,,.,, which amountonce in his possession with intent to defraud# he

wilfully )sic*# unlawfully and feloniouslymisappropriated# misapplied and con"erted thesaid amount to his own personal use and bene;t#to the damage and preEudice of the said @OIBLA/P9/ y LABLA/ in the aforesaid amountof 612,#,,,.,,# 6hilippine 'urrency.

'DPTA/A@ TD +/:.

The resultant criminal case was ;led and doc(etedas 'riminal 'ase Po. $5143%,3 and ra]ed to theAegional Trial 'ourt )AT'* of anila# ranch 54#presided by Hudge anuel T. uro.

Dn 5 Feptember 1$$5# the AT' issued a AecallDrder4 of the :arrant of /rrest issued on 1% Huly1$$5 against petitioner in "iew of the appro"al of his bail bond by on. :illiam ayhon# thenL<ecuti"e Hudge of the AT' of anila.





%$

Opon arraignment on & ?ecember 1$$5#

petitioner# duly assisted by counsel#5 pleaded notguilty to the crime charged.

/fter the trial on the merits# in an Drder dated /pril 1$$%# the AT' considered the case submittedfor decision.

Dn 4 ay 1$$$# petitioner7s counsel ;led anOrgent otion to 'ancel 6romulgation& praying forthe resetting of the 5 ay 1$$$ schedule of promulgation of the AT'7s decision to 1& Hune1$$$ in "iew of the fact that said counsel alreadyhad a prior commitment on subEect date. The AT'granted the motion. The promulgation# howe"er#was deferred only until 1$ ay 1$$$.

/ day before the rescheduled date of promulgation# or on 1% ay 1$$$# petitioner7scounsel again mo"ed for the deferment of thepromulgation# due to prior \underta(ings of similar

importance.\%

Dn 1$ ay 1$$$# petitioner and counsel bothfailed to appear in court despite due notice. In hisstead# claiming to be petitioner7s representati"e# acertain Joey Pere: personally deli"ered to the AT'a hand written medical certi;cate$ e<pressing

petitioner7s inability to attend the day7s hearingdue to hypertension.

In response to the aforestated acts of petitionerand counsel# the AT' issued an Drder1, directing
















$,

the promulgation of its decision in absentia and

the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest againstpetitioner for his failure to appear before it despitedue notice.

In its decision dated 25 arch 1$$$#11 the AT'found petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa under/rticle 315# paragraph 2)a* of the Ae"ised 6enal'ode# the decretal part of which reads

:LALCDAL# Eudgment is hereby rendered;nding the accused guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of estafa under /rticle 315# Po.2)a* of the A6' and sentences him to anindeterminate term of imprisonment of nine )$*years and one )1* day as minimum of prisionmayor to se"enteen )1&* years as ma<imumof reclusion temporal in accordance with thepro"isions of /rticle 315# ;rst# and theIndeterminate Fentence +aw# and further for theaccused to return the 612,#,,,.,, to thecomplainant with an interest at the rate of twel"epercent )12Z* compounded annually from Hanuary1# 1$$4 )the amount has been gi"en to theaccused in Dctober and ?ecember 1$$3*.

eanwhile# as appearing in the records of the AT'#immediately following an original duplicate copyof the aforeuoted decision# a documententitled Personal Bail Bond12 dated 21 ay 1$$$issued by ega 6aci;c Insurance 'orporation#seemed to ha"e been ;led before and appro"edby the AT' as e"idenced by the signature of Hudgeuro on the face of said bail bond.13 Cor such










$1

reason# petitioner appeared to ha"e been

admitted to bail anew after his con"iction.

Incongruous to the abo"e inference# howe"er# inan Drder14 dated 25 ay 1$$$# Eudgment wasrendered against Lastern Insurance and Furety'orporation# the bonding company that issuedpetitioner7s original bail bond# in the amountof 61&#,,,.,,# for failure to produce the person of petitioner within the 1, day period earlierpro"ided and to e<plain why the amount of itsunderta(ing should not be forfeited.

In the interregnum# 6olice Fuperintendent AamonClores ?e Hesus# 'hief of :arrant and FubpoenaFection#15manifested to the AT' the return of theune<ecuted :arrant of /rrest issued on 1$ ay1$$$ \for the reason that the address of theaccused )petitioner* is not within our area of responsibility. < < <\ Pe"ertheless# ?e Hesusreassured the AT' that \the name of the accusedwill be included in our list of wanted persons forour future reference.\ L<amination of the recordsof the case re"ealed that petitioner already mo"edout of his address on record without informing theAT'.

Dn 15 Huly 1$$$# hand deli"ered by a certainAemedios 'aneda# petitioner wrote1 the AT'reuesting for a certi;ed photocopy of his e<hibitssubmitted to it during trial.











$2

Dn 21 Huly 1$$$# a Termination of +egal Fer"ices

was ;led by petitioner before the AT' informing itof his decision to terminate the ser"ices of hiscounsel and that he was currently in the processof hiring a new one.

Dn 2 Huly 1$$$#1& petitioner ;led a otion forAeconsideration before the AT'.

In an Drder1% dated 3, /ugust 1$$$# the AT'declined to gi"e due course to said motion forfailure to set it for hearingQ thus# treating it as amere scrap of paper.

Dn 2 Feptember 1$$$# petitioner recei"ed theabo"e Drder. The ne<t day# or on 3 Feptember1$$$# petitioner ;led a Potice of /ppeal1$ beforethe AT'.

In an Drder2, dated 2, Feptember 1$$$# the AT'again declined to gi"e due course to the Potice of

/ppeal# ratiocinating thus

The \Potice of /ppeal\ ;led by accused cannot begi"en due course as it was ;led out of time./lthough accused ;led a \otion forAeconsideration\ dated 23 Huly 1$$$# the 'ourtconsidered it as a mere scrap of paper and was

not acted upon as the same was not set forhearing# hence# it did not stop the reglementaryperiod to ;le appeal.












$3

Dn 25 Po"ember 1$$$# petitioner ;led anew a

motion praying for the AT'7s categorical resolutionof his 23 Huly 1$$$ otion for Aeconsideration.

In an Drder dated & ?ecember 1$$$# the AT'granted the abo"estated motion# the full te<t of which states

The otion to Aesol"e the otion forAeconsideration of the accused# dated Po"ember2,# 1$$$ is granted in the interest of Eustice#considering that the one who prepared the otionfor Aeconsideration appears to be the accusedhimself# who may not appear to be a lawyer andmay not be con"ersant with the rules# amongothers# go"erning motions.

/cting on the said otion for Aeconsiderationitself# same is denied for lac( of merit. The?ecision has e<amined and discussed thee"idence presented and the merits of the case.

ecause of the pendency of the otion forAeconsideration# the appeal is deemed ;led ontime# and the appeal is gi"en due course.

+et the records of the case# together with three )3*copies of the transcripts of stenographic notes be

transmitted to the on. 'ourt of /ppeals.

Dn appeal before the 'ourt of /ppeals# in aAesolution21 dated 1 Dctober 2,,1# the appellatecourt reuired petitioner to show cause why his





$4

appeal should not be dismissed it appearing that

no new bail bond for his pro"isional liberty onappeal had been posted# to wit

'onsidering the arrest warrant issued by the trialcourt against the accused who failed to appear atthe promulgation of the Eudgment# and itappearing from the record that no new bond forhis pro"isional liberty on appeal has been posted#appellant is DA?LAL? to FD: '/OFL within ten)1,* days from notice why his appeal should notbe dismissed outright.

Dn 2$ Dctober 2,,1# petitioner# through newcounsel# ;led a 'ompliance22 essentially statingtherein that

< < < <

3. Opon learning of the course of action ta(en bythe presiding Eudge# and for purposes of appealing

the decision subEect of the instant case# on ay21# 1$$$# accused immediately posted a newbond for his pro"isional liberty. The presiding

Eudge of the lower court# which issued theuestioned decision# duly appro"ed the newbond.>avvphil'net 'erti;ed true copy of the bond ishereto attached as /nne< \3\ and made an

integral part hereofQ

< < < <.





$5

In a Aesolution23 dated 1% Dctober 2,,2# the 'ourt

of /ppeals# nonetheless dismissed the appeal ;ledby petitioner for \appellant7s failure to post a newbond for his pro"isional liberty on appeal despiteour directi"e as contained in our Aesolution datedDctober 1# 2,,1# and in "iew of the fact that hispersonal bail bond posted in the lower court hadalready e<pired# < < <.\

Ondaunted# petitioner ;led a otion forAeconsideration24 thereto see(ing its re"ersal./ccording to petitioner7s counsel# he was of theunderstanding that the \Fhow 'ause\ Aesolutionof 1 Dctober 2,,1 merely sought an e<planation"is"is the absence of a bail bond guaranteeing

petitioner7s pro"isional liberty while his con"ictionwas on appeal. /ll the same# petitioner7s counselmanifested that ega 6aci;c Insurance'orporation# had already e<tended the periodco"ered by its 21 ay 1$$$ bail bond. /ttached tosaid motion was a ond Lndorsement25 e<tendingthe co"erage of the bail bond from 21 ay 1$$$ to

21 ay 2,,3.

/s(ed to comment on the otion forAeconsideration# respondent 6eople of the6hilippines )6eople*# through the D-ce of theFolicitor 9eneral )DF9*# interposed obEections. Inits 'omment#2 respondent 6eople raised two

arguments 1* that \an application for bail canonly be a"ailed of by a person who is in thecustody of the law or otherwise depri"ed of hislibertyQ\ and 2* that \bail on appeal is a matter of











$

discretion when the penalty imposed by the trial

court is imprisonment e<ceeding si< )* years.\

Dn 1$ Cebruary 2,,3# the 'ourt of /ppeals issuedthe second assailed Aesolution#2& disposing of petitioner7s motion as follows

Cinding no merit in appellant7s motion forreconsideration )citation omitted* ;led onPo"ember 12# 2,,2# the same is hereby?LPIL?. W$ 0r$$ "+! +!$ 33$))$$ +!+33$)),+ !' ")$4 +o '&?"+ !"'$) &,4$r+!$ 2&r"'4"#+"o, o +!$ #o&r+ or &,4$r +!$#&'+o4 o +!$ ) '",#$ !"' #o,"#+"o, ",1>>> ,4 +!+ +!$r$ ' ,o )"4 ?") ?o,4", 3)#$ !$, 33$)),+ +oo@ !"' 33$).

:LALCDAL# appellant7s motion forreconsideration is ?LPIL?. =Lmphasis supplied.>

ence# this petition.

The Issues

6etitioner now comes to this 'ourt "ia a petitionfor re"iew on certiorari under Aule 45 of the Aulesof 'ourt alleging the following errors2%

I.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F /F?L'I?L? UOLFTIDPF DC FOFT/P'L IP / :/@







$&

PDT IP /''DA? :IT +/: DA :IT /66+I'/+L

?L'IFIDPF DC TIF DPDA/+L FO6ALL'DOATQ

II.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F /'TL? :IT

9A/BL /OFL DC ?IF'ALTIDP /DOPTIP9 TD+/'M DA L'LFF DC HOAIF?I'TIDP :LP IT?IFIFFL? TL 6LTITIDP ?D'MLTL? /F '/ 9.A.'A PD. 24,&& DP TL 9ADOP? DC /++L9L?C/I+OAL TD 6DFT / PL: DP? CDA 6LTITIDPLA7F6ADBIFIDP/+ +ILAT@ /P? T/T TL 6LAFDP/+/I+ DP? 6DFTL? IP TL +D:LA 'DOAT /?/++L9L?+@ /+AL/?@ L6IAL?Q

III.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F 9A/BL+@LAAL? DA /'TL? :IT 9A/BL /OFL DC?IF'ALTIDP :LP IT ?I? PDT 'DPFI?LA /F

FOFT/PTI/+# TL 'D6+/IP'L CI+L? @ TL6LTITIDPLA :I' FD:L? TL C/'T T/TIP?LL? TLAL :/F / /I+ DP? CI+L? CDA TL6ADBIFIDP/+ +ILAT@ DC TL /''OFL? ?OAIP9

TL 6LP?LP'@ DC TL /66L/+Q

IB.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F 9A/BL+@LAAL? DA /'TL? :IT 9A/BL /OFL DC?IF'ALTIDP :LP IT I9PDAL? TL AL'LPT /I+



$%

DP? LTLPFIDP /TT/'L? TD TL DTIDP CDA

AL'DPFI?LA/TIDP CI+L? @ TL 6LTITIDPLAQ

B.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F 9A/BL+@LAAL? DA /'TL? :IT 9A/BL /OFL DC

?IF'ALTIDP :LP IT AO+L? T/T TL6LTITIDPLA C/I+L? TD FOIT TD TL HOAIF?I'TIDP DC TL 'DOAT DA TD TL 'OFTD?@DC +/: ?LF6ITL TL /I+ DP? 6DFTL? DP /@21# 1$$$Q and

BI.

TL DPDA/+L 'DOAT DC /66L/+F 9A/BL+@LAAL? DA /'TL? :IT 9A/BL /OFL DC?IF'ALTIDP :LP IT AO+L? T/T TLAL :/F PDB/+I? /I+ DP? IP 6+/'L :LP TL 6LTITIDPLA

TDDM IF /66L/+.

The bombardment of errors notwithstanding# onlytwo issues are raised in this petition 1* with thee<ception of the ;fth assignment of error# all si<can be encapsulated in one solitary uestion# thatis# whether or not the 'ourt of /ppeals committedre"ersible error in dismissing the appeal in "iew of petitioner7s alleged failure to post a "alid bail bond

to secure his pro"isional liberty on appealQ and 2*whether or not petitioner failed to submit himself to the Eurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the law despite the posting of the subEect bailbond.



$$

The 'ourt7s Auling

6etitioner faults the appellate court for e<pressing\< < < in its uestioned resolutions that hereinpetitioner did not submit to the Eurisdiction of thecourt or custody of the law# or that there was no"alid bail bond when the appeal was ta(en whenthe records of the case would readily pro"e thecontrary.\2$ In issuing said resolution# petitionerconcludes that the 'ourt of /ppeals made \< < <no careful e<amination of the records < < <.\6etitioner rationaliGes his deduction in thefollowing manner

< < < =T>he records of the case readily re"eals )sic*that se"eral pleadings were ;led by the petitionerbefore the lower court e"en after the promulgationof Eudgment was made. Aight after thepromulgation of the decision in the lower court#herein petitioner went to the court and posted abail bond. If the posting of the bond which wasappro"ed by the same Aegional Trial 'ourt whorendered the decision subEect of appeal is not yeta submission to the Eurisdiction of the court# thenthe respondent on. 'ourt of /ppeals must ha"ebeen thin(ing of another matter beyond thecomprehension of the petitioner and ob"iouslyoutside the matters being contemplated by lawand the Aules of 'ourt.

Lually# petitioner further posits that






1,,

< < < /lthough it is respectfully submitted that an

accused shall be denied bail or his bail shall becancelled if sentenced to an imprisonmente<ceeding si< )* years as pro"ided in Fection 5#Aule 114 of the Aules of 'ourt# Eust the same#there must be a showing by the prosecution withnotice to the accused of the fact that# the accusedis a recidi"ist# has pre"iously escaped from

con;nement# e"aded sentence# has committed ano!ense while under probation# there arecircumstances indicating the probability of Right if released on bail# etc. ut there was none of thesaid instances that may be attributable to hereinpetitioner.3,

Aespondent 6eople# in contrast# counters that \< << =a>lthough a personal bail bond dated ay 21#1$$$ was e<ecuted in fa"or of petitioner by ega6aci;c Insurance 'orporation two days after thepromulgation of the ?ecision# there is nothing onrecord which shows that petitionerhad surrendered# was arrested or otherwise

depri"ed of his liberty after the promulgation of the Eudgment of his con"iction in his absence. < <<.\ To illustrate its point# respondent 6eople citesthe following facts 1* the return of the :arrant of /rrest issued on ay 1$# 1$$$ signed by60Fuperintendent Aamon Clores ?e Hesus# 'hief of :arrant and Fubpoena Fection# which states in

full

Aespectfully returned this une<ecuted :arrant of /rrest for the reason that the address of theaccused is not within our area of responsibility.





1,1

Curther reuest that the warrant of /rrest be

forwarded to the 6olice Ftation which has Hurisdiction o"er the address of the accused.

owe"er# the name of the accused will beincluded in our list of wanted persons for ourfuture reference.

2* the fact that si< days after the decision of theAT' was promulgated# or on 25 ay 1$$$# saidcourt rendered Eudgment against the bail bondissued by Lastern /ssurance and Furety'orporation e<ecuted to secure petitioner7spro"isional liberty during the trial# for thebondsman7s failure to produce petitioner beforethe court# to wit

In "iew of the failure of Lastern Insurance ` Furety'orporation# bondsman of herein accused# toproduce the herein accused within the periodgranted it by this 'ourt# Eudgment is hereby

rendered against said bond in the amount of Fe"enteen Thousand )61&#,,,.,,* 6esos.31

Aespondent 6eople e<plains that the ;rst two factsma(e it improbable to conclude that there e<isteda "alid bail bond securing petitioner7s pro"isionalliberty e"en after con"iction. Ftated in another

way# petitioner7s admission to bail presumes thatthe latter surrendered# was arrested or he hadotherwise submitted himself under the custody of the law.





1,2

/nd# 3* \that petitioner belatedly attached a bond

endorsement to his motion for reconsiderationdated Po"ember &# 2,,2 submitted before the'ourt of /ppeals# purportedly to e<tend thee<pired personal bond dated ay 21# 1$$$ < < <#did not automatically confer on petitioner thebene;ts of an e!ecti"e bail bond#\32 as petitionermade no e<tension of the pre"ious personal bond

before the same e<pired.

:e disagree in petitioner7s assertionsQ hence# thepetition must fail.

/ de;niti"e disposition of the issue relating to thee<istence and "alidity of petitioner7s bail bond onappeal presupposes that the latter was allowed bylaw to post bail notwithstanding the AT'7s

Eudgment of con"iction and the imposition of thepenalty of imprisonment for an indeterminateperiod of nine )$* years and one )1* day asminimum of prision mayor to se"enteen )1&* yearsas ma<imum of reclusion temporal.

Fection 5 of Aule 114 of the 1$$4 Aules of 'ourt#as amended# intrinsically addresses the foregoingprefatory matter "iG

FL'. 5. ail# when discretionary. X Opon con"iction

by the Aegional Trial 'ourt of an o!ense notpunishable by death# reclusion perpetua or lifeimprisonment# the court# onapplication# may admit the accused to bail.






1,3

The court# in its discretion# may allow the accused

to continue on pro"isional liberty under the samebail bond during the period to appeal subEect tothe consent of the bondsman.

If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonmente<ceeding si< )* years# but not more than twenty)2,* years# the accused shall be denied bail# or hisbail pre"iously granted shall be cancelled# upon ashowing by the prosecution# with notice to theaccused# of the following or other similarcircumstances

)a* That the accused is a recidi"ist#uasirecidi"ist# or habitualdelinuent# or has committed thecrime aggra"ated by thecircumstances of reiterationQ

)b* That the accused is found toha"e pre"iously escaped from

legal con;nement# e"adedsentence# or has "iolated theconditions of his bail without "alid

Eusti;cationQ

)c* That the accused committedthe o!ense while on probation#

parole# or under conditionalpardonQ

)d* That the circumstances of theaccused or his case indicate the



1,4

probability of Right if released on

bailQ or

)e* That there is undue ris( thatduring the pendency of theappeal# the accused may commitanother crime.

The appellate court may re"iew the resolution of the Aegional Trial 'ourt# on motion and with noticeto the ad"erse party. =Lmphasis supplied.>

Crom the preceding uoted pro"ision# the AT' isgi"en the discretion to admit to bail an accused

e"en after the latter has been con"icted to su!erthe penalty of imprisonment for a term of morethan si< )* years but less than twenty )2,* years.owe"er# the same also pro"ides for thecancellation of bail bonds already granted or thedenial of a bail bond application upon theconcurrence of two points 1* if the Eudgment of

the Aegional Trial 'ourt e<ceeds si< )* years butnot more than twenty )2,* yearsQ and 2* upon ashowing by the prosecution# with notice to theaccused# of the presence of any of the ;"ecircumstances therein enumerated or other similarcircumstances.

In the case at bar# petitioner was con"icted by theAT' to su!er the penalty of imprisonment for anindeterminate term of nine )$* years and one )1*day as minimum of prision mayor to se"enteen)1&* years as ma<imum ofreclusion temporal.



1,5

Uuite clearly# the appro"al of petitioner7s

application for bail was discretionary upon theAT'.

It is incongruous# to say the least# that the postingof a bail presupposes that the accused and0 oraccusedappellant is detained or in the custody of the law.33 In the case at bar# the bench warrantissued by the AT' on 1$ ay 1$$$ still remainsunser"ed. Pothing in the records of the case#neither in the AT' nor the 'ourt of /ppeals#demonstrates that petitioner was e"er arrested# asthere has been no related Drder of Aelease issuedby any court# or that he "oluntarily surrendered orat the "ery least placed himself under the custody

of the law.

asic is the principle that that the right to bail canonly be a"ailed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise depri"ed of his liberty and itwould be premature# < < <# to ;le a petition for bailfor someone whose freedom has yet to becurtailed.34

/ll told# no bail should ha"e been grantedpetitioner. It is beyond dispute that the subEectbail bond issued by ega 6aci;c Insurance'orporation was irregularly appro"ed. :orthnoting is the fact that nowhere in the records of the case is it shown that petitioner applied for bailthrough a motion duly ;led for such purpose nor isthere showing that the AT' issued an Drder of /ppro"al or any other court processac(nowledging such document. e that as it may#








1,

e"en granting for the sa(e of argument that it was

indeed appro"ed by Hudge uro# such appro"al didnot render the subEect bail bond "alid and bindingfor it has been established that petitioner was notentitled to bail on appeal.

That the prosecution appears not to ha"e beengi"en the chance to obEect# as e"idently reuiredunder the uoted rule# to the application orappro"al of the subEect bail bond )with notice tothe accused*# forti;es the declaration as to itsin"alidity. Powhere in the original records of theAT' does it e"en show that the prosecution wasinformed of petitioner7s application for bail# muchless the appro"al of such application.

Poting that the raison d?@tre for such reuirementis the discretionary nature of the admission to bailof an accused after con"iction# thoughdiscretionary# such assessment must be e<ercisedin accordance with applicable legal principles. /swhen there is a concurrence of the enumeratedcircumstances and the range of penalty imposed#the prosecution must ;rst be accorded anopportunity to obEect and present e"idence# if necessary# with notice to the accused. It is on thisbasis that Eudicial discretion is balanced indetermining whether or not an accusedappellantshould be admitted to bail pending appeal of his

con"iction vis2A2vis the increased possibility orli(elihood of Right.

/ppro"al of an application for bail on appeal#absent the (nowledge of the prosecution of such



1,&

application or# at the "ery least# failing to allow it

to obEect# is not the product of sound Eudicialdiscretion but of impulse and arbitrariness# not tomention "iolati"e of respondent 6eople7s right of procedural due process.

This is especially true in this case as a closescrutiny of the original records of the case at barre"eals that petitioner "iolated the conditions of his bail without "alid Eusti;cation X his failure toappear before the AT'# despite due notice# on theday of the promulgation of the latter7s Eudgment#absent any Eusti;able reason. is absence was aclear contra"ention of the conditions of his bailbond to say the least. /s e"idenced by the

underta(ing printed on the face of the bond issuedby Lastern Insurance and Furety 'orporation andli(ewise reuired under Fection 35 of Aule 12, of the Aules of 'ourt# petitioner must present himself before the court for the reading of the Eudgment of the AT' in order to render himself to the e<ecutionthereof.

:hile# indeed# a medical certi;cate was handdeli"ered and ;led by a certain Hoey 6ereG#allegedly a representati"e of petitioner# statingtherein the reason for the latter7s absence# theAT' found insubstantial the e<planation pro!ered./ppropriately# it ordered the promulgation of its

Eudgment in absentia. It also issued a benchwarrant of arrest against petitioner.

Opon e<amination# the subEect medicalcerti;cate3 merely states that petitioner was








1,%

diagnosed to be su!ering from hypertension. It

failed to elucidate further any concomitantconditions necessitating petitioner7s physicalincapability to present himself before the courte"en for an hour or twoQ thus# it considered theabsence of petitioner unEusti;ed. :hat[s more#though notariGed# the subEect document failed toindicate e"idence of a-ant7s3& identity ma(ing its

due e<ecution doubtful.

Curther# it should be recalled as well# that as earlyas 4 ay 1$$$# petitioner and counsel had alreadybeen noti;ed of the 1$ ay 1$$$ schedule of promulgation. The ;rst ha"ing been postponed in"iew of the Orgent otion to 'ancel 6romulgation

)on 5 ay 1$$$* ;led by petitioner7s counsel.

/nother telling e"idence of the "iolation of petitioner7s original bail bond is re"ealed bythe Process Server*s Return#3% indicated at thedorsal portion of the AT'7s 6roduce Drder#indicating petitioner7s change of address withoutprior notice to the AT'# it states

6AD'LFF FLABLA7F ALTOAP

This certi;es that on the 1&th day of ay# )sic*1$$$# undersigned return )sic* again to Cersal

/partelle located at 13, Malayaan /"e. )sic*?iliman# UueGon 'ity for con;rmation and indeedthe addressee# /rnold /l"a# had no )sic* longerbeen residing nor holding o-ce at theaforementioned address.







1,$

y failing to inform the AT' of his change of

address# petitioner failed to hold himself amenableto the orders and processes of the AT'. It was anunmista(able arrant breach of the conditions of his bail bond.

6rescinding from the abo"e discussion# thecon"iction of petitioner to a period beyond si< )*years but less than twenty )2,* years in tandemwith attendant circumstances e!ecti"ely "iolatinghis bail without "alid Eusti;cation should ha"ee!ecti"ely precluded him from being admitted tobail on appeal.

The issue of the "alidity of petitioner7s bail bondon appeal ha"ing been laid to rest by Fection 5 of Aule 114 of the 1$$4 Aules of 'ourt# as amended#petitioner7s alleged failure to post a bail bond onappeal is# therefore# inconseuential as# under thecircumstances# he is disallowed by law to beadmitted to bail on appeal. Thus# for all legalintents and purposes# there can be no otherconclusion than that at the time petitioner ;led hisnotice of appeal and during the pendency of hisappeal X e"en until now X he remains at large#placing himself beyond the pale# and protection of the law.

Ine<orably# ha"ing Eumped bail and eluded arrestuntil the present# the issue of whether or notpetitioner has lost his right to appeal hiscon"iction now ensues.



11,

The manner of re"iew of petitioner7s con"iction is

go"erned by the Aules of 'ourt. /ppropriately#Aule 124 of the Aules of 'ourt presents theprocedural reuirements regarding appeals ta(ento the 'ourt of /ppeals. Fection % of said Aule;nds application to the case at bar# "iG

FL'. %. ?ismissal of appeal for abandonment orfailure to prosecute. X The appellate court may#upon motion of the appellee or its own motion andnotice to the appellant# dismiss the appeal if theappellant fails to ;le his brief within the timeprescribed by this Aule# e<cept in case theappellant is represented by a counsel de o;cio.

The court may also# upon motion of the appelleeor on its own motion# dismiss the appeal i+ theappellant escapes +rom prison or con,nement or

umps bail or ees to a +oreign country during the pendency o+ the appeal. =Lmphasis supplied.>

y "irtue of the second paragraph of theabo"euoted pro"ision# the act of Eumping bail#among otherthings# will result in the outrightdismissal of petitioner7s appeal. /s pointed out bythe 'ourt in the case of 6eople ". apalao#3$ thereason for said rule is that

=D>nce an accused escapes from prison orcon;nement or Eumps bail or Rees to a foreigncountry# he losses his standing in court and unlesshe surrenders or submits to the Eurisdiction of the





111

court he is deemed to ha"e wai"ed any right to

see( relief from the court.

Thus# the 'ourt of /ppeals committed nore"ersible error in dismissing petitioner7s appeal.:ithin the meaning of the principles go"erning thepre"ailing criminal procedure# petitioner impliedlywithdrew his appeal by Eumping bail and therebymade the Eudgment of the AT' ;nal ande<ecutory.4,

y putting himself beyond the reach andapplication of the legal processes of the land#petitioner re"ealed his contempt of the law andplaced himself in a position to speculate at hispleasure his chances for a re"ersal. This# wecannot condone. Dnce more# by Eumping bail#petitioner has wai"ed his right to appeal. In thecase of People v' #ng 6ioc#41 we enunciated that

There are certain fundamental rights which cannot

be wai"ed e"en by the accused himself# but theright of appeal is not one of them. This right isgranted solely for the bene;t of the accused. emay a"ail of it or not# as he pleases. e maywai"e it either e<pressly or by implication. :henthe accused Rees after the case has beensubmitted to the court for decision# he will bedeemed to ha"e wai"ed his right to appeal fromthe Eudgment rendered against him < < <.

'oming now to the second issue of whether or notpetitioner failed to submit himself to the








112

Eurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the

law# despite the posting of the subEect bail bond#petitioner argues that his act of ;ling se"eralpleadings after the promulgation of the AT'7s

Eudgment plus his ;ling of the application for hisadmission to bail should be considered asubmission to the court7s Eurisdiction. erationaliGes that

=T>he records of the case readily re"eals thatse"eral pleadings were ;led by the petitionerbefore the lower court e"en after the promulgationof Eudgment was made. Aight after thepromulgation of the decision in the lower court#herein petitioner went to the court and posted a

bail bond. If the posting of the bond which wasappro"ed by the same Aegional Trial 'ourt whorendered the decision subEect of appeal is not yeta submission to the Eurisdiction of the court# thenthe respondent on. 'ourt of /ppeals must ha"ebeen thin(ing of another matter beyond thecomprehension of the petitioner and ob"iously

outside the matters being contemplated by lawand the Aules of 'ourt.

Cor the resolution of the second issue# it shouldha"e been su-cient to state that for reasonsstated in the foregoing discussion# the uestionposed has now become academic. owe"er# to

diminish the confusion brought about byostensibly euating the term \ urisdiction o+ thecourt Cover the person o+ the accused\ with thatof \custody o+ the la(\# it is fundamental todi!erentiate the two. The term



113

'ustody of the law is accomplished either by

arrest or "oluntary surrender )citation omitted*Qwhile )the term* Eurisdiction o"er the person of theaccused is acuired upon his arrest or "oluntaryappearance )citation omitted*. Dne can be underthe custody of the law but not yet subEect to the

Eurisdiction of the court o"er his person# such aswhen a person arrested by "irtue of a warrant ;les

a motion before arraignment to uash thewarrant. Dn the other hand# one can be subEect tothe Eurisdiction of the court o"er his person# andyet not be in the custody of the law# such as whenan accused escapes custody after his trial hascommenced )citation omitted*.42

oreo"er# Eurisdiction# once acuired# is not lost atthe instance of parties# as when an accusedescapes from the custody of the law# butcontinues until the case is terminated.43 L"idently#petitioner is correct in that there is no doubt thatthe AT' already acuired Eurisdiction o"er theperson of the accused petitioner X when he

appeared at the arraignment and pleaded notguilty to the crime charged X notwithstanding thefact that he Eumped bail and is now considered afugiti"e.

/s to whether or not petitioner has placed himself under the custody of the '/# alas# we cannot say

the same for \=b>eing in the custody of the lawsigni;es restraint on the person# who is therebydepri"ed of his own will and liberty# binding him tobecome obedient to the will of the law )citationomitted*. 'ustody of the law is literally custody








114

o"er the body of the accused. It includes# but is

not limited to# detention.\44 In the case at bar#petitioner# being a fugiti"e# until and unless hesubmits himself to the custody of the law# in themanner of being under the Eurisdiction of thecourts# he cannot be granted any relief by the '/.

6arenthetically# we cannot endthis ponencia without calling attention to a "erydisturbing fact X that petitioner admits of beingthe author of a falsi;ed public document wastreated nonchalantly by authorities.

In ;ne# the petitioner has remained at large e"enas he hopes that his appeal# and conseuently#this petition# will succeed and he can then appearbefore the 'ourt to claim his "ictory. e hopes in"ain.

:LALCDAL# the instant petition is ?LPIL? forlac( of merit. The assailed Aesolutions of the 'ourt

of /ppeals# in '/9.A. 'A Po. 24,&&# whichdismissed petitioner7s appeal# are hereby/CCIAL?. In this connection# Hudge anuel urois ?IAL'TL? to issue forthwith a warrant of arrestfor the apprehension of 6etitioner /rnold /l"a andfor proper disposition of the case in line with theforegoing discussion.

'osts against the petitioner.

FD DA?LAL?.





115

MINITA V. CHICONAARIO

/ssociate Hustice

Documents

Bar Answer TechniquesBar Answer Techniques