Remedial Lawqs

7/21/2019 Remedial Lawqs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remedial-lawqs 1/36



2nder Section 3 (ule 456, if the judgment was for coniction and the failure of theaccused to appear was without justi%able cause, he shall lose the remedies

aailable under the (ules of Court and the court shall order his arrest. "he accused

may regain the remedies only if he surrenders and %les a motion for leae to aail

of the remedies under the (ules of Court.

7ere the failure of Balatong and Labong to appear was without justi%able cause as

een their lawyers were not aware of the reason for their absence. 7ence they lost

their remedies under the (ules. Since Balatong and Labong did not surrender and

%le a motion for leae to aail of remedies, it was incorrect for the trial court to take

cogni-ance of the joint motion for reconsideration insofar as Balatong and Labong

were concerned. "he trial court should instead hae ordered their arrest. )8eople .

9e :rano, ; &une 566<, 8eralta, &..

!n the other hand, it was correct for the trial court to take cogni-ance of the joint

motion for reconsideration insofar as Ludong was concerned since he and his lawyer

were present during the promulgation.

)B



/o, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their coniction in case Ludong

accepts his coniction for homicide.

Since Balatong and Labong failed to appear during the promulgation of the

coniction without justi%able cause, they lost the remedies under the (ules of Court

including the remedy of an appeal.

==.

'c&olly is a trouble>maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. =n one

incident, he droe his 7umee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its drier and

passengers in di?erent directions. "he pedicab drier died, while two )5 of the

passengers su?ered slight physical injuries. "wo )5 =nformations were then %led

against 'c&olly. !ne, for (eckless =mprudence (esulting in 7omicide and 9amage to

8roperty, and two, for (eckless =mprudence (esulting in Slight 8hysical =njuries. "he

latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which occasion 'c&olly

immediately pleaded guilty. 7e was meted out the penalty of public censure. A

month later, the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was also set for

arraignment. =nstead of pleading, 'c&olly interposed the defense of double jeopardy.

(esole. )*+



A/S$0(1

"he defense of double jeopardy is meritorious and the second information

for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide should be quashed on the ground of

double jeopardy.

"he Supreme Court has held that reckless imprudence is a single crime andthat its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine the

penalty.

7ere there was only one act and crime of reckless imprudence. "he death,

the physical injuries, and the damage to the tricycle are only consequences of the

same reckless act of 'c&olly. 7ence there was double jeopardy when a second

information arising from the same reckless act was brought against the accused.

)=ler . 'odesto>San 8edro, 4@ /oember 5646.

===.



$hile passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, 8!5 Asintado obsered

shadows and heard screams from a distance. 8!5 Asintado hid himself behind the

bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recogni-ed as his neighbor,

ulasa. $hen ulasa was already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on theground. "he man hurriedly left thereafter.

8!5 Asintado immediately went to ulasas rescue. ulasa, who was then in a state

of hysteria, kept mentioning to 8!5 Asintado Si (ene, gusto akong patayinD

Sinaksak niya akoDE $hen 8!5 Asintado was about to carry her, ulasa refused and

said aya ko. 'ababaw lang to. 7abulin mo si (ene.E

"he following day, (ene learned of ulasas death and, bothered by his conscience,surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all

oer media, (ene opted to release his statement to the press which goes1

= beliee that = am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proen

beyond reasonable doubt. Although = admit that = performed acts that may take

ones life away, = hope and pray that justice will be sered the right way. :od bless

us all.

)Sgd.

(eneE

"he trial court conicted (ene of homicide on the basis of 8!5 Asintados testimony,

ulasas statements, and (enes statement to the press. !n appeal, (ene raises the

following errors1



4. "he trial court erred in giing weight to 8!5 Asintados testimony, as the latterdid not hae any personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and iolated (enes right

to due process when it considered ulasas statements despite lack of opportunity

for her cross>e#amination.

5. "he trial court erred in holding that (enes statement to the press was a

confession which, standing alone, would be suFcient to warrant coniction.

(esole. )*+

A/S$0(1

(enes appeal is denied for lack of merit.

4.



"he contention that the trial court erred in giing weight to 8!5 Asintados

testimony since he did not hae personal knowledge of the facts in issue is without

merit. "he contention in e?ect challenges ulasas statement for being hearsay.

2nder the (ules of 0idence, a statement made immediately subsequent to

a startling occurrence is e#cepted from the hearsay rule as part of the res gestae.

7ere ulasas statement was made immediately subsequent to a starling

occurrence, that is, her stabbing by (ene, and was made in a state of hysteria,

showing that she was under the inGuence of the startling occurrence. 7ence

testimony regarding the statement is e#cepted from the hearsay rule.

Since ulasas statement is an e#ception to the hearsay rule, (ene cannot

complain that his right to due process was iolated when the trial court considered

ulasas statement despite lack of opportunity to cross>e#amine her.

"here should be no serious question about the admissibility against an

accused of hearsay where this hearsay falls under an e#ception to the hearsay rule,especially here where the declarant is dead and thus unaailable to testify.

)A/"!/=! (. BA2"=S"A, BAS=C 0H=90/C0 54*>54; I566* ed.J. =n 2.S. . :il, 4K 8hil.

;K6 )4<6<, the Supreme Court upheld dying declarations as an e#ception to the

confrontation clause since such declarations hae always been regarded as an

e#ception to the general rule regarding hearsay eidence.E



5.

"he argument that the trial court erred in holding that (enes statement to

the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be suFcient to warrant

coniction is meritorious.

irstly, (enes statement is not a confession but an admission. A confession

is one wherein a person acknowledges his guilt of a crime, which (ene did not do.

Secondly, een assuming it is a confession, standing alone it would not be suFcient

to warrant coniction since it is an e#trajudicial confession which is not suFcient

ground for coniction unless corroborated by eidence of corpus delicti. )SK (4KK.

/onetheless this was a harmless error since the admission of (ene was

corroborated by the testimony of 8!5 Asintado on ulasas statement.

=H.



An order of the court requiring a retroactie re>dating of an order, judgment or

document %ling be entered or recorded in a judgment is1 )4+

)A pro hac ice

)B non pro tunc

)C confession relicta eri%catione

)9 nolle prosequi

A/S$0(1

)B )/ote1 Should be nunc pro tunc.E.

H.



Landlord, a resident of Mue-on City, entered into a lease contract with "enant, a

resident of 'arikina City, oer a residential house in Las 8iNas City. "he lease

contract proided, among others, for a monthly rental of 85;,666.66, plus ten

percent )46+ interest rate in case of non>payment on its due date. Subsequently,

Landlord migrated to the 2nited States of America )2SA but granted in faor of his

sister 'aria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and %le and defend

suits oer the property rented out to "enant. "enant failed to pay the rentals due for

%e ); months. 'aria asks your legal adice on how she can e#peditiously collect

from "enant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. )3+

)A $hat judicial remedy would you recommend to 'aria

)B $here is the proper enue of the judicial remedy which you recommended

)C =f 'aria insists on %ling an ejectment suit against "enant, when do you reckon

the one )4>year period within which to %le the action

A/S$0(S1

)A



"he judicial remedy that = would recommend to 'aria is to %le a collection

suit for the 845;,666 rentals in arrears and the 845,;66 interest due. "he remedy

would be e#peditious since it would be goerned by the (ules on Summary

8rocedure as the amount of the demand, e#cluding interest, does not e#ceed8566,666.

)B

"he proper enue of the collection suit would be in 'arikina City, where

"enant resides.

2nder the (ules of Ciil 8rocedure, enue in personal actions is with the

residence of either the plainti? or the defendant, at the plainti?s election.

Since the 8lainti? does not reside in the 8hilippines, enue may be laid only

in 'arikina City where the defendant "enant resides.

)C



=f 'aria insists on %ling an ejectment suit against "enant, the one>yearperiod within which to %le the action shall be reckoned from the e#piration of ;>days

from notice of the last demand to pay and acate. )Cru- . Atencio, 5O ebruary

4<;<P Sy !h . :arcia, K6 &une 4<3<.

H=.

As a rule, courts may not grant an application for proisional remedy without

complying with the requirements of notice and hearing. "hese requirements,howeer, may be dispensed with in an application for1 )4+

)A writ of preliminary injunction

)B writ for preliminary attachment

)C an order granting support pendente lite



)9 a writ of replein

A/S$0(1

)B

H==.

Co Batong, a "aipan, %led a ciil action for damages with the (egional "rial Court

)("C of 8araNaque City against &ose 8enduko, a news reporter of the 8hilippine

"imes, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in 8araNaque City.

"he complaint alleged, among others, that &ose 8enduko wrote malicious and

defamatory imputations against Co BatongP that Co Batongs business address is in

'akati CityP and that the libelous article was %rst printed and published in

8araNaque City. "he complaint prayed that &ose 8enduko be held liable to pay8566,666.66, as moral damagesP 84;6,666.66, as e#emplary damagesP and

8;6,666.66, as attorneys fees.



&ose 8enduko %led a 'otion to 9ismiss on the following grounds1

4. "he ("C is without jurisdiction because under the "otality (ule, the claim for

damages in the amount of 8K;6,666.66 fall within the e#clusie original jurisdiction

of the 'etropolitan "rial Court )'e"C of 8araNaque City.

5. "he enue is improperly laid because what the complaint alleged is Co Batongs

business address and not his residence address.

Are the grounds inoked in the 'otion to 9ismiss proper )*+

A/S$0(1

/o, the grounds inoked in the motion to dismiss improper.

4.

"he inocation of the "otality (ule is misplaced. 2nder Art. K36 of the

(eised 8enal Code, jurisdiction oer a ciil action for damages in case of libel is



with the Court of irst =nstance, now the (egional "rial Court. )/ocum . "an, 5K

September 566;. "he said proision does not mention any jurisdictional amount

oer such actionP hence the "otality (ule is inapplicable.

5.

"he ground that the complaint mentioned the complainants oFce address

rather than his residence is of no moment since the complaint also stated that the

libelous article was printed and %rst published in 8aranaque City. 2nder Article K36

of the (eised 8enal Code, enue in a ciil action for libel also lies in the place

where the libelous article was printed and %rst published.

H===.

&ohnny, a naturali-ed citi-en of the 2nited States of America )2SA but formerly a

ilipino citi-en, e#ecuted a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of

California, 2SA. &ohnny, at the time of his death, was suried by his niece

Anastacia, an American citi-en residing at the condominium unit of &ohnny located

at ort Bonifacio, "aguig CityP a younger brother, Bartolome, who manages &ohnnys

%sh pond in Lingayen, 8angasinanP and a younger sister, Christina, who manages

&ohnnys rental

condominium units in 'akati City. &ohnnys entire estate which he inherited from his

parents is alued at 8566 million. &ohnny appointed Anastacia as e#ecutri# of his

will. )*+



)A Can &ohnnys notarial will be probated before the proper court in the 8hilippines

)B =s Anastacia quali%ed to be the e#ecutri# of &ohnnys notarial will

A/S$0(S1

)A

Qes, the formal alidity of a will is goerned also by the national law of the

decedent. )Article O4@, Ciil Code.

A will proed and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such

country, may be allowed, %led, and recorded by the proper (egional "rial Court in

the 8hilippines. )S4 (@@.

)B

Qes, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is quali%ed to be an e#ecutor

although an alien because she is a resident of the 8hilippines. )S4 (@O.



=R.

Bayani, an oerseas worker based in 9ubai, issued in faor of Agente, a special

power of attorney to sell his house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but

failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. !n his return to the8hilippines, Bayani, by way of a demand letter duly receied by Agente, sought to

recoer the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he had used it

for the construction of his own house.

"hus, Bayani %led an action against Agente for sum of money with damages. Bayani

subsequently %led an e#>parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary

attachment duly supported by an aFdait. "he court granted the e#>parte motion

and issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon Bayanis posting of the required

bond. Bayani prayed that the courts sheri? be deputi-ed to sere and implementthe writ of attachment. !n /oember 4<, 564K, the Sheri? sered upon Agente the

writ of attachment and leied on the latters house and lot. !n /oember 56, 564K,

the Sheri? sered on Agente summons and a copy of the complaint. !n /oember

55, 564K, Agente %led an Answer with 'otion to 9ischarge the $rit of Attachment

alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, he has not

been sered with summons and, therefore, it was improperly issued. )*+

)A =s Agente correct

)B $as the writ of preliminary attachment properly e#ecuted



A/S$0(S1

)A

/o, Agente is not correct.

2nder the (ules of Ciil 8rocedure, a writ of attachment may issue een before

serice of summons upon the defendant. )S5 (;@.

)B

/o, the writ of preliminary attachment not properly e#ecuted.



2nder S; (;@, no ley on preliminary attachment shall be enforced unless there is

prior or simultaneous serice of the summons and the accompanying papers. )S; (

"he Supreme Court has held that subsequent serice of summons will not cure the

irregularity that attended the enforcement of the writ )!nate . Abrogar, 5K

ebruary 4<<;.

7ere the sheri? leied upon the house and lot prior to the serice of the summons

and the complaint upon Agente. 7ence the writ of preliminary attachment was not

properly e#ecuted. "he subsequent serice of summons and the complaint did not

cure the irregularity in the enforcement of the writ.

R.

8rince Chong entered into a lease contract with ing ong oer a commercial

building where the former conducted his hardware business. "he lease contract

stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of 8;6,666.66 for a four )*>year period

commencing on &anuary 4, 5646. !n &anuary 4, 564K, 8rince Chong died. in =l

Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of 8rince Chong, but the former

failed to pay the rentals for the months of &anuary to &une 564K despite ing ongs

written demands.

"hus, on &uly 4, 564K, ing ong %led with the (egional "rial Court )("C an action

for rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of &une

K6, 564K. )*+



)A Can in =l Chong moe to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the ("C is

without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only 8K66,666.66

)B =f the rentals accrued during the lifetime of 8rince Chong, and ing ong also

%led the complaint for sum of money during that time, will the action be dismissible

upon 8rince Chongs death during the pendency of the case

A/S$0(S1

)A

/o, in == Chong cannot moe to dismiss the complaint on the ground that

the ("C is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only 8K66,666.

2nder B.8. Blg. 45<, the ("C has original and e#clusie jurisdiction oer actionsincapable of pecuniary estimation.



7ere the action is for rescission which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. "he

8K66,666 accrued rentals is only incidental to the main purpose of the action which

is to rescind the lease contract.

)B

/o, the action will not be dismissible upon 8rince Chongs death during thependency of the case.

2nder S56 (K, when the action is on a contractual money claim and the defendant

dies before entry of %nal judgment, the action shall not be dismissed but shall

instead be allowed to continue until entry of %nal judgment.

7ere the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a claim for rentals based on

a lease contract. 7ence it shall be allowed to continue until %nal judgment. )S56

(K, S; (O3.



R=.

A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed %rearms in

the house of Ass>asin, a notorious gun for hire. $hen the police sered the warrant,

they also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to look at

other portions of the premises around the house. =n a nipa hut thirty )K6 meters

away from the house of Ass>asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana

that was wrapped in newsprint. 7e took it and this was later used by the authorities

to charge Ass>asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass>asin objected to the

introduction of such eidence claiming that it was illegally sei-ed. =s the objection of

Assasin alid )*+

A/S$0(1

Qes, the objection of Ass>asin is alid.

2nder the Constitution, the right of the people against unlawful search is

iniolable e#cept in cases where a alid search warrant was issued or in e#ceptionalcases where the law proides for a warrantless search. )Sec. 5, Art. ===, Constitution.

2nder the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, items sei-ed by irtue of an unlawful

search are inadmissible in eidence. )Sec. KI5J, Art. ===, Constitution.



7ere the the sei-ure of the marijuana was illegal since it was not pursuant to

a search warrant. "he search warrant was for the search and sei-ure of unlicensed

%rearms not marijuana. /or would the e#ception regarding items sei-ed under

plain iew apply. "he marijuana was wrapped in newsprint and clearly not in plainsight. 7ence the marijuana may not be introduced in eidence oer Ass>asins

objection.

R==.

'ary &ane met Shiela 'ay at the recruitment agency where they both applied for

oerseas employment. "hey e#changed pleasantries, including details of their

personal circumstances. ortunately, 'ary &ane was deployed to work as front deskreceptionist at a hotel in Abu 9habi where she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed

marriage, to which she readily accepted. 2nfortunately for Shiela 'ay, she was not

deployed to work abroad, and this made her enious of 'ary &ane.

'ary &ane returned to the 8hilippines to prepare for her wedding. She secured from

the /ational Statistics !Fce )/S! a Certi%cate of /o 'arriage. =t turned out from

the /S! records that 'ary &ane had preiously contracted marriage with &ohn Starr,

a British citi-en, which she neer did. "he purported marriage between 'ary &ane

and &ohn Starr contained all the required pertinent details on 'ary &ane. 'ary &anelater on learned that Shiela 'ay is the best friend of &ohn Starr.

As a lawyer, 'ary &ane seeks your adice on her predicament. $hat legal remedy

will you aail to enable 'ary &ane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed )*+



A/S$0(1

"he legal remedy = would aail to enable 'ary &ane to contract marriage with

Sultan Ahmed is to %le a petition under (ule 46O to cancel entries in the marriage

contract between &ohn Starr and 'ary &ane, particularly the portion and entries

thereon relating to the wife.

(ule 46O may be aailed of to cancel erroneous or inalid entries in the Ciil

(egistry. 7ere the entry of 'ary &ane as the wife of &ohn Starr is clearly erroneous

and inalid as she neer contracted marriage with anybody, much less &ohn Starr.

"here is no need to %le a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since there

was no marriage to speak of in the %rst place, the marriage contract being a sham

contract. )(epublic . !laybar, 46 ebruary 564*, 8eralta, &..

R===.

A foreign dog trained to sni? dangerous drugs from packages, was hired by 98

Corporation, a door to door forwarder company, to sni? packages in their depot at



the international airport. =n one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting to

be sent to the 2nited States of America )2SA, the dog sat beside one of the

packages, a signal that the package contained dangerous drugs. "hereafter, the

guards opened the package and found two )5 kilograms of cocaine. "he owner of

the package was arrested and charges were %led against him. 9uring the trial, the

prosecution, through the trainer who was present during the incident and an e#pertin this kind of %eld, testi%ed that the dog was highly trained to sni? packages to

determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and the sniFng technique of these

highly trained dogs was accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous

drugs operations. "he prosecution moed to admit this eidence to justify the

opening of the package. "he accused objected on the grounds that1 )i the guards

had no personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was openedP )ii

the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsayP and )iii the accused could not

cross>e#amine the dog. 9ecide. )*+

A/S$0(1

"he accuseds objections are oerruled.

"he objection that the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of

the package before it was opened is misplaced. "he one testifying is the trainer not

the guards and he had personal knowledge of the circumstances since he was

present during the incident. Besides there is no rule of eidence that one cannottestify about the contents of a package if he did not hae prior personal knowledge

of its contents before opening it.



"he objection that the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay is not

alid. 7earsay is an out>of>court declaration made by a person which is o?ered for

the truth of the matter asserted.

7ere what is inoled is a dog who is not a person who can make an out>of>

court declaration. )Lempert Salt-burg, A '!90(/ A88(!AC7 "! 0H=90/C0 K@6>

K@4 I4<O5J. A dog is not treated as a declarant or witness who can be cross>

e#amined. )8eople . Centolella, K6; /.Q.S.5d 5@<. 7ence testimony that the dog

sat beside the package is not testimony about an out>of>court declaration and thus

not hearsay.

"he objection that the accused could not cross>e#amine the dog is without

merit. 2nder the Constitution, the accuseds right of confrontation refers to

witnesses. As preiously discussed, a dog is not a witness who can be cross>

e#amined.

/ote1 =t is urged that utmost liberality be e#ercised in grading this number.

"he answer is not found in 8hilippine law and jurisprudence and een in

commentaries by writers on eidence.

R=H.



$hen a 'unicipal "rial Court )'"C, pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction, rendersan aderse judgment in an application for land registration, the aggrieed partys

remedy is1 )4+

)A ordinary appeal to the (egional "rial Court

)B petition for reiew on certiorari to the Supreme Court

)C ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals

)9 petition for reiew to the Court of Appeals

A/S$0(1

)C )See Sec. K*, B.8. Blg. 45<



RH.

"he !mbudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary inestigation, found

probable cause to charge :o. 'atigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a priate

indiidual, for iolating Section K)e of (epublic Act )(A /o. K64< )Anti>:raft and

Corrupt 8ractices Act, as amended.

Before the information could be %led with the Sandiganbayan, :o. 'atigas was

killed in an ambush. "his, notwithstanding, an information was %led against :o.

'atigas and Carpintero.

At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, %led a 'otion to Muash the

=nformation, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that

with the death of :o. 'atigas, there is no public oFcer charged in the information.

=s the motion to quash legally tenable )*+

A/S$0(1

/o, the motion to quash is not legally tenable.



=n a case inoling similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of the public

oFcer did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy between the public oFcer and

the priate person can no longer be proed or that their alleged conspiracy is

already e#punged. "he only thing e#tinguished by the death of the public oFcer

was his criminal liability. 7is death did not e#tinguish the crime nor did it remoe

the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and the priate person. 7encethe Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction oer the o?ense charged. )8eople . :o, 5;

'arch 564*, 8eralta, &.

RH=.

8lainti? %led a complaint denominated as accion publiciana, against defendant. =n

his answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest oer the land in question,

e#cept as lessee of T. 8lainti? subsequently %led an aFdait of T, the lessor ofdefendant, stating that T had sold to plainti? all his rights and interests in the

property as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the aFdait. "hus, plainti? may

ask the court to render1 )4+

)A summary judgment

)B judgment on the pleadings

)C partial judgment

)9 judgment by default



A/S$0(1

)A )S4 K, (K;

RH==.

A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non>bailable

o?ense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. $ithout A being

arrested, his lawyer %led a 'otion to Muash Arrest $arrant and to i# Bail, arguing

that the allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a

crime of malersation, a bailable o?ense. "he court denied the motion on the

ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction oer the person of the accused and

that the accused should be under the custody of the court since the crime charged

was nonbailable.

"he accuseds lawyer counter>argued that the court can rule on the motion een if

the accused was at>large because it had jurisdiction oer the subject matter of the

case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the

custody of the court because what was %led was a 'otion to Muash Arrest and to i#

Bail, not a 8etition for Bail.



)A =f you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion )K+

)B =f the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should theaccused undertake )5+

A/S$0(S1

)A

=f = were the Sandiganbayan, = would deny the 'otion to Muash Arrest

$arrant and to i# Bail.

"he motion to quash warrant of arrest may be considered since only

jurisdiction oer the person not custody of the law is required. &urisdiction oer the

person of A was obtained by his oluntary appearance made through the %ling ofthe motion seeking aFrmatie relief. )See 'iranda . "uliao, K4 'arch 5663.



/onetheless = would still deny the motion to quash arrest warrant. "he

ground that the o?ense charged is malersation not plunder is not a alid ground to

quash the arrest warrant. A should simply %le an application for bail and contend

that he is entitled thereto as a matter of right.

"he motion to %# amount of bail, which is in e?ect an application for bail

cannot be granted unless the accused is in custody of the law. )'iranda . "uliao, K4

'arch 5663. 7ere A was not in custody of the law but still at large. 7ence the

motion to %# the amount of bail should be denied.

)B

=f the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the judicial remedy that the

accused should undertake is to %le a petition for certiorari under (ule 3; with the

Supreme Court. Certiorari is aailable to challenge interlocutory orders rendered

with grae abuse of discretion since appeal is unaailable.

7ere the order denying the 'otion to Muash Arrest $arrant and to i# Bail isinterlocutory since it does not completely dispose of the case. 7ence certiorari is

aailable. A should aer that the Sandiganbayan acted with grae abuse of

discretion amounting to lack of or e#cess of jurisdiction in denying his motion.



RH===.

A was charged with murder in the lower court. 7is 8etition for Bail was denied after

a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had established a strong

eidence of guilt. /o 'otion for (econsideration was %led from the denial of the

8etition for Bail. 9uring the reception of the eidence of the accused, the accused

reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses so far presented by

the accused had shown that no qualifying aggraating circumstance attended the

killing. "he court denied the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that1

)i the eidence of guilt is strongP )ii the resolution for the 8etition for Bail is solely

based on the eidence presented by the prosecutionP and )iii no 'otion for

(econsideration was %led from the denial of the 8etition for Bail. )3+

)A =f you are the &udge, how will you resole the incident

)B Suppose the accused is conicted of the crime of homicide and the accused %led

a /otice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail

A/S$0(S1

)A



=f = were the judge, = will grant the 8etition for Bail if the eidence does notshow any qualifying aggraating circumstance. =n such a case the o?ense would be

only homicide which is bailable.

)i "he ground that the court had already ruled that the eidence of guilt is strong is

improper. An order denying an application for bail is interlocutory and remains at

the control of the court until %nal judgment. 7ence the court is not bound by its

earlier ruling and may reconsider the same if the eidence or law warrants the

same.

)ii "he ground that the resolution for the 8etition for Bail is solely based on the

eidence presented by the prosecution is improper. $hile SO (44* proides that theprosecution has the burden of proof to show that the eidence of guilt is strong, it

should not be taken to mean that the resolution of the bail application is based

solely on the prosecution eidence. At the hearing for the bail application, both the

prosecution and the accused must be gien reasonable opportunity to proe or to

disproe, respectiely, that the eidence of guilt is strong. )Santos . !%lada, 5*;

SC(A ;3.

)iii "he ground that no motion for reconsideration was %led from the order denying

the petition for bail is improper. As preiously discussed, an order denying bail is

merely interlocutory. 7ence the failure to moe for reconsideration thereof during

the trial will not render the order %nal and conclusie.



)B

/o, after coniction by the ("C of an o?ense not punishable by death,

reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. )S;

(44*.

R=R.

A icarious admission is considered an e#ception to the hearsay rule. =t, howeer,

does not coer1 )4+

)A admission by a conspirator

)B admission by a priy

)C judicial admission



)9 adoptie admission

)C /ote1 a icarious admission is an e#trajudicial admission. 7ence C is not

coered by the rule regarding icarious admissions.

Documents

Remedial Lawqs