!

AR (AMINATION 2004 R M DIA& &A#

26 September 2004 INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire consists of ten (10) pages, excluding this cover. There are ten Roman numbers divided into sub-sets ith corresponding percentages. Read each question ver! carefull!. "ns er it directl!, concisel!, and clearl!. #rite legibl!. $tart each Roman number on a separate page. "n ans er to a sub-question under the same number ma! be ritten continuousl! on the same and immediatel! succeeding pages until completed. %o not repeat the questions. " mere &'es( or &)o( ans er to a problem ithout explanation or discussion ill not be given an! credit. HAND IN YOUR NOT !OO" #ITH THIS $U STIONNAIR . %OOD &UC" ' ' 8:00 A.M. 12:00 Noon

$U STION NO. I ". *n a complaint for a sum of mone! filed before the ++ Regional Trial ,ourt, plaintiff did not mention or even -ust hint at an! demand for pa!ment made on defendant before commencing suit. %uring the trial, plaintiff dul! offered .xh. &"( in evidence for the stated purpose of proving the ma/ing of extra-udicial demand on defendant to pa! 0100,000, the sub-ect of the suit. .xh. &"( as a letter of demand for defendant to pa! said sum of mone! ithin 10 da!s from receipt, addressed to and served on defendant some t o months before suit as begun. #ithout ob-ection from defendant, the court admitted .xh. &"( in evidence. #as the court2s admission of .xh. &"( in evidence erroneous or not3 Reason. (14)

5.

+a!or T+ as charged of malversation through falsification of official documents. "ssisted b! "tt!. 60 as counsel de parte during pretrial, he signed together ith 6mbudsman 0rosecutor T7 a &8oint $tipulation of 9acts and %ocuments,( hich as presented to the $andiganba!an. 5efore the court could issue a pre-trial order but after some dela! caused b! "tt!. 60, he as substituted b! "tt!. :R as defense counsel. "tt!. :R forth ith filed a motion to ithdra the &8oint $tipulation,( alleging that it is pre-udicial to the accused because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the &%efense admitted all the documentar! evidence of the 0rosecution,( thus leaving the accused little or no room to defend himself, and violating his right against selfincrimination. $hould the court grant or den! :R2s motion3 Reason. (14) $U STION NO. II

".

R0 and $tate ;; have a subsisting .xtradition Treat!. 0ursuant thereto R02s $ecretar! of 8ustice ($68) filed a 0etition for .xtradition before the ++ Regional Trial ,ourt alleging that 8uan < an is the sub-ect of an arrest arrant dul! issued b! the proper criminal court of $tate ;; in connection ith a criminal case for tax evasion and fraud before his return to R0 as a balikbayan. 0etitioner pra!s that 8uan be extradited and delivered to the proper authorities of $tate ;; for trial, and that to prevent 8uan2s flight in the interim, a arrant for his immediate arrest be issued. 5efore the RT, could act on the petition for extradition, 8uan filed before it an urgent motion, in sum pra!ing (1) that $682s application for an arrest

arrant be set for hearing and (=) that 8uan be allo ed to post bail in the event the court ould issue an arrest arrant. $hould the court grant or den! 8uan2s pra!ers3 Reason. (14) 5. ,harged ith the offense of slight ph!sical in-uries under an information dul! filed ith the +eT, in +anila hich in the meantime had dul! issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed b! the Revised Rule on $ummar! 0rocedure, the accused filed ith said court a motion to quash on the sole ground that the officer ho filed the information had no authorit! to do so. The +eT, denied the motion on the ground that it is a prohibited motion under the said Rule. The accused thereupon filed ith the RT, in +anila a petition for certiorari in sum assailing and see/ing the nullification of the +eT,2s denial of his motion to quash. The RT, in due time issued an order den!ing due course to the certiorari petition on the ground that it is not allo ed b! the said Rule. The accused forth ith filed ith said RT, a motion for reconsideration of its said order. The RT, in time denied said motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a prohibited motion under the said Rule. #ere the RT,2s orders den!ing due course to the petition as as den!ing the motion for reconsideration correct3 Reason. (14) $U STION NO. III ". $ummons as issued b! the ++ Regional Trial ,ourt and actuall! received on time b! defendant from his ife at their residence. The sheriff earlier that da! had delivered the summons to her at said residence because defendant as not home at the time. The sheriff2s return or proof of service filed ith the court in sum states that the summons, ith attached cop! of the complaint, as served on defendant at his residence thru his ife, a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. %efendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no -urisdiction over his person as there as no valid service of summons on him because the sheriff2s return or proof of service does not sho that the sheriff first made a genuine attempt to serve the summons on defendant personall! before serving it thru his ife. *s the motion to dismiss meritorious3 #hat is the purpose of summons and b! hom ma! it be served3 .xplain. (14) ell

5.

The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused specificall! alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the caliber .>1 pistol mentioned therein. *n its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the fact that the sub-ect firearm as la full! sei?ed b! the police from the possession of the accused, that is, hile the pistol as tuc/ed at his aist in plain vie , ithout the accused being able to present an! license or permit to possess the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence rested its case and ithin a period of five da!s therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum contending that the prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of the accused be!ond reasonable doubt and so pra!ed that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as having aived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for -udgment on the basis of the prosecution evidence. *n due time, the court rendered -udgment finding the accused guilt! of the offense charged be!ond reasonable doubt and accordingl! imposing on him the penalt! prescribed therefor. *s the -udgment of the trial court valid and proper3 Reason. (14) $U STION NO. I)

".

%uring trial, plaintiff as able to present, ithout ob-ection on the part of defendant in an e-ectment case, evidence sho ing that plaintiff served on defendant a ritten demand to vacate the sub-ect propert! before the commencement of the suit, a matter not alleged or other ise set forth in the pleadings on file. +a! the corresponding pleading still be amended to conform to the evidence3 .xplain. (14)

5.

0laintiff filed a complaint for a sum of mone! against defendant ith the +eT,-+a/ati, the total amount of the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of hatever /ind, attorne!2s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, being 01,000,000. *n due time, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the +eT,2s lac/ of -urisdiction over the sub-ect matter. "fter due hearing, the +eT, (1) ruled that the court indeed lac/ed -urisdiction over the sub-ect matter of the complaint@ and (=) ordered that

the case therefore should be for arded to the proper Regional Trial ,ourt immediatel!. #as the court2s ruling concerning -urisdiction correct3 court2s order to for ard the case proper3 .xplain briefl!. (14) $U STION NO. ) ". "fter plaintiff in an ordinar! civil action before the AA Regional Trial ,ourt has completed presentation of his evidence, defendant ithout prior leave of court moved for dismissal of plaintiff2s complaint for insufficienc! of plaintiff2s evidence. "fter due hearing of the motion and the opposition thereto, the court issued an order, reading as follo sB &The ,ourt hereb! grants defendant2s motion to dismiss and accordingl! orders the dismissal of plaintiff2s complaint, ith the costs taxed against him. *t is so ordered.( *s the order of dismissal valid3 appeal3 Reason. 5. +a! plaintiff properl! ta/e an (14) #as the

"; as charged before the '' Regional Trial ,ourt ith theft of -e elr! valued at 0=0,000, punishable ith imprisonment of up to 10 !ears of prision mayor under the Revised 0enal ,ode. "fter trial, he as convicted of the offense charged, not ithstanding that the material facts dul! established during the trial sho ed that the offense committed as estafa, punishable b! imprisonment of up to eight !ears of prision mayor under the said ,ode. )o appeal having been ta/en therefrom, said -udgment of conviction became final. *s the -udgment of conviction valid3 *s the said -udgment revie able thru a special civil action for certiorari3 Reason. (14) $U STION NO. )I

".

%istinguish clearl! but briefl! bet eenB 1. =. C. 5urden of proof and burden of evidence. ,ompetenc! of the itness and credibilit! of the itness. Degislative facts and ad-udicative facts.

>. 1.

Eearsa! evidence and opinion evidence. :uestions of la and questions of fact. (14)

5.

*n his complaint for foreclosure of mortgage to hich as dul! attached a cop! of the mortgage deed, plaintiff 00 alleged inter alia as follo sB (1) that defendant %% dul! executed the mortgage deed, cop! of hich is "nnex &"( of the complaint and made an integral part thereof@ and (=) that to prosecute his complaint, plaintiff contracted a la !er, ,,, for a fee of 010,000. *n his ans er, defendant alleged, inter alia, that he had no /no ledge of the mortgage deed, and he also denied an! liabilit! for plaintiff2s contracting ith a la !er for a fee. %oes defendant2s ans er as to plaintiff2s allegation no. 1 as no. = sufficientl! raise an issue of fact3 Reason briefl!. (14) $U STION NO. )II ell as

".

"fter defendant has served and filed his ans er to plaintiff2s complaint for damages before the proper Regional Trial ,ourt, plaintiff served and filed a motion ( ith supporting affidavits) for a summar! -udgment in his favor upon all of his claims. %efendant served and filed his opposition ( ith supporting affidavits) to the motion. "fter due hearing, the court issued an order (1) stating that the court has found no genuine issue as to an! material fact and thus concluded that plaintiff is entitled to -udgment in his favor as a matter of la except as to the amount of damages recoverable, and (=) accordingl! ordering that plaintiff shall have -udgment summaril! against defendant for such amount as ma! be found due plaintiff for damages, to be ascertained b! trial on 6ctober F, =00>, at GBC0 o2cloc/ in the morning. +a! defendant properl! ta/e an appeal from said order3 6r, ma! defendant properl! challenge said order thru a special civil action for certiorari3 Reason. (14)

5.

$061 ,), filed ith the +etropolitan Trial ,ourt in :ue?on ,it! (+eT,-:,) a s orn ritten statement dul! subscribed b! him, charging R7R (an actual resident of ,ebu ,it!) ith the offense of slight ph!sical in-uries allegedl! inflicted on $0$ (an actual resident of :ue?on ,it!). The 8udge of the branch to hich the case as raffled thereupon issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed b! the Rule on $ummar! 0rocedure in criminal cases. $oon thereafter, the 8udge

ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it commenced b! information, as required b! said Rule.

as not

$ometime later, based on the same facts giving rise to the slight ph!sical in-uries case, the ,it! 0rosecutor filed ith the same +eT,-:, an information for attempted homicide against the same R7R. *n due time, before arraignment, R7R moved to quash the information on the ground of double -eopard! and after due hearing, the 8udge granted his motion. #as the dismissal of the complaint for slight ph!sical in-uries proper3 #as the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information correct3 Reason. (14) $U STION NO. )III ". ";, a +a/ati-bound pa!ing passenger of 05H, a public utilit! bus, died instantl! on board the bus on account of the fatal head ounds he sustained as a result of the strong impact of the collision bet een the bus and a dump truc/ that happened hile the bus as still travelling on .%$" to ards +a/ati. The foregoing facts, among others, ere dul! established on evidence-in-chief b! the plaintiff T', sole heir of ";, in T'2s action against the sub-ect common carrier for breach of contract of carriage. "fter T' had rested his case, the common carrier filed a demurrer to evidence, contending that plaintiff2s evidence is insufficient because it did not sho (1) that defendant as negligent and (=) that such negligence as the proximate cause of the collision. $hould the court grant or den! defendant2s demurrer to evidence3 Reason briefl!. (14) 5. "; s indled R' in the amount of 010,000 sometime in mid-=00C. 6n the strength of the s orn statement given b! R' personall! to $061 8uan Ramos sometime in mid-=00>, and ithout securing a arrant, the police officer arrested ";. 9orth ith the police officer filed ith the ,it! 0rosecutor of +anila a complaint for estafa supported b! R'2s s orn statement and other documentar! evidence. "fter due inquest, the prosecutor filed the requisite information ith the ++ Regional Trial ,ourt. )o preliminar! investigation as conducted either before or after the filing of the information and the accused at no time as/ed for such an investigation. Eo ever, before arraignment, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the prosecutor suffered from a ant of authorit! to file the information because of his failure to conduct a

preliminar! investigation before filing the information, as required b! the Rules of ,ourt. *s the arrantless arrest of "; valid3 *s he entitled to a preliminar! investigation before the filing of the information3 .xplain. (14) $U STION NO. I( ". 0; filed a suit for damages against %'. *n his ans er, %' incorporated a counterclaim for damages against 0; and ",, counsel for plaintiff in said suit, alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia, that ",, as such counsel, maliciousl! induced 0; to bring the suit against %' despite ",2s /no ledge of its utter lac/ of factual and legal basis. *n due time, ", filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim as against him on the ground that he is not a proper part! to the case, he being merel! plaintiff2s counsel. *s the counterclaim of %' compulsor! or not3 $hould ",2s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not3 Reason. (14)

5.

;'A, an alien, as criminall! charged of promoting and facilitating child prostitution and other sexual abuses under Rep. "ct )o. FI10. The principal itness against him as his 9ilipina ife, "5,. .arlier, she had complained that ;'A2s hotel as being used as a center for sex tourism and child traffic/ing. The defense counsel for ;'A ob-ected to the testimon! of "5, at the trial of the child prostitution case and the introduction of the affidavits she executed against her husband as a violation of espousal confidentialit! and marital privilege rule. *t turned out that %.9, the minor daughter of "5, b! her first husband ho as a 9ilipino, as molested b! ;'A earlier. Thus, "5, had filed for legal separation from ;'A since last !ear. +a! the court admit the testimon! and affidavits of the ife, "5,, against her husband, ;'A, in the criminal case involving child prostitution3 Reason. (14)

$U STION NO. ( ". "t the scene of a heinous crime, police recovered a man2s shorts ith blood stains and strands of hair. $hortl! after ards, a arrant as issued and police arrested the suspect, "". %uring his detention, a medical technician extracted blood sample from his finger and cut a strand from his hair, despite ""2s ob-ections. %uring ""2s trial for rape ith murder, the prosecution sought to introduce %)" (deox!ribonucleic acid) evidence against "", based on forensic laborator! matching of the materials found at the crime scene and ""2s hair and blood samples. ""2s counsel ob-ected, claiming that %)" evidence is inadmissible because the materials ta/en from "" ere in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination as ell as his right of privac! and personal integrit!. $hould the %)" evidence be admitted or not3 Reason. (14) 5. $gt. 7R of #0% arrested t o )0" suspects, +ax and 5rix, both aged ==, in the act of robbing a grocer! in .rmita. "s he handcuffed them he noted a pistol tuc/ed in +ax2s aist and a dagger hidden under 5rix2s shirt, hich he promptl! confiscated. "t the police investigation room, +ax and 5rix orall! aived their right to counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath, the! freel! ans ered questions as/ed b! the police des/ officer. Thereafter the! signed their s orn statements before the police captain, a la !er. +ax admitted his part in the robber!, his possession of a pistol and his o nership of the pac/et of shabu found in his poc/et. 5rix admitted his role in the robber! and his possession of a dagger. 5ut the! denied being )0" hit men. *n due course, proper charges ere filed b! the ,it! 0rosecutor against both arrestees before the ++ Regional Trial ,ourt. +a! the ritten statements signed and s orn to b! +ax and 5rix be admitted b! the trial court as evidence for the prosecution3 Reason. (14)