CIVIL PROCEDURE The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have jurisdiction

Problem I over the complaint of B, because the real nature of the
case is one for unlawful detainer. [B.P. Blg. 192, Section
A (resident of Manila) leased B (resident of Quezon
19]
City)’s condominium unit in Pasig City. A issued
post-dated checks. A was prohibited from sub- The circumstances of the case satisfies all the elements
leasing the premises without the prior written of unlawful detainer:
consent of B. The agreement also included a venue
stipulation, stating that the exclusive venue for any a. A previously lawfully possessed the property
litigation that should arise from or is in relation to by lease;
the Lease is in Makati. b. B notified A that his right of possession was
terminated for violating the lease, by sub-
B discovered that A had entered into a sub-lease with
leasing the property to C;
C without his written consent. B wrote A demanding
c. A and C remained in possession despite B’s
the immediate surrender of the leased premises and
notice and deprived B of its enjoyment; and
payment of back rentals. A denied the sub-lease,
d. B filed a complaint within one year from his
saying that C is his cousin who is living with him. As
demand that A and C vacate the property.
for the rental arrears, A promised to update his
account within a week's time. Despite the lapse of [Sps. Erorita v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 195477
one (1) month, however, A still failed to pay.
Which court is the proper venue for the complaint of
B filed a Complaint for Rescission of the Lease B? Is the venue stipulation in the Lease Agreement
Agreement, Recovery of Possession and Damages exclusive?
against A and C before the RTC of Quezon City.
Makati City is the proper venue for the complaint of B.
Attached to the Complaint were the Lease Agreement
and B's demand letter to A. An exclusive venue stipulation is valid and binding,
provided that: (a) the stipulation on the chosen venue
A’s Counsel filed an Entry of Appearance with
is exclusive in nature or in intent; (b) it is expressed in
Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer' or a
writing by the parties thereto; and (c) it is entered into
Motion to Dismiss. C filed a Motion to Dismiss
before the filing of the suit. [Ley Construction and
alleging lack of cause of action, insisting there is no
Development Corporation, et al. v. Sedano, G.R. No.
privity between him and B.
222711, 23 August 2017]
The RTC granted A a 15-day extension of this period
Should A be declared in default? What are the
to plead, until March 1, 2018. A submitted a Motion
consequences of and remedies from a default
to Dismiss on March 2, 2018, alleging lack of
declaration?
jurisdiction, first, over his person, considering that
the Sheriff failed to personally serve summons Yes, A should be declared in default for failure to file
directly to him, and second, over the subject matter of an Answer within the time allowed therefor. [Rule 9,
the action, as the Complaint partakes of the nature of Section 1]
a real action and B failed to allege the assessed value
of the subject property. Additionally, A claims that B The consequences of a judgment of default are as
failed to pay the correct docket fees based on such follows:
assessed value. The RTC thus failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the case. a. the court shall proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his
B filed a Motion to Declare A in Default due to the pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
late filing of his Motion to Dismiss. Separately, B discretion requires the claimant to submit
opposed the Motion to Dismiss of C, arguing that C evidence. [Rule 9, Section 3]
is an indispensable party without whom no final b. A party in default shall be entitled to notice
determination of the case can be had. of subsequent proceedings but not to take
part in the trial. [Rule 9, Section 3(a)]
Which court has jurisdiction over the complaint of B?
What is the real nature of the case filed by B?

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 1 of 22

The remedy from a judgment of default is to file a
Sec 1(g) No. 201248, 11 March
motion, at any time after notice thereof and before
2015]
judgment, to set aside the order of default upon
proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and Remedy: move for Remedy: demur to the
that he has a meritorious defense. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)] dismissal of the pleading evidence [Pacañas-
Contreras v. Rovila Water
Rule on A's Motion to Dismiss. Did the RTC acquire Supply, Inc., G.R. No.
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over A's 168979, 2 December 2013]
person?

A’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted for lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. Is C an indispensable party? Assuming that C's
impleader is improper, is dismissal the right course
a. No, RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
of action?
the subject matter of the case, which is one
for unlawful detainer. The Municipal Trial Yes, C is an indispensable party, since his interest
Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and will be affected by the current action.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have
jurisdiction. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
b. Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over A’s affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and
person. without whom no final determination of the case can
A filed his Entry of Appearance with Motion be had. [Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, 11
for Extension of Time to File an Answer or a March 2015].
Motion to Dismiss. Generally, one who seeks
Assuming that C’s impleader is improper, dismissal is
an affirmative relief is deemed to have
not the right course of action in this case.
submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court.[Prudential Bank v. Magdamit, Jr., G.R. Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is
No. 183795, 12 November 2014] ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of
Rule on C's Motion to Dismiss. What is the
difference between lack of cause of action and any party or on its own initiative at any stage the
failure to state a cause of action? action and on such terms as are just. [Rule 3, Section 11]

C’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In this case, Assume that the RTC denied the Motion to Declare
B has a cause of action against C. C is occupying the A in Default and B files a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, arguing only
property owned by B.
a pure question of law, should the Supreme Court
The difference between failure to state a cause of give the petition due course?
action and a lack of cause of action are as follows:
No, the Supreme Court should not give due course to
B’s petition for certiorari, because it is an improper
Failure to State a Cause Lack of Cause of Action
remedy. The proper remedy to assail the denial of an
of Action
interlocutory order on a pure question of law is under
Rule 45. [Rule 45, Section 1]
Insufficiency of the Insufficiency of the
allegations in the factual basis for the action Are the Lease Agreement and demand letter
pleading [Zuniga-Santos v. Santos- actionable documents? If so, how are they supposed
Gran, G.R. No. 197380, 8 to be addressed by A in his answer?
October 2014]
The Lease Agreement and demand letter are
actionable documents, as B’s action in the Complaint
Ground for Motion to Raised any time [Naguit for C’s alleged improper occupancy is based thereon.
Dismiss under Rule 16, Aquino v. Quiazon, G.R.

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 2 of 22

Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written set as the Notice merely stated “submitted for the
instrument or document, the substance of such immediate consideration of the Honorable Court.”
instrument or document shall be set forth in the Rule on Rodrigo’s objection to the motion.
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
Rodrigo’s objections to the lack of notice of
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be
hearing in Lourdes’ Omnibus Motions should be
deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may
sustained. Lourdes’ Omnibus Motion is a motion
with like effect be set forth in the pleading. [Rule 8,
Section 7] which could prejudice the rights of an adverse party,
and should thus be set for hearing. Except for Motions
which the court may act upon without prejudicing the
rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall
Problem II be set for hearing by the applicant. [Rule 15, Section 4]
Rodrigo sued Lourdes for Collection of a Sum of The MeTC denied Lourdes' Omnibus Motion. She
Money before the MeTC of Manila. Because no filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of
Answer was filed, the MeTC rendered judgment by denial. The MeTC denied the motion outright for
default, awarding the amounts prayed for by being a second motion for Reconsideration.
Rodrigo in his Complaint. Armed with a writ of
execution of the judgment by default, the MeTC Was the MeTC correct?
Sheriff seized her motor vehicle found in her office.
Lourdes was shocked to learn for the very first time The MeTC was correct in denying Lourdes’ Second
that a judgment had already been rendered against Motion for Reconsideration. A second motion for
her. reconsideration is a prohibited pleading which shall
not be allowed except for extraordinarily persuasive
Lourdes filed an Omnibus Motion for reasons and only after an express leave shall have first
Reconsideration and New Trial, alleging that the been obtained. [Roasters Philippines, Inc. v. Ga Viola,
Sheriff and Rodrigo colluded to have the wrong G.R. No. 191874, 2 September 2015]
address in the Complaint. Thus, the MeTC failed to
acquire jurisdiction over her person and the Lourdes filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. She
judgment is void. also filed a Petition for Injunction with application
for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the
Rule on the Omnibus Motion of Lourdes. denial of her Motion for Reconsideration. She
alleged that it was grave abuse of discretion for the
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
MeTC to deny her motion outright for being a
Lourdes cannot assail the court’s jurisdiction over her
second Motion for Reconsideration considering that
by filing a motion for reconsideration of a default
the Omnibus Motion sought reconsideration of the
judgment and to lift order of default with motion for
judgment by default, and so the subject matter of the
reconsideration, as this is considered as voluntary
two motions are different.
submission to the court’s jurisdiction. One who seeks
affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Rodrigo moved to dismiss the appeal for being time-
jurisdiction of the court. This, however, is tempered by barred, considering that the judgment has long
the concept of conditional appearance, such that a become final and executory. It was also the incorrect
party who makes a special appearance to challenge, remedy.
among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person
Should the appeal be dismissed?
cannot be considered to have submitted to its
authority. [Philippine Commercial Bank v. Sps. Pi and Dy, Lourdes’ Appeal should be dismissed because it is an
G.R. No. 171137, 5 June 2009] incorrect remedy. The proper remedy from a
The MeTC set the Omnibus Motion for hearing and judgment of default is to file a Motion to Lift Order of
required Rodrigo to file a Comment. Rodrigo argued Default. A party declared in default may, at any time
that the Omnibus Motion is pro forma because it did after notice thereof and before judgment, file a Motion
not contain a Notice of Hearing required under Rule under oath to set aside the order of default upon
15, and it was addressed to the Branch Clerk of proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
Court, and not to his counsel. Also, no hearing was fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 3 of 22

that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the Rodrigo’s motion to dissolve the Writ of Preliminary
order of default may be set aside on such terms and Injunction should be granted. It was improper for the
conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of RTC to issue the Writ since the act sought to be
justice. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)] enjoined had already been accomplished. Injunction
would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined had
Rodrigo also moved to dismiss the petition on the already become fait accompli (meaning, an
ground of forum shopping. Moreover, he posited accomplished or consummated act) [Sps. Marquez v.
that the Order of Denial of the Motion for
Sps. Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, 22 January2014].
Reconsideration is not the proper subject of a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Rule on Rodrigo’s argument that the judgment of default is
Rodrigo's motion. immutable and may no longer be altered is incorrect. If
found void, said judgment can never become final or
Rodrigo’s motion should be denied because there is no
immutable. [Imperial v. Armes, G.R. No. 178842, 30
forum shopping in this case. There is forum shopping
January 2017]
"when a party repetitively avails of several judicial
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or The RTC denied Rodrigo's Motion to Dissolve the
successively, all substantially founded on the same Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Sheriff thus set
transactions and the same essential facts and the auction sale of Lourdes' motor vehicle and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same required Lourdes to turn over the owner's copies of
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely the OR and CR of the vehicle, as well as its duplicate
by some other court.” [Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, keys. But Lourdes refused to comply. Rodrigo thus
G.R. No. 159691, 17 February 2014] filed a motion with the MeTC to order Lourdes to
comply and it was granted. Despite personal service
Lourdes’ Rule 65 petition did not violate the rules of the order on Lourdes, she still refused to comply.
against forum shopping because she is asking for two
(2) different reliefs in the filing of her Notice of Appeal Rodrigo filed a Motion to cite Lourdes in indirect
and Petition for Injunction. contempt of court with the MeTC. The MeTC
granted the Motion and issued a warrant for the
Moreover, Rodrigo’s argument that Rule 65 is an arrest of Lourdes. Lourdes moved for reconsideration
improper remedy is incorrect. A Petition for Certiorari of the order citing her in indirect contempt, and
under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail an order prayed for the warrant of arrest to be quashed. Rule
attended by grave abuse of discretion. The exercise of on Lourdes' motion.
the power to correct grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part Lourdes’ Motion for Reconsideration must be granted.
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government A charge for indirect contempt, if not done motu
cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the proprio by the court, should be in the form of a verified
contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one side. petition. A citation for indirect contempt may only be
The Court has the bounden constitutional duty to done by the court motu proprio, or otherwise, be
strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever and commenced by a verified petition with supporting
wherever it is committed. [Macapagal Arroyo v. People of particulars and certified true copies of documents or
the Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, 18 April 2017] papers involved therein, and upon full compliance
with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings
The RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. for civil actions in the court concerned. [Rule 71, Section
Rodrigo moved to dissolve the Writ on the ground 4]
that it is fait accompli, considering that the motor
vehicle of Lourdes had already been levied. Assume that the case had gone to trial. Rodrigo
Moreover, Rodrigo pointed out that the judgment by moved for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum
default has already become immutable and may no against Lourdes to be his adverse witness. Lourdes
longer be altered. Rule on Rodrigo's motion to opposed. Rodrigo did not resort to any of the modes
dissolve writ. of discovery prior to trial. Rule on Rodrigo's motion.

Rodrigo’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena ad

testificandum against Lourdes must be denied, for
failure of Rodrigo to resort to the modes of discoveries.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 4 of 22
Unless allowed by the court for good cause shown and Assume that in Mario's and Luigi's agreement, they
to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with stipulated: "Any dispute arising from this agreement
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the shall be filed in the courts of Quezon City." Is
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to Mario's choice of venue restricted to Quezon City?
give a deposition pending appeal. [Rule 25, Section 6]
Mario’s choice of venue is not restricted to Quezon
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause City, seeing as the words “exclusive,” “shall only,” “to
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party who the exclusion of other courts,” were not included in the
fails to file and serve a request for admission on the venue stipulation. Hence, the venue stipulation cannot
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue be seen as exclusively limiting the parties’ choices to
which are, or ought to be, within the personal Quezon City.
knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to
In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such
present evidence on such facts. [Rule 26, Section 5]
as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other
venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of
venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words
Problem III of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as
merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
In their business venture, Mario was the capitalist
limiting venue to the specified place. [Ley Construction
and Luigi was the industrial partner. Luigi
and Development Corporation, et al. v. Sedano, G.R. No.
demanded to be paid a monthly salary over and
222711, 23 August 2017]
above his share in the profits. Mario refused on the
ground that Luigi's contribution to the business Mario failed to file a Reply to the Answer with
venture was precisely his work, hence he is not Counterclaim of Luigi. Luigi filed a Motion to
entitled to be paid for it. Luigi stopped reporting for Declare in Default against Mario praying for
work, so Mario had to hire a replacement Manager to judgment on the pleadings. Mario opposed the
take over. motion alleging that he did not have to file a reply
since all the new matters alleged in the Answer are
Mario sued Luigi for breach of contract and damages.
deemed Controverted.
He prayed for the rescission of their joint venture
agreement. Luigi counterclaimed asking for specific Should Mario be declared in default?
performance, claiming his entitlement to the
payment of salaries for the entire period he worked Yes, Mario should be declared in default for failure to
as Manager. answer Luigi’s Counterclaim. Following Rule 9,
Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, if a
What is the nature of Mario's action and where is the
defendant fails to answer the counterclaim, then upon
proper venue for it?
motion of plaintiff, the defendant may be declared in
Mario’s action for breach of contract is a civil action default. [Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of
where the subject of litigation is incapable of Appeals, G.R. No. 100812, 25 June 1999]
pecuniary estimation. In specific performance and
If Mario is declared in default, should judgment on
rescission of contract cases, the subject matter is
the pleadings be granted?
incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction
belongs to the Regional Trial Court. [Sps. Pajares v. No, If Mario is declared in default, judgment on the
Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, G.R. No. 212690, pleadings should NOT be granted. Mario’s failure to
20 February 2017]. file an Answer to the Counterclaim does not constitute
a failure to tender an issue, nor an admission of the
The venue is either Mario’s or Luigi’s place of
material allegations of the adverse party's pleading
residence. Personal actions may be commenced and
[Rule 34, Section 1]. Rather, the effect of a declaration
tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
of default is that the court shall proceed to render
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
resident defendant where he may be found, at the
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
election of the plaintiff. [Rule 4, Section 2]
[Rule 9, Section 3]
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 5 of 22
Problem IV judgment was contrary to the law or to the
evidence
Batman sued Robin for the collection of a sum of
 Motion for New Trial under Rule 37- if
money. Summons was issued and the Process Server
judgment had already been rendered but has
filed a Return stating that Robin could not be found
not yet become final and executory. The same
at his home address, so summons was served on the
affidavits as are required in a motion to lift
security guard of his subdivision.
order of default must be attached.
Was there a valid substituted service of summons on  Petition for Relief from Judgment under
Robin? Rule 38- If judgment has become final and
executor
No, there was no valid substituted service of  Petition for Annulment of Judgment [under
summons on Robin. This is not proper substituted Rule 47] on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
service under Rule 14, Section 7. or extrinsic fraud -Should the defaulted
defendant fail to file a petition for relief [Sps.
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
Benedit v. Ong, G.R. No. 205249, 15 October
served within a reasonable time as provided in the
2014]
preceding section, service may be effected (a) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's
residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
copies at defendant's office or regular place of business
Jay was arrested without a warrant for theft of a
with some competent person in charge thereof [Rule mobile phone which he insisted was his. Before he
14, Section 7]. The security guard of the subdivision was subjected to inquest proceeding, he asked for a
was not competent to receive the summons on behalf preliminary investigation but refused to sign a
of Robin. waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised
Penal Code in the presence of his counsel. The
If Robin cannot be located, how may the court inquest prosecutor must then:
acquire jurisdiction over Robin?
Proceed with the inquest even over objection of Jay’s
counsel.
The court may acquire jurisdiction over him through
service of summons, after leave of court is granted, by When the accused fails to appear at trial despite
publication in a newspaper of general circulation notice, the court must immediately:
and in such places and for such time as the court may
Cause the bond to be forfeited in favor of the
order, as provided under Rule 14, Section 14.
government and issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused.
Enumerate all the remedies, cumulative and
alternative, available to Robin to question the As a general rule, the civil liability arising from a
judgment. Discuss each remedy stating the grounds crime is impliedly instituted along with the filing of
on which each may be granted, the period for the criminal action. What are the exceptions to this
availment, and the proper court where it may be rule?
filed.
Under Rule 111, Section 1, the exceptions to this rule
are when the offended party: (a) waives the civil
 File a Motion to Lift Order of Default - A
action; (b) reserves the right to institute it separately;
party declared in default may at any time after or (c) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
notice thereof and before judgment file a action. In addition to the civil liability arising from
motion under oath to set aside the order of crime, the offended party may also file an independent
default upon proper showing that his failure civil action under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2716 of the Civil
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake Code, provided that the offended party cannot twice
recover damages for the same act.
or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)]
 Appeal - if judgment had already been
rendered but has not yet become final and
executory, an appeal asserting that the
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 6 of 22
What is a prejudicial question? Give an example of a Problem II
case that gives rise to a prejudicial question and
explain what is the consequence when such an issue Karl was charged with Malicious Mischief for
arises. etching his initials on the hood of his best friend
Carlo's brand new car with a knifetip. Because Karl
Rule 111, Section 7 states that there is a prejudicial apologized and promised to pay for the damage to
question when: (a) the previously instituted civil Carlo's car in installments. Carlo and Karl executed
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to an amicable settlement of the civil aspect of the case
the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit as part
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or of pre-trial proceedings in the case. For this reason,
not the criminal action may proceed. Carlo agreed not to testify against Karl anymore.
Upon Karl's counsel's motion, the trial court
An example of a case involving a prejudicial question dismissed the case on June 25, 2017, but only
is a civil case instituted to question the election of a provisionally subject to Karl's full compliance with
corporation’s directors and officers, and a subsequent the settlement terms. On October 8, 2018, Carlo's
criminal case filed on behalf of the corporation by the counsel, with the conformity of the Public
directors and officers whose election is subject of the Prosecutor, filed a Motion to Revive the case due to
prior civil case.The resolution of the prior civil case is the non-payment by Karl of the balance of the
intimately related to the subsequent criminal action installments for the damaged car.
because said civil case will determine whether the
directors who filed the complaint on behalf of the Rule on the Motion to Revive, considering that the
corporation were authorized to perform this corporate case has both a criminal and civil aspect.
actions.
The case against Karl for Malicious Mischief can no
longer be revived on 8 October 2018 considering that
more than one (1) year has passed since the
Problem I provisional dismissal of the case on 25 June 2017.

As the counsel for Nico Roberto who was wrongfully The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
booked and placed behind bars (the warrant of arrest imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of
was supposed to be for his brother but was served to any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1)
Nico Roberto’s home instead), what remedy/ies will year after issuance of the order without the case
you resort to? having been revived. [Rule 117, Section 8] The penalty
for the charge of Malicious Mischief, if the value of the
As counsel for Nico Roberto, I will file an application damage caused exceeds Php1,000, is arresto mayor in
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule its minimum and medium periods. Hence, the case
102 of the Rules of Court. Except as otherwise could have only been revived if it was done one (1)
expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus year from 8 October 2018.
shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention by which any person is deprived of his However, this dismissal is without prejudice to civil
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person remedies for the violation of the Compromise
is withheld from the person entitled thereto. [Rule 102, Agreement between Karl and Carlo. Carlo can file a
Section 1] case for against Karl for violation of the Compromise
Agreement, and to recover the balance of the
In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer, the installments for the damaged car, seeing as though a
writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him compromise agreement is a contract between the
to have the body of the person restrained of his liberty parties, which if not contrary to law, morals or public
before the court or judge designated in the writ at the policy, is valid and enforceable between them. [Sps.
time and place therein specified. In case of Abinujar and Lana v. CA, G.R. No. 104133, 18 April 1995]
imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer,
the writ shall be directed to an officer, and shall
command him to take and have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge Problem III
designated in the writ at the time and place therein
specified, and to summon the person by whom he is Candice, Beth, Juls, Idel, and Grace were fed up with
restrained then and there to appear before said court their officemate, Marivic. Marivic has had separate
or judge to show the cause of the imprisonment or altercations with each of them and they were
restraint. [Rule 102, Section 2] unanimous in their sentiment that Marivic should
not last any longer in their

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 7 of 22

 office. In their social media posts, the 5 gjrls, Assume that the trial court granted the motion and
without naming Marivic, and referring to her only as discharged Idel as a state witness, what is the
"the she devil," recounted every little story depicting prosecution's remedy to question the trial court's
action, and on what ground/ s?
Marivic as "evil," "despicable," "corrupt,"
"walanghiya" "social climber," and "doble cara" If Idel is discharged as a state witness by the court, the
They also posted a photograph of a woman digitally remedy to question the trial court’s action is by filing a
altered to cloak her in all black and with her face in petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA,
shadow, with the caption "Who is the she devil?" following the hierarchy of courts, based on the trial
under. They then invited readers to guess the court’s grave abuse of discretion.
identity of the woman in the photograph. Many
commented on the posts of the 5 girls, some guessed Assume that the reviewing court found that the trial
at the identity of the woman in the photograph, court did err in granting the Motion to Discharge
others recounted similar stories, but the majority Idel as State Witness. May Idel still be prosecuted as
expressed sympathy for the 5 girls and outrage at the a co-conspirator of the 4 other girls?
conduct of Marivic. There were many who angrily
threatened Marivic and called for her resignation. Yes, Idel can still be prosecuted as a co-conspirator of
Marivic brought cases against the 5 girls for the 4 other accused if it is found that the court erred in
violations of the Cybercrime Law, specifically for granting the Motion to Discharge her as state witness.
Cyber Bullying and Cyber Libel, Conspiracy was
alleged against the 5 girls. The prosecution filed a Since the order discharging Idel as a state witness is
Motion to Discharge Idel as State Witness, alleging void, she shall not be allowed to testify as a state
that Idel was the least guilty since she never posted witness. Her failure to testify against the other accused
anything but was merely tagged by the 4 other girls will not render her as acquitted.The order indicated in
in the subject posts. Marivic opposed the motion on the preceding section (Rule 119, Section 17) shall
the ground that there was no necessity for the amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and
discharge as the commission of both offenses were shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same
directly evidenced by the social media posts which offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify
were available publicly. Moreover, Idel has already against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn
been previously convicted for Violation of BP Big. statement constituting the basis for the discharge.
22. [Rule 119, Section and 18]

Rule on the motion. In any case, the order declaring Idel’s acquittal is
likewise void.
The prosecution’s Motion to Discharge Idel as state
witness should be denied.

An accused can only be discharged as state witness, Problem IV

among others, if the following elements are satisfied:
Ding, Zaldy and Jeff got into a Fistfight over the
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of Ateneo-UP basketball championship game. Because
the accused whose discharge is requested Ding and Zaldy ganged up on Jeff, Jeff sustained a
2. The is no other direct evidence available for blackeye and a bruised jaw. Jeff charged Ding and
the proper prosecution of the offense Zaldy with Slight Physical Injuries and the 2 were
committed, except the testimony of said convicted.
accused
3. The testimony of said accused can be What are the options available to Ding and Zaldy at
substantially corroborated in its material this point?
points Ding and Zaldy may file an appeal [Rule 122, Section
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most
1], or a motion for new trial or a motion for
guilty; and reconsideration [Rule 121, Section 1] with the RTC. The
5. Said accused has not at any time been court shall grant a new trial on any of the following
convicted of any offense involving moral grounds:
turpitude.
a. The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial
Idel was previously convicted for violation of B.P. 22, to the substantial rights of the accused have
which is considered as a crime involving moral been committed during the trial
turpitude. [Wilkie v. Atty. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, 24 b. The new and material evidence has been
October 2008] Hence, Idel is not qualified to be
discovered which the accused could not with
discharged as a state witness. reasonable diligence have discovered and

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 8 of 22

 produced at the trial and which if introduced Was the Ombudsman's denial of the Omnibus
and admitted would probably change the Motion correct:
judgment. [Rule 121, Section 2]
a. On the first prayer for copies of
On the other hand, the court shall grant Tweedledee's and Tweedledum's counter-
reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact affidavits?
in the judgment, which requires no further
proceedings. [Rule 121, Section 3] Yes. In Reyes v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No.
208243, 5 June 2017), and Estrada v. Ombudsman (G.R.
Assume that only Ding opted to appeal his Nos. 212140-41, 21 January 2015), the Supreme Court
conviction, but the reviewing court affirmed his ruled that during preliminary investigation, the
conviction. What are the remedies of Ding to seek a Ombudsman is not required to furnish a respondent
reversal of his conviction? with the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. The
Section 4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the
The remedy of Ding to seek a reversal of his conviction Ombudsman (Ombudsman A.O. No. 7) refers to are
by the reviewing court would be to file a petition for affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, not the
review under Rule 42 with the CA. affidavits of the co-respondents. Obviously, the
counter-affidavits of the co-respondents are not part of
The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the supporting affidavits of the complainant.
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by
petition for review under Rule 42. [Rule 122, Section 3] b. On the second prayer for the examination
Considering that the Municipal Trial Courts and the and photocopying of the Stock and Transfer
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original Book?
jurisdiction over a case for Slight Physical Injuries [B.P.
Blg. 192, Section 31], the reviewing court is the RTC, a Yes. While the respondent shall have the right to
conviction of which must be reviewed by the CA. examine the evidence submitted by the complainant
which he may not have been furnished and to copy
Assume further that Ding was acquitted on further them at his expense (Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised
review. What would be the effect of such acquittal on Rules of Criminal Procedure), Mother Goose Company
Zaldy? Inc.’s stock and transfer books are not indicated as
evidence submitted by the complainant.
The acquittal of Ding on appeal would also have the
effect of acquitting Zaldy. c. On the third prayer to set a clarificatory
hearing?
An appeal taken by one or more of several accused
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except Yes. Under the Section 4(f) of the Ombudsman’s A.O.
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is No. 7, it is the investigating prosecutor’s discretion to
favorable and applicable to the latter. [Rule 122, Section set and conduct a clarificatory hearing, if upon his
11] assessment there are facts material to the case which
the investigating officer may need to be clarified on.
George Porgie cannot compel the investigating officer
to conduct a clarificatory hearing, during which the
Problem V
parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present
Georgie Porgie was charged with Plunder before the but without the right to examine or cross-examine the
Office of the Ombudsman by Miss Muffet. The witness being questioned, especially in this case where
Ombudsman furnished Georgie Porgie with a copy of he failed to show any material fact/s that need/s
Miss Muffet’s Complaint-Affidavit and its annexes, as clarification.
well as the Affidavits of her two witnesses, Georgie’s
The Ombudsman denied the motion for
own twin sister Georgia and their mother Georgina.
reconsideration of its Order of denial. Georgie Porgie
Georgie Pogies’s counsel Atty. Aesop filed an filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order denying his
Omnibus Motion with the Ombudsman requesting for motion for reconsideration.
first, copies of the counter-affidavits of Georgie Pogie’s
Was the remedy availed of by Georgie Porgie
co-respondents in the Plunder compliant, Tweedledee correct?
and Tweedledum; second, for the examination and
photocopying of the two volumes of the Stock and No. The Ombudsman’s order denying Georgie
Transfer book of the Mother Goose Company Inc.; Porgie’s the motion for reconsideration is not subject
and, third, for the setting of a clarificatory hearing. The to appeal. The proper remedy is for him to file a
Ombudsman denied all prayers in the Omnibus petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Motion. Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 9 of 22
lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Georgie [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or
Porgie’s Omnibus Motion. is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act
is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer." [People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 238
(2014)]. In this case, however, the police officers did
Consider the facts below for problems VI-VII
not have any evidence, much less, reason to believe
Peter Piper was standing at a street corner. Little Boy that an offense is being committed in their presence
Blue, riding a motorcycle, stopped where Peter Piper just because Little Boy Blue “drew something” from
stood and started talking to him. Little Boy Blue his pocket and extended his hand as if to hand over
drew something from his front pocket and extended something to Peter Piper.
his hand in the act of giving what he had taken from
The arrest of the accused is also not a case of a valid
his pocket to Peter Piper. Police officers suddenly
swarmed the two and brought them to the police “hot pursuit” warrantless arrest. Under Rule 113,
station with their consent. The lead police officer Section 5(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a
asked the two to empty their pockets. Two small warrantless arrest may be effected by a police officer
sachets of white crystalline substance (later tested or a private person “when an offense has just been
and confirmed to be shabu) were confiscated from committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
Little Boy Blue, while the pockets of Peter Piper on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
yielded a tooter and 200 pesos. An officer then the person to be arrested has committed it.” Here,
advised the two of their Miranda rights. Little Boy there is no showing that (i) an offense has just been
Blue and Peter Piper were brought right after to the committed; and (ii) the police officers had probable
Office of the City Prosecutor for inquest cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
proceedings. The next day, Little Boy Blue was or circumstances that Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper
charged with Illegal Sale of shabu, while Peter Piper have just committed an offense. Necessarily, the
was charged with Illegal Possession of drug seizure of the items against them are illegal and
paraphernalia, both under RA 9166. inadmissible.

Problem VI Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's

motion for a preliminary investigation?
Little Boy Blue's counsel filed a Motion to Quash the
Information against him on the ground of illegality No. Under the A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised
of his arrest and the subsequent seizure of his Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, such
personal possessions. The public prosecutor opposed motion is a meritorious motion. There is no showing
the motion on the following grounds: (a) illegality of that accused filed the motion beyond the reglementary
arrest was not one of the grounds for a motion to period of 5 days from notice. Further, the court should
quash; (b) the arrest of Little Boy Blue was a valid have at least considered the fact that the warrantless
warrantless arrest because he was caught in flagrante arrest was based on the police officers’ claim that Little
delicto in the act of selling shabu; and, (c) the arrest Boy Blue “drew something” from his pocket and
was done in "hot pursuit". For his part, Peter Piper extended his hand as if to hand over something to
filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation with Peter Piper. In this regard, due process dictates that
Motion to Defer Arraignment. The judge denied Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper’s side should be heard
Peter Piper's motions for being baseless. through the filing of their counter-affidavits and
supporting evidence.
Rule on each argument of the public prosecutor.
Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's
The alleged illegality of the arrest assails the court’s
motion to defer arraignment?
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Thus,
contrary to the prosecution’s claim, the supposed Yes, as long as the motion for preliminary
illegality of the arrest Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper is investigation has no basis. Under Rule 116, Section 11,
a valid ground for a motion to quash under Rule 117, arraignment may be deferred only on the following
Section 1(c), which provides that the complaint or grounds: (a) unsound mental condition of the accused;
information may be quashed on the ground that “the (b) the existence of a prejudicial questions; and (c) the
court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the pendency of a petition for review before the DOJ or
person of the accused”. the Office of the President. It may be argued, however,
that should the court grant accused’s motion for
The arrest of the accused is not a case of a valid case of
preliminary investigation, considering that it is a
a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Based on Rule
meritorious motion under the Revised Guidelines,
113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
necessarily the arraignment may be deferred pending
"two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
the resolution of the preliminary investigation ordered
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
by the court itself.
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 10 of 22
Problem VII As the judge of the Bulacan Court, should you
approve the bail of Nico?
On motion for reconsideration, the judge granted
Peter Piper's motion for preliminary investigation. Yes. The general rule is that bail should be posted in
The judge also suspended the proceedings in both the court where the case is pending. Rule 114, Section
the cases against Peter Piper and Little Boy Blue. It 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure also provides
was only 10 months later that the Office of the City that if the accused is arrested in the province, city, or
Prosecutor came out with a Resolution affirming the
municipality other than where the case is pending,
finding of probable cause against Peter Piper. The
accused may apply for or post or bail in the RTC or
public prosecutor thus filed a Motion to Set the
MTC of said place as the case may be. While this
Cases for Arraignment. Little Boy Blue opposed the
pertains to cases where accused is arrested, it should
motion and moved instead for the dismissal of the
also cover cases of voluntary surrender, where the
case against him on the ground of violation of his
right to speedy trial. State is relieved of the expense and trouble for
accused’s search and capture. Besides, the accused has
Should the judge grant or deny Little Boy Blue's the right to bail since the crime of homicide is a
motion to dismiss? bailable offense.

The judge should deny the motion. The doctrinal rule Assume that the Bulacan Court did not approve the
is that in the determination of whether or not that right bail of Nico. As Atty. Dirty Harry, what should your
has been violated, the factors that may be considered next step be towards securing the temporary liberty
and balanced are the length of delay, the reasons for of Nico during the pendency of the case?
such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right
Have him post bail with the Makati RTC because the
by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay
case is pending before the Makati RTC. Upon filing
(Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438, 31 July
posting the appropriate bail bond and a written
2018). In this case, the resolution of the Office of the
undertaking, among others, showing compliance with
City Prosecutor, which was issued 10 months after the
the requirements of section 2 of this Rule 114, then
judge granted accused’s motion for preliminary
Nico shall be discharged from custody (Rule 114,
investigation, does not constitute undue delay, and
Section 17 and Section 14 of the Rules of Criminal
such delay was not attributable to the fault of plaintiff.
Procedure).

Problem VIII
Problem IX
Nico was charged with Homicide. His counsel, Atty.
Arraignment was set by the Makati Court. Atty.
Dirty Harry, filed a Motion for Judicial
Dirty Harry filed an Omnibus Motion (for
Determination of Probable Cause with the RTC of
Suspension of Arraignment and to Quash
Makati City, where the Information was filed. To
Information) on the grounds of the pendency of
avoid arrest, Nico went to the RTC of Bulacan, his
Nico’s Petition for Review with the Department of
place of residence, and posted bail.
Justice and double jeopardy. Atty. Dirty Harry
As the Makati Court, should the Motion for Judicial argues that since the DOJ has yet to resolve the
Determination of Probable Cause be granted? Petition for Review, the arraignment should be
deferred in order not to render the review moot.
No. Under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised Additionally, he claims that Nico has been
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, a previously charged for the very same offense before
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause is the Bulacan Court, but the case was dismissed
a prohibited motion that shall be denied outright. because the situs criminis is in Makati City.
Furthermore, considering that Nico already posted
Should suspension of arraignment be granted due to
bail, which is tantamount to voluntary surrender, it is
the pendency of the Petition for Review with the
futile for the court to even consider his Motion as it
DOJ?
already acquired jurisdiction over his person (Inocentes
v. People, G.R. No. 205963-64, 7 July 2016, citing Yes. Under Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of
Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134307, 21 Criminal Procedure, the arraignment shall be
December 1998, 300 SCRA 367). suspended when a petition for review of the resolution
of the prosecutor is pending at either the DOJ or the
Office of the President, provided that the period of
suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office. Nico’s
pending Petition for Review before the DOJ warrant
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 11 of 22
the suspension of his arraignment for a period not Should the motion to amend be granted?
exceeding 60 days.
Yes. A complaint or information may be amended, in
Should the Information be quashed on the ground of form or in substance, without leave of court, at any
double jeopardy? time before the accused enters his plea (Rule 110,
Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
No. The Information may not be quashed on the Procedure). The prosecutor filed the motion to amend
ground of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches information before the arraignment or before the
only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a accused entered his plea. Therefore, the prosecution,
competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea without leave of court, may file a motion to amend the
having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or information in form or in substance.
otherwise terminated without the express consent of
the accused (Dimayacyac v. CA, G.R. No. 136264, 28 May The Prosecutor accompanied the motion to amend
2004). Double jeopardy does not lie on the basis of the with a Motion to Discharge Jico as a State Witness.
Bulacan Court’s dismissal. The dismissal, on the
ground of situs criminis, does not create a first jeopardy What conditions should be satisfied in order to
because (i) it is not a court of competent jurisdiction justify the grant of the motion to discharge Jico as
since the homicide occurred in Makati, not in Bulacan; State witness?
and (ii) there was no showing that the dismissal was
The following conditions should be satisfied in order
after arraignment and after a valid plea was entered.
to justify the grant of the motion to discharge Jico as a
If the ground invoked in a motion to quash is that State witness:
the facts charged do not constitute and offense, what
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of
is the proper court action?
the accused whose discharge is requested
The prosecution shall be given by the court an 2. There is no other direct evidence available for
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The the proper prosecution of the offense
motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to committed, except the testimony of said
make the amendment, or the complaint or information accused
still suffers from the same defect despite the 3. The testimony of said accused can be
amendment (Rule 117, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of substantially corroborated in its material
Criminal Procedure). points
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most
Will the quashal of an Information act as a bar to guilty
another prosecution for the same offense? 5. Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
No, unless the motion was based on the grounds that turpitude. (Rule 119, Section 17 of the Revised
(a) the criminal action or liability has been Rules of Criminal Procedure)
extinguished; and (b) the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise Problem XI
terminated without his express consent (Rule 117,
Section 6, in relation to Section 3, of the Revised Rules of Assume that Jico was discharged as a State witness.
Criminal Procedure). He executed an Affidavit narrating in detail the plan
to commit the killing of Serena and its actual
execution. Unfortunately, Jico was unable to testify
in court because he received numerous death threats
Problem X which caused him to fear for his life and go into
hiding. The Prosecutor was forced to rest the State’s
Before the scheduled date of arraignment, case without Jico’s open court testimony.
Prosecutor Gadoink filed a Motion to Amend
Information to change the charge to Murder, having What will be the legal effect of Jico’s failure to testify
received additional evidence pointing to a in court?
premeditated plan to kill the victim, Serena, and to
implead 2 additional accused, Pico and Jico. Atty. The same shall not be a bar for future prosecution for
Dirty Harry vehemently opposed the motion, citing the same offense. The order indicated under Rule 119,
the substantive change which will result in exposing Section 17 shall amount to an acquittal of the
his client to the possibility of being meted a higher discharged accused and shall be a bar to future
penalty. prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused
fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in
accordance with his sworn statement constituting the
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 12 of 22
basis for his discharge (Rule 119, Section 18 of the Do you agree with the position of the accused that he
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). cannot be convicted because the extrajudicial
confession he was forced to sign was inadmissible in
Problem XII evidence since his custodial investigation was
invalid? Do you also agree that no crime had been
When asked by COA and the Provincial Governor’s committed because he had paid off the shortage he
Office, Dimacabilang denied any knowledge about was held accountable for? Why or why not?
the loss of Php20,000.00, claiming the shortage
existed even during the time of his predecessor but While Dimacabilang may not be convicted based on
he also proposed a plan to pay for the Php30,000.00 his confession during custodial investigation, the
he admitted to have appropriated for himself following admissions may be used against him: (a) in
through a salary deduction scheme. After a 2-day his written response to the Provincial Governor’s
custodial investigation, he was charged with Office and the COA, he admitted to have appropriated
Malversation of Public Funds by virtue of his for himself the amount of Php30,000.00; and (b) he
extrajudicial confession admitting to the shortage. A proposed and thereafter paid the full amount of
lawyer from the PAO was present when he actually Php30,000.00 which he appropriated for himself. Rule
signed the same. 130, Section 27 states that in criminal cases, except
those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law
While the information was filed in court, the court
chose to suspend Dimacabilang’s arraignment to be compromised, an offer of compromised by the
indefinitely, upon motion of the accused, because at accused may be received in evidence as an implied
that time, he had filed a Petition for Review with the admission of guilt. In this case, the crime of
Department of Justice. Unfortunately, before the malversation is neither a quasi-offense nor an offense
DOJ resolved to affirm the probable cause finding allowed by law to be compromised. Hence, these
against the accused, four years had passed. By that admissions may be used against Dimacabilang.
time, the accused had fully paid the claimed shortage
of Php30,000.00 through the salary deductions
scheme.
Differentiate the following:
Based on all the grounds cited, will a motion to
1. The right of an accused to testify as a witness in
dismiss the case on grounds that his rights to a
his own behalf AND the accused’s right to be
speedy trial and custodial investigation have been
exempt from being compelled to be a witness
violated be granted? Discuss each ground raised and
against himself
explain your answer.
Under Rule 115, Section 1 (d), an accused has the right
Yes. The court erred in suspending the proceedings
to testify as a witness on his own behalf but subject to
indefinitely, despite the express mandate under Rule
cross-examination on matters covered by direct
116, Section 11 that the period for suspension on the
examination. However, while testifying in his own
ground of the pendency of a Petition for Review with
behalf, an accused’s constitutional right against self-
the DOJ shall not exceed sixty (60) days. Notably, it
incrimination allows him to refuse to answer a specific
was plaintiff’s duty to move for the continuation of the
question which has a tendency to incriminate him for a
criminal proceedings after the 60-day period. Hence,
crime. The right against self-incrimination may be
the failure to proceed with the prosecution of
claimed only when the specific question is asked of the
Dimacabilang for four years violated his right to
accused.
speedy trial.
2. Preliminary investigation conducted by the
The violation of Dimacabilang’s rights under custodial prosecutor AND the judicial determination of
investigation, on its own, will not result in the probable cause issued by the judge
dismissal of the case. Nevertheless, under Section 12(1)
and (3), Art. III of the Constitution and R.A. No. 7438, The former pertains to a determination of whether
the uncounseled extrajudicial admission he made there is probable cause to charge a person for a crime
during custodial investigation shall be inadmissible in by assessing whether there is enough evidence to
evidence. The presence of the PAO lawyer during the support an Information being filed. The latter pertains
signing of the written confession does not cure the to a determination of whether there is probable cause
violation of Dimacabilang’s rights. In People v. Daniego to issue a warrant of arrest against a person charged
(G.R. No. 103499, 29 December 1995) the Supreme Court with a crime.
ruled that the lawyer assisting a person under
custodial investigation should be present “from the 3. Filing of a separate civil action arising from the
beginning to the end.” commission of an offense AND filing an
independent civil action under Arts. 32, 33, 34
and 2716 of the Civil Code
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 13 of 22
These two kinds of civil actions differ on the instituted but the court in its discretion may
consequences of the filing thereof vis-à-vis the criminal suspend the same if a prejudicial question exists.
action.
False. Rule 111, Section 1 states that when a criminal
A separate civil action arising from the commission of action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
an offense which was filed before the criminal action civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found deemed instituted therein. Rule 111, Section 2 further
before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall states that after the criminal action has been
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom
action. Meanwhile, after the criminal action has been cannot be instituted until final judgment has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom entered in the criminal action. Hence, no separate civil
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been action arising from the crime may be instituted.
entered in the criminal action. Moreover, a prejudicial question presupposes that the
civil action was filed before the criminal action.
On the other hand, an independent civil action filed
pursuant to Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2716 of the Civil Code 3. No complaint or information may be filed or
may be filed before or after the commencement of the dismissed by an investigating prosecutor
criminal action. This independent civil action will without the prior written authority of the
proceed regardless of the status of the criminal action, provincial or city prosecutor or the Ombudsman
and shall be proved only by a preponderance of or his deputy.
evidence.
True. This is stated under Rule 112, Section 4.
4. Inquest AND preliminary investigation
4. When a person is lawfully arrested without a
An inquest is conducted when a person is lawfully warrant involving an offense which requires a
arrested without a warrant. It is an informal and preliminary investigation, the complaint or
summary investigation conducted by a public information may be filed by a prosecutor who
prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether will inquire from the person if he is willing to be
said person should remain under custody and subjected to a preliminary investigation.
correspondingly be charged in court.
False. Under Rule 112, Section 7, the prosecutor should
A preliminary investigation is conducted after a inquire from the person arrested of his preference to
complaint for an offense where the penalty prescribed undergo preliminary investigation before the filing of
by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day is filed the complaint or information.
with the prosecutor. After the complaint is filed, the
5. The reservation of the right to institute
respondent is furnished a copy of the complaint, and is separately the civil action shall be made during
given a period of time to file his counter-affidavit. the pre-trial conference under circumstances
Thereafter, the public prosecutor may require the affording the offended party a reasonable
complainant to file his reply-affidavit, and the opportunity to make such reservation.
respondent to file his rejoinder-affidavit.
True. Rule 111, Section 1 states that “the reservation of
Hence, unlike an inquest proceeding, a preliminary the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
investigation is neither informal nor summary in made before the prosecution starts presenting its
nature. Moreover, the respondent is neither arrested evidence and under circumstances affording the
nor detained at any time during the preliminary offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
investigation. reservation.”

6. Where the civil action has been filed separately

and trial in the criminal case has not yet
True or False
commenced, the court may, motu proprio
1. Except where the accused is charged with a consolidate the case so that they may be heard
capital offense, he may apply for bail after his together.
arraignment.
False. Under Rule 111, Section 1, the consolidation
False. Under Rule 114, Section 7, bail shall be denied to should be upon application with the court trying the
said accused only upon showing by plaintiff during criminal case
the bail hearings that evidence of guilt is strong.

2. After the criminal action has been commenced,

the separate civil action arising therefore may be
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 14 of 22
7. In the event the Secretary of Justice rules to An adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a
reverse the resolution finding probable cause statement or action by another person when it is
filed by the provincial or city prosecutor, he will reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission
require the conduct of reinvestigation.
of something stated or implied by the other person.
False. Under Rule 112, Section 5, he shall direct the
prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding The "basis for admissibility of admissions made
information without conducting another preliminary vicariously is that arising from the ratification or
investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of adoption by the party of the statements which the
the complaint or information with notice to the parties.
other person had made." [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.
8. The failure of the accused to appear at trial 146738. (April 3, 2001)]
without justification and despite due notice shall
be deemed a waiver of the right of the accused to True or false. A son-in-law may be compelled to
present evidence. testify against his father-in-law.
False. Under Rule 114, Section 2 (c), such shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In False. Both parental and filial privileges are granted to
such case, trial may proceed in absentia. The same rule any person, which privileges against compulsory
is stated under Rule 115, Section 1 (c). testimony he can invoke in any case against any of his
parents, direct ascendants, children or direct
9. The accused may waive his presence at trial
except that he must appear at the promulgation descendants. (Rule 130, Sec 25)
of judgment unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the judge. Is blood relationship essential for the parental/filial
privilege
True. This is stated under Rule 115, Section 1 (c).
Yes. No person may be compelled to testify against his
10. The accused may be prosecuted again even if a
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
motion to quash has been granted unless his
criminal liability has been extinguished or he is descendants.
placed in double jeopardy.
Illustrate the distinction between the burden of
True. This is stated under Rule 117, Section 6. proof and burden of evidence.

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present

EVIDENCE evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law [Sec. 1, Rule 131]
Explain the rule on conditional admissibility.
In civil cases, the quantum of evidence required to
Where the evidence at the time it is offered appears to
sustain the proponent of an issue is preponderance of
be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with
evidence [Sec. 1, Rule 133] The burden of proof is on
the other facts to be subsequently proved, such
the party who would be defeated if no evidence were
evidence may be received on condition that the other
given on either side [2 Regalado 816, 2008 Ed.], the
facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence
plaintiff with respect to his complaint, the defendant
will be stricken out.
with respect to his counterclaim, and the cross-
In the case of Prats Co. v Phoenix Assurance, the court claimant, with respect to his cross-claim.
stated that when the intricacy is impossible for a judge
of first instance to know with any certainty whether In criminal cases:
the testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the lawyer ● For the issuance of warrant of arrest -
offering the evidence, the court may safely accept the evidence of probable cause that there exist a
testimony upon the condition that the proof offered reasonable ground that the accused has
will be connected later. (Prats Co. v Phoenix committed an offense [Algas v. Garrido,
Assurance, GR No. L-28607, 1929) A.M.289-MJ, (1974))

Explain the rule on adoptive admission.

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 15 of 22
 ● To warrant the filing of an information – if b. by evidence that other appropriate security
there is sufficient ground to engender a well- procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
founded belief that a crime has been Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
committed and the respondent is probably electronic documents were applied to the
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial
document;
[Sec. 1, Rule 112]
c. by other evidence showing its integrity and
● To sustain a conviction - evidence of guilt
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
● To deny bail when discretionary – when the
evidence of guilt is strong SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A
● To accept a plea of guilty to a capital offense – document electronically notarized in accordance with
that the accused voluntarily and fully the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
comprehended the consequences of his plea considered as a public document and proved as a
[Sec.3, Rule 116]
notarial document under the Rules of Court. [Rule 5,
● To grant demurrer to evidence – the evidence
Sec 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC.- Re: Rules on Electronic
is insufficient to sustain a conviction [Sec. 23,
Evidence.]
Rule119]
Distinguish between entries in the course of
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution [Boac v
business under the Rules of Court and business
People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)] record rule under the Rules on Electronic Evidence .

A party will have the burden of evidence only (i.e., A: Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence
will have to be a proponent) if there is any factum the entries in the course of business made by a person
probandum (whether evidentiary or otherwise) that must already be deceased and unable to testify and
the adverse party has already established (whether by thus the entrant or custodian must have personal
law, rule, or by virtue of evidence that he has knowledge of the facts stated in the entries while
presented) that he (the potential proponent) has to under Rule 8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence the
overcome. That factum probandum may, but does not person who made the entry need not be dead or
have to be, nor is limited to a "prima facie unable to testify and personal knowledge of the facts is
presumption." Likewise, a party will not have any not required provided that the mechanics or record-
burden of evidence at all if the adverse party has not keeping of such records are shown by the testimony of
established any factum probanum in the first place. the custodian or other qualified witnesses. (See Sec 43,
[Prof. Avena] Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence and Rule 8, Rules
on Electronic Evidence).
How do you authenticate an electronic document and
ephemeral communication?

Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone

conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions,
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic
forms of communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained.

Manner of authentication – Before any private electronic

document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its authenticity must be proved by any of the following
means:

a. by evidence that it had been digitally signed by

the person purported to have signed the same;

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 16 of 22

Distinguish between best evidence rule and parole finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the
evidence rule. case [Sec 6, R.A. 8505]

The differences of the Parol Evidence Rule and the In the Sexual Abuse Shield Rule, the following
Best Evidence Rule are as follows: evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
RULE 1. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim
engaged in other sexual behavior; and
Is there an original document? 2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim [Sec 30,
Presupposes that the Original writing is not Rule on Examination of a Child Witness]
original document (or an available and/or there is a
Explain the different methods of impeaching a
admissible secondary dispute as to whether said
witness
evidence) is available in writing is the original
court A witness, according to Rule 132, Sec 11 of the Rules of
Court, may be impeached through contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty, and integrity is bad, or by evidence of
What does it prohibit? the statements that he has made at other times which
is inconsistent with his present testimony.

Prohibits the varying Prohibits the introduction Although in general, the party producing the witness
terms of a written of substitutionary may not impeach him/her, an exception to this rule is
agreement evidence in lieu of the when the witness is declared by the court as unwilling
original document or hostile. When this happens, the party representing
him may impeach him in all aspects.

Applicable to which documents? When is the crime of fraud an exception to the

attorney-client privilege?
Applies only to contracts Applies to all kinds of The general rule under Sec. 24(b) Rule 130 of the Rules
(except wills) documents of Court is that all communications between an
attorney and his client is privileged and cannot be
Who may invoke? examined without the consent of the client. However,
in People v. Sandiganbayan, the court ruled that the
privilege does not apply when the services of a lawyer
Can be invoked only Can be invoked by any were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to
when the controversy is party to an action commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.
between the parties to the regardless of whether or
Explain briefly the non-discrimination rule under
written agreement, their not such party has the E-commerce Act and the Rules on Electronic
privies, or any party participated in the writing Evidence. When is an electronic evidence regarded as
directly affected thereby involved being the equivalent of an original document under
the Best Evidence Rule?

Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides

Explain the sexual abuse shield rule. that in order for an electronic evidence to be regarded
as equivalent of an original document if it’s a printout
In the Rape Shield Rule, the prosecution for rape, or output readbale by sigh or other means, which is
shown to reflect the data accurately. [Rule 4, AM NO.
evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct,
01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence].
opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be
admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 17 of 22

What is the bursting bubble theory? How does it In the case of Sunga v Chua, the court explained that
relate to the burden of persuasion and burden of the Dead Man’s statue or the Survivorship rule
going forward? provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other
The bursting bubble theory states that a presumption mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled
vanished upon the introduction of evidence which to the undue advantage of giving his own
would support a finding of the non-existence of the uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
presumed fact. This concept is related to the burden of transaction. However, there are elements provided for
persuasion because once the presumption is rebutted it by the court for the rule to be successfully invoked
shifts the burden of persuasion so that the non- which are the following:
contesting party must carry the burden of proof or the
burden of going forward by submitting sufficient (1) The witness is a party or assignor of a part to a
evidence to prove their position. case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted
In the Galman case, how did the Supreme Court (2) The action against an executor or
discuss the:
administrator or other representative of a
a. Distinction between use and transactional deceased person or a person of unsound mind
immunity (3) The subject-matter of the action is a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased
The distinction between use and transactional person or against a person of unsound mind
immunity under the Galman case is that, “use (4) His testimony refers to any matter of fact
immunity” prohibits use of witness’ compelled which occurred before the death to any matter
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection of fact which occurred before the death of such
with the criminal prosecution of the witness. While deceased person or before such person became
“transactional immunity” grants immunity to the unsound mind [Herrera, O., Remedial Law,
witness from prosecution for an offense to which his Revised Rules on Evidence, Vol. V (1999), pp.308-
compelled testimony relates. (Galman v Pamaran, 138 309]
SCRA 294, GR Nos. L-71208-09 and L-71212-13, 1985)
Distinguish between the Fyre and Daubert test in
b. Interplay between the constitutional right scientific evidence? What do we follow in the
against self-incrimination and immunity Philippines?

In the case of Herrera v Alba the court distinguished the

In the Galman case the court ruled that the claim of the
Fyre test and the Daubert test. The Fyre test according
privilege against self-incrimination cannot be used as a
to the court states that, the scientific principles or
defense to be immune from prosecution because it is
discoveries must have gained general acceptance in its
taken away by PD 1886 by offering immunity to the
field before being the source of deductions by the
witness before requiring them to answer. Therefore the
courts. While the Daubert test states that the
applicability of the immunity granted by PD 1886
admissibility of scientific evidence depends on certain
cannot be made to depend on a claim of privilege
factors like; whether the theory has been tested,
against self-incrimination which the same law strips
whether it has been published and subjected to peer
away from the witness. (Galman v Pamaran, 138 SCRA
review, the rate of error, existence of standards, or
294, GR Nos. L-71208-09 and L-71212-13, 1985)
whether it is generally accepted. [Herrera v Alba, GR
No. 148220, June 15, 2005] The Philippines does not
follow any of the tests it treats both US jurisprudence
Explain the doctrine of multiple admissibility?
as only persuasive and can be used as a guide in
The doctrine of multiple admissibility is when the weighing evidence.
evidence is relevant and competent for two or more
purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or
all purposes for which it is offered, provided that it
satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility [2
Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]

Explain the Dead Man’s Statute

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 18 of 22

 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS have at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in
cyberspace. Several commentators regarding privacy
When is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and social networking sites, however, all agree that
available? given the millions of OSN users, "[i]n this [Social
Networking] environment, privacy is no longer
The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of grounded in reasonable expectations, but rather in
illegal confinement or detention by which any person some theoretical protocol better known as wishful
is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful thinking." (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, G.R. No.
custody of any person is withheld from the person 202666, 29 September 2014)
entitled thereto. (Rule 102, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court)
Juan, an American citizen residing in the
Philippines, passed away and left a will, appointing
When is the privilege of the writ of amparo Atty. Cruz and Atty. Santos as joint executors. Atty.
available? Cruz however passed away. Atty. Reyes, Atty. Cruz’s
law partner, continued discharging Atty. Cruz’s
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available duties as joint executor. Juan’s son objected and
to any person whose right to life, liberty and security argued that the death of Atty. Cruz ended the
is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful commission. Atty. Reyes countered that since he was
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a a law partner of Atty. Cruz, it is their law partnership
private individual or entity. that should be deemed to have been appointed as
joint executor of Juan’s estate. Is Atty. Reyes’ claim
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced correct?
disappearances or threats thereof. (Section 1, the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo, A.M. no. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September Atty. Reyes’ claim is incorrect. Section 2, Rule 82 of the
2007) Rules of Court provides one of the modes for replacing
an administrator of an estate upon the death of an
administrator is when an executor or administrator
When is the privilege of the writ of habeas data dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or
available? administrator may administer the trust alone, unless
the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any is no remaining executor or administrator,
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or administration may be granted to any suitable person.
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or Only Atty. Cruz was appointed as an executor and not
omission of a public official or employee, or of a his law office. Thus, Atty. Santos will become the sole
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, executor. (Quasha Ancheta Peña and Nolasco Law Office
collecting or storing of data or information regarding v. LCN Construction Corp., G.R. No. 174873, 26 August,
the person, family, home and correspondence of the 2008)
aggrieved party (Section 1, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC, 22 January 2008).
ABC Bank sought to extrajudicially foreclose a
mortgage constituted on Pedro and Petra’s family
Discuss the individual’s right to informational home after the latter defaulted on a loan amounting
privacy in the use of online social networking sites. to P1M.

In former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno's speech, The A. Pedro and Petra sought to enjoin the auction sale
Common Right to Privacy, where he explained the three of their family home, arguing that it is exempt
strands of the right to privacy, viz.: (1) locational or from execution. ABC Bank maintained that since
situational privacy; (2) informational privacy; and (3) the family home’s value exceeded P5M because
decisional privacy. Right to informational privacy is of the recent renovations introduced by Pedro
usually defined as the right of individuals to control and Petra using the loan, the exemption cannot
information about themselves. apply. Is the family home exempt from a forced
sale?
With the availability of numerous avenues for
No, the family home is not exempt from a forced sale
information gathering and data sharing nowadays, not
since Pedro and Petra mortgaged the same. Article 155
to mention each system's inherent vulnerability to
of the Family Code explicitly provides that the family
attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that every
home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or
individual's right to control said flow of information
attachment except for debts secured by mortgages on
should be protected and that each individual should
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 19 of 22
the premises before or after such constitution (Vitug v. First, under Section 7 of R.A. No. 8552, or the Domestic
Abuda, G.R. No. 201264, 11 January 2016). Adoption Act of 1998, as a general rule, husband and wife
shall adopt jointly. Here only Maria seeks to adopt
B. The auction proceeded and the family home was Marianito.
sold to ABC Bank as the highest bidder for the
amount of P5M. Considering that the loan is for Second, in addition to the consent of the 10-yr-old
P1M, ABC Bank brought a case for collection of legitimate daughter, the separate consent of Marianito,
Sum of Money against Pedro and Petra to recover , and Lolita, the biological parent, shall be obtained, as
the deficiency of P5M. mandated under Section 9(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 8552.

Petra moved to dismiss the case on the ground Third, since Lolita’s alleged abandonment of Marianito
that Pedro has already passed away which means is put in issue, the adoption court must first confront
that ABC Bank shall instead file a claim against and resolve the same. In Cang v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
the estate of Pedro per Sec. 6 Rule 86. Is Petra No. 105308, 25 September 1998), the Supreme Court
correct? ruled that the issue of abandonment by the oppositor
natural parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption
No. Petra is mistaken because ABC Bank may proceed court must first confront. Only upon failure of the
against either Pedro or Petra. The Supreme Court Lolita to prove to the satisfaction of the court that she
ruled that in case of the death of one of the solidary did not abandon her child may the petition for
debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, adoption be considered on its merits.
proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without
necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased
debtors. To require the creditor to proceed against the Praxedes filed a petition for correction of entries in
estate, making it a condition precedent for any her Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 of the
collection action against the surviving debtors to Rules of Court, impleading her parents and the Civil
prosper, would deprive him of his substantive rights Registrar. She prayed for the correction of the
provided by Article 1216 of the New Civil Code following entries.
(Philippine National Bank v. Asuncion, G.R. No. L-46095,
23 November 1977). Address each of the followings prayers and rule on
whether the petition should be granted on each
ground.
Mario and Maria, childless, offered to adopt the
child of Lolita, their kasambahay, in exchange for 1. Her first name for “Praxedes” to “Filomena”
which, Lolita asked to be given money to return to because that is the name she has used since birth
her home province. Upon the birth of the child, they and in all her school and other public records.
named him Marianito and declared him the Besides, Praxedes is a name that she associates
legitimate child of Mario and Maria in the Certificate with a bad memory from her childhood.
of Live Birth.
The prayer for the correction of her name from
After Mario passed, Maria married Renato. Maria “Praxedes” to “Filomena” should be denied. Change
filed a petition for the adoption of Marianito. At that of first name isgoverned by RA 9048, not Rule 108. In
time, Marianito was 15 years old, and her children Silverio v. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, 19 October 2007),
with Renato were 7, 9 and 10 years old. the Supreme Court ruled that the power and authority
to entertain petitions for change of first name to the
In support of the adoption, Maria submitted the
city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
written consent of Renato and their 10 year old
concerned. The remedy and the proceedings
daughter.
regulating change of first name are primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial. The change of
Lolita opposed the petition for adoption. She
first name is excluded from the coverage of Rules 103
claimed that Marianito was forcibly taken away from
(Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction
her and she was threatened her with physical harm.
Maria countered that even assuming that it was true, of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court,
Lolita has abandoned Marianito. until and unless an administrative petition for change
of name is first filed and subsequently denied.
Should the petition be granted? Is it sufficient in
form and substance? 2. Her date of birth from “July 25, 1969” to “June 25,
1969” this being merely a clerical error.
The petition for adoption should be denied.
The prayer for the correction of changing date of birth
from “25 July 1969” to “25 June 1969” should be
UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 20 of 22
denied. The correct remedy for correction of clerical or adversary proceedings were availed, and the court
typographical error regarding mistake in the entry of may correct the erroneous entry.
day and month in the date of birth is the
administrative remedy under R.A. No. 9048, as
amended by R.A. No. 10172. Candida received a text message from Maximo, a
powerful warlord in their town who has been
3. Her gender from “male” to “female” because she obsessively stalking her, stating: “I can no longer
was born and is anatomically female. wait. Tomorrow, you will be mine.”

The prayer for the correction of changing her gender May Candida file a petition for the issuance of a writ
from “Male” to “Female” should be denied. The of Amparo against Maximo?
correct remedy for correction of clerical or
typographical error regarding mistake in the sex of the No. Candida may not file a petition for the issuance of
person is the administrative remedy under R.A. No. a writ of Amparo against Maximo because her right to
9048, as amended by R.A. No. 10172. In this case, life, liberty and security is not threatened due to
Praxedes was born and is anatomically female, thus enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killings. The
there was clearly a clerical error as to the sex of petition for a writ of amparo covers extralegal killings
Praxedes when her certificate of live birth states her and enforced disappearances or threats thereof (Section
gender to be “Male.” Therefore, the action should be 1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25
denied since the correct remedy is the administrative September 2007), which circumstances are not availing
remedy under R.A. No. 9048, as amended. in this case.

4. Her surname from “delos Santos,” the surname Assume that Candida also filed a criminal case
of her father, to “dela Rosa,” the surname of her against Maximo for Grave Threats and by virtue of a
mother, because her parents were never married warrant issued by the court, Maximo was arrested.
and her father has refused to support her.
Maximo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
The prayer for the change of surname from “delos addressed to the Jail Warden directing him to bring
Santos” to “dela Rosa” should be granted. Correction Maximo to court and explain the cause of his
of entry under Rule 108 is the proper remedy to detention. On the date set for hearing, the Jail
change the family name. In fine, when a petition for Warden appeared and submitted his return of the
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil writ. The trial court expunged the return and ordered
register involves substantial and controversial the Jail Warden to file an answer, under pain of
alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy contempt. Despite lapse of the period given, the Jail
Warden did not file as answer. The trial court
of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a
rendered a judgment granting the petition and
strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of
directing the release of Maximo.
the Rules of Court is mandated (Republic v. Coseteng-
Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, 2 February 2011). Here,
1. Did the trial court err in issuing the writ to the
Praxedes strictly complied with Rule 108 as her
Jail Warden, directing him to appear and explain
parents and the local civil registrar were impleaded in
the cause of Maximo’s detention?
the action.
No. The court is correct in issuing the writ to the jail
5. The Date and Place of Marriage of her parents
warden. In case of imprisonment or restraint by an
from “April 1, 1966” to “Not Married,” because
officer, the writ shall be directed to him, and shall
her parents were never married.
command him to have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
The prayer for the correction of marriage date from “1
designated in the writ at the time and place therein
April 1966” to “not married” should be granted.
specified (Rule 102, Section 6 of the Rules of Court). The
Corrections of entries in the civil register including
jail warden is the officer restraining Maximo, and thus,
those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or
he is the correct officer to whom the writ is issued.
filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial
alterations. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be
2. Did the trial court err in requiring an answer and
corrected and the true facts established provided the
expunging the return?
parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceedings. (Onde v. Office of
Yes. The trial court erred in requiring an answer and
the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, G.R. No.
expunging the return. A court or judge authorized to
197174, 10 September 2014). Here, the parents were
grant the writ must, when a petition therefor is
impleaded by Praxedes, thus the appropriate
presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue,

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 21 of 22

grant the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon court appointed Urduja as the Administration in her
the clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the seal favor. The estate court appointed Urduja as the
of the court; or in case of emergency, the judge may administratrix of Lam-ang’s estate.
issue the writ under his own hand, and may deputize
any officer or person to serve it (Rule 102, Section 5 of Bantugan sued Lam-ang, as owner of the tractor, and
the Rules of Court). Further, the Rule 102 requires a Juan Tamad, as Lam-ang’s driver employee, for
return to be filed, not an answer. damages, in the sum of 1Million pesos, arising from
negligence that resulted in the death of Bantugan’s
3. Did the trial court err in rendering the judgment carabao. The RTC of Quezon City Branch 3
upon non-filing of the answer? dismissed the complaint and directed Bantugan to
file his claim before the estate court.
Yes. The court or judge grants the writ and requires
the officer or person having custody of the person Was RTC Branch 3 correct in dismissing the
allegedly restrained of liberty to file a return of the complaint for damages? If your answer is YES, what
writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is then is Bantugan’s remedy?
conducted. The return of the writ may be heard by a
court apart from that which issued the writ. Should RTC Branch 3 erroneously dismissed the action for
the court issuing the writ designate a lower court to damages. Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
which the writ is made returnable, the lower court provides that no action upon a claim for the recovery
shall proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus of money or debt or interest thereon shall be
(In re Salibo v. Warden (G.R. No. 197597, 8 April 2015). commenced against the executor or administrator; but
Here, the court did not conduct the hearing and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
proceeded to render judgment for non-filing of the property, real or personal, may be commenced against
answer, which is not allowed under Rule 102. Thus, him. The complaint for damages is based on quasi-
the court erred in rendering its judgment. delict and should be filed against Urduja, the
administrator Urduja, and not against the estate.
4. Did the trial court err in granting the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus? Assuming that Banco Adarna filed a claim against
the estate of Lam-ang before Branch 1 for the
Yes. If it appears that the person alleged to be outstanding balance of the loan, what are its
remedies in case it is unable to collect the full value
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
of its claim?
under process issued by a court or judge and that the
court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, the
Banco Adarna will no longer have any remedy in case
writ shall not be allowed (Rule 102, Section 4 of the
it is unable to collect the full value of its claim. Rule 86,
Rules of Court). Here, Maximo was arrested by virtue of
Section 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a creditor
a valid warrant of arrest, and thus, granting the
holding a claim against the deceased secured by
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is
mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the
erroneous.
security and prosecute his claim in the manner
provided in Rule 86, and share in the general
distribution of the assets of the estate. Should the
Lam-ang and Urduja were husband and wife. They
mortgagee choose to abandon the security, then it will
obtained a loan from Banco Adarna in the amount of
lose its right to foreclose the mortgaged property. In
3million pesos. They secured this loan with a real
estate mortgage on their farm and a chattel mortgage filing a claim against the estate, Banco Adarna decided
on their tractor. Due to La Niña, the crops in the to abandon its security, thus it will no longer have any
spouses’ farm were destroyed and they failed to meet remedy if it is unable to collect the full value of its
their loan amortizations. Worse, their farmhand Juan claim.
Tamad recklessly drove their tractor while
intoxicated and run over the carabao of their
neighbor Bantugan, resulting in the carabao’s ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
untimely demise. Due to stress over these
developments, Lam-ang succumbed to a heart attack Subject Expert Prof. Ramon Esguerra
and was survived by Urduja and their minor twins, UP LAW CENTER Hannah Georgia Plopinio
Florante and Laura.
AND TRAINING Elisha Ponio
CONVENCTION Ma. Samantha Tacandong
Urduja filed a petition for the settlement of the estate
DIVISION Angelica Tan
of Lam-ang with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Samantha Isabelle Vitriolo
Quezon City Branch 1. She prayed for the issuance of
Francesca Mikhaela Yazon
Letters of Administration in her favor. The estate

UP LAW CENTER TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION Page 22 of 22