You are on page 1of 4

2014 Answers

1.
Civil Procedure; Joint Motion for Reconsideration; Appeal (2014)
(a) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court is not correct in taking cognizance of the joint motion for
reconsideration.
Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that if the judgment is for
conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable
cause, he shall lose the remedies available against the judgment and the
court shall order his arrest.

Henceforth, the court erred when it entertained the Joint Motion for
reconsideration with respect to the accused Balatong and Labong who were
not present during the promulgation of the judgment. The court should have
merely considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was
solely filed by Ludong (people v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The court is correct in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration with respect to Ludong who was present during the
promulgation of judgment.

However, as regards to the accused Balatong and Labong, the court erred
because they lost their remedies against the judgment when they failed to
appear during the promulgation thereof.

(b) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


No, Balatong and Ludong cannot appeal their conviction because they lost
their right to appeal from the judgment when they failed to appear during the
promulgation of judgment.
Be that as it may, if they surrendered and filed a motion for leave to avail of
their post judgment remedies within 15 days from the promulgation of
judgment, and they have proven that their absence at the scheduled
promulgation was for a justifiable cause, they may be allowed to avail of said
remedies within 15 days from notice thereof (people v. De Grano, G.R. No.
167710, June 5, 2009).

2.
Criminal Law; Double Jeopardy (2014)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mcjolly correctly interposed the defense of double jeopardy.
Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and
not merely a means to commit other crimes, such that conviction or acquittal
of quasi-offense already bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
offensem regardless of its various resulting acts (Ivler v. Hon. Modesto-San
Pedro, GR No. 172716, November 17, 2010).

3.
Evidence; Testimony; Res gestae; independent relevant statement;
confession (2014)
(1) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court did not err in giving weight to PO2 Asintados testimony.
While a witness can only testify as to those facts which he has personal
knowledge, the Rules provide that a statement made under the influence
of a startling event witnessed by the person who made the declaration
before he had time to think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive
a falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any undue influence
in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question or its
immediate attending circumstances is an exception being part of res
gestae (Belbis, Jr., v. People, GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012).

In the case, the statements made by PO2 Asintado constitutes part of res
gestae since the same were made without any opportunity to fabricate
while a startling occurrence was actually taking place.

In addition, the statement of PO2 Asintado may fall within the purview of
the doctrine of independent relevant statement, where only the fact
that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth and falsity
thereof is immaterial (People v. Mabiliran, GR No. 178301, April 24, 2009).

On the other hand, Kulasas statements are also admissible as part of res
gestae since the same were made under the influence of a startling event
without any opportunity to concoct or devise a falsehood.

(2) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The trial court did not err in holding that Renes statement to the press is
a confession. Renes confessions to the media were properly admitted
because statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters
on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in
evidence (People v. Hipona, GR No. 185709. February 18, 2010).

ALTERNATIVE ANNSWER:
The court erred in considering Renes statement as a confession.
Confession contemplates a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by
an accused in a criminal case in any exculpatory statement or explanation
(People v. Aquino, L-3240, April 21m 1952, 91 Phil. 910 unpublished).

A second look of Renes statement to the press would readily show that
there was no categorical admission of the commission of the offense.
Hence, it is not considered a confession that will warrant his conviction.
After all, it is well settled that an extra-judicial confession made by an
accused shall not be a sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti (Section 3, Rule 133, Rules of
Court).
4.
Civil procedure; Judgment (2014
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) Non pro tunc the object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering
of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights,
but is once placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been
previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what
the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to tender
a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did
erroneously render, nor to supply non-action by the court, however erroneous
judgment may have been (Filipinas Faroil Processing v. Dejapa, GR No.
167332, February 7, 2011)

5.
Judicial remedy; small claims; summary procedure; unlawful detainer (2014)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?
I will advise Maria to immediately send a letter to the tenant demanding
the immediate payment of the unpaid rentals plus interests due. If the
tenant refuses, Maria can avail any of the following remedies:

(1) A complaint under AM No. 08-8-7-SC or the Rules of Procedure for


Small Claims cases. Maria should nonetheless waive the amount in
excessof P100, 000 in order for her to avail of the remedy under the
said rules (repealed- the jurisdictional amount today is more than
P200k)
(2) A complaint for collection of sum of money under the Rules on
Summary Procedure, since Maria is only claiming the unpaid rentals
and interests due from tenant.
(3) If the tenant refuses or is unable to pay the rentals within one year
from receipt of the last demand to vacate and pay, I would advise
Maria to file action for Unlawful Detainer.

(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you
recommended?

(1) If Maria decides to file a complaint for collection of sum of money


under the Rules of Summary Procedure or Small Claims, the venue is
the residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the election of the
plaintiff (Section 2, Rule 4 Rules of Court).
Hence, it may be in Quezon City or Marikina City, at the option of
Maria.
(2) If Maria files an action for Unlawful Detainer, the same shall be
commenced and tried in the Municipal Trial Court of the municipality or
city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated
(Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of court).
Therefore, the Venue is Las Pinas City.

You might also like