WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2017

PEOPLE VS CABIGQUEZ
1. Was the intention to rob?
2. Which of the two acts/crimes came first?
3. Were you satisfied of rape that you were not interested anymore of robbery? What are we interested in this case? What
happened?
4. How did the Principle of Judicial Notice become relevant to this case?
5. What is the problem with the decision of the trial court according to the accused?
6. What was only done by the prosecution?
7. What was the argument of the accused?
8. How did the SC address this issue?
9. Under what kind of Judicial Notice did the value of these stolen commodities fall (there are 2 kinds of judicial notice?
10. What is the rule if the court decides to exercise Discretionary Judicial Evidence?
11. What are the requirements?
12. What are the differences between Discretionary and Mandatory JN?
13. What are the purposes of the Hearing in relation to the rule of Judicial Notice (2 purposes)?
14. If it’s Discretionary JN. Is hearing required?
15. Were the purposes of Hearing applied in the case?
16. Does this case blur the difference between the Discretionary and Mandatory JN?
17. Does JN dispense with proof?

ATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE

1. What’s the problem when they offered in evidence the photocopy of the X-ray result?
2. On what ground did the Doctor object on the admissibility of the evidence?
3. What is the ruling of the SC on the admissibility of the evidence based on the Best Evidence Rule? How did the SC justify it?
4. What is the effect when the court took JN on the kidney?
5. How do you reconcile this with the case of Dra. Leila de Llano vs Biong? What was the issue on that case?
6. What did the doctor on that second case testify about? And what was she testifying on, what was the basis of her
testimony?
7. Who invoked JN on that case? What’s her argument?
8. Did the court sustain her? Why different this time when the court considered this as a matter of science?
9. If the matter falls under science, can the court take JN of it?
10. What did the SC say in Atienza? It was a matter of laws of nature
11. In De Llana, how the SC categorize the issue on Laws of nature? How did the SC classify it when SC said that courts have no
expertise in Medicine? It was a matter of medical knowledge, of which courts do not take judicial knowledge

PEOPLE VS YATCO
*Atty T only gave random leading questions to lead student to the proper case

PEOPLE VS NEWMAN
1. Who determines facts and how is it established?
2. Should we give the determination to the police? What is the police supposed to do with the Evidence?
3. What happens to the presumption of Ownership?
4. Before the case is filed in court, what should the police do with the accused- arrest him or let him go? These are conflicting
presumptions in Law
5. Scenario: Complainant comes to you- Policewoman.
6. My necklace was snatched from me. She described the Snatcher. A day after, Mr. Villanueva was seen with the necklace
and who matched with the description of the Complainant. What will you do to Mr. Villanueva?
> So the police can’t assume that Mr. V is the thief?
>How about the right of the complainant?
> Are you saying therefore that the practice of these roaming RPG (?) of flagging down vehicles, illegal?
>What’s the rule now?
>when do you apply the presumption that one who is in the possession of the item is the taker?
>so, before the case is filed, does this presumption operate?

BPI VS REYES
1. Did the bank honor her request?
2. Did BPI file a case?
3. What is the turning point in the SC’s application of the principle of presumption that everyone takes care of their ordinary
business?
4. How did the SC appreciate the facts of the case and apply this presumption?
5. Presumption: We are not tanga! Everyone is presumed to be SMART!

DATALIFT MOVERS VS BELGRAVIA REALTY

1. Who demanded for increase in rental? What did Datalift do?
2. Who is Sampaguita? Is it party to the case?
3. What is the defense of Datalift?
4. (Atty T speaking as if he’s Datalift) Can you now refuse to pay, Belgravia, when you deceived me?
5. You are now conflicted with 2 different claims, what will you do?
 6. During the pendency, what will you do?
7. (Situation) So you entered into the contract based on the representation of Belgravia. Now PNR, told you that Belgravia is
deceiving you because their contract has long been expired or rescinded. So, PNR now demands from you payment while
Belgravia also demands payment from you. What will you do?
8. In the meantime, what will you do with the rentals?
9. Do we now follow the principle on conclusive presumption?
10. Assuming you are the tenant now caught between two claimants, what will you do?
11. What will happen to the consignation now? Isn’t that the essence of an Interpleader?
12. What’s the legal law that we should follow? Should we forget about the remedy of Interpleader? Does this remedy apply in
this situation?
13. Give me a situation where the Remedy of Interpleader can be applied.
14. What is the purpose of the remedy of Interpleader?
15. In the meantime, what do you do with the rentals?

UNIWIDE SALES VS TITAN- IKEDA

1. What happens to the project?
2. Who sued- the contractor or the project owner?
3. What was the purpose of the testimony of the Engineer?
4. What was the testimony of the Engineer?
5. What is the issue- delay or completion?
6. Why did the plaintiff present the evidence on completion when completion is not an issue?
7. *Principle of the case: Multiple Admissibility

REPUBLIC VS KENRICK
1. What is the issue on this case- Ownership or Ejectment?

ELAYDA VS CA
1. During the presentation of the evidence in chief, what propmpted her to present the bigger amount?
2. Who has objected to the testimony of the Accountant’s report? On what ground? The principle being?
3. What is the rule on Judicial Admission as enunciated on this case?
4. Would your answer be the same if Roxas did not object to the Accountant’s report?
5. So is it not correct to say that Judicial Admission is conclusive?
6. We have here a principle that advocates conclusive admission which is not conclusive at all?
7. What are the exceptions to the rule on being conclusive?
8. What are the implications of Judicial Admission?
9. If there is no objection, evidence may be allowed. If not, the pleading should govern. Is this true?
10. Scenario: You have your complaint. When you’re about to go to trial, you found out that the obligation is 1M. So you
amended your information so the other party cannot object. What if during trial, the other party objects the amendment?
Suppose the court objects to the amendment? Suppose all the way (meanng until the SC) your amendment was not
allowed?
11. What is the ruling on Elayda case?

BLUE CROSS HEALTH VS OLIVARES

1. What exactly did Blue Cross do?
2. What was the evidence?
3. So if the evidence was suppressed, then what?
4. What’s the principle involved here? There’s this evidentiary principle that Bluecross want to invoke to their advantage
which makes this case interesting, what is that?
5. What is the principle of Suppression of Evidence all about? Discuss
6. What’s the effect if there’s willful suppression of evidence?
7. What’s the rule on Presumption of evidence?
8. What is the effect if a party willfully suppresses evidence?
I. What is the result of the willful suppression? Will it put Blue Cross to a disadvantage?
9. J. Is this result suppose to penalize Blue Cross and not Olivares?
10. K. Was there willful suppression? And was this presumption applied in this case? If not, why?
11. L. How did SC support their ruling that there was no willful suppression?
12. M. Had there been willful suppression, what would have been the ruling?

ATILLO III VS CA
1. What did Atillo acted as on the obligation of the corporation?
2. So what did Atillo do to his obligation of the company?
3. What is the cause of action of Atillo against the corporation?
4. What is his cause of action againt Lhuillier?
5. Did he sue Lhuillier personally? What happened?
6. Where was the admission made- in what form? (In the Answer). What were the admissions made in the answer?
7. What prompted him to resort to that?
8. What did the SC say?
9. So, was Lhuillier not held liable at all for both transactions? Why or Why not?
10. Why was there a finding that there was no judicial admission at all?
11. Which obligation was Lhuillier made liable for?