FINAL EXAMINATION MAY 2, 2016

X mortgaged his land to Y to secure the payment of a loan in the amount of P4 Million. When
the loan became due, X failed to pay despite repeated demands. Y then instituted an action
against X for the payment of the sum of P4 Million. X filed his answer without setting forth any
counterclaim therein. A judgment was later rendered by the court in favor of Y for the full
amount of P4 Million. Ten (10) days after the finality of the judgment, X died. May Y recover the
amount of P4 Million from the estate of X? If so, how? If not, what may Y do to recover his claim?

ANS: Yes, he can recover the amount of the P4M from the estate of X by presenting his claim based
on the judgment for money in his favor as conclusive evidence of his claim. The Rules provide that
a favorable judgment in a contractual money claim shall be enforced under Rule 86 for prosecuting
claims against the estate of the deceased person (Section 20, Rule 3). The Rule 86 state that the
judgment for money should be filed as a money claim with the probate court, as it cannot be
enforced by a writ of execution.

A money claim shall be filed before the [clerk of court of the] probate court within the time stated in
the notice which shall not be more than 12 months but not less than 6 months after the date of
first publication

II

Jose Santos is now 25 years of age. His Certificate of Live Birth states the name of his father as
Lito Santos. His mother, Juana Cruz, now tells him that “Lito Santos” is the name of her distant
relative and that on giving birth, she told the hospital personnel that her husband’s name was Lito
Santos because she was embarrassed to tell the truth that she was an unmarried mother. Jose
wants to have the entries in his Certificate of Live Birth regarding his family name corrected from
Santos to Cruz, the name of his supposed father deleted, and the word “legitimate” be changed to
“illigitimate” to reflect his correct status as an illegitimate child. What is Jose’s remedy? (7%)

ANS: When a petition involves substantial or controversial alterations, the proper remedy for Jose
is to avail of the appropriate adversary proceeding. When a petition for cancellation or correction of
entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on
citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
Requirement of the Rule 108 is mandated. This means it must comply with two sets of notice
requirement to potential oppositors who were named in the petition and any other person with a
claim or interest in the cancellation or correction sought by the petitioner.

III

Nadina was married to Francisco. While living separately from Francisco, Nadina gave birth to
a daughter named Salvacion whose birth certificate listed Francisco as the father. Nadina signed
the birth certificate after it was accomplished. Years later, Nadina claimed that the real father of
Salvacion was Armando. Nadina then filed in her own name a petition under Rule 108 for
correction of entries in the certificate of birth of her five-year-old daughter Salvacion, asking that
the local civil registrar be directed to correct the birth certificate of Salvacion to change the name of
her father from “Francisco” to “Armando” and that Salvacion’s full name be made to carry
Armando’s surname. Impleaded as parties in the petition were Francisco and Armando, as well as
the local civil registrar. The RTC issued an order setting the case for hearing and directing that a
copy of the order be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. After publication and hearing, the RTC issued an order granting the petition and
ordering the requested corrections to be effected. After the finality of the order granting the petition,
Vicente and Joy, claiming to be children of Armando, filed with the Court of Appeals an action for
the annulment of the said order. In their action for annulment, Vicente and Joy alleged that the
RTC did not have jurisdiction over the petition for failure of Nadina to implead them as parties and
that only innocuous or clerical errors may be corrected in a petition for correction of entries under
Rule 108. They asserted that the corrections which Nadina sought and which were allowed by the
RTC were substantial and controversial in character affecting, as it did, the filiation and legitimacy
of Nadina’s daughter. Are Vicente and Joy correct? (7%)

ANS: Yes, Vicente and Joy are correct. Jurisprudence provides that failure to implead the parties
who would naturally be affected by the grant of the petition would render the proceedings and the
judgment void.

Here, Vicente and Joy, being the children of “Armando,” would naturally and legally be affected by
the grant of the petition to correct the entries in the birth certificate of Salvacion and carry their
father’s name, which would render the proceedings and the judgment void for not strictly
complying with the requirements set under Rule 108, the same being an adversary proceeding.

IV

At a wedding reception, X and Y were seated together at a luncheon table. When X learned that
Y is a lawyer, X consulted him about certain matters regarding the will of a deceases person, some
months later, Y received a subpoena to testify in the probate of the will of this deceased person
where X is an oppositor. It turns out that the subject of his testimony would be the matters
involved in the consultation between X and Y. May Y testify over the objection of X? (7%)

ANS: Y cannot testify upon the objection of X.

An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made
by the client to him, or his advice given in the course of or with a view to his professional
employment.

Considering that X was aware that Y is a lawyer when X consulted him regarding the probate of
deceased person, the communication made by X was given with a view to the professional
employment.

Regarding the shooting of her husband, the wife testified as follows:

“After he drank the water that I gave him, I asked him if he could recognize who shot him.

Q: What was his answer?

A: He said yes, then he told me his name.

Q: What name did your husband tell you?

A: He told me that the one who shot him is Rony, our neighbor.

Q: After your husband had told you the name of the person who shot him, what happened
next?
A: A police car came, and the policemen brought him to the hospital.

Q: What happened to your husband at the hospital?

 A: After two days, he died.

If you were the prosecutor, would you offer the wife’s testimony as dying declaration or as
part of the res gestae? Choose one only. (7%)

ANS: It is a part of res gestae. If there is no showing that the victim was under the consciousness
of an impending death at the time of his declaration that the accused was the only one who shot
him, the same is not admissible as dying declaration but, because it was made shortly after the
startling occurrence and under the influence thereof, it is, nonetheless, admissible as part of res
gestae (People vs. Espina, 361 SCRA 701). A declaration made spontaneously after the startling
occurrence is deemed part of res gestae when: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling
occurrence; (2) the statement were made before the declarant ha time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances.

VI

In an action for damages for the injury she had sustained while crossing the street, plaintiff
testified that she believed she exercised due care when she crossed the street, but
notwithstanding such due care, she was hit by defendant’s car, which was then being driven by
defendant himself. Is plaintiff’s testimony admissible? (5%)

ANS: No, the plaintiff’s testimony is not admissible as testimonial or oral evidence. The general rule
is that the opinion of a witness is NOT admissible. A witness can only testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception.

The exception to the general rule includes (1) opinion of expert witness and (2) opinion of ordinary
witnesses regarding [HIM-CABE] (a) Handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
(b)Identity of the person about whom he has adequate knowledge; (c) Mental sanity of a person
with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. The witness may also testify on his impressions of
Condition, Appearance of a person, Behavior, Emotion

VII

a) If a document is executed in triplicate form, which is the original? (4%)

ANS: When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. (Rule (B) (1) Section
(4) (b), Rule 130)

b) What is the original of an electronic document? (4%)

ANS: An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document

under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (Sec. 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence)

VIII

In the prosecution for murder against X for the death of Y, the principal issue is whether or
not the shooting took place in 2008. W, who claims to be an eyewitness, was asked by the
prosecution the following questions when he testified:

a) Do you remember what month in 2008 did you see X?

b) At that time in 2008, do you know in what barangay in Baguio CIty?

 c) Do you know where X’s house was in 2008?

d) In what way did you know X in 2008 when the shooting incident happened?

Are these questions leading? (7%)

ANS: Yes, these are leading questions. A leading question is one that is framed in such a way that
the question indicates to the witness the answer desired by the party asking the question. It
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires (Section 10, Rule 132).

Here, the questions asked indicate the year 2008 desired by the examining party to establish that
the shooting happened on that year. Hence, they are leading questions which may be properly
objected to during the examination.

IX

X, the employee of Y, was found guilty by the trial court of reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide and was ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victim. He was found to have
committed the offense while performing the task assigned to him by Y. X did not appear at the
promulgation despite notice. Still, within the 15-day period from promulgation, Y filed his own
notice of appeal, but the trial court dismissed Y’s appeal on the ground that he is not a party to the
case. Y moved for reconsideration, arguing that in culpa criminal, the civil liability of his employee
may ultimately become his liability as the employer, therefore, he should be allowed to appeal.

a) Is the court correct in dismissing X’s appeal? (5%)

ANS: Yes. The Employer cannot appeal because he is not a party to the case even if he
might be affected in the outcome of the case. The rule states that only a party to the case
may appeal. They are: (1) the State, if it will not put the accused in double jeopardy; (2) the
accused; and (3) the offended party, but only as to the civil aspect of the case)

b) Should Y’s motion for reconsideration be granted? (5%)

ANS: No. The MR should be denied. In culpa criminal, the employer who must be engaged
in a business or industry is subsidiarily liable if his employee is found guilty and adjudged
civilly liable, and a writ of execution was issued but was returned unsatisfied because the
employee is insolvent.

Accused was arraigned in absentia for homicide with only his lawyer present. The case was
set for pretrial, then trial. On the dates allotted to the prosecution for the presentation of its
evidence, none of its witnesses appeared. On motion of the accused, invoking his right to speedy
trial, the case was dismissed. Years later, the prosecution found the eyewitness who agreed to
testify against the accused. The prosecution refiled the case. The accused moved to quash on the
ground of double jeopardy. Should the motion to quash be granted? (7%)

ANS: No, the motion to quash should not be granted.

One of the grounds of a motion to quash is double jeopardy such as when a case has already been
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent.
In the problem presented, the right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused as a
ground of its motion to quash. The earlier case was dismissed with his consent when he invoked
his right to speedy trial.

ALT ANS: No. The Rules provided that a case may be provisionally dismissed when with the
consent of the accused and prosecutor, and notice to the offended party. For offense punishable by
imprisonment for more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two
(2) years after issuance of order without the case having been revived.

Here, only a year lapse prior to refilling of the information for the same offense with a new
eyewitness who had emerged and agreed to testified. In such case, a new preliminary investigation
may also be had by way of exception because of a new witness. Hence, it cannot be said that the
dismissal became permanent for double jeopardy to set in.

NOTE: Accused was arraigned in absentia but the rules expressly states that it is mandatory for
the accused to be present at the arraignment and must enter his plea. But since the question is
about the validity of re-filing, the explanation provided would suffice.

XI.

Accused was arraigned with the use of dangerous drugs under Sec. 15, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
After entering a not-guilty plea at his arraignment, he filed a motion to quash on the ground that
the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense. The trial court found that,
indeed, the facts charged do not constitute an offense. It then granted the motion and
dismissed the case. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, alleging that the accused had
already lost the remedy of motion to quash because when he filed it he had already entered a
plea. Is the trial court correct in dismissing the case? (7%)

ANS: The court is correct.

While the rule provides a motion to quash can be filed only at any time before the accused enters
his plea, the rule is subject to exceptions where it may be raised even after entering a plea, one of
which is that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. (The other exceptions are: (1) that the
court trying the case has NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED; (2) that the
criminal action or liability has been EXTINGUISHED; (3) (DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

Since the motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, such motion may be filed even after the accused had entered his plea. Since the motion to
quash has already been granted by the court, the remedy now of the prosecution is to re-file the
case because the granting of the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same
offense, except if the motion is sustained on the grounds of (1) double jeopardy; or (2) that the
criminal action or liability has been extinguished.

XII

Frank, who was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, was charged with
murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Crediting the accused with the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the RTC rendered judgment sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal. The trial
court, however, suspended Frank’s sentence and ordered his commitment to the Regional
Rehabilitation Center for Youth, he being a juvenile in conflict with law. Is the trial court correct in
suspending Frank’s sentence? (7%)
ANS: No, the trial court is not correct. If the penalty imposable, not the penalty imposed, is
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, the accused shall not be entitled to a suspension
of his sentence. Here, the penalty imposable was reclusion perpetua to death. Hence, the accused
cannot avail of the automatic suspension of sentence under Section 38 of RA 9344.

XIII

On July 16, 2014, X borrowed P1 Million from Y. to secure the payment of the debt, X
mortgaged his house and lot located at No. 12 Ledesma Street, Baguio City, to Y. He also issued a
check to Y in the amount of P1 Million, payable on July 16, 2015. In March 2016, Y filed against X
a criminal case for violation of BP 22 because he failed to pay his debt. In April 2016, he also filed
in court a complaint to foreclose the mortgage. May Y foreclose the mortgage during the pendency
of the criminal case for violation of BP 22? (7%)

ANS: Yes, Y may foreclose the property during the pendency of BP22.

The rule provides that the criminal action for the viol of BP 22 shall be deemed to include the civil
action.

While the right of a mortgagor to foreclose a property is deemed waived upon filing a collection suit,
the filing of a case for viol of BP 22 does not bar the right of the mortgagor to foreclose. The filing
of BP22 case is not the collection suit contemplated by law because it seeks to punish the act
issuance of a worthless check.

IX

a) Is lack of probable cause a ground for the quashal of an information? (3%)

ANS: No. Lack of probable cause is not a ground for the quashal of information. Motion to
quash is sui generis or a class in itself. Therefore, it must only be based on the grounds
provided in Section 3, Rule 117 of ROC [FJJOMELD].

b) How may the accused appeal from the resolution of the Department of Justice finding
probable cause against him for murder? (6%)

ANS: The accused may appeal administratively from the resolution of the DOJ by filing his
appeal to the Office of the President by a Petition to Review under Rule 43, if the penalty
imposable is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

If the accused is still unsatisfied with the resolution from the OP, then he may file a Motion
for Reconsideration with the same office (OP). If the MR is denied, he may elevate the same
with the Court of Appeals by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

If unsatisfied, an MR would again be proper before the CA. If denied, then he may elevate
the same to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.