SET 34 ANSWERS

1. TAXA TION LAW 2013

A: Yes. When the donor makes his will within a short time of, or simultaneously with, the making of gifts,
the gifts are considered as having been made in contemplation of death. (Roces v. Posadas, 58 Phil. 108)
Obviously, the intention of the donor in making the inter-vivos gifts is to avoid the imposition of the
estate tax and since the donees are likewise his forced heirs who are called upon to inherit, it will create
a presumption juris tantum that said donations were made mortis causa, hence, the properties donated
shall be included as part of A's gross estate.

2. REMEDIAL LAW 2015

 A: No, the court should not grant the demurrer. While it was alleged in the information that BB was a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense, the failure of the prosecutor to present evidence to
prove his minority is not a basis for the granting of the demurrer, because minority of the accused is not
an element of the crime of rape.

Be that as it may, the Court should not consider minority in rendering the decision. After all, the failure
of the prosecutor to prove the minority of AA may only affect the imposable penalty but may not
absolve him from criminal liability.

3. REMEDIAL LAW 2014

a. A: If I were the Judge, I would grant the second Petition for Bail. Under Section 7, Rule 114, Rules of
Court, no person charge with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution. In this case, the evidence of guilt for the crime of murder is not strong, as shown
by the prosecution’s failure to prove the circumstance that will qualify the crime to, and consequently
convict the accused of, murder. Accordingly, the accused should be allowed to post bail because the
evidence of his guilt is no strong (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution). Besides, it is settled that an Order
granting bail is merely interlocutory which cannot attain finality (Pobre v. People, G. R. No. 141805, July
8, 2015).

b.  A: Yes.  The accused is entitled to bail subject to the discretion of the Court. Under Section 5, Rule
114, Rules of Court, the appellate Court may allow him to post bail because the Trial Court in convicting
him, changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable. Be that as it may, the denial of bail
pending appeal is a matter of wise discretion since after conviction by the trial court, the presumption of
innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends. ( Jose Antonio Leviste v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010).

4. CIVIL LAW 2012

A: NO, the trial court was not correct. There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by his
natural father to use as middle name his mother's surname. The law is silent as to what middle name an
adoptee may use. In the case of In re: Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No, 148311,
March 31, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the adopted child may use the surname of the natural
mother as his middle name because there is no prohibition in the law against it. Moreover, it will also be
for the benefit of the adopted child who shall preserve his lineage on his mother’s side and reinforce his
right to inherit from his mother and her family. Lastly, it will make the adopted child conform with the
timehonored Filipino tradition of carrying the mother’s surname as the person’s middle name.

5. CIVIL LAW 2014

A: B (Art. 459)

6. CRIMINAL LAW 2016

A: Yes, the crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on acts of public officers related to the discharge of
their duties is a qualified privileged communication, hence, the accused can still be held liable for libel if
actual malice is shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be established by showing that comment was
made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
(Guingguing v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, September 30, 2005) Journalists bear
the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their profession, even when writing about public
figures or matters of public interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the Bureau of Customs
as corrupt cannot be considered as “fair” and “true” since he did not do research before making his
allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not “fair and
true reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has written and published the subject articles with
reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not. (Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. 161032,
September 16, 2008)

7. POLITICAL LAW 2013

A: The President can be impeached for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the provision in Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution
requires a treaty even for the mere temporary presence of foreign troops in the Philippines (Bayan v.
Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 499). The President cannot claim, therefore, that
he acted in good faith. (Report of the Special Committee in the Impeachment of President Quirino,
Congressional Record of the House of President Quirino, Congressional Record of the House of
Representatives, Vol. IV, p. 1553). Betrayal of public trust includes violation of the oath of the office of
the President (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 272). In his oath of office, the
President swore to preserve and defend the Constitution (Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution).

8. POLITICAL LAW 2015

A: No, the provincial governor is not endowed with the power to call upon the armed forces at his own
bidding. In issuing the assailed proclamation, Governor Tan exceeded his authority when he declared a
state of emergency and called upon the Armed Forces and the police. The calling-out powers
contemplated under the Constitution is exclusive to the President. An exercise by another official, even
if he is the local chief executive, is ultra vires, and may not be justified by the invocation of Section 465
of the Local Government Code since said provision only refers to calamities and disasters only and not of
looting as in the instant case (Kulayan vs Tan, July 3, 2012).

9. MERCANTILE LAW 2015

A: Yes, the Supreme Court held in various decisions that a manager’s check is good as cash. A manager’s
check is a check drawn by the bank against itself. It is deemed preaccepted by the bank from the
moment of issuance. The check becomes the primary obligation of the bank which issues it and
constitutes its written promise to pay. By issuing it, the bank in effect commits its total resources,
integrity and honor behind the check. (Tan v. CA, 239 SCRA 310; International Corporate Bank v. Gueco,
351 SCRA 516; Metrobank v. Chiok, GR No. 172652, Nov. 26, 2014)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Manager’s check is not legal tender because under Article 1249 of the Civil
Code, checks do not produce the effect of payment until encashed or through the fault of the creditor;
their value has been impaired. Moreover, under the Central Bank Act, the debtor cannot compel the
creditor to accept checks in payment of a debt whether public or private. (Article 60 of RA 7653) I

10. LABOR LAW 2015

A: According to Art. 28 of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment is considered a crime of economic
sabotage when committed by a syndicate or in large scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by
a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with
one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme which is an act of
illegal recruitment.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.