EMMANUEL P.

FERNANDEZ
ADVANCE BAR TECHNIQUES – 1st QUIZ
ATTY. WAINE DIOKNO

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF LAW
ADVANCED BAR EXAM TECHNIQUES
QUIZ NO. 1
A.Y. 2020-2021

Answer each question by providing the following:

1. Relevant facts of the case

2. Reply
3. Legal basis
4. Analysis
5. Conclusion

Remember the rules we have discussed during our last meeting and apply the
same in answering the questions. 

Provide your answers in the same document and save the file in PDF format
under the file name “QUIZ NO. 1 – SURNAME” (e.g. QUIZ NO. 1 – DELA CRUZ).
Upload the file in this google drive link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_MrZwfrmLx9flQ5dEYzNTlnZFNIZ0d
GUUdHRmU0T2I4N1VqbGlRcWxpM3BmYjNFeF9xRk0?usp=sharing

You have until 07:00PM to submit your answers. 

I.

Enrique married Liza and had three children. Enrique contracted another
marriage with Nadine in Singapore. Thereafter, Enrique and Nadine returned to
the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Enrique in
Calamba, Laguna. Liza filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity against Enrique. The petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage was dismissed on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action and improper venue. Feeling all hopeless, Liza comes to
seek your assistance as regards filing a criminal action against Enrique and
Nadine. Can Enrique be prosecuted for bigamy? 
 II.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), constructed a new highway linking Metro Manila and
Quezon province, and which major thoroughfare traversed the land owned by
Mang Pandoy. The government neither filed any expropriation proceedings nor
paid any compensation to Mang Pandoy for the land thus taken and used as a
public road. 

Mang Pandoy filed a suit against the government to compel payment for the
value of his land. The DPWH filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground
that the State is immune from suit. Mang Pandoy filed an opposition. Resolve
the motion. 

III.

Pirena’s application for the renewal of her license to recruit workers for
overseas employment was still pending with the POEA. Nevertheless, she
recruited Amihan, Alena, and Danaya, for employment as housemaids in Saudi
Arabia. Pirena represented "to the sisters that she had a license to recruit
workers for overseas employment. Pirena also demanded and received P30,
000.00 from each of them for her services. However, Pirena’s application for the
renewal of her license was denied, and consequently failed to employ the four
sisters in Saudi Arabia.

The sisters charged Pirena with large scale illegal recruitment. Testifying in her
defense, Pirena declared that she acted in good faith because she believed that
her application for the renewal of her license would be approved. Pirena
adduced in evidence the Affidavits of Desistance which the four private
complainants had executed after the prosecution rested its case, In the said
affidavits, they acknowledged receipt of the refund by Pirena of the total
amount of PI20.000,00 and indicated that they were no longer interested to
pursue the case against Pirena. Resolve the case with reasons. 
ANSWERS

I.

No, Enrique cannot be prosecuted for the crime of bigamy

It is well settled under the doctrine of territoriality of the Revised Penal Code,
that penal laws of the Philippines are territorial in nature, it penalizes those
acts defined as criminal acts committed within the Philippine territory. 

In the case, it appears that Enrique contracted the bigamous marriage in

Singapore. Therefore, applying the territoriality principle of our criminal laws’
crimes committed outside the territory of the Philippines are not within the
jurisdiction of Philippine authorities to prosecute and penalize.

Hence, Enrique cannot be prosecuted for the crime of Bigamy.

II.

The motion to dismiss filed by the DPWH should not be upheld.

The Supreme Court defined the power of eminent domain as the right of a
government to take and appropriate private property to public use, whenever
the public exigency requires it, which can be done only on condition of
providing a reasonable compensation therefor.

Based on the facts of the case, Mang Pandoy is entitled for compensation, for
his land was expropriated by DPWH for public use. As the owner of the private
property subject of the taking, Mang Pandoy must be justly compensated;
meaning the owner must be paid in a timely or prompt manner of an adequate
value sufficient to recoup the loss suffered by the property owner.

Hence, the motion to dismiss filed by DPWH should not be upheld.

III.

The case against Pirena should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of
desistance executed by the complainants.

the Supreme Court held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional

ground to buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration that can
result in acquittal. To reiterate, there must be other circumstances which,
when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of
the testimony given by the witnesses during trial and accepted by the judge.
In the case, the execution of the affidavits of desistance executed by the sisters
and acknowledgement of the receipt of the refund issued by Pirena, cannot
automatically justify dismissal of the complaint if made after and not before
the institution of the criminal action. It does not bar the People of the Philippines
from prosecuting the criminal action, but it operates as a waiver of the right to
pursue civil indemnity.

Hence the case against Pirena for large scale illegal recruitment should not be
dismissed.