Set 2

1. Q: Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in favor of Agente, a special

power of attorney to sell his house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but
failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. On his return to the
Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand letter duly received by Agente sought to
recover the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he had used it for
the construction of his own house. Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for
sum of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an exparte motion for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The
court granted the ex parte motion and issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon
Bayani’s posting of the required bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff be
deputized to serve and implement the writ of attachment. On November 19, 2013, the
Sheriff served upon Agente the writ of attachment and Agente levied on the latter’s
house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff served upon Agente summons and
a copy of the complaint. On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with Motion
to Discharge the Writ if Attachment alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary
attachment was issued, he has not been served with summons and, therefore, it was
improperly issued. (2014 Bar)
a. Is Agente correct?
b. Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly executed? (2014 Bar)

2. Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned,
he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial commenced, he
asked the court to allow him to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but
only to estafa involving P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his plea? Why?
(2002 Bar)

3. Q: Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of

San Miguel, Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3
(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information
alleges, among others, that the two conspired in the purchase of several units of
computer through personal canvass instead of a public bidding, causing undue
injury to the municipality. Before arraignment, the accused moved for
reinvestigation of the charge, which the court granted. After reinvestigation, the
Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an amended information duly signed and
approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the same delictual facts, but with an
additional allegation that the accused gave unwarranted benefits to SB Enterprises
owned by Samuel. Samuel was also indicted under the amended information. Before
Samuel was arraigned, he moved to quash the amended information on the ground
that the officer who filed the same had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion to
quash with reasons. (2009 Bar)
4. Q: Lilio filed a complaint in the MTC of Lanuza for the recovery of a sum of money
against Juan. The latter filed his answer to the complaint serving a copy thereof on
Lilio. After the filing of the answer of Juan, whose duty is it to have the case set for
pre-trial? Why? (2001 Bar)

5. Q: Police operatives of Western Police District, Philippine National Police, applied

for a search warrant in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the
seizure of an undetermined amount of shabu. The team arrived at the house of
Santos but failed to find him there. Instead, the team found Roberto Co. The team
conducted a search in the house of Santos in the presence of Roberto Co and
barangay official and found ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in court
with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Before his arraignment, Roberto Co
filed a motion to quash the warrant on the following grounds (a) it was not the
accused named in the search warrant and (b) the warrant does not prescribe the
article to be seized with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with reasons.
(2005 Bar)

6. Q: Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the defense of defendant but no
evidence was presented to prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption to
be taken by the court as to the wordings of said law? (1997 Bar)

7. Q: May a private document be offered, and admitted in evidence both as

documentary evidence and as object evidence? Explain (2005 Bar)

8. Q: X states on direct examination that he once knew the facts being asked but he
cannot recall them now. When handed a written record of the facts he testifies that
the facts are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the writing before. Is the
writing admissible as past recollection recorded? Explain. (1996 Bar)

9. Q: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa against Petronilo in the amount
of P3 Million. Petronilo brought his complaint to the National Bureau of
Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the first time
on August 14, 2008 and the second on August 16, 2008; and that both visits concerned
the swindling of Petronilo. During the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued a subpoena
ad testificandum to Edgardo's lawyer for him to testify on the conversations during
their first and second meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of
privileged communication? Explain fully. (2008 Bar)

10. Q: At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the prohibited drugs, known as
“shabu” his girlfriend Kin, testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan
very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that three days after, he would appear
haggard, tired and overly nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan
objects to the admissibility of Kim’s testimony on the ground that Kim merely stated
her opinion without having been first qualified as expert witness. Should you as a
judge exclude the testimony of Kim? (1994 Bar)