REMinisce Flashcards

Question

May a person be held civilly liable despite acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer 1

Yes. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The dismissal of the criminal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. (Matobato, Sr. vs. People, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)

Answer 2

No. it is too late for Ronald to question the legality of his warrantless arrest in view of his arraignment and active participation at the trial. Neither did he move to quash the information, hence, any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived. It is settled that the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Any objection must be made before the accused enters his plea. Otherwise, the defect is deemed cured. (People v. Laguda, G.R. No. 244843, October 07, 2020)

Answer 3

Section 8, Rule 126 - No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

Answer 4

Under the Rules of Court, upon the accused's conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a non-capital offense, admission to bail is discretionary. However, when the penalty imposed on the accused exceeds six years, and any of the bail-negating circumstances exists, the accused's application for bail must be denied or cancelled. If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)

Answer 5

No. Napoles' allegation is a question of fact which is not within the province of the Supreme Court to determine. Neither can the Court take judicial notice of her medical condition. However, even assuming that she is indeed suffering from diabetes, that, in itself, is not sufficient to grant her provisional liberty, post-conviction. Unless there is clear showing that Napoles is actually suffering from a medical condition that requires immediate and specialized attention outside of their current confinement — as, for instance, an actual and proven exposure to or infection with the novel coronavirus — she must remain in custody and isolation incidental to the crimes with which they were charged, or for which they are being tried or serving sentence. Only then can there be an actual controversy and a proper invocation of humanitarian and equity considerations that is ripe for this Court to determine. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)

Answer 6

Yes. Double jeopardy attaches when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent. In this case, all the elements are present. A valid Information for the crime of robbery was filed against Mangali before the RTC. Also, Mangali had pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the prosecution rested, the criminal case was dismissed upon a demurrer to evidence. (JCLV Realty & Dev’t. Corp. v. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618, August 27, 2020)

Answer 7

No. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is governed by Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. Here, Cacdac filed a demurrer to evidence, which partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the case for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As such, Cacdac was not deprived of due process when the trial court rendered judgment on his civil liability. He is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence when he filed a demurrer without leave of court. (Cacdac v. Mercado, G.R. No. 242731, June 14, 2021)

Answer 8

Newly-discovered evidence may be admissible in evidence if the following requisites are present: (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (4) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.

Answer 9

Yes. The Rules of Court allows resort to circumstantial evidence provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, compatible with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and in conflict with the notion that he is innocent. In this case, the corpus of circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of events pointing to Milo's guilt. AAA went to Milo's house and remained missing until the discovery of her lifeless body the following day in the same place. The medical examination revealed that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations. The most incriminating evidence against Milo is when AAA’s body was found underneath his bed. These proven facts, when weaved together, lead to no other conclusion but of Milo's culpability for the crime. (People vs. Leocadio, G.R. No. 227396, February 22, 2023)

Answer 10

In determining the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court identification, the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances and consider the following factors, namely: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the length of time between the crime and the identification; (5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. These rules assure fairness as well as compliance with the constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court identification, and prevent the contamination of the integrity of in-court identification. (People v. Campos, G.R. No. 252212, July 14, 2021)

Answer 11

No. A written contract or retainer agreement is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; a contract may be express or implied. To establish a lawyer-client relationship, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession, as in this case. Neither does the claim that no payment was received defeat the existence of the relationship. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for, to constitute professional employment. (Quitazol v. Atty. Capela, A.C. No. 12072, December 9, 2020)

Answer 12

The three tests developed by jurisprudence to determine the existence of conflict of interest are: first, whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue, or claim on behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client; second, whether acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client, or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty; and third, whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. (Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)

Answer 13

No. Actual case or controversy is not required for the proscription against representation of conflicting interests to apply. The important criterion is the probability, and not the certainty, of conflict. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be, even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer's private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. In this case, Atty. Ballicud caused the registration of EAT with the SEC on March 27, 2013. He occupied the highest position as EAT's President. Atty. Ballicud's new relation with EAT would prevent the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to KWP and would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty. (Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)

Answer 14

Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis; neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. (Capinpin v. Atty. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, September 03, 2020)

Answer 15

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; Substantive enacted by Congress Procedural law refers to the adjective law, which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice. It ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes; Remedial promulgated by SC (Art. 8) In case of conflict, SUBSTANTIVE PREVAILS (Separation of Powers) XPNS: - Violation of due process - Issue involved is purely legal question - Administrative action is patently illegal - Estoppel - Irreparable injury

Answer 16

If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.

Answer 17

No. It is already well-settled, as stated in the case of Estipona vs. Lobrigo that plea bargaining in criminal cases, by nature and tradition, is squarely a rule of procedure which falls within the Court's exclusive rule-making power as provided under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Answer 18

1. there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; 2. the issues involved are of transcendental importance. such that the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence; 3. in cases of first impression; 4. the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the [Supreme] Court; 5. the time element presented in the case cannot be ignored; 6. when the subject of review is an act of a constitutional organ; 7. when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and 8. when the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy

Answer 19

a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

Answer 20

No. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of any law-but they are not the sole and exclusive forum before which constitutional questions may be posed. Regional trial courts, including the one before which Criminal Case No. 2008-895 is pending, are vested with judicial power, which embraces the power to determine if a law breaches the Constitution. In Garcia vs. Drilon: “It is settled that [Regional Trial Courts] have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, ‘this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law.’ The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.

Answer 21

1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); 5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin eachother and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); 7) Offenses where there is no private offended party; 8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following: a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law); b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf; c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. 9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice; 10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657); 11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment); 12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

Answer 22

The residual jurisdiction of the trial court is available upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called “residual jurisdiction” to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal. The trial court will not reach the residual jurisdiction stage if the case was dismissed without prejudice because the order of dismissal is not appealable. Without the perfection of an appeal, let alone the unavailability of the remedy of appeal, the trial court cannot acquire residual jurisdiction. Prior to the transmittal of the original records to appellate court, trial court can still retain jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of the indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.

Answer 23

a) when there is a violation of due process; b) when the issue involved is purely a legal question; c) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; d) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; e) when there is irreparable injury; f) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latter; g) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable; h) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; i) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; j) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or k) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention

Answer 24

Contrary to Y’s postulation, summons need not be issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court states that the court, upon the filing of a petition for certiorari, shall determine if it is sufficient in form and substance. Once it finds the petition to be sufficient, it shall issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition. Compared with an ordinary civil action, where summons must be issued upon the filing of the complaint, the court need only issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition for certiorari. “Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.

Answer 25

No. There is no splitting of cause of action when a collection suit is filed separately from an action for ejectment. The causes of action are not the same, the rights violated are different, and the reliefs sought are also different.

Answer 26

a) When the subject matter of the controversy is of common or general interest to many persons; b) When such persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties; and c) When such persons are sufficiently numerous as to represent and protect fully the interests of all concerned.

Answer 27

Verification: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. CAFS: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons.”

Answer 28

The elements of forum shopping are: (i) identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interest; (ii) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action.

Answer 29

(1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default; (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare them in default; and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule.

Answer 30

Within 30 calendar days from service, unless a different period is fixed by the court (Secs. 1 and 5)

Answer 31

Within 60 calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity

Answer 32

Within 30 calendar days from service (if filed as a matter of right) Within 15 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same (if filed not as a matter of right? An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed. (Sec. 3)

Answer 33

Within 20 calendar days from service

Answer 34

Within 20 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.

Answer 35

Within 15 calendar days from service

Answer 36

(a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

Answer 37

Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court: (1) if he or she fails to appear during a scheduled hearing, especially on the date for the presentation of his or her evidence in chief; (2) if he or she fails to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time; (3) if he or she fails to comply with the rules; or (4) if he or she fails to comply with any order of the court. Thus, failure on the part of the plaintiff, without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court may result in the dismissal of the complaint either motu proprio or on motion by the defendant.

Answer 38

a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23); b. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24); c. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25); d. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26); e. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27); and f. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28);

Answer 39

Given the result brought about by the grant of a demurrer to evidence, that is, a dismissal of the case on its merits, an appeal would be the appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved party.

Answer 40

An ordinary appeal is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment or final order of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, while a petition for review is an appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. An ordinary appeal under Rule 41 is deemed perfected upon the filing of a notice of appeal before the Regional Trial Court. The notice of appeal must be filed within the period of 15 days from their notice of the judgment. On the other hand, an appeal under Rule 42 is deemed perfected upon the filing of the petition for review before the Court of Appeals. Additionally, an appeal under Rule 41 is a matter of right, while an appeal under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion.

Answer 41

A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. Nevertheless, the doctrine admits certain exceptions, to wit: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) supervening events rendered the decision unjust and inequitable. (Landbank of the Philippines vs. Garcia)

Answer 42

A petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The petition is the proper remedy of a party seeking to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing, was prevented from taking an appeal, or a judgment or final order entered because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed (i) within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside and (ii) within six months from the entry of such judgment, order, or other proceeding. These two (2) periods must concur.

Answer 43

A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances, where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. The same petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party's own neglect in promptly availing of the same. Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides two grounds for the annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. Chico vs. Ciudadano

Answer 44

(1) the right of appeal has been renounced or waived; (2) the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken; or (3) the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin.

Answer 45

A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and interlocutory order that bars an act or requires performance of a particular act pending litigation of a case.

Answer 46

(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse; (2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and (4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.

Answer 47

first, when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard; and second, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.

Answer 48

1. The interested party files a petition for declaratory relief before breach of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument; 2. There is a breach or violation of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument which occurred before the final termination of the case; and 3. The interested party should indicate the ordinary action he or she has chosen.

Answer 49

The one-year prescriptive period applies only when the quo warranto petition is filed by an individual in his/her own name or by the Solicitor General/public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court. When the petition is filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, prescription shall not apply.

Answer 50

(1) the property taken must be private property; (2) there must be genuine necessity to take the private property; (3) the taking must be for public use; (4) there must be payment of just compensation; and (5) the taking must comply with due process of law. It is settled that a property already devoted to public use can still be subject to expropriation, provided this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to a delegate, as in the case of MORE.

Answer 51

Just compensation is defined "as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator." The qualifier "just" modifies the meaning of the word "compensation" to impress the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. The true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. Heirs of Dimao vs. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines

Answer 52

Just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier. While the just compensation shall be appraised as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier, the legal interest shall run from the time that the government took possession of the property and not from the time of filing of the expropriation complaint.

Answer 53

Recovery of possession. Manila Railroad annunciated that a public entity stands on an equal footing as other trespassers/intruders if it enters a private property or constructs establishments thereon without the acquiescence or consent of the owner.

Answer 54

Summary action of ejectment (accion interdictal), plenary action to recover the right of possession (accion publiciana), and action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession (accion reivindicatoria). What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal), together with forcible entry, are the two forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reivindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.

Answer 55

The act of depriving a person of the material or actual possession of a land or building or of taking possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, against the will or without the consent of the possessor. No previous demand to vacate is required by law before the filing of the action.

Answer 56

The act of unlawfully withholding the possession of a land or building against or from a landlord, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the detainer's right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.

Answer 57

[TAF-CAS-SA] Title Announcement First Party Consideration Act or Conveyance Second Party Signature Acknowledgment

Answer 58

Unless required by your bar examiner, sparingly use the CONTRACT FORM [TAA-RAC-SA] Title Announcement Actors Recitals Agreement Conditions Signatories Acknowledgment

Answer 59

Acknowledgement refers to a formal declaration before an official that one has executed a particular legal document. They are are notarial acts that apply to contracts. *check Buenviaje notes

Answer 60

A jurat is a certificate attached to an affidavit or deposition to signify that the affidavit or deposition was properly made before a duly authorized officer. *for sworn statements and affidavits

Answer 61

VeTiPe-OStaSiJu Venue of Execution Title Person’s Bona Fides Oath Statements Signature Jurat

Answer 62

Cap-TIBRA-A Caption Title Introduction Body (Parties, Cause of Action) Relief Attorney’s Box Addenda

Answer 63

a. Case caption and the personal circumstances of the witness; b. The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness; c. The place where the examination is being held; and d. A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Answer 64

sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated

Answer 65

accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court

Answer 66

1. The name of the accused 2. The designation of the offense given by the statute 3. The acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense 4. The name of the offended party 5. The approximate date of the commission of the offense 6. The place where the offense was committed

Answer 67

I, (name), do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. In doing so, I shall work towards promoting “the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.” I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion. So help me, God.

Answer 68

Society - Bar - Courts - Client

Answer 69

No. None of Shane’s conduct is dishonest, deceitful or misleading in relation to a court, tribunal or government agency. Prohibition against claim of influence, familiarity, solicitation, self promotion or self-aggrandizement (Secs. 15, 17-19)

Answer 70

a. Lawyer’s name; b. Name of the law firm with which he is connected; c. Address; d. Telephone number; and e. Special branch of law practiced (Linsangan v. Tolentino, 2009)

Answer 71

No. Nothing wrong if lawyer engages in commercial activities, but not as “attorney.”

Answer 72

No. Remove "hire us" and it would be appropriate.

Answer 73

Refuse to answer the question and discuss publicly the reasons why he can’t respond to the question citing the sub-judice rule. This way, the lawyer also aids in disseminating information regarding law and jurisprudence.

Answer 74

Yes, because the continued publication of such criticism despite the pending case was calculated to arouse public sympathy for him and against the manufacturer.

Answer 75

As a rule, no. Except when unavoidable and/or justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. COA Circular 86-255: In the event that such legal services cannot be avoided or is justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit shall first be secured before the hiring or employment of a private lawyer or law firm.

Answer 76

(HACA) Habituality Application of Legal Knowledge Compensation Attorney-Client Relation

Answer 77

a. Law student practice (Rule 138-A) b. Pro Hac Vice representation (Sec. 33, Rule 138) ** repealed by CPRA - no longer controlling c. Pro Se practice (Sec. 34, Rule 138) - rendered moot by CPRA as well d. DARAB Cases (Sec. 50, RA 6657) e. Cadastral Cases (Sec. 9, Act 2259) f. Labor Cases (Art. 222, Labor Code) g. Small claims cases (A.M. 08-8-7-SC) h. International and domestic commercial arbitrations (Sec. 22 and 33, RA 9285) Pro se - You can no longer represent yourself.

Answer 78

a. President, Vice President b. Cabinet members who are lawyers c. Governors, city/municipal mayors d. Solicitor General, Government Corporate Counsel e. Judges/Justices in the active service and SC officials/employees f. Government lawyers unless given limited authority to practice g. Ombudsman, Members of the Constitutional Commission h. Disbarred lawyers i. Suspended lawyers j. Dead lawyers k. Lawyers residing abroad l. Foreign lawyers

Answer 79

a. Senators, Congressmen who are lawyers b. Vice Governor, Vice-Mayor, members of the local sanggunian c. Government lawyers authorized to engage in limited law practice d. Retired Judges e. The rules on Small Claims and Katarungang Pambarangay put limits to a lawyer’s authority to practice f. Former government lawyers cannot engage in the private practice of law within one year from resignation, retirement, or separation from public office in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with

Answer 80

a. Petition for Injunction b. Contempt of Court c. Criminal Complaint for Estafa d. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment e. Administrative complaint against an erring lawyer or government official

Answer 81

Upon the signing of a retainer When there is an implied agreement When there is a consultation

Answer 82

No. Amnesty only applies to criminal cases, not administrative cases. But he can apply for judicial clemency after 5 years.

Answer 83

the acceptance of a new relation will prevent a lawyer from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty; also when the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment

Answer 84

No, because the approval she pointed at falls short of the required consent.

Answer 85

No, Hunyo will not be disciplined here provided he gets July’s written consent before working with a competent co-counsel. The law prohibits a lawyer from undertaking a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. But he may render such service if, with the client’s consent, he can obtain a competent collaborating co-counsel. Given his candid admission to July about his incompetence, Atty. Hunyo’s cooperation with another counsel will not incur him liability, as long as he obtains July’s consent. To avoid administrative liability, Atty. Hunyo may take any of the following options given his inexperience: a. Refuse to handle the matter, given the clear command to lawyers to serve clients with competence and diligence b. Accept the matter because he expects, in good faith, to be competent through diligent study convinced that such research would not cause client undue delay and expense c. Accept the matter and associates with a competent co-counsel after obtaining his client’s consent to do so consistent with the CPRA.

Answer 86

a. For disclosing such information to the prosecution, then Atty. Nora becomes vulnerable criminally, civilly and administratively as such revelation constitutes a violation of her lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to Rommel. The law punishes the revelation of a client’s secret as prevaricacion. The law also holds her civilly responsible for all damages which Rommey may reasonably attribute to her for such wanton breach of obligation. She may also be held administratively liable as lawyers are forbidden from revealing the confidences or secrets of his client, save for limited exceptions, without obtaining his client’s consent. b. Yes, Nora may testify in her own defense and offer work-product information without violating her ethical duties to Rommel. The law explicitly authorizes a lawyer to reveal a client’s confidence or secret when necessary to defend himself, his employees or associates or when a breach of lawyer’s duty is involved. Since Rommel sued Nora upon a charge of professional incompetence, then the disclosure that Rommel confessed his guilt becomes necessary to defend herself from such a charge.

Answer 87

I. Furtherance of crime or fraud: If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud; Ii. Claimaints through the same deceased client: As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or by inter vivos transaction; Iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client: As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer; Iv. Document attested by the lawyer: As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or V. Joint clients: As to communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication, when offered in an action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.

Answer 88

No. John’s retainer is void for being champertous. Atty. John’s retainer with the complainants in this case is in the nature of a champertous contract–an agreement where a lawyer undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. These contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus void or inexistent.

Answer 89

None. Disbarment complaints are imprescriptible. - neither civil nor criminal, no double jeopardy, no pari delicto

Answer 90

Gross misconduct or any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct Serious dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, including falsification of documents and making untruthful statements; Bribery or corruption, sexual abuse; Gross negligence in the performance of duty, or conduct that is reckless and inexcusable, which results in the client being deprived of his or her day in court; Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; Grossly immoral conduct, or an act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act, or so immoral as to be reprehensible to a high degree; Misappropriating a client’s funds or properties

Answer 91

Simple misconduct, or such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules Simple dishonesty Other violations of the conflict of interest rules Prohibited borrowing of money from a client Prohibited lending of money Other unlawful threats Instituting frivolous or baseless actions, on the basis of a final decision or order dismissing such action for being frivolous or baseless; Violation of the sub judice rule Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts

Answer 92

Violation of IBP rules and issuances governing membership in the IBP Use of vulgar or offensive language in personal dealings Fraternizing with the officials or employees of a court, tribunal, or other government agency where the respondent has a pending case or cases, to such a degree and frequency as would give the appearance of power or influence over them, or which tends to create an impression of impropriety Filing of frivolous motions for inhibition Failure to promptly call upon client to rectify a fraudulent act; or Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts

Answer 93

Yes, the issuance of the NOD is proper and meritorious, as the engagement of Atty. G, Atty. M, and Atty. C by the Department of ABC did not comply with the existing rules in hiring private lawyers by government agencies and instrumentalities. While our jurisdiction generally restricts government agencies and instrumentalities in hiring private lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases, the government has allowed deviation, subject to certain conditions. Under COA Circular No. 2021-003, the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG are indispensable requirements, for purposes of validating the necessity and procuring services of a private lawyer. Here, the Department of ABC admitted the absence of the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG, which contravenes the requirements set by COA Circular No. 2021-003. Thus, COA has basis in issuing the NOD. (Ricalde v. COA)

Answer 94

Yes. The notary public's failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for the revocation of his commission or imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions. Jurisprudence has been consistent that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act, but invested with substantive public interest. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution. Here, Atty. JT did not deny notarizing the five ABCDEF's GIS and even stated that the affiants appeared before him for the notarization of the GIS. However, he failed to record the GIS in his notarial register. Atty. JT's failure to record the GIS in his notarial book is inexcusable and constitutes gross negligence in carefully discharging his duties as a notary public. Hence, revocation of his notarial commission is proper. (Re: John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274 (Resolution), [October 7, 2020)

Answer 95

The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes. There is no double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. Thus, should Atty. MR be found guilty and be given due penalty in the pending administrative case, the corresponding penalty thereof should still be adjudged for recording purposes on the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which should be taken into consideration in the event that he subsequently files a petition for reinstatement. (In Re: Order Dated October 27, 2016 Issued by Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati in Criminal Case No. 14- 765 v. Ramon, A.C. No. 12456, [September 8, 2020])

Answer 96

Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Further, the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence. The complainant must then prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. It is likewise well to remember that, in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence. In this case, Ms. LC failed to discharge her burden of presenting substantial evidence to prove that Atty. RE took advantage of his legal knowledge and profession to deceive her and appropriate her properties to himself. Thus, it cannot be established that Atty. RE engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct. (Capinpin v. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, [September 3, 2020])

Answer 97

Yes, Atty. BD exhibited unethical conduct, when he acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), particularly the provisions on Propriety. In Canon II of the CPRA, a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Here, Atty. BD cannot argue that he did not represent Ms. SR. Foremost the caption of the case he handled for them was “Ms. SR & Mr. NR v. Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija." Atty. BD cannot deny that Ms. SR is Mr. TR's wife or that she has an interest in the disputed land. As such, Atty. BD should have been circumspect in notarizing the deed of absolute sale over the property knowing that a legal heir was left out. The transaction disregarded the rules on succession that the widow is a compulsory heir of the decedent. Corollarily, Atty. BD should have refused the notarization of the deed. (Rivera v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 12724, [July 28, 2020])

Answer 98

Atty. JA should be held administratively liable, as he did not measure up to the exacting standards of candor and honesty towards the court. In acting with propriety, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability has been expressive in stating that a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Foremost, it was clearly established that the electronic tickets pre-marked as exhibits were altered. The representative of VIA Philippines attested to this fact. Atty. JA cannot hide on the simple excuse that he has no expertise to determine the authenticity of these documents especially that the introduction of such evidence can potentially mislead the trial court. It is of no moment that Mr. NE printed the tickets and handed them for premarking. The fact remains that Atty. JA did not observe greater care to prevent the court from being misled. (Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Arnado, A.C. No. 12734, [July 28, 2020])

Answer 99

The administrative complaint for willful failure to pay just debt against Mr. OS should be dismissed. Willful failure to pay just debt, particularly on claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, is no longer included in the administrative charges set forth in A.M. No. 21-08-09- SC, providing for, among others, the discipline of members, officials, and personnel of the Judiciary. Here, the factual circumstances of Mr. OS fall within the ambit of the application of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. Since the alleged infraction of Mr. OS is no longer punishable, pursuant to A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, there is thus no basis for disciplinary action against Mr. OS. Accordingly, the complaint against him must perforce be dismissed. (Sorensen v. Santos, OCA IPI No. 13- 4069-P, [April 12, 2023])

Answer 100

Judge RF may have violated, among others, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC). Under Canon 6 of the NCJC, the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court's operations. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Here, there have been delays in a number of court processes under the judicial function of Judge RF. It is to be emphasized that competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6, 2022])

Answer 101

A lawyer shall not use any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding before any court, tribunal, or other government agency that may: a. Cause a pre-judgment, or b. Sway public perception so as to impede, obstruct, or influence the decision of such court, tribunal, or other government agency, or which tends to tarnish the court’s or tribunal’s integrity or c. Impute improper motives against any of its members or d. Create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final decision

Answer 102

For forcible entry, the one (1)-year prescriptive period is generally reckoned from the date of actual entry on the land. However, if forcible entry is done through stealth, the period is counted from the time the plaintiff discovered the entry. In marked contrast, the one (1)-year period in unlawful detainer is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate.

Answer 103

No. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a “judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land.” Since there is no identity of causes of action, there can be no multiplicity of suits.

Answer 104

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of, its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due such a body. It consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it. It includes: (i) disrespect to the court, (ii) offensive behavior against others, (iii) refusal, despite being lawfully required, to be sworn in or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition.

Answer 105

It is committed through any of the acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, thus: (a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions; (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; (f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and (g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him

Answer 106

Yes. A person can be punished summarily without a hearing. But for indirect contempt, a person can only be punished after a written petition is filed and an opportunity to be heard is given to the party charged.

Answer 107

Crim: It is a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect Civil: It is one’s failure to fulfill a court order in a civil action that would benefit the opposing party. It is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made. Crim: The Government, the courts, and the people are interested in their prosecution. The private parties’ interest in the criminal contempt proceedings is tangential, if any. Civil: The party in whose favor that judgment was rendered is the real party-in-interest in the proceedings. Crim: It is punitive in nature. Civil: It is remedial and civil in nature. Crim: Intent is a necessary element only in criminal contempt cases. In such proceedings, the good faith, or lack thereof, of the person being cited in contempt should be considered.

Answer 108

No. Regardless of the nature of the proceedings, contempt is always treated separately even when the allegedly contumacious act is incidental to another action. It is not subject to compromise, mediation, or conciliation between the parties. Bank of Commerce vs. Borromeo

Answer 109

No. The rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of Gabatan, and other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned. Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial court shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only between and among the parties.

Answer 110

Wills of foreigners executed in the Philippines may be probated if they have estate in the Philippines because probate of the properties can only be effected under Philippine law. The will may be proved in the Regional Trial Court of any province in which they have an estate.

Answer 111

To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal, vested by law with authority for that purpose, that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is as alleged to be; that it has been executed, attested, and published as required by law; and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind.

Answer 112

Yes. In an allowance or disallowance of a will, there are two (2) notification requirements both of which are mandatory and jurisdictional: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and (b) personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees. However, individual notice upon heirs, legatees, and devisees is necessary only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In other instances, such notice is not necessary and the court may acquire and exercise jurisdiction simply upon the publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation.

Answer 113

No. The Court regards that it is sufficient that publication of the notice of hearing has been done prior to the commencement of the proceedings notifying all persons of the verified petition for the allowance of will and giving them an opportunity to defend their interests on a scheduled date of hearing. After which, it then becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned to appear and actively protect their interests. That the hearing date indicated in the notice did not push through is beside the point as for all intents and purposes, all interested parties have already been notified of the existence of the probate proceedings by virtue of publication and any subsequent development is easily verifiable.

Answer 114

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 76, personal notice must either be (1) deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least 20 days before the hearing or (2) personally served at least 10 days before the day of hearing.

Answer 115

Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.

Answer 116

Under the Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Answer 117

The writ of habeas corpus or the "great writ of liberty" was devised as a "speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom." The primary purpose of the writ "is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal." Presumption of regularity may invoked (unlike sa writ of amparo)

Answer 118

(1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as such excess. Whatever situation the petitioner invokes from the exceptional circumstances listed above, the threshold remains high. Mere allegation of a violation of one's constitutional right is not enough.

Answer 119

Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, gives the CA original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The CA's original jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions was re-stated in R.A. No. 7902. Similarly, B.P. Blg. 129 gives the RTCs original jurisdiction in the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the CA in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue, with the Family courts having exclusive jurisdiction to issue the ancillary writ of habeas corpus in a petition for custody of minors filed before it. In the absence of all RTC judges in a province or city, special jurisdiction is likewise conferred to any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge or Municipal Circuit Trial Judge to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.

Answer 120

The grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondents.

Answer 121

The writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. The writ is designed to protect and guarantee the (1) right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

Answer 122

a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization; c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

Answer 123

The writ of habeas data "is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party."

Answer 124

No. A change of name is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion.

Answer 125

The Court, in Republic vs. Hernandez, recognized the following grounds as sufficient to warrant a change of name: "(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest."

Answer 126

Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil register. It also governs the correction of substantial errors in the entry of the information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule and those affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person. A change of one's name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. However, Republic Act No. 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, effectively removing clerical errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule 108 and putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil register. In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic Act No. 10172. In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of birth, and the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172 clarifies that these changes may now be administratively corrected where it is patently clear that there is a clerical or typographical mistake in the entry. It may be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn affidavit with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.

Answer 127

Yes. Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.” Verily, even with the advent of RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172 prescribing the administrative remedy for correction of entries with the civil registry, the regional trial courts are not divested of their jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for correction of entries.

Answer 128

A suit for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is a special civil action. The writ of kalikasan is extraordinary in nature and is issued not only when there is actual violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Threat of violation through an unlawful act is enough, whether the threat be committed by a natural or juridical person, or a public or private person or entity. A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy that ‘covers environmental damages the magnitude of which transcends both political and territorial boundaries.’ The damage must be caused by an unlawful act or omission of a public official, public employee, or private individual or entity. It must affect the inhabitants of at least two (2) cities or provinces. This Court explained that ‘the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage.’

Answer 129

A petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be brought "on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated," an exception to the rule that the party bringing suit must be the real party in interest, or one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Since this Court's promulgation of Oposa vs. Factoran, it has allowed representative suits brought on behalf of "minors and generations yet unborn" in environmental cases. Given that no specific quantum of evidence is required in writ of kalikasan cases, and that representative suits are generally allowed in environmental advocacy, petitions for issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be examined on a case-to-case basis.

Answer 130

1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; 2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and 3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two (2) or more cities or provinces.

Answer 131

The Rules define a writ of continuing mandamus as a court issuance in an environmental case which directs any governmental agency or instrumentality or officer to "perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied."

Answer 132

Under the precautionary principle, when in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The conditions for the application of the precautionary principle are (1) uncertainty, (2) threat of environmental damage, and (3) serious or irreversible harm. Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides for the applicability and standards for application of the precautionary principle as a rule of evidence. Reading Rule 20 and its interpretation in Mosqueda, it appears that our jurisdiction adopts the weak version of the precautionary principle, as opposed to its strong version. In his article, The Paralyzing Principle, Professor Cass Sunstein (Prof. Sunstein) defined the weak version of the precautionary principle to mean "that a lack of decisive evidence of harm should not be a ground for refusing to regulate." On the other hand, the strong version of the precautionary principle requires governmental regulation "whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high."

Answer 133

No. While it is true that the circumstance of acting with discernment must be specifically alleged in the Information, the child in conflict with the law (CICL)/accused may waive the right to question the defects or insufficiency of said Information. Hence, he may still be convicted of homicide if discernment was established during trial.

Answer 134

No. all previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the lack of signature and approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal action, are hereby abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as the case may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Gomez vs. People of the Philippines

Answer 135

After arraignment, there can be no substantial amendment except if it is beneficial to the accused. Substantial amendments to the information after plea are prohibited because they will violate the accused’s constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of his/her accusation and against double jeopardy.

Answer 136

The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.

Answer 137

I. When a criminal action for violation of the tax laws is filed, a prior assessment is not required. Neither a final assessment is a precondition to collection of delinquent taxes in the criminal tax case. The criminal action is deemed a collection case. Therefore, the government must prove two things: one, the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and two, the accused's civil liability for taxes by competent evidence (other than an assessment). II. If before the institution of the criminal action, the government filed (1) a civil suit for collection, or (2) an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review before the CTA, the civil action or the resolution of the taxpayer's petition for review shall be suspended before judgment on the merits until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. However, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, it may be consolidated with the criminal action. In such a case, the judgment in the criminal action shall include a finding of the accused's civil liability for unpaid taxes relative to the criminal case.

Answer 138

Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused or deny the Motion to Defer Arraignment whether or not the petition before the DOJ has been resolved. The reason behind this course of action is easy to discern. As explained in Crespo vs. Judge Mogul (Crespo), when an Information has been filed in court, the prosecutor would be stripped of the power to dismiss the case, motu proprio. Instead, the court acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to decide what to do with the case even if it is against the position of the public prosecutor or even the Secretary of Justice. Suspension of the arraignment under Rule 116, Sec. 11(c) cannot exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office even if the petition before the office has yet to be resolved. Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused.

Answer 139

(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In an arrest made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught. Probable cause refers to “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”

Answer 140

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. Verily, under Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.

Answer 141

The requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules Court, viz.: “(1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.” The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nullification of the search warrant.

Answer 142

The Court issued the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 4, Rule 126 of which provides the requisites for a search warrant. The one-specific-offense rule, mentioned in the foregoing, is intended to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant or a warrant issued for more than one offense. The one-specific-offense requirement reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause. Contrary to the suggestion of the OSG that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions, the Court cannot simply decide to uphold the enforcement of search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein. The evil sought to be avoided cannot be delineated since the totality of the search warrant could have led the law enforcement authorities to implement the same in a wholesale fashion considering all the offenses mentioned therein, and seize any and all evidence seized related to all of the crimes mentioned in the search warrant. However, the Court sustains the validity of Search Warrants and the admissibility of the items seized which were particularly described in the warrant.

Answer 143

The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

Answer 144

No. To sustain the validity of a stop and frisk search, the arresting officer should have personally observed two (2) or more suspicious circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting officer to investigate further. For a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer must have had personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a reasonable degree of suspicion of an illicit act. Chief Justice Bersamin cautioned against warrantless searches based on just 1 suspicious circumstance.

Answer 145

Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD) Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)

Answer 146

An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to issue an order to disclose and accordingly, require any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control.

Answer 147

An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to carry out any or all of the following activities: (a) listening to, (b) recording, (c) monitoring, or (d) surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of computer data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.

Answer 148

An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to search the particular place for items to be seized and/or examined.

Answer 149

Upon acquiring possession of a computer device or computer system via a lawful warrantless arrest, or by any other lawful method, law enforcement authorities shall first apply for a warrant before searching the said computer device or computer system for the purpose of obtaining for forensic examination the computer data contained therein.

Answer 150

Cybercrime warrants are valid for up to ten (10) days, which may be extended for justifiable reasons by the issuing court for up to an additional ten (10) days.

Answer 151

(1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first.” With regard the first requisite, the first jeopardy only attaches: “(a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.” The test for the third requisite is “whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.” Also known as "res judicata in prison grey," the mandate against double jeopardy forbids the "prosecution of a person for a crime of which he [or she] has been previously acquitted or convicted.”

Answer 152

The finality-of-acquittal rule has one (1) exception, it is inapplicable where the Court which rendered the acquittal did so with grave abuse of discretion that is strictly limited whenever there is a violation of the prosecution's right to due process.

Answer 153

(1) acts of God, (2) force majeure, or (3) physical inability of the witness to appear and testify

Answer 154

No. A motion for new trial is no longer available when the case is already pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Under Section 14 of Rule 124, a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be filed at any time after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the CA convicting the appellant becomes final. Further, Rule 45, Section 1 clearly provides that a motion for new trial is not among the remedies which may be entertained together with a petition for appeal on certiorari.

Answer 155

Yes. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or unassigned.

Answer 156

Yes. The accused who did not appeal his conviction of violation of R.A. No. 9165 will benefit from the successful appeal by another accused, where the reviewing court finds serious defects in the chain of custody of the items seized and the evidence against the former and accused-appellant are inexplicably linked. It is well-established that “an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties.” Sec. 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a judgment shall not affect a non-appealing accused unless it is applicable and favorable to him: “Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.”

Answer 157

An order denying a Motion to Quash is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable. In general, the same cannot even be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari in view of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law. However, when special or exceptional reasons obtain, immediate resort to filing of a petition for certiorari may be allowed. The proper remedy from an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial and raise the issue as an assignment of error in the appeal of the final judgment.

Answer 158

By filing a notice of appeal either before the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, pursuant to Sec. 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

Answer 159

By filing a notice of appeal either before the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, pursuant to Sec. 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

Answer 160

a) If the order to elevate the records for automatic review was issued beyond fifteen (15) days after the promulgation of the judgment or notice of final order and the accused did not file a notice of appeal within the same period, the automatic review shall not be given due course. The Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order of finality of judgment. b) If the order to elevate the records for automatic review was issued within fifteen (15) days after the promulgation of the judgment or notice of final order, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order requiring the accused within ten (10) days from receipt thereof to manifest whether they are adopting the order to elevate the records as their notice of appeal. If the accused shall refuse to adopt or fail to timely manifest despite due notice, they shall be deemed to have waived their right to appeal, and the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order of finality of judgment.

Answer 161

No. The Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3 (e) (i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said Rules. But failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.

Answer 162

As a general rule, the quantum of proof in civil cases is preponderance of evidence, which means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.

Answer 163

In civil cases where the success of the action rests on refuting a presumption, such as nullity of marriage cases, the quantum of proof required is clear and convincing evidence. This is a quantum of proof that requires more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 164

No. A confession made outside of court proceedings is not sufficient for conviction unless accompanied by evidence of the corpus delicti.

Answer 165

Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or substance of a crime, and which refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical body of the deceased. Jurisprudence explains that in order to prove corpus delicti, "it is sufficient for the prosecution to be able to show that (1) a certain fact has been proven—say, a person has died or a building has been burned; and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act.

Answer 166

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 167

Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, has been defined as such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Answer 168

In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.

Answer 169

The quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases is substantial evidence.

Answer 170

(a) relevant and (b) competent Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence. On the other hand, evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court.

Answer 171

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.

Answer 172

No. It is well settled that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.

Answer 173

It is well-settled that object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility, becomes evidence of the highest order. Thus, when the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the object evidence should prevail.

Answer 174

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in cases provided under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence such as “when the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.”

Answer 175

(1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.

Answer 176

(a) want of personal knowledge, (b) spousal immunity, (c) privileged communication, (d) parental and filial privilege, and (e) privileged trade secrets.

Answer 177

None. Spousal and filial privileges continue to exist even after the death of one spouse.

Answer 178

A person’s own acts are binding upon him/herself, but s/he is not bound by the acts of unauthorized strangers.

Answer 179

Under the res inter alios acta rule, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Among the exceptions to the rule are: (1) admission by co-partners or agent (2) admission by conspirator; (3) admission by privies; and (4) admission by silence.

Answer 180

a) In criminal cases, the prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. If the accused, however, in his defense attempts to prove his good moral character then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral character at the rebuttal stage. b) Also in criminal cases, the good or bad moral character of the offended party may always be proved by either party as long as such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. c) In civil cases, the moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. d) In both civil and criminal cases, the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party, but not evidence of his good character, unless it has been impeached.

Answer 181

(a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; (b) evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or (c) other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.

Answer 182

a. Warrant of arrest: Shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained inadmissible. b. Search warrant: Failure to observe the requirement, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.

Answer 183

1) Communications between law enforcement personnel unrelated to the conduct of the search or the arrest; 2) Encounters with undercover officers or confidential informants; 3) When law enforcement officers are on break or otherwise engaged in personal or non-work-related activities; 4) Inside restrooms, locker rooms, or other places where there is a similar expectation of privacy, and there is no legal reason to be present unless the premises are covered by the search warrant; 5) In locations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as in residences, unless the recording is being made pursuant to a valid arrest or search warrant of the individuals or locations; 6) Strip or body cavity searches when such is necessary as provided in the warrant; 7) Conduct of tactical planning before conducting the search or the arrest; 8) Privileged communications between the subject of recordings and other individuals, such as attorneys, members of the clergy, peer support counselors, and medical professionals; and 9) Such other circumstances as may be provided by the trial court issuing the warrant which is part of constitutional privilege and where the dignity of an individual may outweigh the public necessity for recording. (Rule 4, Sec. 10, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC)

Answer 184

a) a citizen of the Philippines b) at least twenty-one years of age c) of good moral character, and d) resident of the Philippines; and e) must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Section 2, Rule 138

Answer 185

I, ________________, do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of Philippines. In doing so, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion. So help me, God.

Answer 186

Yes. The CPRA expressly provides that it shall have a retroactive application, that is, it shall be applied to all pending cases.

Answer 187

I - Independence II - Propriety III - Fidelity IV - Competence and Diligence V - Equality VI - Accountability

Answer 188

The independence of a lawyer in the discharge of professional duties without any improper influence, restriction, pressure, or interference, direct or indirect, ensures effective legal representation and is ultimately imperative for the rule of law. Merit-based Practice A lawyer shall rely solely on the merits of a cause and not exert, or give the appearance of, any influence on, nor undermine the authority of, the court, tribunal or other government agency, or its proceedings. Section 1, Canon I, CPRA

Answer 189

A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Section 1, Canon II, CPRA Proper Conduct; Dignified Conduct Use of Dignified, Gender-Fair, and Child- and Culturally-Sensitive Language Duty to correct false or inaccurate statements and information made in relation to an application for admission to the bar A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or misleading conduct Duty to disclose relationship or connection Duty not to mislead the court, tribunal or other government agency on the existence or content of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or pass off as one’s own the ideas or words of another Duty not to solicit or advertise one’s legal service Sub-judice rule Duty not to give gifts and donations to any court, tribunal or other government agency Duty not to institute multiple cases Duty not to encroach or interfere in another lawyer’s engagement

Answer 190

Fidelity pertains to a lawyer's duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, to assist in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, and to advance or defend a client's cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of truth and justice. Prohibition Against Conflict-of-Interest Representation Prohibition Against Dating, Romantic, or Sexual Relations with a Client Prohibition Against Conflict-of-Interest Representation Accounting and Turn-over of Funds and Properties upon Termination of Engagement

Answer 191

The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or performance of acts or the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or out of court, with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person or a cause, and pursuant to a lawyer-client relationship or other engagement governed by the CPRA. It includes employment in the public service or private sector and requires membership in the Philippine bar as qualification. Section 1, Canon III, CPRA

Answer 192

A lawyer-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character. As a trust relation, it is essential that the engagement is founded on the confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer. Therefore, a lawyer-client relationship shall arise when the client consciously, voluntarily and in good faith vests a lawyer with the client's confidence for the purpose of rendering legal services such as providing legal advice or representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or impliedly, agrees to render such services. Section 3, Canon III, CPRA

Answer 193

A lawyer professionally handling a client's cause shall, to the best of his or her ability, observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or issues involved, and whether for fee or pro bono. Duty to provide competent, efficient, and conscientious legal service Duty to diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by the client Duty to engage in lifelong learning

Answer 194

Every lawyer shall adhere to the principle of equality and hold firmly the belief that every person, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, color, sexual orientation or gender identity, religion, disability, age, marital status, social or economic status, and other like circumstances, has the fundamental right to equal treatment and representation. As such, the lawyer shall accord equal respect, attention, dedication and zeal in advancing the client's cause, regardless of personal opinion, religious or political beliefs pertaining on the personal circumstances of the client, except for justifiable reasons.

Answer 195

Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of lawyers may be commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative, or upon the filing of a verified complaint by the Board of Governors of the IBP, or by any person, before the Supreme Court or the IBP. However, a verified complaint against a government lawyer which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar shall only be filed in the Supreme Court. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be confidential in character and summary in nature. Nonetheless, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.

Answer 196

Canon I - Independence Canon II - Integrity Canon III - Impartiality Canon IV - Propriety Canon V - Equality Canon VI - Competence and Diligence

Answer 197

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

Answer 198

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

Answer 199

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision to made.

Answer 200

Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where: a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy; c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; e) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review; f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of the judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. Section 6, Canon III, NCJC

Answer 201

May operate retroactively as to pending proceedings even without expression to that effect.

Answer 202

Unlike objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; otherwise, the objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is deemed waived. (Villagracia vs. 5th Shari’a District Court, 2014)

Answer 203

Motion to set aside order of default upon proper showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. (Rule 9, Sec. 3(b))

Answer 204

Motion for new trial and petition for relief from judgment. These 2 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative; appeal from the judgment under Sec. 1, Rule 41; special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65; annulment of judgment under Rule 47.

Answer 205

Summary dismissal with prejudice, and the act shall constitute direct contempt and a cause for administrative sanctions.

Answer 206

No. A motion is not presumed to have already been acted upon by its mere filing. Prudence dictates that a party await the court’s action on his Motion to Withdraw, before considering his Motion for Reconsideration as withdrawn. Motion to withdraw will not constitute forum shopping if it was withdrawn at the initiatory stage where the defendant has not yet filed an Answer.

Answer 207

No. Upon a party’s filing of said manifestation, his motion for reconsideration with the RTC is deemed abandoned. It is an established principle that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party.

Answer 208

Provided these are availed on time and appropriate grounds exists, his remedies may include the following: a) motion for reconsideration; b) motion for new trial; c) appeal; d) petition for relief from judgment; and f) petition for annulment of judgment (Gadrinab vs. Salamanca)

Answer 209

No. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory in character. Hence, it may not be the subject of an appeal.

Answer 210

SC HAS JURISDICTION OVER RULE 45, NOT CA.

Answer 211

The appeal shall not be transferred to the appropriate court. Instead, it shall be dismissed outright.

Answer 212

a) There is grave abuse of discretion b) The findings are grounded on speculations c) The inference made is manifestly mistaken d) The judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts e) The factual findings are conflicting f) The CA went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties g) The CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion h) The findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court i) The facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent j) The findings of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.

Answer 213

Extrinsic fraud, which must be brought 4 years from discovery, and lack of jurisdiction, which must be brought before it is barred by estoppel or laches.

Answer 214

A trial court may issue a TRO even without prior hearing for a limited period of 72 hours if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. In this instance, a summary hearing, separate from the application of the preliminary injunction, is required only to determine if a 72-hour TRO should be extended.

Answer 215

A trial court may issue ex parte a TRO for 20 days if it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. This is an exception to Rule 58, Sec. 5 - no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined (so hindi pwede ex parte) Judge CANNOT issue a writ of injunction after the 20-day effectivity of TRO. It shall be done within 20days, with a non-extendible period.

Answer 216

It is an action for recovery of personal property. It is both a principal remedy and a provisional relief.

Answer 217

GR: personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary, and posting and publication will suffice. Sec. 3 of Act 3135 governing extrajudicial foreclosure of REMs as amended by Act 4118, requires only posting of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. XPN: If stipulated in their contract - failure to comply will render foreclosure proceedings null and void

Answer 218

Zonal value of the property by the BIR at the time of the filing of the Complaint or at the time of the actual taking of the property, whichever is earlier.

Answer 219

No. All courts, excluding the SC, are prohibited from issuing a TRO, preliminary injunction, or mandatory preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from acquiring the site of any national government project.

Answer 220

Yes. Certificate of sale issued by sheriff after extrajudicial sale is a mandatory requirement. - period of redemption does not begin to run.

Answer 221

Juridical persons are allowed to exercise the right of redemption only until but not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale and in no case more than 3 months after foreclosure, whichever comes first.

Answer 222

Should be appealed to the CA under Rule 43.

Answer 223

a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extremely urgency for relief f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process h) Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved

Answer 224

Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion - Rule 65

Answer 225

Errors of jurisdiction - certiorari Errors of judgment - by appeal

Answer 226

No. The requirement under Rule 70, Sec. 2 of a prior demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate would be unnecessary. The jurisdictional demand is not necessary if the action is premised on the termination of lease due to expiration of the terms of contract.

Answer 227

Yes. The SOJ exercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within his authority to affirm, nullify, reverse or modify the resolutions of his prosecutors. Rule 112, Sec. 4

Answer 228

1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant’s choice; 3) it must be express; and 4) it must be in writing.

Answer 229

Jurisprudence has enumerated 3 instances: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; (c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which accused is acquitted.

Answer 230

Mamerto v. AAA and BBB

Answer 231

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is “estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.”

Answer 232

Lack of express consent is required because the accused’s consent to dismiss the case means that he actively prevented the court from proceeding to trial based on the merits; and in rendering judgment or conviction or acquittal. In other words, there would be a waiver of the right against double jeopardy if consent was given by the accused.

Answer 233

when the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt as to which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue

Answer 234

X’s utterance cannot be treated as direct evidence to positively and categorically implicate A of the crime charged.

Answer 235

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

Answer 236

Preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.

Answer 237

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.

Answer 238

when an inadmissible fact has been offered by a party and received without objection, and the opposing party, for the purpose of negating/examining/contradicting it, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise ensue from the original fact. Ex: A brings an action for sum of money against B. A presents evidence that B is a scammer, having scammed C – should not have been admitted, but if admitted, B must be allowed to present evidence that he did not scam C

Answer 239

Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule stating that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding (Gonzales v. People)

Answer 240

NO. The constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. There may be valid warrantless searches and seizures. a) Custom searches b) Searches of moving vehicles - vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity c) Seizure of evidence in plain view d) Consented searches e) “Stop and frisk” measures - Terry Search f) Searches incidental to a lawful arrest g) Exigent and emergency circumstances

Answer 241

NO. Section 8, Rule 126 is a mandatory rule and preventing the lawful occupant or a member of his family from actually witnessing the searching and choosing instead 2 other witnesses to observe the search taints the search with the vice of unreasonableness, rendering the seized articles inadmissible due to the application of the exclusionary rule or for being the fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the accused must be acquitted.

Answer 242

NO. The plants were illegally seized without a warrant and are inadmissible in evidence against B for being fruits of the poisonous tree. When the police officers proceeded to B’s home, they were already alerted to the fact that the could possibly be marijuana plants in the area. The discovery of the plants was not inadvertent and the seizure thereof cannot fall under the plain view doctrine.

Answer 243

NO. The shabu was obtained on the second search, after a substantial amount of time had elapsed from the time of the arrest, and at a place other than the venue of the place of actual arrest. The lawful search as an incident of a lawful arrest was done during the first search where no shabu was found. The subsequent search was unlawful and unreasonable. The shabu is inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule.

Answer 244

1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2. The turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3. The turnover by the investigation officer of said item to the forensic chemist for examination; and 4. The turnover and submission thereof from forensic chemist to the court.

Answer 245

No. If the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to the inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution’s case but rather to the weight of evidence presented for each particular case.

Answer 246

Yes, they must be physically present at the time of apprehension. It is a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. A buy-bust team has enough time to gather and bring with them the said witnesses.

Answer 247

1. Upon written permission of the depositor 2. In cases of impeachment 3. Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation 4. AMLC pursuant to court order when there is probable cause deposits are related to anti-money laundering, prosecution of plunder (unexplained wealth) and anti-graft and corrupt practices act

Answer 248

The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above (Sec. 10 C) The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000,000 nor more than P5,000,000 at the discretion of the court.

Answer 249

Yes. Any extrajudicial confession made under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. But in the counsel’s absence, upon a valid waiver in the presence of: Any of the parents, elder brother and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding

Answer 250

No. SC rules that Bill of Rights was intended to protect private individuals against government intrusions. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals. SC clarified that while the case of Zulueta may appear to carve out an exception to the abovementioned rule by recognizing the rule on admissibility of evidence between spouses when one obtains evidence in violation of his/her spouse’s right to privacy, such a pronouncement is a mere obiter dictum that cannot be considered as a binding precedent. Violations of the right to privacy between individuals is properly governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and Data Privacy Act and other pertinent laws, while its admissibility shall be governed by the rules on relevance, materiality, authentication of documents, and the exclusionary rules.

Answer 251

1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and 2. This expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable

Answer 252

It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. XPNS: 1. Shouting 2. Landline with extension

Answer 253

Yes. There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void document.

Answer 254

where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as ours

Answer 255

Yes. If the accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information, judgment shall be immediately rendered, except in those cases involving capital punishment. Court also has discretion to still require presentation of evidence for any qualifying circumstances.

Answer 256

all persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses The phrase “conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law” takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons “convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony are disqualified from being witnesses to a will.” If not provided by law, conviction of a crime will not disqualify one to be a witness, however, the conviction may be cause to impeach a witness. Impeachment - discredit Crime punishable by penalty in excess of 1 year Crime involving moral turpitude

Answer 257

Capacity of observation Capacity of recollection Capacity of communication

Answer 258

No. Testimony in favor of spouse is not a disqualification.

Answer 259

YES. When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other. The marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason for the marital disqualification rule based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.

Answer 260

No. H timely objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. The testimony cannot be used against H directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the murder case without violating the marital disqualification rule. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. But, W could testify against X and Y.

Answer 261

- Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news - Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted - Trade secrets - Information contained in tax census returns - Bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act) - Executive privilege, presidential privilege communication, national security matters and intelligence information

Answer 262

a. The statement concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death b. At the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death c. The declarant would have been competent as a witness had he survived d. Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of the inquiry involves the declarant’s death

Answer 263

Not a dying declaration, but res gestae. The time the statement was being made must also be the time the victim was aware that he was dying. Res gestae refers to those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act. In a general way, res gestae includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.

Answer 264

a. Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event itself b. Whether the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacturer The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.

Answer 265

Yes. Considering the seriousness of the stab wound inflicted and the fact that he died shortly thereafter, despite undergoing an operation, it can be concluded that he was aware of his impending death when he made a statement that it was accused who stabbed him.

Answer 266

YES. Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction. A’s revelation to the witness regarding his illicit relationship with Bernal’s wife is admissible in evidence. A, having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession to the witness is definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with X’s wife was a crime, and is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.

Answer 267

It is admissible hearsay. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro.

Answer 268

1. need inform yung accused as soon as practicable 2. To ensure no tampering – subjects of recording/counsel shall be allowed to witness the downloading prior to safekeeping

Answer 269

a. Recording using BWC/ARD b. Turn over devices used or data by media representative to data custodian of law enforcement agency to which they belong c. Downloading of data by data custodian d. Redaction of personal identifiers by data custodian or his representative e. Retrieval of recording data and their transfer to external media storage device by data custodian f. Submission and delivery of recordings contained in external media storage device to the court

Answer 270

1. Person subject of recording or counsel 2. Parent, guardian or counsel of any minor subject of the recording 3. Spouse, next of kin, legally authorized designee of a deceased subject of the recording or counsel 4. Employees of law enforcement agency to which officer whose camera captured the recordings belongs *1-3 are entitled to obtain a copy of the recording within 5 days from downloading should person subject of recording content to its use in court proceeding; shall not release recording to other persons, including media, before use in trial; contempt for violation

Answer 271

Unless recordings involve an incident resulting in a loss of life or an assault made in law enforcement officers during arrest or search. Recordings and copies of such recordings that depict or record circumstances in which a person dies while being apprehended by or while in the custody of law enforcement officers or when assault is made on law enforcement officers, are considered public record.

Answer 272

If declined, recording may not be used against him. In case of minor subjects, consent shall be secured from his parent or guardian.

Answer 273

Recordings shall not be deemed substituted for the presentation of witnesses - suppletory only

Answer 274

No. Order of dna not appealable. Remedy is certiorari 65

Answer 275

No. Order of dna not appealable. Remedy is certiorari 65

Answer 276

No. It is covered by RSP, hence you have to comply with 60-day period for Information. Jadewell Parking System Case It is the filing of the INFORMATION in court that tolls the running of the prescriptive period

Answer 277

Yes. Go to OPP or OCP and file MR within 15 days. If still denied tapos within jurisdiction of MTC, petition for review to PG/RSP. If within RTC jurisdiction, SOJ. If denied and the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua or life, rule 65 to CA. Period is 60 days. Can extend + 15 with compelling reasons. If denied, 45 to SC, PQL. 15 + 30

Answer 278

No. Final and executory. Hence, CA rule 65.

Answer 279

(Rule 40) akyat to RTC, notice of appeal within 15 days (non-extendible).

Answer 280

True. Sanchez vs. Demetrio case Mere invitation by armed group of the government which prohibit the physical movement of a person and he is inside a military or police station is considered as an arrest.

Answer 281

if crime is punishable by RP/L XPN to XPN: if the evidence of guilt is strong Kapag application for bail, nasa prosecution ang burden of evidence kasi presumed innocent yung accused Kapag naarrest ka sa place na outside your jurisdiction, cannot avail bail to them. Under custody ka talaga nila, they will transfer you first and then you can avail of bail to proper court of jurisdiction

Answer 282

Yes, if not more than 1g

Answer 283

Yes. The compulsory counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City while the permissive counterclaim is not. Under Rule 6, Sec. 7, a compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief that a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff’s complaint. An original action filed before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount involved. On the other hand, a permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case. This claim must be filed with the Court having jurisdiction over the amount involved. (PNTC Colleges v. Time Realty) The counterclaim in the amount of P500,000 arises out of the claim existing in court while the counterclaim of P2M does not. Thus, compulsory counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the amount while the permissive counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Answer 284

Prior recourse to barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional requirement that non-compliance therewith would deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. Where, however the fact of non-compliance with and non-observance of such procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is proper. In this case, the court acquired jurisdiction notwithstanding the absence of barangay conciliation. The dismissal would be proper if Tricia raised an affirmative defense the failure to comply with a condition precedent. (Ngo vs. Gabelo et. al.)

Answer 285

Atty. Terry is correct that there was misjoinder of causes of action however Atty. Terry is incorrect that the trial court should have dismissed the petition of Regine. Under Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules explicitly states that a misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action and that a misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (Unicapital Inc. vs. Consing) In this case, there was no motion of the party nor initiative from the court to sever the misjoined causes of action thus there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication on both causes of action.

Answer 286

No. HC did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the collection case while the ejectment case is pending. The determinative factor in the violations of the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. In the instant case, the second and third elements of forum shopping and litis pendentia are lacking. Thus, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for collection of sum of money and an ejectment case, and that any judgment rendered in one of these actions would not amount to res judicata in the other action. Any judgment rendered in the ejectment case will not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money for unpaid rent of the same property and vice versa. Thus, no violation of the forum shopping rule was committed. (Asis et al vs. Heirs of Calignawan et al)

Answer 287

No. If the defendant is out of the country like Pam, summons should be served through substituted service under Section 6, extraterritorial service under Section 17, or under Section 18 when residents are temporarily out of the Philippines, Rule 14 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Sabado v. Sabado) Under Rule 14, Sec. 17, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. In this case, there was no service made to the last known address of Pam, thus the Order dated August 27, 2020 directing publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the US is improper. Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem but not if an action is in personam (Gesolgon et al vs. Cyberone Ph Inc. et al)

Answer 288

Yes. Nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition of a prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by the final judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take testimony of a witness who is unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country. Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. Although the deposition is in writing, the trial court judge can still carefully perceive the reaction and deportment of Gaita as she answers each question propounded to her both by the prosecution and the defense. It must be mentioned that a “dying declaration” is one of the recognized exceptions to the right to confrontation. In this, it will not be amiss to state that Gaita’s deposition through written interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Gaita will be answering the written interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death – or execution by a firing squad to be exact. (People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao)

Answer 289

I will file an action for Unlawful Detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. An ejectment case, based on the allegation of possession by tolerance, falls under the category of unlawful detainer. Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his/her property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie. (Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Sps. Barbarona)

Answer 290

No. With the enactment of RA 9048, which amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, it vested primary jurisdiction over the correction of certain clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name with the civil registrars. In 2012, RA 10172 expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure provided under RA 9048 to include clerical corrections in the day and/or month in the date of birth, or in the sex of the person, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry. Presently therefore, when an entry falls within the coverage of RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172, a person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the petition in the administrative proceedings is first filed and later denied. (Bartolome vs. Republic and Republic vs. Gallo and Republic vs. Sali). Failure to comply with the administrative procedure generally renders the petition dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to comply with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Answer 291

No, William is not correct. Any amendment to an information which only states with precision something which has already been included in the original information, and therefore, adds nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only a “formal amendment” that can be made at any time. It does not alter the nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an opportunity to meet the new accusation. Further, second arraignment is not required for a formal amendment. This is so because a formal amendment does not charge a new offense, alter the prosecution’s theory, or adversely affect the accused’s substantial rights (Villarba v. CA). Hence, William is not correct.

Answer 292

No, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel. Under Rule 114, Section 5, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Here, Angel was charged with Murder but was convicted by the RTC for Homicide. Hence, the application for bail by Angel must be filed with and reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel.

Answer 293

No, the position of Erica is not tenable. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The ten-day period provided under this Rule is only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to the court. However, it is natural to assume that an arresting officer, who under the law is given only ten (10) days to serve an arrest warrant, would serve it as soon as possible. That Erica was served with the warrant at nighttime and beyond the ten day period is of no moment. Section 6, Rule 113 provides that an arrest can be made at anytime of the day or night. In Colorado vs. Agapito, complainant faulted respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. The Supreme Court held that it was of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent on a Friday, because it is clear in the Rules that an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in any jurisprudence can it be found that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited. Thus, respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular matter. He did not commit grave abuse of authority for issuing the warrant of arrest on a Friday, the same not being prohibited by law. Hence, the position of Erica is not tenable.

Answer 294

Rule 126 - search warrant that is effective only within 10 days from issuance → kapag warrant of arrest, enforceable until executed, recalled, or quashed.

Answer 295

No. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information of Complaint, as the case may be, that the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of RA 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. In this case, since Information was certified by the investigating prosecutor, thus the trial court was incorrect in motu proprio dismissing the case. (Villa Gomez vs. People)

Answer 296

Yes. Under Rule 130, Sec. 21, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. In this case, the tender age of Rox by itself is not a sufficient basis to render her incompetent so long as she has the ability to perceive, remember and tell the truth in court. Thus, under the Rules of Court, a child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court determines upon proper showing that the child’s mental maturity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts truthfully. The testimony of the child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known the perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of an improper motive to testify. Once it is established that the child fully understands the character and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full credence.

Answer 297

No. In People v. Briones, citing People v. Tuniaco, the SC ruled that the presentation of the murder weapon is not indispensable to prove the corpus delicti, as its physical existence is not an element of murder. To prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution only needs to show that: a) a certain result has been established and b) some person is criminally responsible for it. Further, in the same case, the Supreme Court citing People vs. De Guzman, ruled that paraffin testing is conclusive only as to the presence of nitrate particles in a person, but not as to its source, such as firing from a gun. By itself, paraffin testing only indicates a possibility, not infallibility, that a person has fired a gun.

Answer 298

Yes. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must concur: a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declaration’s death; b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim (People v. Palanas; People v. Rarugal). This is because a dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. Further, the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court. (People v. Palanas)

Answer 299

a. Dying declaration b. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind c. Declaration against interest d. Act or declaration about pedigree e. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree f. Common reputation g. Part of the res gestae h. Records of regularly conducted business activity i. Entries in official records j. Commercial lists and the like k. Learned treatises l. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding m. Residual exception

Answer 300

As to the admissibility, the birth certificate is admissible while the letters from the siblings of Jay are not. An act or declaration about pedigree is admissible when: a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify; b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage; c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; and d) the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy. Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. In this case, the birth certificate being a public document can be admitted as evidence while the letters are considered hearsay and therefore inadmissible. As to the sufficiency, both documents are insufficient because the unsigned birth certificate does not prove that Jay recognized Vangie as her daughter. The letters from the siblings of Jay being hearsay is not sufficient to prove filiation.

Answer 301

a) executive for the purposes of filing an Information; b) judicial for issuance of warrant

Answer 302

No. People v. Acharon - Court declared Sec. 5(i) of 9262 that non-giving of support is not a criminal act.

Answer 303

Yes. Sandiganbayan - constitutionally-mandated court and can be dissolved by Congress

Answer 304

Pursuant to PD 1606, if it is for violation of 3019(E) SB has original jurisdiction

Answer 305

MR not a sine qua non for filing rule 45 petition pursuant to secs 1 & 2 of r45 “OR”

Answer 306

MR is a condition sine qua non under RULE 65 PETITION

Answer 307

principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate

Answer 308

if a person is given a chance to speak and he does not speak, his mouth is forever closed

Answer 309

1. Tenancy relationship between the parties 2. Parties are land-owners 3. Subject matter is an agricultural land 4. Consent between the parties 5. Personal cultivation on part of tenant (if naghire sya iba nagcucultivate di daw pwede)

Answer 310

Yes. De Lima Case RTC, CA, SC - even if may concurrent jurisdiction sila, SC remains to be court of last resort

Answer 311

Originally filed in SB - MR denied (regardless of penalty) - notice of appeal to SC Different if SB is exercising appellate jurisdiction If imposed penalty by rtc is reclusion perpetua or life, affirmed by SB - notice of appeal to SC (Rule 122, Sec. 3c and e. Rule 124, Sec. 13c) If penalty is less than reclusion or life, notice of appeal to SB - affirmed by SB - rule 45 raising PQL to SC

Answer 312

Body-worn cameras - regional na yung jurisdiction nya; if the issuing court in Manila, within NCR lang, cannot implement it outside; new rule XPN: if issued by special commercial court, implementable anywhere in the Philippines

Answer 313

1. One of the parties is the government 2. Party is a public officer or employee 3. Dispute involves real properties in different cities or municipalities 4. Partnership, corporation or juridical entities 5. Parties who actually reside in different barangays 6. Offenses which the law has a maximum of more than 1 year 7. Fine must not be more than 5,000 8. Crimes with no private complainants 9. Disputes with urgent legal action necessary

Answer 314

- Unlawful detainer - Forcible entry - Violation of traffic laws - Rental laws - Municipal ordinances - BP22 (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 of 2000 Rules on CrimPro regardless of amount) In a civil case, if one cause of action is under RSP and one is ordinary, beyond the ambit of RSP No declaration for default

Answer 315

Any money owed for: 1. Loan 2. Lease 3. Services 4. Contract of sale of personal property excluding recovery of personal property unless it is made the subject of a compromise agreement 5. Enforcement of barangay amicable settlement 6. Money claim does not exceed 1M 7. Violation of traffic laws 8. Municipal ordinance 9. BP22 10. Prescribed penalty does not exceed 1 year 11. Prescribed fine does not exceed 50,000 XPN: a. Offenses including negligence (365) if imposable fine does not exceed 150,000 If offense has both prescribed penalty and fine, penalty will be the determining factor

Answer 316

- only allowed in responsive pleading After service of summons a. If natural - 30 + 30 + no further extension b. If juridical - 60 + 30 + no further extension - After 20 days lang for supplemental pleadings

Answer 317

No, magkaiba ng prayer. Ground for 65 is GAD. Sa 45 is error of judgment, you want it to be reviewed.

Answer 318

same as warrant of arrest (imprescriptible) so alias is only applicable in lost or destroyed summons

Answer 319

Motion to dismiss + other form of prayer = voluntary appearance But if motion to dismiss lang on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, res judicata, litis pendentia, prescription = not voluntary appearance

Answer 320

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan - testimonies are considered hearsay unless cross-examined

Answer 321

Petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity exceptional in nature and it may be availed only when other remedies are wanting and only if the judgment, final order, final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by the court through lack of jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud, lack of due process. (Thomas v. Trollo, March 15, 2021)

Answer 322

No. Right to counsel not mandatory in administrative proceedings for the reason that you are not endangered to lose your liberty Criminal case - mandatory Cudia vs. Superintendent Military of the Philippines

Answer 323

Election cases in the municipal level - RTC, not COMELEC Election cases in barangay level - COMELEC

Answer 324

10 years max 5 years by action, 5 years by motion

Answer 325

Real Action - jurisdiction is based on ASSESSED value (from BIR), not market value, not purchase price Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein < 400,000 MTC > 400,000 RTC (RA 11576) For all other actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation, where the claim does not exceed P2M, jurisdiction is with inferior courts and exceeding P2M, jurisdiction is with the RTC If incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction is with RTC

Answer 326

If in possession of land, action is imprescriptible - plaintiff has the right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right

Answer 327

Legal title denotes registered ownership Equitable title means beneficial ownership To draw himself an equitable title, he must show that the one from whom he derives his right had himself a right to transfer

Answer 328

Art. 1602 equitable mortgage - When the price of sale is grossly inadequate - When lessee is in possession of property - When buyer remains to be in possession of part of purchase price

Answer 329

(1) R45: Mode of appeal R65: Original action (2) R45: SC - appellate jurisdiction R65: RTC, CA, SC - original concurrent jurisdiction (3) R45: Generally raises questions of law, subject to xpns R65: Does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence Questions of fact cannot be raised except to determine whether the public respondent was guilty of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (4) R45: Seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court - errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings/evaluation of evidence R65: Seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction - where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction (5) R45: Appeal of judgment or final order R65: Only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, adequate remedy (6) R45: From denial, remedy is MR R65: If judgment by RTC, appeal to CA by Rule 41 but memorandum instead of appellant’s brief, unless pure question of law is raised, rule 45 SC If judgment by CA, remedy is rule 45 to SC (7) R45: 15 days subject to fresh period rule R65: 60 days, subject to fresh period rule (8) R45: Subject to an extension of 30 days provided that docket and lawful fees are paid upon filing the said motion R65: No provision for grant of extension, subject to exception; most persuasive and weighty reasons therefor Mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive

Answer 330

a. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment b. Interlocutory order - leaves something else to be done; does not dispose of case c. Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal d. Order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent e. An order of execution f. A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaint, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and g. An order dismissing an action without prejudice In such cases, rule 65 may be filed

Answer 331

No. Impeachment (political) and quo warranto (judicial) are mutually exclusive and may proceed simultaneously

Answer 332

1. Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdcition over all election contests involving elective barangay officials (Omnibus Election Code) 2. RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over those contesting the election of any municipal officer 3. COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings to contest the election of any regional, provincial or city officer and any member of Congress, before said member of Congress takes his oath of office after his proclamation; also has appellate jurisdiction from any decision of the trial court 4. HRET/SET has jurisdiction once elective official of Congress takes his oath, pursuant to Constitution providing that HRET/SET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and disqualifications of their respective Members

Answer 333

No. Fery ruling - land reversion if there is no just compensation - ABANDONED - remedy: seek relief with the COA which must act upon it within 60 days. If denied, certiorari through SC Land reversion back to private landowner is only allowed for the reason that the land is not to be used for public purpose - Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada

Answer 334

In judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, the right of redemption, where the debtor may repurchase his property within 1 year from registration of the certificate of sale, is not recognized. —--- if allowed lang. Generally, no right of redemption. Meron lang equity redemption not less than 90 days and not more than 120 days XPN: where the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a bank or banking institution within the purview of the General Banking Law of 2000

Answer 335

1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter 2. Improper venue 3. Lack of legal capacity to sue 4. Res judicata 5. Prescription 6. Failure to state cause of action 7. No CAFS 8. Fail to comply with condition precedent such as prior barangay conciliation, among others

Answer 336

YES. What the rules prohibit are motion for new trial or for reconsideration of judgment on the merits or reopening of proceedings (AM No. 08-8-7-SC) Order denying motion to dismiss is not a judgment but interlocutory order

Answer 337

Art. 390 CC, there may be an opening of succession of a person only presumed to be dead after an absence of 10 years; unless he disappeared after the age of 75 years, in which case, an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. There may be a division of the estate among the heirs for a shorter period of absence that would warrant a presumption of death if: (1) a person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or an airplane which is missing, has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or airplane; (2) a person in the armed forces who has taken part in war has been missing for 4 years; and (3) a person has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for 4 years.

Answer 338

No. The court will not issue an order declaring the absentee as presumptively dead. The presumption of death is established by law and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. (Valdez v. Republic) ***Different from subsequent marriage - need ng judicial pronouncement

Answer 339

If the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit. Rule 74, Sec. 1 If parties cannot agree as to partition, they can file an action for partition (Rule 74)

Answer 340

it is dismissed without prejudice for 15 days. Hence, if within 15 days the barangay finds no conciliation, you can simply revive the case. If after 15 days, you have to refile.

Answer 341

RA 11642 - ADMINISTRATIVE ADOPTION AND ALTERNATIVE CHILD CARE ACT Effective Jan. 28, 2022 Jurisdiction - National Authority for Child Care (NACC) All adoption proceedings are now administrative

Answer 342

socio-legal process of providing a permanent family to a child whose parents had voluntarily or involuntarily given up their parental rights, permanently transferring all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, making the child a legitimate child of the adoptive parents

Answer 343

relative or step-parent adoption where such declaration is not required

Answer 344

a. Child who has no proper parental care or guardianship b. A foundling; or c. Deserted by one’s parents for a period of at least 3 continuous months

Answer 345

a. Any Filipino citizen at least 25 years of age b. In possession of full civil capacity and legal rights c. Not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude d. Good moral character and can model the same e. Emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children f. At least 16 years older than the adoptee (waived if adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent) g. Is in a position to support and care for adopted children in keeping with the means of the family h. Legal guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of financial accountabilities i. Legal guardians with respect to the foster child j. Philippine government officials and employees deployed or stationed abroad: provided, that they are able to bring the child with them; and k. Foreign nationals who are permanent or habitual residents of the Philippines for at least 5 years possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals prior to filing of the petition

Answer 346

1. A former Filipino citizen, habitually residing in the Philippines, who seeks to adopt a relative within 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; or 2. One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the Filipino spouse; or 3. One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with the spouse a relative within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse

Answer 347

a. If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other; or b. If one spouse seeks to adopt own illegitimate child; provided that the other spouse has signified consent thereto; or c. If the spouses are legally separated from each other

Answer 348

They cannot adopt jointly because the law provides that it should be spouses. Marriage between same sex is not acknowledged here in the Philippines. Hence, either one of them can only adopt if he/she is a relative or a kin who has been taking care of said child for at least 3 years

Answer 349

Petitioner, who was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Plunder (punishable by reclusion perpetua) and sought for her release from detention during the pendency of said case, by petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that she has been detained for close to 9 years already, on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial. One witness a day lang daw eh ang dami pa witnesses There is confusion as to which pre-trial order ang iaapply Delay due to wrong markings in the pre-trial kaya inulit yung marking Confusion as to which pre-trial is controlling She has been detained for 9 years 1 witness only per day tapos twice a week lang yung trial

Answer 350

An action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person, institution or any government agency or local government unit or its officials and employees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person, institution or government agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights. A defense in those cases claimed to have been filed merely as a harassment suit against environmental actions.

Answer 351

Remedy for a person seeking to change his or her first name or nickname on the grounds that: the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce, the new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community, or the change will avoid confusion Also to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register To change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or To change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake

Answer 352

It is not the father or the mother who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children. Neither can the court order the minors to use Antonio’s surname. (Grande v. Antonio)

Answer 353

Yes. Astorga case

Answer 354

No, the Bank of Iraga cannot split its cause of action on the Discounting Line. Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted based on the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as ground for the dismissal of the others. Here, the Bank of Iraga may institute two alternative remedies against the Sps. Bueno, either a personal action for the collection of the promissory notes issued under the Discounting Line or a real action to foreclose the mortgage – but not both, simultaneously or successively.

Answer 355

Yes, the case will survive the death of Jose Dimas. Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the substitution of a party-litigant, who dies during the pendency of a case, by his heirs, provided that the claim subject of said case is not extinguished by his death. Jurisprudence has settled that if the claim in an action affects property and property rights, then the action survives the death of a party-litigant. Therefore, the death of the party-litigant, Dimas, did not render the case dismissible on such ground, but rather, calls for the proper application of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on substitution of party-litigants.

Answer 356

ABC, Inc. did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the ejectment case while the collection case is pending. The determinative factor in the violation of the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. In the instant case, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for collection of sum of money and an unlawful detainer case, and that any judgment rendered in one of these actions would not amount to res judicata in the other action.

Answer 357

No, the non-invocation of the respondents of their right to speedy disposition of cases is not tantamount to a waiver. As respondents, they had no duty to expedite or follow-up the cases against them, since there are determined periods for the termination of the preliminary investigation. Thus, the mere inaction on the part of the accused does not qualify as an intelligent waiver of their constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy disposition of cases.

Answer 358

No, the intrusion is invalid and the confiscated drugs are inadmissible as evidence, since there was non-compliance by the police officers with the rule on chain of custody. The procedure laid out in Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is considered a substantive law and not merely a procedural technicality. Further, the law requires that police authorities implementing RA No. 9165 should strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure. Here, there was no clear showing that there was a duly recorded, authorized movement, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, extending even until the time it is presented before the court.

Answer 359

The Court of Appeals was incorrect, as the petition for certiorari should not have been dismissed. While it is true that in cases of default judgments, the remedy of the party declared in default is appeal, yet, it is to be recognized that when a party charges the trial court with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the party in default and eventually rendering judgment against it, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of. A party who was improvidently declared in default has the option to either perfect an appeal or interpose a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the order of default even before the promulgation of a default judgment, or in the event that the latter has been rendered, to have both court decrees – the order of default and the default judgment – declared void.

Answer 360

Yes, because the appeal was filed out of time. A motion for reconsideration against the court’s action on an affirmative defense is prohibited. Thus, as applied in the case, it is pro forma and did not toll the prescriptive period to appeal, which should have been filed on March 15, 2024. The ordinary rules apply to special civil actions when no contrary rule is otherwise provided.

Answer 361

No, the petitions for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus will not prosper for lack of jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over petitions for Writ of Kalikasan; it is the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction. Also, for the petition to prosper, there must be showing of a law or rule violated, which was not present in this case. Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is a declaration of policy that is not self-executing, and there is need for legislation.

Answer 362

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the accion publiciana. Under the law, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. Here, the dispossession was surreptitious so the reckoning point is from discovery or February 1, 2023. The action should have been filed within a year from February 1, 2023, but it was filed beyond that or on March 31, 2024. Thus, the proper legal recourse is accion publiciana to recover possession, and the basis of jurisdiction is the assessed value. Since the assessed value is more than PhP400,000.00, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction.

Answer 363

No, the case should be dismissed. In a special proceeding for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation. Here, Ma. Cristina and her children actually sought the declaration of Pablo and Lucille's marriage as void for being bigamous, and the impugnation of Patrick's legitimacy, which causes of action are not governed by Rule 108. The validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack.

Answer 364

Yes, the contention of Gold Roger is correct. Jurisprudence holds that pursuant to Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules which is limited to the preservation of substantive rights. The test to determine whether the rule really regulates procedure is that, if the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right, and, therefore, fall under the Supreme Court’s rule-making powers and outside the ambit of Congress’ legislative power. Therefore, Section 23 of Republic Act No. 12999 violates the Supreme Court’s rule-making powers under the Constitution, as correctly pointed out by Gold Roger.

Answer 365

No, I will not advise the filing of a small claims case with the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment. Under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, a "small claim" is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding PhP1,000,000.00. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies. Here, while the principal claim of Zoro for the collection of a sum of money does not exceed PhP1,000,000.00, the same claim would be coupled with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, a provisional remedy. Accordingly, since Zoro’s claim for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money against Nami is coupled with a provisional remedy, a small claims case would be improper.

Answer 366

Deo’s contention is correct. According to the Supreme Court, a private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. However, the private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). In the case at bar, Khali is assailing the criminal aspect of the Regional Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal, specifically, the supposed absence of the elements of the double jeopardy. Khali’s petition for certiorari assailing Deo’s acquittal does not relate to the civil aspect of the crime supposedly committed by Deo. Moreover, Khali did not obtain the OSG’s conformity when he filed his petition for certiorari through his private counsel. Hence, Deo’s contention that Khali has no standing to file the petition for certiorari is correct.

Answer 367

No, the appeal of Usopp is not impressed with merit. Jurisprudence holds that any information, alleging that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance – in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations – is present, it must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the information may be subject to a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by the rules. However, failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the information, and the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial. In this case, although the Informations against Usopp were defective absent factual details describing the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, Usopp waived such defects when he failed to question the insufficiency of the Informations either through a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation may be appreciated against Usopp if proven during trial.

Answer 368

No, I will deny Doflamingo’s Motion. Under the Rules of Court, if the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, pending appeal. To invoke humanitarian grounds for the grant of bail, the circumstances of the accused must be on all fours with those in Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, namely, the accused is not yet convicted of the crime charged against him, was of advanced age and ill health to require special medical attention. In the case of Doflamingo, he was convicted of a capital offense, rape, and was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment. This is more than six years, which justifies the outright denial of bail pending appeal. Also, Doflamingo’s circumstances are not on all fours with that of Enrile considering that his diabetes is not shown to require immediate and specialized attention outside of his current confinement and that bail is being sought post-conviction and not pending trial.

Answer 369

No, the Certification in this case is not in compliance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Pursuant to the rules, the certification issued by the local civil registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite a diligent search. Here, the Certification does not prove that Sanji’s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically state that Marriage License No. 12345678 does not exist.

Answer 370

No, Atty. KNJ’s post is not proper. Section 17, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) prohibits solicitation and impermissible advertisement. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that an advertisement where a lawyer refers to himself as a “specialist” is self-laudatory; an improper advertising that is violative of the CPRA. The same thing is true with a lawyer calling himself an expert in a field of law such as in this case. Since Atty. KNJ posted said photo referring to himself as an expert in annulment of marriage, while not stating his name, is a violation of the CPRA and jurisprudence; hence, such post is improper.

Answer 371

Atty. W’s defense deserves no consideration. The Supreme Court has held that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards social media postings, regardless if the same are “locked”, precisely because the access restriction settings in social media platforms do not absolutely bar other users from obtaining access to the same. Moreover, Section 36 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability mandates lawyers to understand the risks of use of social media while Section 37 thereof mandates lawyers to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from disrepute in his or her online posts, regardless if made in a public or restricted privacy setting. The lawyer’s right to privacy, especially when it comes to their social media account, is limited. They cannot use this right as a shield against any liability. Therefore, Atty. W’s defense deserves no consideration and he shall be subjected to disciplinary action.

Answer 372

No, Judge Dan should not inhibit. The filing of an administrative case against a judge does not automatically disqualify him or her from sitting in a case. It must be shown that there are other acts or conduct by the judge which constitute a ground for his or her disqualification. Mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. Here, there being no showing of other acts or conduct by Judge Dan which constitute a ground for his disqualification, he should not inhibit. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.

Answer 373

We must emphasize, at this point, that judicial courtesy is neither a substitute nor a ground for the issuance of a WPI under the Rules. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. On all these grounds, the existence of a clear and unmistakable legal right is invariably necessary. This paramount consideration differentiates mere exercise of judicial courtesy from the issuance of a WPI, albeit both are essentially for purposes of maintaining status quo between the parties until the merits of the main suit are fully heard. Judicial courtesy is exercised by suspending the proceedings before a lower court, even without an injunction or an order to that effect from a higher court, to avoid mooting the matter raised before the higher court. Such exercise is merely as a matter of respect and practical considerations. Whereas, the issuance of a WPI, although it also preserves the status quo, does not suspend the proceedings in the main case. It only prevents the threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the party who has a clear legal right, entitled to be judicially protected during the pendency of the main case. Courts are consistently reminded that the power to issue the writ "should be exercised sparingly, with the utmost care, and with great caution and deliberation." A WPI may be issued only upon showing of a clear and positive right calling for judicial protection during the pendency of the principal action.

Answer 374

No. We emphasize at the outset the well-settled rule that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, vested with the RTC as (Special Agrarian Court), not with administrative agencies. In the exercise of such function, the RTC must work within the parameters set by governing law and rules. Certain factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA No. 6657, as amended, cannot be unjustifiably disregarded, viz.: SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by the government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.

Answer 375

Evidence that is ordered expunged from the records cannot be considered in favor of, and against a party for any purpose. To expunge means to strike out, obliterate, or mark for deletion. In all respects, an expunged evidence does not exist in the records and, therefore, has no probative value. Here, it is undisputed that the QDR issued by the NBI, and the PNP Crime Laboratory Report were expunged from the records by virtue of this Court's final and executory Resolution dated August 20, 2008. Though admitted in evidence, these expunged documents were not the bases of the trial court in concluding that Remedios' signature was forged. Forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. While it is settled that resort to handwriting experts is not indispensable in the finding of forgery, their opinions are useful and may serve as additional evidence to buttress the claim of forgery.

Answer 376

No. The long-standing rule in our jurisdiction restricts government agencies and instrumentalities in hiring private lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases. The regulation was primarily aimed to curtail unnecessary expenditures of public funds on legal services of private lawyers since the law has already designated the OSG to discharge such functions. The rule, however, recognizes exceptional situations which unavoidably call for the services of private lawyers. Thus, over the years, the government has allowed deviation from the general prohibition subject to certain conditions. Under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended by COA Circular No. 95-011, the following indispensable conditions must then be satisfied before a government agency or instrumentality hires a private lawyer (1) the hiring must be justified by an exceptional circumstance; (2) the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG must be secured; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA must also be obtained. Recently, COA Circular No. 2021-003 dated July 16, 2021, further amended COA Circular No. 86-255 by exempting national government agencies and instrumentalities from the requirement of the COA's prior written concurrence subject to specific conditions, the existence of which is to be determined by the COA. The dispensation was brought about by the COA's recognition that the purpose of the COA's written concurrence, i.e., "to ensure the reasonableness of the amount of legal fees" "may be guaranteed by safeguards other than the requisite COA's written concurrence." On the other hand, the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG remains to be an indispensable requirement under the new guidelines for purposes of validating the necessity of procuring services of a private lawyer before actually engaging one. In this case, petitioners attempt to justify their failure to comply with the requirements under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, by asserting the BOI's "dire need" to hire technical assistance from outside the bureau to augment its deficient staff. This general allegation is, however, a factual matter that could have been verified by the OSG had the BOI complied with the requirements under the established rules before it hired private lawyers. At this point, the OSG had already expressed its disapproval of the BOI hirings in arguing for the propriety of the disallowance. Hence, absent any semblance of grave abuse of discretion and also for lack of evidence on record for the Court to make a judicious factual determination, we are constrained to uphold the disallowance. Furthermore, contrary to petitioners' viewpoint, the prohibition under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, does not only cover the engagement of private lawyers on retainer fees for actual case litigations. The amended guidelines in the hiring of private lawyers made no qualification as to what legal service the lawyer is to perform, nor was there any specification as to how his or her services were to be paid. The rules clearly prohibit government agencies and instrumentalities "to hire the services of private lawyers for a fee, chargeable against public funds, unless exceptional or extraordinary circumstances obtain.”

Answer 377

The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes. We observe this rule in this administrative case involving an attorney who practiced law despite her previous suspension. It is undisputed that Atty. Ramon was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. In Mercullo v. Ramon, the Court en banc found that Atty. Ramon engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Atty. Ramon obtained substantial amount from her clients and made them believe that she could assist in redeeming the foreclosed property because she is working in the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. Yet, Atty. Ramon did not notify her clients that she is no longer connected with such agency. Worse, Atty. Ramon took advantage of her client's full trust and falsely informed them that she had initiated the redemption proceedings. Absent contrary evidence, it is presumed that Atty. Ramon received a copy of the suspension order and must desist from practicing law during such period. Notably, a lawyer's suspension is not automatically lifted. The lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for this Court's order lifting the suspension before resuming the practice of law.

Answer 378

An "unlawful" conduct refers to any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element. To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight forwardness. A "deceitful" conduct means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.

Answer 379

Judicial clemency is the Court's extraordinary act that does not transgress existing laws and override the choice of those who have been wronged. It should, as much as possible, be based on established facts and accepted normative ethical values. In resolving requests for judicial clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in In re Diaz: (1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation. (2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation. (3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he [or she] still has productive years ahead of him [or her] that can be put to good use by giving him [or her] a chance to redeem himself [or herself]. (4) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service. (5) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

Answer 380

The Court refined these guidelines in In re Ong and explained remorse and reformation, sufficient lapse of time to ensure reformation, and other relevant factors. Remorse and reformation must reflect how the claimant has redeemed their moral aptitude by clearly understanding the gravity and consequences of their conduct. There is an element of reconciliation in clemencies. When there is private offended party, there should be an attempt at reconciliation where the offender offers an apology and, in turn, the wronged gives a full and written forgiveness. Only after this reconciliation can this Court acquire jurisdiction on the plea for clemency. Where there is no private offended party, the plea for clemency must contain the public apology. In Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, this Court denied a plea of clemency that did not show any sign of repentance and acceptance of the judgment. This Court ruled that the respondent is not deserving of clemency when she still defends herself and insists on her innocence and self-righteousness. She still showed no remorse for her misdeeds even though they transpired more than eight years ago. Again, there must be an acknowledgment of the wrongful actions and subsequent showing of sincere repentance and correction. This Court must see to it that the long period of dismissal moved the erring officers to reform themselves, exhibit remorse and repentance, and develop a capacity to live up again to the standards demanded from court officers. This Court has also considered other factors such as the petitioner's advanced age, deteriorating health, and economic difficulties. For instance, in Paredes v. Padua, when the dismissal has already caused a tremendous suffering to the individual and there is a showing of dire health and financial condition, this Court lifted the penalty. Furthermore, there are degrees of clemency. Generally, unless for extraordinary reasons, dismissal or disbarment cannot be the subject of any kind of clemency in less than five years. There should also be no disruption of the service. Moreover, we must be clear which kinds of offenses are subject to various forms of clemency and the equivalent extraordinary circumstances that should be considered. This Court lifts and modifies penalties if there are intervening factors that merit mitigation. Penalties "are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders." "Thus, when an errant officer "demonstrates [their] sincere repentance and remorse for the wrong [they] committed" and the penalty imposed has already served its purpose, judicial clemency is warranted. Remorse on the part of the person asking for judicial clemency can be demonstrated by their clear understanding of the gravity and consequences of their conduct. The petitioner must acknowledge their wrongful actions.