Part 1

NOTICE OF RESULT

Hans Aleksi G.Kasilag

The number of points you can earn per item is 3 points regardless of the weight of the content
problem/issue.

1. The “burden of proof” is greatest in which of the following proceedings:

a. a civil trial
b. a grand jury investigation
c. a mediation proceeding
d. an arbitration proceeding
e. a criminal trial
Answer: The answer is a criminal trial proceeding because the burden is given to the prosecution
to prove that a person or a defendant in a case is guilty of the commission of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the answer is letter e.

GOOD JOB! (3)

2. Anne owed Bessy P1 million due on October 1, 2011 but failed to pay her on due date. Bessy
sent a demand letter to Anne giving her 5 days from receipt within which to pay. Two days after
receipt of the letter, Anne personally offered to pay Bessy in manager's check but the latter
refused to accept the same. The 5 days lapsed. May Anne’s obligation be considered
extinguished?
Answer: Yes, according to Article 1232 of the New Civil Code, an obligation can be extinguished
by methods other than money. Anne paid Bessy using a check, an alternative payment method.
Therefore, Anne’s obligation to Bessy may be considered extinguished, even if Bessy refused the
check.

Answer: No, since tender of payment even in cash, if refused, will not discharge the obligation without
proper consignation in court. (1)

3. Six tenants sued X, the landowner, for willfully denying them water for their farms, which water
happened to flow from land under X’s control, his intention being to force them to leave his properties.
Is X liable for his act and why?

Answer: Yes, because X cut off the water supply for the farms that X owns and rented by the
six tenant farmers. X is also liable for forceful eviction and an eviction is valid upon lawful order of the
court. Therefore, X is liable for the act committed. EXCELLENT! (3)

Yes! Generally, X willfully caused injury to his tenants contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Part 1

4.X and Y, both Filipinos, were married and resided in Spain although they intend to return to the
Philippines at some future time. They have not executed any marriage settlements. What law governs
their property relations?

Answer: The law that governs the property relations is Executive Order No. 209 or the Family
Code of the Philippines. They were married in Spain and it is valid if their requisites of marriage are met
under law and the consul or vice-consul of the Philippine Embassy in Spain. (3)

EXACTLY! EXCELLENT

5.Meow is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Arf, who has long been
interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Meow to sell it to him. On June 2, 2012, they agreed
on the purchase price of P600,000 and that Meow would give Arf up to June 30, 2012 within which to
raise the amount. Arf, in a light tone usual between them, said that they should seal their agreement thr
ough a case of Jack Daniels Black and P5,000 "pulutan" money which he immediately handed to Meow
and which the latter accepted. The friends then sat down and drank the first bottle from the case of
bourbon. On June 15, 2013, Meow learned of another buyer, Roberto, who was offering P800,000 in
ready cash for the land. When Roberto confirmed that he could pay in cash as soon as Meow could get
the documentation ready, Meow decided to withdraw his offer to Arf, hoping to just explain matters to
his friend. Arf, however, objected when the withdrawal was communicated to him, taking the position
that they have a firm and binding agreement that Meow cannot simply walk away from because he has
an option to buy that is duly supported by a duly accepted valuable consideration. Does Arf have a
cause of action against Meow?

Answer: Yes, Arf can file a case against Meow for breach of contract because they have a firm
and binding agreement and Meow agreed to Arf’s proposal. Meow violated their contract by
accepting Roberto’s offer and withdrawing his agreement with Arf. Therefore, Arf has a cause of
action against Meow for breach of contract.

PARTIALLY SUSTAINED. Under Art. 1324, when the offerer has allowed the offeree a certain
period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating
such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon consideration, as something paid or
promised. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate thing for a price certain is
binding upon him if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price (Art.
1479).

Hans, in addition, there is also no showing that such consideration will be considered part of the
purchase price. Thus,Meow’s unilateral withdrawal of the offer violated the Option Contract
between him and Arf. (2)

Date: August 4, 2020

TOTAL SCORE: 9/12
Part 3 – five points/item

1. Facts:
Jose Pardo was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga together
with Agapito de la Cruz and Tomas Pesario, charged with "double murder." De la Cruz
and Pesario were discharged and used as state witnesses. This is an appeal by Pardo
from a judgment of conviction sentencing him to death.

Between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening of March 27, 1946, the appellant fired
two shots at Capt. Berthram Burchfield of the United States Army with a .45 caliber
automatic pistol. One of the shots struck the intended victim and from its effects he
died at the Zamboanga General Hospital at 9:30 o'clock of the same night. The other
shot missed the target and hit Francisco Cañete who was instantly killed. Both Capt.
Burchfield and Cañete were seated a few meters apart inside a former army mess hall
watching a vaudeville show, and the appellant sent the bullets from the outside through
a side galvanized iron wall of the building. The gun he used belonged to Agapito de la
Cruz although he had one of his own, a .25 caliber pistol which, according to De la Cruz,
was handed to him by Pardo.

The lower court thinks that these crimes were committed in contempt of or with
insult to a public authority.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower court’s ruling that the crime was committed in
contempt of or with insult to public authority.

HELD:
NO, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Tuason declared that, the crime
committed by the respondents was not with insult or contempt for public authority. The only
evidence on the official status of Capt. Burchfield was that he was an officer of the United States
Army . There is no iota of proof that he had been detailed to the police department of
Zamboanga city to take charge of peace and order. Now, being an officer of the United States
Army does not confer public authority within the meaning of our penal laws. Therefore, the
defendants/ respondents-appellant are guilty of two separate counts of murder without the
presence of any modifying circumstance that mitigate or aggravate the defendants’ criminal
liability and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count of the crime.

SOBRESALIENTE! I knew it was easy for you

No. The only evidence on the official status of Captain Burchfield is that he was
an officer of the United States Army. There is not an iota of proof that he had been
detailed to the police department of Zamboanga city to take charge of peace and order.
Now, being an officer of the United States Army does not confer public authority within
the meaning of our penal laws.

2. Facts:
That between eleven and twelve o'clock on the night of May 13, 1934, Marciano
Retubado, the deceased, and Vicente Matbagon, the defendant, had a fight at the
cockpit in Ilihan, in the municipality of Tobogon, Cebu Province. The fight resulted from
a remark made by the defendant respecting the tuba sold by the niece of Marciano
Retubado. Magno Surigao separated the defendant and the deceased, but they had
already bitten each other. Shortly afterwards Marciano Retubado called his son and they
started home. He carried a torch struck in a bottle, and was followed by his son,
Emiliano Retubado, a schoolboy, fifteen years old. When they came opposite a colo tree,
about fifty meters from the cockpit, the defendant with a knife in his hand approached
the deceased and stabbed him in the breast. The deceased struck the defendant on the
Part 3 – five points/item

head with the bottle that he was carrying. The bottle was broken and the light went out.
A struggle between the accused and the deceased followed. The deceased received in
all four wounds; one on the chin, and another on the right side of the face; one, two
inches deep, on the left side of the chest, and another, one and one-half inches deep, on
the breast. The injured man died in a few minutes from the wounds that he had
received on the breast and on the left side of the chest. The accused then ran away.

Issue:
Whether or not nocturnity should be taken into account as an aggravating
circumstance in this case.
HELD:
YES, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Vickers declared that, in the
case at bar the accused neither sought the nighttime nor took advantage of it to commit
the crime with greater facility or to escape. If he had hidden behind the tree and
attacked the deceased without warning or availed himself of the darkness to prevent his
being recognized or to escape, then nocturnity would have been an aggravating
circumstance. If the accused in this case did not take advantage of the nighttime to
commit the crime or to escape, then the darkness did not facilitate the commission of
the offense. To take advantage of a fact or circumstance in committing a crime clearly
implies an intention to do so, and one does not avail oneself of the darkness unless one
intended to do so. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of the crime of homicide with
nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
prision mayor and indeterminate sentence of less than eight years in prison

Held:
No. The fact that the crime happened at nighttime (between 11PM and 12PM), does not
prove that the accused used the hour to commit the crime. It was just but incidental and
may even fall on the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication. The facts
showed that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to the
commission of the crime.
(3)
Part 3
Part 4

1. What is the nature of an "acting appointment" to a government office? Does such

an appointment give the appointee the right to claim that the appointment will, in
time, ripen into a permanent one? Explain. (2)

According to Sevilla v. Court of Appeals. 209 SCRA 637 [1992], an acting appointment is
merely temporary. As held in Marohombsar v. Alonto, 194 SCRA 390 [1991], a temporary
appointment cannot become a permanent appointment, unless a new appointment which is
permanent is made. This holds true unless the acting appointment was made because of a
temporary vacancy. In such a case, the temporary appointee holds office until the assumption

2. Andy Lim, an ethnic Chinese, became a naturalized Filipino in 1935. But later he lost
his Filipino citizenship when he became a citizen of Canada in 1971. Wanting the
best of both worlds, he bought, in 1987, a residential lot in Forbes Park and a
commercial lot in Binondo. Are these sales valid? Why? (3)

No, the sales are not valid. Under Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution, only a naturalborn citizen of
the Philippines who lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire private land. Since Andy Lim was a former
naturalized Filipino citizen, he is not qualified to acquire private lands.

3. Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila. Accused Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and
Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the information. Among the evidence
presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by Joseph
during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said,
together with him (Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was
executed without the assistance of counsel. Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently
objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in
evidence against them. Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is
admissible in evidence or not. (5)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the confession is
admissible. Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against
the one who confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise the objection as his right is
personal. SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; According to People us. Jara, 144 SCRA 516(1986), the
confession is inadmissible. If it is inadmissible against the one who confessed, with more reason it
should be inadmissible against others.