REMEDIAL LAW

I.

No, the court in this case was incorrect for taking cognizance of the
joint motion for reconsideration filed by Ludong, Balatong, and Labong.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the proper remedy to

question a decision of conviction of the accused is to file an appeal from
such decision.

In this case, Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were already convicted

of the crime murder. Therefore, to question such decision, these three
should have filed an appeal to question the ruling of the court, instead of
the joint motion for reconsideration, which they filed.

No, Balatong and Labong can no longer appeal their conviction in

case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, in case of promulgation of

judgment, both the accused and his counsel should be present. If in case,
the accused is absent during the promulgation of judgment, he shall
have no right to appeal the decision of the court anymore.

In this case, Balatong and Labong failed to appear during the

promulgation of the judgment without any justifiable reasons, in effect
they have waived their right to appeal the decision rendered by the court.
Thus, Balatong and Labong can no longer appeal their conviction in case
Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide.

II.

McJolly is correct in his argument that double jeopardy has

already set in.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled

that in cases where an information for reckless imprudence, as defined
under the Revised Penal Code is filed, such information already absorbs
all the effects that took place during such reckless imprudent act.
Therefore, although there is more than one accident, which resulted from
a single reckless imprudent act, the information or charge shall only
constitute one act of reckless imprudence.

In this case, McJolly as a result of an accident was charged with

two information for Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide and
Damage to Property and for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries. Hence, since there is only one act of reckless
imprudence committed by McJolly, one one information should have
been filed, regardless of the number of effects that resulted from such
single act.
 Therefore, McJolly is correct in his argument that double jeopardy
has already set in.

III.

The arguments raised by Rene in his appeal are unmeritorious.

Under the R ules on Evidence, testimonial evidence may be

considered admissible only when such testimony is being offered based
on the personal knowledge of the person offering his testimony in
evidence.

In this case, PO2 Asintado was offering his testimony based on his
personal knowledge with respect to the events that transpired causing
the death of Kulasa, since he himself witnessed the same. Therefore, his
testimony is admissible since he was offering his testimony in evidence
based on his personal knowledge.

Also, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, extrajudicial

confessions made through the media or press is an admissible confession,
since such confession was stated voluntarily.

In this case, Rene confessed and admitted his guilt in from of the
press voluntarily and without coercion from the authorities. Hence, his
admission of guilt through the press shall be admissible as confession
against himself.

Therefore, the appeal filed by Rene should be denied since the

grounds that he stated in his appeal are incorrectly laid.

IV.

V.

A.

Maria can file a complaint for rescission of contract and payment

of accrued rentals.

In this case, Tenant has failed to pay for five (5) successive
monthly rentals owing to Maria. Absent any showing that the term of the
lease contract has already expired and that proper demand letters or
notices have been served on Tenant, the proper remedy of Maria would
be to rescind the contract and collect the unpaid rentals.

B.

The proper venue for the remedy that I recommended would be

either in Quezon City, where Landlord resides, or in Marikina City where
Tenant resides, as the action involves a personal action. Hence, the case
should be instituted in the proper courts where the plaintiff or the
defendant resides, at the instance of the plaintiff. Hence, the proper
venue in this case is either Quezon City or Marikina City, where the
plaintiff and defendant resides.

C.

If in case Maria insists in filing an ejectment suit, the one (1) year
period contemplated in law, shall be reckoned from the date that the
least demand letter to vacate and pay the unpaid rentals was served to
Tenant.

VI.

VII.

No, the grounds involved by Jose Penduko in his Motion to

Dismiss are improper.

In cases of written defamation, the law provides that the proper

court, which has the exclusive jurisdiction over such cases, is the
Regional Trial Court where the office of the person who published the
defamatory material is located, or where the defamatory material was
first published, at the instance of the plaintiff.

In this case, the complaint for written defamation was properly

instituted in the Regional Trial Court that has exclusive jurisdiction over
written defamatory cases, in Parañaque where the defamatory material
was first published.

Hence, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Jose Penduko should be

denied, for the aforementioned reasons.

VIII.

A.

Yes, Johnny’s notarial will can be probated before the proper court
in the Philippines.

Under the Rules of Court, probate proceedings for notarial wills

executed by virtue of a law other than Philippine Laws, may be probated
in the Philippines, provided that the essential requisites for the extrinsic
validity of the notarial will is in compliance with the set forth requisites
under the laws of the Philippines.

Therefore, Johnny’s notarial will can be probated in the Philippines,

provided that the essential requisites to prove the extrinsic validity of the
will is in accordance with the essential requisites provided for under the
Philippine laws.

B.
 Yes, Anastacia is qualified to be the executrix of Johnny’s notarial
will.

The Rules of Court provided for a list of persons disqualified to be

the administrator or executor of the estate of the deceased, one of which
is that the appointed administrator or executor is not a resident of the
Philippines.

In this case, Anastacia, although an American citizen, is a resident

of the Philippines, thus making her qualified to be the administrator or
executor of Johnny’s estate. The disqualification provided for under the
Rules of Court pertains to residency and not citizenship.

Therefore, Anastacia is qualified to be the executrix of Johnny’s

notarial will.

IX.

A.

No, Agente is incorrect for arguing that the writ of attachment

should be discharged for at the time that the preliminary attachment was
issued, he has not been served with summons.

Under the Rules of Court, motion for the issuance of a writ of

preliminary attachment may be made ex-parte without notice and
hearing, because of the possibility that the person whose property is
being asked to be attached, may dispose of the property before it can be
attached.

In this case, Bayani filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a

writ of preliminary attachment, which under the rules need not be
accompanied by a notice of hearing. Therefore, the writ of preliminary
attachment was properly issued, contrary to the claim of Agente.

B.

No, the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly executed.

Under the Rules of Court, simultaneous service of summons

should be made to properly execute a writ of preliminary attachment.
Meaning, the writ of preliminary attachment should be served at the
same time that the summons is being served.

In this case, the writ of preliminary attachment was served prior to

the summons. Thus, failing the requirement of simultaneous service of
summons as contemplated under the law. Hence, the writ of preliminary
attachment in this case was improperly executed.

X.

A.
 No, Kin Il Chong cannot move to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is
only P300,000.00.

Under BP 129, as amended, the Regional Trial Court has the

exclusive jurisdiction over cases incapable of pecuniary estimation.

In this case, the real subject of the complaint is the rescission of

the contract of lease, which is incapable of pecuniary estimation; the
amount of the unpaid rentals being claimed is merely incidental to the
main action. Therefore, regardless of the accumulated unpaid rentals,
the court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the case, is the Regional
Trial Court, contrary to the claim of Kin Il Chong.

B.

No, the action will not be dismissed upon Prince Chong’s death.

Under the Rules of Court, in instances when a party dies,

specifically the defendant dies during the pendency of a case involving
contractual obligations. The deceased defendant shall be substituted by
his heir and the case shall be considered as instituted against the estate
of the deceased-defendant.

In this case, Prince Chong, the defendant, died during the

pendency of the case. Thus, his death does not in effect warrant the
dismissal of the case, rather he shall be substituted by his heir and that
the case shall be considered as to be instituted against his estate.

XI.

Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.

Under the Rules of Court, as a general rule search and seizure may
only be validly done by virtue of a search warrant, evidence obtained
illegally shall be inadmissible. However, searches may also be done
without a search warrant, such as when the evidence obtained is in plain
view.

In this case, the marijuana seized by the authorities in Ass-asin’s

house was illegally obtained and cannot be admissible in evidence
against him. The search warrant only pertains to the search and seizure
of unlicensed firearms, and not to the illegal possession of drugs. The
marijuana found in the premises was also not obtained following the
plain view doctrine, since the marijuana was not immediately apparent.

Thus, the marijuana obtained is not admissible in evidence against

Ass-asin.

XII.

As Mary Jane’s lawyer I would advice her to file a Petition for

Correction of Name under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
 Under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, for changes and correction
of information in the civil registry concerning substantial changes, a
petition for correction of name shall be filed with the proper courts.

In this case, what is being sought to be changed is the civil status

of Mary Jane, which concerns a substantial change in her information
before the civil registry. Hence, she should file a petition for change of
name to change her civil status from married to single.

XIII.

No, the objections posed by the accused are incorrect.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, evidences obtained using

dog sniffers are admissible in evidence. Provided that the testimony of
the dog handler and trainer shall be offered in evidence, to attest to the
ability of the dog and to the process and signals with respect to the dog
sniffing procedure.

In this case, the testimony of the dog trainer cannot be considered

hearsay, since he has personal knowledge of the ability of the dog, the
one to be cross-examined is the trainer and not the dog. Hence, the
objections posed by the accused with respect to the inadmissibility of the
cocaine in evidence against him.

XIV.

XV.

No, the motion to quash is untenable.

In a complaint for the violation of RA 3019, a person conspiring

with a public officer shall be treated as a conspirator of the public officer,
and shall be held liable together with the public officer for violation of RA
3019.

In this case, Carpintero acted in conspiracy with Gov. Matigas, so

he is placed in the same level as that of Gov. Matigas. Thus, despite the
death of Gov. Matigas, he can still be convicted in violation of RA 3019.
Hence, his motion to quash should not be granted.

XVI.

XVII.

A.

If I were the Sandiganbayan, I would not rule on the motion.

 Under the law, a court can rule on a case when it has jurisdiction
over the subject matter and on the person of the accused. Absent this,
the court cannot properly and validly render its decision.

In this case, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the

person of A yet, as no summons have been served yet. Likewise, the fact
that a motion to quash was filed by the counsel of A, it was not
considered as a voluntary appearance on the part of A. Hence,
Sandiganbayan has no authority yet to rule on the motion.

B.

If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the judicial remedy that

the accused has is to request to be arraigned.

In this case the motion filed by the accused is about the validity of
the arrest warrant, the Sandiganbayan at this stage has no jurisdiction
over the person of A yet. Hence, the judicial remedy of A is to request to
be arraigned and then proceed to trial.

XVIII.

A.

If I were the judge I would deny the second petition for bail filed by
A.

The right to bail under the Rules of Court may be granted as a

matter of right with the RTC before conviction, when the accused is being
tried of a charge not punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence
of guilt is not strong.

In this case, the petition for bail filed by A cannot be granted since
the evidence of guilt against him is strong. Therefore, the second petition
for bail filed by A should be denied.

B.

No, the accused cannot be entitled to bail.

Under the Rules of Court, once the accused files a Notice of Appeal,
he can no longer be entitled to bail, regardless of the result of the appeal.

Hence, in this case A can no longer be entitled to bail as he as

already perfected his appeal.

XIX.

XX.
 If I were the lawyer of Debbi Wallis, I would file for a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment.

Under the Rules of Court, a petition fort annulment of judgment is

proper when the losing party was not able to participate in the court
proceedings or was deprived of his right to be heard and to appeal due to
extrinsic fraud.

In this case, Debbi Wallis was not aware that a case for declaration
of nullity of her marriage with Tom Wallis was filed due to extrinsic fraud.
A decision was also promulgated absent any knowledge on the part of
Debbi Wallis, being deprived of her right to be heard due to extrinsic
fraud, she can file a Petition for the Annulment of Judgment.

XXI.

The claim of Al Pakino that the court, which has jurisdiction over
the appeal, is the Court of Appeals.

As a rule, decisions by the Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of

its original jurisdiction shall be appealed with the Court of Appeals, on
questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
While the decision of the Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction can be appealed directly before the Supreme Court
if its involves solely questions of law.

In this case, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in the

exercise of its original jurisdiction. Hence, appeal therefrom, shall be
instituted before the Court of Appeals, regardless of whether the issue
involves questions of fact, questions of law, or both questions of fact and
of law.

XXII.

XXIII.

No, there was no violation of forum shopping in this case.

Under the Rules of Court, forum shopping exists when a person

institutes a case involving the same parties, same relief prayed for, in two
different courts, to the end of seeking a favorable judgment.

In this case, the cases filed by Ms. Dumpty pertain to different

reliefs prayed for, one seeks for the review of the judgment of the RTC to
pay damages to Mr. Humpty, while the other seeks to question the
decision of the RTC in granting the execution pending appeal filed by Mr.
Humpty. Being that there are two different reliefs being prayed for, Ms.
Dumpty did not violate the rule against forum shopping.

XXIV.
 The motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial
question shall be denied.

Prejudicial question exists when a civil case is filed after the

institution of a criminal case, involving the same parties, and the
decision of the court in the civil case would determine the guilt of the
accused in the criminal case. Likewise, in a case decided by the Supreme
Court, the Supreme Court ruled that a Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, does not pose a prejudicial
question to a criminal case filed for bigamy.

In this case, the criminal proceedings fro bigamy should not be

suspended even though the civil case for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of bigamy was filed, the same not being a
prejudicial question. Hence, the motion to suspend proceedings should
not be granted.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVII.

A.

If the RTC grants the Motion to Dismiss filed by Ms. Bright and
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, the
remedy of Ms. Avenger is to re-file the complaint. Under the Rules of
Court the granting of the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
cause of action is without prejudice to the refiling of the same. Hence, Ms.
Avenger has the option to refile the complaint.

B.

If the RTC denies the Motion to Dismiss filed by Ms. Bright, the
remedy of Ms. Bright is to file an Answer to the complaint within the
remaining reglementary period, counting from the dismissal of the
motion to dismiss. Under the Rules of Court the defendant must file a
responsive pleading to the complaint within a period of fifteen days from
the receipt of the complaint, a motion to dismiss is not a responsive
pleading, hence, Ms. Bright can still file her Answer.

C.

If the RTC denies the Motion to Dismiss filed by Ms. Bright and,
further proceedings are conducted until the RTC renders a decision in
favor of Ms. Avenger, the remedies available to Ms. Bright are: (1) Motion
for Reconsideration; (2) Motion for New Trial; or (3) Appeal. These
remedies are available to Ms. Bright, as the decision of the Trial Court is
not yet final and executory.
 XXVIII.

Yes, A can file a petition for change of name, and if granted such
change shall have no effect on the respective relations of A with his
adoptive parents and with his natural parents.

Under the Rules of Court, a petition for change of name may be

filed when the changes sought to be made are substantial in nature.

In this case, the change to be made is substantial in nature and

not just merely clerical in nature, since such change refers to the family
name of A. However, such change only pertains to the name of A and not
to his relationship to his adoptive parents and to his natural parents.
This is because the change does not go into the status of A.

XXIX.

A.

No, the MTC is not correct in dismissing the case of ejectment.

Under the Rules of Court, ejectment cases fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MTC. The MTC in the exercise of its exclusive
jurisdiction can decide on issues of ownership to be able to properly
decide on the issue of possession.

In this case, the complaint form ejectment was properly filed before
the MTC, and the MTC could decide on the issue of ownership to be able
to properly decide on the issue of possession. Hence, the MTC is not
correct in dismissing the case of ejectment filed by Estrella.

B.

Yes, the RTC is correct in ruling that based on the assessed value
of the property the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence
may conduct a full-blown trial as if it was originally filed with it.

Under the Rules of Court in cases of dismissal by the MTC of a

case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the RTC may take cognizance
over the case and try it as if it was originally lodged with it.

In this case, the issue is with respect to the ownership of the

subject property with an assessed value within the jurisdictional amount
of the RTC. Hence, the RTC can try the case as if it was originally
instituted with it.