Time Started    : 12:21:18 pm

Time Finished: 10:45:02 pm

Duration                : 10:23:44 Wednesday, 5 October 2022

Name/Control No.: Monaliza

Exam Title                  : Mock bar 2021 REM

Answers to Exam

Answer 1
a.
The view that the petitioner is deeemed to have admitted the genuineness and the due execution of the
birth certificate is not correct.
Under the Rules of Court, the requirement that the specific denial be under oath in order to contest the
genuiness and due execution of an instrument does not apply when the adverse party is not a party to
the instrument.
Here, the petitioner is not    party to the instrument which is the birth certificate. Since the birth certificate
is not the requirement that the denial or the answer be under oath does not apply to him.
Therefore, the view that the petitioner is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and the due
execution of the birth certificate is not correct.
b.
Yes, the affirmative defense or failure to state a cause of action will no longer lie.
The Supreme Court held that a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding is no
longer a pre-requisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by
virtue odf succession.
Hence, the affirmative defense or failure to state a cause of action will no longer lie.

Answer 10

Answer 2
No, the conviction of AB for murder may not reduced to one for homicide.
Under the Rules of Court, a ground for quashal is waived if not raised in the motion to quash.
Here, the failure of the information to specifically allege facts relative to treachery is ground for quashall,
that is, the information does not conform substantially to the required form.Moreover, AB did not raise
this ground in the motion to quash.
Hence, AB is deemed to have waived such ground for quashal and his conviction may not be reduced to
one for homicide.

Answer 3
Page 1 of 4
Name/Control No.: Monaliza

Exam Title                  : Mock bar 2021 REM

Answers to Exam

a.
The court should deny Dong's motion to suspend the civil case.
Under the Rules of Court, an independent civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and is not suspended
by the filing of the criminal action.
Here, the civil action filed by Caloy is an independent civil action since it is based on fraud, that is, Dong's
act of selling a land he had had previously sold. Thus, it shall proceed independently of the criminal
action and is not suspended by its filing.
Hence, the court should deny Dong's motion.
b.
The court should grant Dong's motion to suspend the criminal case.
Under the Rules of Court, a motion to suspend the criminal case may be fied during the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action.
Here, the civil action presents a prejudicial question since a finding in the civil action that Dong's
signature in the deed of sale to Caloy was forged would mean that the criminal action may no longer
proceed.
Therefore, the court should grant Dong's motion to suspend the criminal case.
c.
Assuming that no motion to suspend was filed either in the civil case or in the criminal case, the criminal
court and the civil court may both render judgment finding Dong to be civilly liable.
Under the Rules of Court, the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
Hence,the civil case shall proceed independently of the criminal while the criminal may proceed to
judgment since there was no motion to suspend filed based on a prejudicial question.

Answer 4
Yes, the court should grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription.
a.
The ground of res judicata is without merit.
Under the Rules of Court, an independent civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and without regard to its result and not barred by res judicata.
Here, Gindra's complaint for damages against Vishy    is based on physical injuries (or quasi-delict). Thus,
an independent civil action which shall proceed regardless of the result of the criminal action and is not
barred by res judicata.
b.
The ground of prescription is with merit.
Under the Rules of Court, the rule that the running of the prescriptive period is suspended during the
pendency of the criminal action does not apply to an independent civil action.
Here, the action was for quasi-delict which is an independent civil action. An action for quasi-delict
prescribes in four years and here    the action was brought more than four years after he quasi-delict
occurred in 2014.
Hence, the ground of prescription is with merit and the motion to dismiss should be granted on that
ground.
Page 2 of 4
Name/Control No.: Monaliza

Exam Title                  : Mock bar 2021 REM

Answers to Exam

Answer 5
The legal step or strategy    that I would employ in behalf of Darius in order to best serve his interest    is to
file a petition for habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court held that a petition for habeas corpus is avaialable as a post-conviction remedy in
case the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence.
Here, the MeTC had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence since the venue of the BP Blg. 22 was
improperly laid. The venue should have been laid in Makati City, where the check was delivered, or in
Pasig City, where the check was    dishonored, and not in Manila where none of the elements of the
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 occurred.Moreover,venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.
Hence, the judgment of conviction was rendered without jurisdiction, the detention of Darius was
unlawful and a petition for habeas corpuz is available.

Answer 6
Yes, the affirmative defense    is meritorious because the Regional Trial Court has no authority to
adjudicate Pining's complaint.
Under the Rules of Court, a money claim against the estate of the deceased arising from contract, express
or implied, must be filed with the probate court and not with regular court which has no authority to
adjudicate such claim.
Here, the claim to recover the value of the building is a money claim arising out of an implied contract,
that is, a quasi-contract.
Hence, the Regional Trial Court had no authority to adjudicate Pining's complaint

Answer 7

Answer 8
The Regional Trial Court would have jurisdiction over the crime committed by the police officer.
Under the Rules of Court, the Regional Trial Court would have jurisdiction over the case of bribery
committed by a public officer with salary grade exceeding 27.
Here, the police officer committed a crime of bribery, the amount involved did not exceed one million
pesos.
Hence, the Regional Trial Court has a jurisdiction over the crime committed by the police officer.

Answer 9
Page 3 of 4
Name/Control No.: Monaliza

Exam Title                  : Mock bar 2021 REM

Answers to Exam

The objection on the ground of the original document rule should be sustained.
Under the original document rule, when the cintents of a document are subject of inquiry, no evidence of
such contents shall be admissible other than the original. A video is considered as a document under the
original document rule.
Here, the prosecution presented not the original video or CCTV footage of Argus in robbing the bank.
Thus, the secondary evidence thereof in the form of the witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Therefore, the objection should be sustained.

Page 4 of 4