2021 MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

QUESTION AND ANSWER

REMEDIAL LAW

1.) In granting the Demurrer to Evidence filed by AAA, the court dismissed the case
against him for Theft. BBB, the private complainant, feeling aggrieved, filed a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, questioning the granting of AAA's Demurrer
to Evidence. AAA's moved to dismiss the Petition on the ground that it violates his
right against double jeopardy. Rule. (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, the Petition does not violate accused’s right to double jeopardy because any
judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion was issued without
jurisdiction, and thus void and does not confer any rights, as provided by
jurisprudence (People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, August 25, 2010)

2.) Due to the pandemic, AAA and BBB entered into a contract of loan virtually,
wherein both parties affixed their signature virtually. BBB failed to pay, and thus
AAA instituted and action for collection. During the Formal Offer of Evidence,
plaintiff AAA offered as evidence a contract entered into with defendant BBB,
wherein both their electronic signatures were affixed. In questioning the offer of
evidence, defendant BBB invoked the best evidence rule, stating that said contract,
while indeed executed by both parties, is not the original because it does not
contain theirsignatures. (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, an electronic copy, lacking wet signatures, does not violate the best evidence
rule because an original may be an electronic copy or stored in a computer or
similar device, as provided by the Rules on Evidence.

3.) AAA sought legal advice from his high school friend, BBB, whom he thought was
already a lawyer, as regards the criminal charge filed against him. They have not
talked for years (Musta Atty?). He admitted to BBB that he committed the crime
charged. Unknowingly, BBB is a close friend of CCC, the person who instituted a
criminal charge against AAA. When BBB was called to the witness stand, an
objection was raised by AAA, invoking client-lawyer privilege. CCC rebutted
stating that BBB is not a lawyer, and thus the confession made by AAA was done
candidly and not under compulsion, not covered by the privilege. Rule. (5%)

Suggested answer:

The client-lawyer is applicable because the client reasonably believed that the
person is a lawyer engaged in the practice of law, as provided by the Rules on
Evidence.

1
4.) AAA sued ABC for specific performance. The officers of the Corporation knew that
AAA was going to file the case so they went out of town and temporarily stayed in
another city to avoid service of summons. Sheriff BBB attempted to serve the
summons but when the latter went to ABC Corporation's principal address, he was
told by the caretaker that the officers of ABC Corporation are not in the office.
Feeling that it would take a while before the office would return, Sheriff BBB left a
copy of the summons and complaint with the caretaker. Was there a valid
substituted service of summons? (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, there was not valid substituted service of summons because the Sheriff
failed to serve the copy of the summons in three attempts, in two different dates,
as provided by the Rules of Court.

5.) In the same problem above, supposing that Sheriff BBB reported the matter to the
court, and opted for service of summons through Corporation ABC's official E-mail
address. Discuss whether this mode is valid. (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, the mode is not valid for the Sheriff’s failure to serve the copy of the
summons in three attempts, in two different dates, as provided by the Rules of
Court.

6.) AAA was charged with Plunder before the Sandiganbayan along with several
government officials. Before his arraignment, he filed a petition for bail. This was
objected to by the prosecution which insisted that he should first be arraigned
before he applies for bail. If you were the judge, Rule. (5%)

Suggested answer:

The Petition for Bail should proceed because there is no requirement that an
accused be arraigned before be allowed to post bail, as provided by
jurisprudence. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003)

7.) AAA filed a Motion before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Upon receipt of
AAA's Motion, BBB opposed said Motion, contending that AAA failed to set the
Motion for Hearing. Thus, the Motion was purportedly defective. Discuss. (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, the contention of setting the Motion for hearing is not correct because the
Motions are no longer set for hearing by the parties, but may, upon the discretion
of the Court be set for clarificatory hearing, as provided under the Rules of Court.

2
8.) Judge AAA, after Pre-Trial Conference, issued an Order submitting the case for
Judgment. Defendant BBB, feeling aggrieved, questioned said Order and filed a
Petition for Certiorari, contending that it violated the right to due process. Rule.
(5%)

Suggested answer:

No, submitting the case after Pre-Trial does not violate due process because the
Court, at its discretion, may do so should there be no controverted facts or
genuine issue, as provided under the Rules of Court.

9.) Accused AAA, after the presentation of Prosecution's Evidence and Formal Offer,
filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. The court, however,
dismissed his Motion. Aggrieved, AAA filed a Petition for Certiorari Questioning
the court's Order. Rule. (5%)

Suggested answer:

The Petition should be dismissed because it is a prohibited pleading before

judgment in a criminal case, as provided under the Rules of Court.

10.) Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on
suspicion that he was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton
was searched immediately after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10
sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of
his arrest, Boy Maton was watching a basketball game being played in the town
plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He was subsequently charged with
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not guilty when he
was arraigned.During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the
information on the ground that the facts revealed that he had been illegally
arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from
him as being the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the poisonous
tree.The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the time
the motions were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of
the legality of the arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of
Court, Boy Maton, as the accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest
before entering his plea to the information. Hence, the trial court opined that any
adverse consequence of the alleged illegal arrest had also been equally waived.
Rule. (5%)

Suggested answer:

Accused can no longer assail the validity of his arrest because he has waived his
right as a result of his arraignment. However, he may still assail the evidence
seized by way of his Motion to Suppress as the suppression of illegally seized
evidence is not waived pursuant to arraignment, as provided by the Rules of
Court.

3
11.) On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed by Harold in favor of Ramon,
the latter filed a complaint for 950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of Davao
City. In an unverified answer, Harold specifically denied the genuineness of the
promissory note. During the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies of the
following: (1) the testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove the forgery of
his signature; and (2) the testimony of a credible witness to prove that if ever
Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the same was not supported by a
consideration. You were engaged as counsel for Ramon, how will you oppose the
testimonies offered by Harold? (5%)

Suggested answer:

The testimonies of defendant’s witnesses are irrelevant because defendant failed

to specifically deny under oath plaintiff’s actionable document, the promissory
note, resulting in the admission of its genuineness and due execution, as
provided by the Rules of Court.

12.) Ms. AAA, invoking the provisions of R.A. No. 9262, initiated a case against her
husband, Mr. BBB, for refusing and failing to give support to their child, CCC. The
case was raffled before a Family Court. Mr. BBB assailed the constitutionality of
R.A. No. 9262, arguing that the law violates the equal protection and due process
clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality
of R.A. No. on the ground that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon
constitutional issues, being a special court of limited jurisdiction, and that R.A. No.
8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction.
Rule on the contention of the Court (5%)

Suggested answer:

The court is not correct in declining to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9262 because despite it being a Family Court, it is a court of General Jurisdiction,
which can take cognizance of any case, except those specifically excluded by law,
as provided by jurisprudence. (Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013)

13.) Ms. AAA filed a complaint against XXX Corporation and its officers seeking to
prevent the sale of its corporation shares. The was raffled to a regular court. XXX
Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, emphasizing that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute which
should have been raffled to a Special Commercial Court having original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court, acting on the motion,
dismissed the case. Was the Court correct in dismissing the case? (5%)

Suggested answer:

The court is not correct because it is a court of General Jurisdiction, which can
take cognizance of any case except those specifically excluded by law, as
provided by jurisprudence. (Gonzales vs. JGH Land, G.R. No. 202664, November
20, 2015)

4
14.) AAA filed a criminal complaint against BBB for qualified theft. After the
preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor found probable cause to
indict Erika of the crime charged. Subsequently, an Information for qualified theft
was filed against BBB before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Before her
arraignment, BBB filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with
Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright. This was opposed by the investigating
prosecutor. After hearing on the Motion, the RTC Judge issued an order dismissing
the case for lack of probable cause. Was the dismissal proper? (5%)

Suggested answer:

No, the dismissal was not proper because a Motion for Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause is a prohibited pleading under the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.

15.) AAA, BBB, CCC, together with Congressman DDD were charged as co-conspirators
for their respective participations in the illegal pillaging of public funds sourced
from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Congressman DDD. The
Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Congressman
DDD for Plunder and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. The bases of the Ombudsman were (1) the testimonies of
AAA, BBB and CCC; and (2) the testimony of a certain EEE who lacked personal
knowledge of the disbursement of the PDAF.Congressman DDD sought to annul
the Resolution of the Ombudsman on two grounds: (1) the Ombudsman cannot
consider the testimonies of AAA, BBB and CCC who purportedly were his co-
conspirators pursuant to the res inter alios acta rule; and (2) the testimony of EEE
should not have been considered based on the hearsay rule. Was the Ombudsman
correct in considering their testimonies? (5%)

Suggested answer:

Yes, the Ombudsman was correct in considering the testimonies of the alleged
conspirators because the Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply in preliminary
investigation, as provided by jurisprudence. (Revilla vs. Sandiganbayan, July 24,
2018 G.R. No. 218232)

16.) AAA Bank filed an action for damages against BBB Corporation. The summons was
served by the Sheriff and was received by CCC, BBB Corporation’s Liaison Officer.
CCC received the summons upon telephone instruction of XXX, BBB Corporation’s
Corporate Secretary. Was there a valid service of summons? (5%)

Suggested answer:

Yes, there was valid service of summons by way to constructive service, because
the liaison officer was authorized by the Corporate Secretary, under his
instruction, as provided by jurisprudence.

5
17.) XXX was arrested for extortion after an entrapment operation. According to the
arresting officer, as part of their standard operating procedure, they require
suspects to provide urine samples, and to be subjected to a drug test. Thus, XXX
was compelled to undergo a drug test by submitting his urine sample. The urine
sample tested positive for illegal drugs. As a result, XXX was likewise charged for
the violation of Section 15 of R.A.9165.XXX questioned the charge for illegal drugs
contending that it violated his right against self-incrimination and privacy. Rule on
the contention of XXX (5%)

Suggested answer:

The charge of illegal use of drugs should be dismissed because it violated

accused’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination, inasmuch as the
initial charge did not involve illegal drugs, and thus the drug test should not
have been conducted, as provided by jurisprudence. (Dela Cruz v. People, G.R.
No. 200748, July 23, 2014)

18.) AAA was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by BBB. Upon the expiration of the
lease, AAA refused to vacate the property. Thus, BBB filed an action for unlawful
detainer to eject AAA from the leased property.AAA failed to file his answer within
the period provided under the Rules. Thus, BBB filed a Motion to Declare
Defendant in Default. Rule on his Motion. (5%)

Suggested answer:

The motion should be denied because it is a prohibited pleading under the Rules
on Summary Procedure.