FINAL EXAMINATION

(Second Semester, A.Y. 2021-2022)

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Professor: Prosecutor Nadjer D. Pinatara
June 9, 2022 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS

This Questionnaire consists of TEN (10) QUESTIONS in FIVE (5) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and
concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a subquestion under the same number may be written continuously on the
same and immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question. A mere “YES” or “NO” answer without any
corresponding discussion will not be given any credit.

GOOD LUCK!

I.

Do you agree on the following? Explain briefly your Answer.

a) The Statutory Construction subject should be increased in units from 2 units to

3 units. (4 points)

b) The Statutory Construction subject should be replaced by other Bar subjects

which are more important. (4 points)

II.

a. Distinguish briefly Comparative Interpretation from the Doctrine of Associated

Words. (4 points)

b. Does statutory construction involve Questions of fact or of law? Explain briefly?

(4 points)

III.

In an Insurance personal accident policy was issued covering “loss of legs”, the
Insured met an accident resulting in total paralysis of both legs. The Insurer refused
to pay because there was no “loss of legs” since the legs of the Insured were not
amputated.

a) How an Insurance policy be construed? (5 points)

b) Will total paralysis of both legs of the Insured be construed to mean “loss of
legs”? (5 points)

FINAL EXAM IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Page 1 of 5

 IV.

Petrum, Inc. was made to pay Sales Tax on Gasoline Sales under Ordinance No.
53. Petrum, Inc. questions the Municipality’s authority to impose such taxed on gasoline
citing Section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act, which provides:

“xxx Provided, that municipalities xxx shall, in no case, impose any percentage
tax on Sales or other taxes on articles subject to specific tax, except gasoline,
under the provision of the National Internal Revenue Code: xxx”

a) Can a Proviso be used in making certain Exception in a provision of a

Statute? (3 points)

b) Can a Municipality impose Sales tax on gasoline? Explain briefly. (6 points)

V.

Joe Mapa was accused and convicted of illegal possession of firearms under
Section 878 of the Administrative Code. Mapa interposed the defense that he was a
Secret Agent and thus covered under the exemption of Section 879 of the same
Code. The subject provisions provide the following to wit:

“Sec. 878. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any

firearm, detached part of firearms of ammunition therefor, or any
instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of firearms, parts of firearms or ammunitions”.
“Sec. 879. Firearms and ammunitions regularly and lawfully issued
to officers, soldiers, sailors or marine of the AFP, the Phil. Constabulary,
guards in the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police,
provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincial treasurers,
municipal treasurers, municipal mayors and guards of provincial prisons
and jails, are not covered when such firearms are in the possession of
such officials and public servants for use in the performance of their
official duties”.

a) Does Joe Mapa fall under the exception provided in Section 879? (5
points).

b) What is the importance of “Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius”? (4

points)

VI.

Mon Lumfo came to the court, seeking issuance of Temporary Protection Order
against hid wife Claudia Baretta. The Petition is grounded on the Physical Injuries
frequently inflicted upon him by his wife, the latter being a black belter in Judo-
karate. It includes also several Threats to his life uttered by Claudia. Accordingly,
under Section 8 of the Rule on Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children, it
enumerated those persons who may file the petition for Protection Order, to wit;
a) The OFFENDED Party;
b) Parents or Guardian of the Offended Party;
c) Xxxxxxxxx
He claimed that, the law used in paragraph (a) in the above mentioned law, a
general term “Offended Party” without making any distinctions as to the gender of
the said Offended Party. Being couched in general term, he claimed that as an

FINAL EXAM IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Page 2 of 5

 Offended Party in this case, he can file an action/petition for Protection Order. He
further argued, that granting arguendo that the law is enacted specifically for the
protection of women against abuses, however that only restricts his right to file
Criminal Action, however, with respect to the filing of a Petition for a Protection
Order, the law does not distinguish and we should not make any distinctions.

a) If you were the Judge, will you grant the application/petition for Protection
Order filed by Mon Lumfo? (6 points)

b) Is there an instance that the “rule on Masculine term includes Feminine term”
will not apply? (4 points)

VII.

Plaintiff shipped a cargo of rice from SAIGON to Cebu. The cargo was damaged
due to the inflow of seawater into the ship during the voyage because of a defect in
one of the drain pipes of the ship.
Plaintiff sought recovery from defendant, on the basis of its Marine Insurance
Policy, which insured the plaintiff against the following risks:

“Perils… of the seas, men of wars and all other perils, losses and misfortunes
that have come to the hurt, detriment or damage of the said goods”.

a) Does the rule on Ejusdem Generis applicable in the instant case, and thus
Insurer will be held liable to the Insured for the loss/damaged sustained by
him? (6 points)

b) Give at least three (3) examples of General Words which may be used in a
Statute under the Rule on Ejusdem Generis? (3 points)

VIII.

Rura was accused, tried and convicted of five counts of Estafa, committed on
different dates. The five counts were tried jointly and single decision was rendered.
Rura then applied for Probation, but the fiscal objected on the grounds that Rura
was disqualified from Probation under Section 9 of the Probation Law, which
provides:
Section 9, Disqualified from Probation those persons:
“(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense…”

The Trial Court denied Probation on the theory that Rura was guilty of said
offenses as of commission of the acts complained of. Rura on the other hand,
argues that there was only one conviction as there was only one decision
rendered. The issue was raised to the Supreme Court.

a) How should the word “previously” be construed? Explain briefly. (5

points)

b) If you were the judge, will you grant the Probation? (5 points)

FINAL EXAM IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Page 3 of 5

 IX.

Mr. Ahente was charged with violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act for
allegedly acting as an Insurance agent without first secured a certificate of authority
to act as an Insurance Agent from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.
Petitioner however set up the defense that although he acted as Agent for Insurance,
but he received no compensation therefor, then, he cannot be considered as an
Insurance Agent. Although, in the said Act, an Insurance Agent is entitled to a
compensation, however, it is silent on whether a person acting as such is receiving
compensation or not in the definition of an Insurance Agent.

a) Briefly discussed the rule that Statute must be construed as a whole. (4 points)

b) Considering that he receives no compensation, is Mr. Ahente liable under the said
Section 189 of the Insurance Act? (5 points)

X.

Boy NAKAW, Boy GAHASA and Boy PATAY conspired in the commission of Robbery
in the Jewelry Shop of Madam Diony Alahera. After the three (3) took with force and
violence, the Jewelries of Madam Diony Alahera, Boy GAHASA raped Madam Diony,
while Boy NAKAW and Boy PATAY left the Jewery Shop after they saw Boy GASAHA is
committing rape against Madam Diony. When the three (3) are prosecuted for
ROBBERY with RAPE, under Article 294, which provides:

“Article 294. Robbery with Violence against or intimidation of persons –

Penalties. – Any person guilty of Robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The Penalty Reclusion Perpetua to Death, when by reason or on

occasion of the robbery, the crime of Homicide shall have been
committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
Rape or Intentional Mutilation or Arson”

Boy NAKAW and Boy PATAY, questioned the charge under the above provision
of law, arguing that, they should only be prosecuted for Plain Robbery, without Rape,
because they did not participate in the commission of the latter crime (rape) because
it is an independent criminal act of Boy GAHASA.

a) Is the Charge of Robbery with RAPE against the three (3) Accused under
Article 294 par. (1) proper? (6 points)

b) Assuming that NO Rape was committed, but instead the three (3) took the
Jewelries, and Boy PATAY killed Boy NAKAW, when the latter tried to flee/run
away the jewelries subject of the Crime.

Can Boy GAHASA be held liable for ROBBERY with HOMICIDE, under Article
294, par. 1., considering that he did not participate in the killing of their Co-
Robber Boy NAKAW? (6 points)

c) Assuming that the three (3) Robbers committed ONLY Robbery at the Jewelry
Shop, which is located at the GROUND FLOOR of the Mall, but at the time of
the commission of the robbery, at the SECOND FLOOR of the Mall, a
simultaneous Crime took place therein, in which a Mistress of a Husband was
KILLED by the Legal Wife of the latter. This Love-triangle incident took place,

FINAL EXAM IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Page 4 of 5

 during the commission of the robbery by the three (3) robbers, but committed
on two different floors of the Mall.

If Boy NAKAW, Boy GAHASA and Boy PATAY are charged under par. (1),
Article 294, Revised Penal Code, and you are the judge, will you convict the
three (3) Accused for the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE? (6 points)

******* nothing follows *******

FINAL EXAM IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Page 5 of 5