A.9.

Ms. N initiated a special proceeding for the correction of entries in the civil registry under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), impleading only
the Local Civil Registrar therein. In her petition, Ms. N sought to change the entry in her
birth certificate with respect to the date of her parents' marriage from "May 22, 1992" to
"not married." The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that Ms.
N's parents should have been impleaded in the proceeding. In response, Ms. N argued
that this was not necessary since it was an entry in her own birth certificate, which she
intended to change. Hence, it was a matter personal to her, and as such, the participation
of her parents in the case could be dispensed with.

Is Ms. N's position correct? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Mr. N’s position is not correct. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court states that when
correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be
made parties to the proceeding.

Here, Ms. N’s parents should have been impleaded as they have or claim any
interest which would be affected. Ms. N’s petition to change the entry in her birth
certificate with respect to the date of her parents’ marriage from May 22, 1992 to
“not married” will affect the latter’s status, successional rights with regards to
the other spouse, and etc. Hence, they should be made parties to the proceeding.

A.10.

Distinguish the following:

(b) Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) and Warrant
to Examine Computer Data (WECD) (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) is an

order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to
search the particular place for items to be seized and/ or examined. The verified
application for a WSSECD, as well as the supporting affidavits, shall state the
essential facts similar to those in Section 4.3 of this Rule, except that the subject
matter is the computer data sought to be searched, seized, and examined, and all
other items related thereto. In addition, the application shall contain an
explanation of the search and seizure strategy to be implemented, including a
projection of whether or not an off-site or on-site search will be conducted,
taking into account the nature of the computer data involved, the computer or
computer system’s security features, and/or other relevant circumstances, if
such information is available.
The Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD) is to allow law enforcement
agencies to search a computer device or computer seized during a lawful
warrantless arrest or by any other lawful methods such as valid warrantless
seizure, in flagrante delicto, or by voluntary surrender.

B.13.

In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped the bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr.
B, in order to get ahead. This caused the latter to lose control of the bike which hit the
concrete pavement and sent Mr. B crashing headfirst into the sidewalk. By the time the
organizers got to him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement authorities who witnessed the
incident arrested Mr. A without a warrant, and immediately brought him to the inquest
prosecutor for the conduct of an inquest. Thereafter, an Information for Homicide was
filed by the inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The
next day Mr. A requested for the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

(a) Is the inquest prosecutor's filing of the Information without the conduct
of preliminary investigation proper? (2.5%)

(b) Is Mr. A's request permissible? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) Yes, the filing of the Information without the conduct of preliminary
investigation is proper. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an
offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with the existing rules. Here, an inquest has been conducted before the
inquest prosecutor filed the Information for Homicide. Hence, the
information was properly filed even without the conduct of preliminary
investigation.

B.) Yes, Mr. A’s request is permissible. The law provides that after the filing
of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he
learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right
to adduce evidence in his defense. Hence, Mr. A may request for a
preliminary investigation.

B.14.

Mr. P 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, considering that grant of bail will result in the accused fleeing the court's jurisdiction.

(a) When is bail a matter of right before conviction? (2%)

 (b) Is the objection of the prosecution valid? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) Under the law, all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter
of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as
prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.

B.) Yes, the prosecution’s objection is valid. Under the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted
to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the
criminal prosecution. The crime of plunder shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death. Hence, since Mr. P was charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua, he shall not be admitted to bail.

C.) B.16.

Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's seventeen (17)-year old daughter,
AAA. When he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead "guilty,"
provided that his sentence be substantially reduced. Both AAA's mother and the
prosecutor were amenable to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a
plea of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced straight penalty of
only ten (10) years of imprisonment, as agreed upon.

(a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mr. W? Explain. (2%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged with the crime of Rape
committed against AAA based on the same incident, may Mr. W validly
invoke the defense of double jeopardy through a motion to quash and will
such motion prosper? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) No, the plea of guilty entered by the judge for Mr. W is not proper. The
law is clear that the accused must be present at the arraignment and must
personally enter his plea. In this case, the judge entered a plea of guilty in
behalf of Mr. W. Thus, such action is not proper.

B.) No, the motion to quash should be denied. Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules
of Court states that when an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or
the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
 charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information. The accused may move
to quash the complaint or information based on this ground. Here, Mr. W
has expressly agreed upon his conviction to a lesser offense. There is
express consent regarding his conviction, which makes it not a bar to
another prosecution of the same offense charged. Hence, the motion to
quash will not prosper.

B.17.

In a case for specific performance and damages, plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the
contracts he had executed with defendant R for the purpose of establishing their
existence. Defendant R's counsel objected to the admission of said photocopies,
invoking the best evidence rule.

(a) Should the objection of defendant R's counsel be sustained? Explain.

(3%)

(b) Assuming that the best evidence rule applies, under what
circumstances will the photocopies be admissible in evidence? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) No, the objection should be overruled. Under the Rules of Evidence, when
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself. Here, the subject of the
inquiry is the existence of the contracts executed by plaintiff Q and R.
Hence, the photocopies are admissible as evidence.

B.) (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
and

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer
or is recorded in a public office.

B.18.
In a case for Attempted Parricide brought against Mr. M by his wife, Mrs. N, their son, C,
was called as a witness for the prosecution. Mr. M's counsel objected, invoking the filial
privilege rule.

Meanwhile, in a separate case for Serious Physical Injuries also brought against Mr. M,
but this time by his son, C, Mrs. N was called to testify against Mr. M. Mr. M's counsel
objected, invoking the marital disqualification rule.

Should the objections of Mr. M's counsel in both cases be sustained?

Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In the case for Attempted Parricide, the objection should be sustained. The filial
privilege states that no person may be compelled to testify against his parents,
other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. Hence, C cannot
testify against his father, Mr. M.

In the case for Serious Physical Injuries, the objection should be overruled. The
marital disqualification rule provides that during their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants. Here, Mrs. N was called to testify against Mr. M, her
husband, for the crime of Serious Physical Injuries which the latter committed
against their son. Hence, it is one of the exceptions of the marital disqualification
rule since it is a criminal case committed by the husband against the wife’s direct
descendant.

B.19.

A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. T by his employer for allegedly
stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T's former supervisor,
Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar incidents also involving Mr.
T with his previous employer. Mr. T's counsel objected to the question, invoking the rule
on res inter alias acta. In response, the prosecutor argued that the question should be
allowed since he was trying to establish Mr. T's habit of stealing things from the
workplace.

(a) Should the objection of Mr. T's counsel be sustained? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on the bad moral
character of Mr. T, may the same be admitted in the present case? Explain.
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) Yes, the objection should be sustained. Rule 130, Section 28 of the Rules of
Court states that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. Here,
Mr. V, Mr. T’s former supervisor, was called to testify against the latter.
Mr. V is neither a co-partner or agent, co-conspirator, or privies of Mr. T.
 Hence, any evidence given by Mr. V to prove that Mr. T did or did not do
the same or similar thing at another time is not admissible.

B.) No, the same may be not be admitted as evidence. Under the law, the
prosecution may not prove the bad moral character of the accused which
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged unless in
rebuttal, when the accused opens the issue by introducing evidence of his
good moral character. In this case, the accused has not yet introduced any
evidence of his good moral character. Hence, the evidence of the bad
moral character of the accused may not be admitted.

B.20.

AAA, a ten (10)-year old minor, was sleeping inside her room when she was awakened
by her uncle, Mr. G, who was reeking of alcohol and was already on top of her. After Mr.
G succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, the former immediately left the latter's
room. Thereafter, AAA rushed into the room of her mother, MMM, and spontaneously
and frantically reported the incident. Eventually, Mr. G was arrested and was indicted for
the crime of Rape.

During trial, MMM was presented as a witness to testify on what AAA reported to her and
AAA's gestures and disposition at that time. Mr. G's counsel objected to MMM's
testimony on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. The prosecutor countered that the
subject of MMM's testimony may be admitted as an independently relevant statement
and as part of the res gestae.

(a) May MMM's testimony be admitted on the ground that it constitutes an

independently relevant statement? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) May AAA's statement to MMM be admitted on the ground of res gestae?
Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A.) Yes, MMM’s testimony may be admitted. The law provides that
independently relevant statements is offered in evidence only to
prove the tenor thereof, not to prove the truth of the facts asserted
therein. Here, MMM was presented as a witness to testify on what
AAA reported to her and AAA's gestures and disposition at that time.
Hence, it may be admitted as evidence.

B.) Yes, AAA’s statement may be admitted on the ground of res gestae.
Under the Rules of Evidence, statements made by a person while a
starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may
be given in evidence as part of res gestae. In the case at bar, AAA
immediately declared to her mom that her uncle sexually abused her.
Said denunciation of him as her rapist was confirmed by MMM’s
testimony about AAA’s spontaneous and frantic report about the
incident. Hence, it may be admitted on the ground of res gestae.