[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B.

MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]

Legal technique and Logic

FINAL EXAM prepared by: ROD FRANCIS B. MARQUEZ SECTION A- LLB1

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]
CASE NO. 1 CLAIM -The trail court should modify the decision and apply the indeterminate sentence law.

DATA - It is stated in the indeterminate sentence law that in imposing a prison sentence for an offense the court should apply the indeterminate sentence.

WARRANT -If it is stated so in the Provisions of RA 4103 and everything are in conformity with its provisions then the decision should be modified and that the accused should be availed the indeterminate sentence.

BACKING According to Section 1 of RA No. 4103, the court shall sentence the accused to an Indeterminate Sentence like maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty lower to the prescribed by the code for the offense. It was also decided in G.R. No. 123991 Felix Landino vs. Hon. Alfonso S. Garcia and People of the Philippines, Dec. 6, 1996. It was stated as follows;

-It should be kept in mind that to determine whether an indeterminate sentence and not a straight penalty is proper, what is considered is the penalty actually imposed by the trial court, after considering the attendant circumstances and not the imposable penalty.

QUALIFIER -In view of Section 2 of RA 4103, homicide is not included to those offenses where the indeterminate sentence law does not apply.

REBUTTAL -If it was stated in the Provision of R.A 4103 that Homicide cases are not covered by it then the decision should be correct but since it is not this renders the decision erroneous and therefore should be submitted for reconsideration and be modified.

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]
CASE NO. 2 CLAIM X should not be disqualified in view that he is a Natural Born Filipino.

DATA X was born in 1960 to a Filipino mother and to a Chinese migrant which later became a Naturalized Filipino which makes him a Natural Born Filipino.

WARRANT If X is a Natural Born Citizen under the constitution then he shouldnt be disqualified and that the disqualification case should be dismissed.

BACKING In view of section 1 Paragraph 3 of the Philippine Constitution which states that; those born before January 17, 1973, Filipino mothers who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority areFilipino citizen and also in section 2 of the same article, it was stated that those that are under Section 1 paragraph 3 are natural-born citizens. Same decision was also arrived in the case of Manzano vs. Mercado G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999.

QUALIFIER In accordance with the Constitutional Provision X is a natural born citizen.

REBUTTAL If Mr. X was born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution then he may be disqualified but since he is a Citizen by Election and his qualifications conforms with the Constitutional Requirement, he is eligible to run as a representative in the Congress.

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]

CASE NO. 3

CLAIM Adelas winning as mayor should be held final and executory.

DATA The effect of recall proceedings gives Adela the right of office.

WARRANT If the effects of the recall proceeding gives Adela the right of office as the Municipal Mayor then said decision should be final and executory.

BACKING Any disqualification procedure should be invalid for according to G.R. No. 135150, July 28,1999Lonzanida vs. Comelec, the Supreme Court stated that two conditions should concur, that the official shall have been duly elected for 3 consecutive terms and that he has fully served the 3 consecutive terms, the first disqualification shall be deemed to be an interruption of service hence, Adela can run for the fourth time.

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]

CASE NO. 4 CLAIM A and Bs adoption of C should be rescinded.

DATA Cs adoption should be rescinded on grounds that his act of refusing to use the last name of his adopters.

WARRANT If c refuses to use the last name of his adopters which is an act of disinheriting a descendant pursuant to the Civil Code, then Cs adoptions should be rescinded.

BACKING According to Article 192 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, the adopters may petition the court for the judicial rescission of the adoption if the adopted has committed any act constituting a ground for disinheriting a descendant.

QUALIFIER Basing on the provisions of the Civil Code the adoption should be rescinded.

REBUTTAL Should C accepted to use the last name of his adopters then there can be no grounds to rescind the adoption, except, if he himself wishes to rescind the adoption.

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]

CASE NO. 5

CLAIM Xs petition to change the middle name of her legitimate daughter to that of his biological mothers surname should be granted.

DATA The act of changing the surname of Xs daughter should be allowed in accordance with R.A. 8552, to protect the rights of the daughter.

WARRANT If the purpose of changing the surname is to protect the rights of the daughter, then the same should be granted.

BACKING In G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005, it was stated that one of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 section 17 of the family code, Article 4 of R.A. 8552. In addition, the use of the child of her mothers surname as her middle name is only to maintain her maternal lineage. Being a legitimate child by virtue of her adoption. It follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by law to legitimate child without discrimination of any kind including the right to bear the surname of her father and her mother.

QUALIFIER Since X is a widower and the adoption was made after the death of his wife which clearly shows that the adoption idea was made only by X , for all purposes the child should be allowed to use the surname of her mother since the parties in question are both her biological parents.

REBUTTAL If Xs wife was alive during the adoption then it will be a different story.

[FINAL EXAM IN LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC BY ROD FRANCIS April 9, 2013 B. MARQUEZ, SECTION A LLB1]

CASE NO. 6

CLAIM Chairman Rayala should be charged and convicted for violation of R.A. 7877 ANTI-SEXUAL HARRASMENT ACT OF 1995.

DATA the actions of Chairman Rayala constitutes a violation of R.A. 7877

WARRANT If Chairman Rayala violated R.A. 7877 the he should be dealt with by law.

BACKING According to the definitions of R.A. 7877 Anti-Sexual Harassment act of 1995, sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to dampen employees spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life. Public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline ( Gano vs. Lumen, 232 SCRA 99, 1994).