Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Fundamentals of Legal Research and Writing

Midterm Exams
First Semester (Calendar year 2017-2018)
Professor: Atty. Mary Jude Cantorias-Marvel

Non-Disclosure Agreement:

The Student shall (i) maintain the confidentiality of this Examination by ensuring that the questions herein are
NOT shared nor discussed, whether orally, electronically, or in writing, to any third person; and (ii) take all
reasonable action to protect the confidentiality of this Examination.

The foregoing commitments shall not require a separate written agreement and by taking this Examination,
the Student warrants and represents to be bound by this Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Instructions:

This is an open book/sources exam. You are given from 8am-5pm to work on this project and turn in your
paper via email to the class beadle. The beadle must have received everyones work on August 23, on or
before 6PM (email stamp must reflect this time). The beadle will advise the Professor of any late submission/s.
For avoidance of doubt, a submission with time stamp of 6:01 PM shall be deemed as submitted late.

Using what you have learned about legal research and the research process, you must fill in the columns by
providing all the information left blank in the table below. You may use additional space as needed.

Each item is worth 10 points.

Representation and Warranty:

You are expected to independently work on this project. Thus, you must conduct the research by yourself
without consulting your classmates or asking anyone else to help you. By turning in your paper, you represent
and warrant that you worked on this project independently and without any third party assistance. The
Professor reserves the right to confirm the source/s of your answers, through a panel interview, at her sole
discretion.

Field of Law Facts Identify All Legal Issue/s Provide All Provide at least 5 Applicable Case Laws with a Summary
Applicable of each of the Rulings
Statute/s (be vey
specific)
Criminal 1. Clarito, an A.The issue is whether [Article 308, 1. Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, The
law employee of Juan, or not Clarito committed Revised Penal Court held that theft is produced when there is
was dismissed for the crime of theft? Code] deprivation of personal property by one with intent
allegedly stealing Elements of Theft togain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is
Labor law Juans wristwatch. In B.The issue is whether able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen
the illegal dismissal or not Clarito was since hehas already committed all the acts of
case instituted by legally dismissed in his 1. There be execution and the deprivation from the owner has
Clarito, the Labor work? taking of already ensued fromsuch acts. Therefore, theft
Arbiter, citing Article cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be
4 of the Labor Code, C.The issue is whether personal attempted or consummated.
ruled in favor of or not the evidence of property;
Clarito upon finding Juan is sufficient to 2. In U.S. v. Adiao, The defendant was charged with
Juans testimony prove that Clarito 2. Said property the theft of some fruit from the land of another. As
doubtful. On appeal, committed the crime of belongs to he was in the act of taking the fruit he was seen by
the NLRC reversed theft? a policeman, yet it did not appear that he was at
another;
the Labor Arbiter that moment caught by the policeman but
holding that Article 4 sometime later. The court said: ". . . The trial court

1
applies only when did not err . . . in considering the crime as that of
3. The taking be
the doubt involves consummated theft instead of frustrated theft
"implementation and done with inasmuch as nothing appears in the record
interpretation" of the intent to gain; showing that the policemen who saw the accused
Labor Code take the fruit from the adjoining land arrested him
provisions. The 4. The taking be in the act and thus prevented him from taking full
NLRC explained that done without possession of the thing stolen and even its
the doubt may not utilization by him for an interval of time. (Decision
necessarily be the consent of of the supreme court of Spain, October 14, 1898.)
resolved in favor of the owner;
labor since this case 3. In People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8,
involves the 5. The taking be 2004, the Supreme Court had the occasion to
application of the accomplished interpret the "theft clause" of an insurance policy.
Rules on Evidence, The Court explained that when one takes the motor
without the
not the Labor Code. vehicle of another without the latter's consent even
use of if the motor vehicle is later returned, there is theft -
violence there being intent to gain as the use of the thing
unlawfully taken constitutes gain.
against or
intimidation of 4. In Santos vs. People, G.R. No. 77429, January
29, 1990, the owner of a car entrusted his vehicle
persons or to therein petitioner Lauro Santos who owns a
force upon repair shop for carburetor repair and repainting.
However, when the owner tried to retrieve her car,
things. she was not able to do so since Santos had
abandoned his shop. In the said case, the crime
Art. 296 [282]. that was actually committed was Qualified Theft.
Termination by
employer. An 5. In Empeli vs. IAC, G.R. no. L 66136, the court
employer may convicted herein petitioners of qualified theft of fifty
terminate an coconuts valued at P50.00 and sentenced each of
employment for them to an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) to
any of the eight (8) years and one (1) day, to restore to the
following causes: owner of the stolen coconuts, Guillermo Catarining
the sum of P50.00 and to pay the costs. Thus, the
stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree
or deposited on the ground within the premises is
1. Serious qualified theft. When the coconuts are stolen in any
misconduct or other place, it is simple theft. Stated differently, if
the coconuts were taken in front of a house along
willful the highway outside the coconut plantation, it
disobedience would be simple theft only.
by the
employee of 6. In Firestone vs. Lariosa, G.R. No. 70479, the
the lawful court held that Petitioner Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company of the Philippines is directed to
orders of his pay its dismissed worker Carlos Lariosa the
employer or separation pay to which he may be entitled under
the law, or any collective bargaining agreement or
representativ
company rules or practice, whichever is higher.
e in Thus, the court ruled Firestone had valid grounds
connection to dispense with the services of Lariosa and that
the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in
with his work; ordering his reinstatement. However, considering
2. Gross and that Lariosa had worked with the company for
eleven years with no known previous bad record,
habitual the ends of social and compassionate justice would
neglect by the be served if he is paid full separation pay but not
employee of
his duties;

2
reinstatement without back wages as decreed by
3. Fraud or
the NLRC.
willful breach
by the
employee of
the trust
reposed in
him by his
employer or
duly
authorized
representativ
e;
4. Commission
of a crime or
offense by the
employee
against the
person of his
employer or
any
immediate
member of his
family or his
duly
authorized
representativ
es; and
5. Other causes
analogous to
the foregoing.

Article 283 of the


Labor Code, an
employer may
terminate an
employment for
"serious
misconduct" or for
"fraud or willful
breach by the
employee of the
trust reposed in
him by his
employer or
representative."

If there is
sufficient evidence

3
that an employee
has been guilty of
a breach of trust
or that his
employer has
ample reasons to
distrust him, the
labor tribunal
cannot justly deny
to the employer
the authority to
dismiss such an
employee. 9

Civil law 2. Your client Dianne A. The issue is whether The phrase "'doing Heirs of jose lim vs. lim, It is Elfledo Lim based on the
approaches you for or not Dianne can put business" is evidence presented regardless of Jimmy Yus testimony in
legal advice on up another business clearly defined in court that Jose Lim was the partner. If Jose Lim was the
putting up a medium- which is a restaurant Section 3(d) partner, then the partnership would have been dissolved
sized restaurant even if she has already of R.A. No. upon his death (in fact, though the SC did not say so, I
business that will has an existing 7042 (Foreign believe it should have been dissolved upon Norbertos death
specialize in a novel corporation that is Investments Act of in 1993). A partnership is dissolved upon the death of the
type of cuisine. As producing meat 1991), as partner. Further, no evidence was presented as to the
Dianne feels that the products? amended by R.A. articles of partnership or contract of partnership between
business is a little No. 8179, to wit: Jose, Norberto and Jimmy. Unfortunately, there is none in
risky, she wonders this case, because the alleged partnership was never
whether she should The phrase "doing formally organized.
use a corporation as business" shall
the business vehicle, include: Juan ysasi vs. judge Fernandez
or just run it as a
single proprietorship. (1) soliciting There is good reason to believe that their own lawyer
She already has an orders, communicated to and advised them of the acts required to
existing corporation (2) service be done under the order as well as the consequences of
that is producing contracts, refusal to abide thereby. In the course of the oral arguments
meat products (3) opening before this Court on November 7, 1968, there emerged a
profitably and is also offices, whether significant fact: Before October 3, but after the sheriff had
considering the called "liaison" gone to private respondents in the morning of October 2,
alternative of simply offices or Atty. Rodolfo J. Herman, private respondents' counsel, told
setting up the branches; his client, Jon Ysasi, that the properties involved should
restaurant as a (4) appointing really be delivered to petitioner in obedience to the court
branch office of the representatives or order. Their duty then was to comply. No compliance was
existing corporation. distributors made. But no justifiable reason there is. Their pattern of
domiciled in the conduct does not sit well with a desire to submit to the
Philippines or who injunction. Contumacious disobedience is clear. These
in any calendar respondents must know that this Court is not expected to
year stay in the yield to assaults of disrespect. Punishment for contempt is
country for a in order.
period or periods
totalling one
hundred eighty
(180) days or
more;
(5) participating in
the management,
supervision or
control of any
domestic
business, firm,
entity or

4
corporation in the
Philippines; and
(6) any other act or
acts that imply a
continuity of
commercial
dealings or
arrangements,
and contemplate
to that extent the
performance of
acts or works, or
the exercise of
some of the
functions normally
incident to, and in
progressive
prosecution of,
commercial gain
or of the purpose
and object of the
business
organization:

Provided,
however, That the
phrase "doing
business"
shall not be
deemed to
include:

(1) mere
investment as a
shareholder by a
foreign entity in
domestic
corporations duly
registered to do
business, and/or
the exercise of
rights as such
investor;
(2) nor having a
nominee director
or officer to
represent its
interests in such
corporation;
(3) nor appointing
a representative or
distributor
domiciled in the
Philippines which
transacts business
in its own name
and for its own
account.

Art. 1808 of the


civil code, the

5
capitalist partners
cannot engage for
their own account
in any operation
which is of the
kind of business in
which the
partnership is
engaged unless
there is a
stipulation to the
contrary.

Civil law 3. Grand Gas A.The issue is whether


Corporation, a or not the sales of This Act shall be G.R. Nos. 75746-48 - LawPhil
publicly listed stocks to the newly known as The latest amendment to Article 217 of the Labor Code
company, admitted member of the the "Philippine was worked by Section 2, Batas Pambansa Bilang 227,
discovered after corporation is valid? Mining Act of effective June 1, 1982. Said Section 217, as lastly
extensive drilling a 1995." amended, is reproduced in full in the excerpt from
rich deposit of b. The issue is whether Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of Labor, 146
natural gas along the or not the mining law is Section 2 SCRA 50 quoted earlier in this opinion. 11 It will at once be
coast of Antique. For constitutional? Declaration of perceived that the amendment does not at all affect, much
five (5) months, the Policy less expand, the jurisdiction of the Regional Director. The
company did not Director continues to be without competence or authority to
disclose the All mineral hear and decide any of the matters specifically placed by
discovery so that it resources in law within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor
could quietly and public and private Arbiters.
cheaply acquire lands within the
neighboring land and territory and CITY OF ILIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs. DIRECTOR OF
secure mining rights exclusive LANDS
to the land. Between economic zone of
the discovery and its the Republic of Such power of the President is recognized under Section
disclosure of the the Philippines are 69 aforecited of the Public Land Act as it provides:
information to the owned by the
Securities and State. It shall be "Sec. 69. Whenever any province, municipality, or other
Exchange the responsibility branch or subdivision of the Government shall need any
Commission, all the of the State to portion of the land of the public domain open to concession
directors and key promote their for educational, charitable, or others similar purposes, the
officers of the rational President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of
company bought exploration, Agriculture and Natural Resources, may execute contracts
shares in the development, in favor of the same, in the form of donation, sale, lease,
company at very low utilization and exchange, or any other form, under terms, and conditions
prices. After the conservation to be inserted in the contract; but land to be granted shall in
disclosure, the price through the no case be encumbered or alienated, except when the
of the shares went combined efforts public service requires their being leased or exchanged,
up. The directors and of government with the approval of the President, for other lands
officers sold their and the private belonging to private parties, or if the Congress disposes
shares at huge sector in order to otherwise."
profits. enhance national THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (On
growth in a way Relation Of The Attorney-General), Plaintiff, Vs. EL
The employees of that effectively HOGAR FILIPINO, Defendant.
the establishment safeguards the
handling the printing environment and
work of Grand Gas protect the rights
Corporation saw the of affected
exploration reports communities.
which were
mistakenly sent to
their establishment
together with other
materials to be
printed also bought

6
shares in the
company at low
prices and later sold
them at huge profits.
Civil law 4. ABC Bank A.The issue is whether Art. 2080 reads: G.R. No. 154183. Toh vs. solid bank corporation. The
extended a credit or not the smart general The guarantors, terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the
facility worth 8 million construction even though they checklist of documents necessary to open the credit line
pesos in favour of incorporated is an agent be solidary, are were stipulated in a letter-advise of the Bank dated 16 May
Smart General of ABC bank? released from 1993 addressed to FBPC and to its President, respondent
Construction, Inc. their obligation Kenneth Ng Li. The letter-advise was effective upon
(Smart). Spouses whenever by compliance with the documentary requirements. For the
Tan, as Chairman some act of the same reason, the grace period granted by respondent Bank
and Vice-President creditor they represents unceremonious abandonment and forfeiture of
of Smart, signed the cannot be the fifteen percent (15%) marginal deposit and the twenty-
bank pro-forma subrogated to the five percent (25%) partial payment as fixed in the letter-
document of a rights, mortgages, advise. These payments are unmistakably additional
continuing guaranty and preference of securities intended to protect both respondent Bank and the
agreement. The the latter; There is sureties in the event that the principal debtor FBPC
contract, by its no reason not to becomes insolvent during the extension period. Compliance
language, is a surety apply this with these requisites was not waived by petitioners in the
agreement, which provision to a Continuing Guaranty. For this unwarranted exercise of
provided for the surety agreement discretion, respondent Bank bears the loss; due to its
solidary liability of the since guaranty unauthorized extensions to pay granted to FBPC, petitioner-
signatories as and surety are spouses Luis Toh and Vicky Tan Toh are discharged as
security for the loans cognate sureties under the Continuing Guaranty.
with ABC Bank. The contracts;
agreement also
provided for an G.R. No. L-29666 October 29, 1971, peoples bank vs.
acceleration clause tambunting
waiving the rights of
the sureties against
delay, including It was held that the contract of absolute guaranty executed
giving consent to by appellant Santana is the measure of rights and duties. As
ABC Bank to extend it is with him, so it is with the plaintiff bank. What was therein
time of payment of stipulated had to be complied with by both parties. Nor could
the loan in favour of appellant have any valid cause for complaint. He had given
Smart, without need his word; he must live up to it. Once the validity of its terms
of notice to the is conceded, he cannot be indulged in his unilateral
sureties. ABC Bank, determination to disregard his commitment. A promise to
pursuant to the which the law accords binding force must be fulfilled. It is as
surety agreement, simple as that. So the Civil Code explicitly requires:
extended (on several "Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law
occasions) the due between the contracting parties and should be complied with
dates of the in good faith.
obligations, without
notice to the sureties.
On the last
extension, Smart
failed to pay which
prompted ABC Bank
to file a complaint for
collection of money
against Spouses Tan
as sureties on the
loan. ABC Bank also
attached certain
properties of Smart.
However, because of
the prohibitive costs
of the attachment
bond the bank
released its claim on

7
the attached
properties. Spouses
Tan opposed the
collection against
them alleging that
the extensions of due
dates granted to the
debtor by the creditor
without the consent
of the guarantor
extinguishes the
guaranty. Likewise,
they allege that they
have been
discharged as
sureties on account
of the Banks
abandonment of the
attached properties.

Constitution 5. In a protest rally A.The issue is whether Article III Section Freedom of expression and assembly are nights held
al law along Padre Faura or not protesters and 4 of the sacred be the Constitution, and made available to all the
Street, Manila, rallyist are excercsing 1987 Constitutio citizenry without distinction or discrimination. This was our
Pedrong Pula took their freedom of speech n of the holding in Malabanan Mulabatan vs. Ramento. It was
up the stage and and expression Philippines likewise our holding in that case that some disruption is
began shouting specifies that no normal in such gatherings.
"kayong mga kurakot b. The issue is whether law shall be
kayo! Magsi-resign or not the arrest of passed abridging
na kayo! Kung hindi, pedro pula is valid? the freedom of
manggugulo kami speech or of U.S. vs. Apurado. In the Apurado case, the people
dito!" ("you corrupt c. The issue is whether expression. assembled at the chamber of the municipal council to ask
officials, you better or not or not Pedro pula for the removal of the municipal treasurer on account of
resign now, or else is liable for seditious Section 5 of the religious differences. This court did not find any disorder in
we will cause trouble speech? Act No. 292 is as that case. It was a petition for redress of grievances made
here!) follows: in more or less excited language, but the affair on the whole
Simultaneously, he was peaceful and orderly; whereas in the instant case, there
brought out a rock All persons who was an inducement to fight, an actual though unexpected
the size of a fist and rise publicly and fight and resistance against the authorities. It was simply the
pretended to hurl it at tumultuously in practical expression and repetition of the previous
the flagpole area of a order to attain by instigations to overthrow the government, made by the
government building. force or outside of communist leaders before.
He did not actually legal methods any
throw the rock. (a) of the following
Police officers who objects are guilty
were monitoring the of sedition:
situation immediately
approached Pedrong
Pula and arrested
him. He was 1
prosecuted for
seditious speech and Gonzales v. COMELEC
was convicted. On
appeal, Pedrong Case Digests on Freedom of Expression Mark
Pula argued he was Justin Mooc
merely exercising his
freedom of speech Gonzales v. COMELEC
and freedom of Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 4880 on the
expression grounds that it violates their rights such as freedom of
guaranteed by the speech, of assembly, to form associations or societies. More
Bill of Rights. so, they question the forms of election campaigns
enumerated in the act.The primacy, the high estate

8
accorded freedom of expression is a fundamentalpostulate
of our constitutional system. No law shall be passed
abridging thefreedom of speech or of the press. What does
it embrace? At the very least, freespeech and free press
may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly
andtruthfully any matter of public interest without censorship
or punishment. There isto be then to previous restraint on
the communication of views or subsequentliability whether
in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages
orcontempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present
danger of substantiveevil that Congress has a right to
prevent.

Civil law 6. Surveys Galore is A.The issue is whether Court order that
an outfit involved in or not show cause requires a party to
conducting order issued by appear before the
HERMINIO C. PRINCIPIO
nationwide surveys. Asuncion is valid? court and explain Versus
In one such survey, it why a certain
asked the people B. The issue is whether course of action
about the degree of or not Survey Galore should not be BARRIENTOS
trust and confidence can assail the show taken against it. If
they had in several cause order? the party cannot The courts ruling at the outset, we reiterate the
institutions of the convince the court fundamental principle that an order denying a
government. When or fails to appear, motion to quash is interlocutory and therefore not
the results came in, that course of appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for
the judiciary was action is taken. certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the
shown to be less Also ordinary course of law by an appeal from the
trusted than most of called order to sh judgment after trial. In other words, it cannot be the
the government ow cause. subject of appeal until the judgment, or a final order
offices. The results is rendered. The proper procedure to be followed is
were then published to enter a plea, go to trial, and if the decision is
by the mass media. adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final
Asuncion, a trial judgment. Although the special civil action for
judge, felt certiorari may be availed of in case there is a grave
particularly offended abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, that
by the news. He then vitiating error is not attendant in the present case.
issued a show-cause
order against
Surveys Galore
directing the latter to in Salonga v. Cruz Pao that:
explain why it should
not be cited in ... [I]t is also recognized that, under certain
contempt for situations, recourse to the extraordinary legal
conducting the remedies of certiorari, prohibition or
survey and
publishing the
mandamus to question the denial of a motion
results, which were to quash is considered proper in the 'interest of
unflattering and more enlightened and substantial justice', ....
degrading to the
dignity of the n Venus v. Hon. Desierto,[23] where the case
judiciary. Surveys against the accused was also dismissed for
Galore immediately want of probable cause, we clarified that:
assailed the show-
cause order.
Agencies tasked with the preliminary
investigation and prosecution of crimes must
always be wary of undertones of political
harassment. They should never forget that the
purpose of a preliminary investigation is to
secure the innocent against hasty, malicious

9
and oppressive prosecution, and to protect one
from an open and public accusation of crime,
from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a
public trial, and also to protect the State from
useless and expensive trials. It is, therefore,
imperative upon such agencies to relieve any
person from the trauma of going through a trial
once it is ascertained that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that
no probable cause exists to form a sufficient
belief as to the guilt of the accused.

in Fernando v. Sandiganbayan we directly


ordered the discharge of petitioners from the
case before the Sandiganbayan for want of
probable cause. We reasoned in this wise:

We emphasize at this point that the Court has


a policy of non-interference in the
Ombudsman's exercise of his constitutionally
mandated powers. The overwhelming number
of petitions brought to us questioning the filing
by the Ombudsman of charges against them
are invariably denied due course. Occasionally,
however, there are rare cases when, for various
reasons there has been a misapprehension of
facts, we step in with our review power. This is
one such case.

It may also be stressed at this point that the


approach of the Courts to the quashing of
criminal charges necessarily differs from the
way a prosecutor would handle exactly the
same question. A court faced with a fifty-fifty
proposition of guilt or innocence always decides
in favor of innocence. A prosecutor, conscious
that he represents the offended party, may
decide to leave the problem to the discretion of
the court.

BIENVENIDO TAN, JR., petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

Petitioner also wants to impress on the Court


that he cannot be liable for the tax compromise
since he merely relied on the recommendation
of his subordinates in the office. This is a
matter of defense which cannot be proved

10
during the proceedings in a motion to
dismiss. 28

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding no


grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the Sandiganbayan, the petition is hereby
DISMISSED.

Criminal 7. Ms. A had been Whether or not ms. A Art. 11: Justifying People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 200, the
law married to Mr. B for can sustain her claim of Circumstances Court finds the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY
10 years. Since their complete self defense? those wherein the beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as
marriage, Mr. B had acts of the actor provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as
been jobless and a are in accordance restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery
drunkard, preferring with law, hence, he as a generic aggravating circumstance and none of
to stay with his is justified. There mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences the accused with
barkadas until the is no criminal and the penalty of DEATH. The Court, however, is not
wee hours of the civil liability discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the
morning. Ms. A was because there is battered woman syndrome.
the breadwinner and no crime.
attended to the People vs. arbalate, Premises Considered, accused
needs of their three Battered Woman RUPERTO ARBALATE is found guilty of the charge of
(3) growing children. Murder. For Ruperto to avail of the defense of self-defense,
Many times, when Syndrome refers he must meet the requirements, prescribed in Article11 of
Mr. B was drunk, he to a scientifically the Revised Penal Code. (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
would beat Ms. A reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
defined pattern of
and their three (3) repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
children, and shout psychological and the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an
invectives against behavioral actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
them. In fact, in one imminent injury, upon a person. There must be an actual,
of the beating symptoms found in sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger, which puts
incidents, Ms. A women living in the defendants life in real peril. In the case at bar, there was
suffered a deep stab no unlawful aggression shown by the victim. It was Ruperto
battering
wound on her tummy who struck first, not the victim. The wounds as well as the
that required a relationships as a act of beheading the victim clearly belie self-defense. There
prolonged stay in the result of was also a lapse of time between the altercation with victim
hospital. Due to the and his murder. The Arbalates purpose was to exact
beatings and verbal cumulative abuse. vengeance and nothing more. The act of bringing the head
abuses committed [Section 3(c), to the street was also an act of scoffing at the corpse of the
against her, she dead.
R.A. 9262]
consulted a
psychologist several
times, as she was People vs. Samson, Self-defense, when invoked as a
slowly beginning to justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the
lose her mind. One accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the
night, when Mr. B burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
arrived dead drunk, accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the
he suddenly stabbed accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused,
Ms. A several times however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him
while shouting to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and
invectives against convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal
her. Defending cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the
herself from the prosecution to the defense.
attack, Ms. A
grappled for the People vs. Nugas y mapait, the court held that Self-defense
possession of a knife is often readily claimed by an accused even if false. It is time,
and she succeeded. then, to remind the Defense about the requisites of the
She then stabbed justifying circumstance and about the duty of the Defense to

11
Mr. B several times establish the requisites by credible, clear and convincing
which caused his evidence. The RTC accorded greater credence to the
instantaneous death. testimony of Nila because she had consistently narrated the
Medico-Legal Report incident. It observed that although Nila had initially made a
showed that the mistake in identifying who, as between Nugas and Araneta,
husband suffered had stabbed her husband, she had rectified her error upon
three (3) stab seeing the two accused together in person; that despite the
wounds. resemblance of Nugas and Araneta to each other, she had
firmly pointed to Nugas as the person who had stabbed
Glen; that even granting to be true Nugas version that Glen
had pushed and punched him, his stabbing of Glen could
not be a reasonable and necessary means to repel the
attack, for, by all standards, fists were no match to knives;
that treachery had been duly proved beyond reasonable
doubt, because Nugas position inside the vehicle in relation
to Glen, who had sat on the drivers seat, and Nugas manner
of inflicting the fatal blow from behind warranted the
inference that Nugas had taken advantage of his position to
specially ensure the execution of the felony, without risk to
himself arising from any defense that Glen might make.

Civil law 8. A and B executed A.Whether or not the Contracts Winifreda Ursal vs. Court of Appeals, et al
an option contract contract of sale A contract is a this Court held that the subsequent mortgage constituted by
whereby A executed by A to B is meeting of the owner over said property in favor of another person was
unconditionally valid? between two valid since the vendee retained absolute ownership over the
agreed to sell to B a persons whereby property.[45] At most, the vendee in the contract to sell was
parcel of land with one binds himself, entitled only to damages.
the understanding with respect to the
that As obligation to B.Whether or not B can other, to give In Pangilinan vs. Court of Appeals,[48] the vendees
sell shall be deemed compel A to accept the something or to contended that their failure to pay the balance of the total
expired should B fail payment? render some contract price was because the vendor reneged on its
to exercise his option service. [Article obligation to improve the subdivision and its facilities. In said
to buy the subject 1305, NCC] case, the Court held that the vendees were barred by laches
property within 90 from asking for specific performance eight years from the
days from the date of last installment.
execution of the Conditional
option agreement. B Contract Of Sale Coronel vs. Court of Appeals
paid no the fulfillment of
consideration for the the suspensive In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the
option. The option condition, which is property, a third person buying such property despite the
contract was the full payment of fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full
nonetheless the purchase payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be
accepted by A and B price, will not deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer
as evidenced by their automatically cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the
signatures thereon. transfer ownership property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the
Before the expiry of to the buyer property will transfer to the buyer after registration because
the 90 days, B made although the there is no defect in the owner-seller's title per se, but the
several tenders of property may have latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intending
payment to A who, been previously buyer.
for unknown delivered to him.
reasons, rejected the The prospective
payment. B then Chua vs. CA, G.R. No. 119255. April 9, 2003, the
vendor still has to
deposited said Court of Appeals ruled that Chuas stance to pay the full
convey title to the
amount with the consideration only after the Property is registered in his
prospective buyer
appropriate RTC and name was not the agreement of the parties. The Court of
by entering into a
commenced against Appeals noted that there is a whale of difference between
contract of
A an action for the phrases all papers are in proper order as written on the
absolute sale. The
specific performance Receipt, and transfer of title as demanded by Chua.
fulfillment of the
and damages. B suspensive Contrary to the findings of the trial court, the Court of
sought relief for the condition renders Appeals found that all the papers were in order and that

12
RTC to order A to the sale absolute Chua had no valid reason not to pay on the agreed
accept the sum and affects the date. Valdes-Choy was in a position to deliver the owners
judicially consigned seller's title duplicate copy of the TCT, the signed Deeds of Sale, the tax
by B and to execute thereto such that if declarations, and the latest realty tax receipt. The Property
the corresponding there was was also free from all liens and encumbrances.
Deed of Sale. A previous delivery
counters that the of the property, Romero Vs. CA, G.R. No. 107207 | 1995-11-23
option contract was the seller's There is no need to still belabor the question of whether the
not binding for lack of ownership or title advance payment is reimbursable to petitioner of forfeitable
consideration to the property is by private respondent, since, on the basis of our foregoing
therefore. automatically conclusions, the matter has ceased to be an issue. Suffice it
transferred to the to say that petitioner having opted to proceed with the sale,
buyer. neither may petitioner demand its reimbursement from
private respondent nor may private respondent subject it to
forfeiture.WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE,
and another is entered ordering petitioner to pay private
respondent the balance of the purchase price and the latter
to execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioner.
No costs.
Civil law 9. Spouses Pedrito a. the issue is whether There is solidary Magna Financial Services vs. Colarina, G.R. no.
obtained a loan with or not the spouses are liability only when 158635, the court held that they find merit in
XYZ bank for the solidarity or jointly liable the obligation petitioners assertion that the MTC and the RTC
purchase of a motor for the loan they expressly so erred in ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid
vehicle. To secure secured in the XYZ states, or when balance of the purchase price of the subject vehicle
the loan, the spouses Bank to purchase a the law or the irrespective of the fact that the instant complaint
executed a motor vehicle? nature of the was for the foreclosure of its chattel mortgage. The
Promissory Note for obligation requires principal error committed by the said courts was
the amount of the b. whether or not the solidarity. (Art their immediate grant, however erroneous, of relief
loan and a Chattel sale of the motor 1207, Civil in favor of the respondent for the payment of the
Mortgage over the vehicle subject of the Code) In other unpaid balance without considering the fact that
subject vehicle in chattel mortgage to words, a co- the very prayer it had sought was inconsistent with
favour of XYZ Bank. Senorita Sansibanez is maker's liability is its allegation in the complaint.
While the loan with valid? only to the extent
XYZ Bank remained of his
outstanding, c. whether senorita proportionate
Spouses Pedrito sansibanez is liable to undertaking, LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY,
sold the vehicle
subject of the Chattel
pay the loan secured by
the spouses?
unless he
expressly makes
VS. ANGEL DIMAGIBA,
Mortgage to Seorita himself
Santibaez, who d. whether or not the answerable for the "While it is true that Exhibit '4' on its face appears
was willing to XYZ bank is still entire amount of to be a compromise, there is no question that by
assume the continue to exist when the obligation. virtue of said compromise, the truck of Angel
mortgage. After merged with ABC bank? Dimagiba was once more sold to him on the
furnishing XYZ Bank Rule 68, Section 2 installment plan by Luneta Motor Co. and Angel
with a copy of the of the Revised was made to assume the balance of the account
Deed of Sale, Rules of Court on including parts and tires all on credit; the Court
Seorita issued a Foreclosure does not see that this being the case, the case can
check payable to of Real Estate be taken out of the operation of Article 1484 of the
XYZ bank. Mortgage New Civil Code; the law is quite emphatic when it
Thereafter, XYZ declares that any agreement to the contrary would
Bank merged with be null and void; and the evidence having
Act No. 1508,
ABC Bank where all established the fact that the consideration of the
Section 3. civil two promissory notes. Exhibits '6' and 'I' were
the assets and code
liabilities of XYZ casings and inner tubes also as the Court
Bank was understands incorporated into the truck and
transferred and covered as plaintiff itself alleges in paragraph 3 of
absorbed by ABC its complaint, in the chattel mortgage, Exhibit 'C',
Bank. Seorita then the only effect should be as the Court understands
started paying the and her liability being only secondary, neither
balance on the loan should she be required anymore to pay the balance
but no amendment of due unto plaintiff from Angel Dimagiba, so that the
result would be that with respect to the money

13
laon documents liability prayed for in the complaint, the same will
were executed to have to be a dismissal.
reflect Seorita as
the new borower. De Quiambao vs. manila motor company
Thereafter, Seorita We are of the opinion that a valid execution
defaulted on her issued and levy made within the period
payments which provided by law may be enforced by a sale
compelled ABC thereafter. . . . The sale of the property by
Bank to demand the sheriff and the application of the
payment from proceeds are simply the carrying out of the
Spouses Pedrito for writ of execution and levy which when issued
the remaining
were valid. This rests upon the principle that
balance of the PN or
the levy is the essential act by which the
to return possession
of the subject vehicle property is set apart for the satisfaction of
for purposes of the judgment and taken into custody of the
extrajudicial law, and that after it has been taken from
foreclosure as part of the defendant, his interest is limited to its
the undertaking in application to the judgment, irrespective of
the chattel mortgage the time when it may be sold
agreement. When
Spouses Pedrito
failed to comply with
ABC Banks
demands, the bank
filed a complaint for
replevin or in the
alternative, for the
collection of sum of
money. Spouses
Pedrito claim that
there was valid
novation that
extinguished the
original obligation
with XYZ Bank.
Constitution
al law
10. Assume that you
are a member of the
a.The issue is whether
or not it is valid or
The 1987 MANILA ELECTRIC
legal staff of Senator constitutional to put up Constitution, COMPANY, vs. PROVINCE OF
Jon Snow who wants
to file a bill about
a hotel inside the jail for
the national wealth
Article X, Section LAGUNA and BENITO R. BALAZO.
imprisonment at the purposes? 5
National Penitentiary
in Muntinlupa. He On 12 September 1991, Republic Act No.
wants to make the b. the issue is whether Section 5. Each 7160, otherwise known as the Local
State prison a or not the state prison
local government Government Code of 1991, was enacted to
revenue earner for as revenue earner is
the country through a constitutional? unit shall have the take effect on 01 January 1992 enjoining local
law providing for
power to create its
government units to create their own sources
premium
accommodations for
of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges,
own sources of
prisoners (other than subject to the limitations expressed therein,
revenues and to
those under consistent with the basic policy of local
maximum security
status) whose wives
levy taxes, fees autonomy. Pursuant to the provisions of the
are allowed conjugal and charges Code, respondent province enacted Laguna
weekend visits, and subject to such Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92, the court
for those who want
long-term premium guidelines and held that Declaring Laguna Provincial
accommodations. limitations as the Tax Ordinance No. 01-92 as valid,
For conjugal
weekenders, he Congress may binding, reasonable and enforceable.

14
plans to rent out
provide, consistent
rooms with hotel-like
amenities at rates with the basic Cagayan electric vs. Commissioner of
equivalent to those
charged by 4-star
policy of local internal revenue
hotels; for long-term autonomy. Such
occupants, he is
taxes, fees, and
It is relevant to note that franchise companies, like
prepared to offer the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,
room and board with charges shall have been paying income tax in addition to the
special meals in air
conditioned single-
accrue exclusively franchise tax.
occupancy rooms, at to the local
rates equivalent to
governments.
However, it cannot be denied that the said 1969
those charged by 3- assessment appears to be highly controversial.
star hotels. What The Commissioner at the outset was not certain as
advice will you give
the Senator from the REPUBLIC to petitioner's income tax liability. It had reason not
point of view of ACT No. 10575 to pay income tax because of the tax exemption in
criminal law, taking its franchise.
into account the
purpose of AN ACT
STRENGTHEN For this reason, it should be liable only for tax
imprisonment and
considerations of ING THE proper and should not be held liable for the
ethics and morality? BUREAU OF surcharge and interest. (Advertising Associates,
CORRECTION Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
S (BUCOR) Court of Tax Appeals, G. R. No. 59758, December
AND 26, 1984,133 SCRA 765; Imus Electric Co., Inc.
PROVIDING vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 125 Phil.
FUNDS 1024; C.M. Hoskins & Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, L-28383, June 22, 1976, 71
SCRA 511.)
Section
2. Declaration
of Policy. It is
the policy of the
State to
promote the
general welfare
and safeguard
the basic rights
of every
prisoner
incarcerated in
our national
penitentiary. It
also recognizes
the
responsibility of
the State to
strengthen
government
capability
aimed towards
the
institutionalizati
on of highly
efficient and

15
competent
correctional
services.

Towards this
end, the State
shall provide for
the
modernization,
professionalizat
ion and
restructuring of
the Bureau of
Corrections
(BuCor) by
upgrading its
facilities,
increasing the
number of its
personnel,
upgrading the
level of
qualifications of
their personnel
and
standardizing
their base pay,
retirement and
other benefits,
making it at par
with that of the
Bureau of Jail
Management
and Penology
(BJMP).

Every bill
passed by the
Congress shall
embrace only
one subject
which shall be
expressed in
the title thereof.

nothing follows

16