I.

a. No.

The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it includes a declaration
that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by
acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil
cases.

Here, the acquittal of Rodolfo was based on reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the court on the civil case
awarding damages is correct.

b. Rule 65

II.

a. Yes.

Section 6, paragraph (a) of Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates the judge to "immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record fails to establish probable cause

While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a crime is the sole function of the. prosecutor, the
trial court may, in the protection of one's fundamental right to liberty, dismiss the case if, upon a personal
assessment of the evidence, it finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause.

Here, the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion. It found no probable cause against Rodolfo despite
the evaluation of additional evidence submitted. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

b. No.

For double jeopardy to apply, the rules require, among others, that the accused should have been arraigned first and
had pleaded. Here, Rodolfo was not arraigned yet so no plea of his was taken. Thus, the rule on jeopardy does not
apply.

III.

a. Yes.

A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal; while bigamy requires that the guilty
spouse contracted a subsequent valid marriage during the existence of a previous marriage.

Here, should the annulment case pertaining to the second marriage prosper on the grounds of duress and
intimidation relied upon by Husband, it is obvious that his act was involuntary and cannot be the basis of his
conviction for the crime of bigamy.

Thus the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the second marriage is determinative of petitioner's guilt
or innocence of the crime of bigamy.
b. No, my answer would not be the same.

A party who contracts a second marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. At the time that the
Husband contracted a second marriage during the existence of the first marriage, the crime of bigamy was already
committed.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if
there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still
subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated.

IV.

a. Preliminary investigation is conducted for the purpose of finding probable cause for the filing of information;
while preliminary examination is a proceeding for the purpose of determining probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest .

b. The following are the requisites for the discharge of accused to become a state witness

1) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
2) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said accused;
3) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
4) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
5) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

c. It should be filed in the place where the false evidence was submitted and NOT in the place where the false
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to. Hence, it should be filed in Manila, not Makati City.

V.

a. Both contentions must fail.

The subsequent search of the person arrested and of the premises within his immediate control is valid as an incident
to a lawful arrest. However, in this case, the search was made in an apartment 10 meters away from the person
arrested, hence, not within his immediate control. Consequently, the seizure of the items is not valid.

The “plain view doctrine” applies when the seizing officer has the right to be in the position to have the plain view
of the seized item and he inadvertently comes upon an incriminating object. Here, the officers, without authority
barged into the apartment with the intention of looking for evidence. Hence, the doctrine does not apply.

b. No.

The plea of Mr. XX pertained to the information charging murder qualified by cruelty and deliberately augmenting
the suffering of the victim, not one made in consideration of reward or promise. Thus, the qualifying circumstance
of reward or promise must not be considered by the court even the same has been proved during trial.

VI.

a. Demurrer to evidence in civil cases is distinguished from demurrer to evidence in criminal cases as follows:
As to the requirement of prior leave of court, In the first, prior leave of court is necessary; while in the second, leave
of court is not required.

As to the effect of denial of the demurrer, in the first, the defendant does not lose his right to present evidence; while
in the second, the accused loses his right to present evidence in case he does not file prior leave.

b. Pre-trial in civil cases is distinguished from pre-trial in criminal cases as follows:

As to purpose, pre-trial in civil cases looks into the possibility of obtaining amicable settlement between the parties;
while in criminal cases, only the civil liability of the accused can be the subject of amicable settlement, not his
criminal liability.

As to the requirement of signatures, pre-trial agreements or admissions made or entered into the pre-trial conference
in criminal cases must be in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused. There is no such provision in civil procedure to that effect.

c. Bail is neither matter of right nor a matter of discretion for Mr. XX. It must be noted that murder is punishable
by reclusion perpetua.

After conviction by the RTC for crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua, bail ceases to be a matter of right
because the conviction demonstrates that the evidence against the accused is strong.

Furthermore, bail is discretionary upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
reclusion perpetua. Since murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua, no discretion lies with the appellate court to
grant the same.

VII.

a. The videotape interview is admissible only against Boyong and not against Anong and Ilyong.

It is admissible against Boyong because the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him. But, without proof of conspiracy, it is not admissible against co-accused Anong and Ilyong
because the act and declaration of Fernandez are res inter alios as to his coaccused and, therefore, cannot affect
them. But if there is conspiracy and the same is established, each conspirator is privy to the acts of the others; the act
of one conspirator is the act of all the coconspirators.

b. Yes, I agree with the court.

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, none of the exceptions exclude the application of marital disqualification. The action is a civil case, not a
criminal case against the direct ascendant of the wife. Therefore, the wife cannot testify.

VIII

a. Item1 is a judicial admission while items, 2, 3 and 4 are not.

(1)The admission during the pre-trial is a judicial admission because the pre-trial stage is one of the stages in the
course of judicial proceedings were judicial admissions can be made.
(2) A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or (3) an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible
in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (4) An offer to pay or the payment of medical and
hospital expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the
injury. (Sec. 27, Rule 130, ROC)

b. No, the objection must not be sustained.

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. (Section
9, Rule 130, ROC). Here, Mr. DD alleged in his answer that the promissory note did not reflect the true amount of
the loan agreed upon with Mr. PP. Therefore, the testimony that only Php500,000 was loaned by Mr. PP is
admissible.

IX

a. The authenticity of a private document need not be proven in the following instances:

1.) Failure to specifically deny under oath the authenticity , genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document under oath

2.) Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion (Ancient
document)

3.) When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted

4.) When the document is not being offered as genuine

b. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge.

C. No.

The best evidence rule means that if the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself.

Hence, the best evidence rule does not apply and Exhibit B is admissible in evidence.

a. The photographic evidence must be authenticated by the testimony under oath of the photographer or of any one
who is familiar with the persons, things, places shown therein.

b. Evidence in civil cases and evidence in criminal case are distinguished as follows:
AS to the degree of proof required, preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases while proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases.

As to burden of proof, in civil cases, he who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proof; in criminal
cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

AS to the applicability of circumstantial evidence, the same does not apply in civil cases while it applies in criminal
cases for conviction of the accused.

c. Yes.

The witness cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination as it only applies when there is a possibility of
criminal prosecution. Here, the witness does not run the risk of being prosecuted for any crime whether or not he
paid the loan being asked.

a. No.

The court acted correctly in declaring Mr. Defendant in default for not filing the responsive pleading.i,e. the answer,
within the period required by the rules. The motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the
rules. Moreover, the pendency of the petition for certiorari does not stay the period within which to file an answer.

b. Yes.

The case may be dismissed on the ground of wrong remedy. Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari is
availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an executive order (EO) is
not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari is an incorrect remedy; instead a petition for
declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper
recourse to assail the validity of the subject EO.

XII

a. Yes, the application for the writ of preliminary attachment must be denied.

The grounds for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment under Sec. 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court are
exclusive. The fear that the debtor might abscond is not one of the grounds. Only if the debtor is about to depart
from the Philippines with intent to defraud the creditor can the writ be issued.

b. (i)The attachment can be issued ex parte without even acquiring jurisdiction. The order of the writ of attachment
can be issued even before the court has acquired jurisdiction, but (ii)to enforce the writ, summons must be served
ahead or simultaneously. Otherwise, the writ of attachment will not be valid. (Sec. 5, Rule 57, ROC)

c. Yes, the court acted committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction.

The reason is that the private interests of business owners are not sufficient basis to enjoin governmental functions.
Preliminary Injunction requires that the plaintiff must clearly show the existence of a right sought to be protected
and the injunction is directed against the violation of the said right. If there is no right which ought to be protected,
there could be no injunction.

XIII.

a. None.
Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court gives the exclusive list of proper subject matter for Declaratory Relief.

(1) In case of ambiguity of the decision, a party may file a motion for a clarificatory judgment; (2) declaratory relief
is not available for the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship (3) quo warranto thru
COMELEC?

b. I will convert the action for damages which is an action in personam to an action quasi in rem by looking for any
property of the defendant Ronaldo and have it attached under Rule 57 [i], the last ground for attachment. Now, my
action is converted to quasi in rem. I can now file a motion for service of summons by publication.

c. No, the venue is not proper. The action for damages which is personal action must be filed by Juan in Quezon
City, the place of his residence or Manila, the place of defendant Pedro’ residence.

The Rules provide that personal actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.

Here, San Fernando is neither of the plaintiff nor defendant’s residence. Hence, the venue is improperly laid.