V.

[T] Mayor Yorme of the City of Manila took custody of 100 women of ill repute
who worked in the busy bars of Malate area.

[R] Forcing the 100 women of ill repute to transfer residence is a violation of a
constitutional Right to Domain.

[A] The mayor has no power to deport any unwanted person from his
jurisdiction

[C] Women are not chattels but Filipino citizens who had fundamental right not
to be forced to change their place of residence.

a. Petition for Habeas Corpus is known as the "great and efficacious writ in all
manner of illegal confinement. It is a summons with the force of a court order;
it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official, for example) and demands
that a prisoner be brought before the court, and that the custodian present
proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has
lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond their
authority, then the prisoner must be released.

b. The act of Mayor Yorme is unconstitutional. In the case of Villavicencio vs.

Lukban G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919, the Supreme Court said that the
women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right
not to be forced to change their place of residence. This case justifies one of the
basic rights of citizen, the right of domain. In the instant case the act of the
mayor in sending the 100 women of ill repute for rehabilitation to Davao is a
violation of their rights to change residence. The act is against their will even if
assuming they will benefit from the said action of the mayor.

VI.

[T] President Doging appointed Atty. Monson to the position of Chairman of the
Commission on Election.
 [R] Atty.Monson is disqualified for the position because he fails to meet the
constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for
atleast 10 years.

[A] Atty. Monson said that he had been a lawyer since the 1970’s and he has
shown evidence that he taught law in many prestigious law schools teaching
various subjects including Election Law.

[C] There seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law

as a legal qualification to an appointive office”, determined that the practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court and pursuant thereto, Atty.
Monson is qualified for appointment as COMELEC Chair.

a. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind
of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill.

b. Yes, Atty. Monson is qualified to be appointed as Chairman of the Commission

on Election. In the case of Renato Cayetano vs. Christian Monsod et.al. G.R. No.
100113 September 3, 1991, the Court thru Justice Paras, stated that there
“seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal
qualification to an appointive office”, determined that the practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases in court and pursuant thereto, found that
Monsod was qualified for appointment as COMELEC Chair.

In the instant case, Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the
term ‘practice of law’, particularly the modern concept of law practice, and
taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monson’s past work experiences as professor in various law
schools – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement – that he has
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

VII.
[T] A group of youth leaders has a cause of grievance with the newly elected-
mayor. They plan to hold a rally on the streets in front of the City on a Monday
morning.

[R] Atty.Monson is disqualified for the position because he fails to meet the
constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for
atleast 10 years.

[A] Upon application of a permit to rally, the Mayors office reschedule the rally
to Thursday afternoon, in an open space within the grounds of the City Hall.

[C] The youth leaders then filed an urgent action of mandamus claiming that
the act of the Mayor’s Office is a blatant disregard of their freedom of
expression and peaceful assembly.

a) Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy granted by courts of appellate

jurisdiction directed to some corporation, officer, or inferior court, requiring
the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results
from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from
operation of some law. It has been the practice of any court under any
sovereignty to grant this extraordinary writ of mandamus if "there is another
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law."

b) Yes, the act of the Mayor’s Office is constitutional. The change of schedule and
venue is done to avoid untoward traffic congestion on a Monday morning
brought about by the rally. The act of the Mayor is a clear intention to
maintain public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals to
ensure proper procedure in holding the rally.

c) The act of the mayor in out rightly denying permit to rally by the said group is
unconstitutional. Batas Pambansa No. 880, "The Public Assembly Act of 1985,
Sec. 13 paragraph (b) on the Prohibited Acts provides that the (b) Arbitrary
and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of the provisions
of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his behalf;
 Freedom of speech cannot be suppressed, but if ever the streets are to be
used for the exercise of this right, the State can only regulate as to time and
place. “In other words, there is supposed to be a balance between the rights
of those who traverse the streets and the rights of the ralliers. The application
for a permit to rally should not be denied, but there should only be regulation
on time and place.

VIII.

[T] One day Maricar requested Ned, her husband, to send money to her parents
through Palawan Pawnshop.

[R] While walking in the pawnshop, Ned happened to passed by the local
cockpit. So sure that his money would double or triple he decided to gamble
the money.

[A] Ned did not won and lost all his money. When he went home he lied to
Maricar but caught on his own lie, a fight ensued.

[C] Ned tired and was asleep, while sleeping Maricar shoot Ned three times at
the head. Maricar was charged with rape.

a) Elements of Self-Defense as Justifying Circumstance:

(a) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or

imminent threat to the life and limb of the accused claiming self-defense;

(b) there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or

repel the unlawful aggression; and

(c) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused
claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming
self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s
aggression.
b) In criminal and family law, the novel concept of Battered Woman Syndrome
(BWS) vis-à-vis self-defense has been a controversial topic. Republic Act No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
(“VAWC”) puts into law this concept and states:

SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors

who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do
not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering
from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the
courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.

Hence, under Philippine laws, even if the elements of self-defense are not
present, a woman suffering from BWS shall not be criminally and civilly liable.

c) Yes, Maricar is liable of the crime of parricide. The crime of parricide has the
following elements:

a) That a person is killed

b)That the deceased is killed by the accused
c) That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.”

In the present case all the elements constituting the crime of parricide is present.

IX.

[T] Sherelyn was fired by a prestigious school in Quezon City after having an illicit
relationship with one of her students, Robert.
 [R] Robert said that he failed in one of the exam given by Sherelyn and then she
gave him one-on-one tutoring session.

[A] After the tutoring sessions they would go on dates. Sherelyn told her that if
she continue to go on dating he will have good marks.

[C] Sherelyn claims that her dismissal is illegal and no grounds for her
termination.

a) Stare decisis is a Latin term. It means 'to stand by things decided.' Stare
decisis is a doctrine used in all court cases and with all legal issues. A doctrine is
simply a principle, or an instruction, but it's not necessarily a rule that cannot ever
be broken. The doctrine of stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar
issues to guide their decisions. The past decisions are known as precedent.
Precedent is a legal principle or rule that is created by a court decision. This
decision becomes an example, or authority, for judges deciding similar issues
later.

b) The doctrine of stare decisis is applicable in this case wherein the courts takes
note of its previous ruling of similar facts and issues. The past decision becomes
precedent. The court looks into similar issues wherein dismissal is valid on the
ground of illicit relationship as provided for by the school as an institution who
creates its own policies not contrary to state policies.

c) No, Sherelyn was not illegally dismissed. Her dismissal is valid on the grounds of
disgraceful and immoral conduct. As a teacher she must live up to the high moral
standards required of his position." In other words, it asserts that its purpose in
dismissing the petitioner was to preserve the respect of the community towards
the teachers and to strengthen the educational system. As a teacher, petitioner
serves as an example to his pupils, especially during their formative years and
stands in loco parentis to them. To stress their importance in our society, teachers
are given substitute and special parental authority under our laws.
 X.

[T] A petition for certiorari was filed by a group of minors represented by their
parents against the Secretary of Environment, claiming that the Secretary
committed grave abuse of discretion when it entered into timber license
agreement with various companies allowing the cutting of hundreds of trees.

[R] The Secretary moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioners
has no locus standi and no judicial capacity and granting the reliefs prayed for
would result in impairment of existing contracts.

[A] The petitioner avers that they represent their generation and generations
yet not born.

[C] Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not the Secretary of Environment committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

The Secretary of Environment moves for the dismissal on the two grounds
that petitioner has no locus standi and no judicial capacity and granting the
reliefs prayed for would result in impairment of existing contracts. The
petitioners failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right
involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete
with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data.

With respect to the Timber License Agreement, even if it is to be assumed

that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an
executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing
timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating
cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a
violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and
purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police
power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a
 balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the
general welfare.
(Juan Antonio et.al-Petitioners vs. The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, In
His Capacity as Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) et.al-Respondents, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1990)

XI.

[T] Following a Speech delivered by President saying that all minors will be
arrested for violating curfew.

[R] The parents of the arresting minors complained saying that the barangay
did not issue the necessary written and published ordinance.

[A] Barangay Agad-Agad immediately arrested all minors who violated the
curfew.

[C] The barangay argued that the word of the President is already the law and
must be followed and implemented immediately.

a) In legal terms, the argument is that the juvenile curfew statute is

"unconstitutionally vague". A juvenile curfew law that does not provide a
"parental permission" exception constitutes unwarranted government
interference with parents' rights to control the upbringing of their children.
A juvenile curfew is unconstitutional in its enforcement because police officers
are targeting juveniles based on race.
A juvenile curfew law amounts to the unlawful imposition of martial law,
and violates constitutional rights to free interstate travel.

b) The contentions of Barangay Agad-Agad is non-tenable. It violates the

constitutional rights of every to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The mere statement of the
President is not in effect a law and can never be implemented as if it was a law.
Barangay Agad-Agad must enforce only upon a lawful order enshrined under a
particular law.