1. What is a special proceeding? How does it differ from an ordinary civil case?

Special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a

status, a right or a particular act. It has one definite party, but no definite
party. In special proceedings, it does not pray for affirmative relief for
injury arising from a party’s wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of
action that can be enforced against any person. On the other hand, an
ordinary civil case is one which a party sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. It is
necessarily has definite adverse parties who are either plaintiff or
defendant.
2. Juan raped Petra. After 6 hours, he was arrested by policemen accompanied by
the mayor of their town. Subsequently, Juan was charge in court for rape. Before
arraignment, Juan through his lawyer, moved for the declaration of his arrest
illegal. It is contended by the prosecution that the arrest of the accused was valid
because it was done in accordance with the doctrine of hot pursuit. As judge
decide the motion.
The motion should be denied. Juan’s arrest falls under the valid
warrantless arrest. Under the law, in order for a hot pursuit arrest to be
considered valid, there must be a ‘large measure of immediacy” from the
time the offense was committed and the time when the suspect is taken
into police custody. In the given case, considering the 6-hours period
before the arrest, it shows that the arrest was made almost immediately as
soon after the crime has just been committed and based on the facts and
circumstances presented to policemen there is a probable cause to believe
that indeed Juan committed the crime. Thus, the effected hot pursuit
arrest was within the bounds of law and it is valid.
3. Mr. A charged with homicide. The evidence of guilt against him is strong. So, the
prosecution did not recommend bail. On the other hand, Mr. B was charged with
murder but the evidence of guilt against him was not strong. The prosecution
did not recommend bail. As lawyer for both accused, what will you do?

As lawyer of both accused, I would still file a proper application for

admission to bail to the court having custody of them. The general rule is
that prior to conviction by the RTC of criminal offense, an accused is
entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, exceptions thereto being
the instances where the accused is charged of an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is
strong.
In the given case, Mr. A is cannot be denied of bail although the crime he
committed was punishable by a maximum penalty of 20 years
notwithstanding the evidence of guilt against him is strong because bail is
then a matter of right . While in Mr. B, he committed a non-bailable
offense yet the evidence of guilt against him was not so strong, he may
still apply for bail. The grant of bail upon him becomes a matter of judicial
discretion upon filing a petition for bail. The judge will ascertain or
judicially determine whether he will be further entitled to bail considering
the imposed penalty.
4. Assistant Prosecutor Pedro filed information for murder against B in court. He
did not recommend bail because the evidence of guilt was very strong. His
contention appears to be supported with the evidence on record. The court acted
on the information filed with it by issuing a warrant of arrest of the accused. It
appears that the information does not bear the approval of the City Prosecutor.
As lawyer of Pedro, what will you do? Why?

As Pedro’s lawyer I would advise him to file a motion to amend the

information and to admit attached information so that the defect in the
information could have been cured before the arraignment of the
accused. The law provides that “no complaint or information may filed
or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written
authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief
prosecutor or the ombudsman or his deputy.”Hence, the information
filed but bearing no approval of the City Prosecutor has no legal
standing and a court has no jurisdiction to try the accused on the basis
thereof.

5. Petra, admittedly a beautiful woman, was registered as male instead of female.

She sought your assistance as she could not take the bar examination because
of her situation. As lawyer, what will you do?
As Petra’s lawyer, I would advise her to file a petition for change of entry
of sex with the LCR pursuant to R.A.No.9048. Under R.A.No.9048, the
entry of sex may be changed where it is patently clear that there was a
mistake in the entry. Thus, in order to avoid confusion as to the sex of
Petra, an administrative petition for change of entry of sex may be availed
of.
6. What is a preliminary investigation, and what its purpose? May it be
enjoined? Why?
a. It is an INQUIRY or proceeding to determine whether there is
SUFFICIENT GROUND to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and the respondent is PROBABLY guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial. The purposes of preliminary investigation are to
secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution,
to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expense and anxiety of public trial, and also to protect the state
from useless and expensive trials.

7. A search warrant was issued by the RTC directing the PNP to search the house
of B located along San Nicolas St,, Surigao City, and to seize and all contraband
that may be found therein. It appeared that B has long been suspected of keeping
drugs and firearms in his house. All the witnesses were examined under oath by
the judge, and who all affirmed and confirmed that the house of B is along San
Nicolas St.The city policemen complied. Indeed drugs were seized. As counsel of
B, what will you do to help B? Why?

As counsel of B, I will assail the legality of the search warrant. Under the
law, it does not suffice, for a search warrant to de deemed valid, that is
based on probable cause, personally determined by complainant and the
witness he may produce; it is essential, too, that is particularly described
 the place to be searched. In the given case, the search warrant merely
indicated the address of the compound. The description of the place to be
searched is too general and does not pinpoint the specific house of the
private respondent. Thus, the inadequacy of the description of the
residence sought to be searched has characterized the question search
warrant as a general warrant which violative of the constitutional
requirement.

8. The heir is the sole and only heir of his deceased parents. He wants to transfer to
his name all the titles and tax declarations from his parents to his name. What
will you do as his lawyer?

As a lawyer I will advise the heir to execute an “Affidavit of Self Adjudication.”

Being the sole heir who wishes to adjudicate the entire estate to him, filing the
affidavit at the Register of Deeds of the province or territory where the decedent
resided.