I

(10 points)

The Sangguniang Bayan of Mataas na Puno enacted a local

ordinance for the expropriation of a 1000 square meter lot owned by
Northside Bible School, a private institution, for the erection of a
monument in favor of their deceased mayor who died from COVID-
19. In exchange for the expropriated property, the LGU will waive its
right over a 2000 square meter property at the outskirts of the town.

Is the expropriation by the LGU of Mataas na Puno valid?

ANSWER:
No. the Expropriation is not valid.
The law provided requisites for an expropriation to be valid.
Frist, the property taken must be private property. Second, there
must be genuine necessity to take the private property. Third, taking
must be for public use. Fourth, there must be payment of just
compensation. And fifth, the taking must comply with due process of
law.
In relation with the case, the taking of the 1000 square meter lot
does not comply with some of the requisites provided by law. First,
the erection of a monument in favor of the deceased mayor who died
from COVID-19 is not a genuine necessity. Second, although the term
public use have evolved over time which became synonymous with
public interest, public benefit, or public convenience, the erection of
the monument does not fall under the term “for public use”. And
third, the Northside Bible School was not justly compensated. The
waiving of right over a 2000 square meter property at the outskirts of
the town by the LGU cannot be tantamount to just compensation. For
Northside Bible School to be justly compensated, the LGU should
provide to the latter the full and fair equivalent of the property to be
taken.

II
(10 points)

Berto, accused for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act

9165, filed a plea bargaining proposal thru his counsel. Berto
proposed to plead guilty to violation of Section 12, which carries with

1
it a penalty below six years. The plea bargaining proposal was filed
after the prosecution has rested its case. During the hearing of the
plea bargaining proposal, the prosecutor opposed the plea bargaining
proposal, reasoning that there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt
of the accused. After the hearing, the Regional Trial Court granted
the plea bargaining proposal, reasoning that the court can exercise its
discretion to grant or deny a plea bargaining proposal.

The prosecution filed a special civil action for certiorari against

the RTC, alleging the presence of grave abuse of discretion, before the
appellate court. Will the special civil action for certiorari apply under
the foregoing circumstances? Decide with reasons.

ANSWER:
No, the special civil action for certiorari will not apply.
It is a well settled rule that before a certiorari may be availed of,
the petitioner must file a motion for the reconsideration by the lower
court of the act or order complained of. The purpose of this
requirement is to enable the lower court to pass upon and correct its
mistakes without the intervention of the higher court.
In relation with the case, what the prosecution should have
done was to file first a Motion for Reconsideration. Instead, it
immediately filed a special civil action for certiorari.