My Midterm Exam Questions in Remedial Law Review

I. After a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses pleaded in the answer of II, the court found that they were duly proven.

Q1. What is the effect of the finding of the court that the affirmative defenses were duly established on the (a) Complaint of HH; and (b) the Counterclaim of II pleaded in his answer?

Q2. What defenses and objections are not deemed waived or abandoned although they are not pleaded as grounds of a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) or as affirmative defenses in the answer?

II. Though not summoned, but after learning that DV filed a complaint against him, EL filed a motion that he be granted a 30-day period within which to file his answer. Notwithstanding his receipt of the ordfer granting his motion, EL did not file his answer within the said period. In his opposition to the motion to declare him in default which DV filed after the expiration of the said period, EL contended that he could not be defaulted because he was not summoned.

Q1. Was the order of the court sustaining the contention of EL correct?

Q2. What are the effects of the failure of a party to appear personally or through his authorized representative during a pre-trial about which he was notified?

III. In support to his answer, ZZ testified on 02 January 2005, substantially as follows: "(a) I bought the land in question from XX, the father of the plaintiff YY; (b) The sale is evidenced by this deed of sale (Exh. 1)". Exh. 1 is dated 02 January 1975. The only signature on Exh. 1 is that over the typewritten name XX at the end of Exh. 1. ZZ offered in evidence Exh. 1 as follows: "I offer in evidence Exh. 1." YY objected to the admission of Exh. 1 on the grounds that (a) Exh. 1 was not authenticated; and (b) the purpose of the offer was not specified.

Q1. What should be the correct ruling of the court on the objection?

Q2. What is an independently relevant statement?

IV. Pursuant to their conspiracy, TT, VV and WW killed SS on 02 January 2005. During their trial for murder for the death of SS, the prosecution witness RR testified that on 31 December 2004, he heard TT, VV and WW discuss how they would kill SS. The next prosecution witness QQ testified that on 01 January 2005, TT told him that he (TT), VV and WW would kill SS on 02 January 2005.

Q1. Against whom may the statement of TT given to QQ as narrated by the latter in court be admissible?

Q2. What is the marital disqualification rule?

V. In People vs. FF, the prosecution offered the testimony of HH to prove that GG, the victim of the homicide, give a dying declaration against FF. The court denied the motion of FF to strike off the record the testimony of HH. The reason for the motion was that as FF correctly contended, there is no evidence that GG was conscious of his impending death when he gave his statement to HH. The court, evaluating the evidence, following the conclusion of the trial, found that the motion of FF was correct. Hence, it considered the testimony of HH no longer as proof of a dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.

Q1. Was the action of the court correct?

Q2. What is the concept of the "tender of excluded evidence" rule?

VI. The evidence against the accused II for homicide for the death of JJ, showed that: Before his arrest, II told KK, a police officer that he (II) killed JJ; he voluntarily signed his statement (Exh. A) that he killed JJ. II waived the presentation of his evidence.

Q1. Should the court convict or acquit II?

Q2. In what cases does the presumption that "evidence willfully suppressed is adverse if produced," not arise?


VII. The court convicted OO for the crime of slight physical injuries to which he offered to plead guilty during his arraignment on 05 February 2003 for the offense of frustrated homicide. The offended party NN did no accept the offer of OO because, not having been notified of the arraignment, he did not appear therefor. After OO served his sentence, the public prosecutor refiled the same frustrated homicide case against OO. In his Motion to Quash (MTQ) the new case, OO contended that is is barred by double jeopardy as his conviction of slight physical injuries amounted to his conviction of frustrated homicide.

Q1. What should be the correct ruling of the court on the MTQ?

Q2. In what case may an amendment to a complaint or information be with prior leave of court although the accused has not yet been arraigned?

VIII. The court discharged the accused CC to become a state witness against his co-accused DD and EE. The testimony of CC when he testified as a prosecution witness was not in accordance with his sworn statement which was the basis of his discharge. Such testimony was favorable to DD and EE.

Q1. What is the effect of CC's failure to testify in accordance with his sworn statement on his acquittal from his discharge?

Q2. What are the modes of appeal in criminal cases?

IX. In Criminal Case No. 7890 (Peo. vs. SS), the accused SS was charged with theft of the ring of TT. After SS was acquitted, on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable dount. TT filed Civil Case No. 6780 - an action to recover damages arising from the theft of the ring - TT reserved before the start of the trial in Criminal Case No. 7890 the institution of this action.

Q1. What should the correct resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (MTD) Civil Case No. 6780, SS contending therein that his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 7890 amounts to a lack of a cause of action of TT and hence bars Civil Case No. 6780?

Q2. When is an order quashing an information or complaint a bar to the prosecution for the same offnse that was charged in the quashed complaint or information?

X. After the bond which the accused UU filed was approved by the court, he pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, UU filed a motion that the prosecution be ordered to conduct a preliminary investigation which it omitted to conduct before it filed the informatiion, the penalty for the offense charged therein being four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional.

Q1. Should the prosecution object to the motion of UU, what should be the correct ground thereof, if any?

Q2. At what stage of the proceeding may an accused - appellant file in the Court of Appeals (CA) a motion for new trial and what should be the ground thereof?

Statement on the War in Gaza by the Asian Students' Association (ASA)

Uphold Palestinian People's Lives and Rights

Stop the Air Attacks! Stop the Massacre! Stop the Invasion!

We denounce in the strongest terms possible the relentless air raids of the Israeli Occupation Forces on the Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip.

The aerial attacks have caused the lives of more than 300 people as the wounded are pegged at 700 and counting. The bombings, which were allegedly aimed at Hamas-owned and -run infrastructure, have left homes, hospitals and schools like the Gaza University in ruin.

Added to these attacks are equally brutal strictures made on the entry of food and medical supplies into the Palestinian territory. Israeli tanks are already at the border and raring to go for a land invasion.

Such a display of rabid force is as condemnable. The Israeli Occupation Forces have no disregard for the lives of the people of Palestine as they have escalated their attacks on Gaza.

What little land, sovereignty and dignity left for the people of Gaza is continually and brazenly taken away by the Israeli Occupation Forces. The six-month old ceasefire itself has been violated first and foremost by the Israeli Occupation Forces. On December 27, they launched the Operation Cast Lead which brought in the military offensives on the Palestinian people.

We are seeing how the Gaza Strip is swiftly being turned into land of destitution. And this is what many global leaders say as the expression of democracy.

Democracy is not when institutions like hospitals are torn down and medical care is deprived of those in need. Democracy is not when universities and schools of learning are targeted. Democracy is not when homes of countless civilians are bombed and ravaged.

The Geneva Conventions have been gravely violated as countless lives and futures are destroyed.

The Israeli attack on the people of Palestine can only mirror what the U.S. government has done on Iraq and Afghanistan. Its continued presence in the Middle East as masked under the "war on terror" mantra is nothing but what its Israeli ally does – to invade, to conquer, to terrorize.

There is expressed discomfort over the silence of the Obama presidency when the previous Bush administration has continually pledged political and military support to the Israeli Occupation Forces for the longest time.

We shun the various governments who put the blame on Hamas instead of calling for the immediate halt of the atrocities.

The Palestinian people are calling for a halt. The Israeli people themselves are calling for a halt. We in the international community are calling for a halt.

We call on the Israeli government to immediately withdraw their military attacks on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

The United Nations should step in to protect the people of Palestine, provide and allow immediate medical and humanitarian relief. It should likewise investigate these absurd and unjustified attacks on human lives in the Gaza Strip and punish those who have committed them.

We can only resolve the armed conflict between Palestine and Israel when we address the genuine calls for respect of sovereignty and self-determination.

We in the ASA call on all our member organizations and networks to lead and support the campaign to stop the Israel-led atrocities in the Gaza Strip and support the Palestinian people in their call for sovereignty and self-determination.