D E A N S A L VA D O R N .

M O YA I I
BSC, Ll.B., Ll.M., DCL

Founding Dean, Tomas Claudio Colleges, College of Law, Morong, Rizal

Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
Bar Reviewer [Legal EDGE Review Center, Villasis Law Center, Powerhaus Review Center, Recoletos
Law Center, Magnificus Juris Reviews and Seminars Inc., UP Law Center, University of Cebu, Albano
Review Center, PUP Bar Review Center, University of San Jose Recoletos]
Author [The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases (2017); The Revised Guidelines on
Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in Relation to The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (2018); Bar
Notes and Cases in Remedial Law (2018); Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law, 2018 & 2019; Notes
and Cases in Remedial Law (Volumes I-IV), 2019; Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure (Volumes I, II &
IV), 2020; Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volume IV (Evidence), 2020; Notes and Cases in Civil
Procedure (Volume III), 2021; Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law (Volumes I-IV), 2021]
Professor in Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Spec. Pro., Remedial Law Review I & II,
and Criminal Law [TCC-COL, TSU-SOL, NEU-COL, SSCR-COL, UE-COL, BulSU-COL, UP-COL, PUP-COL,
DLSU-SOL; BU-COL; UST-FCL]
 2023 REMEDIAL LAW BAR
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS
REMEDIAL LAW
Q.1
Beatrice filed an action for recovery of the sum of ₱2.5 million against Tess in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Taguig City. Attached to the complaint was the promissory note, the check issued
by Rafaelle Beatrice to Tess covering said amount, and a copy of the withdrawal slip of Tess from
Banco de Otso- Rockwell Branch, Makati City. In her answer, Tess raised as her compulsory
counterclaim the recovery of her attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱500,000 arising from the case,
and a permissive counterclaim against Rafaelle Beatrice for rescission of contract of sale involving
an Arturo Luz painting valued at ₱2 million. Tess paid the filing fees of her permissive
counterclaim. Are the counterclaims within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City?
Discuss your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes. The compulsory counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City
while the permissive counterclaim is not.

Under Rule 6, Sec.7, a compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief that
a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of,
or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of plaintiff’s complaint. An original action filed before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount involved. On the other hand, a permissive
counterclaim is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case.
This claim must be filed with the Court having jurisdiction over the amount involved. (PNTC
Colleges vs. Time Realty, G.R. No. 219698, 27 September 2021)(Second Division)
[Hernando, J.] (Moya, II, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, p. 22, 2023 Ed.)[Under Rule
6]
The counterclaim in the amount of P500,000.00 arises out of the claim existing
in court while the counterclaim of P2 million does not. Thus, compulsory
counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the amount
while the permissive counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Q.2
Trinca borrowed ₱1.5 million from Ida. Trinca executed a
promissory note promising to pay Ida in three equal monthly
installments. When Trinca failed to pay her obligation, Ida filed
an action for recovery of a sum of money against her in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City. The case was raffled to
Judge Risa, who upon reading the complaint, noticed that Trinca
and Ida were neighbors in Barangay 189 in Pasay City and that
there was no prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation.
Hence, Judge Risa dismissed the case motu proprio for failure to
comply with a condition precedent. Was the dismissal by Judge
Risa proper? Explain your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

Prior recourse to barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional requirement that non-compliance

therewith would deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the
person of the defendant. Where, however, the fact of non-compliance with and non-observance
of such procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking
cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is proper. In this case, the court acquired
jurisdiction notwithstanding the absence of barangay conciliation. The dismissal would be
proper if Trinca raised as an affirmative defense the failure to comply with a condition
precedent. (Ngo vs. Gabelo et al., G.R. No. 207707, August 24, 2020)(Second Division)
[Hernando, J.] (Moya, II, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, pp. 277-278, 2023 Ed.)[under
Rule 70]
Q.3
Pauline and Regine had a dispute over a 500-square meter parcel of land that they inherited
from their deceased parents, Milcah and James. During the barangay conciliation proceedings,
both Pauline and Regine agreed to partition the lot in equal shares. As a result, the title to the
property was cancelled and new titles were issued in favor of Pauline and Regine as to their
respective lots. However, Regine discovered that the lot covered by her title was on the eastern
portion rather than the northern portion, contrary to their agreement. Hence, Regine filed a
“Petition for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and Barangay Partition, with Prayer
for Judicial Partition of the Intestate Estate of the Spouses Milcah and James” against Pauline.
After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Regine. Pauline then consulted a newly-minted
lawyer, Atty. Terry, who explained to her that there was a misjoinder of causes of action when
Regine included both annulment of TCT and the barangay partition, as well as judicial partition in
the petition. Hence, the trial court erred when it ruled on both causes of action instead of
dismissing the petition of Regine. Is Atty. Terry correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Atty. Terry is correct that there was misjoinder of causes of action however Atty. Terry is
incorrect that the trial court should have dismissed the petition of Regine. Under Section 6,
Rule 2 of the Rules explicitly states that a misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action and that a misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the
initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (Unicapital, Inc. vs.
Consing, Jr., 705 SCRA 511, 11 September 2013)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]
(Moya, p. 169, Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Syllabus Based, 2021 Ed.]

In this case, there was no motion of the party nor iniative from the court to severe the
misjoined causes of action thus there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication on both
causes of action.
Q.4
PROBLEM
Hannah Corporation (HC) is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Kapitolyo, Pasig City. Saint
Aaron School (SAS), occupied said lot by mere tolerance since 1992 until December 2018. HC
informed SAS that beginning January 1, 2019, it will be charging ₱100,000 per month for the use and
occupation of the property. SAS refused to pay the monthly rentals prompting HC to issue a demand
letter for the payment of the amount of ₱4.8 million, representing the unpaid rentals from January 2019
to December 2022. SAS failed to heed the demand of HC. Hence, HC, which holds business in Quezon
City, filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against SAS in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Quezon City. SAS filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping since HC Had also
filed an ejectment case against it before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. Should the RTC
grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping? Explain your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. HC did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the collection case while the
ejectment case is pending. The determinative factor in the violations of the rule against
forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.

In the instant case, the second and third elements of forum shopping and litis pendentia are
lacking. Thus, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for
collection of sum of money and an ejectment case, and that any judgment rendered in one of
these actions would not amount to res judicata in the other action. Any judgment rendered in
the ejectment case will not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money
for unpaid rent of the same property and vice versa. Thus, no violation of the forum shopping
rule was committed. (Asis et al. vs. Heirs of Calignawan et al., G.R. No. 242127, 15
September 2021)(SecondDivision)[Hernando,J.] (Moya,II,Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial
Law, pp. 25-26, 2023 Ed.)[Section 5, Rule 7]
Q.5
PROBLEM
Anjan and Pam were married in 1996. However, in November 2003, Pam left for the United States
(US) due to her alleged irreconcilable differences with Anjan. In 2020, Anjan filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Pam before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City,
where he resides. Subsequently, Anjan filed a motion for issuance of summons by publication because
Pamal ready resided abroad. The RTC issued an Order dated August 27, 2020 granting the motion and
directed the summons to be served upon Pam by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the US. However, the copies of the order, summons, and complaint were not served at her last known
address. Meanwhile, no answer was filed by Pam. Thus, the RTC rendered a decision granting the
petition, which eventually became final and executory. Was the August 27, 2020 Order of the RTC
proper? Explain your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. If the defendant is out of the country like Pam, summons should be served through
substituted service under Section 6, extraterritorial service under Section 17, or under Section 18 when
residents are temporarily out of the Philippines, Rule 14 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Sabado vs. Sabado, G.R. no. 214720, 12 May 2021) (Third Division)[Hernando, J.]. [Moya, II,
Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, p. 46, 2023 Ed.) Under Rule 14, Sec. 17, when the defendant
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, service may, by leave
of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. In this case, there was no service
made to the last known address of Pam, thus the Order dated August 27, 2020 directing publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the US is improper.
 Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or
quasi in rem but not if an action is in personam. (Gesolgon, et al. vs. Cyberone Ph.,
Inc., et al., G.R. No. 210741, October 14, 2020) (Second Division)[Hernando, J.]
[Moya, II, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, pp. 45, 2023 Ed.)[Under Rule 7]
Q.6
PROBLEM
Clarisse and Myra offered Gaita a job as a domestic helper in Indonesia. Clarisse gave Gaita her plane ticket
and luggage to bring on her trip. Upon reaching the air port of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, she was apprehended by
the police for allegedly carrying two kilograms of heroin inside her luggage. She was then charged before the
Indonesian courts with drug trafficking, and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad.
Meanwhile, in the Philippines, Clarisse and Myra were arrested and charged with Qualified Trafficking of
Persons, Illegal Recruitment, and Estafa in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. Gaita was given an
indefinite reprieve by the Indonesian Government to give her the opportunity to testify in the case against
Clarisse and Myra. Hence, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed a motion to take the testimony of Gaita upon written interrogatories under Rule 23 (Deposition Pending
Action) of the Rules of Court. The RTC granted the motion of the OSG. Was the action of the RTC proper?
Discuss your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes. Nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition of a
prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by the final judgment
and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of such
witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take testimony of a witness who is unable
to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country.

Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although
the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, it may be applied
suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. Although the
deposition is in writing, the trial court judge can still carefully perceive the reaction and
deportment of Gaita as she answers each question propounded to her both by the prosecution
and the defense.
 It must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of the recognized exceptions to
the right to confrontation. In this, it will not be amiss to state that Gaita’s deposition
through written interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that
Gaita will be answering the written interrogatories under the consciousness of an
impending death - or execution by a firing squad to be exact. People vs. Sergio and
Lacanilao (G.R. No. 24053, 9 October 2019) (Third Division) [Hernando, J.] (Moya,
II, pp. 68-70, Pre Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, 2023 Ed.)
Q.7
PROBLEM
Kyna, a resident of Antipolo City, is the registered owner of a house and lot located in Tondo, Manila with an assessed value of

₱900,000. Kyna claimed that she allowed Sarah, her sister-in-law, to stay in the house out of compassion. Years later, Kyna

decided to distribute the property to her children, so she demanded that Sarah vacate the premises. However, Sarah ignored the

demand. She even filed a case against Kyna questioning her ownership of the property and contending that she obtained title

over the property through fraud, deceit, and falsification. On August 23, 2023, Kyna sent a formal demand letter to Sarah to

vacate the property, but this remained unheeded. Kyna wants to commence an action against Sarah no later than May 16, 2024,

before Kyna leaves and temporarily stays in the United States. If you are the counsel of Kyna, what action will you file,

where, and in what court? Explain briefly.

 SUGGESTED ANSWER

I will file an action for Unlawful Detainer before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila. An ejectment case, based on the allegation of possession by
tolerance, falls under the category of unlawful detainer. Where the plaintiff
allows the defendant to use his/her pro­perty by tolerance without any
contract, the defendant is ne­ces­sarily bound by an implied promise that
he/she will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful de­tainer
will lie. (Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Sps. Barbarona, G.R. No.
195814, 4 April 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. (Moya, II pp. 621-622,
Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law Syllabus Based, Vo. 1, Part II, 2021 Ed.)
Q.8
In 2014, Karina filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for
change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court to change her first
name, include her middle name, and correct the spelling of her surname,
from “Karen Lapus”, as stated in her birth certificate, to “Karina Garcia
Lapuz”. According to Karina, she has been using the name “Karina
Garcia Lapuz” since childhood. Will the petition of Karina prosper?
Explain your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. With of enactment of R.A. 9048, which amended Articles 376 and 412
of the Civil Code it vested primary jurisdiction over the correction of certain
clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name with the civil
registrar. In 2012, R.A. 10172 expanded the coverage of the summary
administrative procedure provided under R.A. 9048 to include clerical
corrections in the day and/or month in the date of birth, or in the sex of
the person, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
typographical error or mistake in the entry.
 Presently therefore, when an entry falls within the coverage of R.A. 9048 as
amended by R.A. 10172, a person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies
under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the petition in the administrative proceedings is
first filed and later denied. (Bartolome v. Republic, G.R. No. 243288, August 28,
2019, p. 8; see also Republic v. Gallo, supra note 43, at 595 and Republic v. Sali, 808
Phil. 343, 349-350 (2017); (Santos vs. Republic et al.,) Failure to comply with the
administrative procedure generally renders the petition dismissible for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and for failure to comply with the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. (Moya II, pp. 745-746, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, 2023 Ed.)
Q.9
PROBLEM
William and several other persons were charged with violation of the Anti- Hazing Act.
During their arraignment, William and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge that
they unlawfully subjected Carding Cruz to hazing. The information was later amended by
adding the suffix “III” to the name “Carding Cruz”. Trial ensued without the accused
having been re-arraigned on the amended information. After the accused were convicted
by the trial court, William appealed contending that this right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation agains1qt him was violated when he was not re-arraigned
after the amendment of the information. Is William correct? Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. William is not correct. Any amendment to an information which only states with
precision something which has already been included in the original information, and
therefore, adds nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only a “formal
amendment” that can be made at any time. It does not alter the nature of the crime, affect the
essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an opportunity to meet the new
accusation. (Moya II pp. 60-61, Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law Syllabus Based, Vol III,
2021 Ed.

Further, Second arraignment is not required for a formal amendment. This is so because
a formal amendment does not charge a new offense, alter the prosecution’s theory, or
adversely affect the accused’s substantial rights. (Villarba vs. CA, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June
2020) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. (Moya, II p. 68, Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law
Syllabus Based, Vol III, 2021 Ed.

Hence, William is not correct.

Q.10
Angel was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After
trial, the court convicted her of Homicide due to the absence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. She then filed a notice of appeal and applied for bail
with the RTC before transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals. The
prosecution opposed the application, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction
to act on the application for bail. The RTC granted the application for bail on the
ground that the prosecution failed to prove the five bail-negating circumstances.
Did the RTC have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by
Angel? Discuss your answer.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by
Angel.

Under Rule 114 Section 5, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for
bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Here, Angel was
charged with Murder but was convicted by the RTC for Homicide. Hence, the
application for bail by Angel must be filed with and reviewed by the Court of
Appeals. Hence, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail
filed by Angel. (Last sentence of the codal provision of Sec. 5, Rule 114, 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure) (Moya, II pp. 185-186, Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law
Syllabus Based, Vol. III, 2021 Ed.)
Q.11
PROBLEM
On October 18, 2021, a warrant of arrest was issued against Erica. At
11:00 p.m. on October 30, 2021, police officers arrested Erica at her house
pursuant to the arrest warrant. Before arraignment, Erica moved to quash
the information on the grounds that the warrant was served at nighttime
and beyond ten days from its issuance. Is the position of Erica tenable?
Explain.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, the position of Erica is not tenable. Unless specifically provided in the
warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The
ten-day period provided under this Rule is only a directive to the officer executing
the warrant to make a return to the court. However, it is natural to assume that an
arresting officer, who under the law is given only ten (10) days to serve an arrest
warrant, would serve it as soon as possible. (Moya, II, p. 255, The 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases, 2017 Ed.](People vs. Givera, G.R. No.
132159, 18 January 2001)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].
 That Erica was served with the warrant at nighttime and beyond the ten day period is of
no moment. Section 6, Rule 113 provides that an arrest can be made at anytime of the day
or night. In Colorado vs. Agapito, complainant faulted respondent for having been
arrested on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. The
Supreme Court held that it was of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by
respondent on a Friday, because it is clear in the Rules that an arrest may be made on any
day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in
any jurisprudence can it be found that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited.
Thus, respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular matter. He did
not commit grave abuse of authority for issuing the warrant of arrest on a Friday, the same
not being prohibited by law. (Moya, II, p. 267, The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
Notes and Cases, 2017 Ed.]

Hence, the position of Erica is not tenable.

Q.12
An information for Corruption of Public Officials was filed against Bel. Assistant City Prosecutor Chi,

the investigating prosecutor, certified in the information that the same was filed with the prior authority

of Jill, the City Prosecutor. After the presentation of evidence by both parties, the trial court motu

proprio dismissed the case on the ground that Chi does not have the authority to prosecute the case

because the information does not bear the signature of Jill or any other indication that she approved the

same. The trial court explained that the lack of authority to file an information is a jurisdictional defect

that cannot be cured. Is the trial court correct? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information of Complaint, as

the case may be, that the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor
recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of
the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by
Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 5180 and is adopted under Sec.4, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court. In this case, since information was certified by the
investigating prosecutor, thus the trial court was incorrect in motu proprio
dismissing the case. (Villa Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824, 10
November 2020)(En Banc)[Gesmundo, J.][Now CJ] (Moya II, pp. 342-
343, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, 2023 Ed.)
Q.13
PROBLEM
Raisa filed a case for support against Ton on behalf of their 9-year-
old daughter, Rox. During trial, Rox was presented as a witness. The
counsel of Ton invoked the rule on the incompetence of Rox to
testify against her father given her tender age. The trial court allowed
Rox to testify. Is the trial court correct? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes. Under Rule 130, Sec. 21, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be witnesses. In this case, the tender age of Rox by
itself is not a sufficient basis to render her incompetent so long as she has the ability to
perceive, remember and tell the truth in court.
Thus, under the Rules of Court, a child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court
determines upon proper showing that the child's mental maturity is such as to render him
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the
facts truthfully. The testimony of the child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and
make known the perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of an improper
motive to testify. Once it is established that the child fully understands the character and
nature of an oath, the testimony is given full credence. (Moya II, Notes and Cases in
Remedial Law Vol IV, (Evidence)(Per A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, effective May 1, 2020) pp.
172-173, 2020 Ed.]
Q.14
In a criminal case for Murder filed against Erika, the prosecution presented
Chelle as an eyewitness to the killing of Ly. Chelle testified that while the
three of them were on board a boat, Erika shot Ly with a .45 caliber pistol
and threw both the gun and the body of Ly into the sea. Efforts to retrieve
the gun and the body of Ly were unsuccessful. Evidence was likewise
introduced to prove that Ly was thrown in a shark-infested area. Erika
consulted her nephew, Ted, a recent law school graduate who is reviewing
for the Bar examinations. Confident of an acquittal, Ted recommended that
Erika file a demurrer to evidence because: 1) there is no corpus delicti due to
the failure to recover the gun and the body of Ly; and 2) the prosecution
failed to prove that Erika fired the gun due to the lack of a paraffin test. Is
Ted correct? Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. In People vs. Briones, G.R. No. 226486, 22 January 2020, citing
People vs. Tuniaco, the Supreme Court ruled that the presentation of the
murder weapon is not indispensable to prove the corpus delicti, as its
physical existence is not an element of murder. To prove the corpus
delicti, the prosecution only needs to show that: (a) a certain result has
been established and (b) some person is criminally responsible for it.
Further, in the same case the Supreme Court citing People vs. De
Guzman, ruled that paraffin testing is conclusive only as to the presence
of nitrate particles in a person, but not as to its source, such as firing from
a gun. By itself, paraffin testing only indicates a possibility, not
infallibility, that a person has fired a gun.
Q.15
PROBLEM
While relaxing one Sunday afternoon, Kesh suddenly felt sick. While she was on the verge of losing
consciousness, Kesh called for Robert, her personal nurse, who was told: “Call Dr. Nancy forthwith!” Robert
asked Kesh about what happened and Kesh further relayed: “I’m probably going to meet my Creator! I ate the
instant noodles prepared by my husband last night and I think he put poison in it!” The following day, Kesh
passed away. The certificate of death issued by the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy reflected
the cause of her death as aneurysm or rupture of a blood vessel. Later, the husband of Kesh was prosecuted
for Murder. During trial and apart from the medico-legal certificate, the prosecution also offered in evidence
the testimony of Robert to prove the utterance of Kesh. Is the statement of Kesh admissible as a dying
declaration? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay evidence

rule, four (4) conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that at the time the
declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the
declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a
criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
[People vs. Palanas, 759 SCRA 318 (17 June 2015)(First Division)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.]; People vs. Rarugal alias “Amay Bisaya,” G.R. No. 188603 (16
January 2013)(First Division)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.].] This is because a dying
declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence
on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.
 Further, the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of
death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the
most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a situation so
solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath
administered in court. (People vs. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, 17 June 2015)(First
Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].(Rule 130, Sec. 38, RROE)(Moya, II pp. 180-181,
Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law Syllabus Based, Vol. IV, [Evidence], 2021 Ed.)(Moya
II, pp. 555-556, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, 2023 Ed.)
Q.16
PROBLEM
Vangie filed an action for compulsory recognition with prayer for support against Jay, her putative
father. During trial, she presented and identified the following documents on the witness stand: 1)
the birth certificate of Vangie reflecting Jay as the father of Vangie per information supplied by the
mother of Vangie, but was unsigned by Jay; and 2) letters from the siblings of Jay, addressed to
private schools where Vangie was enrolled, which attested that Jay is the father of Vangie and that
he regularly supports her education. Rule on the admissibility and sufficiency of the documents
as evidence of acts or declarations about pedigree. Explain briefly.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

As to admissibility, the birth certificate is admissible while the letters from

the siblings of Jay are not. An act or declaration about pedigree is admissible
when: (a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify; (b) the act or
declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage; (c)
the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration; and (d) the act or declaration was
made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy. (Tandog, et al. vs.
Macapagal, et al., G.R. No. 144208, 11 September 2007)(First Division)
[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
 Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal
right associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support or inheritance. The burden of proving
paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child.
(Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005)(First Division)[Carpio, J.].

In this case, the birth certificate being a public document can be admitted as evidence while the
letters are considered hearsay and therefore inadmissible. As to the sufficiency both documents
are insufficient because the unsigned birth certificate does not prove that Jay recognized Vangie as
his daughter. The letters from the siblings of Jay being hearsay is not sufficient to prove filiation.
(Moya, II pp. 192-193, Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law Syllabus Based, Vol. IV, [Evidence], 2021
Ed.) (Moya II, pp. 562-563, Pre-Week Reviewer in Remedial Law, 2023 Ed.) [Sec. 41, Rule 130,
RROE]
THANK YOU