QUESTION EXERCISE NO 01

Instruction: Give yourself a maximum of 30 minutes for this problem. 30 minutes include the time in reading and
analyzing the problem and the time for writing your answer. You should answer in your own words without looking
at any notes. If after reading the problem, you think you are not ready for the topic which involves knowledge of
some fundamental rights, then feel free to do some research and readings first about the Bill of Rights, and then just
go back to this exercise at some other day. What is important is that when you write your answer, you should not be
looking at any notes and that you write in your own words.

In an attempt to curb rising rates of sex crimes and drug-related offenses and other acts of violence, Congress passed
Republic Act No. 9090 entitled, “AN ACT TO ESTABLISH DNA NATIONWIDE DATABASE SYSTEM AND
Repository” with the following provisions:

Sec. 1. Any person convicted of or under prosecution for any crime in any court shall be required to submit a DNA
sample to any nurse or laboratory technician designated by the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, which
DNA sample may be used for laboratory testing and analysis.

Sec. 2. “DNA (DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID) sample” shall refer to any bodily fluid or tissue sample provided by
any person convicted of a crime or being prosecuted in any court of justice submitted to the nationwide DNA
database system in the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for analysis pursuant to a criminal investigation.

Sec. 3. The NBI shall establish a unit to collect, analyze, compile, and store DNA samples from the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology nationwide, for the following purposes:

(a) To analyze and type the genetic markers contained in or derived from such samples:

i. In furtherance of an official investigation into a criminal offense, and may be used as evidence in any court;

ii. To assist in the identification of human remains;

iii. To assist in the identification of missing persons; and

iv. To assist in the investigation of the paternity of Children in pending court cases.

(b) For research and administrative purposes, including —

i. Development of a population database nationwide after personal identifying information is removed;

ii. Support of identification research and protocol development of forensic DNA analysis methods; and

iii. Monitoring and tracking repeat offenders.

Sec. 4. The database and records compiled and collected by the NBI shall not be used for any purpose other than
those specified above, unless such use is expressly ordered by any court of justice and is considered relevant to any
fact in issue in any case pending before such court.

R.A. No. 9090 was signed into law on July 21, 2012, and was published in two national newspapers of general
circulation for two consecutive weeks.

Juan de la Cruz, a lawyer, married, with two children, and residing at Tondo, Manila, was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court of Manila of Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (P.D. No. 1612). This sentence was affirmed by
the Supreme Court last May 23, 2012, and he started servicing his sentence thereafter. While he was serving
sentence, he was asked to give his blood sample to a government nurse as the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology (BJMP) had started implementing R.A. No. 9090.

He consulted his lawyer who told him to refuse the demand for his blood sample. It turns out that de la Cruz is also a
respondent in a disciplinary proceeding for disbarment being heard by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline on grounds of immorality. His mistress filed an administrative complaint with the
Supreme Court after he failed to give support to his love child who was born out of wedlock after he got married. He
did not acknowledge this child, and in his defense in the disciplinary action, he vehemently denied that the child was
his own. The hearing before the Commission is still going on. His anxiety stems from the fear that the results of the
analysis of his DNA sample might be used later in the disciplinary case against him.

He followed his lawyer’s advice and refused to give a sample of his blood, claiming that he faints at the sight of
blood, even if it is his own. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology issued a written directive compelling de
la Cruz to give a sample of his blood. De la Cruz appealed this directive to the Secretary of the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Upon denial by the Secretary of the DILG of his appeal, he filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila an original
petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction challenging the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9090. His petitions having been denied by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals, De la Cruz now pursues his case in the Supreme Court.

In its deliberations, the Supreme Court identified the two (2) most important issues of the case in relation to the
grounds raised by de la Cruz against the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9090 and you were asked to be the ponente.

Decide the case identifying and stating the two (2) important issues in this format, "Whether or not..." and
discuss the merits of the case relative to the grounds which must have been raised by De la Cruz in his
petition.

ANSWER EXERCISE NO 01
The two (02) important issues are as follows:
1) Whether or not R.A. No. 9090 is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause; and
2) Whether or not R.A. No. 9090 is in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.
As to the first issue, R.A. 9090 is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause.
One of the elements of the said clause provides that there must be a substantial classification of the persons to be
affected.
Here, the only group of people who are required to undergo mandatory submission to DNA testing are those person
convicted of or under prosecution for any crim ni any court. There is no substantial classification between them and
other group of persons not being subjected to prosecution in a regular court.
Hence, it is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause.
As to the second issue, R.A. 9090 is not in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.
The right of the accused against self-incrimination is limited to testimonial compulsion in giving information which
will incriminate the accused.
Here, extracting bodily fluid or tissue sample of a person is not covered because it is purely a mechanical act on his
part which is permissive.
Thus, R. A. No. 9090 is not in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO 01
Re: Exercise 1 - Online Clinic & Coaching on Bar Exam Answering Techniques

The two (02) important issues are as follows:

1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9090 is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause; and

2. Whether or not R.A. No. 9090 is in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.

As to the first issue, R.A. 9090 is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause.

One of the elements of the said clause provides that there must be a substantial classification of the persons to be
affected.

Here, the only group of people who are required to undergo mandatory submission to DNA testing are those
person convicted of or under prosecution for any crime ni in any court. There is no substantial classification
between them and other group of persons not being subjected to prosecution in a regular court. (The argument is
insufficient because both the convicts and those under prosecution are persons in conflict with the law. You
should argue that the singling out of convicts and those under prosecution is not germane to the purpose of
the law of establishing a nationwide DNA database and curbing the rising rates of sex crimes, drug-related
offenses and other acts of violence)

Hence, it is in violation of the equal protection of the law clause.

As to the second issue, R.A. 9090 is not in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.

The right of the accused against self-incrimination is limited to testimonial compulsion in giving information
which will incriminate the accused.
 Here, extracting bodily fluid or tissue sample of a person is not covered because it is purely a mechanical act on
his part which is permissive.

Thus, R. A. No. 9090 is not in violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination.

So far, I did not see any problem with your issue-spotting skills.

Issue-spotting is paramount. If you do not get the issues right, any discussion you make might not be given
any credit.

To determine what the issues are, analyze what facts and circumstances brought the parties to court. The
facts themselves would usually suggest what the issues are. For example, in this case, the purpose of the
petition was to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9090, so the issues raised should, therefore, be about the
constitutionality of the law.

If you analyze all angles of the problem, you would realize that there are a lot of constitutional issues that
may be raised here. For example, issues involving the following rights could have been raised:

1. right to due process in its substantive aspects as the law may be argued as being unreasonable and
oppressive;
2. right to privacy;
3. right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
4. right against ex post facto law; and
5. right against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment

I actually gave the first exercise as my final exam in the Constitutional Law 2 subject of my first-year
students. Here I am sharing with you one of the best answers I have received. Take note, however, of the
differences in the instructions. I asked them to find and discuss 5 issues. I gave them 2 hours and I also asked
them to discuss the arguments of both the petitioner and the Solicitor Solicitor General, which explains why
the answer is longer than the usual Bar exam answers.

This is the answer of one of my students whom I gave a grade of 1.0:

The issues to be resolved in this challenge on the constitutionality of RA 9090 are the following:

1. Whether or not RA 9090 infringes on the petitioner's right to privacy.

2. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the petitioner's right against self-incrimination.

3. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

4. Whether or not the implementation of the RA 9090 is violative of the Due Process Clause.

5. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the petitioner's right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

DISCUSSION

1. Whether or not RA 9090 unnecessarily infringes on the petitioner's right to privacy.

The petitioner assails RA 9090 on the grounds that the law infringes his right to privacy. According to
petitioner, there is a right to privacy that is protected by the Bill of Rights. This right is formed by the
penumbras of other rights expressly stated in the Bill of Rights. To support his contention, the petitioner
argues that the right to be secure in one’s person, houses, paper's and effects against unreasonable search and
seizures taken together with such other rights such as the rights not to be deprived of one's life without due
process of law, the right to privacy of correspondence and communication clearly indicate that the Bill of
Rights protects the privacy of the individual. As such, it is the contention of the petitioner that allowing DNA
taken from his body to be used as evidence against him is violative of his right to privacy.

The Solicitor General contends that even the right to privacy, assuming arguendo that there is one provided
by the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. Like most other rights, express or implied, the right to privacy is subject
to the Police Power of the State. He further contends that RA 9090 is a valid exercise of the state's Police
power for it has a lawful purpose, the suppression of crimes, and the means employed to achieve the purpose
is reasonable.

The Petitioner's contention that the law infringes, unnecessarily on his right to privacy is with merit.
First, it is well settled that the Bill of Rights protects the right to privacy. The petitioner is correct in pointing
out that several rights expressed in the Bill of Rights form a penumbra and within that penumbra, there lies
the Bill of Rights. (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479).

Second, as stated in RA 9090, the purpose of the law is to curb the rising sex crimes and drug-related
offenses. This court fails to see how getting a sample of a person's DNA can be related to the suppression of
sex crimes and drug-related offenses. But even without passing on the reasonableness of the means employed
by the said law, it is still quite apparent that the law allows an invasion of privacy because it allows material
or evidence taken for one purpose, to be used for an entirely new purpose. Even if DNA testing is a
reasonable means to suppress sex crimes and drug-related crimes and therefore a permissible intrusion on
petitioner's right to privacy, this does not justify the use of the same DNA material in a civil proceeding. The
use of such material is completely unrelated to the purpose of the law in question for such use is neither to
suppress sex-related crimes nor drug-related ones. The intrusion, therefore, as applied to the petitioner is not
justified. To suppress crimes, it is not necessary to expose petitioner and his private marital and family affairs
to the eyes of the world. Therefore, the law as applied to the petitioner unnecessarily infringes on his right to
privacy.

2. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the petitioner's right against self-incrimination.

The petitioner argues that RA 9090, insofar that it requires or compels him to submit bodily fluids for
purposes of DNA testing, violates his right against self-incrimination. The petitioner contends that compelling
him to submit body fluids or tissues is similar to compelling him to admit of a certain act and that it is no
different from requiring him to furnish documents to be used as evidence against him.

The Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that the challenged law does not violate petitioner's right
against self-incrimination because the said right is limited only to testimonial compulsions. It is the contention
of the Solicitor General that obtaining tissues or bodily fluids does not fall within the restrictions provided by
the right against self-incrimination. He adds that DNA evidence is physical evidence as opposed to testimonial
ones. Finally, he claims that obtaining DNA is not invasive, let alone barbaric. It is within the power of the
State to perform such acts.

The contention of the Solicitor General is impressed with merit. It has been held by this court that the right
against self-incrimination is limited only to testimonial compulsion. The justification of the right is twofold.
One is of policy, that is, it is not good policy on the part of the state if it will allow an accused or a witness
under strong temptation to lie or commit perjury on the ground that he will incriminate himself if he gives
the honest answer. The second consideration of the right is borne out of security or humanity concerns for the
individual. The right seeks to prevent duress and extortion of confessions by the state.

In the case at bar, preventing the taking of DNA samples by the state does not come in conflict with any of the
purposes of the said right. The accused is not placed under any compulsion or temptation to lie as he is not
even required to speak or issue an affidavit. All he has to do is to allow medical and well-trained professionals
to take samples, nothing more. In addition, there can be no extortion on the part of the state. As mentioned,
medical professionals will handle the extraction; there is no need for the state to beat or extort the DNA out of
the petitioner. Finally, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, physical evidence obtained from the accused
or petitioner is not within the purview of the right against self-incrimination. As held by the court in Wilson
vs Collins, 07-3428, 2008 US, DNA evidence is physical evidence, not testimonial evidence. It is clear,
therefore, that RA 9090 does not violate the petitioner's right against self-incrimination insofar as the
evidence is physical evidence not testimonial ones.

3. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The petitioner contends that RA 9090 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it fails to
place a necessary distinction among prisoners of different types. He contends that the law places and treats
different persons, who are not similarly situated, similarly. Such lack of classification, when a classification is
clearly called for, in effect, violates the equal protection clause for the same will, ironically, cause inequalities.

The Solicitor General argues that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated by RA 9090. His contention is
that a violation of the said clause occurs only when there is classification and that either of the following is not
observed:

1. the classification rests on substantial distinctions;

2. it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

3. it must not be limited to existing conditions;

4. it must apply equally to all members of the class.

The Solicitor General concludes that there being no classification, to begin with, there cannot be a violation of
the equal protection clause since every prisoner is treated or subject to the said DNA testing.

The court finds merit in the contention of the petitioner. According to a line of cases, equal protection
requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike (Ichong vs. Hernandez ,101 Phil
1155). It is apparent, therefore, that in order to determine whether there is indeed a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, it is necessary to ascertain if the prisoners or convicts and those who are at being merely
prosecuted are in fact similarly situated. That is, whether there is a substantial distinction between those who
are merely prosecuted and those who were already convicted. The finding of this court is in the affirmative.
Our Supreme Law recognizes and cherishes the presumption of innocence of a person. Conviction by final
judgment is what destroys this presumption. Until and unless a person is convicted by final judgment, the
presumption remains. This presumption of innocence, in and of itself, is a substantial distinction between
those convicted and those who are merely accused of such crime.

Therefore, to subject both convicts and those who are merely prosecuted to the same treatment of
circumstance would result in unequal protection. It may be conceded that there exist enough compelling
reasons to justify DNA sampling to convicted criminals. After all, their guilt was proven and thus they may be
considered as dangerous to society. DNA testing, as a means to curb the incidence or future incidence of
crimes, is therefore reasonable when applied to proven criminals. However, the same measure will prove to
be unreasonable when applied to persons who are merely prosecuted. It has not been proven that these
persons actually committed the crimes imputed to them. There being a danger to society by virtue of their
propensity for crimes is not as of yet ascertained. Certainly, therefore, they cannot be placed in the same class
with those whose guilt are beyond question.

Finally, even if DNA testing is applied only to criminals, it may still be violative of equal protection clause.
Crimes are varied, and the nature of one crime is not necessarily substantially similar to those of another
crime. Murder is totally different from theft. Theft is totally different from rape. Measures to curb rape may
not be reasonable when the same are applied to persons who were found guilty of theft. There is no cure that
will prevent all crimes. Prescribing the same medicine to different patients suffering from different ailments
is not reasonable in the same manner as the institution of the same measures to various kinds of criminals.
This court will not uphold such unreasonableness.

4. Whether or not the implementation of the RA 9090 is violative of the Due Process Clause for being
overbroad in its scope.

The petitioner contends that the RA 9090 is overbroad. He points out that the means used to implement said
law are not reasonably related to the purpose it seeks to achieve. According to him, the law seeks to curb the
incidence of sex and drug-related crimes however the means used are not narrowly drawn for that purpose.

The Solicitor General argues that the law is not violative of the due process clause. According to him, the law
has a lawful purpose and that it has a lawful and reasonable means to attain said purpose. He claims that a
law should not fall merely because its benefits may be extended beyond its purpose.

There is merit in the contention of the petitioner. There is no need to debate upon that the purpose of said law
is, in fact, lawful. Certainly, it is within the power of the state to institute measures to prevent crime and
promote the welfare of the citizenry. This does not, however, mean that the state may infringe on protected
freedoms out of whim or caprices. A big defect of RA 9090 is that it allows DNA evidence to be used in other
proceedings. It does not limit the type and nature of proceedings where DNA evidence obtained by virtue of
said law, can be used. By so allowing, the law allows infringement of rights, specifically that of the right to
privacy, even if the purpose of such infringement is not at all germane to the purpose of the law. It allows the
potential for authorities to use data obtained for almost any purpose. Although there is the presumption of
regularity on the part of the officials, it is, however, a dangerous proposition to rely on such presumption,
without any tangible safeguards against abuses, when what is at stake is the very sanctity of a person, his
privacy. Such cannot be left at the mercy of officials. This is contrary to the values cherished by the people
and embodied in our Bill of Rights. The law should fall as being overbroad, unreasonable and therefore
unconstitutional.

5. Whether or not RA 9090 violates the petitioner's right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Petitioner maintains that since blood or tissues are part of his body and thus his person, presenting the same
to be used as evidence without virtue of a warrant is violative of his Right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.

The Solicitor General argues that requiring the petitioner to submit samples for DNA purposes is not
violative of the latter's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contends that since there was
not even a search, there cannot be a violation of the aforementioned right.
This court finds merit in the contention of the Solicitor General. It should be noted that what the Bill of
Rights prohibits is the unreasonable search and seizure of one's person, house, papers and other effects. It
should be pointed out that if such a search or seizure is reasonable, then there is no conflict insofar as that
provision of the Bill of Rights is concerned. The requirement of a warrant in order for a person can be
properly searched is a safeguard against searches and seizures that are unreasonable. The reason is that a
judge, who is presumed to be impartial and learned in the science of law, will be able to ascertain if in fact
there is probable cause or enough reason, based on facts and circumstances that a search is justified and
reasonable. In the case, even on the assumption that there is a search done in requiring DNA samples, the
same cannot be presumed nor was it proven to be unreasonable.

First, the DNA sample is required from persons who are either convicts or those who are prosecuted. This
means that at some point at least, they have been in the custody of the judicial authorities already. For those
who are merely prosecuted, it can be said that they are under the judicial authority's custody. For those who
are already convicted, their guilt is already proved and, therefore, there is already the existence of facts and
circumstances that support the reasonableness of such a search. After all, a person lawfully arrested even
without a warrant, may be searched. It is only logical that a person convicted or prosecuted, whose rights are
considerably more restrained, can also be searched. Such search will not violate his rights.

CONCLUSION

RA 9090 is violative of the Due Process Clause as it unnecessarily and unreasonably infringes on protected
freedoms (Griswold v. Connecticut). It is far too broad for the attainment of its stated purpose. It can be
narrowly drawn yet as is shown by the foregoing discussions; it was not narrowly drawn. It submits itself to
potential abuses by public officials. It offers little if any safeguards against such abuses.

RA 9090 is also violative of the Equal Protection Clause. It fails to distinguish between convicts and those who
were merely accused. It further fails to distinguish between criminals whose crimes are of such different
natures for each other. As a result of this lack of necessary classification, the statute, as mentioned is
overbroad. To allow such a lack of classification is to akin to allowing same amount of taxes to be levied upon
on all persons so long as he has some sort of income. Though the comparison may be extreme, yet it cannot be
denied that failing to institute classification, when the same is necessary, results in unequal protection.

Therefore, Republic Act 9090 should be declared unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of due
process. The law shall have no force and effect, it being contrary to the Constitution.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO 02
For this exercise, try not to open any book, note, or website, but just answer based on your stock knowledge. Give
yourself around 7 to 10 minutes only to answer the problem and try to send your answer within 15 minutes after
opening this email.

Here is the Bar problem: “Give the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.”

ANSWER EXERCISE NO 02
The effectivity date of the 1987 Constitution is 07 February 1987.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 02
The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution was on February 2, 1987. However, even if you got the date
right, you will still get no credit for your answer because that is not the way to answer Bar exam questions!

Actually, being able to give the exact date is not the point of this simple exercise. The tendency of most Bar takers is
to take simple questions for granted and often giving them very simple answers that even high school students can
make.

If your answer is no different from that could be produced by a high school student, then you’re not worth your salt
as a graduate of the study of law. As a law graduate seeking entry into the law profession, you must prove yourself
worthy.

Exercise 2 gives you the Bar problem: “Give the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.”

Lesson 1. This problem, which appears to be very simple may actually be a complicated one. So, you
should be careful in determining what’s expected of you in this problem.

Lesson 2. This is an essay problem so don’t treat it as if it’s just an objective-type question asking for just a date.

You might think that the simple answer, “February 2, 1987,” would already suffice. But if that is your answer, then
it’s really no different from an answer of a high school student. In the mind of the examiner, he might ask, “Why?
Why February 2, 1987?” So, you’re doomed if that’s your only answer and nothing else. The worse thing that you
could do in the Bar is to leave the examiner withquestion marks in his mind after reading your answer.

But you might say, the problem didn’t say, “Explain,” so, why should you explain? Please note, however, that the
problem did not also say, “Don’t explain!”

Lesson 3. To explain or not to explain is not an option in the Bar. The rule is always to explain your answer no
matter what. Just because the question did not specifically require you to explain does not mean you don’t have to
explain anymore. Don’t forget, it’s the Bar exams, not a trivia quiz!

But should that simple matter really has to be explained? Can we not assume that the examiner already knows the
explanation! Well, for sure the examiner knows it, but how would he know that you know it too? Remember, you’re
the one being examined, so you have to exhibit your knowledge and understanding to the examiner.

High school students & perhaps even grade school pupils are taught in their social studies, history or sibika subjects
that the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987. But only law students know the reason “why” and that’s
what differentiates law students from high school students. So, highlight this difference and show them what you’ve
got and why you deserve to become a full-fledgedmember of the legal profession.

Lesson 4. Your answer should be responsive to the question & it must be in a complete sentence. You can’t just
write, “February 2, 1987,” as if you’re answering in a quiz bee contest.

Since the problem says, “Give the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution,” the responsive answer in
sentence form should be: “The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is February 2, 1987.” Or, “The 1987
Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987.”

Lesson 5. Don’t begin your answer with a pronoun as a substitute for the main subject.

Not good practice – “It took effect on February 2, 1987.”

Best practice – “The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987.”

Lesson 6. Don’t simply cite jurisprudence without explaining it too. For example:

“The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, as held by the Supreme Court in De Leon vs.
Esguerra.”

Is there anything wrong with the said answer? Yes, it cites jurisprudence without explaining or saying what that
jurisprudence is about. Titles of cases are meaningless unless you give the substance of their rulings. Worse, the
1987 Constitution did not take effect on February 2, 1987 because the Supreme Court said so in De Leon vs.
Esguerra. That’s not the real basis of why it took effect on that particular date.

Lesson 7. Explain controversial stuff.

The date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution was a controversial thing. In fact, the decision in De Leon vs.
Esguerra was the subject of a strong dissenting opinion by Justice Abraham Sarmiento because the practice before
was that the Constitution or its amendments would take effect on the date that the results of the plebiscite are
ascertained and announced. Justice Sarmiento explained:

“It is my reading of this provision that the Constitution takes effect on the date its ratification shall have
been ascertained, and not at the time the people cast their votes to approve or reject it. For it cannot be
logically said that Constitution was ratified during such a plebiscite, when the will of the people as of that
time, had not, and could not have been, yet determined.”

Understandably so because you can’t expect people to act in accordance with a new constitution beginning on the
very date of the holding of the plebiscite because they don’t know yet the results of the voting and there is yet no
official proclamation of whether it was approved or not.

Lesson 8. Always explain and give the legal basis for your answer or any conclusion you make.
Any conclusion without basis is a mere assertion. Anybody can assert, but law students seeking admission to the Bar
should know better than that. They should beable to support any assertion they make. This is the essence
of lawyering, and you’ve got to show this ability in your answer.

So, what’s the legal basis for the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987? Is it because the Supreme
Court said so in De Leon vs. Esguerra? No, it’s not the Supreme Court that says when the constitution should take
effect.

The basis is that the 1987 Constitution itself said so. Section 27 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution states:
 “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite held for the purpose…”

MY SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution was on February 2, 1987.

The Constitution itself provides that it shall take effect upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite held for the purpose. (Article XVIII, Section 27) This plebiscite was held on February 2,
1987.

While the result of the plebiscite was proclaimed only on February 11, 1987, said proclamation merely
confirms the act done by the people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of
the plebiscite. As held in De Leon vs. Esguerra, the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people and
not the ascertainment or proclamation of the result.

Therefore, the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is the date of its ratification by the people
during the plebiscite which was held on February 2, 1987.

FORMAT OF THE ANSWER:

Note that my suggested answer is divided into four paragraphs. This is the standard in answering Bar exam essays.
Each paragraph contains an important element of the answer.

1st Par. – the exact responsive answer to what is being asked for in the problem or question. As much as possible,
the opening paragraph should already have a concise statement of the conclusion:

The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution was on February 2, 1987.

2nd Par. – the applicable rule or legal basis of the answer or conclusion:

The Constitution itself provides that it shall take effect upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite held for the purpose. (Article XVIII, Section 27)

3rd Par. – the explanation or application of the legal rule to the facts or problem:

This plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987. While the result was proclaimed only on February 11, 1987,
said proclamationmerely confirms the act done by the people in adopting the Constitution when they cast
their votes on the date of the plebiscite. As held in De Leon vs. Esguerra, the act of ratification is the act of
voting by the people and not the ascertainment or proclamation of the result.

4th Par. – the Conclusion or a reiteration of the conclusion:

Therefore, the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is the date of its ratification by the people
during the plebiscite which was held on February 2, 1987.

As a rule, the first three paragraphs are indispensable.

-- The opening line is important because it is through it that you respond to what is being asked in the question or
problem.

-- The 2nd paragraph is likewise important because it contains the legal basis for your answer.

-- Obviously, the 3rd paragraph is also important because it contains the application of the law to the problem and it
showcases your skills in legal analysis and reasoning.

-- The 4th paragraph can sometimes be dispensed with because it is just a reiteration of your conclusion. It may also
be dispensed with when your answer is short, and there is no more need to reiterate your conclusion. However, this
is on the assumption that your conclusion is already stated in the opening paragraph.

For Exercise 3, give yourself 10 to 12 minutes to write your answer.

Try to come up with a topnotch answer – one that will stand out from among the thousands of other answers from
your fellow Bar takers. However, always come up with an original answer. Do not search or research for possible
answers to the questions.
Your answers will not be graded so don’t try to impress me by copy-and-paste references, citations or answers. If
you don’t submit answers that really come from your own thoughts, then you are just fooling yourself, and you
defeat the purpose of this program because we would not discover your real strengths and weaknesses.

In making your answer, please follow the format I gave you in the previous exercise, i.e., it should have four parts:
(a) the exact brief responsive answer; (b) the applicable rule; (c) the application of the rule to the facts; and (d)
conclusion.

Here is the problem for Exercise 3:

A built a house on land belonging to B in the belief that the land was his own. The error discovered, B
formally notified A that he elected to appropriate the house. All efforts to reach an agreement as to the sum
to be paid to A having failed, A began an action to recover the expenditures incurred by him in building the
house. The house was destroyed in a fire of purely accidental origin. Would A be entitled to recover from B
the said expenditures?

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 03

No, A will not be entitled to recover from B the said expenditures.
The law provides that when a person built in good faith in the property of another, the owner in good faith
has the right either to elect to appropriate the house or compel the builder in good faith to remove the building
thereon.
In this case, considering that B has notified A of his intention to appropriate the subject property but the
two of them failed to reached an agreement, the one who has the burden in case the house is lost due to fortuitous
event is the one who owns it. The house was owned by A who has the burden when it was lost due to purely
accident.
Thus, recovery from said expenditures would not be allowed.

CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 03

No, A will not be entitled to recover from B the said expenditures.

The law provides that when a person built builds (Write in the present tense when citing the law or a legal
principle.) in good faith in the property of another, the owner in good faith has the right either to elect to appropriate
the house or to compel the builder in good faith to remove the building thereon.

In this case, considering that B has notified A of his intention to appropriate the subject property but the two of
them failed to reached to reach (“to reach” in the sentence is not a verb, but an infinitive. An infinitive will almost
always begin with “to” followed by the simple form of the verb. The rule is “to” + verb = infinitive.
Because an infinitive is not a verb, you cannot add -s, -es, -d, -ed, or- ing at the end. Ever!) an agreement, the one
who has the burden in case the house is lost due to a fortuitous event is the one who owns it. The house was owned
by A who has the burden when it was lost due to purely accident. (In case the owner of the land exercises the right
of appropriation, the building ipso facto became his by operation of law, and he becomes indebted to the builder in
good faith for the indemnity, which may be recovered in a proper action because the duty is converted into a money
obligation which can be enforced by execution. See Tayag v. Yuseco, G.R. No. L-14043, April 16, 1959)

Thus, recovery from said expenditures would not be allowed. (B had already exercised his option under Article
448 of the Civil Code to appropriate the house before it was lost in the fire. Hence, he already has an obligation
to reimburse A, which is an obligation that is payable in money, which is a generic thing. An obligation to deliver a
generic thing cannot be extinguished by a fortuitous event. What was lost in the fire was the house, not B’s money.
As to the house, there was no need for A to deliver it to B because when B elected to appropriate the house, it was
already standing on his land. Hence, there was nothing left for A to do when the house was destroyed.)

For comparison, please study this answer given by the legendary Arturo Tolentino on the same question, which
employs the same format I have explained in the previous exercise. Take note of the way he cites the law and how
he applied it:

A would be entitled to recover the expenditures incurred by him in building the house.

The law provides that when something is built in good faith upon the land of another, the latter shall have
the option to appropriate the same upon payment of the expenses to the builder, or to require the builder to
pay the price of the land on which said building was constructed.
 In the exercise of this option, B elected to appropriate the house. By so doing, he incurred the obligation to
pay the expenses to A, which is an obligation which does not depend on the continued existence of the
house. It may be said that his exercise of the option given by law made the house his own by accession.

Res perit domino; hence, he must bear the loss and pay the expenses.

First Part – Response to the question posed in the problem:

A would be entitled to recover the expenditures incurred by him in building the house.

Second Part – Statement of the legal basis or applicable law or rule:

The law provides that when something is built in good faith upon the land of another, the latter shall have
the option to appropriate the same upon payment of the expenses to the builder, or to require the builder to
pay the price of the land on which said building was constructed.

Third Part – Applicable of the law to the facts of the problem:

In the exercise of this option, B elected to appropriate the house. By so doing, he incurred the obligation to
pay the expenses to A, which is an obligation which does not depend on the continued existence of the
house. It may be said that his exercise of the option given by law made the house his own by accession.

Fourth Part – Conclusion or Reiteration of the Conclusion (This is optional. For short answers, there is no
need to reiterate the conclusion as long as it’s already clearly stated in the first part of the answer):

Res perit domino; hence, he must bear the loss and pay the expenses.

MY OTHER SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

Sample Yes Answer:

Yes, A is entitled to recover from B the necessary and useful expenditures incurred by him in building the
house.

The Civil Code provides that if both the landowner and the builder are in good faith, the landowner has two
options. First, he may appropriate for himself what has been built on his land, provided that he pays the
necessary and useful expenses. In such event, the builder is entitled to retain the property without paying
rent until the landowner pays said expenses. Second, the landowner may oblige the builder to pay the price
of the land if said price is not considerably higher than the value of what has been built thereupon.

Here, A and B are in good faith because both believed the subject land was their own. Since B, the
landowner, elected the first option, which is to appropriate the house, his duty has now been converted into
a monetary obligation to indemnify A. The said obligation holds true despite their disagreement as to the
amount to be paid to A because B never reneged on the option he elected. Furthermore, the said obligation
also holds true notwithstanding the loss of the house because a monetaryobligation cannot be extinguished
by fortuitous events because money is a generic thing. What was lost in this case is the house, not B's
money. Besides, B had already appropriated the house, and A had already commenced an action to recover
his expenditures before the accident happened.

Therefore, A is entitled to recover from B the necessary and useful expenditures incurred by him in
building the house because B elected to appropriate the said house for himself.

Sample No Answer:

No, A is not be entitled to recover from B the expenses incurred by him in building the house on B's land.

Under Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land on which anything has been built in
good faith has the option to appropriate as his own the work after payment of the necessary and useful
expenses incurred by the builder and such builder in good faith has the right of retention over the property
pending full reimbursement of the costs incurred.

However, Article 553 of the Civil Code also provides that one who recovers possession shall not be obliged
to pay for the improvements which have ceased to exist at the time he takes possession of the thing.

In the case at bar, since the house has been destroyed in a fire, B may no longer be compelled to reimburse
A for the expenses he incurred in building the house. Having ceased to exist, B as the owner or lawful
 possessor can no longer benefit from the improvements made. To compel him to pay would constitute
unjust enrichment on the part of A.

Hence, A may no longer recover from B the expenses he incurred in building the house. He must bear its
loss.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF AN ANSWER

The most common question that I receive about answering Bar questions concerns the length of the answer. So, let
me answer it here even before you ask about it.

The length of the answer should be the least of your concerns in the Bar. What you should be concerned with only is
"substance." The rule is very simple: NEVER SACRIFICE SUBSTANCE MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF
BREVITY!

However, writing with substance does not mean writing long answers. The answer does not have to be long and very
exhaustive. It just has to be complete with all the required elements. It must be an opening paragraph that is
responsive to the question. The legal basis or applicable law, rule, or principle must be stated in a separate
paragraph, and then applied to the facts, explained or discussed in another paragraph. It exhibits your knowledge of
the law and legal principles, and it showcases your skills in legal analysis and reasoning. If you can do that all in just
one sentence, then good, but it is impossible!

So, there is really no hard and fast rule regarding the length of an answer. Some questions would require short
answers only, but some will require longer ones. What's important is that you don't intentionally make your answers
short nor intentionally make them longer than is necessary. So, if the question requires a short answer, then give it a
short answer, and if it requires a longer answer, then give it a longer answer that is enough to cover the subject.

It also depends on how much time you have. If the question raises three issues, but your remaining time allows you
to discuss only one, then focus and discuss only the most important of the three. You just have to work within the
time limit and try to give the best answer within the allotted time.

So again, let me emphasize once more, NEVER SACRIFICE SUBSTANCE MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF
BREVITY!! And also remember that SUBSTANCE is judged by the WEIGHT of the answer, NOT by its LENGTH

Question Exercise No. 04

In answering Exercise # 4, please study and follow this GUIDE:

Analyzing the Problem

Before you read the entire problem, read the last part first to determine the call of the question. This gives you what
is being asked so that when you read the facts, you already have in mind the question & you can immediately
determine the relevance of every fact in the problem.

Then read the facts once and then again and then make notes of legal issues presented. Here you must sort relevant
and irrelevant facts.

Determining the Issues

To spot the issues, look closely at the transactions between the parties. Most issues will arise from the conduct or
actions of one party against another. Look at what parties say and do. Issues arise from the conflicting factual
or legal claims of the parties.

After you have gone through all the facts and have made your list of issues, ask yourself if there is a logical order to
the issues presented. Before you begin writing, read the call of the question again and then ask yourself if the issues
you have identified willenable you to resolve the call of the question.

Writing Your Answer

You get points by writing a well-reasoned response to the question(s) presented. Remember your basic expository
writing. Anintroduction, transitions between issues and a short conclusion can enhance the quality of your response.

Try to write explicitly so that the examiner does not have to guess what you intend to write.

1. Identify legal issues clearly and use issue headings where appropriate.

2. Identify the applicable rule or legal standard necessary to resolve the legal issue. Put this in a
separate paragraph for a clearer presentation.
 3. Apply the pertinent part of the rule to the relevant facts presented and identify possible exceptions or
limitations to the rule that might apply in light of the facts. This should also be presented in a separate
paragraph. Demonstrate that yourecognize the implications of all the facts. Use your judgment in light of
the rules, facts, and relevant legal principles.

4. Showcase essential legal analysis skills, including issue-spotting, rule articulation, application of
rules to the facts, and judgment in reaching plausible conclusions.

The basic elements of problem-solving that the Examiners shall particularly look for are: the examinee’s

1. Proper understanding and appreciation of the facts, particularly of the components or details
that can be material in resolving the given problem;

2. his or her appreciation of the applicable laws that may come into play;

3. recognition of the issues posed; and the

4. resolution of the issues through the analysis and application of the law to the given facts.

5. The examinee's presentation and articulation of his or her answer shall also be given weight.

Problem for our Exercise # 4:

Pedro and Juan ran into each other at the Ecstasy Bar. After several drinks, Pedro says, “You know, I think I'll bomb
this place and then I’ll relocate and hide in the U.S.”

“Oh, yeah? And, how are you going to support yourself in the U.S. while in hiding?” asked Juan.

“Why, I'll sell my house. You can have it for One Million Pesos. Last week it was appraised at Five Million Pesos.”

“You must be joking, that deal is too good to be true,” replied Juan, having another drink.

“Juan, it's just that you don't have the money.”

“No, I can have One Million Pesos cash at the end of the week.”

“Bring it then.”

“Are you serious?”

“Sure,” laughed Pedro.

“Well, it’s really timely because I need a new place for my DVD duplication business.”

“That's illegal! But I guess what you do with the place is your business,” said Pedro. “Let's shake hands then.”

The two shook hands and left the bar.

However, before the end of the week, Juan received a letter duly signed by Pedro saying: “Of course I was joking
when I offered tosell you my house for only One Million Pesos. In any event, I don't actually want to sell it.”

Is Pedro legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan? Decide.

Answer Exercise No. 04

Yes, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.
One of the elements for the perfection of a contract is that consent must not be obtained through fraud, mistake,
threat, violation, intimidation, or undue influence.
Here, it is of no moment that the Pedro and Juan were drunk when they entered into a contract of sale. Being drunk
does not amount to any fraud, mistake, threat, violation, or undue influence. As long as that they know what is the
subject matter of the contract and the consideration thereon, the contract was already perfected and binding.
Hence, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.

Correction Exercise No. 04

 Yes, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.

One of the elements for the perfection of a contract is that consent must not be obtained through fraud, mistake,
threat, violation, intimidation, or undue influence.

Here, it is of no moment that the Pedro and Juan were drunk when they entered into a contract of sale. (Drunk? Is
there any mention of alcoholic drinks or beverages in the facts? They may have been drinking water or soda drinks
only! The facts did not specify the particular type of drinks they had. Even assuming that the drinks they had were
alcoholic, the facts only mention that they had several without saying exactly how many drinks they had and if it
was sufficient to intoxicate them. People have different levels of alcohol tolerance. Some may already be drunk with
just having a bottle of beer, but some require ten or twenty bottles to be drunk. Besides, if intoxication was Pedro’s
reason for canceling the sale, then he should have stated that in his letter. But note that the only reason he cited was
that he was joking.) Being drunk does not amount to any fraud, mistake, threat, violation, or undue influence. As
long as that they know what is the subject matter of the contract and the consideration thereon, the contract was
already perfected and binding.

Hence, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.

You have missed the most important issue in the case!

The Formula for Spotting the Issue

The facts themselves would usually suggest what the issues are. To spot the issue, you need to determine
the conflicting claims of the parties. The issues are the disputed points of law or facts as set out in the problem that
are alleged by one party and denied by the other. Therefore, the simple formula for spotting the issue is to find
out what is being claimed by the one party that is denied by the other. So, analyze what facts and circumstances
brought the parties to court. Why did the plaintiff or petitioner file the action? What are his claims, arguments,
assertions, or allegations that are denied, contested or controverted by the defendant or respondent? For example, if
the plaintiff files a complaint for a sum of money and alleges that the defendant failed to pay, but the defendant
alleges that he has already paid up the account, then the issue is whether or not the defendant has already paid his
account. That issue is based on the claim of the plaintiff that is denied by the defendant.

Kinds of Issues:

Factual Issue (a question of fact) - the parties are in dispute over what happened.

Legal Issue (a question of law) - the parties are in dispute over the which law, rule, or principle is applicable.

Evidentiary Issue (a question of proof) - a dispute as to the admissibility, relevance, weight, or sufficiency of the
evidence.

Tactical Issue (a question of remedies) - a dispute as to the propriety of the remedies taken by a party.

Ethical Issue (a question of ethics or morality) - a dispute as to the moral value or propriety or an act or matter.

Based on his letter, Pedro's claim was that he had no intention to sell his house because HE WAS ONLY
JOKING when he made the offer to sell it. That, therefore, brings us to the main and important issue because that's
the claim, argument or contention raised by Pedro. Therefore, the important issue is, "Whether or not there was a
valid contract, despite Pedro’s claim that he was only joking." All other issues become merely secondary,
including the enforceability of the oral agreement under the Statute of Frauds, the gross inadequacy of the price,
drunkenness, legality of the cause, and the lack of a consideration separate and distinct from the price.

As I have mentioned in my previous email, the basic elements of problem-solving that the Examiners shall
particularly look for are: the examinee’s

1. Proper understanding and appreciation of the facts, particularly of the components or details that can
be material in resolving the given problem;

2. his or her appreciation of the applicable laws that may come into play;

3. recognition of the issues posed; and the

4. resolution of the issues through the analysis and application of the law to the given facts.

5. The examinee's presentation and articulation of his or her answer shall also be given weight.
Hence, the IRAC Formula (Issue – Rule – Application – Conclusion) really becomes relevant here as it is the best
way to showcase your ability and skill in spotting of issues, determination of the pertinent facts and the
applicable laws, and the application of those laws to the pertinent facts in order to resolvethe relevant issues.

My following suggested answer is not necessarily the only correct answer. Actually, the problem can be answered
both ways. But I chose the side which I believe is more difficult to argue so I can demonstrate to you what I mean by
depth in the analysis of the facts, issue-spotting and application of the laws.

You will notice in my suggested answer that:

1. I used paragraphs frequently as I move from issue to issue. This technique helps in the development and logical
presentation of each issue;

2. I also used headings for each issue to guide the Examiner in understanding the logical presentation of the answer.
This technique makes it easier for the Examiner to identify my issues and the discussionand analysis that follow;

3. I used facts a lot in my analysis. This technique showcases your skill in legal reasoning and logic;

4. I followed the IRAC Formula in my analysis as well as in the presentation of the answer.

MY SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.

First, as to the validity of the contract of sale notwithstanding Pedro’s claim that he was only joking:

A valid contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing that is the
object of the contract and upon the price. It requires a valid offer and acceptance.

In this case, there is already a meeting of the minds to sell a determinate subject matter (Pedro’s house) in
exchange for a price certain in money (One Million Pesos in cash).

While Pedro claims in his letter that he was only joking when he offered to sell his house for One Million
Pesos, the circumstances of the case, however, show that it was reasonable for Juan to think that Pedro was
actually serious. Pedro himself initiated the conversation about selling his house. He indicated a price and
that he had had the house appraised recently. When Juanasked if Pedro was serious, Pedro said he surely
was. Pedro even told Juan to bring the One Million Pesos. It was also Pedro who asked Juan that they shake
hands. Under these circumstances, a deal was clearly sealed.

Moreover, the fact the Pedro wrote a letter to tell Juan that he was only joking clearly indicates that he
knew that Juan thought that he was serious when he made his offer. Pedro would not have written said
letter if he thought that it was clear to Juan that he was only joking when they made the deal.

Second, as to the enforceability of the contract under the Statute of Frauds:

The Statute of Frauds (Article 1403 of the Civil Code) requires that for a contract for the sale of real
property or any interest therein to be enforceable, some note or memorandum, thereof, should be in writing,
and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent. However, the Statute does not require that the contract
itself be in writing. It is sufficient that there is a written note or memorandum embodying the essentials of
the contract and signed by the party charged, or his agent.

Through his letter, Pedro had in effect acknowledged the existence of a contract of sale between him and
Juan. Said letter constitutes a sufficient memorandum. It contains evidentiary information about their
agreement. It indicates the property subject of the sale and the agreed price. Therefore, we have in Pedro’s
letter all the essential terms of the contract, and they satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.

Therefore, Pedro is legally bound to make good his promise to sell his house to Juan for One Million Pesos.

The following discussion may also be inserted before the final conclusion:

Third, as to the effect of the illegality of Juan’s purpose on the validity of the sale:

As a general rule, contracts with an illegal cause are void and unenforceable. However, the cause should
not be confused with the personal motives of the parties. The motive may be regarded as the cause only
when it predetermines the purpose of the contract. This means that the contract is conditioned upon the
attainment of the motives of either party.
 Here, the sale of Pedro's house was neither conditioned upon the attainment his supposed motive to bomb
the bar and relocate and hide in the U.S. nor of Juan's motive to use the said house for his DVD duplication
business. Their motives are unrelated to the nature of their transaction. The agreement was for the sale
of the house only, not how the proceeds would be used by Pedro or how the place would be used by Juan.

Hence, the sale itself did not become illegal just because of Juan's motive to use the place for an illegal
purpose.

IRAC & CRAC GUIDE:

Here is a guide in deciding whether to use the IRAC or the CRAC format in answering Bar Exam questions:

Assuming there are several issues, then begin with a conclusion followed by an IRAC for each issue:

(Conclusion) Yes, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan.

(Issue 1) First, as to the validity of the contract of sale, notwithstanding Pedro’s claim that he was only
joking:

(Rule)

(Application)

(Issue 2) Second, as to the enforceability of the contract under the Statute of Frauds:

(Rule)

(Application)

(Issue 3) Third, as to the effect of the illegality of Juan’s purpose on the validity of the sale:

(Rule)

(Application)

(Conclusion or Reconclusion) Therefore, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to sell his
house to Juan for One Million Pesos.

But assuming there is only one issue, then just use the CRAC format:

(Conclusion/Issue/Summary Answer) Yes, Pedro is legally bound to make good his promise because there
was already valid contract notwithstanding his claim that he was only joking.

(Rule)

(Application)

(Conclusion or Reconclusion) Therefore, Pedro is legally bound to make good on his promise to sell his
house to Juan for One Million Pesos.

Note that the first part already contains a conclusion, which is a direct categorical answer to the question in the
problem, then it is followed by a summary answer which also gives out the issue in the case. So, there is no more
need to state the issue in a separate paragraph or statement.

However, deciding to present only one issue or several ones would depend on:

1. Whether there is only one core issue and the others are just minor issues that are dependent upon the resolution of
the core issue. In this case, present only the core issue.

2. The different issues are independently relevant and important that they need to be discussed and resolved
separately. In this case, present and discuss each one of them according to their importance.

3. The time you have to tackle all of them. If you still have the time to discuss several important issues, then do so.
Otherwise, present only the most important one.

Question Exercise No. 05

For our Exercise # 5, I am giving you a Bar question that is so simple yet requiring some analysis. Develop a
topnotch mentality in presenting your answer. Always whisper to yourself, “I WILL TOP THE BAR!” Before
writing down any answer, ask yourself will it be topnotch? Is it interesting enough? Will it stand out from above the
rest?

Bar Problem for Exercise 5:

A has the right to sue B for recovery of a parcel of land. The law provides that actions can only be brought within
ten years. After B has been in possession for nine years, Congress changes the statute of limitation to five years. A
sues B who pleads prescription. Decide.

Answer Exercise No. 05

I will rule that the right of A to sue has not prescribed.
As a general rule, enacted laws shall have prospective application only. It can have retroactive application only if it
is expressly provided by law except when there is a vested right.
Here, A has a vested right that he has the right to bring an action against B within ten (10) years from when his
cause of action arises. It is of no moment that Congress limited the statute of limitation to five years, because it will
have a prospective application considering that A already acquired a vested right to bring the same within ten (10)
years.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 05
I will rule that the right of A to sue has not prescribed.

As a general rule, enacted laws shall have prospective application only. It can have retroactive application only if
it is expressly provided by law except when there is a vested right.

Here, A has a vested right that he has the right (Redundant!) to bring an action against B within ten (10) years
from when his cause of action arises. It is of no moment that Congress limited the statute of limitation to five
years, (<= Incorrect use of comma.) because it will have a prospective application considering that A already
acquired a vested right to bring the same within ten (10) years. (Excellent analysis and presentation.)

For comparison, here are three answers from which you can learn from. They further illustrate the standard format I
gave you in Exercise 2. The first one was the actual answer of Jose Leuterio when he placed 1st in the Bar Exams.
The second answer is my own suggested answer.

Answer by Bar Topnotcher Jose Leuterio:

The defense of B that the action has prescribed must be denied.

While it is true that nobody has a vested right to remedies provided by law, such as the statute of limitation,
and while it is true that Congress may at any time abolish existing remedies, yet it is no less true, that
Congress must in doing away with existing remedies provide new ones. Congress cannot abolish or modify
existing remedies and at the same time leave those who have relied on the old remedies without recourse in
law. Remedial rights are always subject to modifications and abolition by Congress, but this is always
understood to be that a person should not be entirely deprived of a day in court.

Hence, the act of Congress, reducing the statute of limitations from ten years to five years, must not
be given retrospective effect insofar as A is concerned, for to do so would be to deprive A of his day in
court.

My Suggested Answer:

B’s plea of prescription must be denied.

The issue boils down to whether or not the new statute of limitation of five years may be
given retroactive effect insofar as A is concerned.

As a rule, procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The reason is that no
vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. However, said rule should be applied only to
laws that strictly deal with procedures only, that is, only to those which do not create new or remove vested
or substantive rights.
 Being an attribute of ownership, the right to recover a parcel of land is a substantive right. The right to
exercise that right to recover within the period prescribed by law is also a substantive right. Prescription is a
mode of acquiring or losing ownership or other real rights and it does not deal with mere procedures.

Hence, being a substantive right, A’s right to sue for recovery of a parcel of land within ten
years cannot be defeated by the retroactive application of the new statute of limitation of five years, for to
do so would deprive A of the only remedy he has under the law to vindicate his right over his property.

Explanation of the format of my suggested answer:

B’s plea of prescription must be denied. (Note that this is the conclusion which I have exposed in the very first part
of the answer instead putting it on the last part. The rule is when you’re confident of your conclusion, then you have
to expose it on the very first part of your answer. It also informs the Examiner of your conclusion right away so you
don’t leave him guessing while he is reading the rest of the answer.)

The issue boils down to whether or not the new statute of limitation of five years may be given retroactive effect
insofar as A is concerned. (This is the statement of the issue. This should also be exposed even on a separate
paragraph in order to showcase to the Examiner your skill in Issue-Spotting.)

(The next paragraph contains my statement of the applicable law, rule or principle.)

As a rule, procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage.(Note that I began by stating the general rule.) Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that
extent. The reason is that no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. (The last sentence explains
the rationale or reason behind the legal rule. Usually, this distinguishes Bar topnotchers from all the others because
they can give the rationale of the rule.)However, said rule should be applied only to laws that strictly deal with
procedures only, that is, only to those which do not create new or remove vested or substantive rights. (In the last
sentence, I have stated and explained the limitations on the application of the rule. This lays down the basis for the
inapplicability of the general rule.)

(The next paragraph contains my analysis where I discussed the applicability / inapplicability of the rule.)

Being an attribute of ownership, the right to recover a parcel of land is a substantive right. The right to exercise that
right to recover within the period prescribed by law is also a substantive right. The prescription is a mode of
acquiring or losing ownership or other real rights and it does not deal with mere procedures.

(The final part of my answer contains a reiteration of the conclusion given in the first part of the answer and
the rationale behind it.)

Hence, being a substantive right, A’s right to sue for recovery of a parcel of land within ten years cannot be defeated
by the retroactive application of the new statute of limitation of five years, for to do so would deprive A of the
only remedy he has under the law to vindicate his right over his property.

Another Suggested Answer:

B cannot plead prescription in the suit filed by A for recovery of a parcel of land.

It is a great injustice to take away an existing right of action by shortening the period of prescription to a
time which has already lapsed.

Prior to the changing of the statute of limitations to five years, A had already acquired a vested right
under the old law to sue for recovery of a parcel of land within ten years. When A filed his action, he was
still well within the 10-year prescriptive period provided for by the old law. Applying the new law in the
present case retrospectively against A would clearly amount to the arbitrary destruction of an existing right
to sue on an existing cause of action, by shortening the period of limitation without leaving a reasonable
time thereafter in which to bring the action.

Therefore, B cannot plead prescription as a defense because allowing him to do so would destroy A's
vested right to sue for recovery.

Check out SALADAS v. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY, G.R. No. L-13419, May 30, 1960.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 06

For our Exercise 6, we will deal with Bar Exam Questions that are answerable by YES or NO.

Here is my Suggested Format:

1st Part: Answer the question directly with a Yes or a No followed by a statement saying what you mean by your
Yes or No. That is, don’t just say Yes or No followed by a period. Alternatively, you canalso begin with an
affirmative or a negative statement in answer to the question.

2nd Part: Give, state or discuss the applicable law, rule, jurisprudence or principle. This will constitutethe legal basis
for your answer.

3rd Part: Apply the law, rule, jurisprudence or principle to the facts of the problem.

4th Part: One sentence conclusion or a reiteration of the conclusion. Be sure that this is consistent withthe 1st Part
and must necessarily flow from the 2nd and 3rd part.

The problem for exercise 6 is a simple question that simply requires knowledge of basic principles of Criminal
Law. Hence, even assuming that you have not yet reviewed Criminal Law recently, you should be able to answer
this based on your stock knowledge only.

Give yourself a maximum of 10 minutes to answer this problem:

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the
progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of the crew,
remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B’s attitude as a display of
insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At
the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter apparently believing himself to be in great
and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned. May A
be held criminally liable for the death of B?

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 06

Yes, A may be held criminally liable for the death of B.
The principle of the proximate cause provides that a person shall be held liable for all natural and logical
consequences of his action without which the event will not occur.
In this case, the act of A in wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B is the proximate cause which
moved the latter to throw himself into the water. B cannot be faulted because he believed that such act of A puts him
in great and immediate peril. If A did not act in such a way, B will not throw himself into the water and drowned.
Therefore, the act of A is the proximate cause of the death of B.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 06
The principle of the proximate cause provides that a person shall be held liable for all natural and logical
consequences of his action without which the event will not occur would not have occurred.

In this case, the act of A in wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B is the proximate cause which moved the
latter B to throw himself into the water. B cannot be faulted because he believed that such act of A puts put him in
great and immediate peril. If A did not act in such a way, B will not throwwould not have thrown himself into the
water and drowned.

Therefore, the act of A is the proximate cause of the death of B.

CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 06
The question for Exercise 6 was actually the 2nd question in Criminal Law in the 1997 Bar where I got a grade of 95
on the subject.

I am giving you two sample answers to compare with. The first one is the suggested answer of PALS(Philippine
Association of Law Schools) which was published by the U.P. Law Center and the second is my actual answer in the
Bar.

Suggested Answer by PALS:

Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B.

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

In U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into
the river but because of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault
is directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the
 water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case death
results by drowning.

Analysis of the PALS Answer:

The answer is of course good. It began with a statement that is perfectly responsive to the question, which is
answerable by a yes or no. Then it is followed by a solid legal basis beginning by citing the applicable law and then
the applicable jurisprudence.

Take note, however, that the suggested answer does not apply the law and jurisprudence to the facts of the problem.
It is therefore an incomplete syllogism. But it’s not necessarily wrong. In Logic, this is known as an “enthymeme,”
because one part of the syllogism is missing either it is already assumed or there is no dispute about it or it’s already
obvious under the circumstances.

Example of an Enthymeme:

Ralph is mortal because he is a man. (This enthymeme assumes the major premise that “all men are
mortal.”)

Ralph is mortal because all men are mortal. (This enthymeme assumes the minor premise that “Ralph is a
man.”)

The Complete Syllogism would have been:

All men are mortal. (major premise)

Ralph is a man. (minor premise)

Therefore, Ralph is mortal. (conclusion)

Another example of a Complete Syllogism now in Legal Reasoning:

All evidence taken in violation of the rights of the accused shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose and in any proceedings against him. (major premise)

This piece of evidence was taken from the accused in violation of the rights. (minor premise)

Therefore, this piece of evidence shall be inadmissible for any purpose and in any proceedings against
him. (conclusion)

In answering Bar exam questions, the flow of the reasoning in your answer must follow a complete syllogism,
not an enthymeme. You cannot assume the existence of the major or minor premise. Please note that:

Major Premise = Statement of the applicable Rule, Law, Jurisprudence or Principle

Minor Premise = Analysis / application of the Rule to the facts of the problem.

Hence, as a complete showcase of your legal reasoning, which will be a very big factor in whether or not you
will pass the Bar, you have to present a complete syllogism.

You have to show to the examiner that you know the law and that at the same time you also know how to
apply it to the given factual situation. This is very important in coming up with a topnotch answer.

Moreover, stating the applicable rule separate from your analysis and discussion ensures that you would still get
some points even if your analysis and application is wrong because of your misappreciation of facts!

Now, here is my Actual Answer in the 1997 Bar Exams:

Click http://tinyurl.com/onlineclinic6 to see the scanned copy of my actual answer to this question in the Bar
Exams!

Please note that there was actually a mix-up in the conclusion of my act Bar Exam answer. I inadvertently wrote
“the act of B” instead of the “the act of A.” But I think the examiner did not notice it, or perhaps considered it as a
harmless lapse on my part. Hehe

Regarding the Conclusion or the lack of it at the closing part:

You would also note in the two answers that they did not end with a conclusion or a reiteration of the conclusion.
The rule is that: if the answer is short, and where the conclusion is already in the opening statement, then it’s no
longer necessary to still reiterate it at the end; however, if your answer is longer, especially when it’s more than one
page, or when it tackles more than one issue, then it’s advisable to reiterate the conclusion in the closing statement
to remind the examiner about it.

Another Suggested Answer:

Yes, A may be held criminally liable for the death of B.

Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended. This requires that: (1) an intentional felony is committed, and (2) the
wrong done is the proximate cause or the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed.

Both requisites are present in this case. First, A had committed a felony when he moved towards B
wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. Second, even if A may not have intended to kill B, his act of
threatening to stab B became the proximate cause of B's death.Without A's threat, B would not have
jumped off the boat and died.

Therefore, A may be held criminally liable because his felonious act was the proximate cause of B's death.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 07

For our Exercise 7, we will deal with a type of Bar question that requires you to give an OPINION or
aCOMMENT.

The given problem requires basic knowledge of Legal Ethics only. You should be able to answer this based on
your stock knowledge only.

Give yourself a maximum of 10 minutes to answer this problem:

You are the lawyer of Mr. H, the plaintiff, in a civil case for rescission of contract. The prospects for an
amicable settlement look bright. Impressed by your ability, Mr. I, the defendant, would like very much to
retain you as his defense counsel in a criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence. Mr. I wants
you to forthwith enter your appearance, the arraignment already having been scheduled. Would you accept
the offer?

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 07

I will not accept the offer.

Under the law, a lawyer must avoid a conflict of interest involving his client.
Conflict of interest includes those that will have an impression on his client that he is not giving his all for the
client’s interest.

In this instance, if I, as a lawyer, will accept the retainer’s offer of Mr. I, who happens to be the defendant
in a civil case I am handling from another client, Mr. H, it will create an impression on the part Mr. H that there
would be a tendency that I might not give my all, my loyalty in pursuing his interest. It remains true even if the first
case is a civil case will the supposed case I will take is a criminal case. It would have been ethical to accept the offer
if the civil case has reached its finality.
Thus, the acceptance of the offer would be unethical.

CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 07

I will not accept the offer.

Under the law, a lawyer must avoid a conflict of interest interests involving his client. (There can be no conflict if
there is only one “interest” involved. There should be “interests” or a plurality of interests to have a conflict.)

A conflict of interest includes those that will would have create an impression on his client that he is not giving
his all for the client’s interest.
 In this instance, if I, as a lawyer, will accept the retainer’s offer of Mr. I, who happens to be the defendant in a
civil case I am handling from another client, Mr. H, it will create an impression on the part Mr. H that there would
be a tendency that I might not give my all, my loyalty in pursuing his interest. It remains true even if the first case is
a civil case will the supposed case I will take is a criminal case. It would have been ethical to accept the offer if the
civil case has reached its finality.

Thus, the acceptance of the offer would be unethical.

TIPS ON THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF BAR QUESTION:

When the Bar question appears to be asking for your opinion, don’t just give any opinion, much less your personal
opinion on the matter. It must be a LEGAL OPINION, i.e., it must be based on law, jurisprudence or the applicable
legal principles.

Normally, you would have no problem determining the issue because the problem already includes a guide question.
It is already asking you a specific matter. It simply asks you to give your opinion, viewpoint, insight, position,
assessment or evaluation of the applicability, appropriateness, correctness or suitability of a certain principle, rule, or
action.

So, since the Issue is already given, you only need to give the applicable Rule, Apply it to the given facts and state
your Conclusion to complete the IRAC Formula.

Hence, whatever is the format of your presentation (as you can actually be more creative with this type of question),
don’t forget to have all the elements of the IRAC Formula in your answer. You have to support your
opinion/conclusion with legal basis and a showcase of good analysis and reasoning in applying the rule to the given
facts.

For our exercise problem, I am again giving you two answers: one suggested by PALS and published by UP Law
Complex and the other is my actual answer in the 1997 Bar Exams where this question was asked in Legal Ethics
where I received a grade of 91.

PALS Suggested Answer:

It depends. If the criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence is against Mr. H, I cannot accept the
same for that will involve a conflict of interest, although it is an unrelated case. But if it will not involve Mr.
H, I can accept the same. However, to avoid suspicion and misunderstanding, it would be better if I inform
Mr. H about the offer and secure his conformity to my handling the same.

PALS’ suggested answer is correct. However, while it is sufficient to pass the Bar, it is not sufficient to top the Bar.
To pass the Bar, you should not only aim to pass it. You have to set a higher goal—TOP THE BAR! If your aim is
only to pass it, then, most likely, you would not make it.

My answer in the 1997 Bar Exams:

Please click http://bit.ly/OnlineClinic7 to see the scanned copy of my actual answer to this question in the Bar
Exams.

Including a SUMMARY ANSWER:

When the examiner reads your answer, most likely, he already has a fixed expected answer in his mind. He would
approach your answer with prejudice. Hence, you have to give a SUMMARY ANSWER at the beginning to
disabuse the examiner of his prejudices, so that he would be open to hear out your opinion. Check out my first
paragraph of my handwritten answer above:

“I would not accept the offer. Proper regard and fidelity to the ethics of my profession, propriety
and fair dealing deter me from accepting the offer.”

That’s what I mean by a “summary answer.” It serves a preview paragraph; hence, it exposes the thesis of your
answer or argument and it makes the examiner set aside his preconceptions and primes him for acceptance of your
ideas.

The summary answer also lets the examiner know what is ahead and puts forward your position and conclusions.

Making a CONFUTATION:

The last paragraph of my handwritten answer contains an element of reasoning known in ancient Greek Rhetoric as
a “confutation.”
 “The fact that the offer involves an entirely different case is of no moment. Legal ethics mandates
me not only to avoid improprieties but to avoid all appearance of impropriety.”

It examines facts that do not support your conclusion and persuades the examiner to accept said conclusion
notwithstanding the said facts. It is actually a CONclusive reFUTATION from the Latin word “confutare” which
means to check or to silence.

So, its purpose is to conclusively refute the probable arguments of the other side, or to show the inapplicability of
the legal rules or principles that appear to probably support the other side. Thus, it completely and conclusively
silences the other side.

Most Bar topnotchers have used this technique to make their answers TOPNOTCH!

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 08

For Exercise 8, the objective is to come up with a TOPNOTCH ANSWER to a simple Criminal Law
problem. This can be answered in about 5 to 7 minutes:

A stole a watch believing that it belonged to his father. As a matter of fact the watch
belonged to a stranger. Is A criminally liable?

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 08

Yes, A is criminally liable for the crime of theft
Under the law, theft is committed by one who took, with intent to gain, a personal property belonging to
another.
In this instance, it is clear that A took a watch from another person. It is of no moment that A thought that
the stolen watch belonged to his father because the fact remains that it happens to be owned by another. Had it been
really a watch of A’s father, there will be no criminally liable since their relationship is excepted.
Thus, A is criminally liable.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 08
Yes, A is criminally liable for the crime of theft.

Under the law, theft is committed by one who took takes, with intent to gain, a personal property
belonging to another. (It should also be without the consent of the victim.)

In this instance, it is clear that A took a watch from another person. It is of no moment that A thought
that the stolen watch belonged to his father because the fact remains that it happens to be owned by
another. Had it been really a watch of A’s father, there will be no criminally liable since their relationshipis
excepted would exempt him from criminal liability.

Thus, A is criminally liable.

For comparison, I am providing you two suggested answers from which you can learn from. The first one
is the actual answer of Estanislao Fernandez, a 4th place Bar topnotcher who got a grade of 97 in
Criminal Law. The other answer is my own suggested answer.

Think like a Lawyer

Note that the answer given by Estanislao Fernandez is in the negative, while my answer is in
theaffirmative. I answered in the affirmative to show you how convincingly possible it is to answer a Bar
question both ways.

You just have to learn how to think like a lawyer. What’s important only is that whichever side you take,
your answer should exhibit an erudite understanding of the applicable legal principles, showcase your
ability to analyze the facts, and demonstrate your skill in legal reasoning.

Before deciding which side to take, you have to evaluate both sides based on the issues you have
spotted. Think of the pertinent facts as well as the legal principles that support each side. If you know the
arguments for the other side, then you can better attack those arguments in present your answer.

Don’t get nervous when you encounter ambiguity

Don’t get nervous when you encounter some fuzziness in the problem. Bar exam problems will have
some ambiguities that are designed to confuse you. In fact, even laws are designed to be fuzzy at times
so that they would be flexible. When you encounter some ambiguity, you simply have to relax and find
your way through all the fuzziness. Dissect the facts. Distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant
facts.Accept the ambiguity as part of the game and think of the law instead as being flexible, and apply it
to support your chosen side.

Actual Bar Exam Answer by Estanislao Fernandez:

A person who commits theft or malicious mischief on his parent is criminally exempt.

And criminal intent, namely to steal the stranger’s watch, is nullified by a mistake of fact, a fact
which, had it been as the offender thought it to be, would have exempted him from criminal
liability.

In U.S. vs. Ah Chong, the accused thought that the deceased was an intruder and when the
deceased suddenly opened the door of the accused’s room, accused killed him. It was held
thatthe accused is exempt from criminal liability.

Here, the intent being absent, no crime of theft of the stranger’s watch results, for intent is an
essential element to produce culpa doloso. As the Latin maxim says: Actus non facit reum
nisimens sit rea. “The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.”

Some Observations on the Answer of Estanislao Fernandez:

Instead of the traditional Yes or No answer, you may also begin your answer with a brief statement of the
legal principle that you will use as a basis for your answer. This is also to break the monotonyespecially
after beginning some of your answers with Yes or No.

When you cite a Latin maxim, don’t forget to give its English equivalent. You have to do this even for very
simple Latin maxims because while you can assume that the examiner already knows its meaning, you
can’t be sure if the examiner will also favor you with the same assumption. It may also happen that the
examiner does not know the meaning of the maxim, so you have to save him from the annoyance of
having to look up its meaning.

My Suggested Answer:

Yes, A is criminally liable notwithstanding his belief that the watch belonged to his father.

To exempt the offender from criminal liability, mistake of fact must negative the particular intent
which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense. The maxim
is ignorantia factiexcusat (“ignorance of facts excuses”), but this applies only when the mistake is
committed without malice or fault.

In the instant case, A's criminal intent is presumed from his act of stealing the watch. His belief
that the watch belonged to his father cannot negate such criminal intent. Even if he honestly
believed the watch to belong to his father, said mistake of fact does not exempt him from criminal
liability because the watch actually belonged to a stranger.

Had the watch actually belonged to his father as he thought it to be, he would have been
exempted from criminal liability. Unfortunately, however, for A, the watch belonged to a stranger;
and therefore, the rule that there can be no criminal liability for theft committed between
ascendants and descendants cannot apply to him.

Some Notes about my Answer:

Note that I began my answer again with a “summary answer.”

Question: Is A criminally liable?

Simple Responsive Answer: Yes, A is criminally liable.

Summary Answer: Yes, A is criminally liable notwithstanding his belief that the watch
belonged to his father.

As mentioned in my feedback on the previous exercise, the summary answer serves as a preview of your
answer. It immediately lets the examiner know what is ahead and puts forward your position and
conclusion. This technique makes it easier for the examiner to understand and appreciate your answer.
He no longer has to guess at where you intend to lead him, but he would willingly go with you and listen
to what you have to say because he already knows what you’re up to.

Citing Jurisprudence: You would notice that Estanislao Fernandez cited jurisprudence in his answer by
specifically mentioning the title of the case – U.S. vs. Ah Chong. On the other hand, I used the more
conservative method of simply saying, “In the Ah Chong case,” because it is a landmark case which may
simply be referred in that manner. For example, in Constitutional Law, you can simply refer to the
landmark case of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary as the “Javellana case”.

The rule in citing jurisprudence is that you cite the title of the case if you are really sure about it.
Otherwise, you can simply say, “In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that…” and you will
be okay.

Another Suggested Yes Answer

Yes, A is criminally liable notwithstanding his belief that the watch belonged to his father..

Mistake of fact can be invoked only when the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be. Furthermore, the intention of the accused in performing the
act should be lawful, and the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.

Here, A cannot avail the defense of mistake of fact to relieve himself from criminal liability. His
belief that the watch belonged to his father cannot give rise to an assumption of good faith since
the act of stealing is punished by law, and criminal intent is already presumed from the act itself.
In fact, even if his belief that the watch belonged to his father turns out to be true, stealing the
watch would still be considered unlawful. Moreover, the identity of the true owner of the watch is
immaterial because mistake of fact does not apply in error in personae or mistake in the identity
of the victim.

Therefore, there being no mistake of fact, A is criminally liable for stealing a stranger's watch.

A Suggested No Answer:

No, A is not criminally liable even if the watch actually belonged to a stranger.

Theft is committed by the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another, without the
latter’s consent, with intent to gain, but without the use of violence or intimidation. The unlawful
taking, being the operative act, consummates the crime, thus, the identity of the owner is not
material, if not otherwise aggravating in cases of qualified theft.

Theft, however, when committed by a descendant against an ascendant works as

an absolutorycause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code which makes the offender
exempt from criminal liability and makes him only civilly liable. The rationale of
this absolutory cause is the recognition of the law of the presumed co-ownership of the property
between the offended party and the offender.

Since A stole the watch in the belief that it belonged to his father, their relationship works as
anabsolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code. The fact that the watch actually
belonged to a stranger is immaterial because, not did A took it from his father, but in A’s mind, he
was stealing from his father a watch which he believed to belong to his father. Such exempts him
from criminal liability because he cannot be punished for his intent and his overt act of stealing
from his father.

As such, A is therefore not criminally liable for taking the watch.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 09

For our Exercise 9, we will deal with DISTINCTION-TYPE QUESTIONS. Again, always come up with
a topnotch answer. Make that your mantra in answering. Always whisper to yourself, “I will be the
next Bar Topnotcher, I will be the next Bar Topnotcher, I will be the next Bar Topnotcher…” and
BELIEVE!!

Moreover, try to answer in your OWN WORDS!

State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) –

(a) Between a contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on the other;
(b) Between a conditional sale, on the one hand, and an absolute sale, on the other hand.

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 09

(A) As to their legal effects, in contract to sell, ownership still remains in the owner even if it the buyer
paid in full the agreed amount. It only give the buyer the right to compel the vendor-owner to transfer
ownership. On the other hand, in contract of absolute sale, ownership automatically transfer to the
buyer.

(B) As to their legal effects, in absolute sale, ownership automatically transfers to the vendor upon the
execution of the contract, while, in conditional sale, the ownership will transfers only upon payment of
agreed price in full or fulfilment of the conditions.

CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 09

(A) As to their legal effects, in a contract to sell, ownership still remains in the owner even if it the buyer
paid in full the agreed amount in full. It only give gives (Subject-verb agreement error! The subject of the
verb is “It” which is singular. Hence, the verb should also be in the singular form.) the buyer the right to
compel the vendor-owner to transfer ownership. On the other hand, in a contract ofabsolute sale,
ownership automatically transfer transfers (Another subject-verb agreement error!) to the buyer.

(B) As to their legal effects, in an absolute sale, ownership automatically transfers to the vendor upon
the execution of the contract; while, in a conditional sale, the ownership will transfers only upon payment
of the agreed price in full or fulfilment fulfillment of the conditions. (Please do not forget the indefinite articles
"a" and "an" before your nouns as they are basic building blocks of the English language.)

SUGGESTED ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 09

Here are some tips which can help you improve your presentation further:

THE OPENING STATEMENT

Always begin your answer to a distinction-type question with an opening or introductory statement. This is
very important so that the examiner will immediately know what you are talking about. This is also to
make your answer formal as required by the rules on English composition.

Examples:

Question: Distinguish divorce from annulment.

Sample Opening Statements:

– Divorce and annulment may be distinguished in the following manner:

– The distinctions between divorce and annulment are the following:

– The following are the distinctions between divorce and annulment:

– The differences between divorce and annulment may be summed up as follows:

– What differentiates divorce from annulment are:

You may also be a little bit creative in your opening statements by icing it up by inserting cute words or
phrases. This is to catch the attention of the examiner, break the monotony of
providing commonplaceopening statements, and make the answer sound interesting.

Examples:

– The hallmark of distinction between divorce and annulment is:

– The distinguishing features between divorce and annulment are:

– The well recognized distinctions between divorce and annulment are:

– The substantial differences between divorce and annulment are:

 – The following are the points of distinctions between divorce and annulment:

To make the opening statement standout, one method is to provide the points of similarity before
proceeding to give the distinctions:

Examples:

– Divorce and annulment, both of which are methods of ending a marriage, may be
distinguished in the following manner:

– Divorce and annulment are both ways of putting an end to the vinculum of marriage.
However, the processes that they entail and their effects are different.

POINT BY POINT METHOD

After writing the opening or introductory statement, the best method of attack is to identify the points of
distinctions between the two terms, and then to discuss the distinctions point by point.

If the distinctions are placed in the same sentence, you can contrast the two terms with the use of the
conjunction “while” or “whereas”. But if the distinctions are stated in separate sentences, then you can
use the phrase “On the other hand.”

Example:

Question: Distinguish annulment and legal separation.

Answer:

Annulment may be distinguished from legal separation in the following manner:

Annulment allows the parties to remarry, while legal separation only allows the spouses to live
separately, but not to remarry because it does not sever the bond of marriage.

Annulment requires that the ground or defect must have already existed before marriage, while
legal separation requires that the grounds must have existed after the solemnization of the
marriage.

Annulment dissolves the property relations between the spouses and disqualifies the spouse who
contracted the marriage in bad faith from inheriting from the innocent spouse. Legal separation
likewise dissolves the property relations between the spouses, and disqualifies the offending
spouse from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession.

Use of Headings

Another technique is to use headings to before each point of distinction. This will guide
the examinerthrough your answer and make it easy for him to understand your points as he would
immediately know what they are about.

Example:

Question: Distinguish annulment and legal separation.

Answer:

Annulment may be distinguished from legal separation in the following manner:

As to their effect on the bond of marriage:

Annulment allows the parties to remarry, while legal separation only allows the spouses to live
separately, but not to remarry because it does not sever the bond of marriage.

As to the grounds required:

Annulment requires that the ground or defect must have already existed before marriage, while
legal separation requires that the grounds must have existed after the solemnization of the
marriage.

As to their effects on the property relations of the partners:

 Annulment dissolves the property relations between the spouses and disqualifies the spouse who
contracted the marriage in bad faith from inheriting from the innocent spouse. Legal separation
likewise dissolves the property relations between the spouses, and disqualifies the offending
spouse from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession.

THE BLOCK METHOD

You may use the block method when there are not so many points of distinctions between the two terms
or concepts or when you cannot identify or you can’t remember the points of distinctions. You may also
contrast the two through their definitions, but only when you cannot identify points of distinctions.

Example:

Question: Distinguish between flag state and the flag of convenience.

Answer:

A flag state and the flag of convenience are distinguished as follows:

Flag state means a ship has the nationality of the flag of the state it flies, but there must be a
genuine link between the state and the ship.

Flag of convenience refers to a state with which a vessel is registered for various reasons such
as low or non-existent taxation or low operating costs although the ship has no genuine
link withthat state.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) –

(a) Between a contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on the other;

(b) Between a conditional sale, on the one hand, and an absolute sale, on the other hand.

Click http://bit.ly/OnlineClinic9 to see how I answered this distinction-type question in 1997 Bar Exams.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 10

For our Exercise 10, try to answer the following Civil Law problem, as if you are already in the
actual Bar exams.

Give yourself a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to do this exercise. Twenty minutes will be the
standard time that you will have per essay problem in the 2013 Bar Exams. Said twenty minutes
should already include the reading and analysis or the problem as well as the actual writing of the
answer.

Miggy and Laida, residents of Tagaytay City, married in 2001. Miggy worked as a CPA. Laida
was an avid coin collector. Prior to their marriage, they had entered into a prenuptial agreement
providing that each spouse’s wages would be his or her separate property.

On Laida’s birthday in 2002, Miggy gave Laida a painting by Fernando Amorsolo. Miggy paid for
the painting with the P150,000 that his parents had given him. Laida hung the painting in their
bedroom.

In 2003, Laida opened Barya Ko, Inc., a shop specializing in rare coins. She capitalized the
business with a P100,000 inheritance that she had received when her grandfather died. Laida
worked at the shop alone every day. Customers appreciated her enthusiasm about coin collecting
and her ability to obtain special coins at reasonable prices. Over time, Laida learned that she had
acquired a number of highly valuable coins. There was also a renewed interest in coin collecting
due to the discovery of several boxes of old coins found buried in the area.

Although Laida’s services at the shop were worth about P400,000 per year, she took an annual
salary of only P250,000. She also paid P150,000 in household expenses from the business
earnings each year.

In 2012, Miggy and Laida separated, and Laida filed for declaration of nullity of their marriage. At
that time, Barya Ko, Inc. was worth P1,500,000, and the painting was worth P300,000.
 In the proceeding for declaration of nullity, Laida claims that the prenuptial agreement is valid and
Miggy claims that it is not.

What are Miggy’s and Laida’s respective rights in:

A. The painting? Discuss.

B. Barya Ko, Inc.? Discuss.

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 10

A.
Miggy has no right over the painting given by him to Laida as a birthday gift.

The law provides that transfer of property from one spouse to another is prohibited unless it was given as a
customary and reasonable amount of gift.
Here, the painting was given by Miggy as a gift to Laida which made it the latter’s own property. It is of
no moment that the money used in paying for the painting was given by the parents of Miggy. The facts remains that
it was merely given and not in the form of inheritance.
Thus, Miggy has no right over the painting.

B
Miggy has no right over Barya Ko. Inc.
Under the law, a spouse owned the property inherited from his parents or other property bought using such
inheritance. The share of the other spouse is only as to the income or fruits of the property.
In this case, considering that the Bary Ko. Inc was created using the money of inherited by Lydia from her
parents, the same was exclusively owned by Lydia. No income can be given to Miggy because, after deducting the
salary of Lydia and business expenses, nothing was left. Moreover, no contribution was made by Miggy for the
business.
Hence, the Barya Ko. Inc., is owned by Lydia and Miggy has no right over it.

CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 10

A.

Miggy has no right over the painting given by him to Laida as a birthday gift.

The law provides that transfer of property from one spouse to another is prohibited unless it was given
as a customary and reasonable amount of gift.

Here, the painting was given by Miggy as a gift to Laida which made it the latter’s own property. It is of
no moment that the money used in paying for the painting was given by the parents of Miggy.
The facts fact remains that it was merely given and not in the form of inheritance.

Thus, Miggy has no right over the painting.

Miggy has no right over Barya Ko. Inc.

Under the law, a spouse owned the property inherited from his parents or other property bought using
such inheritance. The share of the other spouse is only as to the income or fruits of the property.

In this case, considering that the Bary Ko. Inc was created using the money of inherited by Lydia from
her parents, the same was exclusively owned by Lydia. No income can be given to Miggy because, after
deducting the salary of Lydia and business expenses, nothing was left. Moreover, no contribution was
made by Miggy for the business.
 Hence, the Barya Ko. Inc., is owned by Lydia and Miggy has no right over it. (Excellent presentation.)

SUGGESTED ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 11

Exercise 10 is actually designed to test how you will handle a problem with some missing facts, which
may require an “IT DEPENDS” answer, or a QUALIFICATION or anASSUMPTION.

Here are the SUGGESTED STEPS to take:

Step 1: Evaluate the importance and relevance of the missing facts to the problem.

Example:

With respect to the money used by Miggy to pay for the painting, the problem states that he
received the money from his parents. However, the date or the time when Miggy received the
money is missing. There is no mention about it in the facts. So, we need to evaluate if the said
date or time is crucial to the case.

One issue to be resolved is whether the said money is the separate property of Miggy or is part of
the community property of Miggy and Laida. Now, is the date when Miggy received said money
crucial to that issue. Indeed, it appears crucial to the resolution of that issue because if Miggy had
received the money before the marriage, then he brought it to the marriage to become community
property. However, if Miggy had received the money during the marriage, then it became his
separate property because he acquired it during the marriage by gratuitous title.

Step 2: If the missing facts are not really indispensable or necessary to the resolution of the issues, then
simply consider them as having been intentionally omitted by the examiner and that he doesn’t consider
them important. Therefore, the examiner wants you to simply answer the question based only on what is
given and disregard anything that is omitted as immaterial to the problem. Approach it as if you are a trial
court judge who has to decide the case based only on the evidence on record. Therefore, anything which
is not given in the facts should be considered as not having been proven in evidence.

Step 2: If the missing facts are indispensable such that the issues cannot be resolved without them, then
determine if there are applicable legal presumptions and use them.

Is there a legal presumption that the money in question was received during the marriage?
Apparently, there is no such legal presumption.

The nearest legal presumption is found in Art. 93 of the Family Code that says: “Property
acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is
one of those excluded therefrom.”

However, the said legal presumption under Art. 93 is not applicable to the case because it does
not provide an answer to the missing fact as to when the money was received by Miggy. One who
invokes the presumption in Art. 93 must first prove that the property in question was acquired
during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the
operation of the presumption in favor of the absolute community. The one who asserts this
presumption must first prove said time element. Needless to say, the presumption refers only to
the property acquired during the marriage and does not apply as in our problem when there is no
showing as to when the money was received by Miggy from his parents.

Step 3: If there are no applicable legal presumptions, analyze if you can make reasonable inferences or
deductions from the given facts to fill in the missing ones.

There being no applicable legal presumption, the next thing to do is to find out if you can fill in the
missing facts by simply making reasonable inferences or deductions from the given facts of the
problem.

The relevant portion of the problem merely states that:

“On Laida’s birthday in 2002, Miggy gave Laida a painting by Fernando Amorsolo. Miggy
paid for the painting with the P150,000 that his parents had given him. Laida hung the
painting in their bedroom.”

So, based on the foregoing bare facts, can we infer or deduce the date when Miggy’s parents
gave him the money which he used to pay for the painting? Apparently, we cannot. If we will
conclude that Miggy received the money during the marriage, it would amount to adding or
inventing facts because that is not a reasonable inference from the given facts.
Step 4: If no reasonable inferences or deductions can be made, then make the
necessaryassumptions and present the alternative outcome arising therefrom.

For example:

Assuming that Miggy received the P150,000 from his parents before his marriage to Laida, then
said money became part of the community property because he already owned the money at the
time of the celebration of the marriage. He therefore brought it to the marriage.

Assuming, however, that Miggy received the P150,000 during the marriage, then the money
became his separate property because he had acquired it during the marriage by gratuitous title.

MY SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Miggy’s and Laida’s respective rights and liabilities in the Amorsolo painting and in Barya Ko,
Inc. will depend on the validity of their marriage.

If the marriage is valid, their properties shall be governed by a regime of partial separation of
property pursuant to the prenuptial agreement which provides that each spouse’s wages would
be his or her separate property. Since the prenuptial agreement was executed before the
celebration of the marriage, it is deemed valid. However, it does not apply to the properties in
question because they were not acquired from either spouse’s wages.

On the other hand, if the marriage is declared void, their properties shall be governed by the
provisions of Articles 147 of the Family Code that applies to a man and a woman who live
together under a void marriage.

Article 147 creates a presumption that in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired
during the cohabitation of the parties through their joint efforts, work or industry shall be governed
by the rules on co-ownership.

A. The Amorsolo painting

Assuming that the marriage is valid, the painting forms part of the community property of the
spouses.

Under the Family Code, all property acquired during the marriage shall become community
property, unless otherwise provided in the prenuptial agreement or acquired by gratuitous title by
either spouse.

While it was Miggy who purchased and paid for the painting with money that he received from his
parents, the painting became community property because there is no showing that he purchased
the same as his own separate property. In fact, he purchased it as a birthday gift for his wife.

However, while Miggy gave the painting to Laida for her birthday, there is also no showing that
Laida has treated the painting as her separate and exclusive property. In fact, Laida hung the
painting in their bedroom which shows intent to consider the painting as belonging to the
community for their mutual enjoyment.

Besides, the exclusive ownership of the painting could not be acquired by Laida because
donations between spouses are prohibited, more so when the painting is of substantial value that
it could not be considered a moderate gift on the occasion of a family rejoicing. And this is so
because if transfers or conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would
destroy the system of absolute community. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue
influence by one spouse over the other, as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is
the cornerstone of family law.

Assuming, however, that the marriage is void, the painting forms part of the separate property of
Miggy.

The presumption of co-ownership under Article 147 cannot apply because there is clear proof that
the painting was acquired by Miggy from his own money, which he received from his parents, and
not from the parties’ joint efforts, work or industry.

Moreover, even if Miggy gave the painting to Laida for her birthday, ownership did not pass on to
Laida because the prohibition on donation between spouses also applies to persons living
 together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. This must be so, otherwise the condition
of those without a valid marriage would turn out to be better than those in legal union.

B. Barya Ko, Inc.

Assuming that the marriage is valid, Barya Ko, Inc. forms part of the community property if Laida
received the inheritance she used to capitalize the business before the marriage; otherwise,
Barya Ko, Inc. is Laida’s paraphernal property.

Under the Family Code, community property shall consist of all the property owned by the
spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter, except those
acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the
income thereof, if any.

Hence, if Laida received the P100,000 inheritance before the marriage, said money became part
of the community property because Laida already owned it at the time of the celebration of the
marriage. She therefore brought it to the marriage. Consequently, Barya Ko,
Inc. became community property because it was capitalized with money belonging to the absolute
community.

However, if Laida received the inheritance during the marriage, then the money became
her paraphernal property because she had acquired it during the marriage by gratuitous title.
Thus, as a result, Barya Ko, Inc. forms part of Laida’s paraphernalproperty.

Assuming, however, that the marriage is void, Barya Ko, Inc. would form part of
Laida’s paraphernal property because it was capitalized from her separate property.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The length of my suggested answer is only for the purpose of demonstrating the
thought process and analysis that went on in my mind. But in the actual Bar Exam, you need to give a
simpler and shorter answer depending on the time available to you.

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 11

Just like the previous exercises, try to answer the following Criminal Law Bar problem for
Exercise 11 as if you are already in the actual Bar exams.

Again, give yourself a maximum of only twenty (20) minutes to do this exercise. The twenty
minute period should begin from the time you begin to read the problem. So, if you’re not ready
yet to answer the problem, please don’t read the problem yet because that will defeat the purpose
of the exercise. Again, your answer should be TOPNOTCH!!

Mr. Janitor was a maintenance worker at Atty. Lawyer's office and had a duplicate key to the
office. Janitor, who was addicted to shabu, decided to go to Lawyer’s office to steal shabu from
Lawyer’s evidence cabinet. At 1:00 a.m., when he thought that the office was empty, Janitor used
his key to enter Lawyer’s office. As he approached the room where the evidence cabinet was
located, he noticed through a window in a closed door that Ms. Secretary was asleep on the
couch in the conference room. Janitor placed a heavy filing cabinet against the door to prevent
Secretary from exiting the conference room.

Secretary awoke and through the window observed Janitor moving the filing cabinet.
Secretary then saw Janitor breaking into the evidence cabinet where he thought Lawyer was
keeping the shabu that was part of the evidence in one drug case he’s handling. It turned out,
however, that the evidence cabinet was empty, and Janitor left without taking anything. Secretary
attempted to get out of the conference room but was unable to move the heavy cabinet blocking
the door. Secretary then called the police. The police soon arrived and freed Secretary, who told
them that Janitor had tried to burglarize the office.

Has Janitor committed any crime? If yes, what crime has he committed? Explain.

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 11

The Janitor is liable for the crime of attempted robbery by abuse of confidence.
The crime of attempted robbery by abuse of confidence is committed when the offender, who abuse the
confidence of his employer, attempted to unlawfully take the personal property belong to another with intent to gain
and with use of force.
 Here, the Janitor intends to forcibly take the marijuana belonging to another with intent to gain. There is
force because he blocked the door to prevent the Secretary from exiting the conference room. Also, there is abuse of
confidence because if not for his employment relation he will not be able to get hold of the key to the cabinet.
However, considering that the cabinet is empty and he was not able to get hold of the marijuana intended to be
taken, it is merely attempted.
Hence, the crime committed is attempted robbery by abuse of confidence.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 11

The Mr. Janitor is liable for the crime of attempted robbery by abuse of confidence. (Please take note that
his name is Mr. Janitor, and that he is a maintenance worker, not necessarily a janitor.)

The crime of attempted robbery by abuse of confidence is committed when the offender, who
abuses the confidence of his employer, attempted attempts to unlawfully take the personal
property belong belonging to another with intent to gain and with use of force.

Here, the Mr. Janitor intends to forcibly take the marijuana belonging to another with intent to gain. There is
force because he blocked the door to prevent the Secretary from exiting the conference room. Also, there is abuse of
confidence because if not for his employment relation he will not be able to get hold of the key to the cabinet.
However, considering that the cabinet is empty and he was not able to get hold of the marijuana intended to be
taken, it is merely attempted.

Hence, the crime committed is attempted robbery by abuse of confidence.

In the attempted stage, the accused does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. He was
prevented from consummating the crime by some cause or accident, but he could have performed all the
acts of execution because it was not inherently impossible either factually or legally. When the accused
cannot consummate the crime because it is inherently impossible like in this case as when the thing he
intended to take was not in the cabinet where he expected it to be, then the crime is an impossible one.

My Suggested Answer:

Yes, Mr. Janitor has committed an impossible crime.

Art. 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal responsibility shall be incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Here, Mr. Janitor had a clear intention to steal shabu from Atty. Lawyer’s evidence cabinet. It turned out,
however, that the evidence cabinet was empty. This extraneous circumstance, which was unknown to Mr.
Janitor and was beyond his control, had prevented the consummation of the intended crime.

The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by
itself. The law places emphasis on "intent" over effect, as it assigns criminal liability to one who has
committed an "impossible crime," said person having intended and pursued such intent to commit a
felony although, technically, no crime has actually been committed.

The crime of serious illegal detention was not committed because Mr. Janitor’s act in blocking the door
with a heavy filing cabinet was only incidental to his intent to commit robbery. It was not his primary
intention to detain or to deprive Ms. Secretary of her liberty. Mr. Janitor’s act of blocking the door was
done merely to facilitate the commission of robbery; hence, the resulting detention of Ms. Secretary is
absorbed in the intended crime of robbery, which did not materialize, however, due to its inherent
impossibility.

Therefore, what was committed, insofar as the intention to steal is concerned, is the so-called impossible
crime under Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.

My Alternative Answer:

Yes, Mr. Janitor has committed serious illegal detention for detaining or depriving Ms. Secretary, a
female, of her liberty.

Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, when the person detained or in any manner deprived of
liberty by a private individual is a female, serious illegal detention is committed.
Here, it is clear that Mr. Janitor, a private individual, knew that Ms. Secretary was in the conference room.
He blocked the door to prevent her from leaving if she had awoken. Blocking the door prevented Ms.
Secretary from exiting, and left her with no means of escape. The fact that she could call the police was
not a sufficient means of exit. Under these circumstances, the intent to restrain Ms. Secretary may be
imputed on Mr. Janitor based on his own acts.

Mr. Janitor cannot be prosecuted for theft or robbery because the evidence cabinet where he thought the
shabu was being kept turned out to be empty. This extraneous circumstance which was unknown to Mr.
Janitor and was beyond his control had made the intended crime factually impossible. However, while an
impossible crime is punished as a crime in itself, the same is only possible if the acts committed by Mr.
Janitor would not constitute another crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. But since serious
illegal detention was committed, the impossible crime will no longer be appreciated.

Therefore, for detaining Ms. Secretary, a female, inside the conference room and depriving her of her
liberty since she was unable to exit the room, Mr. Janitor has committed the crime of serious illegal
detention.

In the Bar exams, I believe that there is not one absolutely correct answer. What is important is
that whatever your answer is, whichever side you take, it must be legally defensible and property
defended, reasoned out and explained.

Another Important TIP: Avoid Monotony in your writing style

A very important tip that I would like to leave you is to avoid monotony in your writing style. To do this,
you must therefore write in a variety of styles. What I mean is that if for example you have used
“Therefore” for your conclusion in your answer to the first question, you should not use it anymore in the
conclusions of your succeeding answer. In lieu of “Therefore,” you can try other styles like “Thus”,
“Hence” or phrases like “In conclusion,” “In sum,” etc.

For this, you must build your own collection of how to say the same thing in a variety of ways. To start off
your collection, here are some examples:

Citing jurisprudence or a principle:

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that...

It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that …

The settled rule is that …

In the annals of Philippine jurisprudence, the unchallenged rule is...

It is a fundamental postulate that …

It is axiomatic in that …

Nothing is more established that the rule that …

The unquestioned postulate in our jurisdiction is that ...

In a plethora of cases decided by the High Court, it has been consistently held that...

It has long been established, with unwavering consistency, that...

In a long line of cases...

In a galaxy of cases dealing with … the rule has always been …

For the statement of the applicable rule, law or principle:

Under the law, …

Under the Rules, …

Under the Constitution, …

The Constitution provides that …

 Is it axiomatic in Constitutional Law that …

It is doctrinal in Constitutional Law that …

The unchallenged rule is that …

It is settled that …

Well settled is the rule …

It is basic that …

Basic is the rule that …

Fundamental is the rule that …

It is a well established rule in …

It is a basic postulate that …

In Applying the Rule, Law or Principle to the Facts:

Here, …

In the case at bar …

In the case at bench …

The problem at hand …

In the instant case …

In the given problem …

The facts of the case show that …

The set of facts show …

The facts under consideration states that …

In the given set of facts …

Conclusion:

Therefore, …

Ergo, …

Wherefore, …

Thus, …

Accordingly, …

For that reason, …

Hence, …

Such being the case, …

In sum, …

To conclude, …

In effect, …

Resultantly, …
 Consequently, …

In view of the foregoing …

In view of the above …

QUESTION EXERCISE NO. 12

The last exercise for this set involves a PIL Bar problem. Since this is one of my favorite subjects,
I would therefore expect a lot from you. So, please don’t fail me on this one.

If you haven’t finished your review of PIL, you can opt to answer this later. Or you can also open
your PIL book first & check out the applicable legal principles if you want to work on this now.

As always, your answer should be TOPNOTCH!!

The following news article appears in the front page of Filipinas Star:

Manila, January 12, 2016 – About 150 passengers aboard a hijacked civilian El Al Israel Airlines
jetliner were killed here Sunday night when Israeli special forces stormed the plane and the
hijackers retaliated by tossing three grenades at the passengers.

The grenades set off an inferno, filling the Airbus A330 with flame and thick smoke as Israeli
troops blasted their way into the plane through the baggage hold and poured gunfire down the
cabin, where passengers had been held in terror for nearly 24 hours. The crew members and
most of the passengers on board were Israelis.

Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said that three Filipinos were aboard the Israeli flag
carrier and that one was killed. He did not name the Filipino who was killed.

He said that at least two bodies, including that of a Filipino, were thrown off the plane before the
assault. Several wounded passengers, including the two other Filipinos, were also thrown off the
plane. Eleven women were allowed to leave before the commandos charged, he said.

The plane was hijacked Saturday night, shortly after it took off from Tel Aviv airport on its way to
Tokyo. Hijackers had changed the plane’s route and landed it at NAIA. The Israeli forces stormed
the plane at 8:15 Sunday night. The operation lasted no more than 10 minutes, Lacierda said.

Lacierda also said that the four or five hijackers on the plane – their exact number had not been
established – had “most probably” all been killed.

Evaluate under International Law the legality of Israel’s actions as described in the above news
article.

ANSWER EXERCISE NO. 12

The Israel’s actions are not legal because it is in violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty.
It is settled rule that in case of conflict of laws involving aircraft, the Philippines applies the English Rule.
Under the English Rule, if the civilian vessel is in the Philippine territory, the law of the country which the aircraft is
registered or the flag it carries shall apply if it involves the administration of the same. However, if it affects the
public interest and security of the Philippines, the latter’s law shall apply.
In the given problem, the aircraft is in the Philippine territory. The Philippine law shall apply because even
if the aircraft is carries the Israel’s flag and most of the passengers and crew were citizen of Israel, the fact remains
that the situation involves the public interest and security. A hijacked aircraft is no longer an administrative issue.
Considering that the Philippine law shall apply, the act of the Israeli troops is not legal because the matter should be
resolve by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, National Police, and/or any law enforcement agency of the
Philippines. For the operation of the Israeli’s troops to be valid, it must be done with the cooperation of the
authorized agency of the Philippine government.
Therefore, the acts of the Israel are in violation of the Philippines’ law.
CORRECTION EXERCISE NO. 12
The Israel’s actions are not legal because it is in violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty.

It is a settled rule that in case of conflict of laws involving aircraft, the Philippines applies the English
Rule. Under the English Rule, if the civilian vessel is in the Philippine territory, the law of the country
which the aircraft is registered or the flag it carries shall apply if it involves the administration of the same.
However, if it affects the public interest and security of the Philippines, the latter’s law shall apply.

In the given problem, the aircraft is in the Philippine territory. The Philippine law shall apply because
even if the aircraft is carries the Israel’s flag and most of the passengers and crew were citizen citizens of
Israel, the fact remains that the situation involves the public interest and security. A hijacked aircraft is no
longer an administrative issue. Considering that the Philippine law shall apply, the act of the Israeli troops
is not legal because the matter should be resolve resolved (In the passive voice, the forms of
the verb "to be" (be, is, was, are, were) are always used with the past participle form of the main verb.
Example: "be resolved," "is resolved," "was resolved.") by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, National
Police, and/or any law enforcement agency of the Philippines. For the operation of the Israeli’s troops to
be valid, it must be done with the cooperation of the authorized agency of the Philippine government.

Therefore, the acts of the Israel are in violation of the Philippines’ law.

The problem asks you to evaluate under International Law the legality of Israel’s actions as described in
the above news article. Hence, the problem is about legality, not about jurisdiction or conflict of laws.
Jurisdiction cannot be equated with legality. Having jurisdiction is one thing, and acting legally is an
entirely different thing. Having jurisdiction does not ipso facto make a State's action legal. In fact, even if
Israel had secured the consent of the Philippines, the acts of the Israeli special forces in storming the
plane would still be illegal.

Here is my Suggested Answer for comparison:

The armed intervention of Israel into the territory of the Philippines is a violation of the
international law prohibition on the use of force in the settlement of international disputes.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the “territorial integrity
or political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
U.N." Moreover, States may only resort to force when necessary after resorting to peaceful
means has failed under Article 2(3) of the Charter.

A valid consent from the Philippines would have legitimized the actions of Israel. With the consent
of the government of the Philippines, Israel’s actions would not be a violation of Philippines’s
sovereignty. However, no facts presented indicate whether the Philippines consented to Israel’s
intervention.

But even assuming the Philippines consented to Israel’s intervention, Israel should have pursued
pacific means of settlement rather than matching violence with violence. Pacific means were
available and apparently not even attempted by Israel. Although the preservation of human rights
is one of the purposes of the U.N. Charter, another aim of the U.N. Charter is to restrict the
unilateral right of States to use force as far as possible. Israel’s immediate resort to force in
response to the hijacking is explicitly contrary to the tenets of the U.N. Charter. International law
should not be enforced at the expense of international peace.

Moreover, Israel’s response must be limited to that which was necessary and proportional to the
threat posed by the hijackers. It is true that some type of immediate actions was necessary in
order to prevent further loss of life. Arguably, however, the actions of Israel were not proportional.
Israel’s raid endangered the lives that Israel purported to protect. The storming of the plane
resulted in 150 deaths, compared to fewer deaths prior to the raid. Israel apparently did not first
pursue peaceful means of settlement because Israel stormed the plane less than 24 hours after
the hijacking. Israel’s use of force was therefore premature. In fact, before the raid, the hijackers
even allowed eleven women to deplane which indicated a possible willingness to negotiate.

Therefore, for failure to exhaust pacific means before resorting to force, Israel’s action clearly
violated the international law norm prohibiting the use of force.

WHAT WILL THE EXAMINERS LOOK FOR IN YOUR ANSWERS?

To close our session, I would like to leave you with this short guide on what your answers should
demonstrate:

Analysis of the Problem

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the question and correctly identify the issues of
law presented.
Your answer should demonstrate your ability to articulate, classify and answer the problem presented.

A broad general statement of the law indicates an inability to single out a legal issue and apply the law to
its solution.

Knowledge of the Law

Your answer should demonstrate your knowledge of legal rules and principles and your ability to state
them accurately as they relate to the issue presented by the problem.

The legal principles and rules governing the issues presented by the question should be stated concisely
and succinctly without undue elaboration.

Application and Reasoning

Your answer should demonstrate your capacity to reason logically by applying the appropriate rule or
principle of law to the facts of the question as a step in reaching a conclusion. This involves making a
correct preliminary determination as to which of the facts given in the question are legally important and
which, if any, are legally irrelevant insofar as the applicable rule or principle is concerned. Your line of
reasoning should be clear and consistent, without gaps or digressions.

Style

Your answer should be written in a clear, concise expository style with attention to organization and
conformity with grammatical rules.

Conclusion

If the question calls for a specific conclusion or result, it should be stated concisely without undue
elaboration or equivocation.

An answer which consists entirely of conclusions, unsupported by statements or discussion of the rules or
reasoning on which they are based, is entitled to little credit.

Always see to it that your answers will have all the foregoing qualities and they stand out because they
are correct, interesting, and TOPNOTCH!

GOOD LUCK!! Thank you for the opportunity of letting me be a part of your preparations to achieve your
dream to become a member of the legal profession. Don’t forget to review all my feedback and sample
model answers I have given you before the First Sunday of the Bar. :-)